That barely counts as intelligent enough to be responded to, but I'll do it anyway.
What is/was is what's up for debate, not what might be. For all we know, the Nebula will be the 1st duel specialty ship, but thats not a set up thats been put forth. They want our reactions. While its nice to have so many new cruisers I'll never fly, I think it's time for the science people to get a ship, along with a Norway or Steamrunner for the escort flyers.
A possibility atm is that the Nebual could be a DSSV varient. i put my feedback behind that option. We all don't need new shinies, especially us cruiser captains who have the excelsior.
Also, the Klingons need new ships.
NO MORE CRUISERS TILL WE HAVE EQUAL(ish) VARIETY.
Nice selective quoting there. I'm not arguing that it couldn't be made into a science ship, but at the time the poster made the assertion that the Nebula-class was outright a science ship, so it should be one in-game. Since the ships role in any media isn't clear and has performed the same tasks as ships like the Excelsior, Galaxy and Constitution-class vessels this wasn't an accurate statement.
Ideally we'd be able to attach one of three pods to it.
A science pod.
A normal pod (Engineering pod I guess).
A Tactical pod.
As far as I know at LEAST the normal and tactical pods are canon. Ideally in this game we'd be able to switch them at a Starbase and basically either make a full Cruiser, a Science Cruiser or a Tactical Cruiser. It would have lower stats compared to a galaxy in every aspect EXCEPT for it's specialization which would be higher.
Nice selective quoting there. I'm not arguing that it couldn't be made into a science ship, but at the time the poster made the assertion that the Nebula-class was outright a science ship, so it should be one in-game. Since the ships role in any media isn't clear and has performed the same tasks as ships like the Excelsior, Galaxy and Constitution-class vessels this wasn't an accurate statement.
"Science" ship is a STO reference. In Trek canon no such classification was used for multiple ships that I can think of. Ships similar to "science" ships in STO were typically "hospital" ships.
and both the nebula and galaxy retrofit should have the venture nacelle variant (array strip on top of the nacelle, like is already on teh galx nacelles) as options...since these were variants, upgrades that were actually in the series....
Actually, if I had been doing it, I'd have made it a skin for the DSSV, not a whole seperate class.
that would never work cause all the current dssv parts would never line up right. it would be a nightmare... its a cruiser.. canon and in game. and acruiser it shall stay... lol.... i mean i could argue that it should have been made an escort cause of the ability to put a torp pod on it.
i believe the oportunity that was missed here was to create a new class and new classifacation of ship in the game. it could have been called like the universal cruiser, where it would get power levels inherant to the class you currently are, and had other univeral (or interchangable) parts, that way its not escort/cruiser/ or sci, but apeases the masses....
"Science" ship is a STO reference. In Trek canon no such classification was used for multiple ships that I can think of. Ships similar to "science" ships in STO were typically "hospital" ships.
oberth.... i could think of no other way of describing it, it has no defense, no combat capabilites, and had that big computer/sensor pod dangling beneath it lol...
I'm wondering why they chose a TR of the galaxy. The Nebula isn't as big as a galaxy is it?
According to Memory Alpha, it's about 1.2M tonnes lighter, 200 meters shorter in length, 65 meters shorter in height, and has a beam of 150 meters narrower than the galaxy class*.
*all figures are rounded and not exact.
Those numbers along with the same power plant as the Galaxy, should rate a turn rate higher than the Galaxy class.
This assumes a one-to-one relationship between manoeuvrability and mass. That's a big assumption, and would have the Akira Class much less manoeuvrable than many Cruisers. In fact, this would suggest that manoeuvrability in generally should, across most classes, completely nosedive as we advance in tiers, ending with an almost universal decrease in the turn rate of most the ships.
I mean the Nova is damn tiny and it turns worse than the Research Science Vessel, Long Range Science Vessel, and the Reconnaissance Science Vessel. If mass is all important than we need to downgrade every Science Vessel past T2 with the exception of the DSSV to reflect that they are much larger than the Nova Class in Tier 2.
Indeed, lighter is one thing, but it's shorter configuration would boost a greater turning rate due to the laws of momentum.
So it should turning rate should be between the Sovereign's 7 and the DSSV's 9. To me, either 8 or 9 is best.
That estimate for the metric tons for the Nebula is hugely off.
The Nebula is basically a Galaxy. It's got the same saucer, similar hull, PLUS the pod. It's technically MORE massive. I don't know where you got your info but it's wrong as to what THIS Nebula is. There was a Nebula or two that was deformed and sized tiny but those are usually ignored (much like how the Defiant changes size).
