I want a T3 or T3.5 Connie Refit. 3 or 4 front, 3 rear weapon slots. 3 eng, 2 sci, 2 tac consoles. Whatever Boff slots make it balanced.
That's what I want. It would still leave the refit Excelsior ahead of it by a mile, as well as the regular, Captain-level Galaxy class ships, while significantly boosting its capabilities, and allowing it to be used more effectively at higher levels.
I'm just trying to figure out why players would want such an ugly ship at the high levels.
Oh sure, I fully understand the legacy behind it. It's THE original starship that has become synonymous with Star Trek, and that was just fine back when it was the only design, but that doesn't make it good looking.
I'm leveling up an engineer right now, checking out the cruisers. I was hoping there would be some other choice for ships at level ten, like the Excelsior or something. I was so glad that I was able to customize it's appearance to make it look more modern. The only Constitution piece I ended up using was the neck.
I'm not looking forward to level 30 when I get stuck with the awful Galaxy class. IMO, starships didn't become interesting and aesthetically pleasing until DS9 and Voyager.
Simply put its the ship alot of us grew up with , its the ship that started it all, i personaly love how it looks , i am old school, and being the ship that started it all it deserves a better place then such a low tear because we level so fast you dont get to use it much, to me the way it is now its just an after thought and it deserves better.
Besides, I'd have thought Starfleet would've exhasuted their supply of replacement connies judging by how many times they destroyed Enterprise in the movies.
Model T, meet Formula 1 (we at Cryptic will sufficiently gimp F1 to make model T competetive)
I want a T3 or T3.5 Connie Refit. 3 or 4 front, 3 rear weapon slots. 3 eng, 2 sci, 2 tac consoles. Whatever Boff slots make it balanced.
That's what I want. It would still leave the refit Excelsior ahead of it by a mile, as well as the regular, Captain-level Galaxy class ships, while significantly boosting its capabilities, and allowing it to be used more effectively at higher levels.
OMG, you've practically described a T5 fleet K'Tinga.
Ok so since we are talking opinions here I have to say, even though the refit constitution is and always will be the most amazingly stunning Enterprise to ever be seen, I dont feel it has a place in this game at all and wish it would be removed completely. But I feel that way about the TOS constitution version, the NX Class, Oberth, Miranda, both Excelsior versions. Basicly any class thats was already 100 years old by then end of Voyager or close to 100. Id really like to see some new 25th century designs some into play here. At this rate Starfleet is never going to get to the Enterprise J type ships, or even the Realitivity type ships. The game is set in 2409, it time we all accepted that and move on. So my vote for a T5 Connie... a very strong please no.
I'm just trying to figure out why players would want such an ugly ship at the high levels.
Oh sure, I fully understand the legacy behind it. It's THE original starship that has become synonymous with Star Trek, and that was just fine back when it was the only design, but that doesn't make it good looking.
I'm leveling up an engineer right now, checking out the cruisers. I was hoping there would be some other choice for ships at level ten, like the Excelsior or something. I was so glad that I was able to customize it's appearance to make it look more modern. The only Constitution piece I ended up using was the neck.
I'm not looking forward to level 30 when I get stuck with the awful Galaxy class. IMO, starships didn't become interesting and aesthetically pleasing until DS9 and Voyager.
I would pay 50$USD for the 66\67 T5 that alone should be reason enough. There are also a lot of older players playing this game and they want the ship they grew up with. My fleet has 3 players that are 40+ and grew up watching the TOS shows.
There actually are people who like the design. One of them is William Shatner.... Yes, Nimoy and Shatner were the ones who helped Star Trek getting off the ground and are now helping to bury it....:(
FKA K-Tar, grumpy Klingon/El-Aurian hybrid. Now assimilated by PWE.
Sometimes, if you want to bury the hatchet with a Klingon, it has to be in his skull. - Captain K'Tar of the USS Danu about J'mpok.
