You seem to be missing the numerous posts from people who suggested a viable layout for the Galaxy-class. You post far too quickly for your own benefit.
As for wasting time, why are you here anyways? You don't support the Galaxy-class being changed, you don't provide solid evidence against the Galaxy-class being changed... so what really is your purpose here? (A lot of people here believe you are trolling. For your own sake, please give us a reason why you are not.)
Well Star Trek fans come in all shapes and sizes, if you didn't know, there is a group of people on Second Life who like to roleplay called United Federation Starfleet. Now this group believes that the Vesta and Luna classes are the best that Starfleet has to offer and nothing else really gets a look in.
I left that community to come into a community which is equally biased but what is worse is that the DEVS are biased and will ignore canon when it suits them or supports the dominance of vessels that they don't actually like.
This kind of dictatorship cannot be allowed to continue however I fear it will remain this way until people realize that there is just not much in this game really... it lacks stuff to do so people take the alternate route to complain about ships or just to troll, like this gentlemen here.
And yet - the Sovereign Class 1701-E Enterprise is instrumental in blowing that self same cube away (you even see a shield flare as it flies in showing it successfully countering Borg attacks....
Yet some in the thread STILL feel that Galaxy Class should be and is still superior to the Sovereign Class.:eek:
(Oh and lastly, the Defiant wasn't able to be destroyed by that Borg Cube - as Picard said in the film -- "Adrift, but salvageable...")
...
The Enterprise-E had nothing to do with the destruction of the Borg Cube.
Captain Picard did.
Picard could have given the fleet the coordinates to fire on from a life pod and the Cube would have been destroyed.
The Galaxy also successfully counters Borg attacks.
The Defiant also successfully countered Borg attacks.
The Akira, the Steamrunner, the Millennium Falcon all successfully counter/repel Borg attacks. What you see in FC is a fresh ship showing up to the fleet engagement.
Fresh being the keyword.
Not to pick on you crypticarmsman but this is the definition of a fanboy.
Someone who is completely loyal to whatever it is, regardless of any and all information presented to the contrary.
...
The Enterprise-E had nothing to do with the destruction of the Borg Cube.
Captain Picard did.
Picard could have given the fleet the coordinates to fire on from a life pod and the Cube would have been destroyed.
The Galaxy also successfully counters Borg attacks.
The Defiant also successfully countered Borg attacks.
The Akira, the Steamrunner, the Millennium Falcon all successfully counter/repel Borg attacks. What you see in FC is a fresh ship showing up to the fleet engagement.
Fresh being the keyword.
Not to pick on you crypticarmsman but this is the definition of a fanboy.
Someone who is completely loyal to whatever it is, regardless of any and all information presented to the contrary.
bingo, Defiant was fighting likely for hours before the E-E showed up, so she did good.
bingo, Defiant was fighting likely for hours before the E-E showed up, so she did good.
From where the Enterprise was stationed to Earth at maximum warp it would take just over 3 hours. So the fight was at most 4 hours long. It even included the USS Bozeman, a Miranda variant.
So a ship designed to fight the Borg, over the course of 4 hours was unable to stop a single cube even with a fleet backing it... real awesome ship ya got there
Oh, and did I mention that Han Solo's Falcon seems to have done just as well as the Defiant did?
From where the Enterprise was stationed to Earth at maximum warp it would take just over 3 hours. So the fight was at most 4 hours long. It even included the USS Bozeman, a Miranda variant.
So a ship designed to fight the Borg, over the course of 4 hours was unable to stop a single cube even with a fleet backing it... real awesome ship ya got there
Oh, and did I mention that Han Solo's Falcon seems to have done just as well as the Defiant did?
well have you've seen the size of those things, and they did massive surface damage. it was Picard's knowledge that saved the day.
It makes me to STILL be happy with MY ship, so where does that leave YOU? Oh, I know, it leaves you in the EXACT same position that you were in THREE YEARS AGO: crying and whining without having enough conviction to stop playing a game that you spend a significant amount of your time whining about.
There is NO WAY I would spend three years whining about a game and still play it. Either move on, find an ACTUAL way to convince Cryptic to modify it, or accept it. But apparently, far too many of you Galaxy fanboys lack the conviction to take ANY stance other than WHINING. How is THAT working for you so far? (hint: zero)
So I guess that "moral superior stance" is justified since as I said, I wouldn't waste my time by simply whining and inexplicably refusing to alter my whining strategy while STILL playing the very same game that is causing me such distress.
no you spend 3 years trolling the playerbase instead, acting rude and immature because you ship happens to be useful and need to rub it.
you use insults like fanboy and whining and then ***** like a little kid when its done to you. the only reason you come into this thread is to cause problems since you havent listed any reason as to why the ship should not be improved.
ps one of the devs has said that the older ships will be geting a look at the galaxy was specifically mentioned so apparently something is getting done it might not become anything but its something.
also a moral superior stance(hahaha you haven't succeeded you should quit the game) is determined by right and wrong so nothing happening YET is not a justification for being a TRIBBLE(after all people said the same thing about the Americans in the revolutionary war at one point and look how that turned out)
I think it's safe to say Poleranbeam is a noob and should be ignored.
Amen to that, this is a constructive topic on how to improve the Galaxy, which Cryptic might take into consideration when they redesign her (eventually) so I'm hoping these ideas really show that most of the player base would like to see an Enhanced Galaxy Class or at least have the Galaxy better then she is.
