People keep saying but 5 eng consoles is awesome all that armor!? cept that more then 2 armor consoles usually results in such massive diminishing returns that 3rd is border line useless and the 4th and 5th are total wastes.
You have a lot of valid points.
I just want to point out that after mounting the best armor load, those extra Eng console slots could be used for RCS Accelerators for added turn speed. If Injector Assembly adds to turn rate, that could be useful also.
a few degrees per sec of turnrate in trade for completely gimped boff layout and console layout really worth it? As things sit its by far the worst cruiser, not by a little bit but by a lot.
Over 1600 replies to this thread? Wow! Lots of people have passionate feelings about this iconic vessel.
That said, why assume that a flagship would be the most bad-TRIBBLE vessel of a fleet? A flagship is a show of power, sure, but it is also somewhat decorative and symbolic.
well, the problem is that i didn't see in cryptic cstore description that the galaxy is a powerfull decorative ship with the best symbolic phaser array....or did i?:D
anyway, you seem to be a new player, and your view on the galaxy, even if i do not share it is refreshing... somehow.
welcome to the thread!
don't worry if you happened to get snipe by one of us creazy mad galaxy fan, we'r just like that! no harmed intended:D
I Have a great Idea, and i want to know your opinion about it, , i think they can add it in game in a (blink),, here it comes what if, all newbies at the beginning , like every single officer must earn there first , new ship. and they should start ,, yes ,, there it comes as a first officer ,, fits totaly in a startrek story and easy build in,, well let me know how you guys think about it,,, sory for my english writting skills cause iam dutch (-.
demonstrably wrong.
pve has definite and clear minimum dps requirments.
be it holding a side of probes in vortex, or taking out a transformer group.
if you cant dps the probes your ship is pretty much bull****
if you cant solo the cube over a transformer, easily done with an escort, you have a complete failboat.
That "minimum" is almost an insignificant amount.
You can also say that PvE has a minimum durability requirement to not get blown up on every hit. Here you're saying "you need to shoot! you shouldn't need to shoot! Being able to tank or CC needs to be enough!!!"
.....And Cruisers are the aircraft carriers in the fleet. Originally only 3 Galaxys were operational.
Carriers, are the carriers of the fleets. Not cruisers, seeing as how they have no launch bays. As far as the limited number of Galaxy class ships there originally were...there was only ONE USS Defiant originally, you don't see the Defiant fan boys claiming that somehow that matters do you?
I Have a great Idea, and i want to know your opinion about it, , i think they can add it in game in a (blink),, here it comes what if, all newbies at the beginning , like every single officer must earn there first , new ship. and they should start ,, yes ,, there it comes as a first officer ,, fits totaly in a startrek story and easy build in,, well let me know how you guys think about it,,, sory for my english writting skills cause iam dutch (-.
hmm, sorry but... what this have to do with the tread dutchboy?:)
You can also say that PvE has a minimum durability requirement to not get blown up on every hit. Here you're saying "you need to shoot! you shouldn't need to shoot! Being able to tank or CC needs to be enough!!!"
Carriers, are the carriers of the fleets. Not cruisers, seeing as how they have no launch bays. As far as the limited number of Galaxy class ships there originally were...there was only ONE USS Defiant originally, you don't see the Defiant fan boys claiming that somehow that matters do you?
Dude Carrier is the cruiser in trek. They largerly abadoned fighters in trek. the most we ever saw was dominion war and the Galaxy and others like the Sovreign can easily hold them. But the ships like the Galaxy are always the core of a fleet. in the battle for DS9 the fed forces was 2 fleets and we saw 4 galaxys, that's 2 per fleet. and note our carriers are in the same boat there.
Also Defiant was a prototype mothball that was reactivated after Odyessy went boom boom. Sisko and Obrein made her work and the Defiant class began production. I defiant is much easier to construct than a Galaxy. but can't hold as much.
if its the difference between being able to effectivly fulfil a role and not, then its not insignificant.
a role that can be done afk in an escort, and is a pain in the TRIBBLE for cruisers or neutered sci ships
:
Fulfilling the DPS requirements for content in STO is laughably easy for even a team of cruisers. If only they bothered to build their ships well and play them right. All too often you see cruiser pilots sit at just under 10 Km range and plink away with beam arrays.... sure, those cruisers are NEVER going to get anything done.
Fulfilling the DPS requirements for content in STO is laughably easy for even a team of cruisers. If only they bothered to build their ships well and play them right. All too often you see cruiser pilots sit at just under 10 Km range and plink away with beam arrays.... sure, those cruisers are NEVER going to get anything done.
Whereas a proper cruiser goes in and slams the target with BAs and Torps and the KCB from 3k or less.
Because a proper cruiser can tank a gate/tac cube/donatra all day and not care.
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.
Just the fact the Fleet Negh'var got universal ensign and Fleet Galaxy-R did not can tell you, how much devs care about TNG ships and the so called "ship balance". There is no reason, why those two ships, that were FED/KDF mirrors from launch, should not get the same fleet treatment, except for personal bias.
Let's review it.
Negh'Var has -1100 hps, and gets +3 turn, cloak, ability to have dual cannons and on top of it, universal ensign...ship balance at it's finest.
Negh'var got universal ensign probably due to them not really having an equivalent of a starcruiser and assault.
also because the fleet patrol got a universal ens, 1 each i guess. the fleet patrol, the most redundant and unremarkable end game escorts the feds have, what a waste :rolleyes:
The Neg'vhar is also better for combat because even in Canon she was designed for fighting, and ONLY fighting. So it stands to reason she would be more offensively and combat oriented.
