{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
7/28/2009 8:23:47 PM
1036
Star Wars Vs. Halo Debate
I'm sure some of you saw this coming eventually.
It's another Star Wars Vs. Halo debate in the flood.
This will be more civilized though
Rules:
1. No Flaming
2. You must be willing to Learn
3. You must know what you're talking about to some extent.
4. Cite your sources if asked to or you just see it being necessary
5. No making up stuff
6. If you're clearly proven wrong, accept it and go on
And this will be more freeform.
You get to pick who's fighting who, where they are fighting, what they can use (please be careful with this), when it's taking place (ie the covenant at the beginning of the war, etc.).
Also make some sort of objective that isn't too ridiculous to make it more interesting. (ie the empire must take all of the enemy's sectors)
No cross universe friendships (ie rebels and UNSC working together)
The main fighting will be in a neutral space in between the star wars galaxies and the milky way. This will stop any confusion from happening like (oh yeah all the star wars people are in the milky way so we can use the halos). There may be planets placed there if you want to have land battles but they are not necessary. Vessels, species, people, etc. can go back to their respective galaxies and come back to the neutral space for any reason that makes sense.
Alright I think that's it. Hopefully this will go well. Who wants to start us out with who is fighting who, when, and where?
If you can't think of any here is an example
Galactic Empire vs. The Covenant
Each faction includes everything that ever belonged to them.
Ground Battle w/ space battle above
You get the idea.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Wifout Teef What? I said they detonate miles above ground. They can be programmed to do so, therefore I'm still correct. I'm not wrong. I just didn't specify on all the properties of a warhead.[/quote]Another thing that really doesn't make sense to me is that the Tsar Bomb, which had a yield of about 60Mt, created a fireball big enough to vaporize Mount Everest, yet it takes Teratons of force to vaporize a 40m diameter asteroid.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] myusername [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Wifout Teef No... There is a required amount of energy to destroy a peice of steel, right? Now if a nuclear warhead hit that piece of steel, it would explode on contact and not go through. Now I know a warhead =/= laser bolt. But I believe the same principle takes place. [b]For example, the plasma rifle in halo is strong enough to destroy a tank. However in all sources it can hit a human and stop there.[/b] The blaster in star wars can destroy durasteel but still stops when it hits a target.[/quote]That's because it's game mechanics, it's not going to act the way it would if it was real. For example, in the game mechanics it takes two wraith mortars to destroy a tank, but if that mortar acted the way real plasma does, one mortar would melt the tank to a pile of liquid mush. If a turbolaser bolt had enough energy, it would destroy the asteroid and keep going.[/quote] In the Halo Wars trailer a marine is shot in the back and it stops when it hits him. Also in the books similar things happen.
-
And Wifout Teef is proven wrong!
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Wifout Teef No... There is a required amount of energy to destroy a peice of steel, right? Now if a nuclear warhead hit that piece of steel, it would explode on contact and not go through. Now I know a warhead =/= laser bolt. But I believe the same principle takes place. [b]For example, the plasma rifle in halo is strong enough to destroy a tank. However in all sources it can hit a human and stop there.[/b] The blaster in star wars can destroy durasteel but still stops when it hits a target.[/quote]That's because it's game mechanics, it's not going to act the way it would if it was real. For example, in the game mechanics it takes two wraith mortars to destroy a tank, but if that mortar acted the way real plasma does, one mortar would melt the tank to a pile of liquid mush. If a turbolaser bolt had enough energy, it would destroy the asteroid and keep going.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] BJR [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Palien90 Jedi/Sith can bring down large space ships with their bare hands. No one in the Haloverse can do that. [/quote]the cheif and arbitur can flip tanks with there bear hands im prety sure thy can grab s hip if they wanted to[/quote] The only reason they can go that is for gameplay purposes.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Wifout Teef What? I said they detonate miles above ground. They can be programmed to do so, therefore I'm still correct. I'm not wrong. I just didn't specify on all the properties of a warhead.[/quote]God, you autistic people are absolutely retarded.