Ok so since we are talking opinions here I have to say, even though the refit constitution is and always will be the most amazingly stunning Enterprise to ever be seen, I dont feel it has a place in this came at all and wish it would be removed completely. But I feel that way about the TOS constitution version, the NX Class, Oberth, Miranda, both Excelsior versions. Basicly any class thats was already 100 years old by then end of Voyager or close to 100. Id really like to see some new 25th century designs some into play here. At this rate Starfleet is never going to get to the Enterprise J type ships, or even the Realitivity type ships. The game is set in 2409, it time we all accepted that and move on. So my vote for a T5 Connie... a very strong please no.
So along with that, should we also remove all the uniforms that are at least 100 years old as well? (TOS uniforms, WOK Uniforms, TMP uniforms, ENT uniforms).
Also who is to say that the Mirandas, Excelsiors, and Connies currently being deployed aren't new builds? Being smaller, they would be cheaper in both resources and time to field than something as massive as a Galaxy class and just because the design looks old doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't have modern systems with smaller crew requirements to operate. In a time of war, namely now, cheaper and faster to produce is better than larger and slower to get in to the field.
As for personal opinions, I grew up with the TMP era movies and that Connie is the one I would want to have.
So along with that, should we also remove all the uniforms that are at least 100 years old as well? (TOS uniforms, WOK Uniforms, TMP uniforms, ENT uniforms).
Also who is to say that the Mirandas, Excelsiors, and Connies currently being deployed aren't new builds? Being smaller, they would be cheaper in both resources and time to field than something as massive as a Galaxy class and just because the design looks old doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't have modern systems with smaller crew requirements to operate. In a time of war, namely now, cheaper and faster to produce is better than larger and slower to get in to the field.
As for personal opinions, I grew up with the TMP era movies and that Connie is the one I would want to have.
I understand your point, and yes I do think that all old uniforms should be removed as well. But going on your logic, perhaps the United States navy needs to bring back the old desiel subs, or aircraft carriers. I doubt they would because new and more efficient designs are here now. Design flaws that were in older ships are still there despite what thier guts are made up of. Lets take the Connies neck for example. We have seen the thought process behind the neck in recent starship designs and either 1 of a few things has happend to them, they became much thicker (Galaxy, Excelsior), much shorter (Odyssey), or just not there at all (Nova, Intrepid, Sov, Nebula, Defiant, Steamrunner, Norway, etc etc). Same principal can be applyed to other desgin features, like nacelle pylons. The thing is you dont bring back old stuff because its smaller. You design the new stuff around the equipment and to be small.
I understand your point, and yes I do think that all old uniforms should be removed as well. But going on your logic, perhaps the United States navy needs to bring back the old desiel subs, or aircraft carriers. I doubt they would because new and more efficient designs are here now. Design flaws that were in older ships are still there despite what thier guts are made up of. Lets take the Connies neck for example. We have seen the thought process behind the neck in recent starship designs and either 1 of a few things has happend to them, they became much thicker (Galaxy, Excelsior), much shorter (Odyssey), or just not there at all (Nova, Intrepid, Sov, Nebula, Defiant, Steamrunner, Norway, etc etc). Same principal can be applyed to other desgin features, like nacelle pylons. The thing is you dont bring back old stuff because its smaller. You design the new stuff around the equipment and to be small.
You understood part of my point, but not the entire point.
Would the Navy bring back a diesel sub? No. Of course not. Would the Navy use an existing Diesel sub hull or build one of the same design if they were able to engineer a nuclear reactor to fit in to it? Absolutely. Differences may only be in the material its skin is made of (Original steel vs. modern corrosion resistant alloys). Why? The time required to engineer a new design vs using a tested and trusted existing design with only minor or no modification at all.
As for ships with necks, I don't really see why the moved away from that other than the intent of more modern ships to not be able to separate in to subcomponents vs. older ships that could (Connies, Excelsiors, and Galaxies). Otherwise, nothing has been stated as to why there is a design difference other than "It looks cool :P".
All the justifications aside, though, There are people who want their T5s to be connies and won't except alternatives. It's really as simple as that.
I'm sorry, but imagining a Constitution that could go toe to toe with an Odyssey or Sovereign is just plain silly. It's only my opinion, but it's completely absurd. It's bad enough seeing single ships that could tank cubes, it'd be even worse to see a Constitution do it.