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.
Carriers, are the carriers of the fleets. Not cruisers, seeing as how they have no launch bays. As far as the limited number of Galaxy class ships there originally were...there was only ONE USS Defiant originally, you don't see the Defiant fan boys claiming that somehow that matters do you?
... I'm going to have call you out on this one skyranger.
You misunderstand why Carriers became top dog vs the Battleship.
In ship vs ship combat the Iowa Class Battleship is arguably one of the best, if not the best.
No Aircraft Carrier with her 2 inch thick armor could stand up to or put a dent in an Iowa.
She doesn't have the capacity to duel one. Simple fact.
Destroyers, Cruisers, Heavy Cruisers, same thing. They can't take on a fully functional and up to date Battleship. Or even the USS Missouri after her latest refit from mothballs.
The Battleship is designed for ship to ship combat and limited bombardment support.
And in that role she reigns supreme.
Now, why did the Carrier and Destroyer replace the Battleship then if it is still so "superior?"
Range would be the simplest answer.
The big guns on the Iowa had a roughly 20-25 mile range.
Compare that to a now retired Jet the F-14 Tomcats combat range of 578 miles with the ability to hit a target with precision and with far superior firepower.
Destroyers could be made faster, for far less and were cheaper to refit, and could carry long range ordinance.
And suddenly it becomes clear.
In Star Trek, there is no Aircraft Carrier replacing the Battleship.
Why?
Because the firepower carried by a Star Trek Battleship will never be out done by a star fighter. The best it can do is equal it in that they both can fire a photon torpedo.
But the Battleship carries far more, and doesn't need to come home and refuel and reload before unloading again.
Then you have Phasers.
I don't care what you think of the SDE theory, or the NDF theory or if you even care about what any of that is. I have yet to meet anyone on here that thinks a shuttlecrafts Phaser blasts hit near as hard as the starship we have seen fire onscreen. Because they don't.
Then there is speed of deployment and range.
Warp drive. 1-10. Shuttles rarely exceed Warp 2.
Range. Even if a Shuttle can match pace with a Cruiser, the Cruiser has far superior range.
So guess what.
In Star Trek, the Battleship is king.
Cruisers are literally the best and most efficient use of your resources.
They cannot be "outdps'd" by anything smaller than them minus some great disparity between techs.
And some of you people accuse JJ of being all SW on ST.
At least he seems to understand how the ship power structure goes in ST. Larger usually means its going to eat you.
Probably the most logical and sensible advice ever given in this entire thread. Also the least likely to be followed. Am I the only one that finds that to be funny?
It read to me more like "Don't worry cruiser captains, be happy with your mediocrity".
... I'm going to have call you out on this one skyranger.
You misunderstand why Carriers became top dog vs the Battleship.
Wut? If you want to talk about which is top dog that's one thing, but its incorrect to refer as cruisers as carriers due to their lack of launch bays. Carriers have launch bays, ful carriers have 2 launch bays, and cruisers have none. I'm not sure what isn't clear?
In ship vs ship combat the Iowa Class Battleship is arguably one of the best, if not the best.
No Aircraft Carrier with her 2 inch thick armor could stand up to or put a dent in an Iowa.
She doesn't have the capacity to duel one. Simple fact.
I'm not sure what this has to do with you mislabeling a ship type, but thanks for refreshing my memory, its been a few years since I wrote papers about this very subject in college.
And suddenly it becomes clear.
In Star Trek, there is no Aircraft Carrier replacing the Battleship.
Why?
Because the firepower carried by a Star Trek Battleship will never be out done by a star fighter. The best it can do is equal it in that they both can fire a photon torpedo.
But the Battleship carries far more, and doesn't need to come home and refuel and reload before unloading again.
Then you have Phasers.
I don't care what you think of the SDE theory, or the NDF theory or if you even care about what any of that is. I have yet to meet anyone on here that thinks a shuttlecrafts Phaser blasts hit near as hard as the starship we have seen fire onscreen. Because they don't.
This is less about STO but more about future weapons in general, but......How do you know? We've seen in TV episodes a single overloaded hand phaser rock a connie, a HAND phaser. We've seen fighter wings take on groups of cruisers and be expected to do sufficient damage to not be ignored.
You're thinking in 20th century energy to mass ratios. In Star Trek they have mastered energy storage/energy conversion sufficiently that they can have hand held energy weapons of incredible potency, that alone makes all of your arguments invalid. Its not a matter of the energy supply, but rather of the channeling or conversion equipment..AKA, your weapons.
Naturally shuttles/fighters get fewer weapons slots due to their smaller size, but more than size proportionality would lead us to believe thanks to such gear being relatively small. But lets ignore all that, like you yourself said strapping a pair of photon torpedoes to a Peregrine would be more than enough to ruin a cruiser's day, especially if that Peregrine brought along 12 of his or her closest friends! If anything we can all see that in STO fighters are very low power compared to what they could be.
Of course we could then look at shields, most would keep thinking in 20th century power/mass ratios and conclude that a big ship would have stronger shields... I have to ask again, how do you know? In most cases a bigger bubble is harder to maintain than a smaller one, maybe shields work under the same rules, maybe they do not.
In STO NPC combat pets are made to be complementary to the carrier, and not replace its firepower. Which makes sense, STO is not about simulating modern naval warfare. That would be silly, its about playing exciting ships, not sending NPCs to do your job.
So guess what.
In Star Trek, the Battleship is king.
Cruisers are literally the best and most efficient use of your resources.
They cannot be "outdps'd" by anything smaller than them minus some great disparity between techs.