-
What? I said they detonate miles above ground. They can be programmed to do so, therefore I'm still correct. I'm not wrong. I just didn't specify on all the properties of a warhead. [Edited on 07.30.2009 9:25 PM PDT]
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Wifout Teef [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] BJR [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Wifout Teef No... There is a required amount of energy to destroy a peice of steel, right? Now if a nuclear warhead hit that piece of steel, it would explode on contact and not go through. Now I know a warhead =/= laser bolt. But I believe the same principle takes place. For example, the plasma rifle in halo is strong enough to destroy a tank. However in all sources it can hit a human and stop there. The blaster in star wars can destroy durasteel but still stops when it hits a target.[/quote]Warheads do not detonate on contact. Your knowledge of fictional things that have no place in a professional and realistic world may be in-depth, but your knowledge of earthly things appears to be faltering. [/quote] You are correct. They detonate often miles above the ground. I can't believe I forgot. Thanks for pointing that out. Now just because I forgot one detail about a warhead does not mean my earthly knowledge is faltering. Lets replace the warhead with a missile. Nothing specific but just a missile that explodes on contact.[/quote]You're still wrong on the warheads! They only detonate when they reach their pre-programmed destination. Not before, not if they pass it by accident. You were initially wrong and failed to correct yourself on the second try. Good day, sir.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Palien90 Jedi/Sith can bring down large space ships with their bare hands. No one in the Haloverse can do that. [/quote]the cheif and arbitur can flip tanks with there bear hands im prety sure thy can grab s hip if they wanted to
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] BJR [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Wifout Teef No... There is a required amount of energy to destroy a peice of steel, right? Now if a nuclear warhead hit that piece of steel, it would explode on contact and not go through. Now I know a warhead =/= laser bolt. But I believe the same principle takes place. For example, the plasma rifle in halo is strong enough to destroy a tank. However in all sources it can hit a human and stop there. The blaster in star wars can destroy durasteel but still stops when it hits a target.[/quote]Warheads do not detonate on contact. Your knowledge of fictional things that have no place in a professional and realistic world may be in-depth, but your knowledge of earthly things appears to be faltering. [/quote] You are correct. They detonate often miles above the ground. I can't believe I forgot. Thanks for pointing that out. Now just because I forgot one detail about a warhead does not mean my earthly knowledge is faltering. Lets replace the warhead with a missile. Nothing specific but just a missile that explodes on contact.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] myusername [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Wifout Teef [url=http://www.stardestroyer.net/tlc/Power/index.html]Is this it?[/url] [url=http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/Shields/Shield2.html]I think I posted this though[/url][/quote]Yes, thank you. I took this direct line from the sight: "Of course, with the energy required to vaporise the asteroid (~250 terajoules), a turbolaser bolt must have on the order of 3750 terawatts of firepower. The energy released would be approximately [b]4 times more than that of the Hiroshima bomb.[/b]" I don't know if you know but the Hiroshima bomb had an energy yield of about 10Mt and if that's true then a turbolaser bolt has an energy yield of only about 40Mt not 860Tt.[/quote] That was an old estimate for the lower limit of a point defense laser. Since that article was written, we've received official information telling us how powerful these weapons are. The Attack of the Clones: Incredible Cross Sections and the Revenge of the Sith: Incredible Cross Sections give us actual numbers for the energy output of weapons. Medium quad turbolasers on a transport ship have a yield of 200 gigatons. The quad turbolasers on the Invisible Hand have a yield of 1 teraton. The twin laser canon on the Jedi Starfighter have a yield of 1 kiloton per shot. The total maximum firepower of a Venator Class Star destroyer in 860 teratons. The main gun of a Munificent-class star frigate has a yield of 66 petatons(although it takes a significant amount of time to charge the guns capacitors to that level). And 'little boy' was only 13-18 kilotons. [Edited on 07.30.2009 9:24 PM PDT]
-
Jedi/Sith can bring down large space ships with their bare hands. No one in the Haloverse can do that.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Wifout Teef No... There is a required amount of energy to destroy a peice of steel, right? Now if a nuclear warhead hit that piece of steel, it would explode on contact and not go through. Now I know a warhead =/= laser bolt. But I believe the same principle takes place. For example, the plasma rifle in halo is strong enough to destroy a tank. However in all sources it can hit a human and stop there. The blaster in star wars can destroy durasteel but still stops when it hits a target.[/quote]Warheads do not detonate on contact. Your knowledge of fictional things that have no place in a professional and realistic world may be in-depth, but your knowledge of earthly things appears to be faltering.
