There was no (in universe) need to build the Sovereign in the first place. The only reason we have that ship is because the people in charge wanted to have something that would fit more to the big screen. As i already said the owners of Star Trek must have really strange visions about who is capable to make a star trek product.
all the tng movies would have been more awesome if the enterprise D wasn't destroyed and instead reft into a more war time configuration. first contact could have been D vs borg rematch, they could have separated the saucer and tried to self destruct the star drive instead of have everyone abandon ship, insurrection wouldn't have changed much, and the nemisis battle would have been just as epic, but a bit different. the D wouldn't move quite as fast, but we would proboly be able to see massive volumes of torps launched, and a scimitar not unscathed at the end of the fighting.
the sovereign class was the final replacement of the excelsior, and was to become the excelsior of its time. only back when the excelsior was new, it was the largest. mid 24th century there is a size tier above that with the galaxy and nebula. it could be seen as a final ambassador replacement too, they are very nearly the same volume. the sovereign fits well at the top of the new releases in the 2360s and 70s that include the nova, defiant, saber, intrepid, norway, steamrunner, and akira.
No, it was a house of cards propped up by plot armor. DS9 made it a society that was actually achievable and credible.
Try to see it from a production point of view. With TNG, Roddenberry created a utopia, a nearly perfect humanity, a positive future mankind. Try to see it similar to something like Tolkiens elves. Much more ethical advanced and not as down to earth as we are.
Later (especially) the producers of DS9 turned Star Treks humanity into a much more generic and ordinary Sci Fi humanity. People behaved like they where much more from today and the high moral standards became just a hollow ideal. With DS9 Star Trek became "just another" Sci fi series, over the years. The producers removed what was special about Star Trek IMO.
In some way they did what cryptic did too, they took someone elses work and turned it inside out.
Don't missunderstand me, i like (some) DS9 characters very much, but i don't like the direction Star Trek went with DS9.
all the tng movies would have been more awesome if the enterprise D wasn't destroyed and instead reft into a more war time configuration. first contact could have been D vs borg rematch, they could have separated the saucer and tried to self destruct the star drive instead of have everyone abandon ship, insurrection wouldn't have changed much, and the nemisis battle would have been just as epic, but a bit different. the D wouldn't move quite as fast, but we would proboly be able to see massive volumes of torps launched, and a scimitar not unscathed at the end of the fighting.
It would have been EPIC!
Just imagine the Enterprise -D entering the Battle of 001, or the meeting in space with the phoenix.:cool:
The borg would have assimilated the corridors we all know, instead of assimilating a ship we don't even know (or care) in the first place. It would have been much more emotional.
With introdiction of the Galaxy Class and the Nebula, i was really hoping that Starfleet ships would look more majestic, elegant, fluid and mighty in the future. But with the Sovereign, they did a step back to designs with long nacelles and angular design elements on starfleet ships. Design wise, the Sovereign looks more like a ship between the Excelsior and the Ambassador, but not like a ship that was designed AFTER the galaxy.
I never understood why the Producers thought a design like the Sovereign would be "better" for the big screen than the Galaxy Class. In contrast to the Galaxy Class, the Sovereign has only very few angles where it really looks good IMO. Especially from behind that ship looks horrible, having its long but narrow Nacelles point towards the beholder is just a pain. Its Pylons look much too fragile to hold those rediculus big Nacelles.
I could go on and on, but i think discussing about taste leads us nowhere.
Thank you for reading.
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
I never understood why the Producers thought a design like the Sovereign would be "better" for the big screen than the Galaxy Class. In contrast to the Galaxy Class, the Sovereign has only very few angles where it really looks good IMO. Especially from behind that ship looks horrible, having its long but narrow Nacelles point towards the beholder is just a pain. Its Pylons look much too fragile to hold those rediculus big Nacelles.
I could go on and on, but i think discussing about taste leads us nowhere.
They were going for a more majestic and sleek look. The Galaxy certainly was majestic, I won't debate that, but it was a little clunky. The Sovereign was designed to flow better on the eyes, which it did with it's more streamlined profile. And it was certainly sleeker, and far easier to believe that it could pull off some of the maneuvers it did in both First Contact and Insurrection. I mean, I know the Galaxy could probably pull off some of those turns and other things, but the Sovereign just looked better doing it. No offense.
It is said the best weapon is one that is never fired. I disagree. The best weapon is one you only have to fire... once.
1) Dilithium farming mechanic that involves trade of non-replicable supplies and cargo hold size. It will be much more efficient with a cruiser or a freighter.
2) Tie inventory space and replicator EC prices to cargo bay size of the ship type. Have cruisers with the most generous modifiers, science vessels have a close 2nd, and escorts having the least.
Suddenly, escorts don't seem so OP. Though this might mean that we'll see nothing by Oddy's and Tuffli's flying around in sector space...
In TNG, humanity has EVOLVED beyond our comprehension of how a society should work. Humanity has become grown up.