I fail to see why you bring this up, no one is disputing the ships are the main thing in space combat and NOT the fighters or shuttles... so why bring this up?
And some of you people accuse JJ of being all SW on ST.
At least he seems to understand how the ship power structure goes in ST. Larger usually means its going to eat you.
What I DO find funny is that in all this you don't bring up the one thing that would doom small weapon delivery platforms with big weapons. Energy point defense systems of great range and power.
those federation fighters needed several passes to even inflict harm on galors. their weapons are nearly harmless to actual starships. we have seen a galaxy class swat like 10 strike craft sized targets in about a second. fighters are in no way a viable weapon in the star trek universe, not against star ships at least. if the iowa had deflector shields that would change things, battleships wouldn't just get picked apart by aircraft. but in star trek, its not the large ship thats vulnerable, its the fighter. and the starships's weapons arent artillery pieces, they are ultra precise beam arrays, at a scale and power output 100 times or greater then what a fighter could carry.
those federation fighters needed several passes to even inflict harm on galors. their weapons are nearly harmless to actual starships. we have seen a galaxy class swat like 10 strike craft sized targets in about a second. fighters are in no way a viable weapon in the star trek universe, not against star ships at least. if the iowa had deflector shields that would change things, battleships wouldn't just get picked apart by aircraft. but in star trek, its not the large ship thats vulnerable, its the fighter. and the starships's weapons arent artillery pieces, they are ultra precise beam arrays, at a scale and power output 100 times or greater then what a fighter could carry.
Fighters are good for distracting targets in pve. My pet fighters aren't going to kill even small frigates, but it keeps 1 or 2 busy while I destroy 1 at a time. Even against another cruiser-type vessel, it makes them do aoe attacks instead of only focusing on me.
PS, I LOVE the tractor beam mines! It's so useful to lock a target into place while my carrier/cruiser makes several passes on it.
I don't pvp that much, so I can't speak to whether fighters are worthwhile in those situations.
like a fed style phaser array?;)
you just contradicted yourself in your own post. you are playing on the assertion that bigger weapons will equate to more power, while having tried to dismiss it in the same post.
also reinforcing their point about cruisers not needing to return to go home & rearm after every shot, since a cruiser doesnt need to bring "12 of his or her closest friends" in order to match the power of another cruiser without a significant difference in tech development/scientific understanding.
I think you really need to get that shoulder looked at, the chip in it regarding cruiser mistreatment is making you incoherent
I'm not sure how I contradict myself? A powerful energy point defense system could be used in anything that fit its systems. If you want to think of a less powerful system imagine installing MK 1 phasers on a Fleet AC and then try to take down Elite Fleet Peregrines.. clearly you would have a harder time of it. The higher mark weapon systems are better at converting energy to destructive power.
As for cruisers not needing to reload after using 24 Photon Torpedoes... I think you're failing to consider that fact that after 24 photon torpedoes hitting in short intervals the cruiser is unlikely to be doing much of anything at all.
But like I said, in STO NPC combat pets do not behave that way nor are they as powerful, which is a good thing. Star trek and BSG/SW/Wing Commander are different.
This is less about STO but more about future weapons in general, but......How do you know? We've seen in TV episodes a single overloaded hand phaser rock a connie, a HAND phaser. We've seen fighter wings take on groups of cruisers and be expected to do sufficient damage to not be ignored.
You're thinking in 20th century energy to mass ratios. In Star Trek they have mastered energy storage/energy conversion sufficiently that they can have hand held energy weapons of incredible potency, that alone makes all of your arguments invalid. Its not a matter of the energy supply, but rather of the channeling or conversion equipment..AKA, your weapons.
Naturally shuttles/fighters get fewer weapons slots due to their smaller size, but more than size proportionality would lead us to believe thanks to such gear being relatively small. But lets ignore all that, like you yourself said strapping a pair of photon torpedoes to a Peregrine would be more than enough to ruin a cruiser's day, especially if that Peregrine brought along 12 of his or her closest friends! If anything we can all see that in STO fighters are very low power compared to what they could be.
Exactly! They have mastered energy storage/energy conversion.
So the larger the mechanism for that method becomes, using the same principles of its design, the output increases. Therefore a larger ship will have the harder hitting energy weapon. Science. So no, it doesn't make my argument invalid because they have a handheld weapon that utilizes any kind of output. The single instance of the phaser pistol rocking a Connie is later refuted by every episode later featuring weapon exchange on-board ships. Its an outlier.
As for the Photons, it is exactly true.
But you missed what I was saying. Why send out a Peregrine wing, instead of a cruiser?
Today you would do it because aircraft have air superiority, range, speed, power, positioning, precision, and an exit strategy with a high survival percentage.
The Peregrine in Star Trek has none of these things.
It cannot gain air superiority as there is "technically" no ceiling in space.
Have far less range, speed, power, might be capable of more precision, and is only capable of equal positioning. But also with the range of Star Trek Cruisers and their speed, the Peregrines exit strategy and chances of survival are slim.
So you can go small and swarm. Essentially showing little regard for their lives.
Or you can go large and go toe to toe and put them in a tank.
Of course we could then look at shields, most would keep thinking in 20th century power/mass ratios and conclude that a big ship would have stronger shields... I have to ask again, how do you know? In most cases a bigger bubble is harder to maintain than a smaller one, maybe shields work under the same rules, maybe they do not.
In STO NPC combat pets are made to be complementary to the carrier, and not replace its firepower. Which makes sense, STO is not about simulating modern naval warfare. That would be silly, its about playing exciting ships, not sending NPCs to do your job.
