Do you still have reading problems? It is a cruiser and Cryptic says so on their main page, something you have not read. Things are not the way they are because you say so. You are not a dev and you are not reading canon or game material. Go back and read thoroughly before stating your wrong opinion.
Um... yeah. I have determined you didn't read my post after all. I took my quotes straight from game material. Straight from the dev blogs themselves. Allow me to re-quote what I quoted, with the links to their sources:
Remember! Captains who participate in the "Fastest Game on Ice" event 25 times during the 35+ days of the Winter Event will skate their way to a FREE Breen Chel Grett Warship! Stats on the ship have been posted here.
Straight from the dev blog (link). And wait, there's more!
... Breen Chel Grett is a formidable Warship, and it is extremely maneuverable for its size...
So yeah... I do read. Apparently more than you, since I at least have the courtesy to read all the posts instead of the first 3 sentences and then answer. Again, same problem you always have. You let your hot-headed opinion get in the way, and you don't leave any room for someone else to be right. And you wonder why people mock your ideas?
I hate having to say this every time I butt heads with you, but here goes. Calm down, take a deep breath, take a step back, and actually listen. You aren't always going to be right. Others who don't agree with you aren't always going to be wrong. Leave room for others opinions, leave room for others to possibly be correct. You can only learn from your mistakes. No need to keep repeating them.
Not disrespecting your post, but it's too long for me to quote without being rude and taking up a huge amount of space. But I did read it. And I apologize for being rude earlier, I was just annoyed at OP. And yes, I got the stats wrong on the turn rate for the Odyssey. But I do fly one on a regular basis, and I do know that ship inside and out. I know what she can do, and I know what she cannot do. I make it a habit to learn all of my ships, the majority of which have been cruisers. So I do know what a +.5 turn rate can do. And if you maximize it (probably should have stated this earlier) you can indeed achieve a +2 or +3 turn rate.
And as for the build change suggestion? It was a suggestion nothing more. I was not attacking your current build or your current setup, since as you stated, I don't know either one, I was just offering possible alternative solutions to just straight out buffing cruisers.
And lastly, I find it amusing that you would accuse me of outright dismissing someone's ideas. The only one that I would do that with might be OP, since he has shown time and again that he doesn't even listen to others who disagree, and leaves no room for their opinions. I on the other hand, do actually read, analyze, and depending on my mood will either respond intelligently or on the rare occasion just outright blast the person. So no, I did not outright dismiss you or your idea. I just didn't see the need for it. Not in the way it was suggested.
Hopefully that clears things up.
It is said the best weapon is one that is never fired. I disagree. The best weapon is one you only have to fire... once.
Galaxy X is already pretty "realistic" compared to what we see it do on the show. We never really see a Galaxy doing anything quickly..Generally it's flying in relatively straight lines, or is stationary and swatting stuff with phasers as a stationary weapons platform, or is making slow rotations.
i think you are confusing the galaxy class of captain picard with the galaxy x or riker here.
because if " realistic" for you mean as we saw it on the show... well there the galaxy x would be a god ship, clearly.the ultimate prototype of an I WIN ship.
seriously a ship that obliterate 2 negvar in a blink of an eyes and get aways without even a scratch?
no, that not what i am asking for.
what i mean by realistic build, for a cruiser that is meant for war, is in relation with the game system, not the series or film.
if you want to push dps with any ship in this game, you need canon.
to have a realistic canon build you need at a minimum 2 lt tactical BO slot, not less,this way you can have 2 canon power to minimize cooldown.
note that this would absolutly not be the more powerfull canon build, especially in a cruiser, but at leat it would have a more constant buff firepowerthan just having 1 canon power.
nothing genious here, that just game basic.
many cruiser today are capable of achieving this, and most of these cruiser aren't meant for war in the first place, regent, exelsior, odyssey, dkora, 1000 day reward ship.
klingons have a bunch of cruiser capable of this, normal for a war faction oriented.
and mind you, having the possibility to use a canon build don't enhanced their turn rate, it stay the same, a cruiser turn rate, so nothing that can be call "quick".
having a canon build in a cruiser is more risky than having a beam build, in pvp that is.
here with a canon build you would really have to outthink your opponent
i use this ship for years and a half, exclusivly,so i am used to it slow turn rate, and even with beam, with this ship you must outhink your opponent whenever that is possible.
i would like to try a canon build on it but i can't du to BO layout limitation.
so hence my proposal of turnrate increase and bo layout modification to finally have the opportuniti to do what other federation cruiser can already do despite the fact that they aren't been made for war.
the galaxy x have been retrofit in war time, it was meant for that, and that the nonsense, that the unrealistic things about it, it can't have a descent canon build.
I am not a cruiser pilot though i have wanted a tac oddy for a while but just not wealthy enough to get.
I am am escort captain and so thats where i cut my teeth but I do have this to say about turn rates.
The bug has high turn rates because it is so small it's more like a fighter then a cruiser. a crew of 50.
Secondly I wouldn't mind it if the cruisers and carriers turned a little better but i doubt they will. Ships simply get out moded. You do not see like wooden ships fighting against metal ships because you are just out matched. The old cruisers are well... old school and it might be time to push them into your starbase and look at them from time to time. It's sad but thats the world we live in. Heck I have to push my beloved Patrol Escort into the museum.
The breen is a very fascinating ship, she is a big girl that can run with the best of them and i plan to use her to the fullest. until i can get my hands on the next best thing. We can't constantly keep looking towards the past to fight our future battles.... we can't roll catapults onto the battle field and wondering why we are losing....
i think you are confusing the galaxy class of captain picard with the galaxy x or riker here.
because if " realistic" for you mean as we saw it on the show... well there the galaxy x would be a god ship, clearly.the ultimate prototype of an I WIN ship.
seriously a ship that obliterate 2 negvar in a blink of an eyes and get aways without even a scratch?
I was speaking in terms of maneuverability. Even in that scene, again, the E-D just flew in a straight line..
Also, only 1 of the Negh'Vars (If it was even a Negh'Var as we know it. "Attack Cruiser" is what they're called in the episode) were destroyed. The other disengaged.
As for "without even a scratch", I seem to remember the ship taking enough damage in that brief engagement for it's cloaking device to be knocked out?
The problem is that the Chel Grett is not a new line of ships. It is as old as any other ship in the DS9 series. If you going to turn one cruiser into a giant escort, you might as well do the same justice to the rest, or at least give them the option to counter balance it.
By newer line of ships I simply meant that its setup (large hull, high turn rate, pretty much a cruiser/escort hybrid) is something new and unique and I believe we will see more like it in the future. I did not mean anything related to its time of creation.
I would not be surprised if we see another hybrid ship in the future. I could be wrong on this, but its just an assumption.