No it "evolved" into some Marxist ideal society. That is what TNG showed. One where just like the USSR, eventually, if there is external pressure, it will either collapse or change to protect itself. DS9 was society realizing that not everyone wants to live in that Utopia, and people born to that Utopia sometimes need to violate their own principles and ideals if they are to survive as a culture.
Knowing that, i just don't buy that Starfleet would send Galaxy Class ships configurated like the Enterprise -D into war.
All they probably did, is remove the familes, seal off any non-essential areas and then send them to battle. By limiting power use to all but offensive and defensive roles plus limiting the need to protect now empty areas of the ship. It is more or less ready to go into battle.
But I'll have to note, that even in TNG, Flag ships of high ranking officers, and ships meant for patrolling the neutral zone etc, (aka defensive roles) were typically Excelsior class ships.
Enterprise D was a exploration ship, as such its bulk and its additional compliment of science personal, and families etc can be carried around. But it was far from being a War ship, only in TNG's alternate universes is it mentioned that the Galaxy Class is actually armed for war.
well then the game needs an actual Exploration mechanic that an escort cant do well?
Like, oh I dunno. Big Exploration ships actually USING cargo to haul for instance. Where an escort Pilot would have to make 10 trips where as the Galaxy could do it in 1 trip?
But no, this is a battle game.
Or make the cool-down for batteries on cruisers either not linked to each other or shorter (to make use of large cargo bays). (JNot the best idea, but an idea nonetheless)
In TNG, humanity has EVOLVED beyond our comprehension of how a society should work. Humanity has become grown up. The Federations wasn't perfect, just look at episodes like TNG: The Measure Of A Man where Picard had to fight for Datas rights. Besides that, the Federation WAS what we would call perfect, that was negated in DS9. In retrospect the federation was pictured as just as un perfect as our societies today. It became trivial, nothing that was worth to look forward to, or a goal that would be worth to achieve.
Or the Federation citizens believed enough that they had conquered humanities demons during a time of great prosperity, only to learn that their beliefs weren't so true . Much like America in the late fifties and early sixties.
Or much of the Federation didn't even know that it had its own "demons" hiding in the shadows
The Galaxy Class we know best (Ent -D) was clearly fitted to serve as the Flagship of the Federation in times of peace. Galaxy Class ships can very easy be re configurated to fit any Mission profile needed, INCLUDING tactical missions. Knowing that, i just don't buy that Starfleet would send Galaxy Class ships configurated like the Enterprise -D into war.
There was no (in universe) need to build the Sovereign in the first place. The only reason we have that ship is because the people in charge wanted to have something that would fit more to the big screen. As i already said the owners of Star Trek must have really strange visions about who is capable to make a star trek product.
There are plenty of reasons to start building Sovy's in place of new Galaxies, among them may be:
Desire to build ships with reduced requirements of materials
New design techniques that have made slightly smaller ships more viable
A curb on the need for long range exploration vessels (such as in times of war)
A reversal on the policy of allowing families on board for long term missions (reduction in requirement for a large ship like the Galaxy)
Try to see it from a production point of view. With TNG, Roddenberry created a utopia, a nearly perfect humanity, a positive future mankind. Try to see it similar to something like Tolkiens elves. Much more ethical advanced and not as down to earth as we are.
Later (especially) the producers of DS9 turned Star Treks humanity into a much more generic and ordinary Sci Fi humanity. People behaved like they where much more from today and the high moral standards became just a hollow ideal. With DS9 Star Trek became "just another" Sci fi series, over the years. The producers removed what was special about Star Trek IMO.
In some way they did what cryptic did too, they took someone elses work and turned it inside out.
Don't missunderstand me, i like (some) DS9 characters very much, but i don't like the direction Star Trek went with DS9.
For me, the whole Utopian society of TNG was far fetched to begin with. The human condition requires conflict to grow. The second that everything becomes sanitized and near perfect, it turns on itself. Honestly, once DS9 got rolling (after the first season or so) it was a refreshing break from TNG, where everyone and everything was the "best of the best of the best", even the "screwballs" there were the best screwballs (I do get the "flagship" thing, but come on). Man cannot live on "sugar and spice" alone.
It would have been EPIC!
Just imagine the Enterprise -D entering the Battle of 001, or the meeting in space with the phoenix.:cool:
The borg would have assimilated the corridors we all know, instead of assimilating a ship we don't even know (or care) in the first place. It would have been much more emotional.
With introdiction of the Galaxy Class and the Nebula, i was really hoping that Starfleet ships would look more majestic, elegant, fluid and mighty in the future. But with the Sovereign, they did a step back to designs with long nacelles and angular design elements on starfleet ships. Design wise, the Sovereign looks more like a ship between the Excelsior and the Ambassador, but not like a ship that was designed AFTER the galaxy.
I never understood why the Producers thought a design like the Sovereign would be "better" for the big screen than the Galaxy Class. In contrast to the Galaxy Class, the Sovereign has only very few angles where it really looks good IMO. Especially from behind that ship looks horrible, having its long but narrow Nacelles point towards the beholder is just a pain. Its Pylons look much too fragile to hold those rediculus big Nacelles.
