Being a Trekkie for a long time - longer than most of you've been alive, and being a technical type person I loved the TNG Tech manual.
The Galaxy Class was the Capital ship of Starfleet/Federation in the TNG era. It had a modular design in that it's whole structure could be refitted for almost any purpose. Same with the Nebula Class, it too was modular in design - although not much cannon information is available about the POD for the Nebula - it has some interesting possibilities. The same goes for the Galaxy Class in the possibilities for it's layout. One thing that caught my eye when I first read the TNG Tech Manual was that you could theoretically fly her with a PADD!!!
I also remember from some where that she had many modular compartments that where not 'installed' when she had her maiden voyage. There in is the ability to configure the GCS in almost any way you want or need.
As for the GCS (Galaxy Class Starship) being a carrier - I extremely doubt it because of her role "Explorer." Not to mention the Akira.
As for the current "Dreadnought" GCS... Too far fetched. There's no need for a 3rd nacelle. The nacelle's provide a subspace bubble, it was found early on that even having 4 nacelle's was not worth the power necessary to push the ship only a little bit deeper into subspace; therefore a 3rd nacelle is illogical. For a "Dreadnought" you would want less crew and a much larger warp core.
Now - if we go with the current definition of "Capital Ship" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_ship
"The capital ships of a navy are its most important warships; they generally possess the heaviest firepower and armor and are traditionally much larger than other naval vessels. A capital ship is generally a leading or a primary ship in a naval fleet."
Now if you add "Capital Ship" with "Explorer" that fits the Enterprise D to a "T." As shown in the series. What we didn't get to see is the versatility of the Big D.
Here's what I've been thinking for the GCS and the Nebula: "Add a module slot. That slot defines it's layout to a degree. You can make the GCS or Neb a "Science Ship", "Heavy Cruiser"/"War type ship" or 'etc.' That could apply to many Fed ships since the Nebula class. With the Nebula Class it would be a 'special Pod' for the type of module; IE: A different looking pod for a tactical layout as opposed to a science layout. I'm pretty sure it's been noted that one had a science pod; which lead to the speculation that she could have a 'warfare pod' and any other type of pod you wanted. The same would also be true of the Soverign Class ships; since she was 'built around the GCS.' The 'modular design' built into those ships made it a more efficient design. Since it was less costly to change the layout of a ship than to have an entirely different class to fill a specific role.
Here's what I've been thinking for the GCS and the Nebula: "Add a module slot. That slot defines it's layout to a degree. You can make the GCS or Neb a "Science Ship", "Heavy Cruiser"/"War type ship" or 'etc.' That could apply to many Fed ships since the Nebula class. With the Nebula Class it would be a 'special Pod' for the type of module; IE: A different looking pod for a tactical layout as opposed to a science layout. I'm pretty sure it's been noted that one had a science pod; which lead to the speculation that she could have a 'warfare pod' and any other type of pod you wanted. The same would also be true of the Soverign Class ships; since she was 'built around the GCS.' The 'modular design' built into those ships made it a more efficient design. Since it was less costly to change the layout of a ship than to have an entirely different class to fill a specific role.
I agree to almost everythign you said.
I like the paragraph about the pods.
I think a evolution of the Gal could have been NOT to add a third nacelle, but a pod.
Of course not as high positioned as the Gal -X third nacelle, but a bit lower and slightly a bit more to the rear, i think it would have been a much better addition for the Galaxy -X.
I like acronym GCS, im going to use that.
"...'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
Yeah but that's not canon. I have it too and I've read parts of it, but nothing in it is necessarily 'true' insofar as what is canonically established by the shows. The most the Enterprise has fired in one salvo was half a dozen in 'The Arsenal of Freedom'.
Hell even the TM itself said that some of the stuff might be carefully placed disinformation to give potential 'Threat forces' the wrong idea. Read the authors' introduction. They were obviously being tongue-in-cheek, and I don't have a problem with Rick Sternbach and Mike Okuda saying that the Enterprise could fire 10 photon torpedoes in one salvo - but if it could, why don't you think the Sovereign could as well?
The husnok fight is still valid, since only the husnok ship was an illusion, not the enterprise. They could have fired at a asteroid just as well. The point is the Galaxy Class CAN be deadly if the captain decides if it's neccessary.
Yeah I know it can cut loose when it wants to. The point I've tried to make though is that it often gets its TRIBBLE handed to it, in some truly bizarre ways. Like the 'Cause and Effect' example is pretty egregious.
Most of those incidents, where purely author driven. I think we should more focus on how the Galaxy Classes performed in the Dominion War, where none was destroyed btw.
