I gotta agree...I'm sorry but I think it's silly that people just want it to basically look like a Galaxy class and the only thing they're willing to even keep you can't even see from behind your ship.
I'm forced to agree with both yourself and Markhawkman in this thread. If you want to fly a ship that looks for all intents and purpose like a regular Galaxy class, then the simple option would be to go fly a regular Galaxy class. And before anyone mentions the spinal lance, especially from the T5/U version, well it was never that good in the first place even if you spec'd into phasers to buff the hell out of it. The logical argument here would have been to have the position of the firing chamber adjusted so it, doesn't sit off center like it currently does. Or more to the point if you dont like the design, then simply don't purchase it.
The phaser lance never really made a lick of sense to begin with, TBH. You're putting a fixed-position weapon emplacement on a ship that can't maneuver well enough to use it as anything more than a siege weapon. Beam arrays are omnidirectional.
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
I think 3 nacelles look better than 2. If they give Galaxy-X owners the option to take one nacelle off, they should give everyone else the option to add a 3rd nacelle to other Fed ships.
I want a Defiant with a third nacelle sticking out somewhere. Just because.
The Galaxy-X "canon-izes" the Franz Joseph 3 nacelle "Dreadnought" configuration from his original Tech Manual - the entire reason Roddenberry wrote the "nacelles must be in pairs" rule was to invalidate the designs of the Tech Manual because of issues over royalties...
So those "extra cannon mounts" sticking up over the bridge? Yeah, that can be an option to pop-off. 3rd Nacelle? That's what makes her the "Dreadnought evolution" of the Galaxy as FJ's "Federation Class" was the evolution of the TOS Connie...
Now, and to coin a bit of "design work" from the guys over at ADB (makers of Starfleet Command) - if the art department can slap together a nacelle variant that has a pair of pylon / nacelle sets "stick out" from the general vicinity of the current 3rd nacelle (look up ADB Federation Battleships for the look I speak of) then go for it, that would quiet down some of these "anything but a third nacelle" types...
Detecting big-time "anti-old-school" bias here. NX? Lobi. TOS/TMP Connie? Super-promotion-box. (aka the two hardest ways to get ships) Excelsior & all 3 TNG "big hero" ships? C-Store. Please Equalize...
To rob a line: [quote: Mariemaia Kushrenada] Forum Posting is much like an endless waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever. However, opinions will change upon the reading of my post.[/quote]
I'll chime in on 'canon' and design. My interview with Thomas Marrone on Starship design is Star Trek Online touches on this issue to some degree.
The design guidelines for starships in Star Trek, the number of nacelles, positions of the nacelles etc, have never been formally fully explained in the series. What most hard core fans consider canon actually came from the first Star Trek technical manual, and these were re-'established' by Gene Roddenberry and Andres Probert during season I of TNG. Not all of those designs expressed in the technical manual are considered canon - the most contentious being the 3rd nacelle of the 'dreadnought'. Subsequent series, new creative talent, and various ship designers have all deviated from that. (A full link to the contentious guidelines will be in text weeks blog post).
Unfortunately 'THAT' is the problem - inconsistencies that fans take umbrage with. But if it's on film, it's gospel.
Fan-produced design manuals have taken all of these elements into consideration. FASA did the same for the board and role-playing versions.
What we have today is an amalgamation of all of these issues, driven in part by the lack of a ship style-guide. Designers in trek - Mike Okuda for example - sought to look at everything they could during TNG. On Mike's desk for example in the TNG Behind the scenes documentary is a stack of fan-made design books.
In summary:
1.) Nacelles always come in 'pairs', except when they don't. The third nacelle is often 2 sets of warp coils in the same housing. Perhaps one of the geekier hidden tidbits on the Star Trek reboot was an explanation on a promotional site why some ships have a single nacelle, which itself was a cover-our-geek-asses moment after a lengthy debate on the trekmovie.com comments section with Rob Orci. So technically, a third or 'single' nacelle has what it takes to sustain a warp field.
2.) The bussard collectors must always be visible from a front view of the ship, except when they don't. In TOS and TNG timelines, most of the nacelles are visible. This likely had more to do with branding than engineering, but if you prefer a more 'technical' excuse, it was necessary due to the limits of bussard technologies. By the time of VOY new ship designs didn't require the nacelles to be visible at all times, becasue of 'science'.
3.) The winglets, lance, and other bits and bobs. These were all aesthetic choices, but because they exist onscreen, they too are considered canon. How/Why the Ent-D in the alternate timeline appeared to have as much maneuverability as an escort to be able to shoot at multiple angles from a fixed-position supercannon is hard to comprehend for us purists, but at the time it was aired - it was 'cool' and 'awesome'.
