Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ 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: capn hayes [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 00:17:11 09/12/02 Thu Author Host/IP: 24-223-49-91.intertech.net/24.223.49.91 In reply to: anonymous trek fan 's message, "Re: Turbolaser vs. Phaser" on 23:59:28 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. Umm you need to get a grip. Where is your proof! I want you to prove that outrageous claim with evidence that shows why Star Trek ships are so much more powerful than Wars ships. As was indicated in earlier post, the Empire doesn't need cloaks to defeat Star trek. The Borg nor the Dominion used cloaks could normaly find them. Both powers have nearly defeated the Federation without using cloaks. The Romulans on the other hand swear by them and they have never come as close to defeating the Federation! Cloaks are only good for sneaking around and trickery. Other than gathering intelligence and hit and fade attacks (a rebel tactic) cloaks don't matter much in all out space warfare. Once the "gaunlet" has been thrown down its time to come out and fight. Romulans are cowards anyway. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject Author Date 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