I could go on and on, but i think discussing about taste leads us nowhere.
Thank you for reading.
And all of that is your opinion, just as much as other people who have opinions otherwise. I found the Galaxy to be far too "top heavy" with the design of the saucer section. Any models I had of the ship always wants to tip over frontwards, where Connie', Excel' and Sovy' classes aren't like that so much. It was this guy with a tiny body and a massive head. To me, the Galaxy just doesn't look right.
I don't want to get into that nerd fight, but I have to say for me the Galaxy is just the "Enterprise" I grew up with.
I would love to fly it, but as it impemented in STO it doesn't reflect what I would consider a good ship.
The solution to this would (imho) be very simple. A bit different boff layout and the rotation of 3 forward and 3 backward hardpoints by 90 degrees.
Now if we fit that with one forward firing torpedo ramp, one backward firing torpedo ramp and 6 beam arrays this resulsts in a broadsider that fires it's broadside forward and rearward, everytime supported by a torpedo tube.
One could even kite Donatra with this ship and do something usefull in PvE !
I'm fully aware my solution would paint the ship in a corner, but given the weapons available to fed cruisers there are not that many fitting options anyway.
One may call it the phantasy universe Galaxy. :P
Not going to happen, and in all likelyhood not possible with the hardcode of the game. The ship still wouldn't do tight turns. However, the amount of crowd control on this ship should make up for it.
Close enough to the shows where they mostly found a sci/eng solution to their problems rather than Picard just screaming "all weapons fire at will !"
I know the first officer was a tac but some concessions to game balancing have to be made.
I don't want to get into that nerd fight, but I have to say for me the Galaxy is just the "Enterprise" I grew up with.
I would love to fly it, but as it impemented in STO it doesn't reflect what I would consider a good ship.
The solution to this would (imho) be very simple. A bit different boff layout and the rotation of 3 forward and 3 backward hardpoints by 90 degrees.
Now if we fit that with one forward firing torpedo ramp, one backward firing torpedo ramp and 6 beam arrays this resulsts in a broadsider that fires it's broadside forward and rearward, everytime supported by a torpedo tube.
One could even kite Donatra with this ship and do something usefull in PvE !
I'm fully aware my solution would paint the ship in a corner, but given the weapons available to fed cruisers there are not that many fitting options anyway.
One may call it the phantasy universe Galaxy. :P
Not going to happen, and in all likelyhood not possible with the hardcode of the game. The ship still wouldn't do tight turns. However, the amount of crowd control on this ship should make up for it.
Close enough to the shows where they mostly found a sci/eng solution to their problems rather than Picard just screaming "all weapons fire at will !"
I know the first officer was a tac but some concessions to game balancing have to be made.
that boff layout came up actually many times, in all those numerous posts about the galaxy class.
Myself i would like to see it on the normal version and the fleet version, but as you said thats just a phantasy.
i could see this with a gravity well 1 and a TBR1...with the right skills this alone is a massive dmg boost.
It would also perfectly mirror the nebula class which has the commander sci and the ltdcmdr engi.
but thats a fantasy the responsible people at cryptic do not share, or they want to introduce a this boff layout later with another new design.
For me, the whole Utopian society of TNG was far fetched to begin with. The human condition requires conflict to grow. The second that everything becomes sanitized and near perfect, it turns on itself. Honestly, once DS9 got rolling (after the first season or so) it was a refreshing break from TNG, where everyone and everything was the "best of the best of the best", even the "screwballs" there were the best screwballs (I do get the "flagship" thing, but come on). Man cannot live on "sugar and spice" alone.
Yeah, that's all true. But it still was the Star Trek i and many others grew up with and the one i liked most. (I never liked TOS much)
Maybe it was the more detached approach that was so different to any other Sci Fi show i knew then. My point is, no matter which incarnation of Trek shows a more "realistic" mankind, the people in charge of DS9 changed roddenberrys Trek in a way it was never intended to.
Maybe that's what i dislike about it the most.
People in charge of a Star Trek product who change things where they really should keep their dirty hands off. I mean if someone has a good idea about a Sci Fi series then they should be bold enough to create their own Universe, instead of distorting someone elses work.
For example, you don't take Tolkiens world and make it a "movie for adults" (if you know what i mean).
And all of that is your opinion, just as much as other people who have opinions otherwise. I found the Galaxy to be far too "top heavy" with the design of the saucer section. Any models I had of the ship always wants to tip over frontwards, where Connie', Excel' and Sovy' classes aren't like that so much. It was this guy with a tiny body and a massive head. To me, the Galaxy just doesn't look right.
Of course it's my opionion, just like you are writing your opinion in every post here.
Everyone writes his/her opinion. (sorry, if you didn't know that.;))
As i already said, taste is nothing one should argue about. I grew up with the Galaxy Class and i like it much more than this "Excelsior reincarnation", they call Sovereign Class.