So everything is fine, nothing is wrong, except when it isn't. Welcome to Fandom.
I gotta agree...I'm sorry but I think it's silly that people just want it to basically look like a Galaxy class and the only thing they're willing to even keep you can't even see from behind your ship.
I'm forced to agree with both yourself and Markhawkman in this thread. If you want to fly a ship that looks for all intents and purpose like a regular Galaxy class, then the simple option would be to go fly a regular Galaxy class. And before anyone mentions the spinal lance, especially from the T5/U version, well it was never that good in the first place even if you spec'd into phasers to buff the hell out of it. The logical argument here would have been to have the position of the firing chamber adjusted so it, doesn't sit off center like it currently does. Or more to the point if you dont like the design, then simply don't purchase it.
Yeah...I mean no one really uses cannons these days...especially on a ship that is pretty darn close to the lowest turn rate in the game...the lance isn't very impressive and the T6 Galaxy has a lot more to offer than just a Lt Tac and overloaded on Engineering slots.
Is no real valid reason I can see anymore why someone would want to turn the Gal-X into a Galaxy...since they added the T6 Galaxy it has a much better build than the T5...only thing the T6 Gal-X I can see having is a 4th Tac console...you lose some DPS yes but the T6 Galaxy also has a 3rd Sci console...so you can place another Embassy console on it to make up for that lost Tac console.
Can't have a honest conversation because of a white knight with power
Hast thou not gone against sincerity
Hast thou not felt ashamed of thy words and deeds
Hast thou not lacked vigor
Hast thou exerted all possible efforts
Hast thou not become slothful
The Galaxy X in the All Good Things timeline would have been a terror weapon, akin in some ways to the deathstar from Star Wars. In our STO timeline it is sufficiently neutered to not be quite so terrifying.
Think on what we see it do. It fires two shots from a spinal lance cannon, and tears three fully armed and shielded BOP into space debris. Normal phasers of the time period are shown to be matched to the shields of the time, so this is a massive upswing in power. If such a weapon were used on a planet, it would be devastating if not catastrophic. Simply the existence of such a weapon, cloaked and somewhere in the neutral zone is likely enough to keep the Klingon Aggression from becoming all out war.
I gotta agree...I'm sorry but I think it's silly that people just want it to basically look like a Galaxy class and the only thing they're willing to even keep you can't even see from behind your ship.
I'm forced to agree with both yourself and Markhawkman in this thread. If you want to fly a ship that looks for all intents and purpose like a regular Galaxy class, then the simple option would be to go fly a regular Galaxy class. And before anyone mentions the spinal lance, especially from the T5/U version, well it was never that good in the first place even if you spec'd into phasers to buff the hell out of it. The logical argument here would have been to have the position of the firing chamber adjusted so it, doesn't sit off center like it currently does. Or more to the point if you dont like the design, then simply don't purchase it.
The phaser lance never really made a lick of sense to begin with, TBH. You're putting a fixed-position weapon emplacement on a ship that can't maneuver well enough to use it as anything more than a siege weapon. Beam arrays are omnidirectional.
It would make sense if it could maneuver like it did in that episode, when it was spinning around like a Defiant.
This comment of yours makes zero sense. Take the Excelsior. You can remove the extra impulse engines, the nacelle fins and the chunky things that stick out either side of the deflector. You can even mix and match them.
Did CBS have to be consulted for that? Do you need me to get some crayons to explain this basic point to you, or will you just eat them if I try?
More than a bit hypocritical considering your response... such a comparison doesn't hold at all.
The old style Excelsior was a proper canon design, as was the refit, which is why both are available in-game.
A fin/third nacelle/whatever-less Galaxy-X is in no way canon. Only one form of this ship existed in canon, and it is that form that Cryptic have faithfully recreated in-game.
It still took 7 shots from the Lance to disintegrate that Neghvar in AGT AND Riker was protecting a lowly Medical ship that couldn't defend itself.
Then the Ent-DX still took damage from the other Neghvar and had to retreat without cloak.
Were we watching the same episode. The Ent-d destroyed 1 Klingon ship and the other disengaged as stated in dialogue. Yes the cloak was damaged but they withdrew from hostile territory as victors in that battle.
Andrew Probert sounds like a bitter old man bc his creation was changed without his opinion or consent. He didn't seem to understand it was an alternate future timeline where there was more conflict.
