"There is already a T5 connie in the game. its called the Excelsior T5 Refit as the excelsior took over for the constitution in the early 23rd century. Even kirk new that was going to happen. Reference look at star trek the undiscovered country. skip to end and see what kirk says."
No, thats the EXCELSIOR, not the CONSTITUTION. They may be related, but they are NOT the same. Thats like saying the Galaxy is the same as the Sovereign.
Hes not saying they are the same, hes saying the EXCELSIOR phased out the CONSTITUTION. as in the constitution was so old its design class was replaced for a newer and better one called the EXCELSIOR.
Just because something is newer, doesn't mean its better. Look at Dragon Age Origins and Dragon Age Origins 2, perfect example. Also, Kirk didn't say that the ship was getting decommissioned, he said that it was the final journey of the Enterprise "Under My Command." So originally, it wasn't the ship that was being decommissioned, it was the crew. Throughout the end scene of "The Undiscovered Country" he repeatedly said "This ship", meaning he was talking about the Enterprise-A. Its confusing canonically, but it is true.
Just because something is newer, doesn't mean its better. Look at Dragon Age Origins and Dragon Age Origins 2, perfect example. Also, Kirk didn't say that the ship was getting decommissioned, he said that it was the final journey of the Enterprise "Under My Command." So originally, it wasn't the ship that was being decommissioned, it was the crew. Throughout the end scene of "The Undiscovered Country" he repeatedly said "This ship", meaning he was talking about the Enterprise-A. Its confusing canonically, but it is true.
"This ship" presumably referred to "the Enterprise" in the metaphorical sense. We know the Enterprise-A was to be decommissioned as soon as she returned to spacedock from Uhura's statement earlier. Kirk was acknowledging that his time was over and soon there would be a new Enterprise and a new crew (i.e. TNG.)
instead i would rather have a ship inspiried by TOS, but no the outright connie... like that lookalike to the new movie enterprise which is in game as wreckage
instead i would rather have a ship inspiried by TOS, but no the outright connie... like that lookalike to the new movie enterprise which is in game as wreckage
Well, I've been starting to champion a TOS vanity pack, designed to make all ships look like they were built in the TOS era in design. Why? Because we already have replica ships in game, so it's not that hard to imagine engineers looking at all the new classes, and cackling madly before designing new hull modules to look as close to their older cousins as possible.
"This ship" presumably referred to "the Enterprise" in the metaphorical sense. We know the Enterprise-A was to be decommissioned as soon as she returned to spacedock from Uhura's statement earlier. Kirk was acknowledging that his time was over and soon there would be a new Enterprise and a new crew (i.e. TNG.)
He never said that, all he said was that there would be a new crew (Which you are correct in saying that it is a reference to TNG). He never said that the ship was being decommissioned, he said that the crew is being decommissioned. Here is an excerpt from an very good source.
[quote=Ex Astris ScientiaDecommissioning of the Enterprise-A At the end of "Star Trek VI" the Enterprise senior crew receives the order to be "decommissioned". This has often been interpreted in that the order should refer to the ship. The reason is that usually the word "decommission" wouldn't be used for personnel, but rather for ships and vehicles. Moreover, it doesn't seem plausible that a whole crew would be retired at once although it seems that Kirk, Scott and Chekov are all retired when the Enterprise-B is launched in 2293 ("Star Trek Generations"). On the other hand, Kirk's final log entry in the movie clearly states: "This ship, and her history, will shortly become the care of another crew". It is obvious that "this ship" can only refer to his very command, the Enterprise-A. Even if Kirk already knew of Starfleet's intentions to give the name "Enterprise" to a newly launched ship of the Excelsior class, why should he bother that much about other people on a different ship, only because the name happens to be the same?
Note In a figurative sense, it is obvious that Kirk's log entry was actually a rather awkward reference to the Enterprise-D. In other words, a broad hint to the theater audience that "Star Trek VI" was the last movie with the old ship and crew, with a new movie coming up "shortly". But unless time travel was involved, we wouldn't assume that Kirk knew about a ship 78 years into the future.
The only plausible explanation is that Starfleet's order indeed referred to the senior crew. The decision to decommission the ship as well may have been made after an examination of the battle damage. Technically, a decommissioned ship is not necessarily meant to be mothballed and ultimately scrapped, but may be slated for a refit or extensive repairs as well. Alternatively, the whole Constitution class may have been scheduled for retirement, or the ship may have been renamed to make the name "Enterprise" available to the brand new Excelsior class.[/quote]
Also, here is another explanation saying that from Ex Astris too.
We know that the Enterprise-A was replaced by a new ship, the Enterprise-B of the Excelsior class, in 2293. The Enterprise-A was either built or completely refitted and renamed in 2286, so it would be only seven years old by then. Why should Starfleet retire a new ship? Was it because of the battle damage? Or was the complete class scheduled for retirement in 2293? Concerning the particular retirement order at the end of Star Trek VI, read Uncertain Ship Names and Registries.
The original U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701 entered service in 2245 (Star Trek Encyclopedia). Unless we make up a "pre-history" to explain the low registries of some ships of this class, she would be the second ship just after the U.S.S. Constitution NCC-1700. Considering that the Galaxy class is supposed to last 100 years (TNG Technical Manual), an overall lifetime of 50 years for all ships of the Constitution class doesn't seem to be very long, especially since we can assume that many ships have undergone a complete refit like the Enterprise. Moreover, the Miranda and Constellation, whose basic components are apparently the same as of the Constitution refit, have been in service for more than 80 years, so why shouldn't the Constitution too?
When Picard meets Scotty on the holographic bridge of the original Enterprise (TNG: "Relics"), he says that "one like this is in the Fleet Museum". This doesn't necessarily imply that the ship in the museum is the only one left. But if there were any more of them, wouldn't Picard rather mention that there are Constitution-class ships still in service, to make Scotty feel better? On the other hand, "one like this" might specifically refer to the original configuration Constitution, of which there is only the one in the museum, whereas several of the less interesting (to Scotty) refitted ships might be in surplus depots or perhaps even in active service.
The starship debris at Wolf 359 (TNG: "Best of Both Worlds") shows a Constitution secondary hull and a saucer. This is probably the one of the Enterprise blown up in "Star Trek III". At least the secondary hull with its typical vat shape and the six large windows can be clearly identified. Unless we invent a new class which has the same old secondary hull but is for some reason still in service, there must have been at least one Constitution-class ship at Wolf 359, and obviously this can't have been the museum ship mentioned in "Relics", two years later.
Summarizing, there are advantages for the assumption that the Constitution class is still in service as of 2366. The screen evidence in BoBW is too obvious to be ignored. Considering how dominant the Constitution class was in TOS, it is plausible that this class should have a very long service time, like the Miranda, Constellation, Oberth and Excelsior too. Picard's statement in "Relics" is easy to interpret as the ship in the museum could be the last existing ship in the original configuration. The only remaining problem is that the Enterprise-A was retired before her time.
A possible reason why the Enterprise-A and possibly other ships of the class were scheduled to be retired at the end of "Star Trek VI" can be found in the movie itself. At the initial briefing one of the admirals speaks of "mothballing the Starfleet". He is certainly exaggerating, but more precisely he could refer to a bilateral arms reduction treaty. Such an agreement may easily include several ships of the Constitution class as a typical frontline type of vessels. In such a scenario Starfleet would prefer their (provisional) retirement over that of the newer Excelsior class.
I've also heard from members of my fleet that there was a Constitution-class (for the record it was supposedly WAAAY out in the background) during the fight scene in "Sacrifice of the Angels." I am looking for it currently. But anyway, it makes sense that the Connie would still be in service, because the Connie's refit configuration is essentially the same as the Miranda, Oberth, and Excelsior. It also could have been upgraded with more advanced systems, new hull materials, and better tactical systems. Making it capable of competing with more advanced ships like the Galaxy and Sovereign. ALSO, you have to know that a ship is only as good as its Captain. Given the right circumstances, a Connie could defeat a Sovereign. Look at the new Star Trek Movie, an alternate version of the TOS Enterprise took on and defeated a ship from 2387 fitted with BORG Technology. Kirk and Spock managed to used all the resources they had and defeat a supposedly invincible ship. I'd like to further add that the Narada gave the Enterprise-E and Captain Data problems.
i seen it that was not a constitution but a excelsior. the only constitution or should i say last remaining classes was destroyed at wolf 359. there is one in the scene shot
The fact that the Enterprise A did not show up in Generations, and instead was the newly christened Enterprise B only serves to further the interpretation that the Enterprise A was being decommissioned and not just the crew.
Clearly at least Shatner believed it was the ship being decommissioned, because he wrote a novel wherein the Enterprise A is stripped and then sold when it returns home.
Well, yes, I believe at the time it was supposed to mean that the CREW was being decommissioned. But as Ex Astris says, the Enterprise-A might have been decommissioned due to battle damage. And really, the Captain's Glory series is not canon. He's not CBS, so he doesn't have a say about what happens to the A. Also, it was never said that the ship was decommissioned, as Ex Astris says, it might have simply been renamed so that the ENT-B could be the Enterprise. As done with the Yorktown. Gene Roddenberry stated that the USS Yorktown was later renamed USS Enterprise-A, in tribute to the Original. If Starfleet renamed one ship, why not rename another? Also, due to a Constitution-Class being present at the Battle of Wolf 359, we know that the Constitution-Class was in service to at least 2366, over 120 years later. It is also reasonable to assume that even though the Connie was not seen on Screen after "Best of Both Worlds", it doesn't mean it is not there. Many ship classes where not seen on screen, so it could be possible that the Constitution was doing other forms of work. Work that the other "More Advanced" ships of Starfleet where too valuable or unable to do. Look at the Miranda-Class, its just as old as the Refit Connie, yet it continued to be in Service even during the Dominion War. The Excelsior was also HEAVILY used by Starfleet, though younger, by the time it reached TNG, the Excelsior was over 100 years old, and (by what you and all of your Anti-Connie friends are saying) should have been replaced with the more advanced Galaxy-Class. So with all of these "ancient" ships in Starfleet in TNG-era, I think that there may have been a Connie or two flying around. Unseen, but still there.
Well, yes, I believe at the time it was supposed to mean that the CREW was being decommissioned. But as Ex Astris says, the Enterprise-A might have been decommissioned due to battle damage.
Maybe, but there was nothing to me that indicated the Enterprise A was going to continue flying. Between TNG and the fact that it was to be the last TOS movie, it made perfect sense that she was going to stand down peacefully, which fit with the theme of the movie.
And really, the Captain's Glory series is not canon. He's not CBS, so he doesn't have a say about what happens to the A. Also, it was never said that the ship was decommissioned, as Ex Astris says, it might have simply been renamed so that the ENT-B could be the Enterprise. As done with the Yorktown. Gene Roddenberry stated that the USS Yorktown was later renamed USS Enterprise-A, in tribute to the Original. If Starfleet renamed one ship, why not rename another?
