No, the purpose of including that is to say that all shipboard phasers run off of warp reactor power; and that power affects the strength and energy of the emitted phaser beam. Nice try, but I wasn't born yesterday.
The TNG Tech Manual never stated anything about "lower rate of fire... charging with available plasma". In fact, the only thing the Manual states about plasma is the fact that it supplies power to the phaser array system; and that a regulator monitors the incoming flow of plasma. There is NO written connection between the rate at which the phaser array fires, and the plasma flowing into the system.
I wasn't arguing against that. You stated that the shipboard phaser array length affects the firing rate. Nowhere in the TNG Tech Manual does it say that. It says that firing rate is separate from warp power; and power input affects power output of the weapon.
It does NOT say anything about "removing the warp core from that equation would not actually lower the potential damage of the main array per shot, it would just lower the rate of fire" (Your words). The amount of energy outputted by a system should not be greater than the input energy into a system. Makes sense, right? Simple physics offers that, and I can give you a quote for that too.
You're saying the output > input. If this occurred as you claim it would, Star Trek would fall apart.
Incorrect. Like you said, the visible charge effect shows all of the energy passing from selected charged segments into one location, where the Beam of Death emanates from.
The TNG Tech Manual did not specify that all of the segments of the entire array are used for a phaser shot. TNG and DS9 supports this, we see the charge effect start, but not from the very ends of the array, but from the middle.
Skip ahead to 1:42 (the stuff before it is the leadup to the battle). The charge-up effect starts about 25 meters left from the bow and 25 meters fore of the saucer's port axis. Second beam is even smaller than that; 50 meters below the saucer's port axis and at the end of the emitter. The distances between the two shots' initial starting points is nearly the same as the entire length of the Stardrive Section's forward phaser array; indicating that the only purpose of having an extraordinarily long phaser strip is for, as I said before, keeping the beam consistently tracking a target (TNG Tech Manual supports this!), and not for this super Death Star-esque chargeup that you claim takes up 100% of the emitters in the array. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JoQzuPjSk0
Skip ahead to 5:22 and keep hitting the pause/play button. The 1st chargeup starts at opposite ends of the array; one at the start of the array (portside) and the other, right of the forward axis. Again, even though the chargeup sequence takes a longer distance of array than the Stardrive's entire forward array, the chargeup does not use up the whole array. The 2nd shot has a much smaller chargeup distance along the array; again, the start of the array portside, and the other start point just above the ship's port axis. This shot is slightly larger than the Stardrive's main phaser array.
First, that is wrong, the Enterprise-D fired several arrays other than the main one - even firing from arrays that don't exist (Best of Both Worlds, the mysterious pylon firings). There was a Borg episode where the ventral array on the secondary hull fired a beam at a sun or something.
And like I said before, even though the whole array is there, the actual chargeup area is smaller than the entire array; in other words, in the show(s), Galaxy-class starships were consistently seen firing only a select portion of the entire array.
And there is proof. Video proof, which no one can dispute.
Again. It's likely the saucer was attached to the ship just to offer the unbroken direction of phaser fire, to allow the most effective tactic.
(P.S. Sorry if that's a lot of reading )
The Galaxy does have phaser strips on the pylons, they are right at the curve. But i completely agree with you.
easily explained by saying that discharging the entire array at once would necessitate re-energising the whole array before firing a second shot, and that shorter charge sequences allow faster fire rates.
That is true, but the amount of power placed into the system does not directly affect the firing rate, as drunk claims it does.
"removing the warp core from that equation would not actually lower the potential damage of the main array per shot, it would just lower the rate of fire"
there is also the possibility of diminishing returns from longer arrays meaning that although a shoot discharging the entire array may be more powerful on its own, it way well be less power efficient. while also leaving the arrays counter battery function weakened as the whole array is recharged.
That's exactly why the Stardrive's forward array might be better suited to damage output. It has a smaller chargeup distance, true, but it can be used for multiple bursts of medium energy output, as opposed to charging the whole dorsal main array of the docked Saucer. The possible reason this isn't used is, again, because keeping the phaser beam locked on a moving target is more tactically effective.
...regardless of the actual beam type, pulse or continuous, or the specific Threat situation, the most effective tactic is to maintain contact between the beam and the Threat shield or physical hull.
stardestroyer001, Admiral, Explorers Fury PvE/PvP Fleet | Retired PvP Player
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9 My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
true if it where a closed system. its not a closed system.
doubling of charge up time of the array's capacitors to peak/optimal is one of the obvious points of give in the system if you lose half your generator output for example.
so long as the maximum capacity of the array is there, unless it gets damaged and total store capacity is diminished, but thats another issue.
not quite.
the smaller array has fewer sequenced emitter "nodes" i guess the word would be.
the smaller array would lack capacity not only in trying to discharge a burst that used the whole array, but lacks the ability to cycle clusters of nodes for sustained rapid fire.
sure, at the lower end of the scale it may be able to recharge its lower capacity faster... possibly easier to power the smaller array directly from generator output...
but the smaller array still doesnt have the internal capacitance to put out the equivalent of an anti-capital beam discharge that the gals saucer array could manage.
see, that breaks the laws of physics.
a high energy pulse will all ways have higher damage potential than discharging the same power over a minute due to absorption/conduction by the targets armor.
in particle beams the higher value of the pulse would cause more disruptive damage to the structure of the targets armor causing it to be weaker to consecutive shots in that area.
in dew's the sudden energy spike will be harder to conduct away from the contact point.
THIS being EXACTLY the point of the defiant having pulse cannons. to let it hit a class above its weight level compared to other fed ships.(but then the kdf knew THAT 400 years ago:rolleyes:)
that gets a bit fuzzy with C beams... but they dont exist in startrek, and if they do, nothing shown on screen in the ST franchise could take a hit from one.
think of it this way;
the stardrive array is everything up to a 10 inch gun,
the saucer array is everything up to an 18inch gun with the option of nuclear shells.
also, how do you get a custom avatar on this forum?
again there's nothing to prove a larger array equals more firepower, just a better firing arc for again why would Intrepid have a split array when their is space to connect it.
Also again if theory was co9rrect why put the most powerful phasers on the part of the ship NOT planed to be in combat when split. Your theory would mean tha uber phaser should be on the Stardrive NOT the saucer. Thus your theory is proven wrong.
again there's nothing to prove a larger array equals more firepower, just a better firing arc for again why would Intrepid have a split array when their is space to connect it.
Also again if theory was co9rrect why put the most powerful phasers on the part of the ship NOT planed to be in combat when split. Your theory would mean tha uber phaser should be on the Stardrive NOT the saucer. Thus your theory is proven wrong.
nor is it taking into account that a phaser array on the Sovy might use different technology that makes the larger arrays obsolete
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.
"battle section", "macross quarter", "stardrive" sure whatever.:rolleyes:
i would like to know the definition of battleship you use that makes you so annoyed at its use in this thread though.
simply the largest category of ship. since ALL space craft are very multipurpose, none of the purely military terms are a perfect fit. battleship was always primarily about size. if a battleship was smaller, it was then called a cruiser. no one can see past the word battle, so a stupid tangent argument has to occur, over and over and over.
No, the purpose of including that is to say that all shipboard phasers run off of warp reactor power; and that power affects the strength and energy of the emitted phaser beam. Nice try, but I wasn't born yesterday.
that point has very little reliance, im not sure why its being dwelled on. plasma is plasma, whether generated by the warp core of impulse reactors, the change to the refit enterprise was most likely a reorganization of the EPS network on the ship. weapons are now included on the power grid along with the warp engines. regardless, there is no warp core attached to the main arrays when it is separated. thats the only point i made there, theres no conspiracy, relax.
The TNG Tech Manual never stated anything about "lower rate of fire... charging with available plasma". In fact, the only thing the Manual states about plasma is the fact that it supplies power to the phaser array system; and that a regulator monitors the incoming flow of plasma. There is NO written connection between the rate at which the phaser array fires, and the plasma flowing into the system.
its supply and demand. its simple logic. without the plasma generated by the core and main impulse engine, there is less for the main arrays to work with. something would have to give. whatever the manual has to say on the subject, i didn't even remember that it said anything about it, i trust though. do remember that the core makes the same plasma the impulse reactors do, its not extra special. plasma from any source, if there was enough, would fuel everything on the ship just fine, even the warp drive.
I wasn't arguing against that. You stated that the shipboard phaser array length affects the firing rate. Nowhere in the TNG Tech Manual does it say that. It says that firing rate is separate from warp power; and power input affects power output of the weapon.
It does NOT say anything about "removing the warp core from that equation would not actually lower the potential damage of the main array per shot, it would just lower the rate of fire" (Your words). The amount of energy outputted by a system should not be greater than the input energy into a system. Makes sense, right? Simple physics offers that, and I can give you a quote for that too.
You're saying the output > input. If this occurred as you claim it would, Star Trek would fall apart.
no, i did not say that, your not understanding the statement. remove the warp core from the equation refers to saucer separation. which removes the largest source of plasma, which would effect ether rate of fire, or as you say the manual sais, output. im not sure how you could misunderstand so severely. less plasma for the arrays means less array output, in some way. i think physics would agree.
Incorrect. Like you said, the visible charge effect shows all of the energy passing from selected charged segments into one location, where the Beam of Death emanates from.
The TNG Tech Manual did not specify that all of the segments of the entire array are used for a phaser shot. TNG and DS9 supports this, we see the charge effect start, but not from the very ends of the array, but from the middle.
