The Galaxy is not now, nor has it ever been a successful warship. For crying out loud, this was a ship that was built with a freaking PRESCHOOL inside. It's a luxury liner for long range exploration, and the only reason anyone thinks it's any good at combat is because of made-up tripe in a tech manual. There is no 'math' behind it at all, and if you choose to believe this nonsense that's fine, but realize that it means that all classes after the Galaxy (even the ships that were designed for a combat role) are inferior to a ship that is in some cases decades younger. Instead of believing that the Federation made it's best warship in a time of peace, and then proceeded to make a series of essentially useless designs, I choose to believe that ships like the Sovereign, Defiant, and Prometheus were designed because of a perceived need for ships that could actually meet the threats posed by other races, which, for all it's virtues, could not be said of the Galaxy design.
I mean, honestly, what ships is the Galaxy actually shown to be superior to? Certainly not the D'Deridex, nor the Vorcha. The show pretty much never had the Enterprise winning a straight up fight, the crew either talked their way out of trouble, or used the techno-babble trick of the week to win. If anything, the Galaxy could have a more science bent, but no, it just isn't a fighter.
And yes, this is ENTIRELY about how much affection people have for a certain ship, as well as the sources those people choose to accept and reject to support their claim.
Come on, we have been chewing this through so many times.
The GCS you saw at TNG was a DIPLOMATIC ship.
It was NOT built in a time of peace.
It has the potential to have the highest amount of Phaser firepower of any canon ship (if its weapons are up to date).
The Sovereign, Defiant and Prometheus are attempts to create cheaper and smaller ships to fulfill missions a GCS would be too valuable.
The Defiant was a attempt to create a cheap, mass produceable ship carrying as much firepower as possible (which is still only on par with a up to date Excelsior, not to speak a GCS)
The Sovereign is the sucessor of the aging Excelsior and is supposed to replace her over the years, even the producers said that.
The Prometheus, was a prototype carrying the newest weapons and technology. But its size limits her energy output and her Phaser Strips aren even nearly as long as a GCS.
The reason you never saw the -D in a big combat scence was mostly because of the fact that they avoided most fights at any costs.
Because as above stated, IT WAS ON A DIPLOMATIC MISSION!
Another reason are the enormous high production costs of a combat scence when TNG was shot. If TNG where produced ten years later we wouldn't have this discussion at all.
All this has been discussed over and over and over and over and over and over again in this and numerous other threads over the years, i am sorry for you that you have missed them all. (but you can take the time to read it afterwards, if you want to. )
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
...
Hell - Gowron himself backed down on the assault from DS9 when he found out a Federation task force led by a Galaxy class starship was about to show up. The Venture task force was six ships - two of which were Excelsiors and a third of which was a Miranda. So A Galaxy class was a big enough threat when added to DS9's firepower, that the Klingon chancellor and his entire battlegroup blinked and backed down.
Heck if that's not a proof for a awesome ship, then i don't know.
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
The reason you never saw the -D in a big combat scence was mostly because of the fact that they avoided most fights at any costs.
Because as above stated, IT WAS ON A DIPLOMATIC MISSION!
Another reason are the enormous high production costs of a combat scence when TNG was shot. If TNG where produced ten years later we wouldn't have this discussion at all.
Honestly, it was mostly because it was what Gene had envisioned his future as being.
A higher thought process than shoot first ask later.
Peace through Vigilance, instead of Peace through Force.
This thread is still alive? It makes me wonder how strong people want the damn Galaxy to be, after its gets a Commander Tactical station (please tell me how that would even be useful) people are gonna be asking that it turns faster but then will complain that it barely deals damage due to the beam limitations smh
"Letting people fly what they like" is what has turned Star Trek Online from a continuation of the Star Trek world into a Star Trek theme park where ships are flown with no rhyme or reason.
Hell I get into so many groups with Jem'hadar ships they might as well rename this to Dominion Online.
This thread is still alive? It makes me wonder how strong people want the damn Galaxy to be, after its gets a Commander Tactical station (please tell me how that would even be useful) people are gonna be asking that it turns faster but then will complain that it barely deals damage due to the beam limitations smh
smh too.
If you care, we can direct you to the posts and in game evidence from players such as yourself, where you can read for yourself.
But be warned.
You may be disappointed to find that your assumptions about what we want are grossly inaccurate.
This thread is still alive? It makes me wonder how strong people want the damn Galaxy to be, after its gets a Commander Tactical station (please tell me how that would even be useful) people are gonna be asking that it turns faster but then will complain that it barely deals damage due to the beam limitations smh
Commander Tac?
Did i miss something?
And no, as in almost every above post: we don't want a OP GCS,
We just want one that doesn't suck and one that doesn't have the least firepower of all Cruisers in STO.
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
That hole in the side of the Borg Cube that the Fleet put there AFTER Picard showed up and told them where to fire.
That hole is Smaller than any of the three holes that the Galaxy punched into a Borg Cube solo.
The GCS has fired more torpedoes in a single shot than any other ship seen on screen.
The GCS has also fired faster than any other ship seen on screen.
In Yesterday's Enterprise we see the GCS flat out destroy a K'Vort class KDF vessel.
The Phasers were the same ones equipped as in the Prime universe.
While you are entitled to your own opinion. So are we.
Ours just happens to be a better informed one as far as a sci-fi can be.
The tech manual is backed up by on-screen dialog and visual effects.
In the Dominion War there was not a single Galaxy lost to enemy forces.
The Odyssey was not lost during the war. That was before the war started.
And that was after the ship had been engaged against the "mighty" bug ships without shields and minimally effective weapons for over 10 minutes.
Best part about that fight that GCS critics ignore? The ship was capable of leaving the battle under her own power and at her own discretion.
Furthermore in the Dominion War we see the GCS owning Cardassian and Dominion ships left and right. Despite having orders to fly straight on to DS9 should any ship get through the lines, the Galaxy Captains turned around and attacked the enemy fleet from the rear. That means that they went right through the enemy fleet like a hot knife through butter. Even beating the Defiant and her escorts through the enemy line.
As for the GCS being built during peace and as a lux cruiser??
Hardly. As has been repeatedly mentioned, the Galaxy was designed during some of the most tumultuous times for the Federation prior to the Dominion War.
She was fighting on several fronts. The Tzenkethi wars, the Tholians, the Cardassians(longest Fed Conflict to date). And when the GCS and its sister ship the Nebula launched, those conflicts suddenly evaporated.
There are two combat vessels in Star Fleet. The Defiant and the Prometheus.
One is a weapons platform strapped to an engine. The other is a one trick pony.
As for having families and children onboard.
I'm curious what you would be equipping on your vessels if you were placing a family on it?
Knowing full well that it could encounter anything from a space flea, to a god in unexplored space?
Yeah, I'd totally be negligent and give it a pea shooter.
couldn't have said it better my self. and ive had to, 100 times. im so glad im not the only one that has to in this thread anymore
did not the galaxy class have 12x mk x phaser's and 3x photon torp's ? , that's what it says in the new trek starships,s mag . the outermost hull was made of AGP ablatic ceramic fabric segments lol
Seen them, they support my view, not yours. The Galaxy was on a peaceful mission, because, you know, cruise liner.
The Sovereign class Enterprise was said to be "the most advanced ship in the fleet" - a fleet which obviously at that time still contained Galaxy class vessels. Thus, the Sovereign was not some cheap alternative.
The Sovereign showed up and defeated a Borg Cube, and enemy which was superior to the Galaxy class.
The GCS has fired more torpedoes in a single shot than any other ship seen on screen.
The GCS has also fired faster than any other ship seen on screen.
In Yesterday's Enterprise we see the GCS flat out destroy a K'Vort class KDF vessel.
The Phasers were the same ones equipped as in the Prime universe.
First of all, no, we don't ever see the Galaxy class fire energy weapons faster than (say) the Defiant, or even a standard Klingon B'rel. Second, your assertion about Yesterday's Enterprise is totally unfounded. Why would a diplomatic ship have the same level of firepower as a ship actively engaged in war?
As for torpedoes, I'm pretty sure the on screen FX actually at times exceed what was intended to be the maximum fire rate from the tech manual (which I though I remembered being 3 per salvo), but in any case there's no actual reason why other ships couldn't fire as fast - it's not like the technology behind rapid fire launchers was somehow unique to the Galaxy and couldn't be ported over. If you are going to argue that the Galaxy was kept up to date by retrofitting more advanced technology, I don't see why other ships wouldn't have have used the tech from the Galaxy as well.
While you are entitled to your own opinion. So are we.
Ours just happens to be a better informed one as far as a sci-fi can be.
The tech manual is backed up by on-screen dialog and visual effects.
Again, no, it isn't, you're just choosing to selectively hear what you want to hear. That's fine, you're entitled to do that. I just think it's ridiculous to go through the logical contortions necessary to make later material line up with one single source (the tech manual) when there really is NO reason to believe it (and the 'science' in it makes no sense anyway).
The oft repeated phaser strip claim is an especially egregious example - it doesn't even pass a basic "huh?" test - there is literally no reason, at all, that capacitors attached to a linked series of emitters should somehow be more efficient at transferring power than simply putting those same capacitors behind a single emitter and saving space. The idea that the length of the strip determines it's power sorta sounds cool, I guess, but makes absolutely no practical sense.
Even if it did, you then run into the question of why no other races design ships that way, and why the Federation doesn't just build all ships in such a way as to maximize the available phaser strip length. Even if you posit that such ships were intended to be 'cheaper' (which is a questionable concept at best, given the odd-ball post-scarcity economy of the Federation), why would they not be at the very least designed to maximize their potential firepower by making their phaser strips as long as the hull would allow? Remember, even if they were supposed to be "cheap", they were still supposed to be warships.
In the Dominion War there was not a single Galaxy lost to enemy forces.
Prove this. I doubt very much that given the losses the Federation was taking (with like entire fleets being lost), you can say with certainty that NONE of the ships was a Galaxy class.
The Odyssey was not lost during the war. That was before the war started.
And that was after the ship had been engaged against the "mighty" bug ships without shields and minimally effective weapons for over 10 minutes.
Best part about that fight that GCS critics ignore? The ship was capable of leaving the battle under her own power and at her own discretion.
How was the ship capable of disengaging from vessels that were faster and more maneuverable that it?
I do agree that the Odyssey's weapons were minimally effective, however, because that's a common feature of ships designed for diplomatic missions, rather than combat.
Furthermore in the Dominion War we see the GCS owning Cardassian and Dominion ships left and right. Despite having orders to fly straight on to DS9 should any ship get through the lines, the Galaxy Captains turned around and attacked the enemy fleet from the rear. That means that they went right through the enemy fleet like a hot knife through butter. Even beating the Defiant and her escorts through the enemy line.
What are you talking about? Sacrifice of Angels? Where do they ever say that the Galaxy wing has made it through the lines? And if they did, why on Earth would they turn around? I think you're misinterpreting a line of dialogue, and/or the writers simply messed up. The scenario you are positing is so ridiculous that it's much easier to simply dismiss it as a writing mistake than it is to try and ret-con in a reason why some of Starfleet's best captains would spontaneously ignore not only their explicit orders, but the entire strategic purpose of the battle they were in.
In First Contact it was not the Sovereign that did anything.
It was Picard. And that was a feat that could have been accomplished from a metal bucket with a communicator. It did not require the Sovereign.
Really? Because I'm pretty sure the Enterprise owned the cube, then basically one-shot the Sphere with a salvo of quantum torps. Seems like it was pretty impressive to me.
In Insurrection the Sovereign gets owned by the Sona.
You mean the part where it fights two warships that are using weaponry so powerful they are banned by most powers because they can destabilize sub-space? And yet it wins? Is that what you mean? See how I can use the same selective understanding you're using to justify your interpretation?
Look, I'm not saying the Sovereign is a super ship either, but do you really, honestly believe the Enterprise D would have done BETTER in that fight?
I can understand people not liking the ship, or the crew or even the series itself.
But that doesn't mean anything. Pay attention to both ends.
The inescapable truth is that it requires far more effort to believe that the Galaxy is supposed to be a super warship that for some reason the Federation decided to replace with inferior designs, than it does to believe that the Tech manual is a non-canon fluff piece written to encourage people to root for what was (at that time) the premier "hero ship" of the series.
Enterprise herself excluded, do you really think EVERY galaxy class had a daycare and a preschool? Do you think they would intentionaly send a ship like that into even the most remote of possibly extremely hostile situations?
Back to topic.
