Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Ok yet another one. If the weapons systems were the same (as in did the same damage) who would win a standard Imperial cruiser (Star Wars) or the Battlestar Galactica? I think the Galactica would win but narrowly. I think the Vipers and Raptors would carry the day and fly circles around the tie fighters. The Galactica can carry 75 vipers plus unknown amount of raptors. A standard Imperial Star destroyer can carry about 75 tie fighters.
It is the way of Fenris. We stay as long as we can. Fight as hard as we can. Kill as much as we can. Only when we can do no more do we move on.
The star cruiser, without any question whatsoever.
Why? Well its simple...the technology level is completely different. Gallactica uses kinetic devices (Blast armor, flak cannons, explosive shells) whereas a Star Cruiser uses shielding and directed energy weapons. By default, any ship using shields/deflectors is blocking out the countless micrometeors and bits of matter in the universe. When those are impacted even at sublight speeds they will rip through most materials we can construct. Such shields would be more than sufficient to stop any of Galactica's kinetic weapons, and would logically be able to compensate for the radiation of their nukes...given that space is full of harmful levels of all types of radiation.
Theoretically the blast wave from a nuke detonated in space could pass through such a sheild and cause damage, but a Star Cruiser could just zap an incoming nuke with a tractor beam for less than half a second to completely alter its trajectory.
Bear in mind that Galactica is something that COULD be constructed at today's level of technology on Earth, minus the hyperdrive. A Star Cruiser is still "magic" technology.
This is like asking "if all the guns are the same, which would win: a 1700s sailing ship, or a WWII battleship". You've already massively biased the scenario in favor of BSG just to give them a chance, so why bother asking?
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Peregrine wrote: This is like asking "if all the guns are the same, which would win: a 1700s sailing ship, or a WWII battleship". You've already massively biased the scenario in favor of BSG just to give them a chance, so why bother asking?
Even given the same weapons systems, the defensive systems of the Star Cruiser are infinitely superior.
Going by the visuals in the respective series, Star Cruisers (Particularly Victory class) are far more maneuverable as well. One can logically assume that the propulsion system is correspondingly more advanced. Remember that they can land in a gravity well where Galactica will simply crash into the ground.
I mean unless people assume two starships will just sit there and shoot each other like WW1 battleships. Lol.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/20 21:23:43
If we are basing this off of the Battlestar Galactica from the re-imagined series and a "standard" Imperial II-class Star Destroyer (which is what is seen in the original films), the Star Destroyer would win hands down.
An Imperial II-class Star Destroyer has eight octuple barbette turbolaser batteries, fifty heavy turbolaser batteries, fifty standard turbolaser batteries, and at least 26 other laser batteries to go along with the 20 heavy ion cannons and a compliment of 72 TIE fighters (which aside from TIE/Ln fighters could include TIE Interceptors, TIE Defenders, TIE Phantoms, etc.). I know people scoff at TIE fighters because the heroes destroy them so easily in the movies, but in-universe they are a feared space superiority fighter. A Star Destroyer is also larger than the Galactica, measuring at least 1600 meters. Like previously mentioned, it also has powerful shielding which is another thing the Galactica lacks.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
Actually the kinetic weaponry of BSG would actually be fairly effective as SW shields and armor are optimized for energy weapons.
In ESB we see the bridge of a Star Destroyer get obliterated by an asteroid that wasn't really all that big.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Grey Templar wrote: Actually the kinetic weaponry of BSG would actually be fairly effective as SW shields and armor are optimized for energy weapons.
In ESB we see the bridge of a Star Destroyer get obliterated by an asteroid that wasn't really all that big.
Shielding in the Star Wars Galaxy is an odd bird because of the inconsistency in effectiveness as shown in the movies.