EXACTLY! theres a ton of instances were there is not a full array discharge, they only use a few emitters, those shots are thus less powerful. its how they control how powerful a shot is, the number of emitters involved in the visual glow effect.
a bigger array can use more emitters per shot, big arrays win.
there is also quite a few instances of the entire arrays involved in the glow effect, even in DS9.
Skip ahead to 1:42 (the stuff before it is the leadup to the battle). The charge-up effect starts about 25 meters left from the bow and 25 meters fore of the saucer's port axis. Second beam is even smaller than that; 50 meters below the saucer's port axis and at the end of the emitter. The distances between the two shots' initial starting points is nearly the same as the entire length of the Stardrive Section's forward phaser array; indicating that the only purpose of having an extraordinarily long phaser strip is for, as I said before, keeping the beam consistently tracking a target (TNG Tech Manual supports this!), and not for this super Death Star-esque chargeup that you claim takes up 100% of the emitters in the array.
huh, i think i claimed this actually
a bigger array can use more emitters per shot, big arrays win.
would you like me to post a vid were we do see a galaxy use its entire array for a shot? because thee are quite a few instances were it does, any other youtube clip with the galaxy would show it. one example were it doesn't disproves nothing. it just proves that arrays work how i say they work.
that looked like a target subsystem attack, not a shoot the galor in half attack. a small number of emiters used, not the whole array. a disabled ship is much less explosive, in a tight, close quarters, fleet battle like that. if they blew that galor up at that range they would have been seriously damaged.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JoQzuPjSk0
Skip ahead to 5:22 and keep hitting the pause/play button. The 1st chargeup starts at opposite ends of the array; one at the start of the array (portside) and the other, right of the forward axis. Again, even though the chargeup sequence takes a longer distance of array than the Stardrive's entire forward array, the chargeup does not use up the whole array. The 2nd shot has a much smaller chargeup distance along the array; again, the start of the array portside, and the other start point just above the ship's port axis. This shot is slightly larger than the Stardrive's main phaser array.
poor quality and inconsistent effects from like 1990. the fact that there is the glow effect at all indicates that the energy of multiple emitters is still converging at the point that fires. proving the principle ive layed out.
First, that is wrong, the Enterprise-D fired several arrays other than the main one - even firing from arrays that don't exist (Best of Both Worlds, the mysterious pylon firings). There was a Borg episode where the ventral array on the secondary hull fired a beam at a sun or something.
And like I said before, even though the whole array is there, the actual chargeup area is smaller than the entire array; in other words, in the show(s), Galaxy-class starships were consistently seen firing only a select portion of the entire array.
And there is proof. Video proof, which no one can dispute.
Again. It's likely the saucer was attached to the ship just to offer the unbroken direction of phaser fire, to allow the most effective tactic.
(P.S. Sorry if that's a lot of reading )
i supose you didnt read a few posts back when i addredssed this. i dont want to write more then i have to so i excluded this point here. darmok was an admited tech mistake. thats all it was. in BOBW, like i had said earlier, shooting every array that had line of sight, at different frequencies all at the same time, in hopes that something would deal damage is how that is explained. also, no other target would be large enough to even have those smaller arrays able to hit a target infront of it other then a borg cube.
any energy used to fire shots from smaller arrays uses energy more effectively fired from a single much more powerful beam, only able to be generated by the huge main array, with up to 200 emitters worth of power able to be fired in 1 shot. the only other time the main array was not fired, and another array was, was when they caused that solor flare that destroyed lore's borg ship. not a single additional time was a shot not fired from the main array.
true if it where a closed system. its not a closed system.
doubling of charge up time of the array's capacitors to peak/optimal is one of the obvious points of give in the system if you lose half your generator output for example.
so long as the maximum capacity of the array is there, unless it gets damaged and total store capacity is diminished, but thats another issue.
The two scenarios deal with the Galaxy-class weaponry in less than optimal scenarios, which is nothing related to the capability of the ship.
not quite.
the smaller array has fewer sequenced emitter "nodes" i guess the word would be.
the smaller array would lack capacity not only in trying to discharge a burst that used the whole array, but lacks the ability to cycle clusters of nodes for sustained rapid fire.
sure, at the lower end of the scale it may be able to recharge its lower capacity faster... possibly easier to power the smaller array directly from generator output...
but the smaller array still doesnt have the internal capacitance to put out the equivalent of an anti-capital beam discharge that the gals saucer array could manage.
True, and that's why the saucer is most likely attached to the ship during the Dominion War. If the Stardrive could manage "anti-capital beam discharges", and have an array long enough to cover most attack vectors, there would be no need for the Saucer to be there.
(Of course, there would still be saucers attached to Galaxy-class starships if there was a need for extra space, such as troops or equipment or computer command support. Which is likely why all Galaxy-class starships had them attached anyways...)
That quote was taken directly from a book which has very credible technical information on this very ship. Are you arguing against a source which might very well be considered canon? (Technically it's called "apocryphal", which Ex Astris Scientia defines as "In Star Trek fandom, the term "apocryphal" represents any information that is not canon in a narrow sense, but is by some treated like or accepted as canon. This may include The Animated Series, the books by Jeri Taylor, reference books or deleted scenes.")
also, how do you get a custom avatar on this forum?
Go to the forum homepage, click on "User CP" at the top left, then "Set Avatar". You'll notice there is an option to upload a custom avatar. Use the upload, don't link from a website (linking feature i broken).
stardestroyer001, Admiral, Explorers Fury PvE/PvP Fleet | Retired PvP Player
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9 My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
again there's nothing to prove a larger array equals more firepower, just a better firing arc for again why would Intrepid have a split array when their is space to connect it.
Also again if theory was co9rrect why put the most powerful phasers on the part of the ship NOT planed to be in combat when split. Your theory would mean tha uber phaser should be on the Stardrive NOT the saucer. Thus your theory is proven wrong.
you must be skiping my posts, because in them i prove length has an additive effect on possible firepower, its in the tech manual.
that point has very little reliance, im not sure why its being dwelled on. plasma is plasma, whether generated by the warp core of impulse reactors, the change to the refit enterprise was most likely a reorganization of the EPS network on the ship. weapons are now included on the power grid along with the warp engines. regardless, there is no warp core attached to the main arrays when it is separated. thats the only point i made there, theres no conspiracy, relax.
its supply and demand. its simple logic. without the plasma generated by the core and main impulse engine, there is less for the main arrays to work with. something would have to give. whatever the manual has to say on the subject, i didn't even remember that it said anything about it, i trust though. do remember that the core makes the same plasma the impulse reactors do, its not extra special. plasma from any source, if there was enough, would fuel everything on the ship just fine, even the warp drive.
Completely agree with you on these points. TNG Tech Manual and the shows backs this up.
the dorsal main array, the longer one on top, has 200 independent emitters all lined up in a row. each emitter is a fully functioning weapon, with its own eps conduit, its own stored energy, and its own ability to fire a shot. this is true for every emitter in every phaser array in every ship with phaser arrays.not only can they all operate independently, but they can force couple, and pass their own stored energy down the array to a point were multiple emitters are used to fire a shot.thats that moving glow effect you see in the show, the energy of each one of those emitters passing their energy down to the selected fireing point. thus, the longer the array, the more powerful a ships best shot can be. some think the time it takes the charge to move across the array has something to do with output too, but to me it seems like it simply drains an emitter's stored energy, or it doesn't use the emitter. with 200 to chose from, you can pretty exactly dial in how strong you want the shot to be. - So far, agreed. Parts in yellow: This causes the conflicts later on in this post, where different settings are interpreted differently. Nothing technically incorrect though.
this is the most obvious explanation based on the charge effect you see in the show, and based on what the tech manual says about phaser arrays.- Yup.
removing the warp core from that equation would not actually lower the potential damage of the main array per shot, it would just lower the rate of fire.
Right there. With a decreased power source providing input into the phaser system, the phaser beam emitted has less endurance. [TNG Tech Manual].
no, i did not say that, your not understanding the statement. remove the warp core from the equation refers to saucer separation. which removes the largest source of plasma, which would effect ether rate of fire, or as you say the manual sais, output. im not sure how you could misunderstand so severely. less plasma for the arrays means less array output, in some way. i think physics would agree.
You said it. It's right there for anyone to look at.
I know "remove the warp core from the equation refers to saucer separation", since the only warp core on the Galaxy-class starship is in the Stardrive section.
Yes, separating the saucer will have an effect on the amount of energy/plasma/whatever that is used by the phaser system. But it does not affect the rate of fire, and saying that it does is in direct contradiction to the Technical Manual. It specifically states: "In Separated Flight Mode, the Saucer Module is cut off from the main EPS, and it must then rely on increased fusion generator output to power the arrays. Recharge times can be maintained at [less than or equal to] 0.5 seconds, but firing endurance drops to <15 minutes at full power."
"Recharge times can be maintained." I don't understand how you can debate something that is said right on the page of the most apocryphal book in Star Trek history.
Yes, you are correct, less plasma for the arrays = less array output. But the loss in rray output does not translate directly into a loss of rate of fire. It translates into a loss of firing endurance. TNG Tech Manual also says that directly on the page.
EXACTLY! theres a ton of instances were there is not a full array discharge, they only use a few emitters, those shots are thus less powerful. its how they control how powerful a shot is, the number of emitters involved in the visual glow effect.
a bigger array can use more emitters per shot, big arrays win.
there is also quite a few instances of the entire arrays involved in the glow effect, even in DS9.