Roddenberry has been quoted saying what happens on screen is canon! And many alien ships don't follow the 2 nacelle rule. Even during TOS and early TNG while Roddenberry was in charge.
There were other canon Starfleet vessels that had single and triple nacelles, as well.
It would make sense if it could maneuver like it did in that episode, when it was spinning around like a Defiant.
The Gal-X didn't really maneuver much, at least not on screen. It came on an orthogonal course to the Klingon ships, but it didn't display any fancy maneuvering - it just had an unusual angle.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
It would make sense if it could maneuver like it did in that episode, when it was spinning around like a Defiant.
The Gal-X didn't really maneuver much, at least not on screen. It came on an orthogonal course to the Klingon ships, but it didn't display any fancy maneuvering - it just had an unusual angle.
It depends on how much of this you interpret to be the camera moving and how much you interpret to be the ship.
The one thing I think you can say is that the Galaxy-X in the episode is almost always moving and which seems to outflank and maneuver ships around it.
I believe it's also one of the few scenes where the Enterprise is actually involved in a fight with multiple opponents and a ship it has to protect. I wouldn't interpret too much into it.
The Galaxy Class can maneuver if necessary: http://youtu.be/Ywyk5qvTfpc?t=6m42s http://youtu.be/i55zheNcgLY?t=2m58s
But with 80s practical effects, there was only so much you can do...
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
I believe it's also one of the few scenes where the Enterprise is actually involved in a fight with multiple opponents and a ship it has to protect. I wouldn't interpret too much into it.
The Galaxy Class can maneuver if necessary: http://youtu.be/Ywyk5qvTfpc?t=6m42s http://youtu.be/i55zheNcgLY?t=2m58s
But with 80s practical effects, there was only so much you can do...
LMAO! Really? The thing with the effects on the series is the time frame given to produce an episode not with what could be done with Practical effects. It was the driving factor plus when TNG aired it was done to the old broadcast standards which hid a boat load of flaws and shortcuts and things did not have to be highly detailed for the small screen. Ok heres a great example of the difference shooting time makes... Both are TNG you have "Sub Rosa" on the small screen at the same time "TNG Generations" was being filmed both used practical effects BUT the difference was the schedule for shooting which plays a major part in how the efx look. Sub Rosa was shot over 18 days this includes efx shots and principle shots. Generations took nearly a year to film and edit. And the set peices while some where used in the TV series had to be reworked with a higher fit and finish then when they were on the small screen as in the far higher resolution of 70mm film stock every tiny thing would show.
Did you actually listen to him? The first thing he said was that it's got a "cannon," clearly, if you're going by the gospel of Probert, you would have to lose the lance as well.
So. . . you want a T-6 Galaxy (-X) . . . which we already have . . . ? So. . . . ???
I get it Taco, I really do. It has to look like a Galaxy Dreadnought which means it has to have a 3rd nacelle and extraneous parts that do nothing. I'll change my opinion on the 3rd nacelle. It has to be there because it's an iconic part of the ship. But can we have the option to remove the nacelle pylon fins and cannon mounts on the saucer and torpedo mounts that do nothing?
The saucer cannons actually are functional weapons hardpoints in the game, you know. Equip dual cannons or beams, and they fire from those things.
I mean, basically, every part you are asking to be removed is really only a part that is associated with the Galaxy-X. It is literally supposed to look like an overloaded Galaxy class. It doesn't particularly matter if they "do nothing" in your regard; they are part of the codified look of the thing.
Again: you're probably gonna have to lighten up a bit if you truly feel like captaining such a vessel. It's really starting to sound as if you want to fly a ship that has the stats of the Gal-X, but literally almost nothing of the ship looks-wise, and that is basically just a regular Galaxy class.
It's really not so bad of a look once you are used to it. The vessel is cheesy as hell, and frankly, it is supposed to be.
Ugh...that TrekYards vid was painful to watch...and guys...STFU and let the GUEST TALK...no one cares about YOUR opinions ffs...respect your guests and quit talking over him ffs.
That said, Probert had some valid points, but I disagree with his opinion that a Starship shouldn't have a cannon or that they cant have 3 nacelles. He seems kinda crotchety, but I don't blame him: if I had to be interviewed by these 2 yahoos I'd be bitter as well.
To me I love the 3rd nacelle and bridge mounts. As its part of the actual ship. To me the ship shows as one not to be messed with. And makes an excellent Command ship of any Fleet.
I'm like the others, you want a regular Galaxy. Go fly one, and leave the Dread alone. I still have one character slot left, I even had thoughts of making it a future Galaxy Dread Capt.