Most people )and i'm hoping im right about this or i'll be burned at the stake) Want the GCS to be more versatile, instead of locked into the Uber engineering setup it has, Frankly i think the shift it made from it's Tier 4 Refit, she was GOOD then an Ensgins SCI and a Lt. SCI is far superior to a Lt. SCI and an Ensign ENG.
Versatility was her primary role.
Inertia just means you can do Powerslides in you carrier!
I am Il Shadow and i approve these Shennanigans!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Enterprise herself excluded, do you really think EVERY galaxy class had a daycare and a preschool? Do you think they would intentionaly send a ship like that into even the most remote of possibly extremely hostile situations?
Back to topic.
Most people )and i'm hoping im right about this or i'll be burned at the stake) Want the GCS to be more versatile, instead of locked into the Uber engineering setup it has, Frankly i think the shift it made from it's Tier 4 Refit, she was GOOD then an Ensgins SCI and a Lt. SCI is far superior to a Lt. SCI and an Ensign ENG.
Versatility was her primary role.
Yes, i am puzzeling about this too.
When leveling my new Character, i used the Galaxy- Refit (T4 Venture) and it was much better than the T5 Galaxy -R. I wish it had more Hull HP i would just keep the T4 ship.
(Well i should try... but this just shows how desperate i am, lol.)
Seriously, it should be cause for reflection if the T4 (Venture) version of a ship has a better BOFF layout then the T5 version...
About the T5 and Fleet version, they just should have made its Science Lt. and Engineering Ensign into universals and change the consoles to 3 (Fleet 4), 3, 3 and the ship would be alright IMO.
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
Seen them, they support my view, not yours. The Galaxy was on a peaceful mission, because, you know, cruise liner.
The Sovereign class Enterprise was said to be "the most advanced ship in the fleet" - a fleet which obviously at that time still contained Galaxy class vessels. Thus, the Sovereign was not some cheap alternative.
The Sovereign showed up and defeated a Borg Cube, and enemy which was superior to the Galaxy class.
Advanced does not equal more powerful.
As has been said earlier in this thread. My phone is more advanced than many computers. Yet I don't see my phone running World of w a r c r a f t.(apparently that is a bad word on here??)
As for "not" being a cheap alternative.
The Sovereign is 2.5 times smaller than the Galaxy. You can fit two and a half Sovereigns inside a Galaxy!
That is a huge difference. And consequently... cheaper.
The Sovereign did not defeat that Cube.
An entire fleet did due to inside knowledge from Picard. That battle against the Cube would have ended the same way if Picard had been in an Ice Bucket in the Atlantic with a walkie talkie.
...
And the effect the Galaxy class had after the Borg adapted to Federation phasers was basically nil. So, what's your point?
You mean... like a fleet of over 20 of the most "advanced" ships in the fleet taking over 8 hours attempting to destroying a single cube without success. See above about insider knowledge.
First of all, no, we don't ever see the Galaxy class fire energy weapons faster than (say) the Defiant, or even a standard Klingon B'rel. Second, your assertion about Yesterday's Enterprise is totally unfounded.
Yes we do.
She fires Photon Torpedoes at close to 2.7 per second. Hasn't been matched yet.
Her Rapid fire against fighter craft in TNG. Or her rapid shots against the Borg Cube in an effort to break its hold. Not matched. Not even in Nemesis.
As for the Defiant. Well I don't recall the GCS having cannons or the Defiant having arrays.
Apples and Oranges.
My assertion? Haha, it happens.
Go and watch it. The crew tells us that there are 3 K'Vort class battlecruiser incoming.
The Ent D pops one in what appears to be a single blast.
Seriously. Go watch it.
Again, no, it isn't, you're just choosing to selectively hear what you want to hear. That's fine, you're entitled to do that. I just think it's ridiculous to go through the logical contortions necessary to make later material line up with one single source (the tech manual) when there really is NO reason to believe it (and the 'science') in it makes no sense anyway.
The oft repeated phaser strip claim is an especially egregious example - it doesn't even pass a basic "huh?" test - there is literally no reason, at all, that capacitors attached to a linked series of emitters should somehow be more efficient at transferring power than simply putting those same capacitors behind a single emitter and saving space. The idea that the length of the strip determines it's power sorta sounds cool, I guess, but makes absolutely no practical sense.
Even if it did, you then run into the question of why no other races design ships that way, and why the Federation doesn't just build all ships in such a way as to maximize the available phaser strip length. Even if you posit that such ships were intended to be 'cheaper' (which is a questionable concept at best, given the odd-ball post-scarcity economy of the Federation), why would they not be at the very least designed to maximize their potential firepower by making their phaser strips as long as the hull would allow? Remember, even if they were supposed to be "cheap", they were still supposed to be warships.
Look, the math is there.
If an object has a quantifiable size, then one can discover its volume.
If a chunk is taken out of that volume, one can measure the amount of volume missing based on the previous equation. Comparable materials can be used to estimate the mass and density of the object. And once these are completed, you can discover the amount of power required to have removed said volume and mass.
It can be done. And it has.
They aren't warships.
The Federation isn't about war. If they were, then perhaps we would have seen even bigger arrays and guns. But they aren't.
Prove this. I doubt very much that given the losses the Federation was taking (with like entire fleets being lost), you can say with certainty that NONE of the ships was a Galaxy class.
Find me a clip showing a Galaxy class going down.
If you can, then I will acknowledge that I was wrong.
How was the ship capable of disengaging from vessels that were faster and more maneuverable that it?
I do agree that the Odyssey's weapons were minimally effective, however, because that's a common feature of ships designed for diplomatic missions, rather than combat.
By turning around and going through a wormhole or warping away...
Incorrect.
It's weapons were of minimal effect for the same reason that the Dominion was able to beam through Federation shields.
After years of espionage against the Alpha and Beta Quadrants they knew how to counter their offense and defense abilities. They even told them as much.
What are you talking about? Sacrifice of Angels? Where do they ever say that the Galaxy wing has made it through the lines? And if they did, why on Earth would they turn around? I think you're misinterpreting a line of dialogue, and/or the writers simply messed up. The scenario you are positing is so ridiculous that it's much easier to simply dismiss it as a writing mistake than it is to try and ret-con in a reason why some of Starfleet's best captains would spontaneously ignore not only their explicit orders, but the entire strategic purpose of the battle they were in.
Jump to 7:50. You see a GCS flying backwards in the enemy fleet, or the opposite of the Defiant.
At 7:58 we see the GCS flying across enemy lines while everyone else continues in the same direction as the Defiant.
At 8:27 we see the GCS doing the same thing again as she was in 7:58
From what we can see on screen it appears that the GCS is flying wherever she darn well pleases inside of an enemy fleet.
The wide screen version apparently has one or two more clips showing the GCS doing odd things like that.
But I can't ever find the wide version without Dragon here to find it for me..
Also, Sisko is on the Defiant. He has to be the one to get there first
Really? Because I'm pretty sure the Enterprise owned the cube, then basically one-shot the Sphere with a salvo of quantum torps. Seems like it was pretty impressive to me.
At 2:58 she fires two photons, before... breaking off.
Starting at 3:51 and ending at 4:08 the Ent E fires 5 phaser blasts and 3 Quantums.
The Sovereign fires almost nothing at the Cube.
She fires more Quantums at a Sphere... then she did at a Cube.
You mean the part where it fights two warships that are using weaponry so powerful they are banned by most powers because they can destabilize sub-space? And yet it wins? Is that what you mean? See how I can use the same selective understanding you're using to justify your interpretation?
Look, I'm not saying the Sovereign is a super ship either, but do you really, honestly believe the Enterprise D would have done BETTER in that fight?
You mean the fight where the enemy blows themselves up because they were to stupid to not fire at explosive gas?
What I'm saying about the later TNG movies is there there is nothing in them that shows that the Sovereign is a more capable ship. Yet there is plenty that shows she is an inferior ship offensively than the GCS.
The Ent D dwarfs those two ships. A GCS showing up likely would have ended that fight before it began. As for going against sub space weaponry? I dunno. "They are unpredictable, that's why they were banned."
Right, except that it actually doesn't get "owned", it fights it to a stand-still, even though the Scimitar is more or less set up as a super-ship.
Hardly a stand-still.
3 ships. All 3 ships were the most "advanced" in the fleet. Yet they couldn't even knock the engines out on the Scimitar.
The Ent E ran out of weapon power. Was out of shields.
Had no engine power. And couldn't even self destruct.
The Scimitar didn't just take out the Ent E like it did to the two Valdore/Mogai vessels because Shinzon still wanted Picards blood at that point. Once he stopped caring... it took a Data suicide to stop him. They had to kill Data! (cries a little)
The inescapable truth is that it requires far more effort to believe that the Galaxy is supposed to be a super warship that for some reason the Federation decided to replace with inferior designs, than it does to believe that the Tech manual is a non-canon fluff piece written to encourage people to root for what was (at that time) the premier "hero ship" of the series.
The Tech manual was written and used by the people working on the show... not like the Star Wars "manuals" which were fan made. They have been declared as canon as mentioned earlier by Drunk.
They didn't replace anything with an inferior design.
The Galaxy is the top Capital ship.
After that it was the Niagra, Ambassador and Nebula.
Then the Excelsior, Miranda and other aging ship designs.
The Akira, Intrepid, Steamrunner, Norway, Saber. They are designs to replace the aging vessels within the fleet. Look at the DW. Most of those ships are over 80 years old. And aging fast. They couldn't compete with the DW ships. Even a seriously uprated Excelsior could only match the Defiant in endurance and firepower.
The Sovereign is an extremely advanced replacement for the Excelsior and other heavy cruisers within the fleet. She is a brand new design. Easily 80 years newer than the next thing.
Rick Sternbach is the source for saying that the Sovereign is a replacement for the Excelsior.
The Akira and others are also doing the same thing.
Nothing is being replaced with an inferior ship design.
The Fleet as a whole is being updated.
The Galaxy is over two times the size of the Sovereign remember?
And the Sovereign is only 7-8 years newer. Seeing as the Miranda, a design that is nearly 100 or more years old, is still in service. 8 years is nothing.
Yes, i am puzzeling about this too.
When leveling my new Character, i used the Galaxy- Refit (T4 Venture) and it was much better than the T5 Galaxy -R. I wish it had more Hull HP i would just keep the T4 ship.
(Well i should try... but this just shows how desperate i am, lol.)
Seriously, it should be cause for reflection if the T4 (Venture) version of a ship has a better BOFF layout then the T5 version...
About the T5 and Fleet version, they just should have made its Science Lt. and Engineering Ensign into universals and change the consoles to 3 (Fleet 4), 3, 3 and the ship would be alright IMO.
EXACTLY! This ship could have been so much better as it was than as it is, If the Support cruiser wasn't based on the Ambassador class and was the Galaxy i would be all over that like white on rice so the saying goes. And the only reason i do not pull the support cruiser is it's a kitbash with all the ugliest parts combined (in my opinion) At least in the way they where combined.
I love almost all previous enterprises and most future, the only one im not a fan of is the 1701-C, Scrawny neck (that was according to lore abandoned due weakness) extremely round hull, and extremely circular Saucer section.
I feel like the C should have been the B and vice versa
Inertia just means you can do Powerslides in you carrier!
I am Il Shadow and i approve these Shennanigans!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
EXACTLY! This ship could have been so much better as it was than as it is, If the Support cruiser wasn't based on the Ambassador class and was the Galaxy i would be all over that like white on rice so the saying goes. And the only reason i do not pull the support cruiser is it's a kitbash with all the ugliest parts combined (in my opinion) At least in the way they where combined.
I love almost all previous enterprises and most future, the only one im not a fan of is the 1701-C, Scrawny neck (that was according to lore abandoned due weakness) extremely round hull, and extremely circular Saucer section.
I feel like the C should have been the B and vice versa
I didn't mind the C. But what the heck was up with the J from Enterprise?
they proboly wanted to make the E better then the D, the sovereign better then the galaxy. but they didn't. they did not create a ship, no mater how advanced they claimed it was, that was even close to the same leagh as a galaxy class they had already created, and that had well documented tech that scales up in power with size. never was a ship less then half its size ever going to be its better.
they proboly wanted to make the E better then the D, the sovereign better then the galaxy. but they didn't. they did not create a ship, no mater how advanced they claimed it was, that was even close to the same leagh as a galaxy class they had already created, and that had well documented tech that scales up in power with size. never was a ship less then half its size ever going to be its better.
Ugh. Really? Okay, so, I guess the QE II is a more powerful warship than an Iowa class battleship? It is slightly longer, after all. Just look at the mental hoops you're going through to try to justify the Galaxy being a warship - size matters? That's where we are now?