I'm going to take your power/mass ratio 20th century style of thinking and replace it with what really should be the standard way of thinking. Common Sense.
I believe that the best way to make something functional is to give it everything it needs.
A 280bhp car, does not need a transmission rated for upwards of 500bhp for example.
Nor would they, if utilizing common sense, place a transmission in a 280bhp car that can only withstand 230bhp.
Each ship is constructed with ample power to fulfill its functions.
The only ship, that I can recall, that ever struggled with this was the Defiant as it was over built to begin with. The Galaxy class never suffered on a day to day basis, never had to choose Life Support and Auxiliary vs Shields. Or Weapons vs Impulse control.
You never saw that kind of dilemma in Star Trek, minus the Defiant. And even that was fairly "rare."
As for bigger ship equals bigger shield. It seems to stand up to everything we have witnessed on screen.
DS9 we see that the newer Defiant is capable of withstanding far more than Miranda's. We also see that ships like the Excelsior have a greater shield output than possibly even the Defiant. Further up the scale we see that pretty much nothing gets thru a Galaxy Class ships shields. (Odyssey and a weapons platform seem to be the only time we see in DS9 any actual hull damage done to a Galaxy.)
I do agree with them filling a complimentary role to the Carrier.
But I don't agree with their existence despite my agreeance +)
What I DO find funny is that in all this you don't bring up the one thing that would doom small weapon delivery platforms with big weapons. Energy point defense systems of great range and power.
We did earlier.
Most choose to ignore the episodes that showcase it claiming tech disparity.
Nevermind that the principle remains the same. *shrug*
I'm not sure how I contradict myself? A powerful energy point defense system could be used in anything that fit its systems. If you want to think of a less powerful system imagine installing MK 1 phasers on a Fleet AC and then try to take down Elite Fleet Peregrines.. clearly you would have a harder time of it. The higher mark weapon systems are better at converting energy to destructive power.
As for cruisers not needing to reload after using 24 Photon Torpedoes... I think you're failing to consider that fact that after 24 photon torpedoes hitting in short intervals the cruiser is unlikely to be doing much of anything at all.
But like I said, in STO NPC combat pets do not behave that way nor are they as powerful, which is a good thing. Star trek and BSG/SW/Wing Commander are different.
I think were he is saying you are contradicting yourself is with that line about 20th century power/mass ratio line.
As for fighters in this game.
Never saw them as a threat. Running a beam boat and FAW.
You toast entire Carrier compliments that way. Ignore them at your own risk sure.
But seeing as FAW was a part of my regular rotation, whether I ignored them or not, they were destroyed.
Skyranger i think you are missing the put about aircraft carriers and trek cruisers. I was equating them in importance. the US has less then a dozen carriers but they form the core of a taskforce or fleet. The Cruiser of Galaxy scale serve the same function. and the core of a fleet. every time we saw fleets a galaxy was the flagship minus Defiant because she was sisko's ship. But the DS9 attack fleet was 2 fed fleets merged. and we saw 4 galaxies so they form the core of the fleets under normal circumstances. and again note that Galaxy AND Sovreign have numerous and large shuttle bays that can easily hold fighters was well. with the ships as manuverable as they are in trek Fighter's don't really have a role in the universe. Brel, Defiant, and Jem Hader bug ship fill that role.
just get the Fleet Support Cruiser Retrofit and pretend it's a galaxy
that's a pretty sweat ship
truth is the galaxy is a bit naff but kinda think if they play with the BOFF layout and even up the console count and +1 to turn it will just become like a lot of the other cruisers.
Exactly! They have mastered energy storage/energy conversion.
So the larger the mechanism for that method becomes, using the same principles of its design, the output increases. Therefore a larger ship will have the harder hitting energy weapon. Science. So no, it doesn't make my argument invalid because they have a handheld weapon that utilizes any kind of output. The single instance of the phaser pistol rocking a Connie is later refuted by every episode later featuring weapon exchange on-board ships. Its an outlier.
In STO they don't use bigger weapons, they just have more of them. Of course that's STO, its never made clear at what point it becomes too inefficient to just increase the conversion.
As for the Photons, it is exactly true.
But you missed what I was saying. Why send out a Peregrine wing, instead of a cruiser?
Today you would do it because aircraft have air superiority, range, speed, power, positioning, precision, and an exit strategy with a high survival percentage.
Because in a battle what you care about is killing your enemies the fastest way possible, not the most cost efficient way?
The Peregrine in Star Trek has none of these things.
It cannot gain air superiority as there is "technically" no ceiling in space.
Have far less range, speed, power, might be capable of more precision, and is only capable of equal positioning. But also with the range of Star Trek Cruisers and their speed, the Peregrines exit strategy and chances of survival are slim.
The Peregrines are warp capable, as to their survival rate and exit strategies we simply don't know. It wouldn't be farfetched to think there was a dedicated non fighting carrier ship we just never saw that stays just outside of battle range and is itself exceeding fast and shielded. We never saw that, but we DID see Peregrine wings be used in combat and everyone expected a certain amount of combat worth from them. Think of them as force multipliers. No one is saying they single handedly win battles against cruiser squadrons, but they are certainly capable of inflicting damage.
So you can go small and swarm. Essentially showing little regard for their lives.
Or you can go large and go toe to toe and put them in a tank.
I'm going to take your power/mass ratio 20th century style of thinking and replace it with what really should be the standard way of thinking. Common Sense.
I believe that the best way to make something functional is to give it everything it needs.
A 280bhp car, does not need a transmission rated for upwards of 500bhp for example.