Look if you want to agree on this then so will I: I think the Galaxy-class could stand to get a boost of some kind, probably in its boff seating arrangement more than any other area. I don't agree that it's better suited for battleship role, I think the multi-mission aspect of it instead lends itself well to the kind of boff seats the D'Deridex has.
I don't have any problem with the idea that the Galaxy could use some TLC in-game. I just don't necessarily agree that it should be a battleship per se.
(...) I don't have any problem with the idea that the Galaxy could use some TLC in-game. I just don't necessarily agree that it should be a battleship per se.
I do think so as well, but the overly simple gamedesign unfortunately dictates that everything not "tactical" is just obsolete. We had plenty of good suggestions in both Galaxy threads, yet most of it is so far out of reach that it'll just stay that - a unheard suggestion. I really like the module/pod suggestion, though.
I think we will never see the Gal's BOFF seats changed. Ever. Because it's a payship, people paid money for THIS ship - they cannot change that, it doesn't matter if it's useless now due to the "evolved" (lol) gamedesign. They can just add stuff to it - maybe those module slots could offer some boni to boost damage or add another ability like a universal console or something. Everything else would mean they had to completely overhaul how ships work - this would certainly be necessary but would essentially change the game fundamentally - that will not happen either, STO is final the way it is. I hope they'll proof me wrong at some point, though
Actually there's no reason why the Excelsior even after extensive refitting, should outclass both the Gal AND the Sovereign. All of those ships should actually be able to use the same BOFF seating, the sovereign should have one tac console more than the others and a higher agility (turnrate, innertia) but lesser crew while the Gal should have more crew, one more eng console, more hull but lesser agility. The Excelsior... well, shouldn't be up there, but for the sake of "it's just a big trek themed playground" should fit somewhere in between somehow.
^ 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
Yeah but that's not canon. I have it too and I've read parts of it, but nothing in it is necessarily 'true' insofar as what is canonically established by the shows. The most the Enterprise has fired in one salvo was half a dozen in 'The Arsenal of Freedom'.
Hell even the TM itself said that some of the stuff might be carefully placed disinformation to give potential 'Threat forces' the wrong idea. Read the authors' introduction. They were obviously being tongue-in-cheek, and I don't have a problem with Rick Sternbach and Mike Okuda saying that the Enterprise could fire 10 photon torpedoes in one salvo - but if it could, why don't you think the Sovereign could as well?
We never saw her doing that.
I think the Sovereign got more simple torpedo Launchers distrubuted everywhere on the hull, in order not to rely on two big single launcers (forward and backwards). Maybe the GCS torpedo Launchers where just too big or where too complicated to maintenance.
Yeah I know it can cut loose when it wants to. The point I've tried to make though is that it often gets its TRIBBLE handed to it, in some truly bizarre ways. Like the 'Cause and Effect' example is pretty egregious.
I think the producers of TNG didn't like the GCS very much, since they took every chance to blow her up, which ended in replacing her with a ship more to their taste.
BTW: the Sovereign would have been much more in danger in "cause and effect" since its nacelles are rediculusly big.
Look if you want to agree on this then so will I: I think the Galaxy-class could stand to get a boost of some kind, probably in its boff seating arrangement more than any other area. I don't agree that it's better suited for battleship role, I think the multi-mission aspect of it instead lends itself well to the kind of boff seats the D'Deridex has.
I don't have any problem with the idea that the Galaxy could use some TLC in-game. I just don't necessarily agree that it should be a battleship per se.
Maybe i have put it in the wrong way, my point was that the GCS can take the role of a battleship as well as a Science ship.
I think it's capability to servs as a frontline Battleship is highly underestimated by Cryptic, since they made it a ship that can only take damage, but not dish out some. (that's what annoys me most.)
Just because it doesn't look like a Military badass ship doesn't mean the GCS is a flying living room.
It's huge size allows that ship to be just as good in Exploration as in Warfare. Most likely it's harder to maintenance than a more specialized ship like the Sovereign, but their battle effectiveness is most likely the same IMO.
I VERY agree with you in giving the GCS a more Multi mission BOFF layout similar to the D'Deridex, althrough i would change the tac+universal ensing into a engineering Lt. or a universal Lt. in order to accent the Mulit mission nature of the GCS.
As i already said i think the D'Deridex console layout would be PERFECT for the GCS.
I will add this idea to my Mirror Exploration Cruiser thread.
"...'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
Thoughts on the nacelles.
Nacelle actually means engine. Originally they provided all of the speed of the ship. (Later retconned)
And we get lines about diverting power from them to other systems as though they contain that power in a usable manner. I know some might say, 'no they stopped feeding power to the one or both nacelles to reinforce some other system.' But if you are at sublight, why are you powering your warp system at all?
