test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Options
Actual Definition of a "CRUISER"...
paragon92518
Member Posts: 268
(Taken from Dictionary.com)...
Cruiser
1. A person or thing that cruises.
2. One of a class of warships of medium tonnage, designed for high speed and long cruising radius.
3 Vessel, especially a power-driven one, intended for cruising.
This is the actual terminology for a "Cruiser". Based on the actual definitions or possible meanings, WHY does the turn-rate of every Cruiser in STO fantastically suck? To term that question better..........
Why can there not be a smaller Cruiser with better turning? NO, I'M
NOT ASKING FOR AN ESCORT. I'm not asking for the ooomph of firepower punch an Escort may bring. Just a smaller Cruiser at T5, better turning, that's all. Think of it as a Galorish type of Cruiser. Another note....WHY does Starfleet keep making insanely huge Cruiser ships? Look at a ship of the Galor's size. It's a nice little ship with a fairly good turning rate. WHY can't Starfleet AKA Devs, design ships that function similar based on that???
Cruiser
1. A person or thing that cruises.
2. One of a class of warships of medium tonnage, designed for high speed and long cruising radius.
3 Vessel, especially a power-driven one, intended for cruising.
This is the actual terminology for a "Cruiser". Based on the actual definitions or possible meanings, WHY does the turn-rate of every Cruiser in STO fantastically suck? To term that question better..........
Why can there not be a smaller Cruiser with better turning? NO, I'M
NOT ASKING FOR AN ESCORT. I'm not asking for the ooomph of firepower punch an Escort may bring. Just a smaller Cruiser at T5, better turning, that's all. Think of it as a Galorish type of Cruiser. Another note....WHY does Starfleet keep making insanely huge Cruiser ships? Look at a ship of the Galor's size. It's a nice little ship with a fairly good turning rate. WHY can't Starfleet AKA Devs, design ships that function similar based on that???
![http://media.photobucket.com/image/dofftrader/yoreantiques/DOFFtrader.gif[/SIGPIC]](http://media.photobucket.com/image/dofftrader/yoreantiques/DOFFtrader.gif[/SIGPIC]){kind=link}
Post edited by paragon92518 on
0
Comments
A smaller cruiser with a better turn radius but not an escort would be pretty Unexciting.
you can also ask for a larger escort with a slower turn rate and less dmg.
Starfleet doesnt want to call them battle ships. So they choose cruiser cause they have the crew and capabilities for long journeys. An escort with a crew of 50 does not.
and then it wont turn as well as an escort because thats not what it is designed to do
Rear Admiral , Engineering Division
U.S.S. Sheffield N.C.C. 92016
so the cruisers in game are in fact cruisers
the user formally known as kiss.my.rear.admiral
So that's why the CRUISERS are all so large, because most of them are just combat refits of existing EXPLORATION craft.
But they are inline for teh futuristic tech that the ships use. and it's very much inline with the canon of the tv series and movies. the ships even as big as the Galaxy were quite maneuverable.
Cruiser for the Fedration are ships which are fast (warp speeds), which can defend itself (offense and defense), and has long endurance and is multi-purpose/mission capable. A Cruiser for the Klingons is aptly described by the term Battle Cruiser. These are ships which are exceptionally armed and armored, which are fast (Warp speed) and much more manuverable then a equivalent Federation Cruiser. Battle Cruiser are made for war and fighting and any mission related to that.
For example the Ticonderoga class cruiser is the largest surface combatant in the US Navy (The ship is actually designed as a massive escort vessel) while the Russian cruiser Pyotr Velikiy is the largest combatant in active service anywhere. Heck the Russians call their Aircraft Carrier an Heavy Aircraft Carrying Missile Cruiser, and while you are at it the Iranians have been known to call their patrol boats and frigates 'Battleships'.
As to why don't we have a Federation Cruiser with the turning radius of the Cardassian Galor, the answer is we do: its the Excelsior and the Fleet Cheyenne. The Fleet Nebula also should count although its a "Science Vessel" with only six weapons and not eight, I think in game it's occasionally referred to as a "light cruiser" anyways. They are very close to the Galor in maneuverability (only slightly below).
Because you fail to understand the basic concept of inertia.
Large mass + high speed = bad turn rate.
Low mass + high speed = hard turns possible.