He is simply trying to enrage people to get a reaction so that this thread will be shut down, after 194 pages... we are one of the largest threads on the forum and we need to keep posts constructive and not give into these trolls because its precisely what they want... "Lets make sure Cryptic never forgets... the name... Enterprise-D"
For fans of the Galaxy Class, her grace has never really been matched for me by any other ship, well other then the Intrepid.
a week out of the post and more pages here than i was imagen, some very constructive others from that ppl (all we know who/s) and i wonder why if that ppl is so obsessed against a fix to a iconic ship (this is startrek, so what u what you expected? no one complian for the status of all cruciers in game? when starfleet is a crucier centric force) forget that point think in this point.
Exist one ship from the (Z) store T5 LVL 50 unlock not 40 not 45 50 and the setup of BOFF is almost the same than free ships LVL 40 and in most part thats ships are more flexible when today gameplay we need.
any one can say , ey this have a console that separete your saucer and hen u move like a escort!!!!.
really? a cosmetic console that works only each 5 min and make u more weak? and move like and escort ? for what lineup the DHC wat CANT LOAD? :P (i dont want DHC or DC in a galaxy)
the fact "working as intend is whe the galaxy T5 was launch in game" no longer fit in this days
as some one say a few pages ago:
Oddisey
regent
galaxy
i dont want a god ship (simitar is already released LOL one big step more out of game balance)
a week out of the post and more pages here than i was imagen, some very constructive others from that ppl (all we know who/s) and i wonder why if that ppl is so obsessed against a fix to a iconic ship (this is startrek, so what u what you expected? no one complian for the status of all cruciers in game? when starfleet is a crucier centric force) forget that point think in this point.
Exist one ship from the (Z) store T5 LVL 50 unlock not 40 not 45 50 and the setup of BOFF is almost the same than free ships LVL 40 and in most part thats ships are more flexible when today gameplay we need.
any one can say , ey this have a console that separete your saucer and hen u move like a escort!!!!.
really? a cosmetic console that works only each 5 min and make u more weak? and move like and escort ? for what lineup the DHC wat CANT LOAD? :P (i dont want DHC or DC in a galaxy)
the fact "working as intend is whe the galaxy T5 was launch in game" no longer fit in this days
as some one say a few pages ago:
Oddisey
regent
galaxy
i dont want a god ship (simitar is already released LOL one big step more out of game balance)
I think that Cryptic have essentially tried to redesign Starfleet into a diverse force of smaller ships with evidence or cause to do so. Starfleet is a cruiser based organisation, that is why I thought instead of "Escorts", they should have frigates which can turn "single beams" effectively into canons by buffing their beam power when its put on the ship. Leave the canons to the Klingons and Romulans who are more canon and correct in using them.
Starfleet needs a unique selling point, because at the moment. Klingon and Romulan have all the advantages. If Starfleet ships had largely better shielding then this wouldn't be such an issue.
Starfleet needs a unique selling point, because at the moment. Klingon and Romulan have all the advantages. If Starfleet ships had largely better shielding then this wouldn't be such an issue.
Starfleet has the biggest selling point of all, the weight of fandom. Klingon fans are a small but vocal minority, Romulan fans are even less in number. Hence why the Romulans were transformed into a generic sci fi faction with a mustach twirling tal shiar built in villain.
That said, from a balance point of view fed ships and the fed faction as a whole are generally bereft of any mechanics that give them an edge, mechanics that the KDF had in spades before. These days the Romulan Republic has all the best toys. Is this Cryptic's plan? Just release new factions of increasing power so everyone will buy everything over and over? I'm sure they'd like it but I hope players are better than that and see it for what it is.
Starfleet has the biggest selling point of all, the weight of fandom. Klingon fans are a small but vocal minority, Romulan fans are even less in number. Hence why the Romulans were transformed into a generic sci fi faction with a mustach twirling tal shiar built in villain.
That said, from a balance point of view fed ships and the fed faction as a whole are generally bereft of any mechanics that give them an edge, mechanics that the KDF had in spades before. These days the Romulan Republic has all the best toys. Is this Cryptic's plan? Just release new factions of increasing power so everyone will buy everything over and over? I'm sure they'd like it but I hope players are better than that and see it for what it is.
It does seem that way, they just don't seem to care... its sad.
It does seem that way, they just don't seem to care... its sad.
I've been saying that since the day an actual ship went on sale in the C-Store.
Its a slippery slope and it is one that Cryptic and PWE are sprinting down without a care in the world about the sudden leveling out at the end. As are most of the "customers"
um the Missouri was retired because it was too expensive to keep with its WW2 engines not because it was obsolete it got a full upgrade for gulf war one. in fact the other iowas are still required to be maintained in case of reactivation. in fact the navy still hasent managed to find a cheaper navel gunfire support ship since the zimwalt class was deamed to expensive
If they were deemed to be that critical, there would have been a program to design a newer modern engine to keep it cheaper to operate, but modern combat missile systems and aircraft can offer equivalent fire support capability that is just effective as battleship gun barrages.
If they were deemed to be that critical, there would have been a program to design a newer modern engine to keep it cheaper to operate, but modern combat missile systems and aircraft can offer equivalent fire support capability that is just effective as battleship gun barrages.
in order to replace the engines you would have to complacently gut the ship since no shipyard has the ability to remove them through the bottom of the hull which for the price would be costlier than building a whole new ship. if modern ships were so good at gunfire barrages there would never have been the need to bring them back for Korea Vietnam and gulf war 1, the navy has spent billions on rail guns,newer missiles and shells,and the zimwalt class destroyer and still nothing has been able to do the job quite as well, thats why when they were sold off there were provisions put in place to preserve some of them for future reactivation(note the USS Wisconsin was the only ship to have the enemy surrender to a unarmed recon drone due to the effectiveness of its barrage)the only reason they were decomed is because the infrastructure to support them was dismantled and not easy to rebuild(engines, gun barrels, shells, and the powder which was declared unsafe due to age and new safety reguations(not a surprise there are 100's of people in the navy making rules to justify thier jobs and such)
We started this and several other threads to address what we felt was a poor representation of the Galaxy class vessel. They weren't created to ask that it be the number one ship in the game. It has never been the objective.