Type: Explorer
Production Base: ASDB Integration Facility, Utopia Planitia Fleet Yards, Mars
Accommodation: 1,012 officers and crew; 200 visiting personnel; 15,000 personal evacuation limit
Power Plant: One 1,500+ Cochrane warp core feeding two nacelles; one impulse system in stardrive section, two impulse systems in saucer section
Dimensions:
Length: 642.51 meters
Beam: 463.73 meters
Height: 195.26 meters Mass: 4,500,000 metric tons
Performance: Warp 9.6 for 12 hours (Standard); warp 9.9 for 12 hours (Uprated)
Armament: Eleven type-X phaser emitters; two photon torpedo launchers
With the Sovereign, there is no official numbers, but many go by Bridge Commander (which does use the Nebula's and Galaxy's offical weight) where it's listed at 3,205,000 metric tons.
Mass-wise, the Nebula would have the turning rate of the Sovereign, but with the shorter configuration of the Nebula, with the laws of momentum it would mean a faster turning rate. So I would say a turning rate is anywhere between 7 to 9. And 8 seems an appropriate number.
According to Memory Alpha, it's about 1.2M tonnes lighter, 200 meters shorter in length, 65 meters shorter in height, and has a beam of 150 meters narrower than the galaxy class*.
*all figures are rounded and not exact.
Those numbers along with the same power plant as the Galaxy, should rate a turn rate higher than the Galaxy class.
While it is shorter it's also more compact. (this chart is very accurate though I couldn't say if it's 100%)
It's saucer is the same size.
It's main hull is roughly the same size (it's not as long but it's bottom doesn't cut out as much.
The nacelles and pylons take up just about the same area.
The only thing a nebula lacks is that neck. It MORE than makes up for that small neck with an even bigger pod.
Unless the Nebula is oddly using a significantly lighter alloy for it's hull or if it's mostly empty there's no way it's THAT much lighter than a Galaxy. It's innards technically cover more area.
Indeed, lighter is one thing, but it's shorter configuration would boost a greater turning rate due to the laws of momentum.
Um... no. Length doesn't factor into momentum. Mass does. So does velocity. Now you could argue that a smaller profile will help prevent things like wind resistance slowing the ship down, but that's going to be a tough sell in space.
And again... shouldn't the Akira then be dragging TRIBBLE compared to the Intrepid, which in turn should dragging TRIBBLE compared to the Nova?
"Science" ship is a STO reference. In Trek canon no such classification was used for multiple ships that I can think of. Ships similar to "science" ships in STO were typically "hospital" ships.
Well, the Oberth was undeniably a Science ship, and Picard made reference to them in "Where No One Has Gone Before."
The Oberth also had almost no weapons. You couldn't possibly call it a cruiser because a cruiser is basically a military grade weapon. The Oberth was solely made for Science though it obviously took part in battles when it is forced to (Wolf 359).
Lore wise an Oberth would be like Tier 0. I bet a Runabout could potentially take one out.
Well, the Oberth was undeniably a Science ship, and Picard made reference to them in "Where No One Has Gone Before."
Scout Transport according to most data. It was just useful for science missions because it has a massive computer core. But then, according to most data the Intrepid, the Steamrunner, the Akira, and the Prometheus classes were all Cruisers...
Back to the Nebula. The original intent as revealed by the designed was that it was to be a small ship. Comparable to the New Orleans. It's even got a few scenes where it's small. However the ship has since then evolved greatly. It gradually became larger and more and more Galaxy-class like. When they made the switch to CGI they basically made it with Galaxy-class part entirely so by Voyager it was not only the same relative mass as a Galaxy but also all the unique things besides the contour were changed to a Galaxy.
It may not have started out that way however it's how it is right now. The Nebula is basically a Galaxy-class ship with a few extra options and a little bit less power (that comes from soft canon but I think it's safe to assume since the Galaxy was the flagship class and not the Nebula).
that would never work cause all the current dssv parts would never line up right. it would be a nightmare... its a cruiser.. canon and in game. and acruiser it shall stay... lol.... i mean i could argue that it should have been made an escort cause of the ability to put a torp pod on it.
i believe the oportunity that was missed here was to create a new class and new classifacation of ship in the game. it could have been called like the universal cruiser, where it would get power levels inherant to the class you currently are, and had other univeral (or interchangable) parts, that way its not escort/cruiser/ or sci, but apeases the masses....