In naval terms a cruiser is a ship that is heavy enough to be considered a ship of the line (capital ship) that retains the speed and long range of lighter vessels. In the old days of sail they were called Frigates (British classification: 5th rate).
In star trek, a cruiser is a long range vessel that can move at higher warp speeds. It has nothing to do with turn rate.
There are cruisers that turn better than others. Assault Cruisers and Excelsior come to mind. Science ships are also cruisers (though technically STO did fail in this area.. ships like the Intrepid class are cruisers not science vessels). KDF has the flight deck cruisers and raptors (they are cruisers!).
Each fleet are basically given 3 classes Frigates, Escorts, and Cruisers. Put aside the modern Navies terms because today's modern navies have warped the differences between what is what. None the less these terms are more in fact based on past ship designs when there were true Frigates, True Escorts, and True Cruisers. As for the turn rates...what do you expect for having more mass to be lighter? You will always lose something to gain something. Even the Defiant had to pay something for it's massive power. There is no one ship that is UNBEATABLE my friend, for if there were there would be no game now would there.
Now...would it kill the Devs to make some other Cruiser ships that are similar to a Galor? I'm not saying flood the market...just STOP MAKING ZED ZEPPELIN TYPE Cruisers that are massive in size. Would it behoove them to make 1 or 2 other ships like a Galor? That way, if someone didn't want a WHALE, they wouldn't have to settle for that abortion of a ship...the Odyssey....err should I say "the humpback whale"!
I'll take a T5 Excalibur, or a T5 Exeter....or some completely new ship yet to be introduced.
There is a smaller sized cruiser already available:
http://www.stowiki.org/Fleet_Heavy_Cruiser_Retrofit
BTW the Galor you like to reference to so much has been called a Destroyer in canon.
From: "The Sacrifice of Angels"
And it's been called "cruiser" in other episodes
KALITA: There are nine Galor-class cruisers about six light years away.
-DS9: Defiant
TORRES: The Maquis used to lure the Cardassians into the Badlands. Those Galor class cruisers had nowhere to run.
-Voy: Fury
so what's your point?
That it's a class that lines up between Cruisers and Destroyers. The OP is comparing Starfleet cruisers to something that is not in the same class. The Galor seems to fall in the Light Cruiser or Destroyer Leader classification. While the Starfleet ships are almost universally called a Heavy Cruiser (or Star Cruiser etc), the only Light is the T1 Centaur.
Considering how inconsistent the authors were about the Cardassians over the years (Galors were also called "warship" and their armament has been called "phaser", "disruptor" and "phase-disruptor") it's possible it's just an error.
It seems the basic problem is that Cryptic stuffed all ships into three categories and used the term "cruiser" for one of them.
Given that we have so many ships of different sizes and ages in those categories there is a whole lot of overlap and confusion.
For example the Constitution was a "Heavy Cruiser" during the movie era, but so was the Ambassador in TNG's first season.
Does this make both ships equal?
Even comparable?
With regards to the ships of the other factions we face an even bigger problem given some might have a tendency to build rather compact ships (Klingons) or giants (Romulans).
So where does the Galor stand?
In terms of her size she's roughly comparable to the Excelsior.
In terms of performance...who knows?
Probably depends on which generation of Excelsior you throw against which generation of Galor.
We also don't know how old the Galors are, we only know the version in TNG was called "type 3" which might mean it's the second refit...or not.
However she basically seemed to maneuver like an Excelsior so I'd stick to the cruiser designation since that'd would make at least some kind of sense.
Cruisers were literally a Battleships little brother. You could hurt your neck looking at the number of guns bristling these things. Then you add Pocket Cruisers, Escorts, and a slew of other ships in the Cruiser range and you will see Cruisers were massive ships compared to Frigates, Escorts, and Destroyers.
If the Galor is a light cruiser...it should be outmatched and outgunned by say...the T5 Excelsior...then?...Anytime I've witnessed PvP, it's usually the opposite.
The Light Cruiser might not be the best term to describe the Galor, at least how it is used in-game.
The turn radius of ships has nothing to do with the naval classification for cruisers. It's more closely associated with displacement or combat role. And comparing a Cardassian "destroyer" (which was likely a made up classification, similar to NATO's classification for soviet ships) to a Federation cruiser based on name conventions alone is absolutely unfair. You need to look at the actual specs and design considerations, not the names.
Join Date: Sept 2008
"Holographic tissue paper for the holographic runny nose. Don't give them to patients." - The Doctor