So why all the ship vs ship comparisons?
Because as soon as we ask that the ship be revamped, we get attacked.
Polaronbeam is an excellent example. Those who are against like to come out and state their opinion as law. We try to present our case using canon and near canon sources that are supported by what is seen on screen. The amount of math, time and who knows what else that has been put into this argument by people such as Rogue Vulcan, Ilithi Dragon, Catamount, Ex Astris, dontdrunkimshoot and a few others is insane.
I am not against having cruiser parity, many good arguments are made for help for it (and other cruisers). I am against dontdrunkimshoot's attestations that the Galaxy is the ultimate, irreplaceable ubership and must be at the top of the heap.
They have broken down every tv episode from TNG, DS9 and Voyager.
The math adds up, the phasers, shields, hull, engines everything follows a set pattern that has very very few deviations from each other.
Yet despite this.
And yes, they even take into account things like the D'D firing at the Ent-D and Generations, they and ourselves are labeled as frothing fanboys. Nevermind that for most of us the Galaxy isn't even our favorite ship!
The way that we have stated phasers work is backed by their on-screen showing. Every time. The numbers being said fluctuate but the behavior of the weapon does not.
The Galaxy has over 1,000 emitters when seen on-screen.
The tech manuals which some of you have started to pull from state that each emitter can discharge 5.1MW of energy. And that they pass this energy along from one emitter to the next until discharged. There is no mention of loss of energy. Also, most of us lack the basic understanding of physics to even argue for or against this. (Energy vs Power for example.)
I have taken enough science/physics classes to know that the movement of energy always ends up in some for of loss of energy, it is impossible to have a 100% transference of energy from one point to another.
While this number does not fit the amount of damage seen being inflicted on-screen. It is the base from which much has been done for the comparison work. And the behavior does fit mathematically with what is seen on-screen.
The Iowa would own the newest destroyer in ship to ship combat.
It has larger guns, more damage soak and can be equipped with anything that the destroyer can be, and have more of it. Size does matter.
Actually, anti-ship missiles, such as the Harpoon, negate most of the advantages of size (and cannons) the way they impact from the top ignores most of the armor. It really depends on whose volleys strike first. If the Iowa relied on its cannons and not missiles, its going to be in a world of hurt.
We say that phasers are a mature technology due to the fact that they have been around for a few hundred years. Since before Kirk was Captain of the Enterprise. They are by no means a new technology.
Saying that we are ignoring tech advances and possible break through technology is simply not true.
If it is true, then point it out. Where is this new tech? When is it mentioned? It isn't. So we can't say it does.
Look at the Photon Torpedo. How long has that been around in Star Trek? And when did we see the first Quantum Torpedo?
Only thing we hear is a from a tech manual dedicated to a ship that was the hero vessel for seven seasons and hundreds of hours of video time. If the Sovereign, Odyssey or any other ship had that much air time, it would have had as much writing support and be at least as uber in non-canon tech manuals as the Galaxy
We have even acknowledged that the Sovereign has a much greater density of emitters and torpedo tubes than what was seen in Generations on the Galaxy.
What you who are frothing back at us fail to recognize is the credit we do give to the Sovereign and other ships. That we have looked at what you are saying we haven't.
The Defiant has been shown getting it's trash kicked by other ships, yet that is ignored by most. The Intrepid class was shown getting wrecked all the time, it was only with exotic technology and tech from the future that Voyager survived at all. Built to spec she was a small ship with limited tactical abilities. As shown on-screen.
The Prometheus was shown as taking out a Nebula that was catching up to her.
No-one acknowledges that the Nebula was catching up to the fastest ship in the fleet. A feat that regardless of tech level will be destroying your engine. The background story of the Prometheus' destruction of a D'D Warbird is never addressed or acknowledged by fans of the Prometheus, yet they aren't labeled fan boys. Despite the blatant ignoring of the fact that you have 2 warships and a heavily slanted(according to fans) Akira class present. Or that the ship that was destroyed seemingly had no shields indicating some sort of prior conflict that had drained them.
The canon states specifically that the Galaxy is a battleship.
You cannot deny that. It happens 3 times.
Any reference in "prime" universe is done by opponents. In "Yesterdays Enterprise"
universe it is possible that the war influenced that Starfleet to have built the Galaxy as a battleship from the ground up, it might not have 90% of the features of the prime-Galaxy either such as saucer sep large numbers of holo-decks (if any), we don't know we saw it for an hour.
If you remember in ST3, the Klingons referenced the Enterprise as a "battle cruiser", but I am sure that most people here would argue that it wasn't one.
The Sovereign is stated as being the most advanced. Advanced does not equal more powerful. My dad's laptop is more advanced than my desktop. But my desktop has more processing power, better graphic capability, more memory and a larger power supply.
Mine will out perform his more advanced laptop.
That doesn't change that his is more advanced.
Again, advanced does not mean more powerful.
But we have no canon proof that Galaxy actually out performs the Sovereign in combat, there is twenty years of bridge gaping advancement and battle capable necessity of the Borg incursions and the Dominion war that realistically give the nod to the Sovereign being more than capable to tactically supplant any large warship in Starfleet at the time of its launch.