On another note: I've noticed some saying that the boff setups determine the class of ship. That has nothing to do with it, ships are classified by size. (cruisers are any large, durable ship; escorts are small, nimble ships; sci ships are larger, but weaker support ships; destroyers are essentialy a larger more durable escort; heavy battle cruisers are cruisers that are designed for battle; battlecruisers essentialy are larger destroyers, but smaller than a heavy battle cruiser; carriers are huge ships that carry support craft, not including the 1 hangar ships which fall under Flight Deck Cruiser or one of the other categories and simply have the addition of a hangar bay; Dreadnoughts are the largest and most powerful ships; Raptors are their own classification, but are essentialy escorts;raiders are generally the smallest starships and are designed for quick hit and run strikes, and before anyone says shuttles/fighters are smaller, they are not large enough to count as starships, they are shuttles/fighters nothing more) If by some chance the boff setup is how ships are classified in STO (which wouldn't make any sense given the class of some ships that don't have related boffs layouts) then that is news to me, and I would probably have to have verification from a dev to believe it. I haven't found a single bit of info. stating that ships in STO are classified by their boff layout. There is no Warship classification for either KDF or Fed in STO, otherwise it would be in the ship requisition store (not even kdf have any, they do have raiders and raptors as their own class, as well as no escort class ships, which proves that they don't just call them something else, obviously there would be a warship category if they had any), the breen ship is simply called that because it is designed for the sole purpose of war and the Breen may have a Warship classification, but that dosen't matter since we are not the Breen using it, we are Feds and KDF, the ship falls under one of the cruiser categories as far as either faction is concerned, when Cryptic calls it a warship they most likely are emphasizing the power it has, nothing more (though this also MAY be a hint that they are adding a Warship class to the game as a new ship style, however that would interfere with the canon since Cryptic as already informed us before that Starfleet having full out Warships isn't canon, given the reason why Feds couldn't have a Starfleet carrier and the Atrox has little offensive power compared to the KDF carriers, making it all very unlikely). For example, the Negh'var Heavy Battle Cruiser is considered a warship because it was intended for war (look at the npc names for verification), but is obviously classified as a heavy battle cruiser and falls under the category of cruiser in the ship requisition store, and also has only 1 tac boff which is a lt; supporting the fact that ships are not classified by boff layouts in STO, if they were the ship would be called Negh'var Cruiser. If that is not enough proof then look at the Dreadnought Cruiser, its called a Dreadnought by Cryptic, does that make it a Dreadnought? NO, it is a Cruiser and falls under that category in the ship requisition store. So, just because Cryptic named it Breen Chel'grett Warship does not make it a Warship obviously, if you can't understand that then I suggest you don't think about it cause it might cause you to have a headache. There are other examples, but those are some that are more obvious than others.
Also people need to stop confusing modern day naval classifications with that of Star Trek, they are different and not every modern country uses the same classification system. If anyone needs proof on this, then go to official sites and do some reading or you can always read some books, just make sure they are officially labeled non-fiction.
If anyone has their own opinion on this matter then it is their right to think as they want, but what I have stated is based on facts, not personal opinion and will remain facts until proven wrong by someone such as a dev or a producer of Star Trek, at which point I will accept the new system, whatever it may be. I apologize if I come across as harsh, but facts are facts, I am just someone who needs substantial evidence before changing my mind. (if we all believed what others said without proof then the world would be a sadder place than it is now, which is why I won't blame anyone for disagreeing with me)
"Dreadnought Cruiser" in and of itself is proof that they aren't using modern day naval designations to classify these ships, since a Dreadnought and a Cruiser are two entirely different ends of the power scale and you cannot have a "dreadnought cruiser"...
Battlecruiser (by today's definition, anyway) is a ship that combines the speed and maneuverability of a cruiser with the firepower of a battleship, often at the expense of protection.
So, for the battlecruisers ingame, they got it at least somewhat right. You've got cruisers with high mobility, somewhat weaker protection with the frontal firepower of a battleship (thru the use of dual cannons).
But that in no means makes the classifications ingame compatible at all with today's naval classifications. Especially when a Destroyer has more firepower then a Cruiser.
Star Trek has never used a classification system compatible with modern naval classifications. The only exception is, again, Starfleet Command, which isn't canon, and is based on Star Fleet Battles, which is a completely different universe using a completely different technology base.
Fact:
Cruisers and Battlecruisers have more Engineering Consoles than any other ship class and any other console type on their ships. If not higher then at least equal.
Fact:
Every Tier 5 or higher Cruiser and Battlecruiser has a Commander Engineering BOff station.
Fact:
Every Tier 5 or higher Cruiser and Battlecruiser has a 1.0 or higher shield modifier.
Fact:
Every cruiser/battlecruiser has more health than most of the other equal tier ship classes, only surpassed by carriers.
You wanted facts, you got em. Now let's take the Chel'gret Warship.
Fact:
This ship has 4 Tactical consoles, 3 Engineering Consoles, and 3 Science Consoles. Not in line with ANY of the other cruiser or battlecruiser class ships in this game.
Fact:
It's Commander BOff station is a Tactical. Not in line with ANY of the other cruisers or battlecruisers in this game.
Fact:
This ship has a 1.0 shield modifier. In line with cruisers and battlecruisers.
Fact:
This ship has more hull than all other tier 5 escorts and science ships. In line with cruisers and battlecruisers.
So you're 2 for 4. Take what you will from it. But as I said, you wanted facts, you got facts. It should also be noted that every federation cruiser has cruiser as part of it's name. Also a fact.
Hence why I said the Chel'gret is a warship, not a cruiser.
It is said the best weapon is one that is never fired. I disagree. The best weapon is one you only have to fire... once.
first i am not the kind of guy you described, and so are many like me, i don't want the galaxy x to be as nimble as the negvar, far from it,i don't known where you see me asking for that.
what i asked however is that the gap should be reduced, that sound more realistic to me,and asking a cruiser of 6 degree to gain 0.5 degre turn rate is far from feeling the gap with the negvar and make it as nimble as him, far from it.
so let me remind you galaxy x 6 base degree turn rate.....negvar 8base degree turn rate.
i don't want the galaxy x to be the best ( beside best is a personal and subjective idea ) i want him to have a realistic and efficient setup according to it design purpose ( make wars )
if i have to loose something for it, by all mean, if cryptic said we are buffing the turn rate of the galaxy but we also reducing it hull, no problem with me. having 50000 hull point will not save your life forever against good player.
and althrought the breen is an exellent warship and i am in love with it design, i would prefer to stay with my galaxy x, and i don't want the setup of the breen on my galaxy x nor it turn rate.
i have made a thread where i clearly expose the change i would like to do with this ship and if you get to see it you will see that i don't ask for unrealistic changes, or a IWIN ship.
the change i propose won't do anything to a bad pilot with a bad build, the galaxy x would still be a hard ship to master, and will for sure be less resilient, but that the only compromise that i found ( that engage only me ) to be acceptable and coherent.
here is the tread http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=394971
I was most angry and stressed on that day and apoligise for the outburst.
I do support a 1 to 2 turnrate buff for Fed cruisers and a 1 point turnrate buff for KDF battlecruisers.
