Jump to content



Photo

Star Wars vs. Star Trek


  • Please log in to reply
64 replies to this topic

#1 Sprolly G

Sprolly G

    Member

  • Members
  • 199 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 05:06 AM

Ok, I'm editing this post to clarify:

Star Wars: X-Wing Vs. Star Trek: Attack Wing

Both have similar systems, which WizKids apparently paid FFG for the rights to use (not what the thread is about). I want to hear from people who have any ideas of trying to play them against each other and especially from people who have actually tried to do it. I'd like to hear about your experience.

This is not supposed to be, "Would the Empire beat the Federation"...We know Star Trek loses...

Edited by Sprolly G, 26 August 2013 - 03:29 PM.

Rebels:
5 X-Wing's; 4 Y-Wing's; 4 A-Wing's; 2 B-wing's; 1 HWK-290; 1 YT-1300
Empire:
8 Tie Fighter's; 5 Tie Interceptor's; 4 Tie Advanced; 2 Tie Bomber's; 1 Lambda; 1 Firespray


#2 DoubleNot7

DoubleNot7

    Member

  • Members
  • 792 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 06:39 AM

 I would love to dominate and destroy Trekkie ships personally... I'm hoping for serious feedback...

 

Seriously, you need to tone down your geek factor.  I think we will see a 0.00% of this coming through.  Even if the numbers seemed close enough to run them against another, it would be ridiculous.  One system would be represting fighters while the other represents capital vessels.


Enimo Et Fide


#3 Sprolly G

Sprolly G

    Member

  • Members
  • 199 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 06:51 AM

You seem to be missing the point. Obviously the enterprise would crush a hand full of rebel or imperial ships. I'd like to see a merger somehow, because I know a couple people who would play but they are sick of Star Wars and are thinking of trying the Star Trek version.

Maybe you need to turn up your "geek factor".

Edited by Sprolly G, 12 August 2013 - 08:00 AM.

Rebels:
5 X-Wing's; 4 Y-Wing's; 4 A-Wing's; 2 B-wing's; 1 HWK-290; 1 YT-1300
Empire:
8 Tie Fighter's; 5 Tie Interceptor's; 4 Tie Advanced; 2 Tie Bomber's; 1 Lambda; 1 Firespray


#4 Vonpenguin

Vonpenguin

    Member

  • Members
  • 697 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 06:59 AM

I haven't even looked at the star trek game (I can only really afford one minis game on top of all my board game and RP addictions), and an official crossover is pretty much never gonna happen because they're made by different companies, but if it's as similar as people are saying then a homebrew is almost a certainty. I give it two weeks post release tops for a beta type attempt and two months for a well done and playtested version to pop up on the internet somewhere.


  • Jaxom08 likes this

#5 straetski

straetski

    Member

  • Members
  • 203 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 07:01 AM

The guy from this site has made a nice sum-up of this kinda question:

 

OK, so you don't want to bother reading through this whole site, right? OK, here's the drill for you impatient people:

Why does anyone care about this stupid subject?

Why do you care? Don't pretend not to care; if you didn't click "back" as soon as you figured out what this website was about, you're interested. You may not want to admit it, but that will just be our little secret, OK? Now read on.

Definition

First, Star Wars vs Star Trek normally means "could the Empire kick the Federation's ass". If it's a question of taste (ie- "do you like Star Wars more than Star Trek"), debate becomes impossible because the answer is subjective. Anyway, once we agree that we're talking about military prowess, people like to perform substitutions: instead of Federation vs Empire, suddenly it's the Borg vs the Empire, or Species 8472 vs the Empire, or the Q vs the Empire, or perhaps the race that built the Dyson Sphere vs the Empire, because all of them showed up at some time or other in Star Trek. But lest we forget, Star Trek is basically about the Federation, remember? That's the technology base. Subject changes are quiet admissions that the Empire would wipe the floor with the main characters of Star Trek, so you've got to resort to one-episode wonders (even if they're long-gone, or just as likely to turn on the Federation, or if they've been stymied by the Federation in the past, which would call their abilities into question).