A bigger array has the possibility of using more or less emitters for a shot. That does not translate into a "win" for larger arrays, and a "loss" for smaller arrays.
Later on in your post, you talk about using the entire array for a shot. Let's summarize all three sizes of arrays.
Saucer Arrays: Longest on the ship. Can cover wide firing arcs. Can charge up and fire a big beam of death, but subsequent need for a lot of energy to recharge (+ slow recharge due to # of emitters in array?) makes this a one-shot weapon. Subsequent quick-attacks have marked decrease in output.
Stardrive Forward Array / Ventral Array: Medium size, medium damage due to the principles of phaser arrays and the amount of emitters. Takes less time to recharge the smaller number of emitters in the array, resulting in firing bursts that can be routinely used again and again.
Small Arrays: Like the ones at the rear of the ship. Due to small numbers of emitters, the output is small. Probably used for point defense, although these smaller arrays are always in sets of two. Possibly both fire at the same time, and have far lower power requirements than the large arrays.
The original topic, pages back, was about why the Galaxy-class has its saucer attached all the time in the Dominion War. In terms of weapons, it's about the larger arrays having the firing arc needed to combat other vessels. NOT about the damage output, since the Stardrive can "pummel" a target over the course of a few medium-damage, long-intensity beams, continually draining the shield system of the target vessel. Also, Stardrive has better movement due to less mass when separated.
would you like me to post a vid were we do see a galaxy use its entire array for a shot? because thee are quite a few instances were it does, any other youtube clip with the galaxy would show it. one example were it doesn't disproves nothing. it just proves that arrays work how i say they work.
Except for your opinion on the power available to the arrays affects firing rate, and not endurance of the beam. Go ahead, post a video where the power available directly affects the rate of fire, and where a reduction in power results in a reduction in the rate of fire.
that looked like a target subsystem attack, not a shoot the galor in half attack. a small number of emiters used, not the whole array. a disabled ship is much less explosive, in a tight, close quarters, fleet battle like that. if they blew that galor up at that range they would have been seriously damaged.
The purpose of that video was to show that medium-damage "pummel" attacks from a smaller number of emitters in the array works in combat. So, thanks for supporting that.
poor quality and inconsistent effects from like 1990. the fact that there is the glow effect at all indicates that the energy of multiple emitters is still converging at the point that fires. proving the principle ive layed out.
And the whole show was made in the late 80's/early 90's. So, you're going to throw out TNG entirely?
And again, go ahead, post a video where the power available directly affects the rate of fire, and where a reduction in power results in a reduction in the rate of fire.
First, that is wrong, the Enterprise-D fired several arrays other than the main one - even firing from arrays that don't exist (Best of Both Worlds, the mysterious pylon firings). There was a Borg episode where the ventral array on the secondary hull fired a beam at a sun or something.
And like I said before, even though the whole array is there, the actual chargeup area is smaller than the entire array; in other words, in the show(s), Galaxy-class starships were consistently seen firing only a select portion of the entire array.
And there is proof. Video proof, which no one can dispute.
Again. It's likely the saucer was attached to the ship just to offer the unbroken direction of phaser fire, to allow the most effective tactic.
i supose you didnt read a few posts back when i addredssed this. i dont want to write more then i have to so i excluded this point here. darmok was an admited tech mistake. thats all it was. in BOBW, like i had said earlier, shooting every array that had line of sight, at different frequencies all at the same time, in hopes that something would deal damage is how that is explained. also, no other target would be large enough to even have those smaller arrays able to hit a target infront of it other then a borg cube.
any energy used to fire shots from smaller arrays uses energy more effectively fired from a single much more powerful beam, only able to be generated by the huge main array, with up to 200 emitters worth of power able to be fired in 1 shot. the only other time the main array was not fired, and another array was, was when they caused that solor flare that destroyed lore's borg ship. not a single additional time was a shot not fired from the main array.
1) I wasn't referring to Darmok. I know the phaser wasn't supposed to come out of the torpedo bay.
2) Nothing to do with frequencies. The phasers were clearly shown firing from a point on the flat nacelle pylons closer to the center of the ship, and not where the pylons bend and attach to the nacelles. There is no known emitter at the location in which that phaser fired from.*
3) Yup, the solar flare was the example I was using.
Other than the two examples above, I don't believe there was another time where the ship's phasers fired from any of the other emitters described in the Tech Manual. It's possible an early Season 1 episode where the ship actually separated before combat showed the Stardrive forward array... but I don't remember much about Season 1 anyway.
*It is possible that this mis-fire was fixed in the Season 3 Blu-ray release of The Next Generation. In that case, still, phasers fired from an array other than the saucer.
Unrelated side note. I never got the chance to compliment your Galaxy 3-pack proposal. It's a good idea. Let's hope Cryptic cues in, and makes this well-thought-out build a reality.
stardestroyer001, Admiral, Explorers Fury PvE/PvP Fleet | Retired PvP Player
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9 My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
only the description of the phaser array system describing that behaviour. and some basic inference.
space on the outer hull sure, but the inderpid had that gread stupid secondary deflector stuck in its snout.
the feds could have used a traditional single deflector design & put bigger arrays on, but they wanted "fast".
the saucer sep was i gimmick. a last ditch effort to be the 'save the civilians' federation in unplanned combat or to avoid marooning the crew in pods if the core decided to go bang in deep space.
that didnt matter in wartime with all military crew compliment & the civvies on a starbase out of harms way, as was the case in ds9, when we saw 2 galaxies, not 2 stardrives.
and again there is nowhere anywhere at all on the dinky bit to fit the primary arrays!
theyd be folded about like some daft snakes & ladders game trying to fit them of the stardrive hull
so, no, my theory is both fine, and dandy!
Sorry not convinced on main phaser arrays. Again why not make more of the new classes with mega phasers.The sov would be capable of holding them but doesn't. I just don't see it. it's only for phaser arc. thus you can see why a ship captain would want to keep it attach during wartime but the Galaxy Stardrive is a capable ship in of it's self for wartime as well.
Sorry Stardestroyer but I'm going to have to ignore your video "proof."
I and several others have used such video proofs in the past, supplemented it with the tech manual, added to it by using real world physics and current theories of energy that the writers and fx guys seemed to be aware of at the time such as NDF .
Yet these are ignored and passed off as fan speculation and us being accused of being fanboys.
So I am curious why you think we should play on your field when you have refused to play on ours which many have bent over backwards to make as level as possible. Even flat out favoring ships like the sovereign?
Is that not a fair question and assessment of what you are asking of us?
Sorry not convinced on main phaser arrays. Again why not make more of the new classes with mega phasers.The sov would be capable of holding them but doesn't. I just don't see it. it's only for phaser arc. thus you can see why a ship captain would want to keep it attach during wartime but the Galaxy Stardrive is a capable ship in of it's self for wartime as well.
Practicality.
Put very simply, bigger is better. Period.
A larger computer will out perform a smaller one every time.
A larger ship can hold more equipment of every kind than a smaller one.
A larger plane can hold more ordinance or fuel.
A larger building can house a greater number of people or employees.
A larger engine provides greater power than a small one.
A larger car will provide more protection and greater towing capacity than a smaller car.
But what bigger isn't is more practical.
So while a larger array would indeed be more powerful, it us not always more practical or needed.
Put very simply, bigger is better. Period.
A larger computer will out perform a smaller one every time.
A larger ship can hold more equipment of every kind than a smaller one.
A larger plane can hold more ordinance or fuel.
A larger building can house a greater number of people or employees.
A larger engine provides greater power than a small one.
A larger car will provide more protection and greater towing capacity than a smaller car.
But what bigger isn't is more practical.
So while a larger array would indeed be more powerful, it us not always more practical or needed.
sorry Phaser size does equal phaser power. THey Warp core does where the more powerful the core the stronger the weapns. That's what has happened to the Defiant. the warp core is so powerful the she nearly flew apart from it till Sisko and O'Brien fixed it. That power is also chaneled into the phasers and pulse phasers making her the compact warship. Lakota was another attempt fitting a more powerful core which is likely smaller than the Galaxy standard core in her frame. While maybe not winning against a gal she could damage it pretty well.. There is Nothing to say that the phasers are diffferent from eachother. they are all the same mark just in different length's. Also We know the Ambasador got a refit after E-C now why didn't the refit change the saucer phaser arrays to be like the galaxy's. answer Useless move for there is no difference in damage in correrlation to array length.
Yes, separating the saucer will have an effect on the amount of energy/plasma/whatever that is used by the phaser system. But it does not affect the rate of fire, and saying that it does is in direct contradiction to the Technical Manual. It specifically states: "In Separated Flight Mode, the Saucer Module is cut off from the main EPS, and it must then rely on increased fusion generator output to power the arrays. Recharge times can be maintained at [less than or equal to] 0.5 seconds, but firing endurance drops to <15 minutes at full power."
"Recharge times can be maintained." I don't understand how you can debate something that is said right on the page of the most apocryphal book in Star Trek history.
Yes, you are correct, less plasma for the arrays = less array output. But the loss in rray output does not translate directly into a loss of rate of fire. It translates into a loss of firing endurance. TNG Tech Manual also says that directly on the page.
if the manual says that, then thats how it is. i made that statement before information about the subject was presented.
still, from just a logical standpoint, the total plasma available in just the saucer should be able to charge each emitter to 100%. it just might take a bit longer. thats why i assumed potential shot power wouldnt be effected, just how long it took to charge each emitter. this just seemed logical to me, based on how emitters were explained in the book.
but again, the book is law. im going with what it says on the subject.