Best part of this whole thing is that when asked a simple question, Why not bring the Galaxy inline with other T5 ships. You can't even answer.[/QUOTE]
Several of us have agreed, but not because of arguments that suggest that it is the most potent ship in Starfleet as some suggest. I have long argued that cruisers need an improvement to Engineer BoFF skills that will bring parity between the triune character classes. Engineer skills are the weakest, especially at Lt. Cmdr/ Cmdr. Boff levels. Improving the potency of Engineering Boff skills and fixing the linked cooldown timers between some skills would serve to support the Galaxy more than any other cruiser in the game.
I would argue that its hull should be greater than the Sovy and Excel, but less than the Gal-X and Odyssey. It's maneuverability, as of the Legacy update is fine for its size.
ANother needed fix is the power drain for beam weapons, especially with BO included, all cruisers should have enough power to keep its weapons charged and firing, sci and escorts, not so much. The Galaxy suffers from beam drain just as much , if not more than other cruisers because of the practicality of it having Beam Arrays. All cruisers should have a weapon drain resist bonus to beam arrays.
in order to replace the engines you would have to complacently gut the ship since no shipyard has the ability to remove them through the bottom of the hull which for the price would be costlier than building a whole new ship. if modern ships were so good at gunfire barrages there would never have been the need to bring them back for Korea Vietnam and gulf war 1, the navy has spent billions on rail guns,newer missiles and shells,and the zimwalt class destroyer and still nothing has been able to do the job quite as well, thats why when they were sold off there were provisions put in place to preserve some of them for future reactivation(note the USS Wisconsin was the only ship to have the enemy surrender to a unarmed recon drone due to the effectiveness of its barrage)the only reason they were decomed is because the infrastructure to support them was dismantled and not easy to rebuild(engines, gun barrels, shells, and the powder which was declared unsafe due to age and new safety reguations(not a surprise there are 100's of people in the navy making rules to justify thier jobs and such)
Kores was 10years after WWII and Gulf War I is more than 20 years in the past from now. The reason why modern ships (last 20 years) don't do cannon barrages well is because of the fact that missiles and air power has become more effective than cannons are, the logistics of fire support has made battleship cannon barrages rare and antique. If a battleship was truly deemed necessary, they would have actually pushed through a new class into service. It wasn't just size and support expense that killed cannon equipped battleships, it was the changes in damage delivering technology that has made aircraft and missiles more effective.
There isn't anything that a rail gun or cannon shell can do, fire support-wise that a missile or aircraft cannot.
Kores was 10years after WWII and Gulf War I is more than 20 years in the past from now. The reason why modern ships (last 20 years) don't do cannon barrages well is because of the fact that missiles and air power has become more effective than cannons are, the logistics of fire support has made battleship cannon barrages rare and antique. If a battleship was truly deemed necessary, they would have actually pushed through a new class into service. It wasn't just size and support expense that killed cannon equipped battleships, it was the changes in damage delivering technology that has made aircraft and missiles more effective.
There isn't anything that a rail gun or cannon shell can do, fire support-wise that a missile or aircraft cannot.
its all about cost, its cheaper to keep the ship in decom state and use it for tourists and let someone else pay for the upkeep then to build a new class of ship. if the battleships were usless then why were they braught back at all(note that since the day that they left the fleet the navy is still trying to find a alternative gunfire support option and the marines still like the battleships for anfib assalts) since they were 40-50 years old and needed refits every time they returned to service?
in order to replace the engines you would have to complacently gut the ship since no shipyard has the ability to remove them through the bottom of the hull which for the price would be costlier than building a whole new ship.
this is incorrect. The Navy has a few facilities that can remove engines and what not. They are called dry-docks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Missouri_(BB-63)
There is a pic in the middle of the page showing the Missouri in dry dock. The biggest BB was 58,000 tons and 890ft long. Current aircraft carriers are 102,000 tons and 1,092 ft long. There are facilities to dry dock these ships which are bigger than BB's then they can handle BB's.
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.
I am not against having cruiser parity, many good arguments are made for help for it (and other cruisers). I am against dontdrunkimshoot's attestations that the Galaxy is the ultimate, irreplaceable ubership and must be at the top of the heap.
He doesn't.
Neither do I. We are saying that in canon, not in the game, onscreen evidence supports the Galaxy being the owner of the biggest guns.
I have taken enough science/physics classes to know that the movement of energy always ends up in some for of loss of energy, it is impossible to have a 100% transference of energy from one point to another.
From its point of origin to impact perhaps.
But there is no mention either onscreen or in the manuals that says energy is lost when passed from one emitter to the next.
Actually, anti-ship missiles, such as the Harpoon, negate most of the advantages of size (and cannons) the way they impact from the top ignores most of the armor. It really depends on whose volleys strike first. If the Iowa relied on its cannons and not missiles, its going to be in a world of hurt.
The Iowa would have more.
If both ships went cannons the Iowa will flat out destroy it.
Even going with modern munitions if the Iowa is equipped with them it will likely be the victor do to its size advantage over the smaller ships.
Only thing we hear is a from a tech manual dedicated to a ship that was the hero vessel for seven seasons and hundreds of hours of video time. If the Sovereign, Odyssey or any other ship had that much air time, it would have had as much writing support and be at least as uber in non-canon tech manuals as the Galaxy
It is a tech manual that applies to every ship in star trek where applicable.
Its weapon description does not, for example, apply to earlier ships that have turrets equipped as that is a different mechanic.
So the Sovereign and the Odyssey both have a tech manual that can be applied to them as far as tech is concerned.
What people get back is Galaxy>any ship
In Star Fleet she has the biggest hardest hitting guns.
If you want to get technical then the Nebula is the baddest ship in the fleet when you put a torpedo pod on it.
We do not know how she compares to the Negh'Var or the D'Deridex ships. But it is generally believed that those ships have superior firepower.