-It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.-- Mark Twain.
I'm sorry, but imagining a Constitution that could go toe to toe with an Odyssey or Sovereign is just plain silly. It's only my opinion, but it's completely absurd. It's bad enough seeing single ships that could tank cubes, it'd be even worse to see a Constitution do it.
Any semblance of realism went out the window in the 60s.
I'm sorry, but imagining a Constitution that could go toe to toe with an Odyssey or Sovereign is just plain silly. It's only my opinion, but it's completely absurd. It's bad enough seeing single ships that could tank cubes, it'd be even worse to see a Constitution do it.
I doubt it would really work like that. I've got the Heavy Cruiser Retrofit, and frankly, it's rubbish. Too squishy to do the job it was intended for. I love it regardless; but I try to remember to switch to something else before doing any PvP or running some STFs.
I admit, I'm a little more sympathetic to the idea of a T5 Connie lately. Not that I think it's a particularly good idea; but I've been playing my KDF toon a lot the past few days, and now really want a T5 Dacoit (I hate the bigger Orion ships). It really, reeeaaalllly, sucks that I can't have one.
I'm sorry, but imagining a Constitution that could go toe to toe with an Odyssey or Sovereign is just plain silly. It's only my opinion, but it's completely absurd. It's bad enough seeing single ships that could tank cubes, it'd be even worse to see a Constitution do it.
You mean like a Constitution going toe to toe with a Negh'var, D'deridex, Keldon or Chel Grett which constantly happens in the game?
FKA K-Tar, grumpy Klingon/El-Aurian hybrid. Now assimilated by PWE.
Sometimes, if you want to bury the hatchet with a Klingon, it has to be in his skull. - Captain K'Tar of the USS Danu about J'mpok.
I'm sorry, but imagining a Constitution that could go toe to toe with an Odyssey or Sovereign is just plain silly. It's only my opinion, but it's completely absurd. It's bad enough seeing single ships that could tank cubes, it'd be even worse to see a Constitution do it.
this^^^^^^^^ also think this is why CBS SAID NO im starting to think ppl think cryptic can put any thing from the TV shows movies in to the game with out haveing to ask mom and dad CBS
not to say the Constitution is like a hammer my galaxy is like a sledgehammer yes the Constitution can move fast but if galaxy hits it one time KO ding ding ding your out of here
What I don't understand is why so many people who *CLAIM* to be avid Star Trek fans want to fly something so terribly out-dated as to be decrepit and obsolete in a game that is quite clearly labeled to occur in the year 2409. :rolleyes: Constitution class starships were nothing more than mothballed museums in Picard's day, now we're 50 years even further into the future.
And yet TNG era fans want ALL their (now 40 to 50 year old ship designs - especially the Galaxy Class, Defiant and Sovererign) in as T5 ships and Fleet ships. Can have it both ways. "Old' is 'old', IE If the C1701 Constitution is too old at 120 or so years - a 50 year old design ALSO wouldn't still be a 'top of the line' ship for the Federation in a 'hot' shooting war with the Klingons, Borg, Undine, Iconians, etc. - yet the TNG fans seem to have no issue with wanting/flying their 'old' ships as T5 and Fleet ships.
There's NO 23rd or 24th century on screen canon ship from any Star Trek series of Film that should or would be 'T5' if you wanted to apply some 'real world' military logic tpo STO - bit, given it IS just a game, and not degined as a "25th century Star Trek simulation"; I don't see why anyone cares who wnhat is T5 in game - but again, I love how some players decry the age of teh Constityution Class - yet seem to forget that in the STO era, their favorite 24th century era canon ships ARE ALSO 'old and decrepit' too. Also, that in a game sent 50 years after most of the TNG era series ended start long diatribe threads on how "The T5 Galaxy model STILL doesn't look EXACTLY the way it did on TNG (circa 2364 - 2370)" As many TNG fans are fond of saying in relation to the 1701 Constitution - "Remember STO takes place in 2409" :eek::D
Formerly known as Armsman from June 2008 to June 20, 2012 PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
And yet TNG era fans want ALL their (now 40 to 50 year old ship designs - especially the Galaxy Class, Defiant and Sovererign) in as T5 ships and Fleet ships. Can have it both ways. "Old' is 'old', IE If the C1701 Constitution is too old at 120 or so years - a 50 year old design ALSO wouldn't still be a 'top of the line' ship for the Federation in a 'hot' shooting war with the Klingons, Borg, Undine, Iconians, etc. - yet the TNG fans seem to have no issue with wanting/flying their 'old' ships as T5 and Fleet ships.