They could have easily reworked the Galaxy Class Design to make it look more sleek or different. For example, just look at the numerous possibilities that are availlable in STO and these are just the beginning.And there could be much more nice and cool looking Galaxy Class ship parts in STO, if Cryptic had some really talented modelers, who had a bit more taste about proportions and relations. (sorry guys).
Personally i don't solely use the original Galaxy Class ship parts in STO.
Saucer, Neck, Nacelles, Venture.
Engineering Hull, Pylons Galaxy Class
Thats how i would imagine a Movie suitable Galaxy class refit. But again that's just MY opinion.
I find it just a bit unfair that the Galaxy Class is pictured as inferior than the Sovereign, just because the people in charge have a bad taste.
As i have written (i think) about hundred times by now, the Galaxy was the most modular and refit- friendly ship Starfleet has ever build. There was just no need to introduce another top Starfleet Battleship/cruiser/ whatever you want to call it. To show fast paced action sequences they easily could have seperated the ship to make some really AWESOME action sequences.
In STO, the Galaxy class easily could last another 50 years along the biggest and toughest Starfleet ships without any problem, what it needs is a more "balanced" console Layout, maybe 3 Eng, 2 Tac, 3 Sci and one universal.
And instead of its Lt. Sci and Ensign Engineering it should get a ensign and a Lt. universal.
They even could lower the Hull HP about some percent IMO. I would be perfectly OK with such a ship. It doesn't have to be on Par with the Odyssey or it's Klingon Counterpart, but it needs to be more than just a boring tank and heal ship. (There are other ships in STO that would suit to that role much better IMO.)
Alone for the numerous people who love that ship, Cryptic should have made the Galaxy Class a bit more versatile and a bit more fun to fly. They easily could have used one of their own designs (the Typhoon Class or the Federation Dreadnought) to be the flying brick in STO.
I know they won't chage the Galaxy Class anymore. All they want to do, is to press more money out of the playerbase.
The only thing i could see them doing is to release something like a "special Exploration/Battle/TNG edition", a "mirror universe" or a "yesterday's Enterprise" version of the Galaxy class and charge som ZEN for it. In that way everyone would get what he wants.
YOU could keep flying the "Brick" ship, CRYPTIC would make money, and the Galaxy Class FANS would finally get a ship that is much more useable and fun to fly. Win - Win - Win for everyone! :cool:
Thank you for reading.
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
The Sovereign is not a replacement for the Galaxy class but for the aging Excelsior class. Sternbach stated this in a discussion thread on the TrekBBS years ago. This isn't even a question. Even if you didn't know that bit of info canonically speaking the galaxy was designed with a 100 year lifespan in mind when created coupled with specifically being designed for easy modulation to accept upgrades. Throughout the series the Enterprise was the recipient of bleeding edge technologies throughout the series. The sovereign isn't even a decade older than the galaxy - they are contemporary technologies.
[*]A curb on the need for long range exploration vessels (such as in times of war)
Exploration is the charter of Star Fleet.
Galaxy class is well within its 100 year designed service. It should absolutely be a viable ship considering its size and being specifically designed to receive upgrades readily and easily.
The Sovereign is not a replacement for the Galaxy class but for the aging Excelsior class. Sternbach stated this in a discussion thread on the TrekBBS years ago. This isn't even a question. Even if you didn't know that bit of info canonically speaking the galaxy was designed with a 100 year lifespan in mind when created coupled with specifically being designed for easy modulation to accept upgrades. Throughout the series the Enterprise was the recipient of bleeding edge technologies throughout the series. The sovereign isn't even a decade older than the galaxy - they are contemporary technologies.
Sure lets, say it doesn't replace the Galaxy. that is because the Galaxy was made for long range exploration. The Sovereign can do 95% of what the Galaxy does, is smaller, requires a smaller crew. The Galaxy can do it what does best, exploring, without being taxed on combat/patrol duty.
And the Galaxy, in-game, has received cutting edge technology to make it a more combat capable role, it's called the Galaxy-X. That's going to be your hardened combat role Galaxy.
Smaller ships have always been viable pertaining to what their role is. Different ships have different roles. It (again) doesn't signify anything.
If a fleet can do almost as much with a smaller vessel than larger ships, why not? The fleet doesn't need a honkingly big 1,000 member crewed ship for partol and typical cruiser-ish roles. Why build all of those Galaxy class when the Sovereigns design can pretty much do everything but go on large range exploration?
Exploration is ONE of the things Starfleet does, it also provides for the defense and saftery of Federation worlds and territories.They still have plenty of Galaxy's to do exploration, why risk them for more mundane missions that don't make use of their long range capabilities
Galaxy class is well within its 100 year designed service. It should absolutely be a viable ship considering its size and being specifically designed to receive upgrades readily and easily.
For exploration, yes, keep them in that role, thats what it does best. The Sovereign is more than capable of handling the other duties
I find it just a bit unfair that the Galaxy Class is pictured as inferior than the Sovereign, just because the people in charge have a bad taste. Thank you for reading.
You do realize that they have a combat version of the Galaxy, the Galaxy X. With the exception of the lance and a different turn rate (and inertia) its as good as the Sovereign for dps. Add the lance in, it's better.