It's not about the canon. There are plenty other non-canon sources that take that stand (like Diane Carey's Best Destiny.) The difference is that this one is from the guy who had to say the line. If the guy who actually had to say it took it to mean the ship was decommissioned, I think that's a pretty good indication that's how it was intended.
As for the renaming again, that's just silly. There's no reason to rename it again just so you can use the name on another ship, especially if Kirk isn't going to command that ship.
Also, due to a Constitution-Class being present at the Battle of Wolf 359, we know that the Constitution-Class was in service to at least 2366, over 120 years later. It is also reasonable to assume that even though the Connie was not seen on Screen after "Best of Both Worlds", it doesn't mean it is not there. Many ship classes where not seen on screen, so it could be possible that the Constitution was doing other forms of work. Work that the other "More Advanced" ships of Starfleet where too valuable or unable to do. Look at the Miranda-Class, its just as old as the Refit Connie, yet it continued to be in Service even during the Dominion War. The Excelsior was also HEAVILY used by Starfleet, though younger, by the time it reached TNG, the Excelsior was over 100 years old, and (by what you and all of your Anti-Connie friends are saying) should have been replaced with the more advanced Galaxy-Class. So with all of these "ancient" ships in Starfleet in TNG-era, I think that there may have been a Connie or two flying around. Unseen, but still there.
First off, I'm not anti-Connie. The RC is my favorite ship ever. What I am is for consistency of setting and a better ship system, which I proposed in both this thread and in a thread I created for it.
Secondly, the Wolf 359 thing is much more easily explained that they were throwing everything they had at the Borg ship and they had sold the Connie there to a Federation world, like in Shatner's book, and it came to their aid because it was close by. Otherwise we would've seen them again like the Excelsiors.
As far as anything on screen tells us, the two classes stopped being in service sometime between Star Trek VI and TNG. Moreover, it makes sense if anything that was RC class was originally a regular TOSC at one point, because that would make the ships themselves incredibly old. Instead of building new ones, they'd just build the newer Excelsior.
Maybe, but there was nothing to me that indicated the Enterprise A was going to continue flying. Between TNG and the fact that it was to be the last TOS movie, it made perfect sense that she was going to stand down peacefully, which fit with the theme of the movie.
In my opinion there was nothing saying that the Enterprise, or the Constitution was going to be decommissioned. Though it does make perfect sense, unless CBS states it happened, anything is possible.
It's not about the canon. There are plenty other non-canon sources that take that stand (like Diane Carey's Best Destiny.) The difference is that this one is from the guy who had to say the line. If the guy who actually had to say it took it to mean the ship was decommissioned, I think that's a pretty good indication that's how it was intended.
Actor can have their own opinions about what lines mean, that doesn't mean that is what the writer wants it to mean. I'm an actor, I can make a line mean whatever I want to, but the person who has final say is the director. If he doesn't like the way I'm portraying the line, then he tells me how he wants it. I do like Captain's Glory, but you have to realize that it is not canon, its basically a fanfic, a fanfic that happens to be written by Captain Kirk. That goes for the rest of the novels as well.
As for the renaming again, that's just silly. There's no reason to rename it again just so you can use the name on another ship, especially if Kirk isn't going to command that ship.
Its silly, yes, but it is possible. Here's a very famous quote from Mr.Spock. "If you eliminate the impossible, whatever remainshowever improbablemust be the truth." The thing is, we're not Starfleet, its crazy that they renamed the Yorktown in the first place! I'm saying that because they did it once, it is possible that they did it again. I'm not saying that's how it happened, I'm just saying its possible.
First off, I'm not anti-Connie. The RC is my favorite ship ever. What I am is for consistency of setting and a better ship system, which I proposed in both this thread and in a thread I created for it.
The RC is my favorite ship as well, and it was the first ship I ever saw in Star Trek. Also, I do appreciate that you are at least trying to be logical about it, unlike many other posters.
Secondly, the Wolf 359 thing is much more easily explained that they were throwing everything they had at the Borg ship and they had sold the Connie there to a Federation world, like in Shatner's book, and it came to their aid because it was close by. Otherwise we would've seen them again like the Excelsiors.
That's kinda crazy, why would the Federation send a ship manned solely by civilians into a fight with the most powerful threat the Federation up to that point? That's like sending a freighter to the Battle of Cardassia, they would want to get that Connie as far away as possible rather than keep it there to get blown up into little pieces.
As far as anything on screen tells us, the two classes stopped being in service sometime between Star Trek VI and TNG. Moreover, it makes sense if anything that was RC class was originally a regular TOSC at one point, because that would make the ships themselves incredibly old. Instead of building new ones, they'd just build the newer Excelsior.
Well, as far as I know about the Refit of the Constitution, there was literally NOTHING of the Original ship left, meaning that while the frame's design was the same, everything that made it was brand new. Kinda like a snake shedding its skin. Also, why get rid of something that had worked so well in the past? THe Constitution was the greatest ship design that was ever conceived by Starfleet, lasting years. Though I do agree that they weren't produced in vast quantities, that doesn't mean that they weren't being built and that the original ships where not being refitted with newer and better technology, keeping up with the times.
Also, I must point at one final thing, this is a game, it is not canon and it does not need to stay within canon. Why would you not let fellow trekkies want to fly a ship at endgame that we love so dear? Why cannot we go and be able to play the game the way we want to? I love this little ship, I want to fly it in Endgame, I want to have fun with my favorite ship. Its not much to ask.
In my opinion there was nothing saying that the Enterprise, or the Constitution was going to be decommissioned. Though it does make perfect sense, unless CBS states it happened, anything is possible.
The fact that Uhura said they needed to put back into spacedock to be decommissioned suggested at the very least the Enterprise was. Presumably, since we knew from Star Trek III the Excelsior was built to replace the Constitution, it was the at least the beginning of phasing it out.
Actor can have their own opinions about what lines mean, that doesn't mean that is what the writer wants it to mean. I'm an actor, I can make a line mean whatever I want to, but the person who has final say is the director. If he doesn't like the way I'm portraying the line, then he tells me how he wants it. I do like Captain's Glory, but you have to realize that it is not canon, its basically a fanfic, a fanfic that happens to be written by Captain Kirk. That goes for the rest of the novels as well.
I have not disputed its canon status. I said that it lends weight to the idea that the ship was being decommissioned because the actor who had to say the line took it to mean that. It doesn't make it official or somehow automatically make me correct; it just is further evidence in favor of the scrapping of the ship.
Its silly, yes, but it is possible. Here's a very famous quote from Mr.Spock. "If you eliminate the impossible, whatever remainshowever improbablemust be the truth." The thing is, we're not Starfleet, its crazy that they renamed the Yorktown in the first place! I'm saying that because they did it once, it is possible that they did it again. I'm not saying that's how it happened, I'm just saying its possible.
Anything is possible. It wasn't silly that they renamed the Yorktown. That was done specifically for Kirk & Co. because of their clout within Starfleet.
That's kinda crazy, why would the Federation send a ship manned solely by civilians into a fight with the most powerful threat the Federation up to that point? That's like sending a freighter to the Battle of Cardassia, they would want to get that Connie as far away as possible rather than keep it there to get blown up into little pieces.
It was a hastily organized running defense all the way to Earth. They were probably sending everything they had at that cube trying to slow it down. It could have even heard the Starfleet vessels engaged in battle and come of its own accord.
Well, as far as I know about the Refit of the Constitution, there was literally NOTHING of the Original ship left, meaning that while the frame's design was the same, everything that made it was brand new. Kinda like a snake shedding its skin. Also, why get rid of something that had worked so well in the past? THe Constitution was the greatest ship design that was ever conceived by Starfleet, lasting years. Though I do agree that they weren't produced in vast quantities, that doesn't mean that they weren't being built and that the original ships where not being refitted with newer and better technology, keeping up with the times.
Because technology and design evolves, and the Excelsior was built to replace the Constitution-class. There's no reason to keep building the old ship if the new ship design works, which since the Excelsior lasted so long, it clearly did.
Also, I must point at one final thing, this is a game, it is not canon and it does not need to stay within canon. Why would you not let fellow trekkies want to fly a ship at endgame that we love so dear? Why cannot we go and be able to play the game the way we want to? I love this little ship, I want to fly it in Endgame, I want to have fun with my favorite ship. Its not much to ask.
Because consistency of setting is important to me, and it's a bad game mechanic to just put lower tier ships in the higher tier and/or not strongly encourage you to get a new ship as you progress through the game.
Because technology and design evolves, and the Excelsior was built to replace the Constitution-class. There's no reason to keep building the old ship if the new ship design works, which since the Excelsior lasted so long, it clearly did.
That pre-supposes that the Constitution Refit was a bad design, and the Excelsior was meant as a direct replacement.
However, there is nothing to suggest this was the case.
The Excelsior in comparison to the Constitution Refit is like comparing a Destroyer and a Battleship in the Navy. A Battleship wouldn't be right for doing the job of a Destroyer, while a Destroyer wouldn't be right for doing the job of a Battleship. Both ships serve a useful purpose to the Navy. This is Starfleet's approach to ship building as well, which is why they don't build 500 Sovereign Class starships and retire everything else.
In terms of general size, firepower and mission profile, the Excelsior was a completely different ship than the Constitution Refit. In some respects, it's nearly the same situation between the Galaxy and Sovereign Class, only the analogy is reversed in the Sovereign is actually a step down in size and scope from the much larger Galaxy. The Sovereign wasn't designed to replace the Galaxy, as is obvious by the armaments and armor, but rather was designed to fulfill a different function and role within Starfleet. This is the case for the Excelsior as well, in that it likely didn't replace the Constitution Refit outright. This is backed up by the existence of the Yorktown (Enterprise-A) which obviously was being built, or was built during the same time the Excelsior was built. If Starfleet was intending to do away with the Constitution line completely, then the Yorktown wouldn't have had it's keel laid when the supposed replacement was being built, or had just been built.
This is further justified by additional Excelsiors being built and existing Excelsiors being refitted, even after the Ambassador Class was launched, as both ships have an intended purpose, and the Ambassador didn't outright replace the Excelsior.
It stands to reason that because the Excalibur and Vesper were built, there is still a reason to have ships of that size and design lineage around. While I can't exactly think of what that reason would be, considering how grossly underpowered and underarmored these brand new ships are, Starfleet obviously has a purpose and reason for building these ships instead of building just Sovereigns. But most importantly, it confirms the fact that the Constitution Refit wasn't being replaced by the Excelsior because it was a bad design.
It was being replaced because the writers of the show felt a new ship silloutte was needed.
That pre-supposes that the Constitution Refit was a bad design, and the Excelsior was meant as a direct replacement.
Not at all. It just pre-supposes Starfleet intended to build a newer, stronger cruiser, the Excelsior was that new cruiser, and they performed so well that it was worth retiring the RCs.
However, there is nothing to suggest this was the case.
The Excelsior in comparison to the Constitution Refit is like comparing a Destroyer and a Battleship in the Navy. A Battleship wouldn't be right for doing the job of a Destroyer, while a Destroyer wouldn't be right for doing the job of a Battleship. Both ships serve a useful purpose to the Navy. This is Starfleet's approach to ship building as well, which is why they don't build 500 Sovereign Class starships and retire everything else.