A bigger array has the possibility of using more or less emitters for a shot. That does not translate into a "win" for larger arrays, and a "loss" for smaller arrays.
it does actually. a large array can fire a shot at any power level, max to least. a smaller array's max is less, but they can both fire at least. and anything in between. longer arrays also have more arc coverage, with that highest damage potential array. there is not a single disadvantage, it is the benchmark for what is best.
Later on in your post, you talk about using the entire array for a shot. Let's summarize all three sizes of arrays.
Saucer Arrays: Longest on the ship. Can cover wide firing arcs. Can charge up and fire a big beam of death, but subsequent need for a lot of energy to recharge (+ slow recharge due to # of emitters in array?) makes this a one-shot weapon. Subsequent quick-attacks have marked decrease in output.
Stardrive Forward Array / Ventral Array: Medium size, medium damage due to the principles of phaser arrays and the amount of emitters. Takes less time to recharge the smaller number of emitters in the array, resulting in firing bursts that can be routinely used again and again.
Small Arrays: Like the ones at the rear of the ship. Due to small numbers of emitters, the output is small. Probably used for point defense, although these smaller arrays are always in sets of two. Possibly both fire at the same time, and have far lower power requirements than the large arrays.
the power requirement is only as high as the shot is programed to be, regardless of array length. once an emitter is charged, that power is out of circulation. the time it takes for the glow effect of the forced coupling is milliseconds between the longest and shortest array. in footage of the galaxy class, the rate of fire with full array discharges is about once a second. clearly, the ship as designed to have enough power to fire that array at full power, over and over, at a particular fire rate. its the same for (much) smaller ship, their longest arrays are simply as long as the ship can support, at an acceptable firing rate.
The original topic, pages back, was about why the Galaxy-class has its saucer attached all the time in the Dominion War. In terms of weapons, it's about the larger arrays having the firing arc needed to combat other vessels. NOT about the damage output, since the Stardrive can "pummel" a target over the course of a few medium-damage, long-intensity beams, continually draining the shield system of the target vessel. Also, Stardrive has better movement due to less mass when separated.
The purpose of that video was to show that medium-damage "pummel" attacks from a smaller number of emitters in the array works in combat. So, thanks for supporting that.
And the whole show was made in the late 80's/early 90's. So, you're going to throw out TNG entirely?
since its proven that damage output is the number 1 benefit of great length, the obvious reason the galaxy never separates for battle is to be configured to suport that main array best. 1 super powerful shots will deal far more effective damage then multiple smaller damage shots. and even if every array on the secondary hull was firing at something about like it does in game, it would not out DPS ether main array, not even close.
hers a vid of the galaxy doing all sorts of shooting.
theres never an example of anything you ask about, because the galaxy never separates to fight, other then to distract the cube, but thats not the same as separating to get a weapons based tactical advantage. theres no frame of reference, and a total absence of canon information. so whatever the book says about it is correct as a result.
Unrelated side note. I never got the chance to compliment your Galaxy 3-pack proposal. It's a good idea. Let's hope Cryptic cues in, and makes this well-thought-out build a reality.
thanks, it would be great to have a ship this iconic get the attention it deserves.
sorry Phaser size does equal phaser power. THey Warp core does where the more powerful the core the stronger the weapns. That's what has happened to the Defiant. the warp core is so powerful the she nearly flew apart from it till Sisko and O'Brien fixed it. That power is also chaneled into the phasers and pulse phasers making her the compact warship. Lakota was another attempt fitting a more powerful core which is likely smaller than the Galaxy standard core in her frame. While maybe not winning against a gal she could damage it pretty well.. There is Nothing to say that the phasers are diffferent from eachother. they are all the same mark just in different length's. Also We know the Ambasador got a refit after E-C now why didn't the refit change the saucer phaser arrays to be like the galaxy's. answer Useless move for there is no difference in damage in correrlation to array length.
lol, the defiant warp core is powerful, for its size. thats proboly the core out of a saber class, a ship with almost 4 times the volume. on the subject of phaser arrays, the tech manual nailes it. there really is no disputing what it sais, ive never seen anyone make a passable argument against the conclusion ive come too. your just in denial if you wont coherently argue the presented facts.
how the excelsior class banks work ive done some thinking. there are likely a whole bunch of prefire chambers and capacitors all underneath the hull,connected to the few complete emitters sticking out of the surface. thats how it can fire harmful shots, even without 20, 50, 100, 200 emitter arrays across its hull.
sorry Phaser size does equal phaser power. THey Warp core does where the more powerful the core the stronger the weapns. That's what has happened to the Defiant. the warp core is so powerful the she nearly flew apart from it till Sisko and O'Brien fixed it. That power is also chaneled into the phasers and pulse phasers making her the compact warship. Lakota was another attempt fitting a more powerful core which is likely smaller than the Galaxy standard core in her frame. While maybe not winning against a gal she could damage it pretty well.. There is Nothing to say that the phasers are diffferent from eachother. they are all the same mark just in different length's. Also We know the Ambasador got a refit after E-C now why didn't the refit change the saucer phaser arrays to be like the galaxy's. answer Useless move for there is no difference in damage in correrlation to array length.
These Galaxy fanboys will NEVER accept the fact that the Ent-E is a far superior ship than the Galaxy, and the fact that it has been CONSISTENTLY displayed in this manner in EVERY Star Trek game released since 1996. So, despite their ramblings about "phaser emitters" and alleged "modularity", in EVERY Star Trek game, the Galaxy class has ALWAYS been a poor second choice (and in most cases third or fourth choice) to the other ships that were available in those games.
The Galaxy fanboys' predecessors whined about this (Ent-E vs. Ent-D), and ABSOLUTELY NOTHING was changed. So, this new crop of Galaxy fanboys are determined to follow in the SAME failed footsteps as their predecessors, and then ARE inexplicable shocked that they are getting the same failed results.
So despite their constant blathering and fanatical religious belief in the "TNG Tech Manual", the execs at Paramount/CBS has wisely choosen, decade after decade, to completely ignore them, and have APPROVED a strategy in the Star Trek games when the Galaxy in the best of times is seen as a "so -so" ship, and anyone who watches episodes like "Rascals", "Tin Man", "Darmok", "The Arsenal of Freedom", "Generations", etc., will see why.
The Galaxy is ALWAYS seen as a stepping stone to get to the BETTER ships (Ent-E), yet these Galaxy fanboy refuse to accept that undeniable fact.
sorry Phaser size does equal phaser power. THey Warp core does where the more powerful the core the stronger the weapns. That's what has happened to the Defiant. the warp core is so powerful the she nearly flew apart from it till Sisko and O'Brien fixed it. That power is also chaneled into the phasers and pulse phasers making her the compact warship. Lakota was another attempt fitting a more powerful core which is likely smaller than the Galaxy standard core in her frame. While maybe not winning against a gal she could damage it pretty well.. There is Nothing to say that the phasers are diffferent from eachother. they are all the same mark just in different length's. Also We know the Ambasador got a refit after E-C now why didn't the refit change the saucer phaser arrays to be like the galaxy's. answer Useless move for there is no difference in damage in correrlation to array length.
you sir are wrong according to Gene Roddenbury...the creator of star trek
Real the fasa starship construction manual endorsed by the creator of star trek to see just how wrong you are
anything anyone else says isnt the creator of star trek and anything they say should be dismissed as poor comedy
larger warp cores supply more power powering larger weapons that do more damage
anything you can put in a small ship can be overwhelmed by what can be put in a larger ship
So says the creator of star trek
Case closed
Jellico....Engineer ground.....Da'val Romulan space Sci
Saphire.. Science ground......Ko'el Romulan space Tac
Leva........Tactical ground.....Koj Romulan space Eng
JJ-Verse will never be Canon or considered Lore...It will always be JJ-Verse
These Galaxy fanboys will NEVER accept the fact that the Ent-E is a far superior ship than the Galaxy, and the fact that it has been CONSISTENTLY displayed in this manner in EVERY Star Trek game released since 1996. So, despite their ramblings about "phaser emitters" and alleged "modularity", in EVERY Star Trek game, the Galaxy class has ALWAYS been a poor second choice (and in most cases third or fourth choice) to the other ships that were available in those games.
The Galaxy fanboys' predecessors whined about this (Ent-E vs. Ent-D), and ABSOLUTELY NOTHING was changed. So, this new crop of Galaxy fanboys are determined to follow in the SAME failed footsteps as their predecessors, and then ARE inexplicable shocked that they are getting the same failed results.
So despite their constant blathering and fanatical religious belief in the "TNG Tech Manual", the execs at Paramount/CBS has wisely choosen, decade after decade, to completely ignore them, and have APPROVED a strategy in the Star Trek games when the Galaxy in the best of times is seen as a "so -so" ship, and anyone who watches episodes like "Rascals", "Tin Man", "Darmok", "The Arsenal of Freedom", "Generations", etc., will see why.
The Galaxy is ALWAYS seen as a stepping stone to get to the BETTER ships (Ent-E), yet these Galaxy fanboy refuse to accept that undeniable fact.
What games did the Sovereign do more damage than the Galaxy class?
Why is it a failure of the enterprise to get beaten by 2 klingon waships (rascals) when a vorcha also got beaten by 2 similar if not the same type of klingon waships isnt? (redemption part 1).
What games did the Sovereign do more damage than the Galaxy class?
The Sovereign was the better ship in Birth of the Federation, Star Trek Armada 1 & 2 and Star fleet Command 3. There's probably more but these were the main ones i have played.