Nor would they, if utilizing common sense, place a transmission in a 280bhp car that can only withstand 230bhp.
Dude or dudette, we SAW fighters in screen, common sense is no longer a hard and fast rule. We can extrapolate a lot but like I keep saying, we ultimately don't know. We have to assume they exist and are good enough to be combat effective against big ships. We do this because we saw them and they were used as such
I think we're just going in circles now. Pointlessly really because neither of us, or anyone really knows how to measure anything in Trek, given that the mechanics of things seemed to contradict themselves as the plot dictated. Thus, I prefer to stick with what we saw on the screen rather than what we extrapolate when talkign about anything with certainty. Beyond that, STO is NOT like the TV shows. It tries to be close but there are some clear leeways given to its gaming nature. This is NOT A BAD THING.
Of course, what I STILL don't get is why you insist that cruisers are the equivalent of modern carriers? Modern carriers are more or less the equivalent of artillery pieces that chuck their payloads vast distances. Able to hit targets beyond the horizon, way, waaayyy beyond the horizon. STO cruisers on the other hand are very much "charge the front lines and fight it out at CLOSE range" They are very much like sailing ships of the line.
When I say STO carriers are the carriers of STO I'm not referring to their similarity to modern carriers. Why would I compare them? STO's combat has very little to do with modern surface naval doctrines. I f anything most STO carriers resemble Electronic Warfare ships, the addition of fighters to their CC/debuff abilities is to make them more suitable and cool to play with as a PC controlled ship.
Skyranger i think you are missing the put about aircraft carriers and trek cruisers. I was equating them in importance. the US has less then a dozen carriers but they form the core of a taskforce or fleet. The Cruiser of Galaxy scale serve the same function. and the core of a fleet. every time we saw fleets a galaxy was the flagship minus Defiant because she was sisko's ship. But the DS9 attack fleet was 2 fed fleets merged. and we saw 4 galaxies so they form the core of the fleets under normal circumstances. and again note that Galaxy AND Sovreign have numerous and large shuttle bays that can easily hold fighters was well. with the ships as manuverable as they are in trek Fighter's don't really have a role in the universe. Brel, Defiant, and Jem Hader bug ship fill that role.
Ahhh, gotcha. I see what you're saying, but I do disagree with the cruiser's importance in the STO era. Unquestionably, pre Dominion War cruisers were the absolute pinnacle of fed combat capabilities. But the Dominion War made starfleet and the feds that cruisers, while very nice general purpose ships just don't cut it against a more tactically focused enemy. the Borg made them wake up and the Dominion War slapped them around enough to understand that these types of enemies are not a one time thing.
I strongly believe the cruisers we see in STO today can be considered as post Dominion War designs or retrofits. Before that conflict they probably had even less of a tactical focus, Lets look at the Amby, it fits perfectly with what a Pre Dominion War cruiser would be like. Very tough to bring down with a good bit of science. The way the Amby was lost may have even led to the Galaxy being the pure unkillable brick that it is, remember they also had families aboard.
In STO there is no ship that fills a role similar to or as important as the modern aircraft carrier. This is by design, who would lay the other ships if only the "carrier" mattered?
and given that you are blatantly comparing 1701-e era weapons to nx-01 era... il just assume you are tired.
Actually I AM sick now that you mention it. One of those tropical diseases that everyone gets living at the equator and I AM a little drowsy.
But Skoll, I see you in thread after thread arguing about cruisers being the red headed stepchild of STO, and I just don't see it. I levelled and learned to play a cruiser to see if there was any truth to that widely held belief and now have a very spiffy Fleet AC that disproofs it. I think you're in my fleet, get in touch with me dude (or dudette! we're PC here after all) and I'll help you get an Aux2Batt build you'll like. Ideally, a Fleet AC works best for it but any cruiser will benefit from it.
Ahhh, gotcha. I see what you're saying, but I do disagree with the cruiser's importance in the STO era. Unquestionably, pre Dominion War cruisers were the absolute pinnacle of fed combat capabilities. But the Dominion War made starfleet and the feds that cruisers, while very nice general purpose ships just don't cut it against a more tactically focused enemy. the Borg made them wake up and the Dominion War slapped them around enough to understand that these types of enemies are not a one time thing.
I strongly believe the cruisers we see in STO today can be considered as post Dominion War designs or retrofits. Before that conflict they probably had even less of a tactical focus, Lets look at the Amby, it fits perfectly with what a Pre Dominion War cruiser would be like. Very tough to bring down with a good bit of science. The way the Amby was lost may have even led to the Galaxy being the pure unkillable brick that it is, remember they also had families aboard.
In STO there is no ship that fills a role similar to or as important as the modern aircraft carrier. This is by design, who would lay the other ships if only the "carrier" mattered?
Actually I AM sick now that you mention it. One of those tropical diseases that everyone gets living at the equator and I AM a little drowsy.
But Skoll, I see you in thread after thread arguing about cruisers being the red headed stepchild of STO, and I just don't see it. I levelled and learned to play a cruiser to see if there was any truth to that widely held belief and now have a very spiffy Fleet AC that disproofs it. I think you're in my fleet, get in touch with me dude (or dudette! we're PC here after all) and I'll help you get an Aux2Batt build you'll like. Ideally, a Fleet AC works best for it but any cruiser will benefit from it.
Wolf 359 and the early Galaxy losses woke them up. most of the new ships seen in FC are more tacically oriented. Heck the Sovreign proves this. Again small ship will have a limited payloud of torps. A galxy can hold more torps than a Defiant. Also note that during DW most of the ships we saw lost were Mirandas and Excels. By Sto era we should be seeing less of these ships.