Sheesh.
One ship was designed to ferry diplomats and school children around from (evidently) one spatial anomaly to another, while one was designed to actually fight. I honestly don't care which one you prefer, but please, just stop pretending there is any reason to believe they are equally powerful.
Except none of that was "factual", and it all ignores the simple truth that if you believe the Galaxy to be the best ship the Federation ever made, you basically can't justify the existence of ships that are explicitly intended to be superior combatants, yet have smaller arrays etc.
Nobody is saying the Defiant is an 'uber' ship. What people are correctly saying is the Defiant was a ship built for war, built in response to the borg threat because Starfleet felt it's crop of ships (including the much hyped Galaxy class) were insufficiently armed to repel another, similar attack. It was then pulled out of storage and put into service against the Dominion, where the prototype, after having the kinks worked out, served with such distinction that the line was put into full production.
If people were right that the Defiant was an inferior combat vessel, why would the Federation make more of them explicitly for that purpose? This is the perpetual problem people have, and no one has come up with a single compelling answer. If the Galaxy is so great, why did the Federation replace it? If ships like the Sovereign are so inferior to the Galaxy, why build them in the first place? And once you do build them, why make one the flagship of the fleet?
I just cannot understand why people are so willing to do mental gymnastics to say that the ship we all know was intended to be a warship is still somehow worse at that job than the ship designed for exploration, when the opposite conclusion makes so much more sense, and simply requires dismissing the nonsense from the Tech manual.
Love the Galaxy for what it was/is - a large, versatile platform for exploration and science. Not a warship.
The Galaxy is not now, nor has it ever been a successful warship. For crying out loud, this was a ship that was built with a freaking PRESCHOOL inside. It's a luxury liner for long range exploration, and the only reason anyone thinks it's any good at combat is because of made-up tripe in a tech manual. There is no 'math' behind it at all, and if you choose to believe this nonsense that's fine, but realize that it means that all classes after the Galaxy (even the ships that were designed for a combat role) are inferior to a ship that is in some cases decades younger.
Okay, first of all, the Federation doesn't have a tradition of making warships. Starfleet is not a military organization. They only resorted to creating warships a.k.a. the Defiant class when they were pushed hard against the wall by the Borg.
And even then, Starfleet designed their warship with eastablishing defensive pereimeters in mind. Like I said before in the thread, I can't imagine the Defiant, small as it is with her spartan interiors and only 50 crew to be sent on a long range deep space offensive mission. The thing was designed to work within defensive perimeters supported by a fleet and planetary defenses, and can pack one hell of a punch for it's size, while having the bare minimum of casualty risk with only 50 people as crew. It's basically a big replacable gun for the most grim of scenarios.
Now let's see - you've said it yourself, the "D" had preschool built in inside. It had children on board, the families of the crewmembers and a lot of civilians in general. They sent that ship in deep space. Do you really think that Starfleet would send a ship that is a luxury cruiseliner and not capable of combat with children on board? I mean this is deep space, not the Adriatic Sea. And Starfleet Corps of Engineers are not a bunch of r-tards.
Knowing how much the Federation values lives, you can be darned sure that the only reason the allowed children on a ship sent on a mission in deep space is because that ship was the apex of their engineering, the biggest, badest, most capable ship Starfleet has ever designed. A ship that can fight back and protect the lives of the inocent if neccessary.
They knew how powerfull the Galaxy class is when they decided to allow civilians on board. Because, before encountering the Borg and a couple of other species the "D" encountered, they were fairly certain they had one of the most powerfull ships in the quadrant.
The Galaxy class was designed some 8 years before the Sovereign class. The Galaxy class was designed to have minor refits every 5 years and major ones every 25 years with estimated lifespan of more than 100 years.
Do you really thing that 8 years after commisioning this ship with that specs in mind, they created her substitute? The Galaxy and Sovereign are not even in the same class, they are completely different ships with different roles in mind. I mean, we're not talking about car models here, these are friggin' spaceships. 8 years is nothing in terms of spaceships. If Starfleet substituted ship classes that fast there would be no Excelsiors or Mirandas in DW.
And look at the Klingons. For how long have they been using the B'rel and K'tinga with success?
Instead of believing that the Federation made it's best warship in a time of peace, and then proceeded to make a series of essentially useless designs, I choose to believe that ships like the Sovereign, Defiant, and Prometheus were designed because of a perceived need for ships that could actually meet the threats posed by other races, which, for all it's virtues, could not be said of the Galaxy design.
I'm going to say this again, because I can't emphasize it enough - Starfleet does not make warships. It's against their doctrine. They only did so when they had no other resorts, and even then referred to the class as "Escort" because they were reluctant to call it "Warship".
This however, should not to be mistaken that the ships Starfleet makes are toothless and can't pack a punch. If this was true, the Federation would not have survived for more than 200 years.
Also there is no such thing as "Time of peace" in space. We can even ignore the Tzenkethi and Cardassian wars for discussion sake, but even then you can't say you have peace. There are not only 4 species in the quadrant and if you're on good terms with them you have peace. There are millions of known and unknown species in space that the Enterprise-D could encounter, many of them with the potential to be hostile. There is always the potential threat in space.
By your logic, Starfleet was making toothless and weak luxury cruiseliners in this time of so called "peace". Think about it, does that even make sense? So what, let's say the Klingons or Romulans declare war and attack, while Starfleet was making lol ships for 50 years. What are they going to do, start making new ships capable of combat after being attacked? Do you see why this makes no sense?
I mean, honestly, what ships is the Galaxy actually shown to be superior to? Certainly not the D'Deridex, nor the Vorcha. The show pretty much never had the Enterprise winning a straight up fight, the crew either talked their way out of trouble, or used the techno-babble trick of the week to win. If anything, the Galaxy could have a more science bent, but no, it just isn't a fighter.
This has been going on throughout this thread and it always keeps comming back. So many people mistake the Federation ideals, values, ethics and beliefs with weakness. They talked their way out of it or used technobabble because it's what the Federation does. They would avoid conflict at all costs. The value the life of an indivudual so much that they are hesitant to take lives even from hostile aliens if they think they can talk their way out of it so everyone goes home allive. The Federation does not go into offensive wars, they do not start conflict. They are a peacefull force that explores and wants to make friends out of everyone.
But don't mistake this for weakness. Their crews and ships are fully capable of packing one hell of a puch. The Enterprise was always picked on because all those adversaries knew that a Federation ship will try to avoid combat at all costs. That's where they played their cards. Why didn't all those so much more powerfull hostile ships blow away the Enterprise-D in a matter of seconds if it was that weak? I'll tell you why, because they were reluctant to poke the bear that much to force it to retaliate. Because when it comes to that, it gets ugly. Ask the Borg.
I'm not going to go into your other following posts because it would be too long, others that I tend to agree with have replied in details, and most of it is very subjective and makes no sense at least to me.
This thread is still alive? It makes me wonder how strong people want the damn Galaxy to be, after its gets a Commander Tactical station (please tell me how that would even be useful) people are gonna be asking that it turns faster but then will complain that it barely deals damage due to the beam limitations smh
I'm yet to see any serious poster other than the ocassional trolls in this thread that wants a Cmdr. Tactical Boff station on the Galaxy.
I still can't believe that some people cannot get over the fact that a ship that is simply not labeled "warship/battleship" can be more powerful than a dedicated battleship. Just because you don't wear a US soldier's uniform and barl bad-TRIBBLE oneliners while you chew on a cigar doesn't mean you are a fool.
The Ent-D even in its representative and exploratory set-up resembled a state most other people of the alpha quadrant recognised and classified her as a "battleship". How many times did that even hinder first contact situation because Picard had to explain why they pack such a huge amount of firepower?
Suggesting that this ship which is the figurative "spearhead" of Starfleet and the united federation of planets which does explore the unknown on it's own and transports civilian crew because it is a self-sustained entity that doesn't need any outside support is in any way undergunned or not designed to defend herself against the most vile terror the universe can spit out (to Starfleets capabilities that is) not despite her role but BECAUSE of her role is indeed foolish.
There is a world outside of those Navy Battleship thoughts. And that was what Star Trek was about. Starfleet is not the US Navy, it isn't even a military by it's philosophy and force is always the last resort - but their ships ARE powerful and fully capable of answering any form of threat. The UFP is the largest power in the alpha quadrant covering more than a tenth of the milky way and has faced so many wars and threats and still prevails. Peaceful in mind does NOT equal being toothless, cowardly or foolish.
Plus examples what the Galaxy class ship, the biggest ship in the fleet, is able to do when they all go "badass military" were given already. The downside is you just don't have a fleet of Galaxies at your disposal, hence the need for other vessels, smaller vessels, more specialized vessels which aren't inefficient or suberflous by any means
EDIT: shpoks beat me to it
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
Advanced does not equal more powerful.
As has been said earlier in this thread. My phone is more advanced than many computers. Yet I don't see my phone running World of w a r c r a f t.(apparently that is a bad word on here??)
In the context "advanced" was being used (that of facing the Borg), what else could it possibly mean? You phone example is a bad one, too, because I'm pretty sure many modern phones could, in fact, play many PC games, if only the software was ported over. In any case, a modern computer might have more general capabilities than a smartphone, but for the specific application they are designed for (in this case, mobile communications), smartphones are top notch.
As for "not" being a cheap alternative.
The Sovereign is 2.5 times smaller than the Galaxy. You can fit two and a half Sovereigns inside a Galaxy!
That is a huge difference. And consequently... cheaper.
Except the Federation is a post-scarcity economy with access to replicator technology and virtually limitless energy sources, so the idea that size = cost is... suspect at best. Beyond which, no matter what you take it to mean, the Sovereign was considered more 'advanced' than the Galaxy, meaning it had a higher technology level overall, which would likely counter the cost savings of the smaller hull, if there were such a thing. Plus, all the size differential proves is if you don't add a school and other niceties to your ship, you can significantly reduce the ship's size while simultaneously increasing it's combat power.
The Sovereign did not defeat that Cube.
An entire fleet did due to inside knowledge from Picard. That battle against the Cube would have ended the same way if Picard had been in an Ice Bucket in the Atlantic with a walkie talkie.
That's one interpretation, but since I think it sounds dumb, I'll go with mine - the ship that was explicitly designed to fight and was stated to be the most advanced ship in the fleet was, in fact, a key piece there. We all know that's what the writers intended, so I'm not sure why that's so hard to swallow.
Yes we do.
She fires Photon Torpedoes at close to 2.7 per second. Hasn't been matched yet.
Her Rapid fire against fighter craft in TNG. Or her rapid shots against the Borg Cube in an effort to break its hold. Not matched. Not even in Nemesis.
So? Please explain the magic of the Galaxy photon launchers, and why they can't possibly be used on any other ship. Since you can't do that, how about you concede that I'm right that if the Galaxies launchers are that fast, there's no reason to suspect that other launchers can't do the same thing, and that this has more to do with what FX artists thought looked cool, and less with any real "math" or "engineering".
As for the Defiant. Well I don't recall the GCS having cannons or the Defiant having arrays.
Apples and Oranges.
Right, the Galaxy doesn't have cannons because cannons are for fighting, and the Galaxy wasn't designed for that - but the Defiant definitely has arrays as backup weapons. In any case, the Defiant's cannons clearly fire faster than the Galaxy's arrays, and deliver the same, if not greater damage. Thus, Defiant guns better. QED.
My assertion? Haha, it happens.
Go and watch it. The crew tells us that there are 3 K'Vort class battlecruiser incoming.
The Ent D pops one in what appears to be a single blast.
Seriously. Go watch it.
No, I meant your assertion that the Enterprise D in Yesterday's Enterprise would have the same specs as the 'real' one. There's no reason to think Tasha Yar's existence would be the only change between the two timelines.
Look, the math is there.
If an object has a quantifiable size, then one can discover its volume.
If a chunk is taken out of that volume, one can measure the amount of volume missing based on the previous equation. Comparable materials can be used to estimate the mass and density of the object. And once these are completed, you can discover the amount of power required to have removed said volume and mass.
It can be done. And it has.
And if you believe the FX artists were doing that kind of calculation when they designed those shots, you're fooling yourself. There was no math behind what was seen on screen, and attempts to make it all work mathematically inevitably run into the same problem - you can believe that the Galaxy class was the most powerful warship in the history of the Federation, but then you have to believe they somehow forgot that, and decided to build a bunch of inferior warships instead, while simultaneously THINKING they were building better warships.
They aren't warships.
The Federation isn't about war. If they were, then perhaps we would have seen even bigger arrays and guns. But they aren't.