Galaxy: Hundreds of air time hours
Sovereign: Eight air time hours
Yes, but we are comparing what has been seen onscreen.
The Sovereigns battle capabilities have been placed on display significantly.
And from what we have seen, she does not display comparable phaser firepower to the Galaxy. I have my own thoughts on why she doesn't fire larger blasts in FC that relate to being apart of a fleet and the NDF theory.
And I also believe that at launch she was more powerful than the Enterprise D when she was first launched. However we have seen the Galaxy be upgraded several times and it was stated that she would continue to receive upgrades both major and minor throughout her life time of 100 years.
Any reference in "prime" universe is done by opponents. In "Yesterdays Enterprise"
universe it is possible that the war influenced that Starfleet to have built the Galaxy as a battleship from the ground up, it might not have 90% of the features of the prime-Galaxy either such as saucer sep large numbers of holo-decks (if any), we don't know we saw it for an hour.
Worf states that the ship is a battleship after looking over her specifications in Conundrum.
Riker I believe is the person that says his Galaxy is a battleship.
And in Yesterday's Enterprise it is again a member of the crew if not Picard that states it.
If you remember in ST3, the Klingons referenced the Enterprise as a "battle cruiser", but I am sure that most people here would argue that it wasn't one.
It fits actually.
While never seen onscreen it is speculated that there are larger vessels in Star Fleet than the Constitution class. And later in the movies we see the Excelsior which is a larger vessel than the Constitution and may well have also served as a battlecruiser for the fleet.
But we have no canon proof that Galaxy actually out performs the Sovereign in combat, there is twenty years of bridge gaping advancement and battle capable necessity of the Borg incursions and the Dominion war that realistically give the nod to the Sovereign being more than capable to tactically supplant any large warship in Starfleet at the time of its launch.
That is what we have been trying to explain.
There is proof. Based on the behavior of the Phaser Arrays seen onscreen and what the tech manual states. The damage lines up. When a more powerful shot is called for, more of the array is utilized than when a smaller shot is called for. When firing at the small fighters it is a segment of like 8 emitters. When firing against the Borg Cube she is using upwards of several hundred. In Rascals she even uses the entire array as a part of the shot. The sound of the array can be heard before it is even seen onscreen.
Look at how much damage she did to the Borg Cube with 3 large Phaser blasts.
She did more damage to the surface of the Cube than the entire fleet did in FC.
Those blasts were large enough to hide the Galaxy class in more than once.
The behavior vs what is states in the tech manuals lines up. The Sovereign follows the same rules with her behavior. FC being a possible exception. Against the Sona she utilizes a very small portion of her array to disable them.
In Nemesis she again uses a very small portion of the array when firing blind trying to locate the Scimitar. And when they do she utilized a larger portion of the array.
Several of us have agreed, but not because of arguments that suggest that it is the most potent ship in Starfleet as some suggest. I have long argued that cruisers need an improvement to Engineer BoFF skills that will bring parity between the triune character classes. Engineer skills are the weakest, especially at Lt. Cmdr/ Cmdr. Boff levels. Improving the potency of Engineering Boff skills and fixing the linked cooldown timers between some skills would serve to support the Galaxy more than any other cruiser in the game.
I would argue that its hull should be greater than the Sovy and Excel, but less than the Gal-X and Odyssey. It's maneuverability, as of the Legacy update is fine for its size.
ANother needed fix is the power drain for beam weapons, especially with BO included, all cruisers should have enough power to keep its weapons charged and firing, sci and escorts, not so much. The Galaxy suffers from beam drain just as much , if not more than other cruisers because of the practicality of it having Beam Arrays. All cruisers should have a weapon drain resist bonus to beam arrays.
And that is fine.
We aren't saying that it should be the most potent ship in the game. It is simply an illustration in our argument that the ship, and cruisers in general, need some love.
Kores was 10years after WWII and Gulf War I is more than 20 years in the past from now. The reason why modern ships (last 20 years) don't do cannon barrages well is because of the fact that missiles and air power has become more effective than cannons are, the logistics of fire support has made battleship cannon barrages rare and antique. If a battleship was truly deemed necessary, they would have actually pushed through a new class into service. It wasn't just size and support expense that killed cannon equipped battleships, it was the changes in damage delivering technology that has made aircraft and missiles more effective.
There isn't anything that a rail gun or cannon shell can do, fire support-wise that a missile or aircraft cannot.
this is incorrect. The Navy has a few facilities that can remove engines and what not. They are called dry-docks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Missouri_(BB-63)
There is a pic in the middle of the page showing the Missouri in dry dock. The biggest BB was 58,000 tons and 890ft long. Current aircraft carriers are 102,000 tons and 1,092 ft long. There are facilities to dry dock these ships which are bigger than BB's then they can handle BB's.
i am aware of dry docks my submarine was in one for over a year and it is big enough for touse ships(same one missouri was in in fact 1-2 years ago) and there is no room under the ship for the engines to be removed(it is actually cramped when those ships are on blocks its hard to see it looks alot bigger then it is) they would have to cut huge holes in the ship to remove them, install new fuel systems, gears,shaft connections, ect ect and that would cost too much. the only reason battleships were retired is because congress is a cheap-TRIBBLE(parts have to be custom made for the ship not massproduced like for newer ships and the admirals in charge of the navy are agreeing with them because congress decides which officers get promotions.
modern ships are build for speed and dont have near the armor of the older ships battleships are far better in this regard.