So either the nacelles provide power.
Store power.
Or using the bussard scoops, gather fuel.
Any one of those reason would be a good one to put a third nacelle on a ship that just went power hungry from added systems.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
Okay, so I just had my very first ship PvP match against a Chel Grett.
I felt great that I lasted five minutes between one of the kills and knocked it to 72% life.
That was the best damage I did and I healed over 1000000 points of damage that match.
How are carriers what everyone wants? This oversized Escort owned my poor Atrox. How could a cruiser that is not trying to be an escort handle this ship or a similar one?
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
Thoughts on the nacelles.
Nacelle actually means engine. Originally they provided all of the speed of the ship. (Later retconned)
And we get lines about diverting power from them to other systems as though they contain that power in a usable manner. I know some might say, 'no they stopped feeding power to the one or both nacelles to reinforce some other system.' But if you are at sublight, why are you powering your warp system at all?
So either the nacelles provide power.
Store power.
Or using the bussard scoops, gather fuel.
Any one of those reason would be a good one to put a third nacelle on a ship that just went power hungry from added systems.
I hate be the one saying that, but no.
Nacelles are more like tank tracks. Let me just quote the Star Trek Wiki:
A nacelle was an outboard engine housing structure on spacecraft. The nacelles in warp-capable shuttles and starships housed the warp coils of the vessels warp drive.
...
The warp coils in warp nacelles created a subspace displacement field, which "warped" the space around the vessel allowing it to "ride" on a spatial distortion, and travel faster than the speed of light.
...
Aboard most warp-capable vessels, warp coils were fed by plasma conduits from the warp core reactor assembly. Venting the plasma from the nacelles made warp drive impossible until the nacelles could be replenished. Nacelles were separated from the ship by large pylons, and usually housed a Bussard ramscoop at the fore end, primarily used for collecting hydrogen from space.
So you see the Nacelles don't store power just as the wheels of a car don't.
I just wanted to add this in case anyone actually cares about canon Trek.
"...'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
Okay, so I just had my very first ship PvP match against a Chel Grett.
I felt great that I lasted five minutes between one of the kills and knocked it to 72% life.
That was the best damage I did and I healed over 1000000 points of damage that match.
How are carriers what everyone wants? This oversized Escort owned my poor Atrox. How could a cruiser that is not trying to be an escort handle this ship or a similar one?
breen ship are not a big deal, even in my former beam build i could deal with them with my gal x.
you must known how to " hold your shield" because they can have a good instant firepower, but in the long run i found them rather squishy. wich should be logical considering their engi layout, but i would mostly said that their captain build them for damage and cc and that lead them to not use the sci slot for tanking.
however, i own one myself and i am building it to do no win scenario, and i have been able to see that it also got a good tanking potential.
it have the defense score of an escort, shield and hull of a cruiser, lt commander sci and commander tact for tanking ( attack pattern omega, delta, tss3 and 2 ).
so i think it really depend on how the guy build it, but the players that i have fight until now in breen ship didn't really impress me more than that.
Being a Trekkie for a long time - longer than most of you've been alive, and being a technical type person I loved the TNG Tech manual.
The Galaxy Class was the Capital ship of Starfleet/Federation in the TNG era. It had a modular design in that it's whole structure could be refitted for almost any purpose. Same with the Nebula Class, it too was modular in design - although not much cannon information is available about the POD for the Nebula - it has some interesting possibilities. The same goes for the Galaxy Class in the possibilities for it's layout. One thing that caught my eye when I first read the TNG Tech Manual was that you could theoretically fly her with a PADD!!!
I also remember from some where that she had many modular compartments that where not 'installed' when she had her maiden voyage. There in is the ability to configure the GCS in almost any way you want or need.
As for the GCS (Galaxy Class Starship) being a carrier - I extremely doubt it because of her role "Explorer." Not to mention the Akira.
As for the current "Dreadnought" GCS... Too far fetched. There's no need for a 3rd nacelle. The nacelle's provide a subspace bubble, it was found early on that even having 4 nacelle's was not worth the power necessary to push the ship only a little bit deeper into subspace; therefore a 3rd nacelle is illogical. For a "Dreadnought" you would want less crew and a much larger warp core.
Now - if we go with the current definition of "Capital Ship" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_ship
"The capital ships of a navy are its most important warships; they generally possess the heaviest firepower and armor and are traditionally much larger than other naval vessels. A capital ship is generally a leading or a primary ship in a naval fleet."