Wolf 359 and the early Galaxy losses woke them up. most of the new ships seen in FC are more tacically oriented. Heck the Sovreign proves this. Again small ship will have a limited payloud of torps. A galxy can hold more torps than a Defiant. Also note that during DW most of the ships we saw lost were Mirandas and Excels. By Sto era we should be seeing less of these ships.
What losses?
The Yamato to an Iconian software transmission purpose unknown? Can't count it.
The Odyssey which took surprisingly little damage despite being "unshielded" and took a ship sized torpedo into its deflector dish and warpcore? Can't count that one either.
There are no canon loses of the Galaxy class to enemy weapon fire.
And none during the entire length of the Dominion War.
The Odyssey was the victim of a kamikaze attack and was lost before the start of the Dominion War.
There is no on-screen evidence that says the Sovereign is a more tactically oriented ship.
Nothing.
In fact her combat record is dismal.
She plays no role in the destruction of the Borg Cube. Picard could have been aboard an escape pod and given them the coordinates. The did destroy an unshielded sphere.
Never fired a shot against the Son'a Battleships, had to use the elements to win.
In a straight fight would have lost, if for no other reason than they had Isolytic weapons.
In Nemesis she gets owned. She even runs out of weapon power before making a dent.
The Sovereign isn't what we have dreamed it into being.
Not cool Skyranger. I hope you find yourself getting well sooner, rather than later.
I'm just getting over Walking Pnemonia myself.
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
What losses?
The Yamato to an Iconian software transmission purpose unknown? Can't count it.
The Odyssey which took surprisingly little damage despite being "unshielded" and took a ship sized torpedo into its deflector dish and warpcore? Can't count that one either.
There are no canon loses of the Galaxy class to enemy weapon fire.
And none during the entire length of the Dominion War.
The Odyssey was the victim of a kamikaze attack and was lost before the start of the Dominion War.
There is no on-screen evidence that says the Sovereign is a more tactically oriented ship.
Nothing.
In fact her combat record is dismal.
She plays no role in the destruction of the Borg Cube. Picard could have been aboard an escape pod and given them the coordinates. The did destroy an unshielded sphere.
Never fired a shot against the Son'a Battleships, had to use the elements to win.
In a straight fight would have lost, if for no other reason than they had Isolytic weapons.
In Nemesis she gets owned. She even runs out of weapon power before making a dent.
The Sovereign isn't what we have dreamed it into being.
Not cool Skyranger. I hope you find yourself getting well sooner, rather than later.
I'm just getting over Walking Pnemonia myself.
Still in about a decade most of the original Galaxys built were destroyed. that had to make them think. How many other ships class have that type of record. The Sovriegn however has 2 sets of sheilds, Quantum toprs, and is faster, And note E-E went up against the Scimitar which had fire clock, if it wasn't cloacked more damaged would have been done. The galaxy is a godd ship but sadly her intial design left her unprepared for the wars to come. thus you seethe venture refit. and eventually the Gal X
Comments
You have a lot of valid points.
I just want to point out that after mounting the best armor load, those extra Eng console slots could be used for RCS Accelerators for added turn speed. If Injector Assembly adds to turn rate, that could be useful also.
well, the problem is that i didn't see in cryptic cstore description that the galaxy is a powerfull decorative ship with the best symbolic phaser array....or did i?:D
anyway, you seem to be a new player, and your view on the galaxy, even if i do not share it is refreshing... somehow.
welcome to the thread!
don't worry if you happened to get snipe by one of us creazy mad galaxy fan, we'r just like that! no harmed intended:D
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
That "minimum" is almost an insignificant amount.
You can also say that PvE has a minimum durability requirement to not get blown up on every hit. Here you're saying "you need to shoot! you shouldn't need to shoot! Being able to tank or CC needs to be enough!!!"
Carriers, are the carriers of the fleets. Not cruisers, seeing as how they have no launch bays. As far as the limited number of Galaxy class ships there originally were...there was only ONE USS Defiant originally, you don't see the Defiant fan boys claiming that somehow that matters do you?
hmm, sorry but... what this have to do with the tread dutchboy?:)
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
Dude Carrier is the cruiser in trek. They largerly abadoned fighters in trek. the most we ever saw was dominion war and the Galaxy and others like the Sovreign can easily hold them. But the ships like the Galaxy are always the core of a fleet. in the battle for DS9 the fed forces was 2 fleets and we saw 4 galaxys, that's 2 per fleet. and note our carriers are in the same boat there.
Also Defiant was a prototype mothball that was reactivated after Odyessy went boom boom. Sisko and Obrein made her work and the Defiant class began production. I defiant is much easier to construct than a Galaxy. but can't hold as much.
Fulfilling the DPS requirements for content in STO is laughably easy for even a team of cruisers. If only they bothered to build their ships well and play them right. All too often you see cruiser pilots sit at just under 10 Km range and plink away with beam arrays.... sure, those cruisers are NEVER going to get anything done.
Whereas a proper cruiser goes in and slams the target with BAs and Torps and the KCB from 3k or less.
Because a proper cruiser can tank a gate/tac cube/donatra all day and not care.
^^^^This
[/SIGPIC]
sadly agreed
Negh'var got universal ensign probably due to them not really having an equivalent of a starcruiser and assault.
also because the fleet patrol got a universal ens, 1 each i guess. the fleet patrol, the most redundant and unremarkable end game escorts the feds have, what a waste :rolleyes:
... I'm going to have call you out on this one skyranger.
You misunderstand why Carriers became top dog vs the Battleship.
