Subject:
|
Re: A couple stupid SW questions...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.starwars
|
Date:
|
Wed, 21 Jun 2000 17:04:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
441 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.starwars, John D. Forinash writes:
> In article <Fw9xDt.70J@lugnet.com>, Sean Forbes <moeby@msn.com> wrote:
> > The Agamemnon looks to be about 1k long, and it has shields, cannons and
> > fighters, but lacks the Battlestar's 20 feet of armor plating to stand up to
> > the pounding. However, it does have and advantage over the Battlestar and
> > Enterprise that its pilots can fly in three dimensions. (again, haha)
>
> Actually, you've got that backward-- EAS Agamemnon has no shields; no B5 ship
> has "shields" in the "project energy all around the ship" sense. Some of the
> organic technology vessels can absorb energy, though.
>
> Agamemnon relies on heavy armor and "interceptor" guns-- shoot a quick-firing
> gun at incoming shots to deflect them.
>
> > In the end, the smart money is on the Star Destroyer. It's also on me not
> > having a life, but there you'd be wrong. All of this info comes via a friend
> > of mine who didn't get a life until about the age of 30. Everyone should • have
> > at least one geek friend.
The Agamemnon would be blown apart in a matter of seconds. One LIGHT
Turbolaser bolt imparts roughly 30 terrawatts of energy on a target. (let
alone the kinectic energy imparted by the plasma) The Agamemnon's main weopons
impart a few gigawatts per shot. A Star Destroyer's defences are designed
against the high damage potential of Turbolasers while the Agamemnon is
designed against its own weapons. As for the Enterprise-E, well again phasers
are only low gigawatt weapons. Photon Torpedos are also not nearly potent
enough to affect a Star Destroyer. Note that a Star Destroyer uses Neutronium
alloy for the hull. Star Trek repedetly states that their weapons are useless
against Neutronium. Put it this way, Not even the Borg would be much threat to
a Star Destroyer. (Note that all of this is based soley on offical and canon
material and does not take into acount the 'good guys always win' notion.)
>
> Certainly. Star Wars exists on things being larger than life; the only
> competition it really has is a Battlestar. The farther you get from the
> laws of physics, the easier it is to blow up your opponents. :)
Ha Ha. Star Wars is actually closer to following the laws of phyisics than
Star Trek on most points. Hyperspace and the Deathstar are really the only
laws of phyiscs SW breaks. ST on the other hand breaks laws with most of its
technology and it is still weaker.
-Lord Insanity (who hangs around alt.startrek.vs.starwars alot.)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: A couple stupid SW questions...
|
| (...) Actually, you've got that backward-- EAS Agamemnon has no shields; no B5 ship has "shields" in the "project energy all around the ship" sense. Some of the organic technology vessels can absorb energy, though. Agamemnon relies on heavy armor (...) (24 years ago, 20-Jun-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
12 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