Now if you add "Capital Ship" with "Explorer" that fits the Enterprise D to a "T." As shown in the series. What we didn't get to see is the versatility of the Big D.
Here's what I've been thinking for the GCS and the Nebula: "Add a module slot. That slot defines it's layout to a degree. You can make the GCS or Neb a "Science Ship", "Heavy Cruiser"/"War type ship" or 'etc.' That could apply to many Fed ships since the Nebula class. With the Nebula Class it would be a 'special Pod' for the type of module; IE: A different looking pod for a tactical layout as opposed to a science layout. I'm pretty sure it's been noted that one had a science pod; which lead to the speculation that she could have a 'warfare pod' and any other type of pod you wanted. The same would also be true of the Soverign Class ships; since she was 'built around the GCS.' The 'modular design' built into those ships made it a more efficient design. Since it was less costly to change the layout of a ship than to have an entirely different class to fill a specific role.
How about 1 ADDITIONAL universal console SLOT? Change the Lt. Tactical to Lt. Universal. Is that modular enough?
Add a Picard-maneuver (Warp-jump) console. (Since Riker has one, Picard should get one too!)
The 3rd Nacelle is the signature of the ship, that really should not change.
It would then essentially BE a 3-pack in one ship. Offer it at 4500Z new, 1500Z to retrofit (existing owners.)
Star Trek Battles Channel - Play Star Trek like they did in the series!Avatar: pinterest-com/pin/14003448816884219Are you sure it isn't time for a "colorful metaphor"? --Spock in 'The Voyage Home' SCE ADVISORY NOTICE: Improper Impulse Engine maintenance can result in REAR THRUSTER LEAKAGE. ALWAYS have your work inspected by another qualified officer.
@sirokk
Not sure, although it could be implemented and would probably be the most non-intense mod to make - I'd have to get one, run around etc. I was thinking that they would add a modular slot and the mod would define the layout. IE: If you wanted a 'battle cruiser' then it would reconfigure the BOff layout, etc. The same for a Science Cruiser, etc. I'd say lower it to 3k for the ship, then about 800 to 1k for a mod. Although that should be for most Fed Ships since the Nebula. Just a side note - as we seen with Klingon ships - they're built for war and nothing else mattered, not comfort, not anything!! lol
Doing a modification like this, could bring in more revenue to PW, etc. It could breath more life into the Fed ships. And it could make it much more enjoyable to the player base.
One other - of the many ideas I've had is to implement an 'invasion' in the common areas such as ESD <VBG> In Dungeons & Dragons they did that for us! It was a ball! They had special loot drops and such... The mobs where unreal!
How about 1 ADDITIONAL universal console SLOT? Change the Lt. Tactical to Lt. Universal. Is that modular enough?
It would have to be something other than the Tactical officer that was changed.
Otherwise it changes nothing because that "universal" will always be used for Tactical.
Take a Lt. Engineering and make it Universal and that would be much more useful to GCS pilots and lovers.
Add a Picard-maneuver (Warp-jump) console. (Since Riker has one, Picard should get one too!)
Buy the Sub Space jump console and hey look the Picard maneuver.
I was once DKnight1000, apparently I had taken my own name so now I'm DKnight0001. If I ask you a question it is not an insult but a genuine attempt to understand why. When I insult you I won't be discreet about it, I will be precise and to the point stupid.
I'm a bit confused, do you guys talk about the Galaxy -X or the retrofit?
"...'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
As for the current "Dreadnought" GCS... Too far fetched. There's no need for a 3rd nacelle. The nacelle's provide a subspace bubble, it was found early on that even having 4 nacelle's was not worth the power necessary to push the ship only a little bit deeper into subspace; therefore a 3rd nacelle is illogical. For a "Dreadnought" you would want less crew and a much larger warp core.
\
the 3rd nacelle pylon is what provides the space for a much larger warp core in the dreadnaught variant. and the 3rd nacelle also provides additional redundancy which is beneficial in a warship design.
A good solution for the fleet galaxy would be a minor tweak of making all the engi ensi slots run on separate cool downs. It's not an op rework but also makes the galaxy unique. Thoughts?
A good solution for the fleet galaxy would be a minor tweak of making all the engi ensi slots run on separate cool downs. It's not an op rework but also makes the galaxy unique. Thoughts?
Considering it would be a drastic change to the game engine, and since you only have EPtX & Eng Team not that useful. People are so used to not having Eng team and Aux2bat cruisers don't need more than 1 EPtS & EPtW anyway.
The simple fix is make the Ensign universal, if any ship is deserving of a Universal Ensign it's the Galaxy. And I think it deserves far more.
Your C-store cruiser choices are Assault R or Excelsior both of these are far better than a Galaxy Retrofit.