Heavy beams Arrays and other ideas displayed so many times before to help the game and the Cruiser player.
The terms "battle cruiser" and "pocket battleship" are interchangable
My favourite World war two ship was a pocket battle ship
"Pocket Battleship" wasn't even an official designation. Their official designation was "Panzerschiffe". They were essentially light cruisers with big guns. There is no "official" designation for a ship of that classification because nobody else has been dumb enough to do it..
Fact:
This ship has 4 Tactical consoles, 3 Engineering Consoles, and 3 Science Consoles. Not in line with ANY of the other cruiser or battlecruiser class ships in this game.
Fact:
It's Commander BOff station is a Tactical. Not in line with ANY of the other cruisers or battlecruisers in this game.
Fact:
This ship has a 1.0 shield modifier. In line with cruisers and battlecruisers.
Fact:
This ship has more hull than all other tier 5 escorts and science ships. In line with cruisers and battlecruisers.
By this list, the Steamrunner is more a cruiser then the Breen rig. And it's still far more maneuverable then any cruiser, battlecruiser or heavy escort.
And yet it's not prompting "BUFF CRUISER" threads?
"Pocket Battleship" wasn't even an official designation. Their official designation was "Panzerschiffe". They were essentially light cruisers with big guns. There is no "official" designation for a ship of that classification because nobody else has been dumb enough to do it..
Try heavy Cruisers with big guns and heavy armour plate
And the Kreigs marine and the royal navy differ on designations
I have a rather good Airfix model of one I have had for thirty years (only other surviving kit being my Hms Hood)
Try heavy Cruisers with big guns and heavy armour plate
Uh, have you looked at the armor schemes of the Panzershiffes?
Compare the armor schemes of these 3 ships.
Emden (Light Cruiser)
Graf Spee (Panzerschiffe)
Prinz Eugen (Heavy Cruiser)
I guarantee you Graf Spee's armor scheme is MUCH more similar to Emden's then Prinz Eugen's..
And the Kreigs marine and the royal navy differ on designations
I have a rather good Airfix model of one I have had for thirty years (only other surviving kit being my Hms Hood)
No they didn't. The Germans and the British shared naval designations since well before WWI. A British Battlecruiser as comparable to a German battlecruiser, a Destroyer was a Destroyer, Cruiser was a Cruiser, etc.
US, Britain, Germany, Japan, Russia, France and Italy all shared a pretty similar designation system for their navies.
Uh, have you looked at the armor schemes of the Panzershiffes?
Compare the armor schemes of these 3 ships.
Emden (Light Cruiser)
Graf Spee (Panzerschiffe)
Prinz Eugen (Heavy Cruiser)
I guarantee you Graf Spee's armor scheme is MUCH more similar to Emden's then Prinz Eugen's..
No they didn't. The Germans and the British shared naval designations since well before WWI. A British Battlecruiser as comparable to a German battlecruiser, a Destroyer was a Destroyer, Cruiser was a Cruiser, etc.
US, Britain, Germany, Japan, Russia, France and Italy all shared a pretty similar designation system for their navies.
So ill let this go (you might like to visit the Royal naval museum at portsmouth some time)
Emden:
2" belt, 1.6" deck.
Graf Spee:
3.1" belt, 1.8" deck.
Prinz Eugen:
3.1" belt, 3.1" secondary belt, 4.3" total deck.
Graf Spee had no secondary or tertiary deck, had no secondary belt, had no turtleback plating, had no decapping plate and it's belt was ridiculously low on the hull. Prinz Eugen was a much, much better armored ship then the Panzerschiffes, which had armor schemes based on WWI-era light cruisers..
Their entire design principal was "Out-gun anything that can catch you, out-run anything that out-guns you."
They were not designed to combat other major warships..
There's a lot of fuss about the Breen ship in here...
For what it's worth, I'm an MVAE pilot down to the bone. I've flown every possible configuration on that ship with just about every loadout and DOff complement available.
I can tell you right now that any ship with the MVAE layout is not a cruiser. Ignore the hull and the shields, they're 5% of a ship's strength. 60% is its BOff layout. It'll probably do fine in PvE, but the fact of the matter is that the Breen ship cannot tank (it can't even speed tank really, since it has a terrible impulse mod and a low base turn).
In fact it's probably even worse off than MVAE, double Omega means nothing when you're trying to rack up defense and percent-based speed buffs on a slow TRIBBLE space whale. MVAE is one of the most fragile non-BoP ships in game and it can only 'tank' with a very narrow shield-tanking setup.
The thing is an escort in all but name. Please don't be fooled by Cryptic's marketing division.
Cruisers are meant to be played broadsiding, and that's what they do best. No turning is necessary.
And this is coming from a tac in a cannon Fleet Excelsior. Would a better turn rate help me out, sure, but having something with 60K hull flying around like an escort would be a lot to ask for.
Besides, I have the Breen ship. I don't find it to be all that uber. Anything that can mount DHC's needs to have a slightly better turn rate. Otherwise it's useless.
I disagree. the odys, the galaxy and the atrox and the botresque all need bumps to at least the slowest turning of the klink cruisers. it's demonstrated ON SCREEN the galaxy turns extremely well
Those are all well and good facts, but the whole point is that the boff layout and console slots have no effect on classification.
Those are exactly what effects the classifcation.
What're the major differences between a tier 3 Heavy Escort and a tier 3 Heavy Cruiser?
Heavy Cruiser:
Lt Tac, Lt Cmdr Eng, Ens. Eng, Lt Sci
1 tac console, 3 eng consoles, 1 sci console
THAT is what makes it a cruiser. Not the turn rate, not the hull, not the shield modifier. It's capabilities are what define it as what it is, and it's capabilities are directly influenced by BOFF slots and consoles.
Heavy Escort:
Ensign Tac, Lt Cmdr Tac, Lt Eng, Lt Sci
3 tac consoles, 1 eng console, 1 sci console.
Likewise, these are what make the Heavy Escort an escort. Not the hull, not the lower shield modifier, not the higher mobility, arguably not even the dual cannons (Since we now have cruisers with cannons too). It's capabilities define it as what it is, and it's capabilities are directly influenced by BOFF slots and consoles.
I use these tier 3 ships because the lines are so blurred at tier 5 these days that it's hard to see it. You have ships like the Steamrunner that have 4 engineering consoles AND 4 tac consoles, a lot of shield, a lot of hull, and it's still called an escort. But even above all that, what makes it an escort?
It's BOFF layout. Nothing more, nothing less.
it's demonstrated ON SCREEN the galaxy turns extremely well
When and where? The only time we see a Galaxy turning quickly is when it's spinning out of control..Any other time we see a Galaxy-class ship doing anything, it's..
1) Stationary
2) Moving in a straight line
3) Making broad, slow turns
I cannot recall one single instance of a Galaxy-class ship showing any degree of high maneuverability.
What're the major differences between a tier 3 Heavy Escort and a tier 3 Heavy Cruiser?
