Federation ships not currently in game.

cjzepp

I've noticed that ships like the Freedom Class, Challenger Class, and the Niagara Class are currently not in STO at all. I'm a sucker for these obscure ships, especially the Freedom Class, and I was wondering if you guys have any ships you'd like to see added into the game. I'm don't have much experience with modelling, but i'm fairly sure that these ships would take very little effort to put in the game, as they're mostly just components of other ships in different places. I think they'd make a cool addition as optional skins/parts for ships like the Akira Class and the Connie.

Let freedom ring.
[img][/img]

starkaos

Personally, I rather have ships that have more of a backstory than they were destroyed and more thought in their design than we need some more classes to be destroyed in the Battle of Wolf 359.

cjzepp

Backstories are always good, but I feel like putting classes like these will give them more of a backstory that they need. NPC's can use them, you can go on missions with them etc. The Stargazer Class was practically invented for STO, so that's even less of a history than the Wolf kitbashes.

artan42

Norway and Yeager.​​

cjzepp

artan42 wrote: »

Norway and Yeager.​​

some good looking ships! the norway would be a perfect reskin/refit of an akira

byozuma

I don't know about you, but that ship in the picture looks stupid. I'd rather see the Kelvin itself than that thing.

jorantomalak

personally im a little saddened that the apollo class hasnt made it in the game both standard and refit versions

redeyedraven

jorantomalak wrote: »

personally im a little saddened that the apollo class hasnt made it in the game both standard and refit versions

If you're referring to the Apollo-class from ST:Legacy, the name is wrong.

Apollo-class was actually the Saladin-class in the old Technical Manual, with Mad-Doc Studios giving it a refit-Version that was originally named the Akula-class (and yes, ST:Legacy had an Akula-class too that was also originally named the Akyazi-class).


No matter of the naming though, I'd appreciate all of them. Saladin, Akula, Freedom, or the Okinawa.

Also the klingon and romulan counterparts from the old licensed materials (SFB/FASA).

vetteguy904

iirc the norway was an alternate skin for the akira way back in the day when a new ship came with alternate skins
and yes getting the license for the FASA stuff would rock. if you ever played starfleet command, you should want some of the romulan ships as much as i do.. firehawk, PLEASE

kjfett

cjzepp#2096 wrote: »

I've noticed that ships like the Freedom Class, Challenger Class, and the Niagara Class are currently not in STO at all. I'm a sucker for these obscure ships, especially the Freedom Class, and I was wondering if you guys have any ships you'd like to see added into the game. I'm don't have much experience with modelling, but i'm fairly sure that these ships would take very little effort to put in the game, as they're mostly just components of other ships in different places. I think they'd make a cool addition as optional skins/parts for ships like the Akira Class and the Connie.

Let freedom ring.
[img][/img]

1. Kit bash ships are nasty stuff that we do NOT want.
2. That "freedom" ship isn't even a viable ship. There are literally no impulse engines. There is no deflector dish. It's junk.
3. Even if it were viable, it would be too old for use now as anything but a T1 or maybe a T2 ship and that isn't worth a designers time.

lnblade

vetteguy904 wrote: »

iirc the norway was an alternate skin for the akira way back in the day when a new ship came with alternate skins
and yes getting the license for the FASA stuff would rock. if you ever played starfleet command, you should want some of the romulan ships as much as i do.. firehawk, PLEASE

No, the Norway has never been in the game. You're thinking of the Oslo, which is meant to be a Norway replacement, but looks nothing like the Norway

Norway Class


Oslo Class



For comparison, imagine if they'd released the Thunderchild Akira variant when the game launched, but not the actual Akira. Do you think Akira fans would've been satisfied with that? "Hey, here's an updated Akira class, you guys don't need the actual thing now!" No. No one would've liked that. Same thing with the Norway.

rattler2

kjfett wrote: »

1. Kit bash ships are nasty stuff that we do NOT want.
2. That "freedom" ship isn't even a viable ship. There are literally no impulse engines. There is no deflector dish. It's junk.
3. Even if it were viable, it would be too old for use now as anything but a T1 or maybe a T2 ship and that isn't worth a designers time.

1: Have you seen some of the kitbashed Galaxy ships in game?
2: Considering she was originally designed only as wreckage for Wolf 359, it is entirely possible that the details are not visible or open for interpretation. For example, she could have a ventral saucer mounted Deflector (like the Galaxy saucer when seperated) and the impulse engines could be the same kind as on the Nebula.
3: Has that ever stopped the Excelsior or the Steamrunner? Or event the Vulcan D'Kyr?

theraven2378

Very nice looking ship

cjzepp

rattler2 wrote: »

kjfett wrote: »

1. Kit bash ships are nasty stuff that we do NOT want.
2. That "freedom" ship isn't even a viable ship. There are literally no impulse engines. There is no deflector dish. It's junk.
3. Even if it were viable, it would be too old for use now as anything but a T1 or maybe a T2 ship and that isn't worth a designers time.