I was once DKnight1000, apparently I had taken my own name so now I'm DKnight0001. If I ask you a question it is not an insult but a genuine attempt to understand why. When I insult you I won't be discreet about it, I will be precise and to the point stupid.
While I agree the galaxy could use a universal slot, the ambassador now has a universal slot. Putting a universal slot on the galaxy now would make them similar. It would also make the galaxy just like all the other cruisers, universal slot to go either sci or tact for more dps. With separate cool downs on engi ensi slots you would be able to further customize the tanking experience of the galaxy which is supposed to be a tank. Engi ensi slots by themselves are not that powerful but used in combination you could go triple et1, or double epts and one epta or any other combination. That way you keep the galaxy as a tank which it was meant to be, you make it unique being the only ship with this ability. I understand that dps is currently king but if you dps go escort. Galaxy is a tank deal with it. The only beef if the triple engi ensi which share cool downs. Eliminate the cool downs and you would have a competitive tank.
The Ambassador may have a Universal Lieutenant, but it also has a Sci Lt.Com which makes it different from other Fed Cruisers.
Klingon side, the Fleet Negh'var got a Universal Ensign and it shared the same BOFF layout as the Galaxy, and in theory that means the Fleet K'Tinga and Negh'var can have the same BOFF layout.
I'm saying it would be easier to change the BOFF layout than to rewrite the game so the Ensign Engineer abilities don't create a global cooldown.
I was once DKnight1000, apparently I had taken my own name so now I'm DKnight0001. If I ask you a question it is not an insult but a genuine attempt to understand why. When I insult you I won't be discreet about it, I will be precise and to the point stupid.
Tweaking the Galaxy is not the answer to our problems. Certainly the Galaxy needs help, possibly more then any other end game ship, but other ships need help too. We can fix things for those ships and the galaxy as well without changing anything about any ship.
Shield balancing being tied solely to tactical team robs the galaxy of its two offensive ability slots. Now if it could use a couple of ensign engineering slots to balance its shields it would be a perfectly viable and fun ship.
Allow me to quote a post I made in a recent thread about shield balancing.
Adding shield rebalancing to something other then tactical team would be the solution to many of STO's balance problems.
Shield rebalancing is STO's principle must have ability. Yes you can fly without tactical team. Yes you can do well without tactical team, but 99 times out of 100 you could do better with tactical team, and the reason for that is shield rebalancing.
Now this unbalances STO in a number of ways. Principally it gives a big advantage to escorts. Many ships that are not escorts have slots for just two tactical abilities. But instead of using these slots offensively, as tactical ability slots are principally intended, they will most often use them for tactical team. Instead of having just two conventional offensive abilities they have no conventional offensive abilities.
Escorts have more tactical ability slots then they need even after using two on tactical team. If they use their science and engineering ability slots for utility or non-conventional offence (not saying they should) they still have the single best tanking ability in the game running for 10 seconds out of every 15.
My solution is to re-work the team abilities. Remove the healing component from science and engineering teams, add shield balancing instead. Balancing shields should be something all three classes have reason to know, engineers work with the shield generators directly, scientists develop and modify shielding for specialized probes and sample containment and tactical officers are the most common end user so it makes sense that all would know how to rebalance shields.
Now as it stands tactical team also buffs a couple of the tactical captain skills and all three types of team remove different types of debuff. Science and engineering teams should also buff their respective captain skills and tactical team should buff more then just two.
Now instead of choosing to run with two levels of tactical team only your more likely to chose which ever team buffs the abilities your ship has the most slots for, or which removes the debuffs you find most annoying.
Effects of this change:
Older science ships and cruisers that have three officers of the same type become a lot less useless because their lt.Tactical officer can now be used offensively and their abundance of ensign engineer/science abilities is no longer an 'Over' abundance.
The three ship types are more likely to be better at fulfilling their defined roles due to the skill buffs.
Debuffs that are currently useless because every one runs with tactical team may become more usfull because not every one will run with tactical team. (boarding team might be a little less of a joke)
Debuffs that are horribly nerfed as a result of no one having science or engineering team to fix them can be buffed up a bit as your chances of having a fix are increased.
The only down side is that people who don't know about transfer shield strength, hazard emitters, auxiliary power to structural integrity field, emergency power to shields and extend shields will wine that they wont be able to tank any more... The irony being that they think they are tanking now... silly souls.
Galaxy needs a tac variant with a hangar bay. It had way more shuttle bays than most ships in Star Trek.
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
Galaxy needs a tac variant with a hangar bay. It had way more shuttle bays than most ships in Star Trek.