Heavy Cruiser:
Lt Tac, Lt Cmdr Eng, Ens. Eng, Lt Sci
1 tac console, 3 eng consoles, 1 sci console
THAT is what makes it a cruiser. Not the turn rate, not the hull, not the shield modifier. It's capabilities are what define it as what it is, and it's capabilities are directly influenced by BOFF slots and consoles.
Heavy Escort:
Ensign Tac, Lt Cmdr Tac, Lt Eng, Lt Sci
3 tac consoles, 1 eng console, 1 sci console.
Likewise, these are what make the Heavy Escort an escort. Not the hull, not the lower shield modifier, not the higher mobility, arguably not even the dual cannons (Since we now have cruisers with cannons too). It's capabilities define it as what it is, and it's capabilities are directly influenced by BOFF slots and consoles.
I use these tier 3 ships because the lines are so blurred at tier 5 these days that it's hard to see it. You have ships like the Steamrunner that have 4 engineering consoles AND 4 tac consoles, a lot of shield, a lot of hull, and it's still called an escort. But even above all that, what makes it an escort?
It's BOFF layout. Nothing more, nothing less.
Nope, the biggest difference is the size, turn rate, hull, shields, speed ect. Thats just the thing here, there ARE ships like the steamrunner with those consoles, hull, shields, ect. and other ships like that at t5 that make it based off of size, turn rate, hull shields, speed, ect. They could make a star cruiser or negh'var with a cmd tac, lt cmd tac, ens tac, lt eng, lt sci, and 5 tac consoles, 3 eng consoles and 2 sci consoles and no matter what, they would still be cruisers. Thats just how it is, I didn't make it that way.
Nope, the biggest difference is the size, turn rate, hull, shields, speed ect. Thats just the thing here, there ARE ships like the steamrunner with those consoles, hull, shields, ect. and other ships like that at t5 that make it based off of size, turn rate, hull shields, speed, ect. They could make a star cruiser or negh'var with a cmd tac, lt cmd tac, ens tac, lt eng, lt sci, and 5 tac consoles, 3 eng consoles and 2 sci consoles and no matter what, they would still be cruisers. Thats just how it is, I didn't make it that way.
The Heavy Escort is bigger then the Heavy Cruiser, the Heavy Cruiser still turns well, hull and shield differences are irrelevant because the differences are so small anyway. The big differences come as a result of their capabilities, which are directly influenced by their console slots and bridge officer slots.
They could make a star cruiser or negh'var with a cmd tac, lt cmd tac, ens tac, lt eng, lt sci, and 5 tac consoles, 3 eng consoles and 2 sci consoles and no matter what, they would still be cruisers
No they wouldn't. They'd be really bad escorts. They'd be abysmal because they wouldn't be able to take advantage of any of their strengths, but they wouldn't be cruisers because they have none of a cruiser's strengths. IE, it's BOFF layout and it's console layout.
Even tactically-biased cruisers, like the Bortasque and the Odyssey Tac are still very, very eng-biased. That's what makes them cruisers.
Even cruiser-esque escorts are still escorts, because they lack the thing that makes a cruiser a cruiser. The engineering BOFF slots..
Steamrunner again. What tier 5 cruiser has a Cmdr tac console? None of them. Even really good battlecruisers don't have a commander tactical slot.
Likewise, what escort has a commander engineering slot? Not a single one of them..The closest you'll likely ever see to an escort with a commander engineering slot is the Flor'Kaht, which is still a cruiser because it does not have the tactical capabilities of an escort.
The Heavy Escort is bigger then the Heavy Cruiser, the Heavy Cruiser still turns well, hull and shield differences are irrelevant because the differences are so small anyway. The big differences come as a result of their capabilities, which are directly influenced by their console slots and bridge officer slots.
No they wouldn't. They'd be really bad escorts. They'd be abysmal because they wouldn't be able to take advantage of any of their strengths, but they wouldn't be cruisers because they have none of a cruiser's strengths. IE, it's BOFF layout and it's console layout.
Even tactically-biased cruisers, like the Bortasque and the Odyssey Tac are still very, very eng-biased. That's what makes them cruisers.
Even cruiser-esque escorts are still escorts, because they lack the thing that makes a cruiser a cruiser. The engineering BOFF slots..
I am NOT making any of this up, its all info from some of the earliest dev blogs, and I have never seen anything that says things have changed. If the blogs were still stored in the records I would find them and give the link, but they are not, so like everyone else you are entitled to your opinion.
The "earliest dev blogs" also said that Feds would never have carriers and that the KDF would be a full-content faction..
You can't fall back on 3 year-old dev blogs in a game that's changed so much since those blogs were written.
They never said feds would never have a carrier, they did say Starfleet would never have a carrier, and if there was to be one it would have to come from a Fed member species, which it did, hence the Caitian Atrox Carrier. As for the HEC that is not a full carrier, same with the Vesta and the reason was that it wasn't considered canon, but clearly that was changed and is official, there is nothing saying that the way classifications are given has been changed that I have been able to find, and if you are able to find something, let me know and I will tell you that you were right and I was wrong. Also there are more recent dev blogs saying that KDF will gain more content possibly in the next season, if not then it will be one of the next few seasons. I think it may have been one of the s7 blogs, might be something separate though.
Well if anything that can mount DHC need a better turn rate, you dont mind that my galaxy x get a 0.5 increase turn rate don't you?
Dont worry 6.5 turn rate wont make me turn like an escort if that what frighten you.
Gal-X needs no turn rate buff if you play it as a sniper ^_^ I'm currently rebuilding mine to be used properly
I do think the Exploration Cruiser turn rate is about right, that is just how the ship is meant to be played.
But for the LOVE OF GOD, make the Lieutenant Commander slot on the Exploration Retrofit/Fleet Exploration Retrofit a universal slot. Or AT THE LEAST make the Ensign slot universal. Is that really so much to ask? Are the devs big time TNG haters or what exactly? That is the little change I would like to see.
What're the major differences between a tier 3 Heavy Escort and a tier 3 Heavy Cruiser?
Heavy Cruiser:
Lt Tac, Lt Cmdr Eng, Ens. Eng, Lt Sci
1 tac console, 3 eng consoles, 1 sci console
THAT is what makes it a cruiser. Not the turn rate, not the hull, not the shield modifier. It's capabilities are what define it as what it is, and it's capabilities are directly influenced by BOFF slots and consoles.
Heavy Escort:
Ensign Tac, Lt Cmdr Tac, Lt Eng, Lt Sci
3 tac consoles, 1 eng console, 1 sci console.
Likewise, these are what make the Heavy Escort an escort. Not the hull, not the lower shield modifier, not the higher mobility, arguably not even the dual cannons (Since we now have cruisers with cannons too). It's capabilities define it as what it is, and it's capabilities are directly influenced by BOFF slots and consoles.
I use these tier 3 ships because the lines are so blurred at tier 5 these days that it's hard to see it. You have ships like the Steamrunner that have 4 engineering consoles AND 4 tac consoles, a lot of shield, a lot of hull, and it's still called an escort. But even above all that, what makes it an escort?