In ship vs ship combat the Iowa Class Battleship is arguably one of the best, if not the best.
No Aircraft Carrier with her 2 inch thick armor could stand up to or put a dent in an Iowa.
She doesn't have the capacity to duel one. Simple fact.
Destroyers, Cruisers, Heavy Cruisers, same thing. They can't take on a fully functional and up to date Battleship. Or even the USS Missouri after her latest refit from mothballs.
The Battleship is designed for ship to ship combat and limited bombardment support.
And in that role she reigns supreme.
Now, why did the Carrier and Destroyer replace the Battleship then if it is still so "superior?"
Range would be the simplest answer.
The big guns on the Iowa had a roughly 20-25 mile range.
Compare that to a now retired Jet the F-14 Tomcats combat range of 578 miles with the ability to hit a target with precision and with far superior firepower.
Destroyers could be made faster, for far less and were cheaper to refit, and could carry long range ordinance.
And suddenly it becomes clear.
In Star Trek, there is no Aircraft Carrier replacing the Battleship.
Why?
Because the firepower carried by a Star Trek Battleship will never be out done by a star fighter. The best it can do is equal it in that they both can fire a photon torpedo.
But the Battleship carries far more, and doesn't need to come home and refuel and reload before unloading again.
Then you have Phasers.
I don't care what you think of the SDE theory, or the NDF theory or if you even care about what any of that is. I have yet to meet anyone on here that thinks a shuttlecrafts Phaser blasts hit near as hard as the starship we have seen fire onscreen. Because they don't.
Then there is speed of deployment and range.
Warp drive. 1-10. Shuttles rarely exceed Warp 2.
Range. Even if a Shuttle can match pace with a Cruiser, the Cruiser has far superior range.
So guess what.
In Star Trek, the Battleship is king.
Cruisers are literally the best and most efficient use of your resources.
They cannot be "outdps'd" by anything smaller than them minus some great disparity between techs.
And some of you people accuse JJ of being all SW on ST.
At least he seems to understand how the ship power structure goes in ST. Larger usually means its going to eat you.
What I DO find funny is that in all this you don't bring up the one thing that would doom small weapon delivery platforms with big weapons. Energy point defense systems of great range and power.
Fighters are good for distracting targets in pve. My pet fighters aren't going to kill even small frigates, but it keeps 1 or 2 busy while I destroy 1 at a time. Even against another cruiser-type vessel, it makes them do aoe attacks instead of only focusing on me.
PS, I LOVE the tractor beam mines! It's so useful to lock a target into place while my carrier/cruiser makes several passes on it.
I don't pvp that much, so I can't speak to whether fighters are worthwhile in those situations.
I think you really need to get that shoulder looked at, the chip in it regarding cruiser mistreatment is making you incoherent
I'm not sure how I contradict myself? A powerful energy point defense system could be used in anything that fit its systems. If you want to think of a less powerful system imagine installing MK 1 phasers on a Fleet AC and then try to take down Elite Fleet Peregrines.. clearly you would have a harder time of it. The higher mark weapon systems are better at converting energy to destructive power.
As for cruisers not needing to reload after using 24 Photon Torpedoes... I think you're failing to consider that fact that after 24 photon torpedoes hitting in short intervals the cruiser is unlikely to be doing much of anything at all.
But like I said, in STO NPC combat pets do not behave that way nor are they as powerful, which is a good thing. Star trek and BSG/SW/Wing Commander are different.
Exactly! They have mastered energy storage/energy conversion.
So the larger the mechanism for that method becomes, using the same principles of its design, the output increases. Therefore a larger ship will have the harder hitting energy weapon. Science. So no, it doesn't make my argument invalid because they have a handheld weapon that utilizes any kind of output. The single instance of the phaser pistol rocking a Connie is later refuted by every episode later featuring weapon exchange on-board ships. Its an outlier.
As for the Photons, it is exactly true.
But you missed what I was saying. Why send out a Peregrine wing, instead of a cruiser?
Today you would do it because aircraft have air superiority, range, speed, power, positioning, precision, and an exit strategy with a high survival percentage.
The Peregrine in Star Trek has none of these things.
It cannot gain air superiority as there is "technically" no ceiling in space.
Have far less range, speed, power, might be capable of more precision, and is only capable of equal positioning. But also with the range of Star Trek Cruisers and their speed, the Peregrines exit strategy and chances of survival are slim.
So you can go small and swarm. Essentially showing little regard for their lives.
Or you can go large and go toe to toe and put them in a tank.
I'm going to take your power/mass ratio 20th century style of thinking and replace it with what really should be the standard way of thinking. Common Sense.
I believe that the best way to make something functional is to give it everything it needs.
A 280bhp car, does not need a transmission rated for upwards of 500bhp for example.
Nor would they, if utilizing common sense, place a transmission in a 280bhp car that can only withstand 230bhp.
Each ship is constructed with ample power to fulfill its functions.
The only ship, that I can recall, that ever struggled with this was the Defiant as it was over built to begin with. The Galaxy class never suffered on a day to day basis, never had to choose Life Support and Auxiliary vs Shields. Or Weapons vs Impulse control.
You never saw that kind of dilemma in Star Trek, minus the Defiant. And even that was fairly "rare."
As for bigger ship equals bigger shield. It seems to stand up to everything we have witnessed on screen.
DS9 we see that the newer Defiant is capable of withstanding far more than Miranda's. We also see that ships like the Excelsior have a greater shield output than possibly even the Defiant. Further up the scale we see that pretty much nothing gets thru a Galaxy Class ships shields. (Odyssey and a weapons platform seem to be the only time we see in DS9 any actual hull damage done to a Galaxy.)