Not everything in this game neefs a Hanger bay.
I was once DKnight1000, apparently I had taken my own name so now I'm DKnight0001. If I ask you a question it is not an insult but a genuine attempt to understand why. When I insult you I won't be discreet about it, I will be precise and to the point stupid.
While I agree the galaxy could use a universal slot, the ambassador now has a universal slot. Putting a universal slot on the galaxy now would make them similar. It would also make the galaxy just like all the other cruisers, universal slot to go either sci or tact for more dps.
Yeah, why remove it's uniqueness as the worst ship in the game? lol.
With separate cool downs on engi ensi slots you would be able to further customize the tanking experience of the galaxy which is supposed to be a tank. Engi ensi slots by themselves are not that powerful but used in combination you could go triple et1, or double epts and one epta or any other combination. That way you keep the galaxy as a tank which it was meant to be, you make it unique being the only ship with this ability. I understand that dps is currently king but if you dps go escort. Galaxy is a tank deal with it. The only beef if the triple engi ensi which share cool downs. Eliminate the cool downs and you would have a competitive tank.
That tanking "experience" is (thankfully) not needed in STO anymore. Giving it the least firepower (one Lt tac BOFF and just two tac consoles) of all ships is just an insult for every GCS and TNG fan.
The problem is that the GCS isn't meant to be a Tank/healer ship in the first place. Cryptic made it that way, completely ignoring what that ship is all about. The Galaxy -R should get a similar BOFF layout as the D'Deridex -R just a bit modified (combine tac and uni esign into a uni or engineering Lt.) to emphasis its versatility as it should be in the first place.
"...'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
Comments
Being a Trekkie for a long time - longer than most of you've been alive, and being a technical type person I loved the TNG Tech manual.
The Galaxy Class was the Capital ship of Starfleet/Federation in the TNG era. It had a modular design in that it's whole structure could be refitted for almost any purpose. Same with the Nebula Class, it too was modular in design - although not much cannon information is available about the POD for the Nebula - it has some interesting possibilities. The same goes for the Galaxy Class in the possibilities for it's layout. One thing that caught my eye when I first read the TNG Tech Manual was that you could theoretically fly her with a PADD!!!
I also remember from some where that she had many modular compartments that where not 'installed' when she had her maiden voyage. There in is the ability to configure the GCS in almost any way you want or need.
As for the GCS (Galaxy Class Starship) being a carrier - I extremely doubt it because of her role "Explorer." Not to mention the Akira.
As for the current "Dreadnought" GCS... Too far fetched. There's no need for a 3rd nacelle. The nacelle's provide a subspace bubble, it was found early on that even having 4 nacelle's was not worth the power necessary to push the ship only a little bit deeper into subspace; therefore a 3rd nacelle is illogical. For a "Dreadnought" you would want less crew and a much larger warp core.
Now - if we go with the current definition of "Capital Ship"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_ship
"The capital ships of a navy are its most important warships; they generally possess the heaviest firepower and armor and are traditionally much larger than other naval vessels. A capital ship is generally a leading or a primary ship in a naval fleet."
Now if you add "Capital Ship" with "Explorer" that fits the Enterprise D to a "T." As shown in the series. What we didn't get to see is the versatility of the Big D.
Here's what I've been thinking for the GCS and the Nebula: "Add a module slot. That slot defines it's layout to a degree. You can make the GCS or Neb a "Science Ship", "Heavy Cruiser"/"War type ship" or 'etc.' That could apply to many Fed ships since the Nebula class. With the Nebula Class it would be a 'special Pod' for the type of module; IE: A different looking pod for a tactical layout as opposed to a science layout. I'm pretty sure it's been noted that one had a science pod; which lead to the speculation that she could have a 'warfare pod' and any other type of pod you wanted. The same would also be true of the Soverign Class ships; since she was 'built around the GCS.' The 'modular design' built into those ships made it a more efficient design. Since it was less costly to change the layout of a ship than to have an entirely different class to fill a specific role.
I agree to almost everythign you said.
I like the paragraph about the pods.
I think a evolution of the Gal could have been NOT to add a third nacelle, but a pod.
Of course not as high positioned as the Gal -X third nacelle, but a bit lower and slightly a bit more to the rear, i think it would have been a much better addition for the Galaxy -X.
I like acronym GCS, im going to use that.
Hell even the TM itself said that some of the stuff might be carefully placed disinformation to give potential 'Threat forces' the wrong idea. Read the authors' introduction. They were obviously being tongue-in-cheek, and I don't have a problem with Rick Sternbach and Mike Okuda saying that the Enterprise could fire 10 photon torpedoes in one salvo - but if it could, why don't you think the Sovereign could as well?