False. The Defiant and the Prometheus are both specifically referred to as having been designed primarily for combat. Unless your contention is those characters were liars or idiots, you are left with the fact that either the Federation is making terrible combat designs that somehow still make it to full production, despite abjectly failing in their design goals, or the Galaxy was not, in fact, as good at combat as you want it to be.
Find me a clip showing a Galaxy class going down.
If you can, then I will acknowledge that I was wrong.
Sorry, it doesn't work that way - you're the one making the extraordinary claim (that no Galaxy was lost during the war), while I'm simply asserting the common sense notion that if the Federation was losing ships in job lots, it's reasonable to assume that at least a few of those were Galaxy class vessels, especially if the Federation was relying on them as the backbone of its combat fleets.
Incorrect.
It's weapons were of minimal effect for the same reason that the Dominion was able to beam through Federation shields.
After years of espionage against the Alpha and Beta Quadrants they knew how to counter their offense and defense abilities. They even told them as much.
Jump to 7:50. You see a GCS flying backwards in the enemy fleet, or the opposite of the Defiant.
At 7:58 we see the GCS flying across enemy lines while everyone else continues in the same direction as the Defiant.
At 8:27 we see the GCS doing the same thing again as she was in 7:58
From what we can see on screen it appears that the GCS is flying wherever she darn well pleases inside of an enemy fleet.
The wide screen version apparently has one or two more clips showing the GCS doing odd things like that.
But I can't ever find the wide version without Dragon here to find it for me..
Also, Sisko is on the Defiant. He has to be the one to get there first
None of this answers my point, which is that if this were really happening, that would make absolutely no sense, and require so much suspension of disbelief that it's simply easier to admit the writers made a mistake, or that the limited POV afforded the viewer means we misperceive what's actually happening.
At 2:58 she fires two photons, before... breaking off.
Starting at 3:51 and ending at 4:08 the Ent E fires 5 phaser blasts and 3 Quantums.
The Sovereign fires almost nothing at the Cube.
She fires more Quantums at a Sphere... then she did at a Cube.
Right, and that minimal amount of effort resulted in a dead Cube. It's clear that we are meant to take from this scene that the Enterprise E is a superior combat vessel. You can choose to disbelieve that, and construct an elaborate justification for why that is the case, but point blank you are playing the same game I am with choosing what you want to believe. That's fine, you just need to stop pretending it has any kind of superior moral or intellectual value.
I think my interpretation makes more sense overall, and until you can explain why ships built for combat after the Galaxy came out are, according to you, inferior at that role as well as being inferior at the exploration and science roles, yet were nonetheless considered successful enough to be put into full production, I'm not going to change my mind.
You mean the fight where the enemy blows themselves up because they were to stupid to not fire at explosive gas?
What I'm saying about the later TNG movies is there there is nothing in them that shows that the Sovereign is a more capable ship. Yet there is plenty that shows she is an inferior ship offensively than the GCS.
The Ent D dwarfs those two ships. A GCS showing up likely would have ended that fight before it began. As for going against sub space weaponry? I dunno. "They are unpredictable, that's why they were banned."
Ugh. No, wrong. Everything about the movies shows the Sovereign is a better combat vessel - it wins fights the Galaxy would've lost, and if it was, in fact, an inferior ship, why would they have built it? And why would they assign the most prestigious and well-respected crew in Starfleet to it? And why would that crew say things like "This is the most advanced ship in the fleet" if, in fact, it was a demotion? And why would the writers and directors deliberately position us to believe the Enterprise E was an improvement in capability if the intent was the reverse? And if the writers' intent was for the E to be better, why should we value the nonsensical Tech manual for TNG over that? None of your position makes any sense.
Hardly a stand-still.
3 ships. All 3 ships were the most "advanced" in the fleet. Yet they couldn't even knock the engines out on the Scimitar.
The Ent E ran out of weapon power. Was out of shields.
Had no engine power. And couldn't even self destruct.
The Scimitar didn't just take out the Ent E like it did to the two Valdore/Mogai vessels because Shinzon still wanted Picards blood at that point. Once he stopped caring... it took a Data suicide to stop him. They had to kill Data! (cries a little)
The Tech manual was written and used by the people working on the show... not like the Star Wars "manuals" which were fan made. They have been declared as canon as mentioned earlier by Drunk.
Declared canon by whom, and why, when the "facts" presented in them conflict with the obvious intent of later writers, should we prefer them? Especially given that the "facts" presented actually make no sense at all (see my earlier refutation of the phaser length = power nonsense).
They didn't replace anything with an inferior design.
The Galaxy is the top Capital ship.
After that it was the Niagra, Ambassador and Nebula.
Then the Excelsior, Miranda and other aging ship designs.
The Akira, Intrepid, Steamrunner, Norway, Saber. They are designs to replace the aging vessels within the fleet. Look at the DW. Most of those ships are over 80 years old. And aging fast. They couldn't compete with the DW ships. Even a seriously uprated Excelsior could only match the Defiant in endurance and firepower.
The Sovereign is an extremely advanced replacement for the Excelsior and other heavy cruisers within the fleet. She is a brand new design. Easily 80 years newer than the next thing.
Rick Sternbach is the source for saying that the Sovereign is a replacement for the Excelsior.
The Akira and others are also doing the same thing.
Nothing is being replaced with an inferior ship design.
The Fleet as a whole is being updated.
The Galaxy is over two times the size of the Sovereign remember?
And the Sovereign is only 7-8 years newer. Seeing as the Miranda, a design that is nearly 100 or more years old, is still in service. 8 years is nothing.
Size. Does. Not. Matter. It doesn't. Especially when that size is used for non-combat things like big crew quarters, a fancy bar/lounge, a school, etc. Even in later upgrades to the Galaxy, it's not like that interior space somehow transforms entirely into increased combat capability, since it's hard to say what you would put in there that would make the ship better at fighting.
Again, the writers and directors of the TNG movies clearly thought they were replacing the Galaxy class Enterprise with something better and more powerful. You're saying they were wrong, and constructing an elaborate web of justifications, when it's much much easier to just accept that the Tech manuals lied to you, and, in fact, the Galaxy is what we see - a capable multi-role vessel that eventually gets supplanted as a warship by more specialized designs.
A few areas to touch upon. Enterprise D was a fine ship, powerful and adaptable. Many of her inherent weaknesses in the show come about because being untouchable is harder to write for.
That said let's look at the other ships mentioned. Defiant, Prometheus, good ships powerful prototype vessels. Basically built to see if they could, then debate the question of if they should. Defiant, as was noted, does not have the facilities for long range patrols, ambassadorial missions, exploration, etc. The weakness they would address was not fire power. It was response time. How many time did you hear in TOS they were the only ship in the quadrant? Next Gen? It kept happening. So they make a cluster of Defiant class ships. Post them at various research stations so they have more than a shuttle to respond with. A borg alert goes out they get a mass of small, armed to the teeth (for it's size) vessel to turn back a borg incursion. That is the plan I see for that ship just from her on screen capabilities. Between Federation politics and it happening to not work, they mothballed it till Sisko pulled her out and made it work.
Prometheus, Let's put all of our top of the line technology on this ship. Not the most stable, most trusted and tested. The most advanced. And let's explore ship separation further than we have in the past. The ship is an experiment. An idea test bed.
Is the Federation weak? Well let's look at Way of the Warrior. How many Klingon ships were attacking the station? How many were coming to reinforce them? Sisko's station was heavily damaged but fighting still. How many ships did he have coming to aid him? five. When you compare Klingon ships to Federation ones, note they really want to out number a Federation starship, by a lot.
What does this have to do with the Galaxy? She held her own as the flagship of the Federation for years. Carrying civilian families, schools, meeting rooms, laboratories. She carried a town inside her and still could face off against 'warships' and expect to win. That alone should say she should be powerful.
My beef with the current galaxy class is this. in pvE you go heavy cruiser/Excelsior at a high power level, drop to squishy in a Galaxy, then promote back up to competent in a star cruiser. That stumbling block is what breaks immersion. Each time you move up to a new ship you should feel a little better than the last ship. Not like you just got punished.
Ideas on this thread are to offer ideas on how to make the ship seem something we want to fly and not a punishment.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
In the context "advanced" was being used (that of facing the Borg), what else could it possibly mean? You phone example is a bad one, too, because I'm pretty sure many modern phones could, in fact, play many PC games, if only the software was ported over. In any case, a modern computer might have more general capabilities than a smartphone, but for the specific application they are designed for (in this case, mobile communications), smartphones are top notch.
Sound familiar?
Sure, cell phones can use a specific application, but a computer just has more CPU power. And that's exactly what everyone is trying to tell you.
For example, my cell phone is more advanced than my computer, but still STO just won't run on my cell phone.
You get that difference?
The GCS has more general power, more space for its Phaser Strip, space for a larger M/A Reactor, more space for a much more complex Torpedo Tubes, and so on.
The thing most people don't really get is that the GCS is modular, that means almost any component can be replaced with a newer one.
So if someone says the Sovereign is the most advanced ship, doesn't mean its the most powerful.
(More advanced could just mean that the sovereigns replicators make better coffee. )
Size. Does. Not. Matter. It doesn't. Especially when that size is used for non-combat things like big crew quarters, a fancy bar/lounge, a school, etc. Even in later upgrades to the Galaxy, it's not like that interior space somehow transforms entirely into increased combat capability, since it's hard to say what you would put in there that would make the ship better at fighting.
Again, the writers and directors of the TNG movies clearly thought they were replacing the Galaxy class Enterprise with something better and more powerful. You're saying they were wrong, and constructing an elaborate web of justifications, when it's much much easier to just accept that the Tech manuals lied to you, and, in fact, the Galaxy is what we see - a capable multi-role vessel that eventually gets supplanted as a warship by more specialized designs.
Are you seriously thinking that the civilian stuff takes that much space on such a large ship like a GCS?
I'm sorry but you should read the TNG technical manual before stating things like that.
And if you don't trust them, what on screen evidence do you think contradict to it?
As i have written above the GCS can be kept up to date far more easily than any other ship.
Just having a more specialized ship doesn't mean it is more powerful than a ship 10x the size.
Your "arguments" just show you want to be right at any cost, if it makes sense or not.
If you where such a canon "expert" as you think, why aren't you arguing against the defiant because it isn't the super ship as Cryptics devs may think?
What about the Excelsior? Do you really think that it is capable to create more firepower than a GCS or Nebula?
If you think yes, you should stop discussing here and watch some episodes.
On the other hand, STO is a game as far from ST canon as it can get.
Even if you think the GCS where not such a beast of a ship as she "really" is, then why not supporting its fans so they finally can get their favourite ship?
Ships like the Jem Hadar Bug ship are being the most powerful ships in the game, why aren't you arguing against THAT?
We have the Galor as one of the most powerful Cruisers in the Game, altrhough it was more than clear that a GCS could take on a squadron of 3 of them. Why is no one arguing against THAT?
Where comes the hate towards the GCS?
I mean if you don't like it ok. I hate most Cryptic made ships and especially all escorts in STO, but obviously some people like them. So why not just leave them their fav ship?
Personally i don't know if i am supposed to laugh or be sad that there are people claiming to be trek fans but haven't understood a single thing.
Sorry, i couldn't response to everything, i just don't have the time and patience to chew everyting through over and over again.
Just read some previous pages if you are really interested in this matter.
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
Sure, cell phones can use a specific application, but a computer just has more CPU power. And that's exactly what everyone is trying to tell you.
For example, my cell phone is more advanced than my computer, but still STO just won't run on my cell phone.
You get that difference?
The GCS has more general power, more space for its Phaser Strip, space for a larger M/A Reactor, more space for a much more complex Torpedo Tubes, and so on.
The thing most people don't really get is that the GCS is modular, that means almost any component can be replaced with a newer one.
So if someone says the Sovereign is the most advanced ship, doesn't mean its the most powerful.
(More advanced could just mean that the sovereigns replicators make better coffee. )
Are you seriously thinking that the civilian stuff takes that much space on such a large ship like a GCS?
I'm sorry but you should read the TNG technical manual before stating things like that.
And if you don't trust them, what on screen evidence do you think contradict to it?
As i have written above the GCS can be kept up to date far more easily than any other ship.
Just having a more specialized ship doesn't mean it is more powerful than a ship 10x the size.
Your "arguments" just show you want to be right at any cost, if it makes sense or not.
If you where such a canon "expert" as you think, why aren't you arguing against the defiant because it isn't the super ship as Cryptics devs may think?