It's BOFF layout. Nothing more, nothing less.
When and where? The only time we see a Galaxy turning quickly is when it's spinning out of control..Any other time we see a Galaxy-class ship doing anything, it's..
1) Stationary
2) Moving in a straight line
3) Making broad, slow turns
I cannot recall one single instance of a Galaxy-class ship showing any degree of high maneuverability.
Episodes are "The Nth Degree" "The Defector" "Star Trek Generations" "Q Who" "The best of both Worlds"
Now, show me episodes where cruisers broadside. Show me where the KDF cruisers are more agile.
I don't recall the Enterprise-D showing any outstanding maneuverability in any of those. In fact, in Generations, the Enterprise-D just sat there while it got shot full of holes. It's most abrupt maneuver was when Diana was crashing it..
Now, show me episodes where cruisers broadside.
Episode where cruisers broadside? Easy. Sacrifice of Angels, two Galaxy-class ships (Galaxy and Venture, if I recall) fly past a Galor, broadsiding it as they go. Later in that same episode, we see a Galaxy sitting stationary zapping stuff offscreen.
Multiple times in First Contact, we see ships circling the Cube, using weapons to their port and starboard to "broadside" the Cube.
In "Yesterday's Enterprise", the Enterprise-D turns it's port broadside to the K'Vorts to cover the Enterprise-C's escape.
Just a few examples I can think of off the top of my head.
Hell, even all thruout Voyager, we see the ship prefering to cycle thru it's phaser arcs rather then try to keep any one specific battery facing an enemy, and Voyager's vastly more maneuverable then the Enterprise-D...
Show me where the KDF cruisers are more agile.
Also easy.
The Vor'Cha is implied to be more maneuverable then a Galaxy-class pretty much since the first time we see one. Then, in Way of the Warrior (DS9) we see a Vor'Cha turning with Defiant, able to keep it's forward battery on Defiant's rear dogfight-style until Defiant TrekTek's some BS with it's tractor beam.
Later, we see Janeway's shuttlecraft unable to evade a Negh'Var in VOY: Endgame
Seriously, her shuttle couldn't shake a Negh'Var...
In Voy: Prophecy, an old Klingon D7 is able to follow Voyager, despite Janeway ordering "Evasive maneuvers". So apparently, an Intrepid can't out-maneuver an old Klink D7?
A cruiser with cannons.... eeeer what? why exactly would a cruiser with 1K+ people inside of it be as nimble and fast to use cannons? The people inside the ship would simple be killed. It has to be realistic as possible without stepping o stomping on the creator of the series story itself.
This is a game yes, but it is not fan fiction, you have to learn to use the ships as they are. Heck I have an escort but i would prefer to broadside with beams then to become a battery popping pill head like the rest of my contemporaries and because of my unique game play and my superb builds i am constantly being invited to pvp and elite stfs because with befaw i am able to take all the aggro from all the other captains, strip shields and allow the dhc children to make the kills. I may not make the most kills since i use phasers but i have never been lower then 2 on the list of dps output and this is with phaser beams broadsiding my enemy and befaw scaffing my partners enemy and I haven't even put in a good phaser DB to the nose to replace high yield missile with BO. (Why people get 2 BO's is beyond me. The amount of pain you cause yourself is just ridiculous.)
I personally like the Patrol escort console set up. 2 tac, two eng, 1 sci, makes that old girl nearly invincible. I usually just jump into battles broadsiding both sides and killing them on my return.... i prolly whistle and make sandwiches while i do it as well... just to make it interesting.
If they added a 4 slot tac and a 3 slot tac to any ship big or small i would use it. having 3 tacs is just stupid to me doesn't make sense to have so much firepower at the expense of survivability. I'd rather live through the battle then to die in a blaze of glory if you ask me. If they allowed my to have APO and 2 Befaws along with my currnt set up i would fly a cruiser in a heart beat and wouldn't give a dam about turning, in fact i would prolly be stationary most of the time to ensure that i am always broadsiding on both sides. My build is set up for massive energy drains infact i never go into the red the lowest my ETR was around 95 and thats with 6 beams firing broadsides and with Befaw activated.
I haven't done it yet because of their set up but i think if I got what I wanted or would like in a cruiser then I would fly one and I would prolly fly it well. That is why I want the BREEN Battleship, it is the only ship I have seen that is big and healthy and came close to th console set up of the godlike patrol escort.
In the end a ship is made to be played a certain way but we as players like to mess around with it and play it how we want to play it. We have all these consoles to mod turns and such if you really wanted to turn really fast then you have to use some easy fixes. like 2 RCS XII's and evasive manuvers or something and i'm pretty sure even that big girl will fish tail pretty good. But sometimes we get stuck wanting what we want and not really willing to give up anything in return it's simply human greed. If you want to strike a deal with the devil ten you better be willing to bet your soul to get it or else we shouldn't come to the table saying "Please sir, can I have some more."
Oh and Ships are female, their are no male ships... ever. Any Tool that is used by mankind is considered female, be it house, car, boat, ship, plane, so on and so forth... just thought I'd add that in there.
Comments
Um... yeah. I have determined you didn't read my post after all. I took my quotes straight from game material. Straight from the dev blogs themselves. Allow me to re-quote what I quoted, with the links to their sources:
Straight from the dev blog (link). And wait, there's more!
(link)
So yeah... I do read. Apparently more than you, since I at least have the courtesy to read all the posts instead of the first 3 sentences and then answer. Again, same problem you always have. You let your hot-headed opinion get in the way, and you don't leave any room for someone else to be right. And you wonder why people mock your ideas?
I hate having to say this every time I butt heads with you, but here goes. Calm down, take a deep breath, take a step back, and actually listen. You aren't always going to be right. Others who don't agree with you aren't always going to be wrong. Leave room for others opinions, leave room for others to possibly be correct. You can only learn from your mistakes. No need to keep repeating them.
Not disrespecting your post, but it's too long for me to quote without being rude and taking up a huge amount of space. But I did read it. And I apologize for being rude earlier, I was just annoyed at OP. And yes, I got the stats wrong on the turn rate for the Odyssey. But I do fly one on a regular basis, and I do know that ship inside and out. I know what she can do, and I know what she cannot do. I make it a habit to learn all of my ships, the majority of which have been cruisers. So I do know what a +.5 turn rate can do. And if you maximize it (probably should have stated this earlier) you can indeed achieve a +2 or +3 turn rate.
And as for the build change suggestion? It was a suggestion nothing more. I was not attacking your current build or your current setup, since as you stated, I don't know either one, I was just offering possible alternative solutions to just straight out buffing cruisers.
And lastly, I find it amusing that you would accuse me of outright dismissing someone's ideas. The only one that I would do that with might be OP, since he has shown time and again that he doesn't even listen to others who disagree, and leaves no room for their opinions. I on the other hand, do actually read, analyze, and depending on my mood will either respond intelligently or on the rare occasion just outright blast the person. So no, I did not outright dismiss you or your idea. I just didn't see the need for it. Not in the way it was suggested.