also as proof of how stupid congress gets on matters like this they tried to scrap the sub-fleet after the cold war ended(leaving us with a increadably small fleet of ageing subs wich i know from my time aboard them are one of the best intelligence platforms there is)
i am aware of dry docks my submarine was in one for over a year and it is big enough for touse ships(same one missouri was in in fact 1-2 years ago) and there is no room under the ship for the engines to be removed(it is actually cramped when those ships are on blocks its hard to see it looks alot bigger then it is) they would have to cut huge holes in the ship to remove them, install new fuel systems, gears,shaft connections, ect ect and that would cost too much. the only reason battleships were retired is because congress is a cheap-TRIBBLE(parts have to be custom made for the ship not massproduced like for newer ships and the admirals in charge of the navy are agreeing with them because congress decides which officers get promotions.
modern ships are build for speed and dont have near the armor of the older ships battleships are far better in this regard.
also as proof of how stupid congress gets on matters like this they tried to scrap the sub-fleet after the cold war ended(leaving us with a increadably small fleet of ageing subs wich i know from my time aboard them are one of the best intelligence platforms there is)
I was stationed onboard a carrier and we were in dry dock where we upgraded the engines. Now granted the ships are different but I imagine it's the same process. However I agree with the reasons you gave.
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.
Galaxy Retrofit needs a revamp to bring it in line with other T5 ships which may be serviced by a engineering abilities revamp. And/or different BOFF setup.
I was stationed onboard a carrier and we were in dry dock where we upgraded the engines. Now granted the ships are different but I imagine it's the same process. However I agree with the reasons you gave.
im sure its similer but remember a battleship is built to take damage a carrier isnt supposed to get near the fight so i suppose that the carrier isnt quite a compact ship on the inside and easier to work on(access to equipment, hull thickness parts and such not to mention the testing and paperwork and boy does the navy love those)
Comments
Well Star Trek fans come in all shapes and sizes, if you didn't know, there is a group of people on Second Life who like to roleplay called United Federation Starfleet. Now this group believes that the Vesta and Luna classes are the best that Starfleet has to offer and nothing else really gets a look in.
I left that community to come into a community which is equally biased but what is worse is that the DEVS are biased and will ignore canon when it suits them or supports the dominance of vessels that they don't actually like.
This kind of dictatorship cannot be allowed to continue however I fear it will remain this way until people realize that there is just not much in this game really... it lacks stuff to do so people take the alternate route to complain about ships or just to troll, like this gentlemen here.
Its all symptomatic of the problems in the game.
...
The Enterprise-E had nothing to do with the destruction of the Borg Cube.
Captain Picard did.
Picard could have given the fleet the coordinates to fire on from a life pod and the Cube would have been destroyed.
The Galaxy also successfully counters Borg attacks.
The Defiant also successfully countered Borg attacks.
The Akira, the Steamrunner, the Millennium Falcon all successfully counter/repel Borg attacks. What you see in FC is a fresh ship showing up to the fleet engagement.
Fresh being the keyword.
Not to pick on you crypticarmsman but this is the definition of a fanboy.
Someone who is completely loyal to whatever it is, regardless of any and all information presented to the contrary.
bingo, Defiant was fighting likely for hours before the E-E showed up, so she did good.
From where the Enterprise was stationed to Earth at maximum warp it would take just over 3 hours. So the fight was at most 4 hours long. It even included the USS Bozeman, a Miranda variant.
So a ship designed to fight the Borg, over the course of 4 hours was unable to stop a single cube even with a fleet backing it... real awesome ship ya got there
Oh, and did I mention that Han Solo's Falcon seems to have done just as well as the Defiant did?
well have you've seen the size of those things, and they did massive surface damage. it was Picard's knowledge that saved the day.
no you spend 3 years trolling the playerbase instead, acting rude and immature because you ship happens to be useful and need to rub it.
you use insults like fanboy and whining and then ***** like a little kid when its done to you. the only reason you come into this thread is to cause problems since you havent listed any reason as to why the ship should not be improved.
ps one of the devs has said that the older ships will be geting a look at the galaxy was specifically mentioned so apparently something is getting done it might not become anything but its something.
also a moral superior stance(hahaha you haven't succeeded you should quit the game) is determined by right and wrong so nothing happening YET is not a justification for being a TRIBBLE(after all people said the same thing about the Americans in the revolutionary war at one point and look how that turned out)
Amen to that, this is a constructive topic on how to improve the Galaxy, which Cryptic might take into consideration when they redesign her (eventually) so I'm hoping these ideas really show that most of the player base would like to see an Enhanced Galaxy Class or at least have the Galaxy better then she is.
He is simply trying to enrage people to get a reaction so that this thread will be shut down, after 194 pages... we are one of the largest threads on the forum and we need to keep posts constructive and not give into these trolls because its precisely what they want... "Lets make sure Cryptic never forgets... the name... Enterprise-D"
For fans of the Galaxy Class, her grace has never really been matched for me by any other ship, well other then the Intrepid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubFe1WVzlBU
a week out of the post and more pages here than i was imagen, some very constructive others from that ppl (all we know who/s) and i wonder why if that ppl is so obsessed against a fix to a iconic ship (this is startrek, so what u what you expected? no one complian for the status of all cruciers in game? when starfleet is a crucier centric force) forget that point think in this point.
Exist one ship from the (Z) store T5 LVL 50 unlock not 40 not 45 50 and the setup of BOFF is almost the same than free ships LVL 40 and in most part thats ships are more flexible when today gameplay we need.
any one can say , ey this have a console that separete your saucer and hen u move like a escort!!!!.
really? a cosmetic console that works only each 5 min and make u more weak? and move like and escort ? for what lineup the DHC wat CANT LOAD? :P (i dont want DHC or DC in a galaxy)
the fact "working as intend is whe the galaxy T5 was launch in game" no longer fit in this days
as some one say a few pages ago:
Oddisey
regent
galaxy
i dont want a god ship (simitar is already released LOL one big step more out of game balance)
I think that Cryptic have essentially tried to redesign Starfleet into a diverse force of smaller ships with evidence or cause to do so. Starfleet is a cruiser based organisation, that is why I thought instead of "Escorts", they should have frigates which can turn "single beams" effectively into canons by buffing their beam power when its put on the ship. Leave the canons to the Klingons and Romulans who are more canon and correct in using them.