Hey i'm a Galaxy fan but i can accept the Sovereign is more powerful than the Galaxy.
What i don't like is how the ship has been presented in this game. It has been royally screwed over when calling it a VA ship. And what people are missing is the Galaxy fans aren't wanting a uber god ship and make the Galaxy top dog in game, but to have her presented correctly in terms of the other cannon ships they used from the Star Trek Franchise. And to have her competitive.
I mentioned in a earlier post that when compared with the 2 free Rear Admiral Lower Half Ships the Star Cruiser and Sovereign she fits in well with these, because we have the Sci Cruiser, the Tactical Cruiser and the Engineering Cruiser
But if you compare the Galaxy-r with the other available Z-Store ships throughout the ranks this ship is not a +1 ship and should not be in the Z-Store in fact although its sold as a VA ship in reality its a RALH ship which compliments the Free Sovereign and Star Cruiser.
Examples of a free ship and a Z-Store being a +1 is the Captains Galaxy and the Venture Refit you can see the difference between the 2 ships. Command Level Akira vs Thunderchild
Also i can't remember any other Z-Store being granted a free token to buy the ship as a character lock. (Not sure if this is still offered)
What Cryptic are really selling you for you're 2000 Zen is a Separation Console. Not a +1 ship. The Galaxy-r should be a free ship at RALH to compliment the other 2 cruisers and the Z-Store version should be reworked to be A. a true VA and B. Better than the Ambassador, and Excelsior maybe not in terms of overall firepower but as a all round jack of all trades. Meaning she like her sister ship the Nebula can be used as a Tact/Science/Engineering hybrid.
In every T.V Series the Galaxy was the superior ship to the Excelsior (Lakota include) Fleet Cheyenne (which was never seen outside the graveyard scene from bobw) and the Ambassador. In this Game she is inferior to all of them.
prove it.
where is your evidence that a system with higher capacity would be unable to use capacity it was designed with outside of a scrappy design like defiant.
the defiant wasnt a "fix", it was "a hack job", they put limiters on the systems to keep the ship in one piece because its nothing but a prius with a nascar engine.
and there is no why in any reality the defiant had the material capacity in its systems to hit as hard as a galaxy, sov, or even akira.
a sabre with a set of cannons would hit harder and be more reliable.
the sov however WAS fixed. it was a testbed for mk12 phasers, a new technology, that actually blew out the eps grid when testing, requiring a redesign of the system to give it higher capacity.
Simple. Onscreen it was never stated that the phaser's were more powerful than the rest. Connected they all get their power from the same source, the warp core. When split then it has to rely on the fusion reactors. Note before TMP phaser had their own power source but when they connected it to warp core the phaser power increased. AS the previous videos show the saucer arrays have an insane firing arc thus why they are usually used andthe fact in TNG Enterprise usually faced it's opponet and which arrays will have the best line of fire, the saucer arrays. And that limit was only on her top speed, weapon power not affected. And her ablative armour had a bit to help their to.
What games did the Sovereign do more damage than the Galaxy class?
The Sovereign was the better ship in Birth of the Federation, Star Trek Armada 1 & 2 and Star fleet Command 3. There's probably more but these were the main ones i have played.
Hey i'm a Galaxy fan but i can accept the Sovereign is more powerful than the Galaxy.
What i don't like is how the ship has been presented in this game. It has been royally screwed over when calling it a VA ship. And what people are missing is the Galaxy fans aren't wanting a uber god ship and make the Galaxy top dog in game, but to have her presented correctly in terms of the other cannon ships they used from the Star Trek Franchise. And to have her competitive.
I mentioned in a earlier post that when compared with the 2 free Rear Admiral Lower Half Ships the Star Cruiser and Sovereign she fits in well with these, because we have the Sci Cruiser, the Tactical Cruiser and the Engineering Cruiser
But if you compare the Galaxy-r with the other available Z-Store ships throughout the ranks this ship is not a +1 ship and should not be in the Z-Store in fact although its sold as a VA ship in reality its a RALH ship which compliments the Free Sovereign and Star Cruiser.
Examples of a free ship and a Z-Store being a +1 is the Captains Galaxy and the Venture Refit you can see the difference between the 2 ships. Command Level Akira vs Thunderchild
Also i can't remember any other Z-Store being granted a free token to buy the ship as a character lock. (Not sure if this is still offered)
What Cryptic are really selling you for you're 2000 Zen is a Separation Console. Not a +1 ship. The Galaxy-r should be a free ship at RALH to compliment the other 2 cruisers and the Z-Store version should be reworked to be A. a true VA and B. Better than the Ambassador, and Excelsior maybe not in terms of overall firepower but as a all round jack of all trades. Meaning she like her sister ship the Nebula can be used as a Tact/Science/Engineering hybrid.
In every T.V Series the Galaxy was the superior ship to the Excelsior (Lakota include) Fleet Cheyenne (which was never seen outside the graveyard scene from bobw) and the Ambassador. In this Game she is inferior to all of them.
Do find it strange that in Armada 2, the galaxy is a better ship and in command 3, the sovereign is a better ship. Though i still do agree that the galaxy class has a higher single beam array attack, but that doesn't mean that its a better ship overall.
These Galaxy fanboys will NEVER accept the fact that the Ent-E is a far superior ship than the Galaxy, and the fact that it has been CONSISTENTLY displayed in this manner in EVERY Star Trek game released since 1996. So, despite their ramblings about "phaser emitters" and alleged "modularity", in EVERY Star Trek game, the Galaxy class has ALWAYS been a poor second choice (and in most cases third or fourth choice) to the other ships that were available in those games.
The Galaxy fanboys' predecessors whined about this (Ent-E vs. Ent-D), and ABSOLUTELY NOTHING was changed. So, this new crop of Galaxy fanboys are determined to follow in the SAME failed footsteps as their predecessors, and then ARE inexplicable shocked that they are getting the same failed results.
So despite their constant blathering and fanatical religious belief in the "TNG Tech Manual", the execs at Paramount/CBS has wisely choosen, decade after decade, to completely ignore them, and have APPROVED a strategy in the Star Trek games when the Galaxy in the best of times is seen as a "so -so" ship, and anyone who watches episodes like "Rascals", "Tin Man", "Darmok", "The Arsenal of Freedom", "Generations", etc., will see why.
The Galaxy is ALWAYS seen as a stepping stone to get to the BETTER ships (Ent-E), yet these Galaxy fanboy refuse to accept that undeniable fact.
Heck, the fanboys wont even accept that in 40 years since Nemesis that there are more powerful ships out there. They are so stuck on those phaser strips as gospel and deny that technology advances could surpass them, ever. I'm just glad that they aren't in charge of the US Navies procurement department because they'd still be retrofitting the Missouri because it was the large battleship we had.
simply the largest category of ship. since ALL space craft are very multipurpose, none of the purely military terms are a perfect fit. battleship was always primarily about size. if a battleship was smaller, it was then called a cruiser. no one can see past the word battle, so a stupid tangent argument has to occur, over and over and over.
The term "Battlecruiser" comes to mind, or even better "Heavy Battlecruiser" or even "Command Cruiser."
Heck, the fanboys wont even accept that in 40 years since Nemesis that there are more powerful ships out there. They are so stuck on those phaser strips as gospel and deny that technology advances could surpass them, ever. I'm just glad that they aren't in charge of the US Navies procurement department because they'd still be retrofitting the Missouri because it was the large battleship we had.
All the tech manual and canon (Correct spelling folks, 'Cannon' is a different thing altogether) talk is next to completely irrelevant in this discussion really. These should only be used as 'loose guidelines'. Gameplay and balance take top priority.
That being said, I cannot for the life of me understand why some people get argumentative at the suggestion that the Galaxy get a pass and fix it so desperately needs. If you don't like the ship, chances are you don't fly it. The Galaxy getting reworked will not affect your game experience.
The simple fact of this matter is: the Galaxy is sold as a T5 ship and it is obvious to anyone who plays with cruisers it does not perform anywhere near that standard. If Cryptic is going to label it as such, we have a reasonable expectation that it perform to that standard.
The Galaxy has a huge fanbase, this is true. And Cryptic sure uses the heck out of the old girl to advertise this game. Just look in the top right corner of this page for instance. For many people it was the Enterprise they grew up with. To have the ship SOLD as something IT IS NOT is what MY BEEF is. To leave an iconic ship either purposefully or accidentally at the bottom of the performance barrel is not good advertising. Many people who watched Trek want to play this game and fly the ship they saw on TV around on the Trek vidya game.That is not a negative thing and calling people 'fanboys' and delighting in and celebrating their lament shows immaturity.
And when the 'newer ship=better ship' arguments fly around this thread, I have to laugh a little. The Excelsior (ya know, the BEST CRUISER IN THE GAME) says "Hello boys, remember me?" Hard adherence to canon has never been nor ever will be a going concern in this game. GAME=not a Trek show/movie.
and this is were they mention the visible charge effect you see in the show, of the energy from all the emitters that the glow effect is seen converging to the fireing point. its not as spelled out as what i said, but its there. a bigger array uses can use more emitters per shot, big arrays win.
And how much power bleed-off do those arrays have? The "glow" is emission of energy, there is power loss in travelling to the one firing point (also glowing). having a shorter, direct path from power source to emitter is more efficient and effective than moving all that energy around a system and having it suffer from bleed-off and parasitic losses.
considered and dismissed. arrays are a mature technology, such a radical advancement is not going to take place. in the less then 10 years, not 20, between the enterprise D and E launch, mkXII emitters didn't get the 220% more powerful they would need to be for the sovereign classe's biggest array to break even with a galaxies biggest. and even if they were that much better, the galaxy was just a refit away from having the same emitter type. its a moot point, the sovereign looses as soon as array length is a factor it is in determining power.