Hopefully that clears things up.
i think you are confusing the galaxy class of captain picard with the galaxy x or riker here.
because if " realistic" for you mean as we saw it on the show... well there the galaxy x would be a god ship, clearly.the ultimate prototype of an I WIN ship.
seriously a ship that obliterate 2 negvar in a blink of an eyes and get aways without even a scratch?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbNZg7r_9B8
no, that not what i am asking for.
what i mean by realistic build, for a cruiser that is meant for war, is in relation with the game system, not the series or film.
if you want to push dps with any ship in this game, you need canon.
to have a realistic canon build you need at a minimum 2 lt tactical BO slot, not less,this way you can have 2 canon power to minimize cooldown.
note that this would absolutly not be the more powerfull canon build, especially in a cruiser, but at leat it would have a more constant buff firepowerthan just having 1 canon power.
nothing genious here, that just game basic.
many cruiser today are capable of achieving this, and most of these cruiser aren't meant for war in the first place, regent, exelsior, odyssey, dkora, 1000 day reward ship.
klingons have a bunch of cruiser capable of this, normal for a war faction oriented.
and mind you, having the possibility to use a canon build don't enhanced their turn rate, it stay the same, a cruiser turn rate, so nothing that can be call "quick".
having a canon build in a cruiser is more risky than having a beam build, in pvp that is.
here with a canon build you would really have to outthink your opponent
i use this ship for years and a half, exclusivly,so i am used to it slow turn rate, and even with beam, with this ship you must outhink your opponent whenever that is possible.
i would like to try a canon build on it but i can't du to BO layout limitation.
so hence my proposal of turnrate increase and bo layout modification to finally have the opportuniti to do what other federation cruiser can already do despite the fact that they aren't been made for war.
the galaxy x have been retrofit in war time, it was meant for that, and that the nonsense, that the unrealistic things about it, it can't have a descent canon build.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
I am am escort captain and so thats where i cut my teeth but I do have this to say about turn rates.
The bug has high turn rates because it is so small it's more like a fighter then a cruiser. a crew of 50.
Secondly I wouldn't mind it if the cruisers and carriers turned a little better but i doubt they will. Ships simply get out moded. You do not see like wooden ships fighting against metal ships because you are just out matched. The old cruisers are well... old school and it might be time to push them into your starbase and look at them from time to time. It's sad but thats the world we live in. Heck I have to push my beloved Patrol Escort into the museum.
The breen is a very fascinating ship, she is a big girl that can run with the best of them and i plan to use her to the fullest. until i can get my hands on the next best thing. We can't constantly keep looking towards the past to fight our future battles.... we can't roll catapults onto the battle field and wondering why we are losing....
I was speaking in terms of maneuverability. Even in that scene, again, the E-D just flew in a straight line..
Also, only 1 of the Negh'Vars (If it was even a Negh'Var as we know it. "Attack Cruiser" is what they're called in the episode) were destroyed. The other disengaged.
As for "without even a scratch", I seem to remember the ship taking enough damage in that brief engagement for it's cloaking device to be knocked out?
By newer line of ships I simply meant that its setup (large hull, high turn rate, pretty much a cruiser/escort hybrid) is something new and unique and I believe we will see more like it in the future. I did not mean anything related to its time of creation.
I would not be surprised if we see another hybrid ship in the future. I could be wrong on this, but its just an assumption.
On another note: I've noticed some saying that the boff setups determine the class of ship. That has nothing to do with it, ships are classified by size. (cruisers are any large, durable ship; escorts are small, nimble ships; sci ships are larger, but weaker support ships; destroyers are essentialy a larger more durable escort; heavy battle cruisers are cruisers that are designed for battle; battlecruisers essentialy are larger destroyers, but smaller than a heavy battle cruiser; carriers are huge ships that carry support craft, not including the 1 hangar ships which fall under Flight Deck Cruiser or one of the other categories and simply have the addition of a hangar bay; Dreadnoughts are the largest and most powerful ships; Raptors are their own classification, but are essentialy escorts;raiders are generally the smallest starships and are designed for quick hit and run strikes, and before anyone says shuttles/fighters are smaller, they are not large enough to count as starships, they are shuttles/fighters nothing more) If by some chance the boff setup is how ships are classified in STO (which wouldn't make any sense given the class of some ships that don't have related boffs layouts) then that is news to me, and I would probably have to have verification from a dev to believe it. I haven't found a single bit of info. stating that ships in STO are classified by their boff layout. There is no Warship classification for either KDF or Fed in STO, otherwise it would be in the ship requisition store (not even kdf have any, they do have raiders and raptors as their own class, as well as no escort class ships, which proves that they don't just call them something else, obviously there would be a warship category if they had any), the breen ship is simply called that because it is designed for the sole purpose of war and the Breen may have a Warship classification, but that dosen't matter since we are not the Breen using it, we are Feds and KDF, the ship falls under one of the cruiser categories as far as either faction is concerned, when Cryptic calls it a warship they most likely are emphasizing the power it has, nothing more (though this also MAY be a hint that they are adding a Warship class to the game as a new ship style, however that would interfere with the canon since Cryptic as already informed us before that Starfleet having full out Warships isn't canon, given the reason why Feds couldn't have a Starfleet carrier and the Atrox has little offensive power compared to the KDF carriers, making it all very unlikely). For example, the Negh'var Heavy Battle Cruiser is considered a warship because it was intended for war (look at the npc names for verification), but is obviously classified as a heavy battle cruiser and falls under the category of cruiser in the ship requisition store, and also has only 1 tac boff which is a lt; supporting the fact that ships are not classified by boff layouts in STO, if they were the ship would be called Negh'var Cruiser. If that is not enough proof then look at the Dreadnought Cruiser, its called a Dreadnought by Cryptic, does that make it a Dreadnought? NO, it is a Cruiser and falls under that category in the ship requisition store. So, just because Cryptic named it Breen Chel'grett Warship does not make it a Warship obviously, if you can't understand that then I suggest you don't think about it cause it might cause you to have a headache. There are other examples, but those are some that are more obvious than others.
Also people need to stop confusing modern day naval classifications with that of Star Trek, they are different and not every modern country uses the same classification system. If anyone needs proof on this, then go to official sites and do some reading or you can always read some books, just make sure they are officially labeled non-fiction.
If anyone has their own opinion on this matter then it is their right to think as they want, but what I have stated is based on facts, not personal opinion and will remain facts until proven wrong by someone such as a dev or a producer of Star Trek, at which point I will accept the new system, whatever it may be. I apologize if I come across as harsh, but facts are facts, I am just someone who needs substantial evidence before changing my mind. (if we all believed what others said without proof then the world would be a sadder place than it is now, which is why I won't blame anyone for disagreeing with me)
Battlecruiser (by today's definition, anyway) is a ship that combines the speed and maneuverability of a cruiser with the firepower of a battleship, often at the expense of protection.