I've Played X-Wing Rogue Squadron, and Star Wars ships don't seem that tough to me

I've also played F-15 Strike Eagle II, and in that game, an F-15 can take a half-dozen direct hits from SAM's before it goes down (in reality, one proximity hit will kill it easily). Can we agree that it's silly to use computer gameplay as a basis for technological assessments? Generally speaking, the sheer scale of the Empire (millions of planets, able to build moon-sized Death Stars) is vastly greater than that of the Federation, so Trekkies try to take the sheer size and numerical advantage of the Empire out of the equation, and simplify matters into straight ship vs ship comparisons. Leaving aside the tacit admission of defeat already implicit in this practice, there are several different popular ways to decide what is and isn't valid evidence:

The Lazy Man's Method

Simply grab figures from the official publications. Of all the voluminous Star Wars and Star Trek publications out there, only one for each series gives meaningful specifications in real-world units: Star Wars Episode II Incredible Cross-Sections (SW2ICS) and the Star Trek Next Generation Technical Manual (TNG TM).

Star Wars: Acclamator troop transport

Star Trek: Enterprise-D

Light guns: 300 million GW (6 megatons per shot, 24 guns, assume 1 shot every 2 seconds for time-averaged power output rather than peak output)

Main phasers: 3.6 GW (5.1 MW per emitter, 200 emitters in the main phaser array, 2 full-sized saucer arrays and 3 smaller roughly half-size arrays on the stardrive section, p.123). Note that phasers appear to have a chain-reaction effect so their raw power output may be deceptively low.

Heavy guns: 2.4 million megatons (200 gigatons per shot from each turret, 12 turrets)

Photon torpedoes: 64 megatons max theoretical (based on 1.5 kg antimatter payload, p.129)

Sublight acceleration: 3500G

Sublight acceleration: 1000G (design goal, p.75)

Operational range: 250,000 light-years (before refueling)

Operational range: 2750 light-years (7 years at warp 6 before refueling, p.3)

Shield heat dissipation: 70 trillion GW peak

Shield heat dissipation: 3311 GW peak (473 GW per generator x 7 generators, p.138)

Reactor power: 200 trillion GW max

Reactor power: ~4 billion GW at max warp 9.6 (scaled from the warp power chart on p.55 which uses units of joules for power; we assume this is a simple mistake). From the chart, their fuel supply for 7 years of warp 6 cruising would be roughly 2E23 J (enough to run an Acclamator's reactor at full power for just 1 second).

Max hyperspace speed: not stated (however, the ability to travel "halfway across the galaxy" in a matter of hours as demonstrated in ANH, TPM, and AOTC requires speeds in the range of 10 million to 100 million times c).

Max warp speed: ~2000c (warp 9.6), sustainable 12 hours for a single sprint of roughly 3 light-years. This appears to have increased to roughly 3000c for newer ships such as the Intrepid-class.

As you can see, the officially published figures are massively in favour of the Empire, even if you disregard the fact that an Acclamator is not a particularly powerful warship by Imperial standards (an Imperial Star Destroyer is roughly 10 times larger (by volume) than an Acclamator and presumably 10 times more powerful, even if we disregard the fact that an Acclamator is just a transport). In fact, the only way to generate a remotely close match between an Imperial ship and a Federation ship is to use a small patrol craft such as Jango Fett's Slave-1:

 

Star Wars: Slave-1

Star Trek: Enterprise-D

Main guns: 64000 GW (2 kilotons per shot, 480 rpm firing rate onscreen in AOTC for time-averaged power output rather than peak output)

Main phasers: 3.6 GW

Missiles: 190 megatons (tail-launched missiles; seismic charge mines are roughly 12000 megatons)

Photon torpedoes: 64 megatons max theoretical

Sublight acceleration: 2500G

Sublight acceleration: 1000G

Operational range: not stated (however, Obi-Wan's starfighter has an operational range of 150,000 light-years, and is probably similar).

Operational range: 2750 light-years

Shield heat dissipation: not stated (however, Amidala's personal yacht has shield dissipation of 2 billion GW peak, and is probably similar)

Shield heat dissipation: 3311 GW peak

Reactor power: not stated (however, Amidala's personal yacht has power output of 7 billion GW max, and is probably similar)

Reactor power: ~4 billion GW at max warp 9.6

Max hyperspace speed: not stated (however, same-day flight from core to galactic outer-rim systems requires speeds in excess of 10 million c)

Max warp speed: ~2000c (warp 9.6)

Even this seemingly Trek-biased matchup seems to heavily favour the Empire, with Jango Fett's small patrol craft able to hit the Enterprise-D with much heavier firepower than it can dish out in return. Small wonder, then, that despite the simplicity and convenience of the lazy man's method, most Trekkies prefer to avoid it.