I disagree, the Luna already gets pretty close. The mesh should be comparable.
Making is a Science Ship doesn't necessarily mean it wouldn't be classified as a type of Cruiser, it just means it's not a Cruiser in game terms. I mean, Voyager was referred to as a Cruiser, but in the game it's a Science Vessel.
Really, it makes more sense to make it a Science Vessel, if only for game balance. There are already a lot of Cruisers.
Because this particular ship is so much in demand, and because it has been described as modular in the IP, I'd make it versatile.
LC Tactical
LC Science
LC Engineer
CD Universal
Take away the Tachyon grid thing (in part because that required a FLEET to make), and leave the stats the same otherwise. It's big "power" would be its versatility.
Make it a Deep Space Science Vessel and give it a Load out of:
4 Front Weapons
3 Rear Weapons
while keeping it slow and ponderous like a Galaxy, but give the original DSSV a turn rate boost.
3 and 3 is the T5 layout for Science ships. They're stuck with that.
And a Galaxy turn rate is a death knell for something with science powers as their main focus. Too many science powers use a 90 degree arc.
Mechanically ... this ship works better as a cruiser. The movement/campaign to make it a science ship will make it so much weaker in-game.
It will have no offensive punch and will suffer from the same problem the Galaxy X suffers from (can't turn enough to get the firing arc for the benefits it has).
Sometimes the way the game works really needs to be given more priority than how you might want this ship to work. Making it science will neuter its effectiveness.
3 and 3 is the T5 layout for Science ships. They're stuck with that.
And a Galaxy turn rate is a death knell for something with science powers as their main focus. Too many science powers use a 90 degree arc.
Mechanically ... this ship works better as a cruiser. The movement/campaign to make it a science ship will make it so much weaker in-game.
It will have no offensive punch and will suffer from the same problem the Galaxy X suffers from (can't turn enough to get the firing arc for the benefits it has).
Sometimes the way the game works really needs to be given more priority than how you might want this ship to work. Making it science will neuter its effectiveness.
Okay, I hadnt considered that. Yeah Galaxy turn rate is a bad idea.
Still, there are a lot of cruisers in the Star Trek Universe and I dont see the balance in giving everything to cruisers. You have the Ambassador still in the pipeline which most certainly should be a cruiser. The NX is also considered a heavy cruiser canon wise.
Making the Nebula into a science vessel spreads the wealth of iconic ships without stepping on canon too harshly.
Thus, is still think it should be a science vessel.
Take away the Tachyon grid thing (in part because that required a FLEET to make), and leave the stats the same otherwise. It's big "power" would be its versatility.
Okay. Then I want my Bird of Prey to have Science Vessel like shields, and this setup:
Mechanically ... this ship works better as a cruiser. The movement/campaign to make it a science ship will make it so much weaker in-game.
As a Cruiser, however, the suggested setup isn't balanced. It has greatly enhanced versatility at the cost of... what?
Less manoeuvrability? It has the same as the GalR.
Less crew? Same as the ExR, 50 less than an Assault.
No special ability? Nope, it's got one of those.
Less hull/shields? Nope.
Lower speeds? Nope.
Less device slots? Equal to a klingon Battle Cruiser, and really... who cares?
One less Ensign slot? In Exchange for ridiculous versatility for a Cruiser by breaking up the Com/LtC BO slots and making the Lt. Slot universal... not exactly a loss, especially when it's being replaced by a special ability anyway.
Fewer Consoles? Nope, the standard. Has the same setup as the Star.
So... then if it's going to be a Cruiser in your eyes you should start thinking of some new and interesting ways to kneecap it, because it's going to need that. The lack of manoeuvrability compared to other Science Vessels WOULD be a trade off for the advantages the ship has, making it a Cruiser eliminates that and requires a different disadvantage to level the playing field.
Yes, making it a DSSV very much WOULD make it weaker than a Cruiser in-game... and it needs to be weaker than the suggested Cruiser, so that's kind of the point.
As a Cruiser, however, the suggested setup isn't balanced. It has greatly enhanced versatility at the cost of... what?
It's a C-Store ship. And like the excelsior before it, having drawbacks aren't part of the plan.
It's pretty simple and brutal economics here. This ship as a cruiser is an improvement. And will sell because of that.
This ship as a science ship is weaker. And will sell less.
Sell more? Sell less?