So, for the battlecruisers ingame, they got it at least somewhat right. You've got cruisers with high mobility, somewhat weaker protection with the frontal firepower of a battleship (thru the use of dual cannons).
But that in no means makes the classifications ingame compatible at all with today's naval classifications. Especially when a Destroyer has more firepower then a Cruiser.
Star Trek has never used a classification system compatible with modern naval classifications. The only exception is, again, Starfleet Command, which isn't canon, and is based on Star Fleet Battles, which is a completely different universe using a completely different technology base.
My favourite World war two ship was a pocket battle ship
Fact:
Cruisers and Battlecruisers have more Engineering Consoles than any other ship class and any other console type on their ships. If not higher then at least equal.
Fact:
Every Tier 5 or higher Cruiser and Battlecruiser has a Commander Engineering BOff station.
Fact:
Every Tier 5 or higher Cruiser and Battlecruiser has a 1.0 or higher shield modifier.
Fact:
Every cruiser/battlecruiser has more health than most of the other equal tier ship classes, only surpassed by carriers.
You wanted facts, you got em. Now let's take the Chel'gret Warship.
Fact:
This ship has 4 Tactical consoles, 3 Engineering Consoles, and 3 Science Consoles. Not in line with ANY of the other cruiser or battlecruiser class ships in this game.
Fact:
It's Commander BOff station is a Tactical. Not in line with ANY of the other cruisers or battlecruisers in this game.
Fact:
This ship has a 1.0 shield modifier. In line with cruisers and battlecruisers.
Fact:
This ship has more hull than all other tier 5 escorts and science ships. In line with cruisers and battlecruisers.
So you're 2 for 4. Take what you will from it. But as I said, you wanted facts, you got facts. It should also be noted that every federation cruiser has cruiser as part of it's name. Also a fact.
Hence why I said the Chel'gret is a warship, not a cruiser.
I was most angry and stressed on that day and apoligise for the outburst.
I do support a 1 to 2 turnrate buff for Fed cruisers and a 1 point turnrate buff for KDF battlecruisers.
Heavy beams Arrays and other ideas displayed so many times before to help the game and the Cruiser player.
R.I.P
"Pocket Battleship" wasn't even an official designation. Their official designation was "Panzerschiffe". They were essentially light cruisers with big guns. There is no "official" designation for a ship of that classification because nobody else has been dumb enough to do it..
By this list, the Steamrunner is more a cruiser then the Breen rig. And it's still far more maneuverable then any cruiser, battlecruiser or heavy escort.
And yet it's not prompting "BUFF CRUISER" threads?
Precursor to the modern Destroyer?
R.I.P
And the Kreigs marine and the royal navy differ on designations
I have a rather good Airfix model of one I have had for thirty years (only other surviving kit being my Hms Hood)
Uh, have you looked at the armor schemes of the Panzershiffes?
Compare the armor schemes of these 3 ships.
Emden (Light Cruiser)
Graf Spee (Panzerschiffe)
Prinz Eugen (Heavy Cruiser)
I guarantee you Graf Spee's armor scheme is MUCH more similar to Emden's then Prinz Eugen's..
No they didn't. The Germans and the British shared naval designations since well before WWI. A British Battlecruiser as comparable to a German battlecruiser, a Destroyer was a Destroyer, Cruiser was a Cruiser, etc.
US, Britain, Germany, Japan, Russia, France and Italy all shared a pretty similar designation system for their navies.
but its not worth the argument
So ill let this go (you might like to visit the Royal naval museum at portsmouth some time)
Emden:
2" belt, 1.6" deck.
Graf Spee:
3.1" belt, 1.8" deck.
Prinz Eugen:
3.1" belt, 3.1" secondary belt, 4.3" total deck.
Graf Spee had no secondary or tertiary deck, had no secondary belt, had no turtleback plating, had no decapping plate and it's belt was ridiculously low on the hull. Prinz Eugen was a much, much better armored ship then the Panzerschiffes, which had armor schemes based on WWI-era light cruisers..
Their entire design principal was "Out-gun anything that can catch you, out-run anything that out-guns you."
They were not designed to combat other major warships..
For what it's worth, I'm an MVAE pilot down to the bone. I've flown every possible configuration on that ship with just about every loadout and DOff complement available.
I can tell you right now that any ship with the MVAE layout is not a cruiser. Ignore the hull and the shields, they're 5% of a ship's strength. 60% is its BOff layout. It'll probably do fine in PvE, but the fact of the matter is that the Breen ship cannot tank (it can't even speed tank really, since it has a terrible impulse mod and a low base turn).
In fact it's probably even worse off than MVAE, double Omega means nothing when you're trying to rack up defense and percent-based speed buffs on a slow TRIBBLE space whale. MVAE is one of the most fragile non-BoP ships in game and it can only 'tank' with a very narrow shield-tanking setup.
The thing is an escort in all but name. Please don't be fooled by Cryptic's marketing division.
vids and guides and stuff
[9:52] [Zone #11] Neal@trapper1532: im a omega force shadow oprative and a maoc elite camander and here i am taking water samples
I disagree. the odys, the galaxy and the atrox and the botresque all need bumps to at least the slowest turning of the klink cruisers. it's demonstrated ON SCREEN the galaxy turns extremely well
Those are exactly what effects the classifcation.
What're the major differences between a tier 3 Heavy Escort and a tier 3 Heavy Cruiser?
Heavy Cruiser:
Lt Tac, Lt Cmdr Eng, Ens. Eng, Lt Sci
1 tac console, 3 eng consoles, 1 sci console
THAT is what makes it a cruiser. Not the turn rate, not the hull, not the shield modifier. It's capabilities are what define it as what it is, and it's capabilities are directly influenced by BOFF slots and consoles.
Heavy Escort:
Ensign Tac, Lt Cmdr Tac, Lt Eng, Lt Sci
3 tac consoles, 1 eng console, 1 sci console.
Likewise, these are what make the Heavy Escort an escort. Not the hull, not the lower shield modifier, not the higher mobility, arguably not even the dual cannons (Since we now have cruisers with cannons too). It's capabilities define it as what it is, and it's capabilities are directly influenced by BOFF slots and consoles.
I use these tier 3 ships because the lines are so blurred at tier 5 these days that it's hard to see it. You have ships like the Steamrunner that have 4 engineering consoles AND 4 tac consoles, a lot of shield, a lot of hull, and it's still called an escort. But even above all that, what makes it an escort?
It's BOFF layout. Nothing more, nothing less.
When and where? The only time we see a Galaxy turning quickly is when it's spinning out of control..Any other time we see a Galaxy-class ship doing anything, it's..
1) Stationary
2) Moving in a straight line
3) Making broad, slow turns
I cannot recall one single instance of a Galaxy-class ship showing any degree of high maneuverability.