At what point in time did the array become a "mature" technology and how do you know that there hasn't been an advancement in technology, all it takes is one breakthrough, a realization that they needed to try a thing or two different to advance any technology.
At what point in time in development was the Galaxy's super-uber phaser array developed? Probably early on, its likely that it was 20 years between the Galaxy's phaser array development and the Sovy' project. And if it was such a "mature technology", the Sovy' (and just about any other large cruiser sized ship) would have been designed to accommodate those phaser arrays, even if the ship was a workhorse replacement, but yet it wasn't.
good question, why not have only galaxy class? oh i dont know, proboly a thousand reasons. we should have galaxy class delivering cargo to colonies, surveying star systems other galaxy class charted, running errands in the core worlds, ya sounds great, who needs classes of ships at every size and ability.
Just in case you didnt get the point of the question, I was referring to having only Galaxy's to fill the roll of large capital ships. By your standards, nothing can replace the Galaxy (in over 50+ years), the Cheyenne and Nebula were offshoots of that program and could fit the roles of lighter cruisers, Excelsior included. And the smaller science ships could have been developed off of that conceptual standpoint. Why waste the development resources of the Sovereign and Akira, Steamrunner and other, the Galaxy program pretty much has everything covered for the next 40 or so years, just keep churning out the different tier ships from its development.
its likely ships have an array that is just long enough for them to full array discharge at a certain rate of fire, and no bigger. no ship even has the size it would need to mount an array the size the galaxy has, even the sovereign. the large array on the galaxy is about the same circumference as the sovereigns saucer edge. there is a serious lack of general understanding of just how much larger the galaxy is then the sov.
modifying arrays or adding them to existing ships seems nigh impossible for them. from pictures in the tng tech manual, its pretty clear that the array housing is part of the actual frame of the ship. with most of the array hardware below the surface, thats easy to believe. a refit would require most of the saucer section to be striped of outer hulll, and like 30% of the frame of the ship cut apart and rebuilt. clearly, the math was not good for such a procedure, or excelsior class would have had phaser arrays in the 2340s. coming with such a large array is a major factor in the galaxy not obsoleting itself like the ambassador class did. newer ships a quarter its size have longer arrays then it does.
And yet the Sovy' was not built with framework to double up the emitters? The ship was designed around the time that the Federation was aware of the Borg threat and towards the end of its development, the Dominion War, but they didn't want to optimize its weapons capability? That sounds like a poor idea.
im sure the admirals were too stoned to care that the galaxy class enterprise got destroyed by a bop. im sure they were totally chill about that. also, it took riker another decade almost to get a command, must have felt sorry for him at that point.
So where is your proof that they were in bad graces? A tech manual, canon footage? For all of the stupid things that happened with that crew in TNG, the admiralty would have had more than enough to be upset with, but yet they were not. Heck, they had been trying to get Riker a command for quite some time and he kept turning it down. Do you really think that they would have given that crew another ship named Enterprise, a name within the strongest of Starfleet tradition, to them if they had any doubts about them?
then the galaxy gets upgraded with that tech. this is not an argument that works to the sovereigns advantage
Except that the "large array" worship is now a moot point, unless the Galaxy now gets double or triple the arrays its not an advantage for the Galaxy either.
Sorry Stardestroyer but I'm going to have to ignore your video "proof."
I and several others have used such video proofs in the past, supplemented it with the tech manual, added to it by using real world physics and current theories of energy that the writers and fx guys seemed to be aware of at the time such as NDF .
Yet these are ignored and passed off as fan speculation and us being accused of being fanboys.
So I am curious why you think we should play on your field when you have refused to play on ours which many have bent over backwards to make as level as possible. Even flat out favoring ships like the sovereign?
Is that not a fair question and assessment of what you are asking of us?
Ignoring proof directly from the shows might as well invalidate everything. The shows don't get any more canon.
As for "why I should think everyone else play on my field", I didn't start posting in this thread until after that; in fact, I wasn't even aware that you had done so already. As for refusing to play on your playing field, I'm not sure what you mean by that. I've been using proof from shows and apocryphal sources just like Drunk has, and even went above and beyond in critical thinking. So how am I refusing to play on your field?
if the manual says that, then thats how it is. i made that statement before information about the subject was presented.
still, from just a logical standpoint, the total plasma available in just the saucer should be able to charge each emitter to 100%. it just might take a bit longer. thats why i assumed potential shot power wouldnt be effected, just how long it took to charge each emitter. this just seemed logical to me, based on how emitters were explained in the book.
but again, the book is law. im going with what it says on the subject.
Yeah, that makes sense. I would have assumed the same thing. Apparently, the Enterprise-D's EPS grid is really, really efficient at shunting energy to the phaser array, but not enough to fully charge it to 100% in one go.
it does actually. a large array can fire a shot at any power level, max to least. a smaller array's max is less, but they can both fire at least. and anything in between. longer arrays also have more arc coverage, with that highest damage potential array. there is not a single disadvantage, it is the benchmark for what is best.
The arc coverage is exactly what I've been stressing this whole time. That's my educated guess on why the saucer is attached to the Stardrive in all Dominion War battle scenes; the arc coverage. It's an added advantage of high-energy output from the large arrays, but maintaining the contact is "paramount".
These Galaxy fanboys will NEVER accept the fact that the Ent-E is a far superior ship than the Galaxy, and the fact that it has been CONSISTENTLY displayed in this manner in EVERY Star Trek game released since 1996. So, despite their ramblings about "phaser emitters" and alleged "modularity", in EVERY Star Trek game, the Galaxy class has ALWAYS been a poor second choice (and in most cases third or fourth choice) to the other ships that were available in those games.
The Galaxy fanboys' predecessors whined about this (Ent-E vs. Ent-D), and ABSOLUTELY NOTHING was changed. So, this new crop of Galaxy fanboys are determined to follow in the SAME failed footsteps as their predecessors, and then ARE inexplicable shocked that they are getting the same failed results.
So despite their constant blathering and fanatical religious belief in the "TNG Tech Manual", the execs at Paramount/CBS has wisely choosen, decade after decade, to completely ignore them, and have APPROVED a strategy in the Star Trek games when the Galaxy in the best of times is seen as a "so -so" ship, and anyone who watches episodes like "Rascals", "Tin Man", "Darmok", "The Arsenal of Freedom", "Generations", etc., will see why.
The Galaxy is ALWAYS seen as a stepping stone to get to the BETTER ships (Ent-E), yet these Galaxy fanboy refuse to accept that undeniable fact.
Other Star Trek games do not constitute proof that a ship from the shows is more powerful than another ship from the movies. Also, Paramount/CBS just gives the licensing, and is not the ones responsible for balance in a game.
I also find it intriguing that apparently I'm now a Galaxy fanboy (according to you), even though I've come to accept the ingame ship and realize that it's a long shot from being changed. So, what ingenious category does this leave me in?
stardestroyer001, Admiral, Explorers Fury PvE/PvP Fleet | Retired PvP Player
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9 My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
Comments
The Galaxy does have phaser strips on the pylons, they are right at the curve. But i completely agree with you.
That's exactly why the Stardrive's forward array might be better suited to damage output. It has a smaller chargeup distance, true, but it can be used for multiple bursts of medium energy output, as opposed to charging the whole dorsal main array of the docked Saucer. The possible reason this isn't used is, again, because keeping the phaser beam locked on a moving target is more tactically effective.
Of course. :P
EDIT: Off topic: Scimitar stats released. http://sto.perfectworld.com/news/?p=930741
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
again there's nothing to prove a larger array equals more firepower, just a better firing arc for again why would Intrepid have a split array when their is space to connect it.
Also again if theory was co9rrect why put the most powerful phasers on the part of the ship NOT planed to be in combat when split. Your theory would mean tha uber phaser should be on the Stardrive NOT the saucer. Thus your theory is proven wrong.
nor is it taking into account that a phaser array on the Sovy might use different technology that makes the larger arrays obsolete
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.
simply the largest category of ship. since ALL space craft are very multipurpose, none of the purely military terms are a perfect fit. battleship was always primarily about size. if a battleship was smaller, it was then called a cruiser. no one can see past the word battle, so a stupid tangent argument has to occur, over and over and over.
that point has very little reliance, im not sure why its being dwelled on. plasma is plasma, whether generated by the warp core of impulse reactors, the change to the refit enterprise was most likely a reorganization of the EPS network on the ship. weapons are now included on the power grid along with the warp engines. regardless, there is no warp core attached to the main arrays when it is separated. thats the only point i made there, theres no conspiracy, relax.
its supply and demand. its simple logic. without the plasma generated by the core and main impulse engine, there is less for the main arrays to work with. something would have to give. whatever the manual has to say on the subject, i didn't even remember that it said anything about it, i trust though. do remember that the core makes the same plasma the impulse reactors do, its not extra special. plasma from any source, if there was enough, would fuel everything on the ship just fine, even the warp drive.
no, i did not say that, your not understanding the statement. remove the warp core from the equation refers to saucer separation. which removes the largest source of plasma, which would effect ether rate of fire, or as you say the manual sais, output. im not sure how you could misunderstand so severely. less plasma for the arrays means less array output, in some way. i think physics would agree.