Just What You See, Pal

Some people prefer to pretend the books don't exist on either side, and talk about only the movies (or movies and TV shows, in the case of Trek). This approach has strengths and weaknesses; the visual look of each series is often more consistent than published material (particularly in the case of Star Trek, where the TM contradicts itself repeatedly and has several astonishingly bad science errors. Moreover, the ST books' status has been officially stated as mere "speculation" (see John Ordover), although SW books are supposedly "quasi-canon" (see the Star Wars Encyclopedia foreword). In any case, a lot of people prefer to stick to the shows and movies regardless of what the "official" stance is.

Having said that, the comparison is little better. In Star Trek, most of the figures from the show are reasonably compatible with those from the TM's (not surprising, since the people who worked on the TM also worked on the show), and in Star Wars, most of the figures from the SW2ICS are based on observations of the original trilogy (from Dr. Curtis Saxton). There are limits to how inaccurate one can reasonable expect the TM and SW2ICS to be, and sure enough, analysis of direct observations from the shows and movies tends to generate similar results, albeit with more ambiguities.

Note that it is difficult to gauge the effect of weapons in any meaningful sense unless they are applied to inert objects (if a shell hits an aircraft wing-tank and causes the plane to burst into flames, you cannot attribute all the energy of the resulting conflagration to the shell). This means we need to look for weapons striking inert objects such as rocks, planets, asteroids, etc. I'm afraid this is a rather complicated subject, and you should really look at the rest of the site if you want to know more. However, the following table should help clarify matters:

Star Wars

Star Trek

Planetary destruction: Death Star blast (roughly 20 billion trillion megatons, ie- the number "two" followed by 22 zeroes). Planet blown apart at 5% of the speed of light. Even if we assume the shot was time-lapse photography (not that there's any reason to), the absolute lower limit is roughly 50 quadrillion megatons. Note that even if you scale this monster down by a factor of 10 million (to the volume of a Star Destroyer), you'd still have 5 billion megatons. More than a match for poor Enterprise.

Planetary destruction: 30-ship bombardment in "The Die is Cast" (surface-level explosions create fireballs in the megaton range at most, judging from fireball duration). No sub-orbital ejecta launched from planet's surface at all. Trekkies attempt to ignore weak-kneed appearance of attack and focus on semantics in order to exaggerate the figure.

Asteroid destruction: Jango Fett's seismic charges destroy asteroids in a radius of 5-10 km in AOTC.

Asteroid destruction: according to Riker, it would take the entire photon torpedo payload to destroy a single 5km wide hollow asteroid in "Pegasus". In other words, it would take the entire payload of the Enterprise-D (a capital warship with a crew of a thousand) to equal just one of Jango Fett's seismic charges (a bounty hunter's weapon).

Combat range: in ROTJ, combat initially occurs at ranges of a few thousands kilometres, eventually closing to a few hundred kilometres ("point blank" according to Lando) until Rebel ships are within a few dozen kilometres of the Executor.

Combat range: fleet actions in DS9 uniformly feature engagements at ranges of 5 km or less, just as they do in TNG's Klingon wars or Borg engagements. In "The Die is Cast", Sisko actually orders the Defiant to approach to 500 metres (while taking fire) before shooting at a Jem'Hadar attack ship, presumably due to some disadvantage incurred at longer range. The only long-ranged incidents involve stationary or near-stationary targets.

Speed: travel from galactic core systems to outer rim systems ("halfway across the galaxy" as Amidala put it) is shown repeatedly in ANH, TPM, and AOTC. It is invariably same-day traffic, typically a few hours.

Speed: Voyager took 7 years to crawl across part of one quadrant of the galaxy, even with repeated assists from alien races, stolen technology, and even the occasional shove from a godlike being. Not hours ... years.

If you want to know more about how to glean bits of information out of the shows and movies, check out the rest of the website. But for now, let's just say that this battle would be a one-sided massacre in favour of the Empire.