So... then if it's going to be a Cruiser in your eyes you should start thinking of some new and interesting ways to kneecap it, because it's going to need that.
Kneecap it? They didn't do that to the excelsior. They put that baby in and let it fully replace the assault cruiser as the premier assault cruiser.
making it a Cruiser eliminates that and requires a different disadvantage to level the playing field.
I maintain that the excelsior shows a movement to no longer level the playing field. But to enhance sales by making power available in the C-Store.
Yes, making it a DSSV very much WOULD make it weaker than a Cruiser in-game... and it needs to be weaker than the suggested Cruiser, so that's kind of the point.
But that's not a good tactic.
That it's coming from the players is odd.
I understand people want something besides a cruiser. That feedback I at least get. But this ship will be worse off for that. And that's going to affect sales. And I'm not sure that's the goal of the C-Store ships. Maximizing sales I think is the goal of the C-Store ships.
It's late. I'm tired. I'm probably confusing all my points. I'm sorry for that. But basically, I just see how they did up the excelsior and think that this is the new trend for C-Store ships.
And as such ... moving to weaken this ship as a science ship? It's too much of a tradeoff. It then becomes the Galaxy X of science vessels. No reason to purchase it other than for looks. And I'm not sure that's what they intend for C-Store ships anymore.
If the turn rate of the Galaxy is too low for a science vessel, the easy solution would be.... give it a higher turn rate
I wouldn´t mind using a cruiser with one of my science toons, but it lacks the commander science slot, that´s where i have the most out of my skills, because i can train them.
You think it´s possible to assign that ship a universal commander station, maybe something like
It's a C-Store ship. And like the excelsior before it, having drawbacks aren't part of the plan.
I realize your general theme here seems to "break the game entirely" but that's not exactly constructive (not that what Cryptic's doing IS, but that's no excuse).
Honest feedback is... as a Cruiser it isn't balanced.
It's pretty simple and brutal economics here. This ship as a cruiser is an improvement. And will sell because of that.
This ship as a science ship is weaker. And will sell less.
Sell more? Sell less?
The ship as a Cruiser is more powerful, saying it's "an improvement" is disingenuous. Breaking the game (more) is not an improvement. And of course, the more you break a game the less your audience is going to want to play it.
Kneecap it? They didn't do that to the excelsior. They put that baby in and let it fully replace the assault cruiser as the premier assault cruiser.
Yeah, and I chided that move. And I'm still chiding that move. And I'm hoping eventually that they will do a balancing pass an something will change, be it the Excelsior downward, or the remaining ships upwards.
I understand people want something besides a cruiser. That feedback I at least get. But this ship will be worse off for that. And that's going to affect sales. And I'm not sure that's the goal of the C-Store ships. Maximizing sales I think is the goal of the C-Store ships.
It's late. I'm tired. I'm probably confusing all my points. I'm sorry for that. But basically, I just see how they did up the excelsior and think that this is the new trend for C-Store ships.
And as such ... moving to weaken this ship as a science ship? It's too much of a tradeoff. It then becomes the Galaxy X of science vessels. No reason to purchase it other than for looks. And I'm not sure that's what they intend for C-Store ships anymore.
You know... if you keep this up sarcasm is going to run away from you and start living at the Women's Shelter. I'm just sayin'...
Comments
Nice selective quoting there. I'm not arguing that it couldn't be made into a science ship, but at the time the poster made the assertion that the Nebula-class was outright a science ship, so it should be one in-game. Since the ships role in any media isn't clear and has performed the same tasks as ships like the Excelsior, Galaxy and Constitution-class vessels this wasn't an accurate statement.
A science pod.
A normal pod (Engineering pod I guess).
A Tactical pod.
As far as I know at LEAST the normal and tactical pods are canon. Ideally in this game we'd be able to switch them at a Starbase and basically either make a full Cruiser, a Science Cruiser or a Tactical Cruiser. It would have lower stats compared to a galaxy in every aspect EXCEPT for it's specialization which would be higher.