In the original movies, deflector shields work well for the hero craft (plot armor!) and not so well for the expendable craft (I'm looking at you, Gold Squadron). In the prequels, they are powerful enough to stop a massive bombardment of artillery (like in the Battle of Naboo). Those inconsistencies aside, in-universe, deflector shields are effective against projectile weapons and direct energy weapons like lasers.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/20 23:24:27
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
Okay, let's make this the official "versus" thread. No more new threads needed for various iterations, just post them in here.
If new "versus" threads get posted in the near future, please just reference this note and we'll lock them / direct folks to post in here instead. Thanks.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/20 23:23:10
Grey Templar wrote: Actually the kinetic weaponry of BSG would actually be fairly effective as SW shields and armor are optimized for energy weapons.
In ESB we see the bridge of a Star Destroyer get obliterated by an asteroid that wasn't really all that big.
In RotJ one of the rebellion ships ends up crashing into a Star Destroyer bridge as well and killing everybody there as well if I recall correctly. But I'm not sure if there was some sort of "the deflecter shields are failing" loophole there or not...
Grey Templar wrote: Actually the kinetic weaponry of BSG would actually be fairly effective as SW shields and armor are optimized for energy weapons.
In ESB we see the bridge of a Star Destroyer get obliterated by an asteroid that wasn't really all that big.
In RotJ one of the rebellion ships ends up crashing into a Star Destroyer bridge as well and killing everybody there as well if I recall correctly. But I'm not sure if there was some sort of "the deflecter shields are failing" loophole there or not...
They intentionally show the shield generators(the giant balls on top) being destroyed before that happens. Also, that wasn't just any Star Destroyer, it was the Executor, Vader's SSD.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/09/21 01:07:58
You know you're really doing something when you can make strangers hate you over the Internet. - Mauleed
Just remember folks. Panic. Panic all the time. It's the only way to survive, other than just being mindful, of course-but geez, that's so friggin' boring. - Aegis Grimm
Hallowed is the All Pie The Before Times: A Place That Celebrates The World That Was
cincydooley wrote: Where do ya'll get all this info on the battlements for the Star Wars ships?
Wookiepedia, which pulls it from the Technical Manuals and such.
You know you're really doing something when you can make strangers hate you over the Internet. - Mauleed
Just remember folks. Panic. Panic all the time. It's the only way to survive, other than just being mindful, of course-but geez, that's so friggin' boring. - Aegis Grimm
Hallowed is the All Pie The Before Times: A Place That Celebrates The World That Was
d-usa wrote: In RotJ one of the rebellion ships ends up crashing into a Star Destroyer bridge as well and killing everybody there as well if I recall correctly. But I'm not sure if there was some sort of "the deflecter shields are failing" loophole there or not...
It was Arvel Crynyd (Green Leader) and he deliberately steered his damaged A-wing into the bridge of the Executor.
The Executor could have continued to fight even with the loss of its bridge, seeing as how it had over 5,000 turbolaser batteries, but it fell into the gravity well of the Death Star II and was destroyed.
In short, the Rebels got lucky.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
cincydooley wrote: Where do ya'll get all this info on the battlements for the Star Wars ships?
Wookiepedia, which pulls it from the Technical Manuals and such.
Suffice it to say I just rabbit holed on that site for about 90 minutes.
Thanks!
Wikipedia is bad enough.
But any Wiki for nerds will make some of us disappear for days...
Pretty much. Sometimes I find myself closing 30 odd tabs because I've been on a site for an hour and it is just getting worse and worse, so I have to cut it off before I lose my mind completely.
I wish I had time for all the game systems I own, let alone want to own...
But any Wiki for nerds will make some of us disappear for days...
Pretty much. Sometimes I find myself closing 30 odd tabs because I've been on a site for an hour and it is just getting worse and worse, so I have to cut it off before I lose my mind completely.
I find myself going on Wikipedia to look up something completely minor and innocent. Then I start to *open in new tab* random links. Then I find out that it is two hours later and I'm reading a page of "genocide in random country and human experimentation* and wonder how the hell I ended up there....
The Undying Spawn of Shub-Niggurath 