Other Combinations

What difference does it make? Since the film vs film and book vs book approaches both yield the same result, you can mix and match film vs book policies in any order you want (tech books for both, tech books for neither, tech books for ST but not for SW, tech books for SW but not for ST), and the result is the same.

Conclusions

In a straight-up fight, the Empire squashes the Federation like a bug. Even with its numerical advantage removed, the Empire would still squash the Federation like a bug. Accept it.


  • spirit and Sprolly G like this

Moritori Nullumus Mori!


#6 Hida77

Hida77

    Member

  • Members
  • 630 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 07:07 AM

What does that matter?? You seem to be missing the point. Obviously the enterprise would crush a hand full of rebel or imperial ships. I'd like to see a merger somehow, because I know a couple people who would play but they are sick of Star Wars and are thinking of trying the Star Trek version. Seriously guy, nobody likes a ******. Don't be that guy.

Maybe you need to turn up your "geek factor".

That was really unnecessary. I agree, 0% chance of an official one, nearly 100% of an  unofficial, but totally unfair one (either way).

 

I would be very cautious about trying out the Star Trek one as well.  It is the same exact system, except done by a much less reputable company who has already previewed that they will be rewarding tournament players with unfair advantages... Not tryin to be a hater, but I love Star Trek and won't be buying in to it.


2013 Star Wars: The Card Game Worlds Top 16

X-Wing Ships:

5xX-wing, 4xB-Wing, 2xYT-1300, 4xY-Wing, 4xA-Wing, 2xHWK-290

8xTIE/LN, 5xTIE/IN, 2xTIE/Adv, 4xTIE/B, 3xFirespray-31, 3xLambda


#7 Rogue Nine

Rogue Nine

    Member

  • Members
  • 65 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 07:14 AM

I don't think x-wing and attack wing would be compatable due to scale issues. You could probably mash them together for a bit of fun, but an x-wing would look a bit odd yhe same size as the enterprise D.

As to who would win in a non-board game real world(!) battle, that's a question. Trek ships seem way more advanced but wars ships are much, much bigger. I guess it would depend on how a star destroyer copes with antimatter photon torpedoes and transporter technology and how starfleet shields cope with the volume of fire that the ssd executor puts out.

Warp drive seems much more tactically flexible than hyperspace, given that you can still use your sensors while at faster than light speeds.

A lot would ride on the big question; can the Defiant fit in the Death Star trench.

I need to turn down my geek factor. Fact.

#8 pitsch

pitsch

    Member

  • Members
  • 303 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 07:42 AM

If you really want to play a SW vs ST game you probably can. It may be unbalanced though.

One thing I do like, and the X-Wing was going to do, is have the pilot and ship separate. I like that, it lets the game open up more then be stuck with one pilot only have one ship. I don't know all the rules for pilot and ships so I don't k is if any polo can captain any ship.

Wave 4 Pre-Order Sale!! Now till April 1st!

http://www.spinninginspace.com/

Anyone in Virginia, DC, MD:

https://www.facebook...vaXWingSquadron


#9 Vonpenguin

Vonpenguin

    Member

  • Members
  • 697 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 07:43 AM

I can't recall which but someone I know once told me that I think it was trek ships, due to the way their shields worked, would actually be able to recharge their shields by absorbing a star destroyers turbolaser fire. Not sure how true that is but it would even the playing field a bit.



#10 SteveSpikes

SteveSpikes

    Member

  • Members
  • 261 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 07:56 AM

Being a fan of both Star Trek and Star Wars -- the latter more so, are we discussing the 'verses, or the game(s)?

I prefer the Galaxy far far away.  It looks "more lived in.  the Trek universe is a bit too clean, in my opinion.

As for the games, I playtested X-wing, and have been playing it since "day one".  I will defer judgement on Attack Wing until after Gen Con.  Being a fan of Fantasy Flight's "FlightPath" System, I plan to demo the game a few times.  I will take into account all aspects: the actual gameplay -- the use of the FlightPath System, the design of the pieces (ships) -- we're talking WizKids here, so not really expecting much, and most importantly; the price point -- if it's on par with Fantasy Flight ($39.99 for the Core Set alone) -- Maybe, or is WizKids planning to gouge us, because we know it's Trek (for the last game, Fleet Captains, it's priced at $100.00 for the Core Set)  -- No thanks!
We'll see in a few days at Gen Con.