"Science" ship is a STO reference. In Trek canon no such classification was used for multiple ships that I can think of. Ships similar to "science" ships in STO were typically "hospital" ships.
and both the nebula and galaxy retrofit should have the venture nacelle variant (array strip on top of the nacelle, like is already on teh galx nacelles) as options...since these were variants, upgrades that were actually in the series....
that would never work cause all the current dssv parts would never line up right. it would be a nightmare... its a cruiser.. canon and in game. and acruiser it shall stay... lol.... i mean i could argue that it should have been made an escort cause of the ability to put a torp pod on it.
i believe the oportunity that was missed here was to create a new class and new classifacation of ship in the game. it could have been called like the universal cruiser, where it would get power levels inherant to the class you currently are, and had other univeral (or interchangable) parts, that way its not escort/cruiser/ or sci, but apeases the masses....
oberth.... i could think of no other way of describing it, it has no defense, no combat capabilites, and had that big computer/sensor pod dangling beneath it lol...
According to Memory Alpha, it's about 1.2M tonnes lighter, 200 meters shorter in length, 65 meters shorter in height, and has a beam of 150 meters narrower than the galaxy class*.
*all figures are rounded and not exact.
Those numbers along with the same power plant as the Galaxy, should rate a turn rate higher than the Galaxy class.
Indeed, lighter is one thing, but it's shorter configuration would boost a greater turning rate due to the laws of momentum.
So it should turning rate should be between the Sovereign's 7 and the DSSV's 9. To me, either 8 or 9 is best.
No it's not.
Nebula-Class
Galaxy-Class
With the Sovereign, there is no official numbers, but many go by Bridge Commander (which does use the Nebula's and Galaxy's offical weight) where it's listed at 3,205,000 metric tons.
Mass-wise, the Nebula would have the turning rate of the Sovereign, but with the shorter configuration of the Nebula, with the laws of momentum it would mean a faster turning rate. So I would say a turning rate is anywhere between 7 to 9. And 8 seems an appropriate number.
Personally the DSSV's 9 seems appropriate.
This is why you shouldn't trust Wiki stuff.
http://www.bergoiata.org/fe/divers12/Star%20Trek%20-%20UltimateChart.jpg
While it is shorter it's also more compact. (this chart is very accurate though I couldn't say if it's 100%)
It's saucer is the same size.
It's main hull is roughly the same size (it's not as long but it's bottom doesn't cut out as much.
The nacelles and pylons take up just about the same area.
The only thing a nebula lacks is that neck. It MORE than makes up for that small neck with an even bigger pod.
Unless the Nebula is oddly using a significantly lighter alloy for it's hull or if it's mostly empty there's no way it's THAT much lighter than a Galaxy. It's innards technically cover more area.
Yes it is.
Um... no. Length doesn't factor into momentum. Mass does. So does velocity. Now you could argue that a smaller profile will help prevent things like wind resistance slowing the ship down, but that's going to be a tough sell in space.
And again... shouldn't the Akira then be dragging TRIBBLE compared to the Intrepid, which in turn should dragging TRIBBLE compared to the Nova?
Well, the Oberth was undeniably a Science ship, and Picard made reference to them in "Where No One Has Gone Before."
Lore wise an Oberth would be like Tier 0. I bet a Runabout could potentially take one out.
Scout Transport according to most data. It was just useful for science missions because it has a massive computer core. But then, according to most data the Intrepid, the Steamrunner, the Akira, and the Prometheus classes were all Cruisers...
It may not have started out that way however it's how it is right now. The Nebula is basically a Galaxy-class ship with a few extra options and a little bit less power (that comes from soft canon but I think it's safe to assume since the Galaxy was the flagship class and not the Nebula).
I disagree, the Luna already gets pretty close. The mesh should be comparable.
Making is a Science Ship doesn't necessarily mean it wouldn't be classified as a type of Cruiser, it just means it's not a Cruiser in game terms. I mean, Voyager was referred to as a Cruiser, but in the game it's a Science Vessel.
Really, it makes more sense to make it a Science Vessel, if only for game balance. There are already a lot of Cruisers.
Because this particular ship is so much in demand, and because it has been described as modular in the IP, I'd make it versatile.
LC Tactical
LC Science
LC Engineer
CD Universal
Take away the Tachyon grid thing (in part because that required a FLEET to make), and leave the stats the same otherwise. It's big "power" would be its versatility.
I like it because it hearkens back to the Daedalus class.
4 Front Weapons
3 Rear Weapons
while keeping it slow and ponderous like a Galaxy, but give the original DSSV a turn rate boost.
3 LC and a CM Universal? The ship had better have weak stats. :P
3 and 3 is the T5 layout for Science ships. They're stuck with that.
And a Galaxy turn rate is a death knell for something with science powers as their main focus. Too many science powers use a 90 degree arc.
Mechanically ... this ship works better as a cruiser. The movement/campaign to make it a science ship will make it so much weaker in-game.