Yeah I know it can cut loose when it wants to. The point I've tried to make though is that it often gets its TRIBBLE handed to it, in some truly bizarre ways. Like the 'Cause and Effect' example is pretty egregious.
Look if you want to agree on this then so will I: I think the Galaxy-class could stand to get a boost of some kind, probably in its boff seating arrangement more than any other area. I don't agree that it's better suited for battleship role, I think the multi-mission aspect of it instead lends itself well to the kind of boff seats the D'Deridex has.
I don't have any problem with the idea that the Galaxy could use some TLC in-game. I just don't necessarily agree that it should be a battleship per se.
I do think so as well, but the overly simple gamedesign unfortunately dictates that everything not "tactical" is just obsolete. We had plenty of good suggestions in both Galaxy threads, yet most of it is so far out of reach that it'll just stay that - a unheard suggestion. I really like the module/pod suggestion, though.
I think we will never see the Gal's BOFF seats changed. Ever. Because it's a payship, people paid money for THIS ship - they cannot change that, it doesn't matter if it's useless now due to the "evolved" (lol) gamedesign. They can just add stuff to it - maybe those module slots could offer some boni to boost damage or add another ability like a universal console or something. Everything else would mean they had to completely overhaul how ships work - this would certainly be necessary but would essentially change the game fundamentally - that will not happen either, STO is final the way it is. I hope they'll proof me wrong at some point, though
Actually there's no reason why the Excelsior even after extensive refitting, should outclass both the Gal AND the Sovereign. All of those ships should actually be able to use the same BOFF seating, the sovereign should have one tac console more than the others and a higher agility (turnrate, innertia) but lesser crew while the Gal should have more crew, one more eng console, more hull but lesser agility. The Excelsior... well, shouldn't be up there, but for the sake of "it's just a big trek themed playground" should fit somewhere in between somehow.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
I think the Sovereign got more simple torpedo Launchers distrubuted everywhere on the hull, in order not to rely on two big single launcers (forward and backwards). Maybe the GCS torpedo Launchers where just too big or where too complicated to maintenance.
I think the producers of TNG didn't like the GCS very much, since they took every chance to blow her up, which ended in replacing her with a ship more to their taste.
BTW: the Sovereign would have been much more in danger in "cause and effect" since its nacelles are rediculusly big.
Maybe i have put it in the wrong way, my point was that the GCS can take the role of a battleship as well as a Science ship.
I think it's capability to servs as a frontline Battleship is highly underestimated by Cryptic, since they made it a ship that can only take damage, but not dish out some. (that's what annoys me most.)
Just because it doesn't look like a Military badass ship doesn't mean the GCS is a flying living room.
It's huge size allows that ship to be just as good in Exploration as in Warfare. Most likely it's harder to maintenance than a more specialized ship like the Sovereign, but their battle effectiveness is most likely the same IMO.
I VERY agree with you in giving the GCS a more Multi mission BOFF layout similar to the D'Deridex, althrough i would change the tac+universal ensing into a engineering Lt. or a universal Lt. in order to accent the Mulit mission nature of the GCS.
As i already said i think the D'Deridex console layout would be PERFECT for the GCS.
I will add this idea to my Mirror Exploration Cruiser thread.
Nacelle actually means engine. Originally they provided all of the speed of the ship. (Later retconned)
And we get lines about diverting power from them to other systems as though they contain that power in a usable manner. I know some might say, 'no they stopped feeding power to the one or both nacelles to reinforce some other system.' But if you are at sublight, why are you powering your warp system at all?
So either the nacelles provide power.
Store power.
Or using the bussard scoops, gather fuel.
Any one of those reason would be a good one to put a third nacelle on a ship that just went power hungry from added systems.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
I felt great that I lasted five minutes between one of the kills and knocked it to 72% life.
That was the best damage I did and I healed over 1000000 points of damage that match.
How are carriers what everyone wants? This oversized Escort owned my poor Atrox. How could a cruiser that is not trying to be an escort handle this ship or a similar one?
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
Nacelles are more like tank tracks. Let me just quote the Star Trek Wiki: So you see the Nacelles don't store power just as the wheels of a car don't.