Considering both ships are considered cruisers, I'm not sure we can make that comparison.
In terms of general size, firepower and mission profile, the Excelsior was a completely different ship than the Constitution Refit.
How do you figure? Excelsior's mission at the start of Star Trek VI is to chart gaseous anomalies. At the end, Uhura points out that the Enterprise has all this equipment on board to...chart gaseous anomalies and they use it to plink Chang's ship.
More importantly, the very next Enterprise is an Excelsior-class ship. Wouldn't they have just given the title to another RC if they were still fulfilling their role?
This is backed up by the existence of the Yorktown (Enterprise-A) which obviously was being built, or was built during the same time the Excelsior was built. If Starfleet was intending to do away with the Constitution line completely, then the Yorktown wouldn't have had it's keel laid when the supposed replacement was being built, or had just been built.
The Yorktown was not necessarily a new ship. It could have easily been a recently refit, younger TOSC. In fact, that's generally how people deal with the presumption that the Enterprise A is ready for Kirk in ST4 and decommissioned at the end of ST6 already.
This is further justified by additional Excelsiors being built and existing Excelsiors being refitted, even after the Ambassador Class was launched, as both ships have an intended purpose, and the Ambassador didn't outright replace the Excelsior.
We don't know enough about the Ambassador class to make any intelligent comparisons to Excelsior vs. RC.
It stands to reason that because the Excalibur and Vesper were built, there is still a reason to have ships of that size and design lineage around. While I can't exactly think of what that reason would be, considering how grossly underpowered and underarmored these brand new ships are, Starfleet obviously has a purpose and reason for building these ships instead of building just Sovereigns. But most importantly, it confirms the fact that the Constitution Refit wasn't being replaced by the Excelsior because it was a bad design.
I never presumed that it was replaced because it was a bad design. Being in service for like 40 years means it had to be doing something well. Presumably it was replaced simply because the Excelsior was better.
It was being replaced because the writers of the show felt a new ship silloutte was needed.
I'm sure, but that means the task is then to come up for the in universe reason it was replaced. The thing that fits best is the Excelsior was bigger and better, was the next evolution of the RC, and so the RCs were phased out over time as Excelsiors came off the production lines.
Ultimately, your logic is the Excelsior is a replacement because it's bigger and better.
But, if that was the design philosophy of the SCE, then how would anyone explain the existence of the Constellation Class, the Nova Class, the Defiant and every other ship that is smaller than the Excelsior, but came out AFTER the Excelsior?
Starfleet understands the need for different ships for different roles. In the case of the Excelsior vs the Connie Refit, it could be the Excelsior is larger in order to support a LONGER term mission than the Connie Refit, which based on the Connie, is designed for a 5 year mission profile.
I think we are putting too much emphasis on the retirement (decommissioning) of the Enterprise as a basis to explain the disappearance of the Connie Refit line. Sadly, we don't have much actual background on the Connie Refit series of ships, because we only ever saw 2 of them. Enterprise and Yorktown-Enterprise. It is entirely plausible that the Connie Refit line stayed in service just as long as the Miranda did, but simply was relegated to behind the scenes duty, much like the Miranda was. We just don't know enough to say for certain one way or the other. However, it makes sense that the Connie Refit would still be around, so long as the Miranda was around, since both ships use similar parts, and any refit done to a Miranda, could be applied in a similar fashion to a Connie Refit.
Finally, there is the Excalibur and the Vesper. If the Connie Refit didn't live on beyond Star Trek VI, and the Excelsior was so superior, why would Starfleet build these ships? Wouldn't it make more sense to just build Excelsiors or larger? Most likely, the existence of the Excalibur and Vesper are intended to be an upgrade of the Connie Refit line, taking it into the 25th Century. If the Connie Refit line did live on, like the Miranda did, then it would make sense that eventually a Version 2.0 for the ship would be needed, and the Excalibur and Vesper serve that purpose.
Although, had it been me designing them, I'd have given them a bit more kick.
Ultimately, your logic is the Excelsior is a replacement because it's bigger and better.
But, if that was the design philosophy of the SCE, then how would anyone explain the existence of the Constellation Class, the Nova Class, the Defiant and every other ship that is smaller than the Excelsior, but came out AFTER the Excelsior?
Just better, not necessarily because it's bigger. For example, the first boast Captain Maxwell makes about the Excelsior in Star Trek III was that she was going to break the Enterprise's speed records, not that his ship is bigger or more well armed.
Starfleet understands the need for different ships for different roles. In the case of the Excelsior vs the Connie Refit, it could be the Excelsior is larger in order to support a LONGER term mission than the Connie Refit, which based on the Connie, is designed for a 5 year mission profile.
I agree they have ships for different roles. I just think the Excelsior and the RC fill the same role, that's why the RC went away and Excelsior stayed. Clearly they have to have some significant overlap if the next Enterprise was an Excelsior-class ship.
I think we are putting too much emphasis on the retirement (decommissioning) of the Enterprise as a basis to explain the disappearance of the Connie Refit line. Sadly, we don't have much actual background on the Connie Refit series of ships, because we only ever saw 2 of them. Enterprise and Yorktown-Enterprise. It is entirely plausible that the Connie Refit line stayed in service just as long as the Miranda did, but simply was relegated to behind the scenes duty, much like the Miranda was. We just don't know enough to say for certain one way or the other. However, it makes sense that the Connie Refit would still be around, so long as the Miranda was around, since both ships use similar parts, and any refit done to a Miranda, could be applied in a similar fashion to a Connie Refit.
Well, that takes us back to whether or not Starfleet produced new RC ships or just refit all the TOSCs. If that is the case, the Miranda is a much younger ship. Further, the Miranda clearly served a much different role than the RC.
I'd say the main reason the Miranda stuck around so long is just that her role was clearly not a combat-oriented, long-term frontier explorer, thereby making her a useful ship to do all the grunt work around the Federation.
And moreover, it seems like we have to do all manner of tap dancing to explain the RC still being out there in service despite never seeing it again. The simplest explanation is that the Excelsior class replaced it, and pretty much all the on-screen evidence points in that direction.
Finally, there is the Excalibur and the Vesper. If the Connie Refit didn't live on beyond Star Trek VI, and the Excelsior was so superior, why would Starfleet build these ships? Wouldn't it make more sense to just build Excelsiors or larger?
They're STO ships so I don't really consider them relevant. These questions are things that bother me about all of these "new" versions of the ancient ships, be it the replica TOSC or the Excalibur. They shouldn't exist and the Excalibur is pretty ugly to boot, in my opinion.
Just better, not necessarily because it's bigger. For example, the first boast Captain Maxwell makes about the Excelsior in Star Trek III was that she was going to break the Enterprise's speed records, not that his ship is bigger or more well armed.
That was because of the Excelsior's transwarp drive, which from what I've read was either placed into the Connie or it failed outright.
I agree they have ships for different roles. I just think the Excelsior and the RC fill the same role, that's why the RC went away and Excelsior stayed. Clearly they have to have some significant overlap if the next Enterprise was an Excelsior-class ship.
Well, what about the Ambassador, as Mat said, the Ambassador is the next evolution of the Excelsior, and so should fulfill the same roles as the Excelsior. The design of the Connie is similar, but not the same as the Excelsior, but you say they don't do the same roles. The same can be said of the Ambassador and Excelsior. You have to think of the time period, between TMP and TNG, it was a time of peace, so it is logical to assume that the AMbassador was meant to be a ship of Exploration, just like the Excelsior, just like the Constitution. So by your logic, because the Ambassador is better, the Excelsior should have been phased out YEARS before TNG, but we still saw them, and we saw them in droves!
Well, that takes us back to whether or not Starfleet produced new RC ships or just refit all the TOSCs. If that is the case, the Miranda is a much younger ship. Further, the Miranda clearly served a much different role than the RC.
I'd say the main reason the Miranda stuck around so long is just that her role was clearly not a combat-oriented, long-term frontier explorer, thereby making her a useful ship to do all the grunt work around the Federation.
This I agree with you. But I'd think that Starfleet would produce at least a few of their best ship design.
Just better, not necessarily because it's bigger. For example, the first boast Captain Maxwell makes about the Excelsior in Star Trek III was that she was going to break the Enterprise's speed records, not that his ship is bigger or more well armed.
That was because of the Excelsior's transwarp drive, which from what I've read was either placed into the Connie or it failed outright.
I agree they have ships for different roles. I just think the Excelsior and the RC fill the same role, that's why the RC went away and Excelsior stayed. Clearly they have to have some significant overlap if the next Enterprise was an Excelsior-class ship.
Well, what about the Ambassador, as Mat said, the Ambassador is the next evolution of the Excelsior, and so should fulfill the same roles as the Excelsior. The design of the Connie is similar, but not the same as the Excelsior, but you say they don't do the same roles. The same can be said of the Ambassador and Excelsior. You have to think of the time period, between TMP and TNG, it was a time of peace, so it is logical to assume that the AMbassador was meant to be a ship of Exploration, just like the Excelsior, just like the Constitution. So by your logic, because the Ambassador is better, the Excelsior should have been phased out YEARS before TNG, but we still saw them, and we saw them in droves!
And moreover, it seems like we have to do all manner of tap dancing to explain the RC still being out there in service despite never seeing it again. The simplest explanation is that the Excelsior class replaced it, and pretty much all the on-screen evidence points in that direction.
You have to realize that we have not seen EVERYTHING about the Federation or Starfleet. We don't know what is happening outside of the confines of the screen. I know that there are ship designs mentioned onscreen that we have never seen. Its kinda like in the Bible, We knew nothing about Jesus' early life, yet we know it still happened.
Just better, not necessarily because it's bigger. For example, the first boast Captain Maxwell makes about the Excelsior in Star Trek III was that she was going to break the Enterprise's speed records, not that his ship is bigger or more well armed.
That was because of the Excelsior's transwarp drive, which from what I've read was either placed into the Connie or it failed outright.
I agree they have ships for different roles. I just think the Excelsior and the RC fill the same role, that's why the RC went away and Excelsior stayed. Clearly they have to have some significant overlap if the next Enterprise was an Excelsior-class ship.
Well, what about the Ambassador, as Mat said, the Ambassador is the next evolution of the Excelsior, and so should fulfill the same roles as the Excelsior. The design of the Connie is similar, but not the same as the Excelsior, but you say they don't do the same roles. The same can be said of the Ambassador and Excelsior. You have to think of the time period, between TMP and TNG, it was a time of peace, so it is logical to assume that the AMbassador was meant to be a ship of Exploration, just like the Excelsior, just like the Constitution. So by your logic, because the Ambassador is better, the Excelsior should have been phased out YEARS before TNG, but we still saw them, and we saw them in droves!
They're STO ships so I don't really consider them relevant. These questions are things that bother me about all of these "new" versions of the ancient ships, be it the replica TOSC or the Excalibur. They shouldn't exist and the Excalibur is pretty ugly to boot, in my opinion.