EXACTLY! theres a ton of instances were there is not a full array discharge, they only use a few emitters, those shots are thus less powerful. its how they control how powerful a shot is, the number of emitters involved in the visual glow effect.
a bigger array can use more emitters per shot, big arrays win.
there is also quite a few instances of the entire arrays involved in the glow effect, even in DS9.
huh, i think i claimed this actually
a bigger array can use more emitters per shot, big arrays win.
would you like me to post a vid were we do see a galaxy use its entire array for a shot? because thee are quite a few instances were it does, any other youtube clip with the galaxy would show it. one example were it doesn't disproves nothing. it just proves that arrays work how i say they work.
that looked like a target subsystem attack, not a shoot the galor in half attack. a small number of emiters used, not the whole array. a disabled ship is much less explosive, in a tight, close quarters, fleet battle like that. if they blew that galor up at that range they would have been seriously damaged.
poor quality and inconsistent effects from like 1990. the fact that there is the glow effect at all indicates that the energy of multiple emitters is still converging at the point that fires. proving the principle ive layed out.
i supose you didnt read a few posts back when i addredssed this. i dont want to write more then i have to so i excluded this point here. darmok was an admited tech mistake. thats all it was. in BOBW, like i had said earlier, shooting every array that had line of sight, at different frequencies all at the same time, in hopes that something would deal damage is how that is explained. also, no other target would be large enough to even have those smaller arrays able to hit a target infront of it other then a borg cube.
any energy used to fire shots from smaller arrays uses energy more effectively fired from a single much more powerful beam, only able to be generated by the huge main array, with up to 200 emitters worth of power able to be fired in 1 shot. the only other time the main array was not fired, and another array was, was when they caused that solor flare that destroyed lore's borg ship. not a single additional time was a shot not fired from the main array.
True, and that's why the saucer is most likely attached to the ship during the Dominion War. If the Stardrive could manage "anti-capital beam discharges", and have an array long enough to cover most attack vectors, there would be no need for the Saucer to be there.
(Of course, there would still be saucers attached to Galaxy-class starships if there was a need for extra space, such as troops or equipment or computer command support. Which is likely why all Galaxy-class starships had them attached anyways...)
That quote was taken directly from a book which has very credible technical information on this very ship. Are you arguing against a source which might very well be considered canon? (Technically it's called "apocryphal", which Ex Astris Scientia defines as "In Star Trek fandom, the term "apocryphal" represents any information that is not canon in a narrow sense, but is by some treated like or accepted as canon. This may include The Animated Series, the books by Jeri Taylor, reference books or deleted scenes.")
Go to the forum homepage, click on "User CP" at the top left, then "Set Avatar". You'll notice there is an option to upload a custom avatar. Use the upload, don't link from a website (linking feature i broken).
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
you must be skiping my posts, because in them i prove length has an additive effect on possible firepower, its in the tech manual.
then the galaxy gets upgraded with that tech. this is not an argument that works to the sovereigns advantage
Here's the issue.
Right there. With a decreased power source providing input into the phaser system, the phaser beam emitted has less endurance. [TNG Tech Manual].
You said it. It's right there for anyone to look at.
I know "remove the warp core from the equation refers to saucer separation", since the only warp core on the Galaxy-class starship is in the Stardrive section.
Yes, separating the saucer will have an effect on the amount of energy/plasma/whatever that is used by the phaser system. But it does not affect the rate of fire, and saying that it does is in direct contradiction to the Technical Manual. It specifically states: "In Separated Flight Mode, the Saucer Module is cut off from the main EPS, and it must then rely on increased fusion generator output to power the arrays. Recharge times can be maintained at [less than or equal to] 0.5 seconds, but firing endurance drops to <15 minutes at full power."
"Recharge times can be maintained." I don't understand how you can debate something that is said right on the page of the most apocryphal book in Star Trek history.
Yes, you are correct, less plasma for the arrays = less array output. But the loss in rray output does not translate directly into a loss of rate of fire. It translates into a loss of firing endurance. TNG Tech Manual also says that directly on the page.
A bigger array has the possibility of using more or less emitters for a shot. That does not translate into a "win" for larger arrays, and a "loss" for smaller arrays.
Later on in your post, you talk about using the entire array for a shot. Let's summarize all three sizes of arrays.
Saucer Arrays: Longest on the ship. Can cover wide firing arcs. Can charge up and fire a big beam of death, but subsequent need for a lot of energy to recharge (+ slow recharge due to # of emitters in array?) makes this a one-shot weapon. Subsequent quick-attacks have marked decrease in output.
Stardrive Forward Array / Ventral Array: Medium size, medium damage due to the principles of phaser arrays and the amount of emitters. Takes less time to recharge the smaller number of emitters in the array, resulting in firing bursts that can be routinely used again and again.
Small Arrays: Like the ones at the rear of the ship. Due to small numbers of emitters, the output is small. Probably used for point defense, although these smaller arrays are always in sets of two. Possibly both fire at the same time, and have far lower power requirements than the large arrays.
The original topic, pages back, was about why the Galaxy-class has its saucer attached all the time in the Dominion War. In terms of weapons, it's about the larger arrays having the firing arc needed to combat other vessels. NOT about the damage output, since the Stardrive can "pummel" a target over the course of a few medium-damage, long-intensity beams, continually draining the shield system of the target vessel. Also, Stardrive has better movement due to less mass when separated.
Except for your opinion on the power available to the arrays affects firing rate, and not endurance of the beam. Go ahead, post a video where the power available directly affects the rate of fire, and where a reduction in power results in a reduction in the rate of fire.
The purpose of that video was to show that medium-damage "pummel" attacks from a smaller number of emitters in the array works in combat. So, thanks for supporting that.
And the whole show was made in the late 80's/early 90's. So, you're going to throw out TNG entirely?
And again, go ahead, post a video where the power available directly affects the rate of fire, and where a reduction in power results in a reduction in the rate of fire.
1) I wasn't referring to Darmok. I know the phaser wasn't supposed to come out of the torpedo bay.
2) Nothing to do with frequencies. The phasers were clearly shown firing from a point on the flat nacelle pylons closer to the center of the ship, and not where the pylons bend and attach to the nacelles. There is no known emitter at the location in which that phaser fired from.*
3) Yup, the solar flare was the example I was using.
Other than the two examples above, I don't believe there was another time where the ship's phasers fired from any of the other emitters described in the Tech Manual. It's possible an early Season 1 episode where the ship actually separated before combat showed the Stardrive forward array... but I don't remember much about Season 1 anyway.
*It is possible that this mis-fire was fixed in the Season 3 Blu-ray release of The Next Generation. In that case, still, phasers fired from an array other than the saucer.
Unrelated side note. I never got the chance to compliment your Galaxy 3-pack proposal. It's a good idea. Let's hope Cryptic cues in, and makes this well-thought-out build a reality.
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
Sorry not convinced on main phaser arrays. Again why not make more of the new classes with mega phasers.The sov would be capable of holding them but doesn't. I just don't see it. it's only for phaser arc. thus you can see why a ship captain would want to keep it attach during wartime but the Galaxy Stardrive is a capable ship in of it's self for wartime as well.
I and several others have used such video proofs in the past, supplemented it with the tech manual, added to it by using real world physics and current theories of energy that the writers and fx guys seemed to be aware of at the time such as NDF .
Yet these are ignored and passed off as fan speculation and us being accused of being fanboys.
So I am curious why you think we should play on your field when you have refused to play on ours which many have bent over backwards to make as level as possible. Even flat out favoring ships like the sovereign?
Is that not a fair question and assessment of what you are asking of us?
Practicality.
Put very simply, bigger is better. Period.
A larger computer will out perform a smaller one every time.
A larger ship can hold more equipment of every kind than a smaller one.
A larger plane can hold more ordinance or fuel.
A larger building can house a greater number of people or employees.
A larger engine provides greater power than a small one.
A larger car will provide more protection and greater towing capacity than a smaller car.
But what bigger isn't is more practical.
So while a larger array would indeed be more powerful, it us not always more practical or needed.
sorry Phaser size does equal phaser power. THey Warp core does where the more powerful the core the stronger the weapns. That's what has happened to the Defiant. the warp core is so powerful the she nearly flew apart from it till Sisko and O'Brien fixed it. That power is also chaneled into the phasers and pulse phasers making her the compact warship. Lakota was another attempt fitting a more powerful core which is likely smaller than the Galaxy standard core in her frame. While maybe not winning against a gal she could damage it pretty well.. There is Nothing to say that the phasers are diffferent from eachother. they are all the same mark just in different length's. Also We know the Ambasador got a refit after E-C now why didn't the refit change the saucer phaser arrays to be like the galaxy's. answer Useless move for there is no difference in damage in correrlation to array length.
if the manual says that, then thats how it is. i made that statement before information about the subject was presented.
still, from just a logical standpoint, the total plasma available in just the saucer should be able to charge each emitter to 100%. it just might take a bit longer. thats why i assumed potential shot power wouldnt be effected, just how long it took to charge each emitter. this just seemed logical to me, based on how emitters were explained in the book.
but again, the book is law. im going with what it says on the subject.
it does actually. a large array can fire a shot at any power level, max to least. a smaller array's max is less, but they can both fire at least. and anything in between. longer arrays also have more arc coverage, with that highest damage potential array. there is not a single disadvantage, it is the benchmark for what is best.