Nope, the biggest difference is the size, turn rate, hull, shields, speed ect. Thats just the thing here, there ARE ships like the steamrunner with those consoles, hull, shields, ect. and other ships like that at t5 that make it based off of size, turn rate, hull shields, speed, ect. They could make a star cruiser or negh'var with a cmd tac, lt cmd tac, ens tac, lt eng, lt sci, and 5 tac consoles, 3 eng consoles and 2 sci consoles and no matter what, they would still be cruisers. Thats just how it is, I didn't make it that way.
The Heavy Escort is bigger then the Heavy Cruiser, the Heavy Cruiser still turns well, hull and shield differences are irrelevant because the differences are so small anyway. The big differences come as a result of their capabilities, which are directly influenced by their console slots and bridge officer slots.
No they wouldn't. They'd be really bad escorts. They'd be abysmal because they wouldn't be able to take advantage of any of their strengths, but they wouldn't be cruisers because they have none of a cruiser's strengths. IE, it's BOFF layout and it's console layout.
Even tactically-biased cruisers, like the Bortasque and the Odyssey Tac are still very, very eng-biased. That's what makes them cruisers.
Even cruiser-esque escorts are still escorts, because they lack the thing that makes a cruiser a cruiser. The engineering BOFF slots..
Steamrunner again. What tier 5 cruiser has a Cmdr tac console? None of them. Even really good battlecruisers don't have a commander tactical slot.
Likewise, what escort has a commander engineering slot? Not a single one of them..The closest you'll likely ever see to an escort with a commander engineering slot is the Flor'Kaht, which is still a cruiser because it does not have the tactical capabilities of an escort.
I am NOT making any of this up, its all info from some of the earliest dev blogs, and I have never seen anything that says things have changed. If the blogs were still stored in the records I would find them and give the link, but they are not, so like everyone else you are entitled to your opinion.
You can't fall back on 3 year-old dev blogs in a game that's changed so much since those blogs were written.
They never said feds would never have a carrier, they did say Starfleet would never have a carrier, and if there was to be one it would have to come from a Fed member species, which it did, hence the Caitian Atrox Carrier. As for the HEC that is not a full carrier, same with the Vesta and the reason was that it wasn't considered canon, but clearly that was changed and is official, there is nothing saying that the way classifications are given has been changed that I have been able to find, and if you are able to find something, let me know and I will tell you that you were right and I was wrong. Also there are more recent dev blogs saying that KDF will gain more content possibly in the next season, if not then it will be one of the next few seasons. I think it may have been one of the s7 blogs, might be something separate though.
Gal-X needs no turn rate buff if you play it as a sniper ^_^ I'm currently rebuilding mine to be used properly
But for the LOVE OF GOD, make the Lieutenant Commander slot on the Exploration Retrofit/Fleet Exploration Retrofit a universal slot. Or AT THE LEAST make the Ensign slot universal. Is that really so much to ask? Are the devs big time TNG haters or what exactly? That is the little change I would like to see.
Episodes are "The Nth Degree" "The Defector" "Star Trek Generations" "Q Who" "The best of both Worlds"
Now, show me episodes where cruisers broadside. Show me where the KDF cruisers are more agile.
Episode where cruisers broadside? Easy. Sacrifice of Angels, two Galaxy-class ships (Galaxy and Venture, if I recall) fly past a Galor, broadsiding it as they go. Later in that same episode, we see a Galaxy sitting stationary zapping stuff offscreen.
Multiple times in First Contact, we see ships circling the Cube, using weapons to their port and starboard to "broadside" the Cube.
In "Yesterday's Enterprise", the Enterprise-D turns it's port broadside to the K'Vorts to cover the Enterprise-C's escape.
Just a few examples I can think of off the top of my head.
Hell, even all thruout Voyager, we see the ship prefering to cycle thru it's phaser arcs rather then try to keep any one specific battery facing an enemy, and Voyager's vastly more maneuverable then the Enterprise-D...
Also easy.
The Vor'Cha is implied to be more maneuverable then a Galaxy-class pretty much since the first time we see one. Then, in Way of the Warrior (DS9) we see a Vor'Cha turning with Defiant, able to keep it's forward battery on Defiant's rear dogfight-style until Defiant TrekTek's some BS with it's tractor beam.
Later, we see Janeway's shuttlecraft unable to evade a Negh'Var in VOY: Endgame
Seriously, her shuttle couldn't shake a Negh'Var...
In Voy: Prophecy, an old Klingon D7 is able to follow Voyager, despite Janeway ordering "Evasive maneuvers". So apparently, an Intrepid can't out-maneuver an old Klink D7?
This is a game yes, but it is not fan fiction, you have to learn to use the ships as they are. Heck I have an escort but i would prefer to broadside with beams then to become a battery popping pill head like the rest of my contemporaries and because of my unique game play and my superb builds i am constantly being invited to pvp and elite stfs because with befaw i am able to take all the aggro from all the other captains, strip shields and allow the dhc children to make the kills. I may not make the most kills since i use phasers but i have never been lower then 2 on the list of dps output and this is with phaser beams broadsiding my enemy and befaw scaffing my partners enemy and I haven't even put in a good phaser DB to the nose to replace high yield missile with BO. (Why people get 2 BO's is beyond me. The amount of pain you cause yourself is just ridiculous.)
I personally like the Patrol escort console set up. 2 tac, two eng, 1 sci, makes that old girl nearly invincible. I usually just jump into battles broadsiding both sides and killing them on my return.... i prolly whistle and make sandwiches while i do it as well... just to make it interesting.
If they added a 4 slot tac and a 3 slot tac to any ship big or small i would use it. having 3 tacs is just stupid to me doesn't make sense to have so much firepower at the expense of survivability. I'd rather live through the battle then to die in a blaze of glory if you ask me. If they allowed my to have APO and 2 Befaws along with my currnt set up i would fly a cruiser in a heart beat and wouldn't give a dam about turning, in fact i would prolly be stationary most of the time to ensure that i am always broadsiding on both sides. My build is set up for massive energy drains infact i never go into the red the lowest my ETR was around 95 and thats with 6 beams firing broadsides and with Befaw activated.
I haven't done it yet because of their set up but i think if I got what I wanted or would like in a cruiser then I would fly one and I would prolly fly it well. That is why I want the BREEN Battleship, it is the only ship I have seen that is big and healthy and came close to th console set up of the godlike patrol escort.
In the end a ship is made to be played a certain way but we as players like to mess around with it and play it how we want to play it. We have all these consoles to mod turns and such if you really wanted to turn really fast then you have to use some easy fixes. like 2 RCS XII's and evasive manuvers or something and i'm pretty sure even that big girl will fish tail pretty good. But sometimes we get stuck wanting what we want and not really willing to give up anything in return it's simply human greed. If you want to strike a deal with the devil ten you better be willing to bet your soul to get it or else we shouldn't come to the table saying "Please sir, can I have some more."
Oh and Ships are female, their are no male ships... ever. Any Tool that is used by mankind is considered female, be it house, car, boat, ship, plane, so on and so forth... just thought I'd add that in there.