You are ignoring the canon of the game? In this case, the game lore is just as important as Show and Movie lore. You must understand that there is a story behind the game, and the story must be followed. Though these events exist within the game, they do not exist in real Trek lore until CBS says so. So knowing the game is just as important as knowing the show. Look it up on STOwiki.org, it'll help.
Game lore wise the introduction of the Excalibur and Vesper class starships were because Starfleet realized it still needed a small cruiser type ship, not for heavy combat, not for long range exploration but for diplomatic duties where combat just might be needed. "Designed with the modular construction favored by the Starfleet Corps of Engineers, the Excalibur can tackle almost any task. Its expanded cargo capacity and advanced warp core make it an ideal solo exploration vessel, but it also performs well as a support ship during fleet actions. " That's THIS sites description of the Excalibur. "The majority of Constitution class ships are used for diplomatic and exploratory missions, some of which may last up to five years." The Connie itself says that.
These are not front line ships, they are not intended to be, even when it says they can be they must be coordinated strikes, strikes with other assets. And I'm not gonna argue against the idea that a Connie can be refitted to be Tier 5. It can, the idea of it however is incredibly stupid. Why spend extra time and resources re-purposing an old obsolete model of starship to use newer more advanced technology when for a fraction of that you can just build a new class of ship intended for the technology to begin with.
You can do both, both will work in the end, but one is more sound than the other. Cause you're gonna need a new warp core for more power, new nacelles for a better warp drive, better power systems to handle more powerful weapons. In the end you will no longer have your constitution. You'll have something with the same basic shape as this ship you love, but none of the appearance. And you don't want that do you? You want an Assault Cruiser that looks like a Connie? That's all that really matters to you, a big bad cruiser, that looks like the Connie. So stop begging for a Tier 5 Connie and ask for something that's smarter and more reasonable
A C-store holoemitter. Otherwise you're asking for this because any "true" tier-5 Constitution is going to need to be completely stripped and gutted to be updated to work with the more modern ships. Because lets be frank, if you get this, then you shouldn't be upset when for 2000 C points at Tier 6 Cruiser Captains might be able to get this... Then how'd you feel?
Just better, not necessarily because it's bigger. For example, the first boast Captain Maxwell makes about the Excelsior in Star Trek III was that she was going to break the Enterprise's speed records, not that his ship is bigger or more well armed.
This was not because the Excelsior was that much better. It was only because of the Transwarp Drive. If you compare a stock Excelsior and a stock Connie Refit, there isn't much difference in Technology, overall Power or even armaments. Side by side, in 2285, these ships were virtually the same. The only difference is the Excelsior was larger, by design, in order to house the Transwarp Drive, which never functioned.
I agree they have ships for different roles. I just think the Excelsior and the RC fill the same role, that's why the RC went away and Excelsior stayed. Clearly they have to have some significant overlap if the next Enterprise was an Excelsior-class ship.
But we don't know that the Connie Refit was phased out completely. The existence of a Connie Refit hull at Wolf 359 suggests they were still around (if only in smaller numbers) in the 2360's. While the Excelsior might have superceeded the Constitution Refit, that doesn't mean the Connie Refit simply vanished and ceased to exist. This goes back to the point I made about not seeing any other Connie Refits other than the Enterprise and the Yorktown-Enterprise. Simply put, we don't know if the Connie Refit was only applied to existing Connies, or if they built brand new Connie Refits too. All we can do is speculate. I'd go so far as to say that Cryptic is probably leaning the same direction as I am which is why it is in game, but has the newer counterpart as well in the Excalibur / Vesper.
Well, that takes us back to whether or not Starfleet produced new RC ships or just refit all the TOSCs. If that is the case, the Miranda is a much younger ship. Further, the Miranda clearly served a much different role than the RC.
This is a point of debate. Before the Star Trek: Vanguard book series, I'd agree that the Miranda was a younger ship. However, Vanguard introduced the concept of a TOS era Miranda Class (which seems plausible given the Ptolmey Class) and therefore the relative age of the Miranda and Connie lines are probably closer together.
Regardless, the Miranda and Connie Refit share a design lineage. One could assume that if Starfleet bothered to keep the Miranda around, it could just as easily keep the Connie Refit around as well, because the ships are so similar. Producing upgrades and refits for the Miranda could easily be applied to any Connie Refits that were still in existence during the elongated lifespan of the Miranda.
I'd say the main reason the Miranda stuck around so long is just that her role was clearly not a combat-oriented, long-term frontier explorer, thereby making her a useful ship to do all the grunt work around the Federation.
I agree with you on this point. The Miranda had a specific function, and it did that function well. However, anything a Miranda could do, any Connie Refit that still existed, could do better.
And moreover, it seems like we have to do all manner of tap dancing to explain the RC still being out there in service despite never seeing it again. The simplest explanation is that the Excelsior class replaced it, and pretty much all the on-screen evidence points in that direction.
Except the wreckage of a Connie Refit being seen at Wolf 359, which would indicate that something of that line still existed as late as the mid 2360's. Additionally, there were multitudes of ships and ship classes mentioned on screen which were never actually seen, yet, because they were mentioned, we do know they were there. We just don't know what they looked like.
Realistically speaking, if the Miranda was still in service, then the Connie Refit (what few there may have been) was still in service too. However, because the Connie Refit was an Enterprise, and we only ever saw it as an Enterprise, the reason we didn't likely see Connie Refits in TNG and DS9 is because the producers didn't want to have 2 hero ships in a single frame. (Galaxy and Connie Refit...or...Defiant and Connie Refit)
While the Excelsior Refit held the name Enterprise, it wasn't so much a Hero ship because we only saw it once for about 5 minutes, unlike the Connie Refit Enterprise which was the star in 6 movies.
For that matter, we never saw 2 Herro ships in the same frame ever in TNG / DS9 and VOY. You didn't see the Enterprise together with the Defiant or with Voyager.
They're STO ships so I don't really consider them relevant. These questions are things that bother me about all of these "new" versions of the ancient ships, be it the replica TOSC or the Excalibur. They shouldn't exist and the Excalibur is pretty ugly to boot, in my opinion.
Whether we consider them relevant or not, they are in fact part of the STO universe. They are canon to the game, therefore their existence sprang from somewhere, and that likely origin came from the need for a ship similar to the Connie Refit, but more modernized.
I just wish they would have truly modernized it and made it (Excalibur) equivalent in power to other contemperary late 24th / early 25th Century ships instead of matching it directly even with the Connie Refit.
These are not front line ships, they are not intended to be, even when it says they can be they must be coordinated strikes, strikes with other assets. And I'm not gonna argue against the idea that a Connie can be refitted to be Tier 5. It can, the idea of it however is incredibly stupid. Why spend extra time and resources re-purposing an old obsolete model of starship to use newer more advanced technology when for a fraction of that you can just build a new class of ship intended for the technology to begin with.
You can do both, both will work in the end, but one is more sound than the other. Cause you're gonna need a new warp core for more power, new nacelles for a better warp drive, better power systems to handle more powerful weapons. In the end you will no longer have your constitution. You'll have something with the same basic shape as this ship you love, but none of the appearance. And you don't want that do you? You want an Assault Cruiser that looks like a Connie? That's all that really matters to you, a big bad cruiser, that looks like the Connie. So stop begging for a Tier 5 Connie and ask for something that's smarter and more reasonable
T5 B'Rel Bird of Prey
That's all the explanation that is needed.
If a T1 or T2 ship was truly capable of being part of Fleet Actions, PvP and STFs, we wouldn't be having this debate. Furthermore, the B'Rel fans could have simply flown their T1 version of the ship. But the fact of the matter is, if you fly a T1 or T2 ship into Vice Admiral anything, even in a "support" role, you'll go *POP* in about 3.26 seconds. 4 Seconds if you are really on your game that day.
Fact is, ALL the T1 and T2 ships don't have the mustard to actually fulfill the role which Cryptic's own site suggests they do. You can't fly them in Solo play beyond Commander, and you certianly can't fly as support for Vice Admiral level content.
Now, if you took the T5 B'Rel and slapped an Excalibur / Vesper skin and bumped the hull points up a few to make up for the lack of cloak on it, then yes, it would truly live up to what the website says about the ship, and it would be just about as believeable as having a T5 B'Rel is. You could actually fly a support ship in Vice Admiral content and last longer than 4 seconds.
Additionally, I think you'd find that alot of people would be ok with that too.
Granted, your die-hard, hardcore TOS / TMP fans probably wouldn't like it as much as having "the real thing" but it would be a compromise that most people could live with.
Klingon Defense Force does not equate Starfleet. A historically military and resourced strap organization known for reusing designs and hulls over and over and over again the D-4 into the D-7 into the K't'inga. The 22nd-Century to the, D'Gavama/Z'gavva-class, to the B'rel. All modernizations of a basic design, and short of the D'Gavama/Z'gavva to the B'rel, all involved some significant modifications to the hull structure. You can tell a D-4 from a D-7 from a K't'inga from a K't'inga retrofit. Just like you can tell a Connie from a Connie retrofit.
But hey, let's look at the B'rel, or at least what Cryptic calls the B'rel, which could be the B'rel, the D'Gavama, Z'gavva, or the D12 class. I personally lean more towards the D-12 in regards to the tier-1 because of its use of a normal cloak. (The D12 was stated in Generation to have issues with its cloak, which given the current state of the game likely means every non-NPC ship with cloak has faulty plasma coils). For the Tier-5 I want to say its the K'vort, due to its size, weaponry, and use of the advanced cloak. "B'rel" is just Cryptic having not done their research about when that class of ship was decommissioned. Anyway, if we want to argue that all these are in fact the same ship class then this "They're just trying to decide whether a twenty year-old Klingon Bird-of-Prey can be a match for the Federation flagship." is a good point of view of when the class was brought out of service. Somewhere in the 2350s.
now the Refits of the Connie, as stated by Memory Alpha were to give the class another 20 years of life. These refits happened in the 2270s, twenty years from that are the 2290s. We're looking at a 60 year gap to your analogy. This is the same case of the USS North Carolina BB-55. After WWII, she stayed in service, why? Because she was still just as capable as ships being brought in service after the war. But even this lasted only a few years before she was simply surpassed and refitting her would not be worth the cause. This is exactly why they can't refit the current generation of Nuclear Carriers, because the cost and resources would drastically overshadow the use of the ship post refit. You reach a point, and it just doesn't happen anymore. If it did, we'd still have Daedalus' running around, not modern designs based on them.
To exemplify this fact, we look at the commonly referred reference of a Connie at Wolf 359. Well it's still there. Supported by ships far more advanced than itself it and its support craft, were destroyed. And according to soft canon, the only true use of them after this is during the dominion war were we see other 23rd century ships tossed like cannon fodder at the Dominion. They just can't handle a 24th century war. But they can handle a 25th?
But now lets argue for your point. Lets look at the Excelsior. It operated for a time in joint with the Constitution. They both operated similar missions, preformed similar duties. The Ex was of course newer and generally preformed better short of the transwarp drive which we can probably account to Scotty's handy work. Both were capable of the same jobs but the Ex was better at them because it was 1. Utilizing more advanced design principles. and 2. Utilizing more advanced technology. But even the Godship started to fade in the 24th century.
