Re: Turbolaser vs. Phaser -- Star Trek vs Star Wars

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4 ]

Subject: Re: Turbolaser vs. Phaser

Author:
anonymous trek fan

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 23:59:28 09/11/02 Wed
Author Host/IP: NoHost/65.163.170.203
In reply to: The Divine Shadow 's message, "Re: Turbolaser vs. Phaser" on 22:34:47 09/11/02 Wed

>>Although I don't understand one thing about the
>>Falcon.. the commander of the Star Destroy says that
>>it's too small to have a cloaking device but a romulan
>>shuttle that is a quarter of the size of the falcon
>>has one??? can someone explain that to me?
>
>Different cloaking technologies.
>A Star Wars cloaking device is about the size of the
>Falcon, and requires more power than several Falcons
>could make. It has the advantage of totaly cloaking a
>vessel, the only way to tell it's there is to pass
>within its field of effect, and then, the ship being
>cloaked would kill you because you weren't expecting
>to find a cloaked ship now were you?
>
>The other advantage is that you can fire weapons
>inside a Star Wars cloak without the cloak dropping,
>you can alos run shields, as Star Wars ships have much
>larger reactors that produce much more power.
>
>And you know that problem with Klingon cloaks?
>detectable power serge? Imperials don't have that
>problem.

Then if they are SSOOOO POWERFULL, why do they need cloaks then? because, they are weak and pathetic, if they came up against a Trek ship they would get WHALED ON by our AWSOME power, weapons and shield technology.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject	Author	Date
Re: Turbolaser vs. Phaser	capn hayes	00:17:11 09/12/02 Thu

Re: Turbolaser vs. Phaser	The Divine Shadow	01:12:53 09/12/02 Thu
Re: Turbolaser vs. Phaser -- anonymous trek fan, 07:36:24 09/12/02 Thu Re: Turbolaser vs. Phaser -- capn hayes, 13:42:37 09/12/02 Thu Re: Turbolaser vs. Phaser -- The Divine Shadow, 13:45:42 09/12/02 Thu Re: Turbolaser vs. Phaser -- WarsGOD, 11:34:03 09/15/02 Sun Re: Turbolaser vs. Phaser -- capn hayes, 14:21:43 09/12/02 Thu Re: Turbolaser vs. Phaser -- The Divine Shadow, 13:44:11 09/12/02 Thu