As far as the R version goes. I am using my Tac in it and it has been doing fine in STF and Fleet Mark events.
Front
1xDBB
2xBA
1x 180' Quantum Torp
Rear
3xBA
1x Q torp
If I need to turn, I ditch the saucer, otherwise I HYT1 and FAW2 to get the job done.
Also the Galaxy does have at least 50 years worth more time in its design, but why risk a ship that requires so much materials to build to have the capacity for long range missions when you can build a more compat/patrol orientated design instead (Sovy').
And you are also aware that if you turn the Galaxy's sauver section 90', it looks amazingly like the Sovy's Saucer section?
Sure lets, say it doesn't replace the Galaxy. that is because the Galaxy was made for long range exploration. The Sovereign can do 95% of what the Galaxy does, is smaller, requires a smaller crew. The Galaxy can do it what does best, exploring, without being taxed on combat/patrol duty.
And the Galaxy, in-game, has received cutting edge technology to make it a more combat capable role, it's called the Galaxy-X. That's going to be your hardened combat role Galaxy.
It signifies that ships of the line don't need to be as large as the Galaxy when the Sovy makes more sense for day to day operations.
If a fleet can do almost as much with a smaller vessel than larger ships, why not? The fleet doesn't need a honkingly big 1,000 member crewed ship for partol and typical cruiser-ish roles. Why build all of those Galaxy class when the Sovereigns design can pretty much do everything but go on large range exploration?
Exploration is ONE of the things Starfleet does, it also provides for the defense and saftery of Federation worlds and territories.They still have plenty of Galaxy's to do exploration, why risk them for more mundane missions that don't make use of their long range capabilities
For exploration, yes, keep them in that role, thats what it does best. The Sovereign is more than capable of handling the other duties
the premise that the sovereign can do 95% if what a galaxy can do is laughably false. the galaxy is 2.4 times larger then a sovereign, its main phaser array is almost 3 times longer, and its 2 torpedo launchers can fire 10 torpedoes in 1 second with no indication that they cant fire that many again in another second. from the tng movies, all the sovereigns torp launchers are ether single shot or burst 3. though they can be reloaded and fire again in a second or 2.
all that extra space is going to count for a lot more then 5% in terms of exploration and scientific capability, and its armaments are also of a higher caliber. when a galaxy isn't serving as a battleship during a war, its likely intended to spend a decade at a time away from federation space all by itself, and it has room for all the equipment and supplies it needs to do it. during tng, you didn't see any galaxys doing that, but the class was still less then a decade old then and still likely proving itself before they were sent that far out. just in case there was any flaw in it that would result in a loss like the Yamato, in that case it was an Iconian virus. they were thinking in terms of a 100 year period, they proboly wouldn't even consider the class properly vetted and broken in for at least 10 years. its the smaller ships that stay closer to home and do more limited exploring, filling in the gaps in a galaxy's exploration pattern for example.
for a ship its size, 1000 crew is extreamly sparse really. it can support 5000 more then that if it needs too. connies that were a almost 28 times smaller had over 400 crew. and for a fleet of tens of thousands of ships, the resources to make a galaxy over any other class is a drop in the bucket, in yearly ship building the difference would be lost if there was any rounding on the cost sheets.
the galaxy X is the ugliest pos in the game, its just a terrible ship in every way and promotes a playstyle that is unworkable. any other dpsing cruiser will do a hilariously better job, this even in pve. oh and any conclusion you draw in pve is worthless, you can role your face across the key board and beat elite stfs. you are never asked to even use 50% of your ships potential in pve, but in pvp the closer to 100% you are, the more likely you will do well. its pvp that you will see exactly how terrabad both galaxy's are.
Sure lets, say it doesn't replace the Galaxy. that is because the Galaxy was made for long range exploration. The Sovereign can do 95% of what the Galaxy does, is smaller, requires a smaller crew. The Galaxy can do it what does best, exploring, without being taxed on combat/patrol duty.
Its not lets say - it is an absolute. It was not designed or intended to replace the Galaxy. Saying the sovereign can do 95% of what a Galaxy can isn't even worth addressing and you're implying that the Galaxy wasn't designed for combat? The Galaxy was designed and constructed right after the Federations most turbulent era (aside from the Dominion war) and has displayed remarkable tactile efficiency.
It signifies that ships of the line don't need to be as large as the Galaxy when the Sovy makes more sense for day to day operations.
Of course not all ships need to be as large as a Galaxy. As mentioned before different ships have different purposes. Otherwise the US Navy would be filled with Air Craft carriers instead of the several classes that serve with multiple different roles.
If a fleet can do almost as much with a smaller vessel than larger ships, why not? The fleet doesn't need a honkingly big 1,000 member crewed ship for partol and typical cruiser-ish roles. Why build all of those Galaxy class when the Sovereigns design can pretty much do everything but go on large range exploration?