I do agree with them filling a complimentary role to the Carrier.
But I don't agree with their existence despite my agreeance +)
We did earlier.
Most choose to ignore the episodes that showcase it claiming tech disparity.
Nevermind that the principle remains the same. *shrug*
I think were he is saying you are contradicting yourself is with that line about 20th century power/mass ratio line.
As for fighters in this game.
Never saw them as a threat. Running a beam boat and FAW.
You toast entire Carrier compliments that way. Ignore them at your own risk sure.
But seeing as FAW was a part of my regular rotation, whether I ignored them or not, they were destroyed.
And I agree with your last comment +)
that's a pretty sweat ship
truth is the galaxy is a bit naff but kinda think if they play with the BOFF layout and even up the console count and +1 to turn it will just become like a lot of the other cruisers.
but fact is it does deserve some love.
I think we're just going in circles now. Pointlessly really because neither of us, or anyone really knows how to measure anything in Trek, given that the mechanics of things seemed to contradict themselves as the plot dictated. Thus, I prefer to stick with what we saw on the screen rather than what we extrapolate when talkign about anything with certainty. Beyond that, STO is NOT like the TV shows. It tries to be close but there are some clear leeways given to its gaming nature. This is NOT A BAD THING.
Of course, what I STILL don't get is why you insist that cruisers are the equivalent of modern carriers? Modern carriers are more or less the equivalent of artillery pieces that chuck their payloads vast distances. Able to hit targets beyond the horizon, way, waaayyy beyond the horizon. STO cruisers on the other hand are very much "charge the front lines and fight it out at CLOSE range" They are very much like sailing ships of the line.
When I say STO carriers are the carriers of STO I'm not referring to their similarity to modern carriers. Why would I compare them? STO's combat has very little to do with modern surface naval doctrines. I f anything most STO carriers resemble Electronic Warfare ships, the addition of fighters to their CC/debuff abilities is to make them more suitable and cool to play with as a PC controlled ship.
Ahhh, gotcha. I see what you're saying, but I do disagree with the cruiser's importance in the STO era. Unquestionably, pre Dominion War cruisers were the absolute pinnacle of fed combat capabilities. But the Dominion War made starfleet and the feds that cruisers, while very nice general purpose ships just don't cut it against a more tactically focused enemy. the Borg made them wake up and the Dominion War slapped them around enough to understand that these types of enemies are not a one time thing.
I strongly believe the cruisers we see in STO today can be considered as post Dominion War designs or retrofits. Before that conflict they probably had even less of a tactical focus, Lets look at the Amby, it fits perfectly with what a Pre Dominion War cruiser would be like. Very tough to bring down with a good bit of science. The way the Amby was lost may have even led to the Galaxy being the pure unkillable brick that it is, remember they also had families aboard.
In STO there is no ship that fills a role similar to or as important as the modern aircraft carrier. This is by design, who would lay the other ships if only the "carrier" mattered?
Actually I AM sick now that you mention it. One of those tropical diseases that everyone gets living at the equator and I AM a little drowsy.
But Skoll, I see you in thread after thread arguing about cruisers being the red headed stepchild of STO, and I just don't see it. I levelled and learned to play a cruiser to see if there was any truth to that widely held belief and now have a very spiffy Fleet AC that disproofs it. I think you're in my fleet, get in touch with me dude (or dudette! we're PC here after all) and I'll help you get an Aux2Batt build you'll like. Ideally, a Fleet AC works best for it but any cruiser will benefit from it.
Wolf 359 and the early Galaxy losses woke them up. most of the new ships seen in FC are more tacically oriented. Heck the Sovreign proves this. Again small ship will have a limited payloud of torps. A galxy can hold more torps than a Defiant. Also note that during DW most of the ships we saw lost were Mirandas and Excels. By Sto era we should be seeing less of these ships.
What losses?
The Yamato to an Iconian software transmission purpose unknown? Can't count it.
The Odyssey which took surprisingly little damage despite being "unshielded" and took a ship sized torpedo into its deflector dish and warpcore? Can't count that one either.
There are no canon loses of the Galaxy class to enemy weapon fire.
And none during the entire length of the Dominion War.
The Odyssey was the victim of a kamikaze attack and was lost before the start of the Dominion War.
There is no on-screen evidence that says the Sovereign is a more tactically oriented ship.
Nothing.
In fact her combat record is dismal.
She plays no role in the destruction of the Borg Cube. Picard could have been aboard an escape pod and given them the coordinates. The did destroy an unshielded sphere.
Never fired a shot against the Son'a Battleships, had to use the elements to win.
In a straight fight would have lost, if for no other reason than they had Isolytic weapons.
In Nemesis she gets owned. She even runs out of weapon power before making a dent.
The Sovereign isn't what we have dreamed it into being.
Not cool Skyranger. I hope you find yourself getting well sooner, rather than later.
I'm just getting over Walking Pnemonia myself.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
Ent-D lost to a warpcore explosion caused by a conveniently placed torpedo.(And to Riker)
Same thing would take out the Sovereign. I fail to see your point.
Still in about a decade most of the original Galaxys built were destroyed. that had to make them think. How many other ships class have that type of record. The Sovriegn however has 2 sets of sheilds, Quantum toprs, and is faster, And note E-E went up against the Scimitar which had fire clock, if it wasn't cloacked more damaged would have been done. The galaxy is a godd ship but sadly her intial design left her unprepared for the wars to come. thus you seethe venture refit. and eventually the Gal X