What about the Excelsior? Do you really think that it is capable to create more firepower than a GCS or Nebula?
If you think yes, you should stop discussing here and watch some episodes.
On the other hand, STO is a game as far from ST canon as it can get.
Even if you think the GCS where not such a beast of a ship as she "really" is, then why not supporting its fans so they finally can get their favourite ship?
Ships like the Jem Hadar Bug ship are being the most powerful ships in the game, why aren't you arguing against THAT?
We have the Galor as one of the most powerful Cruisers in the Game, altrhough it was more than clear that a GCS could take on a squadron of 3 of them. Why is no one arguing against THAT?
Where comes the hate towards the GCS?
I mean if you don't like it ok. I hate most Cryptic made ships and especially all escorts in STO, but obviously some people like them. So why not just leave them their fav ship?
Personally i don't know if i am supposed to laugh or be sad that there are people claiming to be trek fans but haven't understood a single thing.
Sorry, i couldn't response to everything, i just don't have the time and patience to chew everyting through over and over again.
Just read some previous pages if you are really interested in this matter.
You also have to include science labs, gardens and living quarters. DW Galaxy's did not likely have the science labs when launched. also Galaxy did have a head start on building. first gen of galaxys were 6 and when war was looming they started producing more and started production of the sovereign. how ever the Sovereign is a young class only 2 of them confirmed built. Sovereign, and E-E. Personally Titan should have been one too. Again as said before. Galaxy designed for exploration and research first combat second. Sov Combat first exploration second. Now does this say galaxy was weak no but not design for war as priority. She is still a powerful class but she represented a mentaility of Starfleet and the federation that was forced to change with the Borg and the Dominion. The Sovereign is the result of that. THe ship tacically is more powerful than the Galaxy but the Galaxy can do more stuff at the same time.
Now does this say galaxy was weak no but not design for war as priority. She is still a powerful class but she represented a mentaility of Starfleet and the federation that was forced to change with the Borg and the Dominion. The Sovereign is the result of that. THe ship tacically is more powerful than the Galaxy but the Galaxy can do more stuff at the same time.
There wasn't a mentality to be changed, the federation did have had enough wars without making them foolish or careless.
Designing and constructing a ship takes more then just a few years. The sovereign must have been in design/production before the Dominion war and it is not supposed to be a replacement to the GCS nor it is supposed to outgun it.
The relation between GCS and Sov is roughly the same as between Ambassador and Excelsior.
(heavy and more complicated vs. mass produceable and uncomplicated)
I think the biggest missunderstatement is that many underestimate the size of a GCS compared to a Sovereign.
A few pages back Dontdrunk posted a picture comparing both ships and it clearly shows that both aren't even in the same league.
Science labs and family quarters or not, the GCS is a much more massive ship than the Sovereign. To claim they where on the same level is almost rediculus.
Surely the GCS isn't as maneuverable but its size allows it to carry much bigger power generators, two much longer phaser strips and a much more spohisticated/larger Torpedo Launcher system.
There is absolutely no canon stetement that says the Sovereign was more combat heavy or it could produce more firepower than a GCS. We have only the statement of LaForge who said it was the most advanced ship in the fleet.
Well a electric vehicle/car could be called more advaced than a Leopard 2A6M or any other modern tank.
The point is "more advanced" can mean almost anything. But the data at hand shows that the Sovereign cannot be a heavier ship than a GCS, no matter if someone slapped a "Enterprise 1701 -E" sign on it or not.
Personally i find it really tiresome that so many people think the Sovereign is the incarantion of a Borg fighting monster ship, just because it is the next enterprise.
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
Sure, cell phones can use a specific application, but a computer just has more CPU power. And that's exactly what everyone is trying to tell you.
For example, my cell phone is more advanced than my computer, but still STO just won't run on my cell phone.
You get that difference?
The GCS has more general power, more space for its Phaser Strip, space for a larger M/A Reactor, more space for a much more complex Torpedo Tubes, and so on.
The thing most people don't really get is that the GCS is modular, that means almost any component can be replaced with a newer one.
So if someone says the Sovereign is the most advanced ship, doesn't mean its the most powerful.
(More advanced could just mean that the sovereigns replicators make better coffee. )
Except, again, in the actual context of the actual quote, "Advanced" is referring to the ability to face down the borg. Also, many phones of today have a more powerful CPU than my desktop from 8 years ago - I'm quite sure they are theoretically capable of running most games, but don't because it's not what they were designed for. Just like the Galaxy wasn't designed for combat, but the Sovereign WAS.
For the size thing. Once again, size does not matter here. At all. Not even the littlest teenest tiniest itsy-bitsest bit. ZERO. This is for two reasons: First, none of the engineering in Star Trek is real, nor does it make sense based on what we currently know, thus making attempts to extrapolate based on current science a fool's errand. Second, and more importantly, the "science" of the show was always secondary to the narrative requirements of the show - narratively, the Sovereign was presented as a more powerful, sleeker upgrade to the Galaxy class. Thus since Star Trek is a story first and foremost, and not at all an intellectually rigorous treatise on "real" starship design, we should privilege the story, and ignore the "science" when it conflicts with our narrative needs (just like the actual writers do).
Are you seriously thinking that the civilian stuff takes that much space on such a large ship like a GCS?
I'm sorry but you should read the TNG technical manual before stating things like that.
And if you don't trust them, what on screen evidence do you think contradict to it?
As i have written above the GCS can be kept up to date far more easily than any other ship.
Just having a more specialized ship doesn't mean it is more powerful than a ship 10x the size.
As you have ASSERTED above, the Galaxy may have been able to be upgraded, but there's no reason that only goes one way - there's no reason rapid torpedo launchers couldn't be installed on other ships, or that ships designed for combat couldn't be built to maximize phaser strip length (Like, why not make a tight spiral to improve strip length without needing to build a bigger hull?). But according to you, they weren't and thus (again) narratively your position makes absolutely no sense.
You still (and here I'm speaking to the collective 'you' that think the Galaxy is a superior warship) have yet to provide a single compelling reason why the Federation would bother building warships when the Galaxy is already better at that job. Cheaper won't cut it, because the Federation is a post-scarcity economy. They don't have to worry about the material costs of building starships, because industrial replicators and nearly unlimited energy supplies mean that for all but the small amounts of unobtainium that goes into ships (namely dilithium), there's really no economic benefit to going smaller.
Even with things like Dilithium, we know that ships built for combat have larger, more powerful warp cores relative to their size, so the gains there are probably negligible at best. Heck, if you want a perfect example of this, look at Voyager - a single ship, tens of thousands of light-years from the Federation, and yet it was still economically powerful enough to make trade agreements with entire civilizations, was able to manufacture it's own spare parts to keep itself in repair, and was even able to (evidently) manufacture additional weapons and support craft (complete with miniature warp cores!). Given that kind of economic strength, it makes no sense that inferior ships would be built to 'save resources'.
Your "arguments" just show you want to be right at any cost, if it makes sense or not.
If you where such a canon "expert" as you think, why aren't you arguing against the defiant because it isn't the super ship as Cryptics devs may think?
What about the Excelsior? Do you really think that it is capable to create more firepower than a GCS or Nebula?
If you think yes, you should stop discussing here and watch some episodes.
Because canon isn't actually a thing? Because I know that if the plot demands that a Defiant class or an Excelsior have more or less firepower, that's exactly what will happen? Because I don't interpret things the same way you do? Because I would rather just enjoy the narrative of the show, instead of having to resort to tortuous logic to explain why the things characters say and do don't actually match up with the "science" of the show?
On the other hand, STO is a game as far from ST canon as it can get.
Even if you think the GCS where not such a beast of a ship as she "really" is, then why not supporting its fans so they finally can get their favourite ship?
Ships like the Jem Hadar Bug ship are being the most powerful ships in the game, why aren't you arguing against THAT?
We have the Galor as one of the most powerful Cruisers in the Game, altrhough it was more than clear that a GCS could take on a squadron of 3 of them. Why is no one arguing against THAT?
Where comes the hate towards the GCS?
I mean if you don't like it ok. I hate most Cryptic made ships and especially all escorts in STO, but obviously some people like them. So why not just leave them their fav ship?
I don't hate the Galaxy class, I just don't see a need to make it into something it never was. You want it to be a warship because you want to feel powerful and cool, but you don't like ships that are actually designed to perform that role (for reasons explicable and relevant only to you), and you feel like the game should reflect those preferences. I disagree, and think if you want to fly the Galaxy, you can do so, but you shouldn't expect to be a better warship than the actual warships in the game. I'm sorry there aren't more missions where the capabilities of the Galaxy really shine - maybe someone should make a foundry mission where you ferry civilians around from one dangerous situation to another, for no good reason at all, because the Galaxy is definitely tops for that.
Edited to add:
Honestly, this really just circles back to people feeling like the point of STO is to blow things up, exclusively, and being unwilling to accept that it isn't a "punishment" to no do as much damage as the next guy, as long as you're having fun playing. People can and should play whatever ship they want, but if you feel like the Galaxy class playstyle isn't fun for you because it's too slow and doesn't kill things fast enough, I suggest it is you, and not me, who have missed the point of what the Galaxy class stood for in TNG.
Personally i don't know if i am supposed to laugh or be sad that there are people claiming to be trek fans but haven't understood a single thing.
Sorry, i couldn't response to everything, i just don't have the time and patience to chew everyting through over and over again.
Just read some previous pages if you are really interested in this matter.
I don't know if I'm supposed to laugh or be sad that people who claim to be Trek fans think that the ship Gene Roddenberry intended to be a paragon of peaceful exploration and the triumph of intellect is somehow also a bad-TRIBBLE super battleship, when nothing in the plot requires or really suggests it. The Galaxy was not a warship. The Federation was eventually, reluctantly, pulled into multiple wars, and they started making ships that actually WERE warships. You might hate DS9 for it, but the story there was one of the Federation losing it's utopian lustre, and then (arguably) slowly regaining it's better nature.
The sovereign is not a warship.
It was never stated as such, nor was it ever hinted at. It is pure fan speculation.
There is no cannon that says it was even designed to combat the Borg.
I have given you cannon evidence to support my claims.
Yes, cannon. Actual on-screen footage to which, you say. I think that's dumb.
Awesome argument there.
Your claims can't be backed up by anything.
You even somehow think that it is my job to find evidence for you, instead of finding your own to back yourself up. How fitting.
Interesting topic, but it seems to me as though a number of opinions here aren't thinking big picture enough. I was told a story once by a man who served aboard USS Intrepid, an Essex class aircraft carrier commissioned during WWII. This former sailor, though, served on board during the late Vietnam war, and some time afterwards as well.. The story is as such: when running active ops in the war, it ticked the other carriers off to no end that little ol' Intrepid was able to launch aircraft at a substantially faster rate than newer carriers like Forrestal, Kitty Hawk, Constellation, and even CVN 65 Enterprise. The way they did this was simple: the captain simply streamlined the operations and motivated the crew to put their backs into getting their aircraft launched and on their way before the bigger carriers could.
"Better," and "more powerful" are largely subjective. IN the case of the Galaxy, it is a very large, modular ship. Galaxies fighting in the DW may not have looked a lot like they did prior to the war on the inside. The schools, theaters, etc. that were there might have been retrofitted to handle more equipment, etc that would help it be more combat effective with the fleets. Entire rows of quarters might have been replaced since families would not be on board any longer while the ships went into war. Weapons systems might have been replaced, engines and thrusters upgraded. Moreover, these changes would not necessarily have been unilateral across all Galaxy's.
In the end though, the Galaxy was designed as an explorer yes, but more to the point as a ship that would offer maximum versatility so that it could operate on it's own for extended periods of time in a variety of circumstances. Depending on the equipment, this may have meant less overall firepower than ships that were pressed into service as the Borg threat continued to grow and the DW seemed more and more evident. Not to mention increased hostility growing behind the scenes on the Cardassian front, the maqui, continued tensions on the neutral zone, etc.
The ships changed to mirror the needs of the fleet. The wider versatility may have taken a back seat to perceived other, more basic concerns. The overall design of the Sovereign over the Galaxy may have lent certain advantages over the Galaxy, but that is not to say those advantages would have displaced any advantages the Galaxy might have itself. And then, there is the fact of was a shrewd captain with a good plan to streamline operations and a motivated crew could do.
"Better" is highly subjective. The Galaxy may be better in some areas, weaker in others, but the franchise didn't specify very well to show us what those areas were, and how they played out overall. Is the Galaxy more suited to fight than a sovereign in one "terrain" vs another? On situation vs another? Could be. Seems to me there are a lot more variables here worth considering.