Why don't you understand different ships have different roles? Thats the fundamental flaw in your lack of understanding. Yet at the same time you point out the difference between a Galaxy and a Sovereign - that one is better suited for deep exploration than the other. Yet then you imply that the sovereign could do just as good, which is somewhat ridiculous.
Exploration is ONE of the things Starfleet does, it also provides for the defense and saftery of Federation worlds and territories.They still have plenty of Galaxy's to do exploration, why risk them for more mundane missions that don't make use of their long range capabilities
Which would be why the Galaxy carried the biggest guns in the fleet along with the largest torpedo launcher.
Its not lets say - it is an absolute. It was not designed or intended to replace the Galaxy. Saying the sovereign can do 95% of what a Galaxy can isn't even worth addressing and you're implying that the Galaxy wasn't designed for combat? The Galaxy was designed and constructed right after the Federations most turbulent era (aside from the Dominion war) and has displayed remarkable tactile efficiency.
The introduction of the Sovereign has allowed to replace destroyed Galaxies AND Excelsior's on the front and second lines. Surviving Galaxy's were allowed to go about its primary role again, exploration. To an extent, Sovereigns did replace Galaxy's.
Of course not all ships need to be as large as a Galaxy. As mentioned before different ships have different purposes. Otherwise the US Navy would be filled with Air Craft carriers instead of the several classes that serve with multiple different roles.
Why don't you understand different ships have different roles? Thats the fundamental flaw in your lack of understanding. Yet at the same time you point out the difference between a Galaxy and a Sovereign - that one is better suited for deep exploration than the other. Yet then you imply that the sovereign could do just as good, which is somewhat ridiculous.
You have miunderstood what I have said. 95% of the capabilities of the Galaxy are to be able to conduct typical cruiser roles, the role that the Sovereign isn't capable of doing is long range exploration, which requires that bulk, space and crew of the Galaxy to do. That 5% difference in the capabilities of Sovereigns design allows it to conduct combat operations with greater proficiency than the Galaxy has.
I wasn't suggesting what it does as a percentage of mission hours/days/years, but as a percentage of what the ships CAN do between each other.
Which would be why the Galaxy carried the biggest guns in the fleet along with the largest torpedo launcher.
The shots on the Galaxy were mostly Beam Overload style volleys probably combined multiple arrays together (just by watching what it did) that doesn't make it "bigger", just makes it different approaches. And quantum torps are more powerfull than photons, so the SOvy doesn't need to fire 5-9 torps a volley.
Interesting, you seem to be implying a Galaxy class is toothless.
No, I am implying that the Galaxy is an expensive ship to operate (in both materials and crew) and that it should be doing exploration instead of wasting its capabilities in a front line combat or patrol roles that other ships (that aren't built for long range exploration) can do.
You do realize that they have a combat version of the Galaxy, the Galaxy X. With the exception of the lance and a different turn rate (and inertia) its as good as the Sovereign for dps. Add the lance in, it's better.
If i wanted to fly a ugly ship i would fly the Regent or Sovereign. Compared to the Galaxy -X, the Regent has at least much more Tac BOFF stations. For me, the -X is just as exaggerated and un-proportioned as the Excelsior.
As far as the R version goes. I am using my Tac in it and it has been doing fine in STF and Fleet Mark events.
Front
1xDBB
2xBA
1x 180' Quantum Torp
Rear
3xBA
1x Q torp
If I need to turn, I ditch the saucer, otherwise I HYT1 and FAW2 to get the job done.
One of my Characters (tactical) uses the Galaxy -R with the following configuration: Weapons
Front:
3x Disruptor Hybrid Beam array MK XI
180 degrees Quantum torpedo Launcher
Aft:
3x Disruptor Hybrid Beam array MK XI
Quantum torpedo LauncherMK XII
That way i get decent (for a galaxy Class) boardside firepower. Combined with 2x EptW1 and 2x EptS2, FAW1 and Torp. Spread II, it gets the best out of that ship (for my expectations).
You can also use Eject Warp plasma (or a comoparable console) to nail the enemy and to debuff it's resistances. I even use Directed energy modulation to tease out the last bit of offensive this ship can get.
But that's not the Point. ANY other ship in the game has better possibilities to be active in combat! Even the tiny Fleet Nova Class or the Galor Class has more firepower (thats just Intolerable, imo)!
That is what bothers me, the Galaxy is the cruiser with the LEAST offensive capabilities of all ships in the game! It would be better if it had a Lt. Cmdr science availlable, but its BOFF layout consists mostly of Engineering Slots. That's just stupid. (sorry for being blunt)
Every other ship has better possibilities to be active in combat if it is more tactical or science abilities. That's what bothers me most about the BO layout of that ship, it is just too frel***g passive.
For a ship that is iconic and popular as the Galaxy Class, the devs have made a awful job to make it a fun to fly ship! (or to affirm my personal theory, the devs just hate TNG)
Also the Galaxy does have at least 50 years worth more time in its design, but why risk a ship that requires so much materials to build to have the capacity for long range missions when you can build a more compat/patrol orientated design instead (Sovy').