1) There has to be a line in the sand somewhere..... should we be flying 3000 year old canoes?
2) The evidence we have from canon is that the connies were scrapped. We do not know that about the newer classes.
3) You also seem to assume that those against T5 connies do support those other classes. Frankly I'd be happier if they were primarily new designs, at least by the time you get to VA. This "OMG it wasn't on screen so it shouldn't exist" mentality some have equates to saying there should never have been any new ships in Trek regardless of timeline or time passed.
2) The evidence we have from canon is that the connies were scrapped. We do not know that about the newer classes.
We also have evidence that the Galaxy-class got scrapped or refitted into dreadnoughts to remain on par.
FKA K-Tar, grumpy Klingon/El-Aurian hybrid. Now assimilated by PWE.
Sometimes, if you want to bury the hatchet with a Klingon, it has to be in his skull. - Captain K'Tar of the USS Danu about J'mpok.
2) The evidence we have from canon is that the connies were scrapped. We do not know that about the newer classes.
What evidence?
All we have, is a throw-away line from Picard, in the episode 'Relics' where he simply states (re: original Constitution Class, i.e TOS); "There's one in the fleet museum".
That doesn't imply even that the ORIGINAL Constitution Class have all been scrapped, much less the TMP-refit. I challenge you to provide some actual credible evidence to support your argument that "the connies were scrapped".
All we have, is a throw-away line from Picard, in the episode 'Relics' where he simply states (re: original Constitution Class, i.e TOS); "There's one in the fleet museum".
That doesn't imply even that the ORIGINAL Constitution Class have all been scrapped, much less the TMP-refit. I challenge you to provide some actual credible evidence to support your argument that "the connies were scrapped".
IMO If they made something like a Giant Exeter (something that LOOKS like a giant connie, but isn't a connie, with the size around the same as a sovereign) It would be acceptable to me as I do love the look of the Constitution, but I just wish I had more time with it in the game... I used it for a few days then got a T3 ship, and other than random excursions with it there's no real use to it (even though I would love to use it); it's just a bit too squishy for running STF's and it tends to TRIBBLE people off when you roll into an STF with a T2 ship.
IMO If they made something like a Giant Exeter (something that LOOKS like a giant connie, but isn't a connie, with the size around the same as a sovereign) It would be acceptable to me as I do love the look of the Constitution, but I just wish I had more time with it in the game...
Why would it have to be bigger? I would prefer the higher turn rate.
FKA K-Tar, grumpy Klingon/El-Aurian hybrid. Now assimilated by PWE.
Sometimes, if you want to bury the hatchet with a Klingon, it has to be in his skull. - Captain K'Tar of the USS Danu about J'mpok.
Well, the line is currently at the D'kyr which is around 100 years older than the Constitution, or do you want to deny that?
We have evidence that the same hull pattern is used and by a race that values logic over vanity. If the hull pattern was logical, why would the Vulcans scrap it? The D'kar being built in 2409 are likely very different internally than those built in 2309.
We also have evidence that the Galaxy-class got scrapped or refitted into dreadnoughts to remain on par.
We do? I wasn't aware that the Sovereign class was any sort of Galaxy refit. Unlike with the Connies, by this time the Federation was in full scale war with the Borg. There were also 'Galaxy wings' at the battle of DS9 in "Sacrifice of Angels." If you are referring to the Galaxy-X, we have no evidence at all regarding its development, as it only showed up in All Good Things, and as a ship from a possible future.
All we have, is a throw-away line from Picard, in the episode 'Relics' where he simply states (re: original Constitution Class, i.e TOS); "There's one in the fleet museum".