So what did Starfleet do to their workhorse? They refitted it. And you can tell its refitted. The additional impulse engines, the more advanced warp nacelle construction. Altered hull geometry in some places, more advanced weapon systems, power systems, ect. Case in point the Lakota, which stood toe to toe with the Defiant, the most powerful ship Starfleet had at the time. So, this could in fact be done for the Constitution. Not that it should but it could
But as I've said before, it wouldn't be the ship you want. Its hull would have to be fitted with newer hull plating. It's nacelles would need to be redesigned to be more in line with at least the Galaxy era ships. It's going to need to physically look different. That's what starfleet does. Klingons could probably care less about warp field geometry so long as it works, but Starfleet wants to maintain subspace stability. If you were to ever get a tier 5 connie, you'd have to accept it would look modern.
You would also have to accept, that for its size, it'd have to sacrifice console space. Like the "B'rel" only has 3 eng, 2 sci, and 3 tac. The Connie would likely only have 3 Eng, 3 Sci, and 2 Tac. It's crew, would still be 200. It's hull would be weaker than 39,000, probably more in line with 30,000. It's turn rate would still be 8, its inertia would still be 40. Same as the tier 2 version. And I can justify this. the Tier 3 and tier 5 Excelsior both have identical turn rates, impulse modifiers, and inertia ratings. It might only have 3 rear weapon mounts because of its size. It would probably be fitted with a BOFF layout like the Star Cruiser. Being, as this site puts it, more intended for diplomacy than tactical roles.
So that's what you're gonna have to accept. You're probably gonna have to make sacrifices to get this ship in game. Because it has to make sense. Their Tier-5 Excelsior makes sense because it's been shown the 24th century refits can stand up to 24th century issues. And it looks the part. So, any 25th century constitution refit, is gonna have to look the part of a 25th century constitution refit.
And as a Side note so I'm not flamed into the ground by diehard connie lovers, I'm not opposed to there being a T5 connie in game. I just want it to make sense for the era.
Also about your wording up here.
You could actually fly a support ship in Vice Admiral content and last longer than 4 seconds.
I've had a fleetie do Gamma DSEs in the Tier 1 connie and last whole rounds. I've also done it in my NX replica. It's all about playing to the ships advantage... and not being able to agro anything with three weapons.
So that's what you're gonna have to accept. You're probably gonna have to make sacrifices to get this ship in game. Because it has to make sense. Their Tier-5 Excelsior makes sense because it's been shown the 24th century refits can stand up to 24th century issues. And it looks the part. So, any 25th century constitution refit, is gonna have to look the part of a 25th century constitution refit.
And as a Side note so I'm not flamed into the ground by diehard connie lovers, I'm not opposed to there being a T5 connie in game. I just want it to make sense for the era.
Also about your wording up here.
I've had a fleetie do Gamma DSEs in the Tier 1 connie and last whole rounds. I've also done it in my NX replica. It's all about playing to the ships advantage... and not being able to agro anything with three weapons.
AMEN BROTHER!!! Best post about this debate yet.....
But as I've said before, it wouldn't be the ship you want. Its hull would have to be fitted with newer hull plating. It's nacelles would need to be redesigned to be more in line with at least the Galaxy era ships. It's going to need to physically look different. That's what starfleet does. Klingons could probably care less about warp field geometry so long as it works, but Starfleet wants to maintain subspace stability. If you were to ever get a tier 5 connie, you'd have to accept it would look modern.
You would also have to accept, that for its size, it'd have to sacrifice console space. Like the "B'rel" only has 3 eng, 2 sci, and 3 tac. The Connie would likely only have 3 Eng, 3 Sci, and 2 Tac. It's crew, would still be 200. It's hull would be weaker than 39,000, probably more in line with 30,000. It's turn rate would still be 8, its inertia would still be 40. Same as the tier 2 version. And I can justify this. the Tier 3 and tier 5 Excelsior both have identical turn rates, impulse modifiers, and inertia ratings. It might only have 3 rear weapon mounts because of its size. It would probably be fitted with a BOFF layout like the Star Cruiser. Being, as this site puts it, more intended for diplomacy than tactical roles.
So that's what you're gonna have to accept. You're probably gonna have to make sacrifices to get this ship in game. Because it has to make sense. Their Tier-5 Excelsior makes sense because it's been shown the 24th century refits can stand up to 24th century issues. And it looks the part. So, any 25th century constitution refit, is gonna have to look the part of a 25th century constitution refit.
Essentially, a T5 B'Rel, wrapped in an Excalibur / Vesper skin. You'll note it only has a slight advantage in hull points and 1 extra console, to offset the disadvantage of not having a cloak and the damage bonus that comes from a cloak.
But this here is what I'd like to see. I don't need a TOS Connie. I don't need a Connie Refit. I'd simply like to have a ship from the same DESIGN LINEAGE, with the same flexibility that a T5 B'Rel has.
No, it wouldn't be uber. It wouldn't be "leet". But it would be something I would enjoy, and I have a feeling that many others would enjoy it too.
I can understand the arguments about the TOS Connie and the TMP Connie Refit. Totally get that. But I don't understand when the same objections come up against the Excalibur and Vesper, since both are BRAND NEW ships, and should be as capable if not more capable than other mini ships that occupy T5 such as the Defiant, the B'Rel, etc.
That was because of the Excelsior's transwarp drive, which from what I've read was either placed into the Connie or it failed outright.
We don't know what happened with the transwarp drive, but the fact that the Excelsior had one and the RC did not means the Excelsior was "better" in at least that small way.
Well, what about the Ambassador, as Mat said, the Ambassador is the next evolution of the Excelsior, and so should fulfill the same roles as the Excelsior. The design of the Connie is similar, but not the same as the Excelsior, but you say they don't do the same roles. The same can be said of the Ambassador and Excelsior. You have to think of the time period, between TMP and TNG, it was a time of peace, so it is logical to assume that the AMbassador was meant to be a ship of Exploration, just like the Excelsior, just like the Constitution. So by your logic, because the Ambassador is better, the Excelsior should have been phased out YEARS before TNG, but we still saw them, and we saw them in droves!
As I told Matt, we don't know enough about the Ambassador or that time period to speculate intelligently.
You have to realize that we have not seen EVERYTHING about the Federation or Starfleet. We don't know what is happening outside of the confines of the screen. I know that there are ship designs mentioned onscreen that we have never seen. Its kinda like in the Bible, We knew nothing about Jesus' early life, yet we know it still happened.
That's a flawed argument. We know Jesus had an early life because we know he had a late life. And as far as Jesus, mostly we just have a gap between his birth and his late 20s, provided you ignore the agnostic gospels that cover much of that period.
With the RC, it's the opposite. We know all about its early life and we know nothing about what happened to it after ST6. What we do know is that it is not once seen on screen again in service after ST6, while all its counterparts were. We know that at the end of ST6, they're ordered to be decommissioned, and we know that the Excelsior was a ship that at least started with a similar role to the RC and it survived to TNG. All of those things suggest that the RC went out of service, and nothing currently suggests that it didn't.
You are ignoring the canon of the game? In this case, the game lore is just as important as Show and Movie lore. You must understand that there is a story behind the game, and the story must be followed. Though these events exist within the game, they do not exist in real Trek lore until CBS says so. So knowing the game is just as important as knowing the show. Look it up on STOwiki.org, it'll help.
Not ignoring it, dismissing it as contradictory to the main canon and pretty much irrelevant. There is no reason to expect Starfleet to build "new" versions of ancient designs for funsies like Cryptic has them doing to satisfy gamers who don't want to live in the 25th century. Further, the existence of Excalibur and Vesper still don't really give us any indication what happened with the RC, only that at some later point they wanted a ship that looked like it.
This was not because the Excelsior was that much better. It was only because of the Transwarp Drive. If you compare a stock Excelsior and a stock Connie Refit, there isn't much difference in Technology, overall Power or even armaments. Side by side, in 2285, these ships were virtually the same. The only difference is the Excelsior was larger, by design, in order to house the Transwarp Drive, which never functioned.
That would defeat your argument that they had different roles. If they're pretty much the same ship and the Excelsior is the newer version that can actually house a transwarp drive which may or may not have worked ultimately (the one in STIII didn't work because Scotty sabotaged it), then why do you build them both?
But we don't know that the Connie Refit was phased out completely. The existence of a Connie Refit hull at Wolf 359 suggests they were still around (if only in smaller numbers) in the 2360's. While the Excelsior might have superceeded the Constitution Refit, that doesn't mean the Connie Refit simply vanished and ceased to exist. This goes back to the point I made about not seeing any other Connie Refits other than the Enterprise and the Yorktown-Enterprise. Simply put, we don't know if the Connie Refit was only applied to existing Connies, or if they built brand new Connie Refits too. All we can do is speculate. I'd go so far as to say that Cryptic is probably leaning the same direction as I am which is why it is in game, but has the newer counterpart as well in the Excalibur / Vesper.
This is a point of debate. Before the Star Trek: Vanguard book series, I'd agree that the Miranda was a younger ship. However, Vanguard introduced the concept of a TOS era Miranda Class (which seems plausible given the Ptolmey Class) and therefore the relative age of the Miranda and Connie lines are probably closer together.
Books introduce lots of concepts and contradict each other too often to really be a factor. There was always the possibility that all the Miranda's are some kind of refit too, but the fact that they weren't called Refit-Miranda class pretty much debunks that idea.
Regardless, the Miranda and Connie Refit share a design lineage. One could assume that if Starfleet bothered to keep the Miranda around, it could just as easily keep the Connie Refit around as well, because the ships are so similar. Producing upgrades and refits for the Miranda could easily be applied to any Connie Refits that were still in existence during the elongated lifespan of the Miranda.
No, they share parts, not design lineage. The Miranda is a fundamentally different design than the RC. And again, if the Miranda's role was as we saw in Star Trek II, to wander around doing grunt work, it would still have a place. If the RC's role is, as we expect, a battlecruiser and long-term explorer, and the Excelsior fills that role, you don't need the RC anymore.
Further, the RC is going to be an artifact from the previous Klingon/Fed hostilities. It would be possible and very likely that they would be reduced in number and/or phased out as part of the peace process, kind of like reducing your nuclear stockpile.
I agree with you on this point. The Miranda had a specific function, and it did that function well. However, anything a Miranda could do, any Connie Refit that still existed, could do better.
There's no reason to assume that. You're going to, at the very least, need a larger crew for the RC and that means wasting personnel on grunt work who did not have to be wasted.
Except the wreckage of a Connie Refit being seen at Wolf 359, which would indicate that something of that line still existed as late as the mid 2360's. Additionally, there were multitudes of ships and ship classes mentioned on screen which were never actually seen, yet, because they were mentioned, we do know they were there. We just don't know what they looked like.