Comments
Come on, we have been chewing this through so many times.
The GCS you saw at TNG was a DIPLOMATIC ship.
It was NOT built in a time of peace.
It has the potential to have the highest amount of Phaser firepower of any canon ship (if its weapons are up to date).
The Sovereign, Defiant and Prometheus are attempts to create cheaper and smaller ships to fulfill missions a GCS would be too valuable.
The Defiant was a attempt to create a cheap, mass produceable ship carrying as much firepower as possible (which is still only on par with a up to date Excelsior, not to speak a GCS)
The Sovereign is the sucessor of the aging Excelsior and is supposed to replace her over the years, even the producers said that.
The Prometheus, was a prototype carrying the newest weapons and technology. But its size limits her energy output and her Phaser Strips aren even nearly as long as a GCS.
The reason you never saw the -D in a big combat scence was mostly because of the fact that they avoided most fights at any costs.
Because as above stated, IT WAS ON A DIPLOMATIC MISSION!
Another reason are the enormous high production costs of a combat scence when TNG was shot. If TNG where produced ten years later we wouldn't have this discussion at all.
All this has been discussed over and over and over and over and over and over again in this and numerous other threads over the years, i am sorry for you that you have missed them all. (but you can take the time to read it afterwards, if you want to.
Heck if that's not a proof for a awesome ship, then i don't know.
Honestly, it was mostly because it was what Gene had envisioned his future as being.
A higher thought process than shoot first ask later.
Peace through Vigilance, instead of Peace through Force.
Hell I get into so many groups with Jem'hadar ships they might as well rename this to Dominion Online.
smh too.
If you care, we can direct you to the posts and in game evidence from players such as yourself, where you can read for yourself.
But be warned.
You may be disappointed to find that your assumptions about what we want are grossly inaccurate.
Commander Tac?
Did i miss something?
And no, as in almost every above post: we don't want a OP GCS,
We just want one that doesn't suck and one that doesn't have the least firepower of all Cruisers in STO.
couldn't have said it better my self. and ive had to, 100 times. im so glad im not the only one that has to in this thread anymore
DELTA PRICE RISING
Seen them, they support my view, not yours. The Galaxy was on a peaceful mission, because, you know, cruise liner.
The Sovereign class Enterprise was said to be "the most advanced ship in the fleet" - a fleet which obviously at that time still contained Galaxy class vessels. Thus, the Sovereign was not some cheap alternative.
The Sovereign showed up and defeated a Borg Cube, and enemy which was superior to the Galaxy class.
...
And the effect the Galaxy class had after the Borg adapted to Federation phasers was basically nil. So, what's your point?
First of all, no, we don't ever see the Galaxy class fire energy weapons faster than (say) the Defiant, or even a standard Klingon B'rel. Second, your assertion about Yesterday's Enterprise is totally unfounded. Why would a diplomatic ship have the same level of firepower as a ship actively engaged in war?
As for torpedoes, I'm pretty sure the on screen FX actually at times exceed what was intended to be the maximum fire rate from the tech manual (which I though I remembered being 3 per salvo), but in any case there's no actual reason why other ships couldn't fire as fast - it's not like the technology behind rapid fire launchers was somehow unique to the Galaxy and couldn't be ported over. If you are going to argue that the Galaxy was kept up to date by retrofitting more advanced technology, I don't see why other ships wouldn't have have used the tech from the Galaxy as well.
Again, no, it isn't, you're just choosing to selectively hear what you want to hear. That's fine, you're entitled to do that. I just think it's ridiculous to go through the logical contortions necessary to make later material line up with one single source (the tech manual) when there really is NO reason to believe it (and the 'science' in it makes no sense anyway).
The oft repeated phaser strip claim is an especially egregious example - it doesn't even pass a basic "huh?" test - there is literally no reason, at all, that capacitors attached to a linked series of emitters should somehow be more efficient at transferring power than simply putting those same capacitors behind a single emitter and saving space. The idea that the length of the strip determines it's power sorta sounds cool, I guess, but makes absolutely no practical sense.
Even if it did, you then run into the question of why no other races design ships that way, and why the Federation doesn't just build all ships in such a way as to maximize the available phaser strip length. Even if you posit that such ships were intended to be 'cheaper' (which is a questionable concept at best, given the odd-ball post-scarcity economy of the Federation), why would they not be at the very least designed to maximize their potential firepower by making their phaser strips as long as the hull would allow? Remember, even if they were supposed to be "cheap", they were still supposed to be warships.
Prove this. I doubt very much that given the losses the Federation was taking (with like entire fleets being lost), you can say with certainty that NONE of the ships was a Galaxy class.
How was the ship capable of disengaging from vessels that were faster and more maneuverable that it?
I do agree that the Odyssey's weapons were minimally effective, however, because that's a common feature of ships designed for diplomatic missions, rather than combat.
What are you talking about? Sacrifice of Angels? Where do they ever say that the Galaxy wing has made it through the lines? And if they did, why on Earth would they turn around? I think you're misinterpreting a line of dialogue, and/or the writers simply messed up. The scenario you are positing is so ridiculous that it's much easier to simply dismiss it as a writing mistake than it is to try and ret-con in a reason why some of Starfleet's best captains would spontaneously ignore not only their explicit orders, but the entire strategic purpose of the battle they were in.
Really? Because I'm pretty sure the Enterprise owned the cube, then basically one-shot the Sphere with a salvo of quantum torps. Seems like it was pretty impressive to me.
You mean the part where it fights two warships that are using weaponry so powerful they are banned by most powers because they can destabilize sub-space? And yet it wins? Is that what you mean? See how I can use the same selective understanding you're using to justify your interpretation?
Look, I'm not saying the Sovereign is a super ship either, but do you really, honestly believe the Enterprise D would have done BETTER in that fight?
Right, except that it actually doesn't get "owned", it fights it to a stand-still, even though the Scimitar is more or less set up as a super-ship.
The inescapable truth is that it requires far more effort to believe that the Galaxy is supposed to be a super warship that for some reason the Federation decided to replace with inferior designs, than it does to believe that the Tech manual is a non-canon fluff piece written to encourage people to root for what was (at that time) the premier "hero ship" of the series.
Back to topic.
Most people )and i'm hoping im right about this or i'll be burned at the stake) Want the GCS to be more versatile, instead of locked into the Uber engineering setup it has, Frankly i think the shift it made from it's Tier 4 Refit, she was GOOD then an Ensgins SCI and a Lt. SCI is far superior to a Lt. SCI and an Ensign ENG.
Versatility was her primary role.
I am Il Shadow and i approve these Shennanigans!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
I am Il Shadow and i approve these Shennanigans!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Yes, i am puzzeling about this too.
When leveling my new Character, i used the Galaxy- Refit (T4 Venture) and it was much better than the T5 Galaxy -R. I wish it had more Hull HP i would just keep the T4 ship.
(Well i should try... but this just shows how desperate i am, lol.)
Seriously, it should be cause for reflection if the T4 (Venture) version of a ship has a better BOFF layout then the T5 version...
About the T5 and Fleet version, they just should have made its Science Lt. and Engineering Ensign into universals and change the consoles to 3 (Fleet 4), 3, 3 and the ship would be alright IMO.
Advanced does not equal more powerful.
As has been said earlier in this thread. My phone is more advanced than many computers. Yet I don't see my phone running World of w a r c r a f t.(apparently that is a bad word on here??)
As for "not" being a cheap alternative.
The Sovereign is 2.5 times smaller than the Galaxy. You can fit two and a half Sovereigns inside a Galaxy!
That is a huge difference. And consequently... cheaper.
The Sovereign did not defeat that Cube.
An entire fleet did due to inside knowledge from Picard. That battle against the Cube would have ended the same way if Picard had been in an Ice Bucket in the Atlantic with a walkie talkie.
You mean... like a fleet of over 20 of the most "advanced" ships in the fleet taking over 8 hours attempting to destroying a single cube without success. See above about insider knowledge.
Yes we do.
She fires Photon Torpedoes at close to 2.7 per second. Hasn't been matched yet.
Her Rapid fire against fighter craft in TNG. Or her rapid shots against the Borg Cube in an effort to break its hold. Not matched. Not even in Nemesis.
As for the Defiant. Well I don't recall the GCS having cannons or the Defiant having arrays.
Apples and Oranges.
My assertion? Haha, it happens.
Go and watch it. The crew tells us that there are 3 K'Vort class battlecruiser incoming.
The Ent D pops one in what appears to be a single blast.
Seriously. Go watch it.
Look, the math is there.
If an object has a quantifiable size, then one can discover its volume.
If a chunk is taken out of that volume, one can measure the amount of volume missing based on the previous equation. Comparable materials can be used to estimate the mass and density of the object. And once these are completed, you can discover the amount of power required to have removed said volume and mass.
It can be done. And it has.
They aren't warships.
The Federation isn't about war. If they were, then perhaps we would have seen even bigger arrays and guns. But they aren't.
Find me a clip showing a Galaxy class going down.
If you can, then I will acknowledge that I was wrong.
By turning around and going through a wormhole or warping away...
Incorrect.
It's weapons were of minimal effect for the same reason that the Dominion was able to beam through Federation shields.
After years of espionage against the Alpha and Beta Quadrants they knew how to counter their offense and defense abilities. They even told them as much.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwKnvRPIrl0
Jump to 7:50. You see a GCS flying backwards in the enemy fleet, or the opposite of the Defiant.
At 7:58 we see the GCS flying across enemy lines while everyone else continues in the same direction as the Defiant.
At 8:27 we see the GCS doing the same thing again as she was in 7:58
From what we can see on screen it appears that the GCS is flying wherever she darn well pleases inside of an enemy fleet.
The wide screen version apparently has one or two more clips showing the GCS doing odd things like that.
But I can't ever find the wide version without Dragon here to find it for me..
Also, Sisko is on the Defiant. He has to be the one to get there first
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPzJSBHG4pI
At 2:58 she fires two photons, before... breaking off.
Starting at 3:51 and ending at 4:08 the Ent E fires 5 phaser blasts and 3 Quantums.
The Sovereign fires almost nothing at the Cube.
She fires more Quantums at a Sphere... then she did at a Cube.
You mean the fight where the enemy blows themselves up because they were to stupid to not fire at explosive gas?
What I'm saying about the later TNG movies is there there is nothing in them that shows that the Sovereign is a more capable ship. Yet there is plenty that shows she is an inferior ship offensively than the GCS.
The Ent D dwarfs those two ships. A GCS showing up likely would have ended that fight before it began. As for going against sub space weaponry? I dunno. "They are unpredictable, that's why they were banned."
Hardly a stand-still.
3 ships. All 3 ships were the most "advanced" in the fleet. Yet they couldn't even knock the engines out on the Scimitar.
The Ent E ran out of weapon power. Was out of shields.
Had no engine power. And couldn't even self destruct.
The Scimitar didn't just take out the Ent E like it did to the two Valdore/Mogai vessels because Shinzon still wanted Picards blood at that point. Once he stopped caring... it took a Data suicide to stop him. They had to kill Data! (cries a little)
The Tech manual was written and used by the people working on the show... not like the Star Wars "manuals" which were fan made. They have been declared as canon as mentioned earlier by Drunk.
They didn't replace anything with an inferior design.
The Galaxy is the top Capital ship.
After that it was the Niagra, Ambassador and Nebula.
Then the Excelsior, Miranda and other aging ship designs.
The Akira, Intrepid, Steamrunner, Norway, Saber. They are designs to replace the aging vessels within the fleet. Look at the DW. Most of those ships are over 80 years old. And aging fast. They couldn't compete with the DW ships. Even a seriously uprated Excelsior could only match the Defiant in endurance and firepower.
The Sovereign is an extremely advanced replacement for the Excelsior and other heavy cruisers within the fleet. She is a brand new design. Easily 80 years newer than the next thing.
Rick Sternbach is the source for saying that the Sovereign is a replacement for the Excelsior.
The Akira and others are also doing the same thing.
Nothing is being replaced with an inferior ship design.
The Fleet as a whole is being updated.
The Galaxy is over two times the size of the Sovereign remember?
And the Sovereign is only 7-8 years newer. Seeing as the Miranda, a design that is nearly 100 or more years old, is still in service. 8 years is nothing.
EXACTLY! This ship could have been so much better as it was than as it is, If the Support cruiser wasn't based on the Ambassador class and was the Galaxy i would be all over that like white on rice so the saying goes. And the only reason i do not pull the support cruiser is it's a kitbash with all the ugliest parts combined (in my opinion) At least in the way they where combined.