-
No... There is a required amount of energy to destroy a peice of steel, right? Now if a nuclear warhead hit that piece of steel, it would explode on contact and not go through. Now I know a warhead =/= laser bolt. But I believe the same principle takes place. For example, the plasma rifle in halo is strong enough to destroy a tank. However in all sources it can hit a human and stop there. The blaster in star wars can destroy durasteel but still stops when it hits a target.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Wifout Teef [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] myusername [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Wifout Teef [url=http://www.stardestroyer.net/tlc/Power/index.html]Is this it?[/url] [url=http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/Shields/Shield2.html]I think I posted this though[/url][/quote]Yes, thank you. I took this direct line from the sight: "Of course, with the energy required to vaporise the asteroid (~250 terajoules), a turbolaser bolt must have on the order of 3750 terawatts of firepower. The energy released would be approximately [b]4 times more than that of the Hiroshima bomb.[/b]" I don't know if you know but the Hiroshima bomb had an energy yield of about 10Mt and if that's true then a turbolaser bolt has an energy yield of only about 40Mt not 860Tt.[/quote] I see. But that's the required amount if I read properly. They likely released more energy but 40 Mt is the required energy. Correct me if I'm wrong.[/quote]If it was more then you think the bolt would've kept going instead of stopping when it hit the asteroid.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] myusername [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Wifout Teef [url=http://www.stardestroyer.net/tlc/Power/index.html]Is this it?[/url] [url=http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/Shields/Shield2.html]I think I posted this though[/url][/quote]Yes, thank you. I took this direct line from the sight: "Of course, with the energy required to vaporise the asteroid (~250 terajoules), a turbolaser bolt must have on the order of 3750 terawatts of firepower. The energy released would be approximately [b]4 times more than that of the Hiroshima bomb.[/b]" I don't know if you know but the Hiroshima bomb had an energy yield of about 10Mt and if that's true then a turbolaser bolt has an energy yield of only about 40Mt not 860Tt.[/quote] I see. But that's the required amount if I read properly. They likely released more energy but 40 Mt is the required energy. Correct me if I'm wrong.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Wifout Teef [url=http://www.stardestroyer.net/tlc/Power/index.html]Is this it?[/url] [url=http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/Shields/Shield2.html]I think I posted this though[/url][/quote]Yes, thank you. I took this direct line from the sight: "Of course, with the energy required to vaporise the asteroid (~250 terajoules), a turbolaser bolt must have on the order of 3750 terawatts of firepower. The energy released would be approximately [b]4 times more than that of the Hiroshima bomb.[/b]" I don't know if you know but the Hiroshima bomb had an energy yield of about 10Mt and if that's true then a turbolaser bolt has an energy yield of only about 40Mt not 860Tt.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] opogjijijp [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Wifout Teef [url=http://www.stardestroyer.net/tlc/Power/index.html]Is this it?[/url][/quote] That information is rather old. It was a good source of estimates for it's time, but the ICS books have given us hard numbers. [/quote] I know. But I posted a link from that site earlier and the guy was just asking for it. Too bad there isn't an ICS site or anything.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Wifout Teef [url=http://www.stardestroyer.net/tlc/Power/index.html]Is this it?[/url][/quote] That information is rather old. It was a good source of estimates for it's time, but the ICS books have given us hard numbers.
-
[url=http://www.stardestroyer.net/tlc/Power/index.html]Is this it?[/url] [url=http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/Shields/Shield2.html]I think I posted this though[/url] [Edited on 07.30.2009 8:58 PM PDT]
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Wifout Teef [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] myusername [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Wifout Teef [quote]slipspace jumps... duh[/quote] What can they achieve with that? If they jump into the range of any SW ship they will be toast. The shields of the covenant are built to withstand megatons of power at most. SW ships have weapons that are thousands of times stronger than that.[/quote]Not really........[/quote] Not really what? The covenant capital ships can barely take a MAC blast which is in the kilotons/megatons (correct me if im wrong) While the Star Wars ships can take several megaton asteroids every second. They can survive teraton blasts from enemy capital ships.[/quote]Could you post a link to that turbolaser sight again and I'll explain why. I don't feel like looking through 30+ pages to find it. [Edited on 07.30.2009 8:55 PM PDT]
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] flamedude Arguing which side has the most advanced weaponry, science and technology is pointless. They weren't written around each other. We may as well compare Mad Max with Star Wars, or Lord of the Rings with the UNSC, Bambi with Half-Jaw and Gremlins with Grunts. They aren't compatible. But they are both awesome. Let's agree on that.[/quote] Agreed.
-
[quote] Not really........ [/quote] And by that you mean?
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] myusername [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Wifout Teef [quote]slipspace jumps... duh[/quote] What can they achieve with that? If they jump into the range of any SW ship they will be toast. The shields of the covenant are built to withstand megatons of power at most. SW ships have weapons that are thousands of times stronger than that.[/quote]Not really........[/quote] Not really what? The covenant capital ships can barely take a MAC blast which is in the kilotons/megatons (correct me if im wrong) While the Star Wars ships can take several megaton asteroids every second. They can survive teraton blasts from enemy capital ships.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Roan Fel I have to disagree with that sentiment, since both narratives posses a multitude of comparative baselines from which to work from scientifically. It's no coincidence that iron has a similar value in both stories, or that the prefix of tera is substantially greater than that of mega. [/quote]I see your posts, but all I can decipher is "I am a virgin. Woe is me."
-
I have to disagree with that sentiment, since both narratives posses a multitude of comparative baselines from which to work from scientifically. It's no coincidence that iron has a similar value in both stories, or that the prefix of tera is substantially greater than that of mega.