#11 Sprolly G

Sprolly G

    Member

  • Members
  • 199 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 08:05 AM

I can't recall which but someone I know once told me that I think it was trek ships, due to the way their shields worked, would actually be able to recharge their shields by absorbing a star destroyers turbolaser fire. Not sure how true that is but it would even the playing field a bit.


The difference is that trek ships are explorers and Star Wars ships (Star Destroyers for example) are military frigates. I think they are bigger in comparison as well...either way, I guess it comes down to which universe you enjoy more.
  • SteveSpikes likes this

Rebels:
5 X-Wing's; 4 Y-Wing's; 4 A-Wing's; 2 B-wing's; 1 HWK-290; 1 YT-1300
Empire:
8 Tie Fighter's; 5 Tie Interceptor's; 4 Tie Advanced; 2 Tie Bomber's; 1 Lambda; 1 Firespray


#12 DoubleNot7

DoubleNot7

    Member

  • Members
  • 792 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 10:35 AM

The age old geek question of Star Trek or Star Wars... insert Picard facepalm jpg here.  This is an age old debate of 12 year old pre-pubescents.  Sorry if that is being a *** to point out the obvious.  This is a moot topic and the two just will not work together nor are they intended to do so. 

 

I like both genres, they have different aspects and that is what I like about them respectively.  I also think the new ST vessels look like crap and won't be buying it for that reason alone. 

 

Let's not mix apples and oranges.  Never cross the streams.


Enimo Et Fide


#13 mazz0

mazz0

    Member

  • Members
  • 258 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 10:42 AM

...

In a straight-up fight, the Empire squashes the Federation like a bug. Even with its numerical advantage removed, the Empire would still squash the Federation like a bug. Accept it.

 

I don't think the Empire weapons, how ever much energy they emit, would make it through Federation shields, would they?  It's all about manipulating space-time isn't it, not just pumping loads of energy into a laser beam.  Similarly, would even the best energy absorbing shield in Star Wars have any impact on phaser fire?

 

Plus, The Federation can time travel and teleport.


Edited by mazz0, 12 August 2013 - 10:43 AM.


#14 Darth Landy

Darth Landy

    Member

  • Members
  • 74 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 11:26 AM

Game description from the publisher:

Star Trek: Attack Wing is a tactical space combat HeroClix miniatures game, featuring pre-painted ships from the Star Trek Universe.

By using the FlightPath maneuver system* (licensed from Fantasy Flight Games), players engage in exploration and combat, traversing sprawling Star Trek space maps made available via an in-store Organized Play program. As commander, players have the ability to customize, upgrade, and assign famous crewmembers to their fleets, which feature ships from the series' prominent empires and forces as well as special stats and abilities, and unique maneuvers on separate HeroClix Combat Dials.

Star Trek: Attack Wing is a standalone game which uses the core rule set of FFGs' FlightPath game system with a Star Trek twist, but is not compatible with other FlightPath games from FFG. The FlightPath maneuver system used in Star Trek: Attack Wing is based on the original game design by Jason Little.

 

So there you go.  It is NOT compatible.


Rebel Alliance: A-Wing (x3), B-Wing (x3), HWK-290 (x2), X-Wing (x4), YT-1300 (x2), Y-Wing (x1)
Galactic Empire: Firespray-31 (x2), Lambda Shuttle (x2), Tie Advanced (x1), TIE Bomber (x3), TIE Fighter (x8), TIE Interceptor (x2)

 


#15 Breaking The Law

Breaking The Law

    Member

  • Members
  • 157 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 11:59 AM

http://cdn.memegener...0x/35134129.jpg



#16 SteveSpikes

SteveSpikes

    Member

  • Members
  • 261 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 12:53 PM

Here's a review from Figures.com:
 http://www.figures.c...tures-game.html

 

For those going to Gen Con, this part is for you:

 

Star Trek Attack Wing officially launches this week at Gen Con, and will be widely available at your local game store soon after. The Starter Set will run approximately $36, and the expansions $14 each. As with the X-Wing game the prices can seem a little daunting at first, but remember how much you’re getting and that each expansion increases your option for every Attack Wing game you play. WizKids has plenty more Attack Wing on the way, too, with a Gen Con “Khan Exclusive” Captain, a second wave of expansions coming later this year (and the rule book’s explanation of initiative offers a very tantalizing hint as to what Factions we may see down the road), and best of all the Dominion War Organized Play Event. Make sure your venue is signed up for this tournament series running September - February with monthly game rules, participation prizes, and limited edition prize ships! To get more information on Attack Wing and the Dominion War event, head over to WizKids Games.