I love almost all previous enterprises and most future, the only one im not a fan of is the 1701-C, Scrawny neck (that was according to lore abandoned due weakness) extremely round hull, and extremely circular Saucer section.
I feel like the C should have been the B and vice versa
I am Il Shadow and i approve these Shennanigans!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
I didn't mind the C. But what the heck was up with the J from Enterprise?
And yes. The J was an afwul ugly ship. it looks like the combined a centaur with a sovereign and then stretched everything as much as possible.
I am Il Shadow and i approve these Shennanigans!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Ugh. Really? Okay, so, I guess the QE II is a more powerful warship than an Iowa class battleship? It is slightly longer, after all. Just look at the mental hoops you're going through to try to justify the Galaxy being a warship - size matters? That's where we are now?
Sheesh.
One ship was designed to ferry diplomats and school children around from (evidently) one spatial anomaly to another, while one was designed to actually fight. I honestly don't care which one you prefer, but please, just stop pretending there is any reason to believe they are equally powerful.
Except none of that was "factual", and it all ignores the simple truth that if you believe the Galaxy to be the best ship the Federation ever made, you basically can't justify the existence of ships that are explicitly intended to be superior combatants, yet have smaller arrays etc.
Nobody is saying the Defiant is an 'uber' ship. What people are correctly saying is the Defiant was a ship built for war, built in response to the borg threat because Starfleet felt it's crop of ships (including the much hyped Galaxy class) were insufficiently armed to repel another, similar attack. It was then pulled out of storage and put into service against the Dominion, where the prototype, after having the kinks worked out, served with such distinction that the line was put into full production.
If people were right that the Defiant was an inferior combat vessel, why would the Federation make more of them explicitly for that purpose? This is the perpetual problem people have, and no one has come up with a single compelling answer. If the Galaxy is so great, why did the Federation replace it? If ships like the Sovereign are so inferior to the Galaxy, why build them in the first place? And once you do build them, why make one the flagship of the fleet?
I just cannot understand why people are so willing to do mental gymnastics to say that the ship we all know was intended to be a warship is still somehow worse at that job than the ship designed for exploration, when the opposite conclusion makes so much more sense, and simply requires dismissing the nonsense from the Tech manual.
Love the Galaxy for what it was/is - a large, versatile platform for exploration and science. Not a warship.
Okay, first of all, the Federation doesn't have a tradition of making warships. Starfleet is not a military organization. They only resorted to creating warships a.k.a. the Defiant class when they were pushed hard against the wall by the Borg.
And even then, Starfleet designed their warship with eastablishing defensive pereimeters in mind. Like I said before in the thread, I can't imagine the Defiant, small as it is with her spartan interiors and only 50 crew to be sent on a long range deep space offensive mission. The thing was designed to work within defensive perimeters supported by a fleet and planetary defenses, and can pack one hell of a punch for it's size, while having the bare minimum of casualty risk with only 50 people as crew. It's basically a big replacable gun for the most grim of scenarios.
Now let's see - you've said it yourself, the "D" had preschool built in inside. It had children on board, the families of the crewmembers and a lot of civilians in general. They sent that ship in deep space. Do you really think that Starfleet would send a ship that is a luxury cruiseliner and not capable of combat with children on board? I mean this is deep space, not the Adriatic Sea. And Starfleet Corps of Engineers are not a bunch of r-tards.
Knowing how much the Federation values lives, you can be darned sure that the only reason the allowed children on a ship sent on a mission in deep space is because that ship was the apex of their engineering, the biggest, badest, most capable ship Starfleet has ever designed. A ship that can fight back and protect the lives of the inocent if neccessary.
They knew how powerfull the Galaxy class is when they decided to allow civilians on board. Because, before encountering the Borg and a couple of other species the "D" encountered, they were fairly certain they had one of the most powerfull ships in the quadrant.
The Galaxy class was designed some 8 years before the Sovereign class. The Galaxy class was designed to have minor refits every 5 years and major ones every 25 years with estimated lifespan of more than 100 years.
Do you really thing that 8 years after commisioning this ship with that specs in mind, they created her substitute?
And look at the Klingons. For how long have they been using the B'rel and K'tinga with success?
I'm going to say this again, because I can't emphasize it enough - Starfleet does not make warships. It's against their doctrine. They only did so when they had no other resorts, and even then referred to the class as "Escort" because they were reluctant to call it "Warship".
This however, should not to be mistaken that the ships Starfleet makes are toothless and can't pack a punch. If this was true, the Federation would not have survived for more than 200 years.
Also there is no such thing as "Time of peace" in space. We can even ignore the Tzenkethi and Cardassian wars for discussion sake, but even then you can't say you have peace. There are not only 4 species in the quadrant and if you're on good terms with them you have peace. There are millions of known and unknown species in space that the Enterprise-D could encounter, many of them with the potential to be hostile. There is always the potential threat in space.
By your logic, Starfleet was making toothless and weak luxury cruiseliners in this time of so called "peace". Think about it, does that even make sense? So what, let's say the Klingons or Romulans declare war and attack, while Starfleet was making lol ships for 50 years. What are they going to do, start making new ships capable of combat after being attacked? Do you see why this makes no sense?
This has been going on throughout this thread and it always keeps comming back. So many people mistake the Federation ideals, values, ethics and beliefs with weakness. They talked their way out of it or used technobabble because it's what the Federation does. They would avoid conflict at all costs. The value the life of an indivudual so much that they are hesitant to take lives even from hostile aliens if they think they can talk their way out of it so everyone goes home allive. The Federation does not go into offensive wars, they do not start conflict. They are a peacefull force that explores and wants to make friends out of everyone.
But don't mistake this for weakness. Their crews and ships are fully capable of packing one hell of a puch. The Enterprise was always picked on because all those adversaries knew that a Federation ship will try to avoid combat at all costs. That's where they played their cards. Why didn't all those so much more powerfull hostile ships blow away the Enterprise-D in a matter of seconds if it was that weak? I'll tell you why, because they were reluctant to poke the bear that much to force it to retaliate. Because when it comes to that, it gets ugly. Ask the Borg.
I'm not going to go into your other following posts because it would be too long, others that I tend to agree with have replied in details, and most of it is very subjective and makes no sense at least to me.
I'm yet to see any serious poster other than the ocassional trolls in this thread that wants a Cmdr. Tactical Boff station on the Galaxy.
The Ent-D even in its representative and exploratory set-up resembled a state most other people of the alpha quadrant recognised and classified her as a "battleship". How many times did that even hinder first contact situation because Picard had to explain why they pack such a huge amount of firepower?
Suggesting that this ship which is the figurative "spearhead" of Starfleet and the united federation of planets which does explore the unknown on it's own and transports civilian crew because it is a self-sustained entity that doesn't need any outside support is in any way undergunned or not designed to defend herself against the most vile terror the universe can spit out (to Starfleets capabilities that is) not despite her role but BECAUSE of her role is indeed foolish.
There is a world outside of those Navy Battleship thoughts. And that was what Star Trek was about. Starfleet is not the US Navy, it isn't even a military by it's philosophy and force is always the last resort - but their ships ARE powerful and fully capable of answering any form of threat. The UFP is the largest power in the alpha quadrant covering more than a tenth of the milky way and has faced so many wars and threats and still prevails. Peaceful in mind does NOT equal being toothless, cowardly or foolish.
Plus examples what the Galaxy class ship, the biggest ship in the fleet, is able to do when they all go "badass military" were given already. The downside is you just don't have a fleet of Galaxies at your disposal, hence the need for other vessels, smaller vessels, more specialized vessels which aren't inefficient or suberflous by any means
EDIT: shpoks beat me to it
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
In the context "advanced" was being used (that of facing the Borg), what else could it possibly mean? You phone example is a bad one, too, because I'm pretty sure many modern phones could, in fact, play many PC games, if only the software was ported over. In any case, a modern computer might have more general capabilities than a smartphone, but for the specific application they are designed for (in this case, mobile communications), smartphones are top notch.
Sound familiar?
Except the Federation is a post-scarcity economy with access to replicator technology and virtually limitless energy sources, so the idea that size = cost is... suspect at best. Beyond which, no matter what you take it to mean, the Sovereign was considered more 'advanced' than the Galaxy, meaning it had a higher technology level overall, which would likely counter the cost savings of the smaller hull, if there were such a thing. Plus, all the size differential proves is if you don't add a school and other niceties to your ship, you can significantly reduce the ship's size while simultaneously increasing it's combat power.
That's one interpretation, but since I think it sounds dumb, I'll go with mine - the ship that was explicitly designed to fight and was stated to be the most advanced ship in the fleet was, in fact, a key piece there. We all know that's what the writers intended, so I'm not sure why that's so hard to swallow.
So? Please explain the magic of the Galaxy photon launchers, and why they can't possibly be used on any other ship. Since you can't do that, how about you concede that I'm right that if the Galaxies launchers are that fast, there's no reason to suspect that other launchers can't do the same thing, and that this has more to do with what FX artists thought looked cool, and less with any real "math" or "engineering".
Right, the Galaxy doesn't have cannons because cannons are for fighting, and the Galaxy wasn't designed for that - but the Defiant definitely has arrays as backup weapons. In any case, the Defiant's cannons clearly fire faster than the Galaxy's arrays, and deliver the same, if not greater damage. Thus, Defiant guns better. QED.
No, I meant your assertion that the Enterprise D in Yesterday's Enterprise would have the same specs as the 'real' one. There's no reason to think Tasha Yar's existence would be the only change between the two timelines.
And if you believe the FX artists were doing that kind of calculation when they designed those shots, you're fooling yourself. There was no math behind what was seen on screen, and attempts to make it all work mathematically inevitably run into the same problem - you can believe that the Galaxy class was the most powerful warship in the history of the Federation, but then you have to believe they somehow forgot that, and decided to build a bunch of inferior warships instead, while simultaneously THINKING they were building better warships.
False. The Defiant and the Prometheus are both specifically referred to as having been designed primarily for combat. Unless your contention is those characters were liars or idiots, you are left with the fact that either the Federation is making terrible combat designs that somehow still make it to full production, despite abjectly failing in their design goals, or the Galaxy was not, in fact, as good at combat as you want it to be.
Sorry, it doesn't work that way - you're the one making the extraordinary claim (that no Galaxy was lost during the war), while I'm simply asserting the common sense notion that if the Federation was losing ships in job lots, it's reasonable to assume that at least a few of those were Galaxy class vessels, especially if the Federation was relying on them as the backbone of its combat fleets.
Because the Attack craft couldn't follow? Pretty sure that's absolute nonsense.
None of this answers my point, which is that if this were really happening, that would make absolutely no sense, and require so much suspension of disbelief that it's simply easier to admit the writers made a mistake, or that the limited POV afforded the viewer means we misperceive what's actually happening.
Right, and that minimal amount of effort resulted in a dead Cube. It's clear that we are meant to take from this scene that the Enterprise E is a superior combat vessel. You can choose to disbelieve that, and construct an elaborate justification for why that is the case, but point blank you are playing the same game I am with choosing what you want to believe. That's fine, you just need to stop pretending it has any kind of superior moral or intellectual value.
I think my interpretation makes more sense overall, and until you can explain why ships built for combat after the Galaxy came out are, according to you, inferior at that role as well as being inferior at the exploration and science roles, yet were nonetheless considered successful enough to be put into full production, I'm not going to change my mind.
Ugh. No, wrong. Everything about the movies shows the Sovereign is a better combat vessel - it wins fights the Galaxy would've lost, and if it was, in fact, an inferior ship, why would they have built it? And why would they assign the most prestigious and well-respected crew in Starfleet to it? And why would that crew say things like "This is the most advanced ship in the fleet" if, in fact, it was a demotion? And why would the writers and directors deliberately position us to believe the Enterprise E was an improvement in capability if the intent was the reverse? And if the writers' intent was for the E to be better, why should we value the nonsensical Tech manual for TNG over that? None of your position makes any sense.
Declared canon by whom, and why, when the "facts" presented in them conflict with the obvious intent of later writers, should we prefer them? Especially given that the "facts" presented actually make no sense at all (see my earlier refutation of the phaser length = power nonsense).
Size. Does. Not. Matter. It doesn't. Especially when that size is used for non-combat things like big crew quarters, a fancy bar/lounge, a school, etc. Even in later upgrades to the Galaxy, it's not like that interior space somehow transforms entirely into increased combat capability, since it's hard to say what you would put in there that would make the ship better at fighting.