That doesn't imply even that the ORIGINAL Constitution Class have all been scrapped, much less the TMP-refit. I challenge you to provide some actual credible evidence to support your argument that "the connies were scrapped".
The original Enterprise was recalled and retrofitted despite there being no problems at all with it. That isn't the kind of thing you do on a 'one-of' basis.
Similar is true in Star Trek VI, with the Enterprise ordered decommissioned. Keep in mind again the context is peace time. There is a new class of ships coming off the line to replace the connies, and in addition to it being peacetime, they just signed a peace treaty with the Klingons, ending the cold war.
Even if some Connies were left in service, it seems exceedingly unlikely there would be many, and completely unbelievable that they would build more.
We have evidence that the same hull pattern is used and by a race that values logic over vanity. If the hull pattern was logical, why would the Vulcans scrap it? The D'kar being built in 2409 are likely very different internally than those built in 2309.
We don't have any evidence for that. The ship turned up during Enterprise, not in TOS, not in TNG, not in DS9 and not in VOY. Then it turned up in STO again. And obviously the hull pattern of the Constitution was even more logical than that of the D'kyr. It was built 100 years later with the combined knowledge of Vulcans, Tellarites, Andorians and humans. So why should it be worse? If the D'kyr would have been superior it would have been the standard Starfleet vessel.
We do? I wasn't aware that the Sovereign class was any sort of Galaxy refit. Unlike with the Connies, by this time the Federation was in full scale war with the Borg. There were also 'Galaxy wings' at the battle of DS9 in "Sacrifice of Angels." If you are referring to the Galaxy-X, we have no evidence at all regarding its development, as it only showed up in All Good Things, and as a ship from a possible future.
I wasn't aware that anybody classifies the Sovereign as a dreadnought. Yes, the Galaxy-X is from an alternate future. One in that the Enterprise-D was supposed to be scrapped and only was still around because Riker loved her.
Even if some Connies were left in service, it seems exceedingly unlikely there would be many, and completely unbelievable that they would build more.
Two words: Size difference. And in TNG and DS9 there's evidence of two Constitutions.
FKA K-Tar, grumpy Klingon/El-Aurian hybrid. Now assimilated by PWE.
Sometimes, if you want to bury the hatchet with a Klingon, it has to be in his skull. - Captain K'Tar of the USS Danu about J'mpok.
Comments
I want a T3 or T3.5 Connie Refit. 3 or 4 front, 3 rear weapon slots. 3 eng, 2 sci, 2 tac consoles. Whatever Boff slots make it balanced.
That's what I want. It would still leave the refit Excelsior ahead of it by a mile, as well as the regular, Captain-level Galaxy class ships, while significantly boosting its capabilities, and allowing it to be used more effectively at higher levels.
Not_sure_if_serious_or_just_a_troll.jpg
ps i would not count on it :P
system Lord Baal is dead
Simply put its the ship alot of us grew up with , its the ship that started it all, i personaly love how it looks , i am old school, and being the ship that started it all it deserves a better place then such a low tear because we level so fast you dont get to use it much, to me the way it is now its just an after thought and it deserves better.
Thats what I was thinking,
Besides, I'd have thought Starfleet would've exhasuted their supply of replacement connies judging by how many times they destroyed Enterprise in the movies.
Model T, meet Formula 1 (we at Cryptic will sufficiently gimp F1 to make model T competetive)
Awoken Dead
Now shaddup about the queues, it's a BUG
OMG, you've practically described a T5 fleet K'Tinga.
Awoken Dead
Now shaddup about the queues, it's a BUG
I would pay 50$USD for the 66\67 T5 that alone should be reason enough. There are also a lot of older players playing this game and they want the ship they grew up with. My fleet has 3 players that are 40+ and grew up watching the TOS shows.
There actually are people who like the design. One of them is William Shatner.... Yes, Nimoy and Shatner were the ones who helped Star Trek getting off the ground and are now helping to bury it....:(
For real Star Trek you have to go here: http://startrekofgodsandmen.com/main/ It has lots of Constitutions.
Sometimes, if you want to bury the hatchet with a Klingon, it has to be in his skull. - Captain K'Tar of the USS Danu about J'mpok.