At least those ship classes were mentioned. The closest thing to a mention the RC got was Picard's line that the only TOSC he had ever seen was in a museum. The wreckage only indicates something that bears a resemblance to an RC existed, but not in what capacity. It could've been a passing freighter that got caught in the firefight for all we know. There is no evidence of Starfleet using them in service.
Realistically speaking, if the Miranda was still in service, then the Connie Refit (what few there may have been) was still in service too. However, because the Connie Refit was an Enterprise, and we only ever saw it as an Enterprise, the reason we didn't likely see Connie Refits in TNG and DS9 is because the producers didn't want to have 2 hero ships in a single frame. (Galaxy and Connie Refit...or...Defiant and Connie Refit)
It doesn't matter why the producers didn't show it. There is no evidence to suggest it is or was still in service. I've already discussed why the Miranda would be in service and the RC wouldn't.
While the Excelsior Refit held the name Enterprise, it wasn't so much a Hero ship because we only saw it once for about 5 minutes, unlike the Connie Refit Enterprise which was the star in 6 movies.
For that matter, we never saw 2 Herro ships in the same frame ever in TNG / DS9 and VOY. You didn't see the Enterprise together with the Defiant or with Voyager.
So? That's not evidence of anything, much less that we had RCs still in service. The Enterprise B is a canon ship now, so regardless of how long it spent on the screen, it's longer than any post ST6 RC.
Whether we consider them relevant or not, they are in fact part of the STO universe. They are canon to the game, therefore their existence sprang from somewhere, and that likely origin came from the need for a ship similar to the Connie Refit, but more modernized.
I just wish they would have truly modernized it and made it (Excalibur) equivalent in power to other contemperary late 24th / early 25th Century ships instead of matching it directly even with the Connie Refit.
Comments
you have one... its a tier 2 cruiser.
who cares its all syfy gibberish anyway
Hes not saying they are the same, hes saying the EXCELSIOR phased out the CONSTITUTION. as in the constitution was so old its design class was replaced for a newer and better one called the EXCELSIOR.
Out! OUT I SAY, THOU EVIL SPECTER!
"This ship" presumably referred to "the Enterprise" in the metaphorical sense. We know the Enterprise-A was to be decommissioned as soon as she returned to spacedock from Uhura's statement earlier. Kirk was acknowledging that his time was over and soon there would be a new Enterprise and a new crew (i.e. TNG.)
instead i would rather have a ship inspiried by TOS, but no the outright connie... like that lookalike to the new movie enterprise which is in game as wreckage
Well, I've been starting to champion a TOS vanity pack, designed to make all ships look like they were built in the TOS era in design. Why? Because we already have replica ships in game, so it's not that hard to imagine engineers looking at all the new classes, and cackling madly before designing new hull modules to look as close to their older cousins as possible.
He never said that, all he said was that there would be a new crew (Which you are correct in saying that it is a reference to TNG). He never said that the ship was being decommissioned, he said that the crew is being decommissioned. Here is an excerpt from an very good source.
[quote=Ex Astris ScientiaDecommissioning of the Enterprise-A At the end of "Star Trek VI" the Enterprise senior crew receives the order to be "decommissioned". This has often been interpreted in that the order should refer to the ship. The reason is that usually the word "decommission" wouldn't be used for personnel, but rather for ships and vehicles. Moreover, it doesn't seem plausible that a whole crew would be retired at once although it seems that Kirk, Scott and Chekov are all retired when the Enterprise-B is launched in 2293 ("Star Trek Generations"). On the other hand, Kirk's final log entry in the movie clearly states: "This ship, and her history, will shortly become the care of another crew". It is obvious that "this ship" can only refer to his very command, the Enterprise-A. Even if Kirk already knew of Starfleet's intentions to give the name "Enterprise" to a newly launched ship of the Excelsior class, why should he bother that much about other people on a different ship, only because the name happens to be the same?
Note In a figurative sense, it is obvious that Kirk's log entry was actually a rather awkward reference to the Enterprise-D. In other words, a broad hint to the theater audience that "Star Trek VI" was the last movie with the old ship and crew, with a new movie coming up "shortly". But unless time travel was involved, we wouldn't assume that Kirk knew about a ship 78 years into the future.
The only plausible explanation is that Starfleet's order indeed referred to the senior crew. The decision to decommission the ship as well may have been made after an examination of the battle damage. Technically, a decommissioned ship is not necessarily meant to be mothballed and ultimately scrapped, but may be slated for a refit or extensive repairs as well. Alternatively, the whole Constitution class may have been scheduled for retirement, or the ship may have been renamed to make the name "Enterprise" available to the brand new Excelsior class.[/quote]
Also, here is another explanation saying that from Ex Astris too.
I've also heard from members of my fleet that there was a Constitution-class (for the record it was supposedly WAAAY out in the background) during the fight scene in "Sacrifice of the Angels." I am looking for it currently. But anyway, it makes sense that the Connie would still be in service, because the Connie's refit configuration is essentially the same as the Miranda, Oberth, and Excelsior. It also could have been upgraded with more advanced systems, new hull materials, and better tactical systems. Making it capable of competing with more advanced ships like the Galaxy and Sovereign. ALSO, you have to know that a ship is only as good as its Captain. Given the right circumstances, a Connie could defeat a Sovereign. Look at the new Star Trek Movie, an alternate version of the TOS Enterprise took on and defeated a ship from 2387 fitted with BORG Technology. Kirk and Spock managed to used all the resources they had and defeat a supposedly invincible ship. I'd like to further add that the Narada gave the Enterprise-E and Captain Data problems.
Clearly at least Shatner believed it was the ship being decommissioned, because he wrote a novel wherein the Enterprise A is stripped and then sold when it returns home.
Maybe, but there was nothing to me that indicated the Enterprise A was going to continue flying. Between TNG and the fact that it was to be the last TOS movie, it made perfect sense that she was going to stand down peacefully, which fit with the theme of the movie.
It's not about the canon. There are plenty other non-canon sources that take that stand (like Diane Carey's Best Destiny.) The difference is that this one is from the guy who had to say the line. If the guy who actually had to say it took it to mean the ship was decommissioned, I think that's a pretty good indication that's how it was intended.
As for the renaming again, that's just silly. There's no reason to rename it again just so you can use the name on another ship, especially if Kirk isn't going to command that ship.
First off, I'm not anti-Connie. The RC is my favorite ship ever. What I am is for consistency of setting and a better ship system, which I proposed in both this thread and in a thread I created for it.
Secondly, the Wolf 359 thing is much more easily explained that they were throwing everything they had at the Borg ship and they had sold the Connie there to a Federation world, like in Shatner's book, and it came to their aid because it was close by. Otherwise we would've seen them again like the Excelsiors.
As far as anything on screen tells us, the two classes stopped being in service sometime between Star Trek VI and TNG. Moreover, it makes sense if anything that was RC class was originally a regular TOSC at one point, because that would make the ships themselves incredibly old. Instead of building new ones, they'd just build the newer Excelsior.
In my opinion there was nothing saying that the Enterprise, or the Constitution was going to be decommissioned. Though it does make perfect sense, unless CBS states it happened, anything is possible.
Actor can have their own opinions about what lines mean, that doesn't mean that is what the writer wants it to mean. I'm an actor, I can make a line mean whatever I want to, but the person who has final say is the director. If he doesn't like the way I'm portraying the line, then he tells me how he wants it. I do like Captain's Glory, but you have to realize that it is not canon, its basically a fanfic, a fanfic that happens to be written by Captain Kirk. That goes for the rest of the novels as well.
Its silly, yes, but it is possible. Here's a very famous quote from Mr.Spock. "If you eliminate the impossible, whatever remainshowever improbablemust be the truth." The thing is, we're not Starfleet, its crazy that they renamed the Yorktown in the first place! I'm saying that because they did it once, it is possible that they did it again. I'm not saying that's how it happened, I'm just saying its possible.
The RC is my favorite ship as well, and it was the first ship I ever saw in Star Trek. Also, I do appreciate that you are at least trying to be logical about it, unlike many other posters.
That's kinda crazy, why would the Federation send a ship manned solely by civilians into a fight with the most powerful threat the Federation up to that point? That's like sending a freighter to the Battle of Cardassia, they would want to get that Connie as far away as possible rather than keep it there to get blown up into little pieces.
Well, as far as I know about the Refit of the Constitution, there was literally NOTHING of the Original ship left, meaning that while the frame's design was the same, everything that made it was brand new. Kinda like a snake shedding its skin. Also, why get rid of something that had worked so well in the past? THe Constitution was the greatest ship design that was ever conceived by Starfleet, lasting years. Though I do agree that they weren't produced in vast quantities, that doesn't mean that they weren't being built and that the original ships where not being refitted with newer and better technology, keeping up with the times.
Also, I must point at one final thing, this is a game, it is not canon and it does not need to stay within canon. Why would you not let fellow trekkies want to fly a ship at endgame that we love so dear? Why cannot we go and be able to play the game the way we want to? I love this little ship, I want to fly it in Endgame, I want to have fun with my favorite ship. Its not much to ask.
The fact that Uhura said they needed to put back into spacedock to be decommissioned suggested at the very least the Enterprise was. Presumably, since we knew from Star Trek III the Excelsior was built to replace the Constitution, it was the at least the beginning of phasing it out.
I have not disputed its canon status. I said that it lends weight to the idea that the ship was being decommissioned because the actor who had to say the line took it to mean that. It doesn't make it official or somehow automatically make me correct; it just is further evidence in favor of the scrapping of the ship.
Anything is possible. It wasn't silly that they renamed the Yorktown. That was done specifically for Kirk & Co. because of their clout within Starfleet.
It was a hastily organized running defense all the way to Earth. They were probably sending everything they had at that cube trying to slow it down. It could have even heard the Starfleet vessels engaged in battle and come of its own accord.
Because technology and design evolves, and the Excelsior was built to replace the Constitution-class. There's no reason to keep building the old ship if the new ship design works, which since the Excelsior lasted so long, it clearly did.
Because consistency of setting is important to me, and it's a bad game mechanic to just put lower tier ships in the higher tier and/or not strongly encourage you to get a new ship as you progress through the game.
That pre-supposes that the Constitution Refit was a bad design, and the Excelsior was meant as a direct replacement.
However, there is nothing to suggest this was the case.
The Excelsior in comparison to the Constitution Refit is like comparing a Destroyer and a Battleship in the Navy. A Battleship wouldn't be right for doing the job of a Destroyer, while a Destroyer wouldn't be right for doing the job of a Battleship. Both ships serve a useful purpose to the Navy. This is Starfleet's approach to ship building as well, which is why they don't build 500 Sovereign Class starships and retire everything else.
In terms of general size, firepower and mission profile, the Excelsior was a completely different ship than the Constitution Refit. In some respects, it's nearly the same situation between the Galaxy and Sovereign Class, only the analogy is reversed in the Sovereign is actually a step down in size and scope from the much larger Galaxy. The Sovereign wasn't designed to replace the Galaxy, as is obvious by the armaments and armor, but rather was designed to fulfill a different function and role within Starfleet. This is the case for the Excelsior as well, in that it likely didn't replace the Constitution Refit outright. This is backed up by the existence of the Yorktown (Enterprise-A) which obviously was being built, or was built during the same time the Excelsior was built. If Starfleet was intending to do away with the Constitution line completely, then the Yorktown wouldn't have had it's keel laid when the supposed replacement was being built, or had just been built.