Starfleet needs a unique selling point, because at the moment. Klingon and Romulan have all the advantages. If Starfleet ships had largely better shielding then this wouldn't be such an issue.
Starfleet has the biggest selling point of all, the weight of fandom. Klingon fans are a small but vocal minority, Romulan fans are even less in number. Hence why the Romulans were transformed into a generic sci fi faction with a mustach twirling tal shiar built in villain.
That said, from a balance point of view fed ships and the fed faction as a whole are generally bereft of any mechanics that give them an edge, mechanics that the KDF had in spades before. These days the Romulan Republic has all the best toys. Is this Cryptic's plan? Just release new factions of increasing power so everyone will buy everything over and over? I'm sure they'd like it but I hope players are better than that and see it for what it is.
It does seem that way, they just don't seem to care... its sad.
I've been saying that since the day an actual ship went on sale in the C-Store.
Its a slippery slope and it is one that Cryptic and PWE are sprinting down without a care in the world about the sudden leveling out at the end. As are most of the "customers"
If they were deemed to be that critical, there would have been a program to design a newer modern engine to keep it cheaper to operate, but modern combat missile systems and aircraft can offer equivalent fire support capability that is just effective as battleship gun barrages.
That was awesomeness incarnate.
in order to replace the engines you would have to complacently gut the ship since no shipyard has the ability to remove them through the bottom of the hull which for the price would be costlier than building a whole new ship. if modern ships were so good at gunfire barrages there would never have been the need to bring them back for Korea Vietnam and gulf war 1, the navy has spent billions on rail guns,newer missiles and shells,and the zimwalt class destroyer and still nothing has been able to do the job quite as well, thats why when they were sold off there were provisions put in place to preserve some of them for future reactivation(note the USS Wisconsin was the only ship to have the enemy surrender to a unarmed recon drone due to the effectiveness of its barrage)the only reason they were decomed is because the infrastructure to support them was dismantled and not easy to rebuild(engines, gun barrels, shells, and the powder which was declared unsafe due to age and new safety reguations(not a surprise there are 100's of people in the navy making rules to justify thier jobs and such)
I am not against having cruiser parity, many good arguments are made for help for it (and other cruisers). I am against dontdrunkimshoot's attestations that the Galaxy is the ultimate, irreplaceable ubership and must be at the top of the heap.
I have taken enough science/physics classes to know that the movement of energy always ends up in some for of loss of energy, it is impossible to have a 100% transference of energy from one point to another.
Actually, anti-ship missiles, such as the Harpoon, negate most of the advantages of size (and cannons) the way they impact from the top ignores most of the armor. It really depends on whose volleys strike first. If the Iowa relied on its cannons and not missiles, its going to be in a world of hurt.
Only thing we hear is a from a tech manual dedicated to a ship that was the hero vessel for seven seasons and hundreds of hours of video time. If the Sovereign, Odyssey or any other ship had that much air time, it would have had as much writing support and be at least as uber in non-canon tech manuals as the Galaxy
What people get back is Galaxy>any ship
Galaxy: Hundreds of air time hours
Sovereign: Eight air time hours
Any reference in "prime" universe is done by opponents. In "Yesterdays Enterprise"
universe it is possible that the war influenced that Starfleet to have built the Galaxy as a battleship from the ground up, it might not have 90% of the features of the prime-Galaxy either such as saucer sep large numbers of holo-decks (if any), we don't know we saw it for an hour.
If you remember in ST3, the Klingons referenced the Enterprise as a "battle cruiser", but I am sure that most people here would argue that it wasn't one.
But we have no canon proof that Galaxy actually out performs the Sovereign in combat, there is twenty years of bridge gaping advancement and battle capable necessity of the Borg incursions and the Dominion war that realistically give the nod to the Sovereign being more than capable to tactically supplant any large warship in Starfleet at the time of its launch.
Best part of this whole thing is that when asked a simple question, Why not bring the Galaxy inline with other T5 ships. You can't even answer.[/QUOTE]
Several of us have agreed, but not because of arguments that suggest that it is the most potent ship in Starfleet as some suggest. I have long argued that cruisers need an improvement to Engineer BoFF skills that will bring parity between the triune character classes. Engineer skills are the weakest, especially at Lt. Cmdr/ Cmdr. Boff levels. Improving the potency of Engineering Boff skills and fixing the linked cooldown timers between some skills would serve to support the Galaxy more than any other cruiser in the game.
I would argue that its hull should be greater than the Sovy and Excel, but less than the Gal-X and Odyssey. It's maneuverability, as of the Legacy update is fine for its size.
ANother needed fix is the power drain for beam weapons, especially with BO included, all cruisers should have enough power to keep its weapons charged and firing, sci and escorts, not so much. The Galaxy suffers from beam drain just as much , if not more than other cruisers because of the practicality of it having Beam Arrays. All cruisers should have a weapon drain resist bonus to beam arrays.
Kores was 10years after WWII and Gulf War I is more than 20 years in the past from now. The reason why modern ships (last 20 years) don't do cannon barrages well is because of the fact that missiles and air power has become more effective than cannons are, the logistics of fire support has made battleship cannon barrages rare and antique. If a battleship was truly deemed necessary, they would have actually pushed through a new class into service. It wasn't just size and support expense that killed cannon equipped battleships, it was the changes in damage delivering technology that has made aircraft and missiles more effective.