the power requirement is only as high as the shot is programed to be, regardless of array length. once an emitter is charged, that power is out of circulation. the time it takes for the glow effect of the forced coupling is milliseconds between the longest and shortest array. in footage of the galaxy class, the rate of fire with full array discharges is about once a second. clearly, the ship as designed to have enough power to fire that array at full power, over and over, at a particular fire rate. its the same for (much) smaller ship, their longest arrays are simply as long as the ship can support, at an acceptable firing rate.
since its proven that damage output is the number 1 benefit of great length, the obvious reason the galaxy never separates for battle is to be configured to suport that main array best. 1 super powerful shots will deal far more effective damage then multiple smaller damage shots. and even if every array on the secondary hull was firing at something about like it does in game, it would not out DPS ether main array, not even close.
hers a vid of the galaxy doing all sorts of shooting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d734afLFPds&playnext=1&list=PLF37F38EA72A03613
theres never an example of anything you ask about, because the galaxy never separates to fight, other then to distract the cube, but thats not the same as separating to get a weapons based tactical advantage. theres no frame of reference, and a total absence of canon information. so whatever the book says about it is correct as a result.
thanks, it would be great to have a ship this iconic get the attention it deserves.
lol, the defiant warp core is powerful, for its size. thats proboly the core out of a saber class, a ship with almost 4 times the volume. on the subject of phaser arrays, the tech manual nailes it. there really is no disputing what it sais, ive never seen anyone make a passable argument against the conclusion ive come too. your just in denial if you wont coherently argue the presented facts.
how the excelsior class banks work ive done some thinking. there are likely a whole bunch of prefire chambers and capacitors all underneath the hull,connected to the few complete emitters sticking out of the surface. thats how it can fire harmful shots, even without 20, 50, 100, 200 emitter arrays across its hull.
These Galaxy fanboys will NEVER accept the fact that the Ent-E is a far superior ship than the Galaxy, and the fact that it has been CONSISTENTLY displayed in this manner in EVERY Star Trek game released since 1996. So, despite their ramblings about "phaser emitters" and alleged "modularity", in EVERY Star Trek game, the Galaxy class has ALWAYS been a poor second choice (and in most cases third or fourth choice) to the other ships that were available in those games.
The Galaxy fanboys' predecessors whined about this (Ent-E vs. Ent-D), and ABSOLUTELY NOTHING was changed. So, this new crop of Galaxy fanboys are determined to follow in the SAME failed footsteps as their predecessors, and then ARE inexplicable shocked that they are getting the same failed results.
So despite their constant blathering and fanatical religious belief in the "TNG Tech Manual", the execs at Paramount/CBS has wisely choosen, decade after decade, to completely ignore them, and have APPROVED a strategy in the Star Trek games when the Galaxy in the best of times is seen as a "so -so" ship, and anyone who watches episodes like "Rascals", "Tin Man", "Darmok", "The Arsenal of Freedom", "Generations", etc., will see why.
The Galaxy is ALWAYS seen as a stepping stone to get to the BETTER ships (Ent-E), yet these Galaxy fanboy refuse to accept that undeniable fact.
you sir are wrong according to Gene Roddenbury...the creator of star trek
Real the fasa starship construction manual endorsed by the creator of star trek to see just how wrong you are
anything anyone else says isnt the creator of star trek and anything they say should be dismissed as poor comedy
larger warp cores supply more power powering larger weapons that do more damage
anything you can put in a small ship can be overwhelmed by what can be put in a larger ship
So says the creator of star trek
Case closed
Saphire.. Science ground......Ko'el Romulan space Tac
Leva........Tactical ground.....Koj Romulan space Eng
JJ-Verse will never be Canon or considered Lore...It will always be JJ-Verse
What games did the Sovereign do more damage than the Galaxy class?
Why is it a failure of the enterprise to get beaten by 2 klingon waships (rascals) when a vorcha also got beaten by 2 similar if not the same type of klingon waships isnt? (redemption part 1).
Simple. Onscreen it was never stated that the phaser's were more powerful than the rest. Connected they all get their power from the same source, the warp core. When split then it has to rely on the fusion reactors. Note before TMP phaser had their own power source but when they connected it to warp core the phaser power increased. AS the previous videos show the saucer arrays have an insane firing arc thus why they are usually used andthe fact in TNG Enterprise usually faced it's opponet and which arrays will have the best line of fire, the saucer arrays. And that limit was only on her top speed, weapon power not affected. And her ablative armour had a bit to help their to.
Anything other than energy traveling faster than the speed of light violates physics as well, but yet Star Trek said "yes" to that.
Heck, the fanboys wont even accept that in 40 years since Nemesis that there are more powerful ships out there. They are so stuck on those phaser strips as gospel and deny that technology advances could surpass them, ever. I'm just glad that they aren't in charge of the US Navies procurement department because they'd still be retrofitting the Missouri because it was the large battleship we had.
The term "Battlecruiser" comes to mind, or even better "Heavy Battlecruiser" or even "Command Cruiser."
All the tech manual and canon (Correct spelling folks, 'Cannon' is a different thing altogether) talk is next to completely irrelevant in this discussion really. These should only be used as 'loose guidelines'. Gameplay and balance take top priority.
That being said, I cannot for the life of me understand why some people get argumentative at the suggestion that the Galaxy get a pass and fix it so desperately needs. If you don't like the ship, chances are you don't fly it. The Galaxy getting reworked will not affect your game experience.
The simple fact of this matter is: the Galaxy is sold as a T5 ship and it is obvious to anyone who plays with cruisers it does not perform anywhere near that standard. If Cryptic is going to label it as such, we have a reasonable expectation that it perform to that standard.
The Galaxy has a huge fanbase, this is true. And Cryptic sure uses the heck out of the old girl to advertise this game. Just look in the top right corner of this page for instance. For many people it was the Enterprise they grew up with. To have the ship SOLD as something IT IS NOT is what MY BEEF is. To leave an iconic ship either purposefully or accidentally at the bottom of the performance barrel is not good advertising. Many people who watched Trek want to play this game and fly the ship they saw on TV around on the Trek vidya game.That is not a negative thing and calling people 'fanboys' and delighting in and celebrating their lament shows immaturity.
And when the 'newer ship=better ship' arguments fly around this thread, I have to laugh a little. The Excelsior (ya know, the BEST CRUISER IN THE GAME) says "Hello boys, remember me?" Hard adherence to canon has never been nor ever will be a going concern in this game. GAME=not a Trek show/movie.
And how much power bleed-off do those arrays have? The "glow" is emission of energy, there is power loss in travelling to the one firing point (also glowing). having a shorter, direct path from power source to emitter is more efficient and effective than moving all that energy around a system and having it suffer from bleed-off and parasitic losses.
At what point in time did the array become a "mature" technology and how do you know that there hasn't been an advancement in technology, all it takes is one breakthrough, a realization that they needed to try a thing or two different to advance any technology.
At what point in time in development was the Galaxy's super-uber phaser array developed? Probably early on, its likely that it was 20 years between the Galaxy's phaser array development and the Sovy' project. And if it was such a "mature technology", the Sovy' (and just about any other large cruiser sized ship) would have been designed to accommodate those phaser arrays, even if the ship was a workhorse replacement, but yet it wasn't.
Just in case you didnt get the point of the question, I was referring to having only Galaxy's to fill the roll of large capital ships. By your standards, nothing can replace the Galaxy (in over 50+ years), the Cheyenne and Nebula were offshoots of that program and could fit the roles of lighter cruisers, Excelsior included. And the smaller science ships could have been developed off of that conceptual standpoint. Why waste the development resources of the Sovereign and Akira, Steamrunner and other, the Galaxy program pretty much has everything covered for the next 40 or so years, just keep churning out the different tier ships from its development.
And yet the Sovy' was not built with framework to double up the emitters? The ship was designed around the time that the Federation was aware of the Borg threat and towards the end of its development, the Dominion War, but they didn't want to optimize its weapons capability? That sounds like a poor idea.
So where is your proof that they were in bad graces? A tech manual, canon footage? For all of the stupid things that happened with that crew in TNG, the admiralty would have had more than enough to be upset with, but yet they were not. Heck, they had been trying to get Riker a command for quite some time and he kept turning it down. Do you really think that they would have given that crew another ship named Enterprise, a name within the strongest of Starfleet tradition, to them if they had any doubts about them?
Except that the "large array" worship is now a moot point, unless the Galaxy now gets double or triple the arrays its not an advantage for the Galaxy either.
Ignoring proof directly from the shows might as well invalidate everything. The shows don't get any more canon.
As for "why I should think everyone else play on my field", I didn't start posting in this thread until after that; in fact, I wasn't even aware that you had done so already. As for refusing to play on your playing field, I'm not sure what you mean by that. I've been using proof from shows and apocryphal sources just like Drunk has, and even went above and beyond in critical thinking. So how am I refusing to play on your field?
Yeah, that makes sense. I would have assumed the same thing. Apparently, the Enterprise-D's EPS grid is really, really efficient at shunting energy to the phaser array, but not enough to fully charge it to 100% in one go.
The arc coverage is exactly what I've been stressing this whole time. That's my educated guess on why the saucer is attached to the Stardrive in all Dominion War battle scenes; the arc coverage. It's an added advantage of high-energy output from the large arrays, but maintaining the contact is "paramount".
No pun intended.
Other Star Trek games do not constitute proof that a ship from the shows is more powerful than another ship from the movies. Also, Paramount/CBS just gives the licensing, and is not the ones responsible for balance in a game.
I also find it intriguing that apparently I'm now a Galaxy fanboy (according to you), even though I've come to accept the ingame ship and realize that it's a long shot from being changed. So, what ingenious category does this leave me in?
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!