I don't get it. I never hear complaints about ships with four nacelles. I never hear complaints about ships with one nacelle (the Kelvin in ST 2009 is the best known example, but I'm pretty sure I recall having seen a single-nacelled ship or two in some scene with an armada of Starfleet vessels in some episode or movie, just can't remember the specifics). What's with the hysteria over three nacelles? I always liked the three nacelles myself. I know about Roddenberry's "rule number one," but I think it's nonsense based on a purely aesthetic preference, while my own aesthetic preference is in favor of odd-numbered nacelles. And like someone already pointed out, Tholian ships have what appear to be three nacelles. Could the Galaxy-X nacelle placement be improved? Sure, but the answer is not scrapping the third nacelle entirely.
Comments
The phaser lance never really made a lick of sense to begin with, TBH. You're putting a fixed-position weapon emplacement on a ship that can't maneuver well enough to use it as anything more than a siege weapon. Beam arrays are omnidirectional.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
I want a Defiant with a third nacelle sticking out somewhere. Just because.
The Galaxy-X "canon-izes" the Franz Joseph 3 nacelle "Dreadnought" configuration from his original Tech Manual - the entire reason Roddenberry wrote the "nacelles must be in pairs" rule was to invalidate the designs of the Tech Manual because of issues over royalties...
So those "extra cannon mounts" sticking up over the bridge? Yeah, that can be an option to pop-off. 3rd Nacelle? That's what makes her the "Dreadnought evolution" of the Galaxy as FJ's "Federation Class" was the evolution of the TOS Connie...
Now, and to coin a bit of "design work" from the guys over at ADB (makers of Starfleet Command) - if the art department can slap together a nacelle variant that has a pair of pylon / nacelle sets "stick out" from the general vicinity of the current 3rd nacelle (look up ADB Federation Battleships for the look I speak of) then go for it, that would quiet down some of these "anything but a third nacelle" types...
To rob a line: [quote: Mariemaia Kushrenada] Forum Posting is much like an endless waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever. However, opinions will change upon the reading of my post.[/quote]
The design guidelines for starships in Star Trek, the number of nacelles, positions of the nacelles etc, have never been formally fully explained in the series. What most hard core fans consider canon actually came from the first Star Trek technical manual, and these were re-'established' by Gene Roddenberry and Andres Probert during season I of TNG. Not all of those designs expressed in the technical manual are considered canon - the most contentious being the 3rd nacelle of the 'dreadnought'. Subsequent series, new creative talent, and various ship designers have all deviated from that. (A full link to the contentious guidelines will be in text weeks blog post).
Unfortunately 'THAT' is the problem - inconsistencies that fans take umbrage with. But if it's on film, it's gospel.
Fan-produced design manuals have taken all of these elements into consideration. FASA did the same for the board and role-playing versions.
What we have today is an amalgamation of all of these issues, driven in part by the lack of a ship style-guide. Designers in trek - Mike Okuda for example - sought to look at everything they could during TNG. On Mike's desk for example in the TNG Behind the scenes documentary is a stack of fan-made design books.
In summary:
1.) Nacelles always come in 'pairs', except when they don't. The third nacelle is often 2 sets of warp coils in the same housing. Perhaps one of the geekier hidden tidbits on the Star Trek reboot was an explanation on a promotional site why some ships have a single nacelle, which itself was a cover-our-geek-asses moment after a lengthy debate on the trekmovie.com comments section with Rob Orci. So technically, a third or 'single' nacelle has what it takes to sustain a warp field.
2.) The bussard collectors must always be visible from a front view of the ship, except when they don't. In TOS and TNG timelines, most of the nacelles are visible. This likely had more to do with branding than engineering, but if you prefer a more 'technical' excuse, it was necessary due to the limits of bussard technologies. By the time of VOY new ship designs didn't require the nacelles to be visible at all times, becasue of 'science'.
3.) The winglets, lance, and other bits and bobs. These were all aesthetic choices, but because they exist onscreen, they too are considered canon. How/Why the Ent-D in the alternate timeline appeared to have as much maneuverability as an escort to be able to shoot at multiple angles from a fixed-position supercannon is hard to comprehend for us purists, but at the time it was aired - it was 'cool' and 'awesome'.
So everything is fine, nothing is wrong, except when it isn't. Welcome to Fandom.
Yeah...I mean no one really uses cannons these days...especially on a ship that is pretty darn close to the lowest turn rate in the game...the lance isn't very impressive and the T6 Galaxy has a lot more to offer than just a Lt Tac and overloaded on Engineering slots.
Is no real valid reason I can see anymore why someone would want to turn the Gal-X into a Galaxy...since they added the T6 Galaxy it has a much better build than the T5...only thing the T6 Gal-X I can see having is a 4th Tac console...you lose some DPS yes but the T6 Galaxy also has a 3rd Sci console...so you can place another Embassy console on it to make up for that lost Tac console.
Hast thou not felt ashamed of thy words and deeds
Hast thou not lacked vigor
Hast thou exerted all possible efforts
Hast thou not become slothful
Think on what we see it do. It fires two shots from a spinal lance cannon, and tears three fully armed and shielded BOP into space debris. Normal phasers of the time period are shown to be matched to the shields of the time, so this is a massive upswing in power. If such a weapon were used on a planet, it would be devastating if not catastrophic. Simply the existence of such a weapon, cloaked and somewhere in the neutral zone is likely enough to keep the Klingon Aggression from becoming all out war.
The Enterprise has become our nuclear deterrent.
It would make sense if it could maneuver like it did in that episode, when it was spinning around like a Defiant.
More than a bit hypocritical considering your response... such a comparison doesn't hold at all.
The old style Excelsior was a proper canon design, as was the refit, which is why both are available in-game.
A fin/third nacelle/whatever-less Galaxy-X is in no way canon. Only one form of this ship existed in canon, and it is that form that Cryptic have faithfully recreated in-game.
They were legally allowed to do it...in that timeline the Klingons had conquered the Romulan Empire...so the treaty of Algernon was null and void.
Were we watching the same episode. The Ent-d destroyed 1 Klingon ship and the other disengaged as stated in dialogue. Yes the cloak was damaged but they withdrew from hostile territory as victors in that battle.
There were other canon Starfleet vessels that had single and triple nacelles, as well.
Forum response? whine about how its not to their liking
It depends on how much of this you interpret to be the camera moving and how much you interpret to be the ship.
Visually, I interpret this as nearly a 180 degree turn.
Then you see its speed relative to the other ships. That's pretty much full throttle in STO.
Then look at the full sequence. It's back on a parallel plane with and behind the Pasteur in fairly short order:
The one thing I think you can say is that the Galaxy-X in the episode is almost always moving and which seems to outflank and maneuver ships around it.
The Galaxy Class can maneuver if necessary:
But with 80s practical effects, there was only so much you can do...
LMAO! Really? The thing with the effects on the series is the time frame given to produce an episode not with what could be done with Practical effects. It was the driving factor plus when TNG aired it was done to the old broadcast standards which hid a boat load of flaws and shortcuts and things did not have to be highly detailed for the small screen. Ok heres a great example of the difference shooting time makes... Both are TNG you have "Sub Rosa" on the small screen at the same time "TNG Generations" was being filmed both used practical effects BUT the difference was the schedule for shooting which plays a major part in how the efx look. Sub Rosa was shot over 18 days this includes efx shots and principle shots. Generations took nearly a year to film and edit. And the set peices while some where used in the TV series had to be reworked with a higher fit and finish then when they were on the small screen as in the far higher resolution of 70mm film stock every tiny thing would show.
The saucer cannons actually are functional weapons hardpoints in the game, you know. Equip dual cannons or beams, and they fire from those things.
I mean, basically, every part you are asking to be removed is really only a part that is associated with the Galaxy-X. It is literally supposed to look like an overloaded Galaxy class. It doesn't particularly matter if they "do nothing" in your regard; they are part of the codified look of the thing.
Again: you're probably gonna have to lighten up a bit if you truly feel like captaining such a vessel. It's really starting to sound as if you want to fly a ship that has the stats of the Gal-X, but literally almost nothing of the ship looks-wise, and that is basically just a regular Galaxy class.
It's really not so bad of a look once you are used to it. The vessel is cheesy as hell, and frankly, it is supposed to be.
That said, Probert had some valid points, but I disagree with his opinion that a Starship shouldn't have a cannon or that they cant have 3 nacelles. He seems kinda crotchety, but I don't blame him: if I had to be interviewed by these 2 yahoos I'd be bitter as well.
I'm like the others, you want a regular Galaxy. Go fly one, and leave the Dread alone. I still have one character slot left, I even had thoughts of making it a future Galaxy Dread Capt.
I think they should add the Federation Class to STO!
http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/Federation_class
USS Casinghead NCC 92047 launched 2350
Fleet Admiral Stowe - Dominion War Vet.