That's no reason to picture the big, expensive ship, as inferior or just toothless. Especially since the Regent came out, all other federation cruisers are just a laugh, especially the Galaxya class, because (as i already said) has the least offensive powers of all ships in the game.
Both ships should be at least equal, they could even make the Galaxy the science counterpart to the tactical heavy regent class. Personally i wouldn't care if the galaxy class wouldn't be that passive anymore.
And you are also aware that if you turn the Galaxy's sauver section 90', it looks amazingly like the Sovy's Saucer section?
... this doesn't make the sovereign look better, sorry. Quite the contrary, now that i have that picture in mind i find it even more ugly.
It's wideness is what makes the Galaxy look unique, majestic and refreshigly different to other ships. The Galaxy Class doesn't need to look fast, it looks powerful and majestic.
A long saucer, looks just cheap in my opinion, like it wanted to say "hey look at me, i look fast", you know what i mean. I'm going to stop here to grumble about that ship design, it won't help anyway.
Thank you for reading.
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
the premise that the sovereign can do 95% if what a galaxy can do is laughably false. the galaxy is 2.4 times larger then a sovereign, its main phaser array is almost 3 times longer, and its 2 torpedo launchers can fire 10 torpedoes in 1 second with no indication that they cant fire that many again in another second. from the tng movies, all the sovereigns torp launchers are ether single shot or burst 3. though they can be reloaded and fire again in a second or 2.
all that extra space is going to count for a lot more then 5% in terms of exploration and scientific capability, and its armaments are also of a higher caliber. when a galaxy isn't serving as a battleship during a war, its likely intended to spend a decade at a time away from federation space all by itself, and it has room for all the equipment and supplies it needs to do it. during tng, you didn't see any galaxys doing that, but the class was still less then a decade old then and still likely proving itself before they were sent that far out. just in case there was any flaw in it that would result in a loss like the Yamato, in that case it was an Iconian virus. they were thinking in terms of a 100 year period, they proboly wouldn't even consider the class properly vetted and broken in for at least 10 years. its the smaller ships that stay closer to home and do more limited exploring, filling in the gaps in a galaxy's exploration pattern for example.
Just to make sure that we are on the same page, when you say "battleship" are you referring to warship?
And as far as needing an "at-least 10 year shakedown" of a ships primary role capability once active. That would be a production nightmare for such an effort. Do you understand the downtime needed for any real intent of exploration if that was the case? You'd be more than a quarter into its product-life-cycle before anything the does exploration wise would be realized. Project-wise, that would be a real feasibility issue for Starfleet.
for a ship its size, 1000 crew is extreamly sparse really. it can support 5000 more then that if it needs too. connies that were a almost 28 times smaller had over 400 crew. and for a fleet of tens of thousands of ships, the resources to make a galaxy over any other class is a drop in the bucket, in yearly ship building the difference would be lost if there was any rounding on the cost sheets.
Not really, to make a ship that is 28 times larger would require SIGNIFICANTLY more resources and labor per unit to construct. Labor, per unit was also be much higher, lets say for giggles (and easier math)both materials and labor require 10 times more per unit to produce a Galaxy than a Constitution class ship, you can produce 10 of the smaller ships per Galaxy and those 10 ships will have far more total capability ("utils" in economic terms) than that one Galaxy will.
In the end you will only produce a few Galaxy class ships, mostly as replacements for other exploration ships as they end their service life cycle and the few that are beyond recoup quantity for new exploration missions. You will find a smaller than Galaxy design than the Galaxy to be a "battle leader" to keep cost down and maximize utility, while not loosing combat capability. Thus the Sovereign.
the galaxy X is the ugliest pos in the game, its just a terrible ship in every way and promotes a playstyle that is unworkable. any other dpsing cruiser will do a hilariously better job, this even in pve. oh and any conclusion you draw in pve is worthless, you can role your face across the key board and beat elite stfs. you are never asked to even use 50% of your ships potential in pve, but in pvp the closer to 100% you are, the more likely you will do well. its pvp that you will see exactly how terrabad both galaxy's are.
Being that yreodred said he doesn't do PvP, I was responding to his desire to be more effective in PvE. As far as them being bad in PvP, if Fed' players would do teamwork HALF as well as the Klingon players do in PvP I would argue against that. Many f the ships in PvP never have thier potential understood on the Fed side because everyone seems to want to go "solo-Kirking" and taking on the whole KDF by themselves (getting squished in the process) I don't even bring my Nebula anymore because most players won't make use of its abilities in a team environment.
If you want to be a little less Passive try this or this skill setup with the following equipment
Weapons
Fore: 1DBB, 1 Torp and 2 BAs
Aft: 2BAs and 2 Torps
This maximises the damage potential of your Beam arrays while giving things in front of you a nasty dose of spike damage from the DBB and behind a nasty torp surprise (using The appropriate doffs) this combined with the cycling EPtWs and and AP:B should give you a good 700+ damage per hit, if you use the BO build then you can use a weapon battery, add that to your EPtW3 and your engi power boost skills for a nasty BO from the DBB.