1: Have you seen some of the kitbashed Galaxy ships in game?
2: Considering she was originally designed only as wreckage for Wolf 359, it is entirely possible that the details are not visible or open for interpretation. For example, she could have a ventral saucer mounted Deflector (like the Galaxy saucer when seperated) and the impulse engines could be the same kind as on the Nebula.
3: Has that ever stopped the Excelsior or the Steamrunner? Or event the Vulcan D'Kyr?

don't forget that the Constellation class also has no visible impulse engines or deflector shield.

daveyny

We've already been informed by TacoFang, that anything which resembles the ships from the Franz Joseph Trek Manual, have been rejected by CBS for use in game.

Of course, we waited six years for the T-6 Connie to be approved, so nothing is set in stone.
<shrug>

nikephorus

I want the New Orleans. :-(

duncanidaho11

cjzepp#2096 wrote: »

artan42 wrote: »

Norway and Yeager.​​

some good looking ships! the norway would be a perfect reskin/refit of an akira

It might be possible in a Patrol Escort revamp (with no secondary pylon and with a forked hull.) We have already had a T6 Akira added to the game.

officerbatman81

That ship in the picture is stupid. Only one nacelle means your running around in circles.
You can't create a stable warp bubble with it certainly.

daveyny

officerbatman81 wrote: »

That ship in the picture is stupid. Only one nacelle means your running around in circles.
You can't create a stable warp bubble with it certainly.

You can if the single nacelle contains duel Warp coils side by side.

cjzepp

officerbatman81 wrote: »

That ship in the picture is stupid. Only one nacelle means your running around in circles.
You can't create a stable warp bubble with it certainly.

apparently the ship is warp capable, although much less powerful compared to other ships. Starfleet designed it for close to home border patrol as a destroyer, so it may be slow but apparently well armed. We're talking 7 phaser banks and 2 photon torpedo launchers.
More info:
http://www.starbase400.org/avalon/ds9_era/starship-freedom.htm

duncanidaho11

officerbatman81 wrote: »

That ship in the picture is stupid. Only one nacelle means your running around in circles.
You can't create a stable warp bubble with it certainly.

Not to start a thing about this...but...(top one's a secondary hull)



Let's just assume dual coils.

cidjack

officerbatman81 wrote: »

That ship in the picture is stupid. Only one nacelle means your running around in circles.
You can't create a stable warp bubble with it certainly.

Canon fight, Canon fight!!!

officerbatman81

That other ship is upside down and well hung.

cjzepp

Contrary to popular belief, there have been single nacelle ships since Star Trek II. Ladies and gents, the Hermes Class: http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Hermes_class

nx9200

Let's be honest. Some of the ships that they have created just for STO are pretty horrendous looking. Lots of garbage and greebies all over the hulls. Does anyone remember the old 90's game 'Star Ship Creator'? It had alternate versions of most ships that looked so much better. Don't know who came up with some of these new ships, when there are so many from Trek that could have been used instead.

Biggest complaint is the new TOS ships they created. Either the Gemini or Perseus classes should have been the Akula-class, from the TOS tech manual. And where did that Ranger-class come from? Why can't we have the Federation-class dreadnought? They gave us the Galaxy-class dreadnought, but not the original that it was based on? Why come up with these crazy things when you have perfectly good designs just waiting to be realized.

And I'm still waiting for my New Orleans-class starship.

smokebailey

kjfett wrote: »

cjzepp#2096 wrote: »

I've noticed that ships like the Freedom Class, Challenger Class, and the Niagara Class are currently not in STO at all. I'm a sucker for these obscure ships, especially the Freedom Class, and I was wondering if you guys have any ships you'd like to see added into the game. I'm don't have much experience with modelling, but i'm fairly sure that these ships would take very little effort to put in the game, as they're mostly just components of other ships in different places. I think they'd make a cool addition as optional skins/parts for ships like the Akira Class and the Connie.

Let freedom ring.
[img][/img]

1. Kit bash ships are nasty stuff that we do NOT want.
2. That "freedom" ship isn't even a viable ship. There are literally no impulse engines. There is no deflector dish. It's junk.
3. Even if it were viable, it would be too old for use now as anything but a T1 or maybe a T2 ship and that isn't worth a designers time.

1: There are those of us who DO want kit bashes, yo.
2: Might be there...maybe under that 'tunnel' thingie where the bridge bump is. Also....Miranda...Constellation....T'liss....T'varo....
3: Excelsior, Ambassador, Nebula, Vorcha, D'kyr, the new AoY TOS ships....

That ship in the picture is stupid. Only one nacelle means your running around in circles.
You can't create a stable warp bubble with it certainly.