It will have no offensive punch and will suffer from the same problem the Galaxy X suffers from (can't turn enough to get the firing arc for the benefits it has).
Sometimes the way the game works really needs to be given more priority than how you might want this ship to work. Making it science will neuter its effectiveness.
Okay, I hadnt considered that. Yeah Galaxy turn rate is a bad idea.
Still, there are a lot of cruisers in the Star Trek Universe and I dont see the balance in giving everything to cruisers. You have the Ambassador still in the pipeline which most certainly should be a cruiser. The NX is also considered a heavy cruiser canon wise.
Making the Nebula into a science vessel spreads the wealth of iconic ships without stepping on canon too harshly.
Thus, is still think it should be a science vessel.
its people like oyu that make me hate people sir
Okay. Then I want my Bird of Prey to have Science Vessel like shields, and this setup:
Universal Commander
Universal Lt.Commander x3
Universal Lt.
Since versatility has always been the "big weapon" of the Bird-of-Prey.
As a Cruiser, however, the suggested setup isn't balanced. It has greatly enhanced versatility at the cost of... what?
Less manoeuvrability? It has the same as the GalR.
Less crew? Same as the ExR, 50 less than an Assault.
No special ability? Nope, it's got one of those.
Less hull/shields? Nope.
Lower speeds? Nope.
Less device slots? Equal to a klingon Battle Cruiser, and really... who cares?
One less Ensign slot? In Exchange for ridiculous versatility for a Cruiser by breaking up the Com/LtC BO slots and making the Lt. Slot universal... not exactly a loss, especially when it's being replaced by a special ability anyway.
Fewer Consoles? Nope, the standard. Has the same setup as the Star.
So... then if it's going to be a Cruiser in your eyes you should start thinking of some new and interesting ways to kneecap it, because it's going to need that. The lack of manoeuvrability compared to other Science Vessels WOULD be a trade off for the advantages the ship has, making it a Cruiser eliminates that and requires a different disadvantage to level the playing field.
Yes, making it a DSSV very much WOULD make it weaker than a Cruiser in-game... and it needs to be weaker than the suggested Cruiser, so that's kind of the point.
It's a C-Store ship. And like the excelsior before it, having drawbacks aren't part of the plan.
It's pretty simple and brutal economics here. This ship as a cruiser is an improvement. And will sell because of that.
This ship as a science ship is weaker. And will sell less.
Sell more? Sell less?
Kneecap it? They didn't do that to the excelsior. They put that baby in and let it fully replace the assault cruiser as the premier assault cruiser.
I maintain that the excelsior shows a movement to no longer level the playing field. But to enhance sales by making power available in the C-Store.
But that's not a good tactic.
That it's coming from the players is odd.
I understand people want something besides a cruiser. That feedback I at least get. But this ship will be worse off for that. And that's going to affect sales. And I'm not sure that's the goal of the C-Store ships. Maximizing sales I think is the goal of the C-Store ships.
It's late. I'm tired. I'm probably confusing all my points. I'm sorry for that. But basically, I just see how they did up the excelsior and think that this is the new trend for C-Store ships.
And as such ... moving to weaken this ship as a science ship? It's too much of a tradeoff. It then becomes the Galaxy X of science vessels. No reason to purchase it other than for looks. And I'm not sure that's what they intend for C-Store ships anymore.
If the turn rate of the Galaxy is too low for a science vessel, the easy solution would be.... give it a higher turn rate
I wouldn´t mind using a cruiser with one of my science toons, but it lacks the commander science slot, that´s where i have the most out of my skills, because i can train them.
You think it´s possible to assign that ship a universal commander station, maybe something like
Tactical 2
Engineering 2
Universal 4
Universal 3
I realize your general theme here seems to "break the game entirely" but that's not exactly constructive (not that what Cryptic's doing IS, but that's no excuse).
Honest feedback is... as a Cruiser it isn't balanced.
The ship as a Cruiser is more powerful, saying it's "an improvement" is disingenuous. Breaking the game (more) is not an improvement. And of course, the more you break a game the less your audience is going to want to play it.
Sell more one off items? Sell less subs longterm?
Yeah, and I chided that move. And I'm still chiding that move. And I'm hoping eventually that they will do a balancing pass an something will change, be it the Excelsior downward, or the remaining ships upwards.
You know... if you keep this up sarcasm is going to run away from you and start living at the Women's Shelter. I'm just sayin'...