This is further justified by additional Excelsiors being built and existing Excelsiors being refitted, even after the Ambassador Class was launched, as both ships have an intended purpose, and the Ambassador didn't outright replace the Excelsior.
It stands to reason that because the Excalibur and Vesper were built, there is still a reason to have ships of that size and design lineage around. While I can't exactly think of what that reason would be, considering how grossly underpowered and underarmored these brand new ships are, Starfleet obviously has a purpose and reason for building these ships instead of building just Sovereigns. But most importantly, it confirms the fact that the Constitution Refit wasn't being replaced by the Excelsior because it was a bad design.
It was being replaced because the writers of the show felt a new ship silloutte was needed.
Not at all. It just pre-supposes Starfleet intended to build a newer, stronger cruiser, the Excelsior was that new cruiser, and they performed so well that it was worth retiring the RCs.
Considering both ships are considered cruisers, I'm not sure we can make that comparison.
How do you figure? Excelsior's mission at the start of Star Trek VI is to chart gaseous anomalies. At the end, Uhura points out that the Enterprise has all this equipment on board to...chart gaseous anomalies and they use it to plink Chang's ship.
More importantly, the very next Enterprise is an Excelsior-class ship. Wouldn't they have just given the title to another RC if they were still fulfilling their role?
The Yorktown was not necessarily a new ship. It could have easily been a recently refit, younger TOSC. In fact, that's generally how people deal with the presumption that the Enterprise A is ready for Kirk in ST4 and decommissioned at the end of ST6 already.
We don't know enough about the Ambassador class to make any intelligent comparisons to Excelsior vs. RC.
I never presumed that it was replaced because it was a bad design. Being in service for like 40 years means it had to be doing something well. Presumably it was replaced simply because the Excelsior was better.
I'm sure, but that means the task is then to come up for the in universe reason it was replaced. The thing that fits best is the Excelsior was bigger and better, was the next evolution of the RC, and so the RCs were phased out over time as Excelsiors came off the production lines.
Ultimately, your logic is the Excelsior is a replacement because it's bigger and better.
But, if that was the design philosophy of the SCE, then how would anyone explain the existence of the Constellation Class, the Nova Class, the Defiant and every other ship that is smaller than the Excelsior, but came out AFTER the Excelsior?
Starfleet understands the need for different ships for different roles. In the case of the Excelsior vs the Connie Refit, it could be the Excelsior is larger in order to support a LONGER term mission than the Connie Refit, which based on the Connie, is designed for a 5 year mission profile.
I think we are putting too much emphasis on the retirement (decommissioning) of the Enterprise as a basis to explain the disappearance of the Connie Refit line. Sadly, we don't have much actual background on the Connie Refit series of ships, because we only ever saw 2 of them. Enterprise and Yorktown-Enterprise. It is entirely plausible that the Connie Refit line stayed in service just as long as the Miranda did, but simply was relegated to behind the scenes duty, much like the Miranda was. We just don't know enough to say for certain one way or the other. However, it makes sense that the Connie Refit would still be around, so long as the Miranda was around, since both ships use similar parts, and any refit done to a Miranda, could be applied in a similar fashion to a Connie Refit.
Finally, there is the Excalibur and the Vesper. If the Connie Refit didn't live on beyond Star Trek VI, and the Excelsior was so superior, why would Starfleet build these ships? Wouldn't it make more sense to just build Excelsiors or larger? Most likely, the existence of the Excalibur and Vesper are intended to be an upgrade of the Connie Refit line, taking it into the 25th Century. If the Connie Refit line did live on, like the Miranda did, then it would make sense that eventually a Version 2.0 for the ship would be needed, and the Excalibur and Vesper serve that purpose.
Although, had it been me designing them, I'd have given them a bit more kick.
Just better, not necessarily because it's bigger. For example, the first boast Captain Maxwell makes about the Excelsior in Star Trek III was that she was going to break the Enterprise's speed records, not that his ship is bigger or more well armed.
I agree they have ships for different roles. I just think the Excelsior and the RC fill the same role, that's why the RC went away and Excelsior stayed. Clearly they have to have some significant overlap if the next Enterprise was an Excelsior-class ship.
Well, that takes us back to whether or not Starfleet produced new RC ships or just refit all the TOSCs. If that is the case, the Miranda is a much younger ship. Further, the Miranda clearly served a much different role than the RC.
I'd say the main reason the Miranda stuck around so long is just that her role was clearly not a combat-oriented, long-term frontier explorer, thereby making her a useful ship to do all the grunt work around the Federation.
And moreover, it seems like we have to do all manner of tap dancing to explain the RC still being out there in service despite never seeing it again. The simplest explanation is that the Excelsior class replaced it, and pretty much all the on-screen evidence points in that direction.
They're STO ships so I don't really consider them relevant. These questions are things that bother me about all of these "new" versions of the ancient ships, be it the replica TOSC or the Excalibur. They shouldn't exist and the Excalibur is pretty ugly to boot, in my opinion.
That was because of the Excelsior's transwarp drive, which from what I've read was either placed into the Connie or it failed outright.
Well, what about the Ambassador, as Mat said, the Ambassador is the next evolution of the Excelsior, and so should fulfill the same roles as the Excelsior. The design of the Connie is similar, but not the same as the Excelsior, but you say they don't do the same roles. The same can be said of the Ambassador and Excelsior. You have to think of the time period, between TMP and TNG, it was a time of peace, so it is logical to assume that the AMbassador was meant to be a ship of Exploration, just like the Excelsior, just like the Constitution. So by your logic, because the Ambassador is better, the Excelsior should have been phased out YEARS before TNG, but we still saw them, and we saw them in droves!
This I agree with you. But I'd think that Starfleet would produce at least a few of their best ship design.
That was because of the Excelsior's transwarp drive, which from what I've read was either placed into the Connie or it failed outright.
Well, what about the Ambassador, as Mat said, the Ambassador is the next evolution of the Excelsior, and so should fulfill the same roles as the Excelsior. The design of the Connie is similar, but not the same as the Excelsior, but you say they don't do the same roles. The same can be said of the Ambassador and Excelsior. You have to think of the time period, between TMP and TNG, it was a time of peace, so it is logical to assume that the AMbassador was meant to be a ship of Exploration, just like the Excelsior, just like the Constitution. So by your logic, because the Ambassador is better, the Excelsior should have been phased out YEARS before TNG, but we still saw them, and we saw them in droves!
You have to realize that we have not seen EVERYTHING about the Federation or Starfleet. We don't know what is happening outside of the confines of the screen. I know that there are ship designs mentioned onscreen that we have never seen. Its kinda like in the Bible, We knew nothing about Jesus' early life, yet we know it still happened.
That was because of the Excelsior's transwarp drive, which from what I've read was either placed into the Connie or it failed outright.
Well, what about the Ambassador, as Mat said, the Ambassador is the next evolution of the Excelsior, and so should fulfill the same roles as the Excelsior. The design of the Connie is similar, but not the same as the Excelsior, but you say they don't do the same roles. The same can be said of the Ambassador and Excelsior. You have to think of the time period, between TMP and TNG, it was a time of peace, so it is logical to assume that the AMbassador was meant to be a ship of Exploration, just like the Excelsior, just like the Constitution. So by your logic, because the Ambassador is better, the Excelsior should have been phased out YEARS before TNG, but we still saw them, and we saw them in droves!
You are ignoring the canon of the game? In this case, the game lore is just as important as Show and Movie lore. You must understand that there is a story behind the game, and the story must be followed. Though these events exist within the game, they do not exist in real Trek lore until CBS says so. So knowing the game is just as important as knowing the show. Look it up on STOwiki.org, it'll help.
These are not front line ships, they are not intended to be, even when it says they can be they must be coordinated strikes, strikes with other assets. And I'm not gonna argue against the idea that a Connie can be refitted to be Tier 5. It can, the idea of it however is incredibly stupid. Why spend extra time and resources re-purposing an old obsolete model of starship to use newer more advanced technology when for a fraction of that you can just build a new class of ship intended for the technology to begin with.
You can do both, both will work in the end, but one is more sound than the other. Cause you're gonna need a new warp core for more power, new nacelles for a better warp drive, better power systems to handle more powerful weapons. In the end you will no longer have your constitution. You'll have something with the same basic shape as this ship you love, but none of the appearance. And you don't want that do you? You want an Assault Cruiser that looks like a Connie? That's all that really matters to you, a big bad cruiser, that looks like the Connie. So stop begging for a Tier 5 Connie and ask for something that's smarter and more reasonable
A C-store holoemitter. Otherwise you're asking for this because any "true" tier-5 Constitution is going to need to be completely stripped and gutted to be updated to work with the more modern ships. Because lets be frank, if you get this, then you shouldn't be upset when for 2000 C points at Tier 6 Cruiser Captains might be able to get this... Then how'd you feel?
This was not because the Excelsior was that much better. It was only because of the Transwarp Drive. If you compare a stock Excelsior and a stock Connie Refit, there isn't much difference in Technology, overall Power or even armaments. Side by side, in 2285, these ships were virtually the same. The only difference is the Excelsior was larger, by design, in order to house the Transwarp Drive, which never functioned.
But we don't know that the Connie Refit was phased out completely. The existence of a Connie Refit hull at Wolf 359 suggests they were still around (if only in smaller numbers) in the 2360's. While the Excelsior might have superceeded the Constitution Refit, that doesn't mean the Connie Refit simply vanished and ceased to exist. This goes back to the point I made about not seeing any other Connie Refits other than the Enterprise and the Yorktown-Enterprise. Simply put, we don't know if the Connie Refit was only applied to existing Connies, or if they built brand new Connie Refits too. All we can do is speculate. I'd go so far as to say that Cryptic is probably leaning the same direction as I am which is why it is in game, but has the newer counterpart as well in the Excalibur / Vesper.
This is a point of debate. Before the Star Trek: Vanguard book series, I'd agree that the Miranda was a younger ship. However, Vanguard introduced the concept of a TOS era Miranda Class (which seems plausible given the Ptolmey Class) and therefore the relative age of the Miranda and Connie lines are probably closer together.
Regardless, the Miranda and Connie Refit share a design lineage. One could assume that if Starfleet bothered to keep the Miranda around, it could just as easily keep the Connie Refit around as well, because the ships are so similar. Producing upgrades and refits for the Miranda could easily be applied to any Connie Refits that were still in existence during the elongated lifespan of the Miranda.
I agree with you on this point. The Miranda had a specific function, and it did that function well. However, anything a Miranda could do, any Connie Refit that still existed, could do better.
Except the wreckage of a Connie Refit being seen at Wolf 359, which would indicate that something of that line still existed as late as the mid 2360's. Additionally, there were multitudes of ships and ship classes mentioned on screen which were never actually seen, yet, because they were mentioned, we do know they were there. We just don't know what they looked like.