 

"As with the X-Wing game the prices can seem a little daunting at first, but remember how much you’re getting and that each expansion increases your option for every Attack Wing game you play."

Here's my concern.  The "starter ships" are not included as an expansion.  If you want to play with multiple Galaxy Class ships, or any ship from the Starter Set, it looks like you will have to purchase multiple Starter Sets. <_<

 

I will still defer judgement until I see the game this weekend at Gen Con.



#17 DashAkrost

DashAkrost

    Member

  • Members
  • 51 posts

Posted 13 August 2013 - 02:59 AM

You seem to be missing the point. Obviously the enterprise would crush a hand full of rebel or imperial ships. I'd like to see a merger somehow, because I know a couple people who would play but they are sick of Star Wars and are thinking of trying the Star Trek version.

Maybe you need to turn up your "geek factor".

but by that logic the death star would crush a handful of fighters as well regardless of the exhaust port



#18 DashAkrost

DashAkrost

    Member

  • Members
  • 51 posts

Posted 13 August 2013 - 03:01 AM

Game description from the publisher:

Star Trek: Attack Wing is a tactical space combat HeroClix miniatures game, featuring pre-painted ships from the Star Trek Universe.

By using the FlightPath maneuver system* (licensed from Fantasy Flight Games), players engage in exploration and combat, traversing sprawling Star Trek space maps made available via an in-store Organized Play program. As commander, players have the ability to customize, upgrade, and assign famous crewmembers to their fleets, which feature ships from the series' prominent empires and forces as well as special stats and abilities, and unique maneuvers on separate HeroClix Combat Dials.

Star Trek: Attack Wing is a standalone game which uses the core rule set of FFGs' FlightPath game system with a Star Trek twist, but is not compatible with other FlightPath games from FFG. The FlightPath maneuver system used in Star Trek: Attack Wing is based on the original game design by Jason Little.

 

So there you go.  It is NOT compatible.

maybe its not "compatible" for legal reasons? maybe someone should try it out see how it goes? of course the games might not be balanced though


  • Doc Savage likes this

#19 Wookie Hunter

Wookie Hunter

    Member

  • Members
  • 435 posts

Posted 13 August 2013 - 05:31 AM

I don't know how mass bombarding a planet at its best in ST, and absolutely destroying a planet in SW even compares.  If I was the Empire I, would blow all the Trekkies planets up and now what.  All I would have to do is put a better cover over my little exhaust port.

 

And lets take ramming.  If an Imperial Star Destroyer decided to smear the Enterprise, its shield wouldn't do anything.  The Star destroyer is 100 times larger.  And I don't know how long the Enterprise could keep its shields up, but they gotta come down sometime.

 

Point is all you have to do is wipe the very few really populated planets in the Trek universe and that would be game over.  If you cant hit the ships for whatever reason who cares.  500 million dudes in spaceships with maybe 5% of them being women is victory enough at that point.

 

Don't even get me started on what Vader himself would do to the Trekkies ships.


Edited by Wookie Hunter, 13 August 2013 - 05:39 AM.

8 Tie Fighter's, 2 Tie Advanced, 4 Tie Interceptor's, 2 Firespray's, 2 Shuttle's, 4 Tie Bomber's

6 X-Wing's, 2 Y-Wing's, 4 A-Wing's, 2 YT-1300's, 4 B-Wing's, 3 Hawk 290's

and counting......


#20 Vonpenguin

Vonpenguin

    Member

  • Members
  • 697 posts

Posted 13 August 2013 - 06:54 AM

Honestly it's a pointless comparison. even disregarding technology and scale you'd have a fascist totalitarian military regime fighting an alliance of governments that have a fleet composed of at least 80% exploration, diplomatic, or scientific vessels with just enough firepower to protect themselves and maybe a few non-combatants. The Fedaration my have folks like Kirk and Picard but not in nearly the numbers they'd need.






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS