while the federation does not have carriers and well lol the present federation fighters can be launched from hello something called a galaxy wing which was present in that episode you mentioned. to be honest we dont need a carrier as majority of the fighters have warp ability. we need captain ships that allow for the ability to hold these fighters. the federation key aspect is to preserve peace but is ready for quall a war. Let the klingon have their carreir as they are klingons. This is the federation. we are modular and having ships that can function in more then one role is star fleets main function as well as goal. adding the function of fighters to the ship is easy.
in each ship you have a sub catagory next to devices. inside that area you have slots for fighters. once they are destroyed in battle you have to buy them or do missions to gain more.
T1- None.
T2- two
T3- three
T4-four
T5-five
this is a simple form to allow federation ships to carry fighters into battle. Know to mix things up a bit you also need to add points into skills to use these ships affectively.
This is from the full blueprints of the Galaxy class starship and, since this is from deck 5, also from the Nebula class. As you can see the main shuttlebay is clearly large enough to carry fighters. STO just needs to give the Federation ships with the shuttlebays of the same size the ability to perform as a carrier somehow.
while the federation does not have carriers and well lol the present federation fighters can be launched from hello something called a galaxy wing which was present in that episode you mentioned. to be honest we dont need a carrier as majority of the fighters have warp ability. we need captain ships that allow for the ability to hold these fighters. the federation key aspect is to preserve peace but is ready for quall a war. Let the klingon have their carreir as they are klingons. This is the federation. we are modular and having ships that can function in more then one role is star fleets main function as well as goal. adding the function of fighters to the ship is easy.
in each ship you have a sub catagory next to devices. inside that area you have slots for fighters. once they are destroyed in battle you have to buy them or do missions to gain more.
T1- None.
T2- two
T3- three
T4-four
T5-five
this is a simple form to allow federation ships to carry fighters into battle. Know to mix things up a bit you also need to add points into skills to use these ships affectively.
I believe a Fed carrier should be the cruisers and larger sci ships using WEAPON slots for fighters. That way theres a trade off. Maybe the fighters themselves may be better than a klingon equivalent, but
the "mother ship" has a significant reduction in its own personal firepower ability.
Maybe add devices for a ship equiped with fighters to use a passive effect device that buffs shields or hull. I would prefer a shield buff.
why, galaxy class ships are not weak nor do they need to be dumb down, alot of you are thinking of star trek like star wars. this is the federation, STAR TREK. Star fleets main goal was to always have a multi purpose ship. the galaxy was always considered an exploration cruiser with modules function built in. the federation does not need carriers nor have they considered carriers vaible. bring in the nebula and the put the galaxy to have fighter ability. i would say you need bridge officers to fly them but i know some of you would cry about loosing those BO. the ship in my avatar is called the charleston. its a variant mix. the hub on top is made for torpedo launching but the federation have hubs for all purpose field operations
The Federation, as far as I can tell, has very few instances of dedicated carriers (aside from the Typhon, which is from a video game, right?). A lot of things have been mentioned, and by mentioning this, I am either restating or will be ignored entirely:
1). Federation ships are versatile and not locked into specific roles; a carrier is a specific type, the Federation doesn't need to type its vessels except in three groups: Escorts, Cruisers, and Science. Adding in a Cruiser creates unnecessary specialization for the Feds.
2). With that in mind, Federation carriers should be the largest ships with the greatest crew compliments, i.e., cruisers. So far, those are the best handled for the closest ability to this suggestion, Boarding Party, because the hit to the crew compliment isn't that bad (smaller escorts cannot, for instance, suffer a Boarding Party launch).
3). Further in mind, make it a higher tier ability, device, or new slot upgrade to be unlocked, for Cruiser-type ships.
Try to make the variations of each ship-type to be different from Klingons, and balance the two apart--so neither gains or loses out.
The Federation already has starships capable of serving as carriers, they just lack the ability in STO in its current state.
The Akira, Galaxy, Nebula, possibly Sovereign and other large cruisers of the same size have shuttlebays large enough to hold multiple wings of fighters. STO just needs to introduce a skill or device slot mechanic to let players make use of the existing ability.
If I have to come in here and explain it to you guys again, I'm gonna have to break my foot off in somebody's TRIBBLE! :-(
@strikefalcon, I think if ANYONE has to come in here and explain it, we're just going to break into a brawl--there's plenty of people who agree with you.
Exactly. If I could take an Akira, put a weapon or console on it that allowed it to launch a flight of fighters like mines, that would be pretty slick. 5 minute cooldown, launches a flight of 5 or 6 fighters that go after the targets you have selected.
That'd be pretty sweet.
And by the way, tech manuals aren't canon. They're official, but they aren't canon. Canon is what is seen onscreen. We've never seen a Nebula with a CV pod. We have seen Akiras with huge-TRIBBLE shuttle bay doors, tho.
Exactly. If I could take an Akira, put a weapon or console on it that allowed it to launch a flight of fighters like mines, that would be pretty slick. 5 minute cooldown, launches a flight of 5 or 6 fighters that go after the targets you have selected.
That'd be pretty sweet.
And by the way, tech manuals aren't canon. They're official, but they aren't canon. Canon is what is seen onscreen. We've never seen a Nebula with a CV pod. We have seen Akiras with huge-TRIBBLE shuttle bay doors, tho.
wrong wrong wrong mechanical/ tech manuals made in the late 90's are cannon along with movies and tv shows. Thats the purpose of a tech manual to explain things of such. I understand some things might have been done before your time but yes that manual or rather huge book was and is cannon. If you compare the book workings to whats from the show you will see its cannon.
wrong wrong wrong mechanical/ tech manuals made in the late 90's are cannon along with movies and tv shows.
No, they aren't. Canon is what is seen on the shows/movies. Tech manuals are back-stage material and are not canon.
No source states tech manuals as being canon. Gene Roddenberry himself said the TNG TM was part of Star Trek's "Background".
Ronald D. Moore, Star Trek's co-producer, said the writing staff dismissed TMs as "Speculation" and that they were not considered canon. Moore has also stated:
"We consider only the filmed episodes (and movies) to be canon for our purposes."
No official source, no person connected to the Star Trek franchise, has ever declared TMs as canon. Hell, in Star Trek, even novelizations of movies and episodes aren't considered canon.
Star Trek canon is limited to what is seen onscreen. Period. Anything else is backstage information, speculation or expanded universe material. It is not canon.
Star Trek canon is as follows:
Star Trek - The Original Series
Star Trek - The Next Generation
Star Trek - Deep Space Nine
Star Trek - Voyager
Star Trek - Enterprise (Unfortunately)
Star Trek - The Motion Picture
Star Trek - The Wrath of Khan
Star Trek - The Search for Spock
Star Trek - The Voyage Home
Star Trek - The Final Frontier
Star Trek - The Undiscovered Country
Star Trek - Generations
Star Trek - First Contact
Star Trek - Insurrection
Star Trek - Nemesis
Star Trek (2009)
And even then, the movies are very questionable, as Gene Roddenberry is quoted as saying he didn't like the movies and "didn't much consider then canon".
So there you have it. TMs are not canon.
With that said, I've never minded TMs as sources of valid information, as long as they did not contradict canon, which they often do. However, stating TMs as absolute stone-solid fact is wrong.
Star Trek keeps a very, very tight reign on what is considered "canon," especially when compared to Star Wars.
Star Wars? I do love Star Wars, but Lucasfilm allows everything under the sun released as part of "canon." Video games, books, comics, and cartoons, and the movies. If there is ever any dispute, movies > all. But the wide open nature of what is canon in Star Wars does allow some really stupid stuff, which offsets some of the Expanded Universe that is actually good, or distorts what characters and events did / mean in the movies.
Star Trek is the other way around. Movies and TV shows are canon, and very little of anything else (if at all). Despite the history of games (video games or tabletop), books, etc. It doesn't allow the fleshing out of the Star Trek universe compared to Star Wars, but then there's less idiotic cr*p creeping in to be called Official Canon.
I don't want to find out that Captain Kirk during his 5-Year Mission days was secretly crying in his room every night for being homesick, or some TRIBBLE s**t like that, because some a**hole said so in an officially released book, and is considered part of Star Trek "canon."
And even then, the open Star Wars canon is a very recent thing..like..within the last 5 or 6 years.
Star Wars canon was limited to movies, movie novelizations and...that's it. However, Lucas embraced Expanded Universe as part of the Star Wars universe, just not part of HIS Star Wars universe. In fact, a lot of the ideas for the 3 "new" films were pulled from EU.
Recently, Lucas said something along the lines of "I don't really care who considers what canon." And that pretty much opened Pandora's box.
I don't want to start a brawl, it was meant as a joke more than anything.
But seriously, why have Cryptic make up another ugly oversized ship when there's already at least three ships in canon that can do the job?
Consider this an act of playing along with the joke . But I agree--we have plenty of ships that can already grab the utility of a carrier without forcing a player to invest into a dedicated one.
And even then, the open Star Wars canon is a very recent thing..like..within the last 5 or 6 years.
[...]
Recently, Lucas said something along the lines of "I don't really care who considers what canon." And that pretty much opened Pandora's box.
This might have be part of the humbling experience. Lucas wasn't really good at anything if you let him premeditate the movies. What made Episodes IV-VI so great was that he had no idea where he was going until he got there. He had two decades to think about Episodes I-III, and it didn't turn out as well as he'd hope.
Star Trek suffers in the direction of semi-non-canonical content, mainly because no one has yet explored enough ground to make it worthwhile. This is more related to the focus on Star Trek, which isn't "Pew Pew fantasy sci-fi backdrop", which gives you a lot of room to explore themes and ideas. Star Trek's themes have always had moral and philosophical implications. It's more akin to "How does the ideal human deal with the universe?"--a great argument can be made for this, but I won't go further.
In terms of game development and immersion, the TMs *should* be looked at and should be considered. They're not canon, sure, and have been on numerous occasions been contradicted, but nevertheless, it's a source for inspiration--that certain classes of starships can handle being a carrier, and that the Federation doesn't need its own dedicated fighter carrier.
The Star Trek Encyclopedia and the Star Trek Chronology were researched and written by Mike and Denise Okuda, who have been with the franchise since Star Trek IV and the studio authorized their publications as canon since they were catalogues of information already seen on screen on the shows or on the movies. These two publications ARE canon. Until the events of "Enterprise" made certain entries obselete.
As for the technical manuals and the blueprints of the Galaxy class starship, the ones released by Pocket Books during the reign of Rick Berman are considered a half-step down from full canon because they were all written and published by the people who designed, created and made those ships, devices or space stations for Star Trek the Next Generation or Star Trek Deep Space Nine. So unless a later Star Trek show or movie comes along that is produced by CBS/Paramount and directly contradicts anything in the Star Trek TNG, Star Trek DS9 tech manuals or the Star Trek TNG blueprints, the information in those publications are considered canon as well.
For example, I'm pretty sure they reference the aquatics lab (with dolphins!) in the STTNG tech manual. I may be wrong, but if I'm right, in future episodes of TNG they confirm their existence in dialog and when Rick Sternbach finally released his blueprints of the Enterprise-D at the end of the series' run, you can easily spot the aquatics labs or "Cetacean labs" as they're called on Memory Alpha on the lower decks of the saucer section.
The booklet that came with Rick Sternbach's blueprints says that everyone involved in the show were so disappointed they couldn't find a way to show more areas of the ship to the viewers. If they had the money and the technology in 1987, they would have shown us how giant and cavernous the main shuttlebay was. They would have shown us how the residential areas of the ship were supposed to be broken down into seperate "street corners" with balconies where the crew could look up or down 3 or 4 decks deep in the saucer. They would have shown us the main stairwell, or the large cargo elevators in action. But they couldn't. They didn't have the money and the CGI didn't exist yet.
That's one of the reasons why he made the blueprints. He knew Berman and Braga were planning on killing his and Andy Probert's baby in Star Trek Generations, and the blueprints would be the only way we'd ever see everything the Enterprise had inside her. To everyone who have not seen Sternbach's blueprints, I recommend buying a copy. Try looking for them on Amazon. I know they didn't sell well when they first came out, so unless they're a collector's item now, you can probably get a copy for pretty cheap.
simply put this is from star trek website along with reference of what canon is
The Star Trek canon is the set of all canonical material in the Star Trek universe. It is usually defined as comprising the television series Star Trek, Star Trek: The Next Generation, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, Star Trek: Voyager, Star Trek: Enterprise, and the motion pictures in the franchise.[1] However, the official Star Trek website acknowledges that this definition is not set in stone, but that the notion of what constitutes canon in Star Trek is fluid, open to interpretation and debate
Reference books
A special case is made for "non-fiction" reference books such as The Star Trek Encyclopedia, Star Trek Chronology, TNG Technical Manual and DS9 Technical Manual. Unlike the novels and novelizations, these reference manuals have never been explicitly named as non-canon, and the fact that they were officially sanctioned by Paramount and given to episode writers as guides serves to give them an aura of credibility. Roddenberry himself considered it part of the "background" of Star Trek.[16] Meanwhile, Michael Okuda and Rick Sternbach, two art and technical consultants since Star Trek: The Next Generation and the authors of several of these reference books, considered their work "pretty official".[17] However, they stop short of naming the books canon, leaving the debate open.
Star Trek writer and co-producer Ronald D. Moore dismisses such official material as "speculation", and says that the writing staff did not consider it canon.[18][19] However, Viacom, the parent company of Paramount, seems to believe differently. In a series of posts to the official Star Trek website's forums, Viacom Senior Director Harry Lang left no doubt that he considers the reference books as canon
now while that info is interesting to know as without paper material and mechanical reference info which, was releashed by paramount for sales without technical manuals and refrence paper material STO as well as all the motion pictures would not be built so your so called its not canon theory is now destroyed. thanks for playing.
the shows as well as the movies and tech manuals show that federation ships can manage a large number of shuttles and even attack fighters. no new ships are needed to be created just the ships the federation has employed since 2370. and beyond
so your so called its not canon theory is now destroyed. thanks for playing.
I mean, hell. Your own source, be it Wikipedia, says "However, they stop short of naming the books canon, leaving the debate open."..
So pretty much, your argument is this:
They were never explicitly named as not being canon, but the writers used them, so they're canon.
That is an incredibly flawed argument. I'm sorry, but the "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" argument doesn't fly.
The tech manuals and any back-stage official material is just that. Back-stage, official material. It has never been named canon. The ONLY things that are canon by title are the shows and movies.
That's it. That's the end of the story. All of your sources say the ONLY canon for Star Trek are the movies and aired episodes. They say that the official publications are just that. OFFICIAL. Official =/= Canon. And while it does have credibility (I've never claimed it doesn't), it is NOT canon material. And that's that.
Until you can find some official documentation stating, without doubt, without going around in circles, without any ifs, ands or buts, that the tech manuals are canon, they aren't. Because every source that IS official says they are not.
Your own source talks about Ron Moore refuting TMs as speculation and explicitly stating that they aren't canon..
Startrek.com states that works by Franz Joseph are not canon, despite Joseph's work on various films, which ARE canon. So even your source seems to need to pull it's head out of it's TRIBBLE..because it can't even get it straight based on it's own definition of canon...
Again, to quote Ron D Moore, exec. producer of DS9, stated:
"We consider only the filmed episodes (and movies) to be canon for our purposes. We do use things like the Encylopedia, the Chronology, the Technical Manual etc. for reference, but unless it was explicitly mentioned on screen, we won't feel bound by anything stated even in those books."»
And
"None of the books should be considered canon."»
And
"You have to remember that things like CD-ROMs and the various "official" manuals put out by Paramount are not done in conjunction with the writing/producing staffs and that the authors are usually simply extrapolating information based on what's actually been seen on screen."»
Ron D Moore, as an executive producer, takes precedence. And he has stated numerous times that the technical manuals and other official publications are NOT canon.
You need to learn the difference between back stage, behind-the-scenes, official, but not canon documentation/publications and the actual canon. The canon is ONLY the aired episodes and the released films. Period.
That being said, we agree in a round-about way. No new carrier-class ship is needed since (As I also said several pages ago) there are numerous Federation ship classes that are capable of handling large amounts of shuttle traffic, and as so, would be able to handle attack fighters.
But the owners of the IP, CBS/Paramount's official statement regarding canon takes precedent over whatever Ron D Moore says.
And CBS/Paramount has stated that the Encyclopedias and reference books, unless contradicted in future official Star Trek TV or film productions, are canon.
I gather you only saw what you wanted to read. Its simple, when i bring forth info i display all the info and then show the full extent of what is said. They are canon because the tv shows and movies from after those publications used alot of info from the technical manual. published in 1991. it clearly states that. Dude do read correctly the star trek site states it as well s paramount officially say these books are canon. A majority of info from such books are in the movies so how can one thing be non-canon yet the movies which such source is created from is canon. I dont care what a bunch of artist say as they can say the world is square but if evidence shows it being round ill belive the evidence and not some person. Your understanding of info can be wrong. Refernce material is canon based upon the fact that it was in the books first and then later displayed in the tv shows and movies. do read the refernce material section and yes they do link to the star trek site.
thanks for playing star trek 101.
now lets stay on topic about making the cruisers have the ability to carry fighters/ runabouts
But the owners of the IP, CBS/Paramount's official statement regarding canon takes precedent over whatever Ron D Moore says.
And CBS/Paramount has stated that the Encyclopedias and reference books, unless contradicted in future official Star Trek TV or film productions, are canon.
Sorry to dissapoint.
Not really. A Viacom Director said he thought the works were canon, but that doesn't make them canon, because he was nothing more then a Viacom director. A Chrysler VP could say that a Cadillac Escalade could do 0-60 in 2.4 seconds and out-corner an Enzo, but it's not going to make it true. If you want the real "scoop", you need to talk to someone that is actually connected in the day-to-day activities of that media. Like Ron D. Moore..
Refernce material is canon based upon the fact that it was in the books first and then later displayed in the tv shows and movies. do read the refernce material section and yes they do link to the star trek site.
That makes the references BACK STAGE INFORMATION, not canon material. Canon material is what is seen onscreen. The REFERENCE for what was seen onscreen is BACK STAGE information, not the canon source of that information.
I don't know how many times it needs to be said, but the executive producers have said that the works are not canon. Roddenberry himself said the works were "Pretty official", but never stated them as being canon. No source from inside the Star Trek franchise has ever stated that the tech manuals or other reference material is, or should be counted as canon.
However, the trend of reference materials, such as tech manuals, being cited as exactly that--reference materials--continues. A reference material is a source or reference. That does NOT automatically make it canon.
If the tech manual says that the Enterprise-D could do Warp 9.6, and Picard or La'Forge state on the show that "The Enterprise can do Warp 9.6", then that bit becomes canon because it was STATED ON THE SHOW. However, if the technical manual states that a photon torpedo has a yield of 64 megatons, but it is never stated on the show, then that piece of information is NOT CANON, and remains backstage information.
So stating that the entire manual is canon because some tidbits were pulled from the manual (Which is a reference..) and pasted on the screen is incredibly premature. A reference source is just that. A reference source. It is not canon, and has been repeatedly referred to as not being canon by the voices that matter...The information contained inside the reference source is not canon until it is seen in a movie or an aired episode.
You're basically agreeing with me, but to fit YOUR definition of canon, Patrick Stewart would have to read the technical manuals front to back in front of a camera and then hold the blueprints up to the camera and then have the whole thing produced and broadcast by CBS.
That would make the information in the manual canon, because it was seen onscreen.
That's the whole issue here. Star Trek canon is limited to what is seen on aired episodes and films. And that's it. Anything else is backstage information.
As I've said before, I don't think backstage information is a bad thing unless it is contradicted by what is seen onscreen. However, going off on wild tangents about how Nebula-class ships have CV pods and that this is FACT, even tho it has no backing at all except maybe some fansite somewhere, and then stating that said information is canon, is flat wrong.
Read back a few pages to see what actually started this nifty little conversation.
Thus, we find that the Star Trek canon is made up entirely of the materials from each of the live-action television series (TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT) and the ten films, along with the two Voyager background novels of Jeri Taylor.
Technically speaking a vast majorty of items and ships from the show are described and even invented inside the technical manual so from your own definition its canon and sorry to say who ever owns the copyright of star trek says what is canon not some one who created one thing. Viacom can speak for star trek since they own it. thats law. now besides that even gene considered the technical manuals canon. so again your theory which i notice is ever changing is proven wrong. I hope your old enough to know what these technical manuals look like from the inside or when star trek TNG was made. I know i am. so that means by your definition the plastic models of star trek ships arent canon either. how interesting
QUOTE=ramp4ge;2591241]That would make the information in the manual canon, because it was seen onscreen.
That's the whole issue here. Star Trek canon is limited to what is seen on aired episodes and films. And that's it. Anything else is backstage information.
As I've said before, I don't think backstage information is a bad thing unless it is contradicted by what is seen onscreen. However, going off on wild tangents about how Nebula-class ships have CV pods and that this is FACT, even tho it has no backing at all except maybe some fansite somewhere, and then stating that said information is canon, is flat wrong.
Read back a few pages to see what actually started this nifty little conversation. [/QUOTE]
second note you should not talk about something you have no idea about, canon based as well as show based nebulas had pods attached for various reasons. yes these ships had massive problems but as well as fighter pod they had heavy torpedo pods and sensor pods. if you want info read the manual as well as look at some star trek episodes with regards to the nebula.
None of the ships in the tech manuals that are not seen onscreen are canon ships..Like many of the DS9 TM kitbashes that are never seen onscreen. the 4-nacelled Nova, for example, is not a canon ship...
Likewise, ships like the Rigel-class, while seen onscreen at Wolf 359 for a moment, only as a very low-detail blip, are canon, but their likenesses aren't.
I'm old enough to have been around when the Tech Manuals were written. To have owned them all, along with the Star Trek Encyclopedia and Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise. I've built the the AMT/Ertl models, and yes, those can be considered canon because many times, the AMT/Ertl models were used as studio models in the filming. Be it for long-range "Stand-off" shots..but they are still canon because they have been seen onscreen.
And while Viacom can "Speak" for the franchise, the words that come out of their mouths are not necessarily true. As I said, if you want to know what's really going on, you need to talk to someone who actually has day to day interaction with the franchise..like Ron Moore..who has stated on multiple accounts that the reference works are just that--references. They are not canon.
The information between the covers of the book can be considered canon, but ONLY if it is stated onscreen. If it isn't stated onscreen, it isn't canon.
By the way, you can stop the condescending tone at any time.
second note you should not talk about something you have no idea about, canon based as well as show based nebulas had pods attached for various reasons. yes these ships had massive problems but as well as fighter pod they had heavy torpedo pods and sensor pods. if you want info read the manual as well as look at some star trek episodes with regards to the nebula.
We don't know for sure that the "pods" attached to Nebula classes were really removable, or if they were integral. We can assume that they're multi-mission swap-able pods, but we don't know for sure. We have seen numerous variants of Nebula-class ships (Including one with 4 nacelles), with and without pods, and 2 different types of pods. I'll list the canon Nebula variants in order of which they were seen.
1) The AWACS Nebula, USS Phoenix. Seen in TNG's "The Wounded"
2) The 4-nacelled "Proto-Nebula" USS Melbourne, seen at Wolf 359.
3) The "Triangle-pod" Nebula seen all thruout DS9, Voyager's "Ship in a Bottle" and at the end of Generations
We've also seen a proto-nebula with the triangle-pod in Sisko's ready room.
We've never seen a Nebula with a fighter pod on the show. Ever. We don't even know that the "torpedo pod" is really a torpedo pod, because on the studio model itself, you can only count 4 torpedo tubes on the "torpedo pod".
There have been a great many changes to the Nebula thruout the years, from the Sutherland to the Farragut (Same model, with more details added to it) to the Bonchune (First Nebula CGI model) to the numerous DS9 ships (New CGI models). But no new pods were ever seen. The Phoneix's AWACS pod, the no-pod Proto, and the triangle pod seen on the above ships..That's it.
I know more about the Nebula-class then you can imagine. And I actually base my knowledge off of the canon. Not fan-sites.
Like i said stick to topic, you are trying to flip a script that has longed warped away. Before it was on screen it was drawn out written and even put into a book and i dont care about ron. Even gene considered refience materail canon. ron has no rights and well anyone can talk about anything. but if you have a lincese to something what you say is the term of what is in a show of criteria. you own the pateint. therefore you are the official spokes person for such brand. Its good you where around. now you can agree that the horse. "the reference books" where before the cart the movies and shows. Far as i care and so does cryptic, paramount/ CBS agrees what is canon and can go into star trek online via their linced agreement. everything and everyone else is just saying what they feel. we will end this in a simple disagreement. call it a day and agree crusiers had the ability to launch fighters and shutles and they should in the game. I havent question you knowing about the nubula as I know a great deal about starships as well. I know Alot about many parts of a federation ship. its been a hobby of mine for decades end.
No he didn't. Roddenberry said they "Looked pretty official."..That's not the same as saying their canon. At all. Hell, Roddenberry didn't even consider TMP or any of the movies following it canon...
But at the end of the day we agree with the same ends. No new carrier-type is needed.
Interesting canon/non canon discussion tho is it relevant to what appears in game ? . the kind of fed carrier i would like see : shuttle type ' fighters ' launching from bays in the saucer [top and bottom] . two crew , pilot and weapons operator , with the capability for carrying boarding parties , weapons : phaser(s)and photon torps .
Comments
in each ship you have a sub catagory next to devices. inside that area you have slots for fighters. once they are destroyed in battle you have to buy them or do missions to gain more.
T1- None.
T2- two
T3- three
T4-four
T5-five
this is a simple form to allow federation ships to carry fighters into battle. Know to mix things up a bit you also need to add points into skills to use these ships affectively.
http://i787.photobucket.com/albums/yy157/capnebb369/image0.jpg
This is from the full blueprints of the Galaxy class starship and, since this is from deck 5, also from the Nebula class. As you can see the main shuttlebay is clearly large enough to carry fighters. STO just needs to give the Federation ships with the shuttlebays of the same size the ability to perform as a carrier somehow.
I believe a Fed carrier should be the cruisers and larger sci ships using WEAPON slots for fighters. That way theres a trade off. Maybe the fighters themselves may be better than a klingon equivalent, but
the "mother ship" has a significant reduction in its own personal firepower ability.
Maybe add devices for a ship equiped with fighters to use a passive effect device that buffs shields or hull. I would prefer a shield buff.
1). Federation ships are versatile and not locked into specific roles; a carrier is a specific type, the Federation doesn't need to type its vessels except in three groups: Escorts, Cruisers, and Science. Adding in a Cruiser creates unnecessary specialization for the Feds.
2). With that in mind, Federation carriers should be the largest ships with the greatest crew compliments, i.e., cruisers. So far, those are the best handled for the closest ability to this suggestion, Boarding Party, because the hit to the crew compliment isn't that bad (smaller escorts cannot, for instance, suffer a Boarding Party launch).
3). Further in mind, make it a higher tier ability, device, or new slot upgrade to be unlocked, for Cruiser-type ships.
Try to make the variations of each ship-type to be different from Klingons, and balance the two apart--so neither gains or loses out.
The Federation already has starships capable of serving as carriers, they just lack the ability in STO in its current state.
The Akira, Galaxy, Nebula, possibly Sovereign and other large cruisers of the same size have shuttlebays large enough to hold multiple wings of fighters. STO just needs to introduce a skill or device slot mechanic to let players make use of the existing ability.
If I have to come in here and explain it to you guys again, I'm gonna have to break my foot off in somebody's TRIBBLE! :-(
But seriously, why have Cryptic make up another ugly oversized ship when there's already at least three ships in canon that can do the job?
That'd be pretty sweet.
And by the way, tech manuals aren't canon. They're official, but they aren't canon. Canon is what is seen onscreen. We've never seen a Nebula with a CV pod. We have seen Akiras with huge-TRIBBLE shuttle bay doors, tho.
wrong wrong wrong mechanical/ tech manuals made in the late 90's are cannon along with movies and tv shows. Thats the purpose of a tech manual to explain things of such. I understand some things might have been done before your time but yes that manual or rather huge book was and is cannon. If you compare the book workings to whats from the show you will see its cannon.
No, they aren't. Canon is what is seen on the shows/movies. Tech manuals are back-stage material and are not canon.
No source states tech manuals as being canon. Gene Roddenberry himself said the TNG TM was part of Star Trek's "Background".
Ronald D. Moore, Star Trek's co-producer, said the writing staff dismissed TMs as "Speculation" and that they were not considered canon. Moore has also stated:
"We consider only the filmed episodes (and movies) to be canon for our purposes."
No official source, no person connected to the Star Trek franchise, has ever declared TMs as canon. Hell, in Star Trek, even novelizations of movies and episodes aren't considered canon.
Star Trek canon is limited to what is seen onscreen. Period. Anything else is backstage information, speculation or expanded universe material. It is not canon.
Star Trek canon is as follows:
Star Trek - The Original Series
Star Trek - The Next Generation
Star Trek - Deep Space Nine
Star Trek - Voyager
Star Trek - Enterprise (Unfortunately)
Star Trek - The Motion Picture
Star Trek - The Wrath of Khan
Star Trek - The Search for Spock
Star Trek - The Voyage Home
Star Trek - The Final Frontier
Star Trek - The Undiscovered Country
Star Trek - Generations
Star Trek - First Contact
Star Trek - Insurrection
Star Trek - Nemesis
Star Trek (2009)
And even then, the movies are very questionable, as Gene Roddenberry is quoted as saying he didn't like the movies and "didn't much consider then canon".
So there you have it. TMs are not canon.
With that said, I've never minded TMs as sources of valid information, as long as they did not contradict canon, which they often do. However, stating TMs as absolute stone-solid fact is wrong.
Star Wars? I do love Star Wars, but Lucasfilm allows everything under the sun released as part of "canon." Video games, books, comics, and cartoons, and the movies. If there is ever any dispute, movies > all. But the wide open nature of what is canon in Star Wars does allow some really stupid stuff, which offsets some of the Expanded Universe that is actually good, or distorts what characters and events did / mean in the movies.
Star Trek is the other way around. Movies and TV shows are canon, and very little of anything else (if at all). Despite the history of games (video games or tabletop), books, etc. It doesn't allow the fleshing out of the Star Trek universe compared to Star Wars, but then there's less idiotic cr*p creeping in to be called Official Canon.
I don't want to find out that Captain Kirk during his 5-Year Mission days was secretly crying in his room every night for being homesick, or some TRIBBLE s**t like that, because some a**hole said so in an officially released book, and is considered part of Star Trek "canon."
Oh... I'm Off Topic
Star Wars canon was limited to movies, movie novelizations and...that's it. However, Lucas embraced Expanded Universe as part of the Star Wars universe, just not part of HIS Star Wars universe. In fact, a lot of the ideas for the 3 "new" films were pulled from EU.
Recently, Lucas said something along the lines of "I don't really care who considers what canon." And that pretty much opened Pandora's box.
Consider this an act of playing along with the joke
This might have be part of the humbling experience. Lucas wasn't really good at anything if you let him premeditate the movies. What made Episodes IV-VI so great was that he had no idea where he was going until he got there. He had two decades to think about Episodes I-III, and it didn't turn out as well as he'd hope.
Star Trek suffers in the direction of semi-non-canonical content, mainly because no one has yet explored enough ground to make it worthwhile. This is more related to the focus on Star Trek, which isn't "Pew Pew fantasy sci-fi backdrop", which gives you a lot of room to explore themes and ideas. Star Trek's themes have always had moral and philosophical implications. It's more akin to "How does the ideal human deal with the universe?"--a great argument can be made for this, but I won't go further.
In terms of game development and immersion, the TMs *should* be looked at and should be considered. They're not canon, sure, and have been on numerous occasions been contradicted, but nevertheless, it's a source for inspiration--that certain classes of starships can handle being a carrier, and that the Federation doesn't need its own dedicated fighter carrier.
As for the technical manuals and the blueprints of the Galaxy class starship, the ones released by Pocket Books during the reign of Rick Berman are considered a half-step down from full canon because they were all written and published by the people who designed, created and made those ships, devices or space stations for Star Trek the Next Generation or Star Trek Deep Space Nine. So unless a later Star Trek show or movie comes along that is produced by CBS/Paramount and directly contradicts anything in the Star Trek TNG, Star Trek DS9 tech manuals or the Star Trek TNG blueprints, the information in those publications are considered canon as well.
For example, I'm pretty sure they reference the aquatics lab (with dolphins!) in the STTNG tech manual. I may be wrong, but if I'm right, in future episodes of TNG they confirm their existence in dialog and when Rick Sternbach finally released his blueprints of the Enterprise-D at the end of the series' run, you can easily spot the aquatics labs or "Cetacean labs" as they're called on Memory Alpha on the lower decks of the saucer section.
The booklet that came with Rick Sternbach's blueprints says that everyone involved in the show were so disappointed they couldn't find a way to show more areas of the ship to the viewers. If they had the money and the technology in 1987, they would have shown us how giant and cavernous the main shuttlebay was. They would have shown us how the residential areas of the ship were supposed to be broken down into seperate "street corners" with balconies where the crew could look up or down 3 or 4 decks deep in the saucer. They would have shown us the main stairwell, or the large cargo elevators in action. But they couldn't. They didn't have the money and the CGI didn't exist yet.
That's one of the reasons why he made the blueprints. He knew Berman and Braga were planning on killing his and Andy Probert's baby in Star Trek Generations, and the blueprints would be the only way we'd ever see everything the Enterprise had inside her. To everyone who have not seen Sternbach's blueprints, I recommend buying a copy. Try looking for them on Amazon. I know they didn't sell well when they first came out, so unless they're a collector's item now, you can probably get a copy for pretty cheap.
The Star Trek canon is the set of all canonical material in the Star Trek universe. It is usually defined as comprising the television series Star Trek, Star Trek: The Next Generation, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, Star Trek: Voyager, Star Trek: Enterprise, and the motion pictures in the franchise.[1] However, the official Star Trek website acknowledges that this definition is not set in stone, but that the notion of what constitutes canon in Star Trek is fluid, open to interpretation and debate
Reference books
A special case is made for "non-fiction" reference books such as The Star Trek Encyclopedia, Star Trek Chronology, TNG Technical Manual and DS9 Technical Manual. Unlike the novels and novelizations, these reference manuals have never been explicitly named as non-canon, and the fact that they were officially sanctioned by Paramount and given to episode writers as guides serves to give them an aura of credibility. Roddenberry himself considered it part of the "background" of Star Trek.[16] Meanwhile, Michael Okuda and Rick Sternbach, two art and technical consultants since Star Trek: The Next Generation and the authors of several of these reference books, considered their work "pretty official".[17] However, they stop short of naming the books canon, leaving the debate open.
Star Trek writer and co-producer Ronald D. Moore dismisses such official material as "speculation", and says that the writing staff did not consider it canon.[18][19] However, Viacom, the parent company of Paramount, seems to believe differently. In a series of posts to the official Star Trek website's forums, Viacom Senior Director Harry Lang left no doubt that he considers the reference books as canon
reference info taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_canon#Publications
now while that info is interesting to know as without paper material and mechanical reference info which, was releashed by paramount for sales without technical manuals and refrence paper material STO as well as all the motion pictures would not be built so your so called its not canon theory is now destroyed. thanks for playing.
the shows as well as the movies and tech manuals show that federation ships can manage a large number of shuttles and even attack fighters. no new ships are needed to be created just the ships the federation has employed since 2370. and beyond
I mean, hell. Your own source, be it Wikipedia, says "However, they stop short of naming the books canon, leaving the debate open."..
So pretty much, your argument is this:
They were never explicitly named as not being canon, but the writers used them, so they're canon.
That is an incredibly flawed argument. I'm sorry, but the "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" argument doesn't fly.
The tech manuals and any back-stage official material is just that. Back-stage, official material. It has never been named canon. The ONLY things that are canon by title are the shows and movies.
That's it. That's the end of the story. All of your sources say the ONLY canon for Star Trek are the movies and aired episodes. They say that the official publications are just that. OFFICIAL. Official =/= Canon. And while it does have credibility (I've never claimed it doesn't), it is NOT canon material. And that's that.
Until you can find some official documentation stating, without doubt, without going around in circles, without any ifs, ands or buts, that the tech manuals are canon, they aren't. Because every source that IS official says they are not.
Your own source talks about Ron Moore refuting TMs as speculation and explicitly stating that they aren't canon..
Startrek.com states that works by Franz Joseph are not canon, despite Joseph's work on various films, which ARE canon. So even your source seems to need to pull it's head out of it's TRIBBLE..because it can't even get it straight based on it's own definition of canon...
Again, to quote Ron D Moore, exec. producer of DS9, stated:
And
And
Ron D Moore, as an executive producer, takes precedence. And he has stated numerous times that the technical manuals and other official publications are NOT canon.
You need to learn the difference between back stage, behind-the-scenes, official, but not canon documentation/publications and the actual canon. The canon is ONLY the aired episodes and the released films. Period.
That being said, we agree in a round-about way. No new carrier-class ship is needed since (As I also said several pages ago) there are numerous Federation ship classes that are capable of handling large amounts of shuttle traffic, and as so, would be able to handle attack fighters.
And CBS/Paramount has stated that the Encyclopedias and reference books, unless contradicted in future official Star Trek TV or film productions, are canon.
Sorry to dissapoint.
thanks for playing star trek 101.
now lets stay on topic about making the cruisers have the ability to carry fighters/ runabouts
Not really. A Viacom Director said he thought the works were canon, but that doesn't make them canon, because he was nothing more then a Viacom director. A Chrysler VP could say that a Cadillac Escalade could do 0-60 in 2.4 seconds and out-corner an Enzo, but it's not going to make it true. If you want the real "scoop", you need to talk to someone that is actually connected in the day-to-day activities of that media. Like Ron D. Moore..
That makes the references BACK STAGE INFORMATION, not canon material. Canon material is what is seen onscreen. The REFERENCE for what was seen onscreen is BACK STAGE information, not the canon source of that information.
I don't know how many times it needs to be said, but the executive producers have said that the works are not canon. Roddenberry himself said the works were "Pretty official", but never stated them as being canon. No source from inside the Star Trek franchise has ever stated that the tech manuals or other reference material is, or should be counted as canon.
However, the trend of reference materials, such as tech manuals, being cited as exactly that--reference materials--continues. A reference material is a source or reference. That does NOT automatically make it canon.
If the tech manual says that the Enterprise-D could do Warp 9.6, and Picard or La'Forge state on the show that "The Enterprise can do Warp 9.6", then that bit becomes canon because it was STATED ON THE SHOW. However, if the technical manual states that a photon torpedo has a yield of 64 megatons, but it is never stated on the show, then that piece of information is NOT CANON, and remains backstage information.
So stating that the entire manual is canon because some tidbits were pulled from the manual (Which is a reference..) and pasted on the screen is incredibly premature. A reference source is just that. A reference source. It is not canon, and has been repeatedly referred to as not being canon by the voices that matter...The information contained inside the reference source is not canon until it is seen in a movie or an aired episode.
End of story..
You're basically agreeing with me, but to fit YOUR definition of canon, Patrick Stewart would have to read the technical manuals front to back in front of a camera and then hold the blueprints up to the camera and then have the whole thing produced and broadcast by CBS.
That's the whole issue here. Star Trek canon is limited to what is seen on aired episodes and films. And that's it. Anything else is backstage information.
As I've said before, I don't think backstage information is a bad thing unless it is contradicted by what is seen onscreen. However, going off on wild tangents about how Nebula-class ships have CV pods and that this is FACT, even tho it has no backing at all except maybe some fansite somewhere, and then stating that said information is canon, is flat wrong.
Read back a few pages to see what actually started this nifty little conversation.
QUOTE=ramp4ge;2591241]That would make the information in the manual canon, because it was seen onscreen.
That's the whole issue here. Star Trek canon is limited to what is seen on aired episodes and films. And that's it. Anything else is backstage information.
As I've said before, I don't think backstage information is a bad thing unless it is contradicted by what is seen onscreen. However, going off on wild tangents about how Nebula-class ships have CV pods and that this is FACT, even tho it has no backing at all except maybe some fansite somewhere, and then stating that said information is canon, is flat wrong.
Read back a few pages to see what actually started this nifty little conversation.
second note you should not talk about something you have no idea about, canon based as well as show based nebulas had pods attached for various reasons. yes these ships had massive problems but as well as fighter pod they had heavy torpedo pods and sensor pods. if you want info read the manual as well as look at some star trek episodes with regards to the nebula.
Likewise, ships like the Rigel-class, while seen onscreen at Wolf 359 for a moment, only as a very low-detail blip, are canon, but their likenesses aren't.
I'm old enough to have been around when the Tech Manuals were written. To have owned them all, along with the Star Trek Encyclopedia and Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise. I've built the the AMT/Ertl models, and yes, those can be considered canon because many times, the AMT/Ertl models were used as studio models in the filming. Be it for long-range "Stand-off" shots..but they are still canon because they have been seen onscreen.
And while Viacom can "Speak" for the franchise, the words that come out of their mouths are not necessarily true. As I said, if you want to know what's really going on, you need to talk to someone who actually has day to day interaction with the franchise..like Ron Moore..who has stated on multiple accounts that the reference works are just that--references. They are not canon.
The information between the covers of the book can be considered canon, but ONLY if it is stated onscreen. If it isn't stated onscreen, it isn't canon.
By the way, you can stop the condescending tone at any time.
We don't know for sure that the "pods" attached to Nebula classes were really removable, or if they were integral. We can assume that they're multi-mission swap-able pods, but we don't know for sure. We have seen numerous variants of Nebula-class ships (Including one with 4 nacelles), with and without pods, and 2 different types of pods. I'll list the canon Nebula variants in order of which they were seen.
1) The AWACS Nebula, USS Phoenix. Seen in TNG's "The Wounded"
2) The 4-nacelled "Proto-Nebula" USS Melbourne, seen at Wolf 359.
3) The "Triangle-pod" Nebula seen all thruout DS9, Voyager's "Ship in a Bottle" and at the end of Generations
We've also seen a proto-nebula with the triangle-pod in Sisko's ready room.
We've never seen a Nebula with a fighter pod on the show. Ever. We don't even know that the "torpedo pod" is really a torpedo pod, because on the studio model itself, you can only count 4 torpedo tubes on the "torpedo pod".
There have been a great many changes to the Nebula thruout the years, from the Sutherland to the Farragut (Same model, with more details added to it) to the Bonchune (First Nebula CGI model) to the numerous DS9 ships (New CGI models). But no new pods were ever seen. The Phoneix's AWACS pod, the no-pod Proto, and the triangle pod seen on the above ships..That's it.
I know more about the Nebula-class then you can imagine. And I actually base my knowledge off of the canon. Not fan-sites.
No he didn't. Roddenberry said they "Looked pretty official."..That's not the same as saying their canon. At all. Hell, Roddenberry didn't even consider TMP or any of the movies following it canon...
But at the end of the day we agree with the same ends. No new carrier-type is needed.