Again, the writers and directors of the TNG movies clearly thought they were replacing the Galaxy class Enterprise with something better and more powerful. You're saying they were wrong, and constructing an elaborate web of justifications, when it's much much easier to just accept that the Tech manuals lied to you, and, in fact, the Galaxy is what we see - a capable multi-role vessel that eventually gets supplanted as a warship by more specialized designs.
That said let's look at the other ships mentioned. Defiant, Prometheus, good ships powerful prototype vessels. Basically built to see if they could, then debate the question of if they should. Defiant, as was noted, does not have the facilities for long range patrols, ambassadorial missions, exploration, etc. The weakness they would address was not fire power. It was response time. How many time did you hear in TOS they were the only ship in the quadrant? Next Gen? It kept happening. So they make a cluster of Defiant class ships. Post them at various research stations so they have more than a shuttle to respond with. A borg alert goes out they get a mass of small, armed to the teeth (for it's size) vessel to turn back a borg incursion. That is the plan I see for that ship just from her on screen capabilities. Between Federation politics and it happening to not work, they mothballed it till Sisko pulled her out and made it work.
Prometheus, Let's put all of our top of the line technology on this ship. Not the most stable, most trusted and tested. The most advanced. And let's explore ship separation further than we have in the past. The ship is an experiment. An idea test bed.
Is the Federation weak? Well let's look at Way of the Warrior. How many Klingon ships were attacking the station? How many were coming to reinforce them? Sisko's station was heavily damaged but fighting still. How many ships did he have coming to aid him? five. When you compare Klingon ships to Federation ones, note they really want to out number a Federation starship, by a lot.
What does this have to do with the Galaxy? She held her own as the flagship of the Federation for years. Carrying civilian families, schools, meeting rooms, laboratories. She carried a town inside her and still could face off against 'warships' and expect to win. That alone should say she should be powerful.
My beef with the current galaxy class is this. in pvE you go heavy cruiser/Excelsior at a high power level, drop to squishy in a Galaxy, then promote back up to competent in a star cruiser. That stumbling block is what breaks immersion. Each time you move up to a new ship you should feel a little better than the last ship. Not like you just got punished.
Ideas on this thread are to offer ideas on how to make the ship seem something we want to fly and not a punishment.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
For example, my cell phone is more advanced than my computer, but still STO just won't run on my cell phone.
You get that difference?
The GCS has more general power, more space for its Phaser Strip, space for a larger M/A Reactor, more space for a much more complex Torpedo Tubes, and so on.
The thing most people don't really get is that the GCS is modular, that means almost any component can be replaced with a newer one.
So if someone says the Sovereign is the most advanced ship, doesn't mean its the most powerful.
(More advanced could just mean that the sovereigns replicators make better coffee.
Are you seriously thinking that the civilian stuff takes that much space on such a large ship like a GCS?
I'm sorry but you should read the TNG technical manual before stating things like that.
And if you don't trust them, what on screen evidence do you think contradict to it?
As i have written above the GCS can be kept up to date far more easily than any other ship.
Just having a more specialized ship doesn't mean it is more powerful than a ship 10x the size.
Your "arguments" just show you want to be right at any cost, if it makes sense or not.
If you where such a canon "expert" as you think, why aren't you arguing against the defiant because it isn't the super ship as Cryptics devs may think?
What about the Excelsior? Do you really think that it is capable to create more firepower than a GCS or Nebula?
If you think yes, you should stop discussing here and watch some episodes.
On the other hand, STO is a game as far from ST canon as it can get.
Even if you think the GCS where not such a beast of a ship as she "really" is, then why not supporting its fans so they finally can get their favourite ship?
Ships like the Jem Hadar Bug ship are being the most powerful ships in the game, why aren't you arguing against THAT?
We have the Galor as one of the most powerful Cruisers in the Game, altrhough it was more than clear that a GCS could take on a squadron of 3 of them. Why is no one arguing against THAT?
Where comes the hate towards the GCS?
I mean if you don't like it ok. I hate most Cryptic made ships and especially all escorts in STO, but obviously some people like them. So why not just leave them their fav ship?
Personally i don't know if i am supposed to laugh or be sad that there are people claiming to be trek fans but haven't understood a single thing.
Sorry, i couldn't response to everything, i just don't have the time and patience to chew everyting through over and over again.
Just read some previous pages if you are really interested in this matter.
You also have to include science labs, gardens and living quarters. DW Galaxy's did not likely have the science labs when launched. also Galaxy did have a head start on building. first gen of galaxys were 6 and when war was looming they started producing more and started production of the sovereign. how ever the Sovereign is a young class only 2 of them confirmed built. Sovereign, and E-E. Personally Titan should have been one too. Again as said before. Galaxy designed for exploration and research first combat second. Sov Combat first exploration second. Now does this say galaxy was weak no but not design for war as priority. She is still a powerful class but she represented a mentaility of Starfleet and the federation that was forced to change with the Borg and the Dominion. The Sovereign is the result of that. THe ship tacically is more powerful than the Galaxy but the Galaxy can do more stuff at the same time.
There wasn't a mentality to be changed, the federation did have had enough wars without making them foolish or careless.
Designing and constructing a ship takes more then just a few years. The sovereign must have been in design/production before the Dominion war and it is not supposed to be a replacement to the GCS nor it is supposed to outgun it.
The relation between GCS and Sov is roughly the same as between Ambassador and Excelsior.
(heavy and more complicated vs. mass produceable and uncomplicated)
I think the biggest missunderstatement is that many underestimate the size of a GCS compared to a Sovereign.
A few pages back Dontdrunk posted a picture comparing both ships and it clearly shows that both aren't even in the same league.
Science labs and family quarters or not, the GCS is a much more massive ship than the Sovereign. To claim they where on the same level is almost rediculus.
Surely the GCS isn't as maneuverable but its size allows it to carry much bigger power generators, two much longer phaser strips and a much more spohisticated/larger Torpedo Launcher system.
There is absolutely no canon stetement that says the Sovereign was more combat heavy or it could produce more firepower than a GCS. We have only the statement of LaForge who said it was the most advanced ship in the fleet.
Well a electric vehicle/car could be called more advaced than a Leopard 2A6M or any other modern tank.
The point is "more advanced" can mean almost anything. But the data at hand shows that the Sovereign cannot be a heavier ship than a GCS, no matter if someone slapped a "Enterprise 1701 -E" sign on it or not.
Personally i find it really tiresome that so many people think the Sovereign is the incarantion of a Borg fighting monster ship, just because it is the next enterprise.
Except, again, in the actual context of the actual quote, "Advanced" is referring to the ability to face down the borg. Also, many phones of today have a more powerful CPU than my desktop from 8 years ago - I'm quite sure they are theoretically capable of running most games, but don't because it's not what they were designed for. Just like the Galaxy wasn't designed for combat, but the Sovereign WAS.
For the size thing. Once again, size does not matter here. At all. Not even the littlest teenest tiniest itsy-bitsest bit. ZERO. This is for two reasons: First, none of the engineering in Star Trek is real, nor does it make sense based on what we currently know, thus making attempts to extrapolate based on current science a fool's errand. Second, and more importantly, the "science" of the show was always secondary to the narrative requirements of the show - narratively, the Sovereign was presented as a more powerful, sleeker upgrade to the Galaxy class. Thus since Star Trek is a story first and foremost, and not at all an intellectually rigorous treatise on "real" starship design, we should privilege the story, and ignore the "science" when it conflicts with our narrative needs (just like the actual writers do).
As you have ASSERTED above, the Galaxy may have been able to be upgraded, but there's no reason that only goes one way - there's no reason rapid torpedo launchers couldn't be installed on other ships, or that ships designed for combat couldn't be built to maximize phaser strip length (Like, why not make a tight spiral to improve strip length without needing to build a bigger hull?). But according to you, they weren't and thus (again) narratively your position makes absolutely no sense.
You still (and here I'm speaking to the collective 'you' that think the Galaxy is a superior warship) have yet to provide a single compelling reason why the Federation would bother building warships when the Galaxy is already better at that job. Cheaper won't cut it, because the Federation is a post-scarcity economy. They don't have to worry about the material costs of building starships, because industrial replicators and nearly unlimited energy supplies mean that for all but the small amounts of unobtainium that goes into ships (namely dilithium), there's really no economic benefit to going smaller.
Even with things like Dilithium, we know that ships built for combat have larger, more powerful warp cores relative to their size, so the gains there are probably negligible at best. Heck, if you want a perfect example of this, look at Voyager - a single ship, tens of thousands of light-years from the Federation, and yet it was still economically powerful enough to make trade agreements with entire civilizations, was able to manufacture it's own spare parts to keep itself in repair, and was even able to (evidently) manufacture additional weapons and support craft (complete with miniature warp cores!). Given that kind of economic strength, it makes no sense that inferior ships would be built to 'save resources'.
Because canon isn't actually a thing? Because I know that if the plot demands that a Defiant class or an Excelsior have more or less firepower, that's exactly what will happen? Because I don't interpret things the same way you do? Because I would rather just enjoy the narrative of the show, instead of having to resort to tortuous logic to explain why the things characters say and do don't actually match up with the "science" of the show?
I don't hate the Galaxy class, I just don't see a need to make it into something it never was. You want it to be a warship because you want to feel powerful and cool, but you don't like ships that are actually designed to perform that role (for reasons explicable and relevant only to you), and you feel like the game should reflect those preferences. I disagree, and think if you want to fly the Galaxy, you can do so, but you shouldn't expect to be a better warship than the actual warships in the game. I'm sorry there aren't more missions where the capabilities of the Galaxy really shine - maybe someone should make a foundry mission where you ferry civilians around from one dangerous situation to another, for no good reason at all, because the Galaxy is definitely tops for that.
Edited to add:
Honestly, this really just circles back to people feeling like the point of STO is to blow things up, exclusively, and being unwilling to accept that it isn't a "punishment" to no do as much damage as the next guy, as long as you're having fun playing. People can and should play whatever ship they want, but if you feel like the Galaxy class playstyle isn't fun for you because it's too slow and doesn't kill things fast enough, I suggest it is you, and not me, who have missed the point of what the Galaxy class stood for in TNG.
I don't know if I'm supposed to laugh or be sad that people who claim to be Trek fans think that the ship Gene Roddenberry intended to be a paragon of peaceful exploration and the triumph of intellect is somehow also a bad-TRIBBLE super battleship, when nothing in the plot requires or really suggests it. The Galaxy was not a warship. The Federation was eventually, reluctantly, pulled into multiple wars, and they started making ships that actually WERE warships. You might hate DS9 for it, but the story there was one of the Federation losing it's utopian lustre, and then (arguably) slowly regaining it's better nature.
It was never stated as such, nor was it ever hinted at. It is pure fan speculation.
There is no cannon that says it was even designed to combat the Borg.
I have given you cannon evidence to support my claims.
Yes, cannon. Actual on-screen footage to which, you say. I think that's dumb.
Awesome argument there.
Your claims can't be backed up by anything.
You even somehow think that it is my job to find evidence for you, instead of finding your own to back yourself up. How fitting.
"Better," and "more powerful" are largely subjective. IN the case of the Galaxy, it is a very large, modular ship. Galaxies fighting in the DW may not have looked a lot like they did prior to the war on the inside. The schools, theaters, etc. that were there might have been retrofitted to handle more equipment, etc that would help it be more combat effective with the fleets. Entire rows of quarters might have been replaced since families would not be on board any longer while the ships went into war. Weapons systems might have been replaced, engines and thrusters upgraded. Moreover, these changes would not necessarily have been unilateral across all Galaxy's.
In the end though, the Galaxy was designed as an explorer yes, but more to the point as a ship that would offer maximum versatility so that it could operate on it's own for extended periods of time in a variety of circumstances. Depending on the equipment, this may have meant less overall firepower than ships that were pressed into service as the Borg threat continued to grow and the DW seemed more and more evident. Not to mention increased hostility growing behind the scenes on the Cardassian front, the maqui, continued tensions on the neutral zone, etc.
The ships changed to mirror the needs of the fleet. The wider versatility may have taken a back seat to perceived other, more basic concerns. The overall design of the Sovereign over the Galaxy may have lent certain advantages over the Galaxy, but that is not to say those advantages would have displaced any advantages the Galaxy might have itself. And then, there is the fact of was a shrewd captain with a good plan to streamline operations and a motivated crew could do.
"Better" is highly subjective. The Galaxy may be better in some areas, weaker in others, but the franchise didn't specify very well to show us what those areas were, and how they played out overall. Is the Galaxy more suited to fight than a sovereign in one "terrain" vs another? On situation vs another? Could be. Seems to me there are a lot more variables here worth considering.