So along with that, should we also remove all the uniforms that are at least 100 years old as well? (TOS uniforms, WOK Uniforms, TMP uniforms, ENT uniforms).
Also who is to say that the Mirandas, Excelsiors, and Connies currently being deployed aren't new builds? Being smaller, they would be cheaper in both resources and time to field than something as massive as a Galaxy class and just because the design looks old doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't have modern systems with smaller crew requirements to operate. In a time of war, namely now, cheaper and faster to produce is better than larger and slower to get in to the field.
As for personal opinions, I grew up with the TMP era movies and that Connie is the one I would want to have.
I understand your point, and yes I do think that all old uniforms should be removed as well. But going on your logic, perhaps the United States navy needs to bring back the old desiel subs, or aircraft carriers. I doubt they would because new and more efficient designs are here now. Design flaws that were in older ships are still there despite what thier guts are made up of. Lets take the Connies neck for example. We have seen the thought process behind the neck in recent starship designs and either 1 of a few things has happend to them, they became much thicker (Galaxy, Excelsior), much shorter (Odyssey), or just not there at all (Nova, Intrepid, Sov, Nebula, Defiant, Steamrunner, Norway, etc etc). Same principal can be applyed to other desgin features, like nacelle pylons. The thing is you dont bring back old stuff because its smaller. You design the new stuff around the equipment and to be small.
You understood part of my point, but not the entire point.
Would the Navy bring back a diesel sub? No. Of course not. Would the Navy use an existing Diesel sub hull or build one of the same design if they were able to engineer a nuclear reactor to fit in to it? Absolutely. Differences may only be in the material its skin is made of (Original steel vs. modern corrosion resistant alloys). Why? The time required to engineer a new design vs using a tested and trusted existing design with only minor or no modification at all.
As for ships with necks, I don't really see why the moved away from that other than the intent of more modern ships to not be able to separate in to subcomponents vs. older ships that could (Connies, Excelsiors, and Galaxies). Otherwise, nothing has been stated as to why there is a design difference other than "It looks cool :P".
All the justifications aside, though, There are people who want their T5s to be connies and won't except alternatives. It's really as simple as that.
Any semblance of realism went out the window in the 60s.
I doubt it would really work like that. I've got the Heavy Cruiser Retrofit, and frankly, it's rubbish. Too squishy to do the job it was intended for. I love it regardless; but I try to remember to switch to something else before doing any PvP or running some STFs.
I admit, I'm a little more sympathetic to the idea of a T5 Connie lately. Not that I think it's a particularly good idea; but I've been playing my KDF toon a lot the past few days, and now really want a T5 Dacoit (I hate the bigger Orion ships). It really, reeeaaalllly, sucks that I can't have one.
You mean like a Constitution going toe to toe with a Negh'var, D'deridex, Keldon or Chel Grett which constantly happens in the game?
Sometimes, if you want to bury the hatchet with a Klingon, it has to be in his skull. - Captain K'Tar of the USS Danu about J'mpok.
That, and given the size of the ship it would fly circles around a Sovereign at Impulse.
this^^^^^^^^ also think this is why CBS SAID NO im starting to think ppl think cryptic can put any thing from the TV shows movies in to the game with out haveing to ask mom and dad CBS
not to say the Constitution is like a hammer my galaxy is like a sledgehammer yes the Constitution can move fast but if galaxy hits it one time KO ding ding ding your out of here
system Lord Baal is dead
I won't be getting any T5 ships until the older ships become available.
And yet TNG era fans want ALL their (now 40 to 50 year old ship designs - especially the Galaxy Class, Defiant and Sovererign) in as T5 ships and Fleet ships. Can have it both ways. "Old' is 'old', IE If the C1701 Constitution is too old at 120 or so years - a 50 year old design ALSO wouldn't still be a 'top of the line' ship for the Federation in a 'hot' shooting war with the Klingons, Borg, Undine, Iconians, etc. - yet the TNG fans seem to have no issue with wanting/flying their 'old' ships as T5 and Fleet ships.