There isn't anything that a rail gun or cannon shell can do, fire support-wise that a missile or aircraft cannot.
its all about cost, its cheaper to keep the ship in decom state and use it for tourists and let someone else pay for the upkeep then to build a new class of ship. if the battleships were usless then why were they braught back at all(note that since the day that they left the fleet the navy is still trying to find a alternative gunfire support option and the marines still like the battleships for anfib assalts) since they were 40-50 years old and needed refits every time they returned to service?
this is incorrect. The Navy has a few facilities that can remove engines and what not. They are called dry-docks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Missouri_(BB-63)
There is a pic in the middle of the page showing the Missouri in dry dock. The biggest BB was 58,000 tons and 890ft long. Current aircraft carriers are 102,000 tons and 1,092 ft long. There are facilities to dry dock these ships which are bigger than BB's then they can handle BB's.
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.
He doesn't.
Neither do I. We are saying that in canon, not in the game, onscreen evidence supports the Galaxy being the owner of the biggest guns.
From its point of origin to impact perhaps.
But there is no mention either onscreen or in the manuals that says energy is lost when passed from one emitter to the next.
The Iowa would have more.
If both ships went cannons the Iowa will flat out destroy it.
Even going with modern munitions if the Iowa is equipped with them it will likely be the victor do to its size advantage over the smaller ships.
It is a tech manual that applies to every ship in star trek where applicable.
Its weapon description does not, for example, apply to earlier ships that have turrets equipped as that is a different mechanic.
So the Sovereign and the Odyssey both have a tech manual that can be applied to them as far as tech is concerned.
In Star Fleet she has the biggest hardest hitting guns.
If you want to get technical then the Nebula is the baddest ship in the fleet when you put a torpedo pod on it.
We do not know how she compares to the Negh'Var or the D'Deridex ships. But it is generally believed that those ships have superior firepower.
Yes, but we are comparing what has been seen onscreen.
The Sovereigns battle capabilities have been placed on display significantly.
And from what we have seen, she does not display comparable phaser firepower to the Galaxy. I have my own thoughts on why she doesn't fire larger blasts in FC that relate to being apart of a fleet and the NDF theory.
And I also believe that at launch she was more powerful than the Enterprise D when she was first launched. However we have seen the Galaxy be upgraded several times and it was stated that she would continue to receive upgrades both major and minor throughout her life time of 100 years.
Worf states that the ship is a battleship after looking over her specifications in Conundrum.
Riker I believe is the person that says his Galaxy is a battleship.
And in Yesterday's Enterprise it is again a member of the crew if not Picard that states it.
It fits actually.
While never seen onscreen it is speculated that there are larger vessels in Star Fleet than the Constitution class. And later in the movies we see the Excelsior which is a larger vessel than the Constitution and may well have also served as a battlecruiser for the fleet.
That is what we have been trying to explain.
There is proof. Based on the behavior of the Phaser Arrays seen onscreen and what the tech manual states. The damage lines up. When a more powerful shot is called for, more of the array is utilized than when a smaller shot is called for. When firing at the small fighters it is a segment of like 8 emitters. When firing against the Borg Cube she is using upwards of several hundred. In Rascals she even uses the entire array as a part of the shot. The sound of the array can be heard before it is even seen onscreen.
Look at how much damage she did to the Borg Cube with 3 large Phaser blasts.
She did more damage to the surface of the Cube than the entire fleet did in FC.
Those blasts were large enough to hide the Galaxy class in more than once.
The behavior vs what is states in the tech manuals lines up. The Sovereign follows the same rules with her behavior. FC being a possible exception. Against the Sona she utilizes a very small portion of her array to disable them.
In Nemesis she again uses a very small portion of the array when firing blind trying to locate the Scimitar. And when they do she utilized a larger portion of the array.
And that is fine.
We aren't saying that it should be the most potent ship in the game. It is simply an illustration in our argument that the ship, and cruisers in general, need some love.
We agree with the rest.
Can blow up a target for cheaper
i am aware of dry docks my submarine was in one for over a year and it is big enough for touse ships(same one missouri was in in fact 1-2 years ago) and there is no room under the ship for the engines to be removed(it is actually cramped when those ships are on blocks its hard to see it looks alot bigger then it is) they would have to cut huge holes in the ship to remove them, install new fuel systems, gears,shaft connections, ect ect and that would cost too much. the only reason battleships were retired is because congress is a cheap-TRIBBLE(parts have to be custom made for the ship not massproduced like for newer ships and the admirals in charge of the navy are agreeing with them because congress decides which officers get promotions.
modern ships are build for speed and dont have near the armor of the older ships battleships are far better in this regard.
also as proof of how stupid congress gets on matters like this they tried to scrap the sub-fleet after the cold war ended(leaving us with a increadably small fleet of ageing subs wich i know from my time aboard them are one of the best intelligence platforms there is)
I was stationed onboard a carrier and we were in dry dock where we upgraded the engines. Now granted the ships are different but I imagine it's the same process. However I agree with the reasons you gave.
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.
Now to steer us back on topic:
Galaxy Retrofit needs a revamp to bring it in line with other T5 ships which may be serviced by a engineering abilities revamp. And/or different BOFF setup.
im sure its similer but remember a battleship is built to take damage a carrier isnt supposed to get near the fight so i suppose that the carrier isnt quite a compact ship on the inside and easier to work on(access to equipment, hull thickness parts and such not to mention the testing and paperwork and boy does the navy love those)