Folks, quit acting like Comic Book Guy. ~face palm~

lordsteve1

officerbatman81 wrote: »

That ship in the picture is stupid. Only one nacelle means your running around in circles.
You can't create a stable warp bubble with it certainly.

In fact seeing as that is an Ent-D type nacelle those were apparently dual warp coil nacelles so it would work perfectly well. Basically a coil down each side of the nacelle.

However i do agree that ship looks ridiculous. I would never been seen flying such a hideous monster of a ship and I like the Scryer!

artan42

I actually decided to make a complete list.

ENT Era:
NV Class
NC Class
Warp Delta Type
Emmette Type
Franklin Type

Kelvin Era:
Armstrong Type (Excelsior Subtype)
Mayflower Type (Note: The canon version does not have a rollbar)
Newton Type (@thay8472 This ship is better than the Armstrong)
Kobayashi Maru Type
Kelvin Type (George Kirk's muther fuk1n pimp hand)

Kelvin Timeline:
KonsTitution Class (ID/BEY refit Subtype) (The lower ship at a stonking 378m and not the significantly smaller ship above it it at 365m)
Yorktown Class
Salcombe Type

Pre-TOS:
Bonaventure Class (The first Starship with warp Drive)

TOS:
Constitution Class (Cage/WNMHGB Subtype)
Huron Type
Medusan Ship
Woden Type (Woden, Antares, and Drone Subtypes)

Dubius TOS (i.e. only in tiny images or unclear):
Ptolemy Class
Saladin Class
B-24-CLN Type
Unknown Type 1
Unknown Type 2
Unknown Type 3
Unknown Type 4
Unknown Type 5&6 (Under the neck of the D7)

TMP:
Miranda Class (Antares Subtype) (from 'Favour the Bold' and later reused footage)
Miranda Class (Lantree Subtype)
Miranda Class (Saratoga Subtype)
Miranda Class (Soyuz Subtype)
Sydney Class (It's not a runabout, it has a bridge module, stop retreading the same old ground)

TMP Kitbashes (some may have been used, others not):
Jupp Type (One of my favourite kitbashes)
Curry Type
Raging Queen Type
Alka-Selsior Type (Har-de-bloody-har)
Unknown Type 7
Unknown Type 8
Unknown Type 9
Unknown Type 10

TNG:
Challenger Class
Freedom Class (Oh nos! It flies in circles!!1!!)
New Orleans Class
Springfield Class
Niagara Class
Hope Class (Class name comes from the canon dedication plaque and the ship does not apear ingame)
Nebula Class (Bonchune Subtype) (did not apear with the revamp) (@angrytarg it's still a bad kitbash)
Melbourne Type (Subclass 1)
Melbourne Type (Subclass 2)
Melbourne Type (Subclass 3)
Ambassador Class (Unknown Subtype) (The Enterprise C existed in this configuration at one time as seen by Picard's ship wall, it presumably had a refit later on in a similar manner to the TOS version)

DS9:
Norway Class (Artan's muther fuk1n pimp hand)
Yeager Class
Sovereign Class (FC/INS Subtype) (No we don't have it, we have it with NEM weapons add ons)
Sovereign Class (NEM Subtype) (No we don't have it, we have NEM weapons bolted onto the FC/INS Subtype without the repositioned plyons or the sweeping neck)

As you can see, it's a tiny little list that will take the Devs a few weeks to populate the game with...​​

marcusdkane

cjzepp#2096 wrote: »

artan42 wrote: »

Norway and Yeager.​​

some good looking ships! the norway would be a perfect reskin/refit of an akira

I was going to say, if you want to re-skin an Akira to something a bit smaller, keep the hull and pylons as stock-Akira, but swap the nacelles and saucer for the one's for the Zephyr Class, but checking on the Ship Requisition, the Zephyr seems to have been removed

In keeping with the Akira/Alita convention, I had called it the Benten Class (after a character in Cyber City: Oedo 808 ) wish I hadn't dry-docked mine now...

jonsills

nx9200 wrote: »

Let's be honest. Some of the ships that they have created just for STO are pretty horrendous looking. Lots of garbage and greebies all over the hulls. Does anyone remember the old 90's game 'Star Ship Creator'? It had alternate versions of most ships that looked so much better. Don't know who came up with some of these new ships, when there are so many from Trek that could have been used instead.

Biggest complaint is the new TOS ships they created. Either the Gemini or Perseus classes should have been the Akula-class, from the TOS tech manual. And where did that Ranger-class come from? Why can't we have the Federation-class dreadnought? They gave us the Galaxy-class dreadnought, but not the original that it was based on? Why come up with these crazy things when you have perfectly good designs just waiting to be realized.

And I'm still waiting for my New Orleans-class starship.

That's been covered. Franz Joseph owns the rights to the old Tech Manual, not CBS - and CBS isn't going to pay the licensing fee for those ships, even if FJ is amenable.

Bottom line - we're probably never getting any of those ships, no matter how much we want them.​​