Warp Core -> Plasma Conduit -> Warp Coils (Nacelles) -> Warp Field
I just wanted to add this in case anyone actually cares about canon Trek.
breen ship are not a big deal, even in my former beam build i could deal with them with my gal x.
you must known how to " hold your shield" because they can have a good instant firepower, but in the long run i found them rather squishy. wich should be logical considering their engi layout, but i would mostly said that their captain build them for damage and cc and that lead them to not use the sci slot for tanking.
however, i own one myself and i am building it to do no win scenario, and i have been able to see that it also got a good tanking potential.
it have the defense score of an escort, shield and hull of a cruiser, lt commander sci and commander tact for tanking ( attack pattern omega, delta, tss3 and 2 ).
so i think it really depend on how the guy build it, but the players that i have fight until now in breen ship didn't really impress me more than that.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
How about 1 ADDITIONAL universal console SLOT? Change the Lt. Tactical to Lt. Universal. Is that modular enough?
Add a Picard-maneuver (Warp-jump) console. (Since Riker has one, Picard should get one too!)
The 3rd Nacelle is the signature of the ship, that really should not change.
It would then essentially BE a 3-pack in one ship. Offer it at 4500Z new, 1500Z to retrofit (existing owners.)
SCE ADVISORY NOTICE: Improper Impulse Engine maintenance can result in REAR THRUSTER LEAKAGE. ALWAYS have your work inspected by another qualified officer.
Not sure, although it could be implemented and would probably be the most non-intense mod to make - I'd have to get one, run around etc. I was thinking that they would add a modular slot and the mod would define the layout. IE: If you wanted a 'battle cruiser' then it would reconfigure the BOff layout, etc. The same for a Science Cruiser, etc. I'd say lower it to 3k for the ship, then about 800 to 1k for a mod. Although that should be for most Fed Ships since the Nebula. Just a side note - as we seen with Klingon ships - they're built for war and nothing else mattered, not comfort, not anything!! lol
Doing a modification like this, could bring in more revenue to PW, etc. It could breath more life into the Fed ships. And it could make it much more enjoyable to the player base.
One other - of the many ideas I've had is to implement an 'invasion' in the common areas such as ESD <VBG> In Dungeons & Dragons they did that for us! It was a ball! They had special loot drops and such... The mobs where unreal!
It would have to be something other than the Tactical officer that was changed.
Otherwise it changes nothing because that "universal" will always be used for Tactical.
Take a Lt. Engineering and make it Universal and that would be much more useful to GCS pilots and lovers.
Buy the Sub Space jump console and hey look the Picard maneuver.
If I ask you a question it is not an insult but a genuine attempt to understand why.
When I insult you I won't be discreet about it, I will be precise and to the point stupid.
the 3rd nacelle pylon is what provides the space for a much larger warp core in the dreadnaught variant. and the 3rd nacelle also provides additional redundancy which is beneficial in a warship design.
Considering it would be a drastic change to the game engine, and since you only have EPtX & Eng Team not that useful. People are so used to not having Eng team and Aux2bat cruisers don't need more than 1 EPtS & EPtW anyway.
The simple fix is make the Ensign universal, if any ship is deserving of a Universal Ensign it's the Galaxy. And I think it deserves far more.
Your C-store cruiser choices are Assault R or Excelsior both of these are far better than a Galaxy Retrofit.
If I ask you a question it is not an insult but a genuine attempt to understand why.
When I insult you I won't be discreet about it, I will be precise and to the point stupid.
Klingon side, the Fleet Negh'var got a Universal Ensign and it shared the same BOFF layout as the Galaxy, and in theory that means the Fleet K'Tinga and Negh'var can have the same BOFF layout.
I'm saying it would be easier to change the BOFF layout than to rewrite the game so the Ensign Engineer abilities don't create a global cooldown.
If I ask you a question it is not an insult but a genuine attempt to understand why.
When I insult you I won't be discreet about it, I will be precise and to the point stupid.
Shield balancing being tied solely to tactical team robs the galaxy of its two offensive ability slots. Now if it could use a couple of ensign engineering slots to balance its shields it would be a perfectly viable and fun ship.
Allow me to quote a post I made in a recent thread about shield balancing.
- Judge Aaron Satie
That would be likely a mirror variant
Not everything in this game neefs a Hanger bay.
If I ask you a question it is not an insult but a genuine attempt to understand why.
When I insult you I won't be discreet about it, I will be precise and to the point stupid.
Incorrect.
Everything NEEDS a hanger bay.
Even the shuttles themselves.
That tanking "experience" is (thankfully) not needed in STO anymore. Giving it the least firepower (one Lt tac BOFF and just two tac consoles) of all ships is just an insult for every GCS and TNG fan.
The problem is that the GCS isn't meant to be a Tank/healer ship in the first place. Cryptic made it that way, completely ignoring what that ship is all about. The Galaxy -R should get a similar BOFF layout as the D'Deridex -R just a bit modified (combine tac and uni esign into a uni or engineering Lt.) to emphasis its versatility as it should be in the first place.