There's NO 23rd or 24th century on screen canon ship from any Star Trek series of Film that should or would be 'T5' if you wanted to apply some 'real world' military logic tpo STO - bit, given it IS just a game, and not degined as a "25th century Star Trek simulation"; I don't see why anyone cares who wnhat is T5 in game - but again, I love how some players decry the age of teh Constityution Class - yet seem to forget that in the STO era, their favorite 24th century era canon ships ARE ALSO 'old and decrepit' too. Also, that in a game sent 50 years after most of the TNG era series ended start long diatribe threads on how "The T5 Galaxy model STILL doesn't look EXACTLY the way it did on TNG (circa 2364 - 2370)" As many TNG fans are fond of saying in relation to the 1701 Constitution - "Remember STO takes place in 2409" :eek::D
PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
LOL...If I was trolling, my post count would be far higher than 11 don't you think?
1) There has to be a line in the sand somewhere..... should we be flying 3000 year old canoes?
2) The evidence we have from canon is that the connies were scrapped. We do not know that about the newer classes.
3) You also seem to assume that those against T5 connies do support those other classes. Frankly I'd be happier if they were primarily new designs, at least by the time you get to VA. This "OMG it wasn't on screen so it shouldn't exist" mentality some have equates to saying there should never have been any new ships in Trek regardless of timeline or time passed.
Well, the line is currently at the D'kyr which is around 100 years older than the Constitution, or do you want to deny that?
We also have evidence that the Galaxy-class got scrapped or refitted into dreadnoughts to remain on par.
Sometimes, if you want to bury the hatchet with a Klingon, it has to be in his skull. - Captain K'Tar of the USS Danu about J'mpok.
What evidence?
All we have, is a throw-away line from Picard, in the episode 'Relics' where he simply states (re: original Constitution Class, i.e TOS); "There's one in the fleet museum".
That doesn't imply even that the ORIGINAL Constitution Class have all been scrapped, much less the TMP-refit. I challenge you to provide some actual credible evidence to support your argument that "the connies were scrapped".
Yes please. Do enlighten me.
Why would it have to be bigger? I would prefer the higher turn rate.
Sometimes, if you want to bury the hatchet with a Klingon, it has to be in his skull. - Captain K'Tar of the USS Danu about J'mpok.
We have evidence that the same hull pattern is used and by a race that values logic over vanity. If the hull pattern was logical, why would the Vulcans scrap it? The D'kar being built in 2409 are likely very different internally than those built in 2309.
We do? I wasn't aware that the Sovereign class was any sort of Galaxy refit. Unlike with the Connies, by this time the Federation was in full scale war with the Borg. There were also 'Galaxy wings' at the battle of DS9 in "Sacrifice of Angels." If you are referring to the Galaxy-X, we have no evidence at all regarding its development, as it only showed up in All Good Things, and as a ship from a possible future.
The original Enterprise was recalled and retrofitted despite there being no problems at all with it. That isn't the kind of thing you do on a 'one-of' basis.
Similar is true in Star Trek VI, with the Enterprise ordered decommissioned. Keep in mind again the context is peace time. There is a new class of ships coming off the line to replace the connies, and in addition to it being peacetime, they just signed a peace treaty with the Klingons, ending the cold war.
Even if some Connies were left in service, it seems exceedingly unlikely there would be many, and completely unbelievable that they would build more.
We don't have any evidence for that. The ship turned up during Enterprise, not in TOS, not in TNG, not in DS9 and not in VOY. Then it turned up in STO again. And obviously the hull pattern of the Constitution was even more logical than that of the D'kyr. It was built 100 years later with the combined knowledge of Vulcans, Tellarites, Andorians and humans. So why should it be worse? If the D'kyr would have been superior it would have been the standard Starfleet vessel.
I wasn't aware that anybody classifies the Sovereign as a dreadnought. Yes, the Galaxy-X is from an alternate future. One in that the Enterprise-D was supposed to be scrapped and only was still around because Riker loved her.
Two words: Size difference. And in TNG and DS9 there's evidence of two Constitutions.
Sometimes, if you want to bury the hatchet with a Klingon, it has to be in his skull. - Captain K'Tar of the USS Danu about J'mpok.