Realistically speaking, if the Miranda was still in service, then the Connie Refit (what few there may have been) was still in service too. However, because the Connie Refit was an Enterprise, and we only ever saw it as an Enterprise, the reason we didn't likely see Connie Refits in TNG and DS9 is because the producers didn't want to have 2 hero ships in a single frame. (Galaxy and Connie Refit...or...Defiant and Connie Refit)
While the Excelsior Refit held the name Enterprise, it wasn't so much a Hero ship because we only saw it once for about 5 minutes, unlike the Connie Refit Enterprise which was the star in 6 movies.
For that matter, we never saw 2 Herro ships in the same frame ever in TNG / DS9 and VOY. You didn't see the Enterprise together with the Defiant or with Voyager.
Whether we consider them relevant or not, they are in fact part of the STO universe. They are canon to the game, therefore their existence sprang from somewhere, and that likely origin came from the need for a ship similar to the Connie Refit, but more modernized.
I just wish they would have truly modernized it and made it (Excalibur) equivalent in power to other contemperary late 24th / early 25th Century ships instead of matching it directly even with the Connie Refit.
T5 B'Rel Bird of Prey
That's all the explanation that is needed.
If a T1 or T2 ship was truly capable of being part of Fleet Actions, PvP and STFs, we wouldn't be having this debate. Furthermore, the B'Rel fans could have simply flown their T1 version of the ship. But the fact of the matter is, if you fly a T1 or T2 ship into Vice Admiral anything, even in a "support" role, you'll go *POP* in about 3.26 seconds. 4 Seconds if you are really on your game that day.
Fact is, ALL the T1 and T2 ships don't have the mustard to actually fulfill the role which Cryptic's own site suggests they do. You can't fly them in Solo play beyond Commander, and you certianly can't fly as support for Vice Admiral level content.
Now, if you took the T5 B'Rel and slapped an Excalibur / Vesper skin and bumped the hull points up a few to make up for the lack of cloak on it, then yes, it would truly live up to what the website says about the ship, and it would be just about as believeable as having a T5 B'Rel is. You could actually fly a support ship in Vice Admiral content and last longer than 4 seconds.
Additionally, I think you'd find that alot of people would be ok with that too.
Granted, your die-hard, hardcore TOS / TMP fans probably wouldn't like it as much as having "the real thing" but it would be a compromise that most people could live with.
But hey, let's look at the B'rel, or at least what Cryptic calls the B'rel, which could be the B'rel, the D'Gavama, Z'gavva, or the D12 class. I personally lean more towards the D-12 in regards to the tier-1 because of its use of a normal cloak. (The D12 was stated in Generation to have issues with its cloak, which given the current state of the game likely means every non-NPC ship with cloak has faulty plasma coils). For the Tier-5 I want to say its the K'vort, due to its size, weaponry, and use of the advanced cloak. "B'rel" is just Cryptic having not done their research about when that class of ship was decommissioned. Anyway, if we want to argue that all these are in fact the same ship class then this "They're just trying to decide whether a twenty year-old Klingon Bird-of-Prey can be a match for the Federation flagship." is a good point of view of when the class was brought out of service. Somewhere in the 2350s.
now the Refits of the Connie, as stated by Memory Alpha were to give the class another 20 years of life. These refits happened in the 2270s, twenty years from that are the 2290s. We're looking at a 60 year gap to your analogy. This is the same case of the USS North Carolina BB-55. After WWII, she stayed in service, why? Because she was still just as capable as ships being brought in service after the war. But even this lasted only a few years before she was simply surpassed and refitting her would not be worth the cause. This is exactly why they can't refit the current generation of Nuclear Carriers, because the cost and resources would drastically overshadow the use of the ship post refit. You reach a point, and it just doesn't happen anymore. If it did, we'd still have Daedalus' running around, not modern designs based on them.
To exemplify this fact, we look at the commonly referred reference of a Connie at Wolf 359. Well it's still there. Supported by ships far more advanced than itself it and its support craft, were destroyed. And according to soft canon, the only true use of them after this is during the dominion war were we see other 23rd century ships tossed like cannon fodder at the Dominion. They just can't handle a 24th century war. But they can handle a 25th?
But now lets argue for your point. Lets look at the Excelsior. It operated for a time in joint with the Constitution. They both operated similar missions, preformed similar duties. The Ex was of course newer and generally preformed better short of the transwarp drive which we can probably account to Scotty's handy work. Both were capable of the same jobs but the Ex was better at them because it was 1. Utilizing more advanced design principles. and 2. Utilizing more advanced technology. But even the Godship started to fade in the 24th century.
So what did Starfleet do to their workhorse? They refitted it. And you can tell its refitted. The additional impulse engines, the more advanced warp nacelle construction. Altered hull geometry in some places, more advanced weapon systems, power systems, ect. Case in point the Lakota, which stood toe to toe with the Defiant, the most powerful ship Starfleet had at the time. So, this could in fact be done for the Constitution. Not that it should but it could
But as I've said before, it wouldn't be the ship you want. Its hull would have to be fitted with newer hull plating. It's nacelles would need to be redesigned to be more in line with at least the Galaxy era ships. It's going to need to physically look different. That's what starfleet does. Klingons could probably care less about warp field geometry so long as it works, but Starfleet wants to maintain subspace stability. If you were to ever get a tier 5 connie, you'd have to accept it would look modern.
You would also have to accept, that for its size, it'd have to sacrifice console space. Like the "B'rel" only has 3 eng, 2 sci, and 3 tac. The Connie would likely only have 3 Eng, 3 Sci, and 2 Tac. It's crew, would still be 200. It's hull would be weaker than 39,000, probably more in line with 30,000. It's turn rate would still be 8, its inertia would still be 40. Same as the tier 2 version. And I can justify this. the Tier 3 and tier 5 Excelsior both have identical turn rates, impulse modifiers, and inertia ratings. It might only have 3 rear weapon mounts because of its size. It would probably be fitted with a BOFF layout like the Star Cruiser. Being, as this site puts it, more intended for diplomacy than tactical roles.
So that's what you're gonna have to accept. You're probably gonna have to make sacrifices to get this ship in game. Because it has to make sense. Their Tier-5 Excelsior makes sense because it's been shown the 24th century refits can stand up to 24th century issues. And it looks the part. So, any 25th century constitution refit, is gonna have to look the part of a 25th century constitution refit.
And as a Side note so I'm not flamed into the ground by diehard connie lovers, I'm not opposed to there being a T5 connie in game. I just want it to make sense for the era.
Also about your wording up here.
I've had a fleetie do Gamma DSEs in the Tier 1 connie and last whole rounds. I've also done it in my NX replica. It's all about playing to the ships advantage... and not being able to agro anything with three weapons.
AMEN BROTHER!!! Best post about this debate yet.....
Actually, this is EXACTLY what I want.
I would like to see the following:
T5 Frigate
Hull: 27000
Turn: 11 Deg / Sec
Weapons: 4 Fore, 2 Aft
Consoles: 3 Eng, 3 Sci, 3 Tac
Bridge Officers:
- Cmdr Universal
- Lt Cmdr Universal
- Lt Universal
- Lt Universal
Devices: 3Crew: 350
Available Skins: Excalibur, Vesper
And I said as much HERE
Essentially, a T5 B'Rel, wrapped in an Excalibur / Vesper skin. You'll note it only has a slight advantage in hull points and 1 extra console, to offset the disadvantage of not having a cloak and the damage bonus that comes from a cloak.
But this here is what I'd like to see. I don't need a TOS Connie. I don't need a Connie Refit. I'd simply like to have a ship from the same DESIGN LINEAGE, with the same flexibility that a T5 B'Rel has.
No, it wouldn't be uber. It wouldn't be "leet". But it would be something I would enjoy, and I have a feeling that many others would enjoy it too.
I can understand the arguments about the TOS Connie and the TMP Connie Refit. Totally get that. But I don't understand when the same objections come up against the Excalibur and Vesper, since both are BRAND NEW ships, and should be as capable if not more capable than other mini ships that occupy T5 such as the Defiant, the B'Rel, etc.
We don't know what happened with the transwarp drive, but the fact that the Excelsior had one and the RC did not means the Excelsior was "better" in at least that small way.
As I told Matt, we don't know enough about the Ambassador or that time period to speculate intelligently.
That's a flawed argument. We know Jesus had an early life because we know he had a late life. And as far as Jesus, mostly we just have a gap between his birth and his late 20s, provided you ignore the agnostic gospels that cover much of that period.
With the RC, it's the opposite. We know all about its early life and we know nothing about what happened to it after ST6. What we do know is that it is not once seen on screen again in service after ST6, while all its counterparts were. We know that at the end of ST6, they're ordered to be decommissioned, and we know that the Excelsior was a ship that at least started with a similar role to the RC and it survived to TNG. All of those things suggest that the RC went out of service, and nothing currently suggests that it didn't.
Not ignoring it, dismissing it as contradictory to the main canon and pretty much irrelevant. There is no reason to expect Starfleet to build "new" versions of ancient designs for funsies like Cryptic has them doing to satisfy gamers who don't want to live in the 25th century. Further, the existence of Excalibur and Vesper still don't really give us any indication what happened with the RC, only that at some later point they wanted a ship that looked like it.
That would defeat your argument that they had different roles. If they're pretty much the same ship and the Excelsior is the newer version that can actually house a transwarp drive which may or may not have worked ultimately (the one in STIII didn't work because Scotty sabotaged it), then why do you build them both?
See my point to pdidy above about not knowing.
Books introduce lots of concepts and contradict each other too often to really be a factor. There was always the possibility that all the Miranda's are some kind of refit too, but the fact that they weren't called Refit-Miranda class pretty much debunks that idea.
No, they share parts, not design lineage. The Miranda is a fundamentally different design than the RC. And again, if the Miranda's role was as we saw in Star Trek II, to wander around doing grunt work, it would still have a place. If the RC's role is, as we expect, a battlecruiser and long-term explorer, and the Excelsior fills that role, you don't need the RC anymore.
Further, the RC is going to be an artifact from the previous Klingon/Fed hostilities. It would be possible and very likely that they would be reduced in number and/or phased out as part of the peace process, kind of like reducing your nuclear stockpile.
There's no reason to assume that. You're going to, at the very least, need a larger crew for the RC and that means wasting personnel on grunt work who did not have to be wasted.
At least those ship classes were mentioned. The closest thing to a mention the RC got was Picard's line that the only TOSC he had ever seen was in a museum. The wreckage only indicates something that bears a resemblance to an RC existed, but not in what capacity. It could've been a passing freighter that got caught in the firefight for all we know. There is no evidence of Starfleet using them in service.
It doesn't matter why the producers didn't show it. There is no evidence to suggest it is or was still in service. I've already discussed why the Miranda would be in service and the RC wouldn't.
So? That's not evidence of anything, much less that we had RCs still in service. The Enterprise B is a canon ship now, so regardless of how long it spent on the screen, it's longer than any post ST6 RC.
See my point to pdidy on this also.