Use whatever equipment you want although I find the full MACO Mk XII will add an extra 2k or so to that forward firing arc.
The following console layout would also help
Eng: Borg, RCS/Neutronium (depending upon RCS effectiveness), 2x Neutronium
Sci: Saucer sep, 2x Field gen
Tac: 2x Energy
This will maximise your resistances while (hopefully) giving you a slight turn boost to keep that DBB on target, I have focused the build for defence/team support but that is what the ship is good at and true to TNG I have put most of it's firepower forward facing although the rear still has a good kick to it while keeping some decent DPS in it's broadside, trading beam numbers for damage on each. of course if you can't keep the forward DBB on target moving forwards there is always reverse.
Alternatively you could do what others have already suggested you do i.e. get a different ship
If i wanted to fly a ugly ship i would fly the Regent or Sovereign. Compared to the Galaxy -X, the Regent has at least much more Tac BOFF stations. For me, the -X is just as exaggerated and un-proportioned as the Excelsior.
But isn't the "X" just as "wide" as the Galaxy? I thought that's what made it elegant?
I have for the longest time argued to have them allow the Gal-X to have the original saucer to take some of the 'bling" off of it.
One of my Characters (tactical) uses the Galaxy -R with the following configuration: Weapons
Front:
3x Disruptor Hybrid Beam array MK XI
180 degrees Quantum torpedo Launcher
Aft:
3x Disruptor Hybrid Beam array MK XI
Quantum torpedo LauncherMK XII
That way i get decent (for a galaxy Class) boardside firepower. Combined with 2x EptW1 and 2x EptS2, FAW1 and Torp. Spread II, it gets the best out of that ship (for my expectations).
You can also use Eject Warp plasma (or a comoparable console) to nail the enemy and to debuff it's resistances. I even use Directed energy modulation to tease out the last bit of offensive this ship can get.
If you put on MK XII Very Rare weapons in place of those MK XI's, you will notice a decidedly greater difference. I throw on a DBB to make better use of the front on firepower, especially when the saucer is separated. I know that when I have fought against most Galaxy's I tended to go nose on becuase most are BA happy.
But that's not the Point. ANY other ship in the game has better possibilities to be active in combat! Even the tiny Fleet Nova Class or the Galor Class has more firepower (thats just Intolerable, imo)!
That is what bothers me, the Galaxy is the cruiser with the LEAST offensive capabilities of all ships in the game! It would be better if it had a Lt. Cmdr science availlable, but its BOFF layout consists mostly of Engineering Slots. That's just stupid. (sorry for being blunt)
Every other ship has better possibilities to be active in combat if it is more tactical or science abilities. That's what bothers me most about the BO layout of that ship, it is just too frel***g passive.
For a ship that is iconic and popular as the Galaxy Class, the devs have made a awful job to make it a fun to fly ship! (or to affirm my personal theory, the devs just hate TNG)[/COLOR][/FONT]
That's no reason to picture the big, expensive ship, as inferior or just toothless. Especially since the Regent came out, all other federation cruisers are just a laugh, especially the Galaxya class, because (as i already said) has the least offensive powers of all ships in the game.
Both ships should be at least equal, they could even make the Galaxy the science counterpart to the tactical heavy regent class. Personally i wouldn't care if the galaxy class wouldn't be that passive anymore.
I never said it was inferior or toothless, just different. As far as a Lt. Cmdr Sci, that wouldn't be so bad, but then you'd still be limited to a maximum Lt. Tac boff. Would that really be what you want (although two lt. tacs would be interesting). You'd be giving up an awfull lot on the Engi Boff side.
... this doesn't make the sovereign look better, sorry. Quite the contrary, now that i have that picture in mind i find it even more ugly.
It's wideness is what makes the Galaxy look unique, majestic and refreshigly different to other ships. The Galaxy Class doesn't need to look fast, it looks powerful and majestic.
A long saucer, looks just cheap in my opinion, like it wanted to say "hey look at me, i look fast", you know what i mean. I'm going to stop here to grumble about that ship design, it won't help anyway.
Thank you for reading.
I think the whole design difference is in the profiles. The Sovy' seems to designed with a minimal frontal (and rear) area in mind. To me, that means it is designed to be much more aggressive than the Galaxy is, charging in nose first with a fair amount of speed. I likeit , you don't. There are people to this day that get in heated arguments over which Camaro is the better looking: first generation or second generation and the main difference is in one is much sleeker than the other.
Man, is your color/font scheme a killer, it probably took more time pasting the font/color instructrions than the actual content of my post :P
The Sovereign is not a replacement for the Galaxy class but for the aging Excelsior class. Sternbach stated this in a discussion thread on the TrekBBS years ago.
Except ofcourse that in the end, Cannon wise, the Excelsior class is shown to be still flying in the 31st century. Mainly because smaller versatile ships are more handy.
Not really, the "United Space Probe Agency" was about exploration, of which Kirk did work for them, it was not until TNG when they merged the two agencies under the umbrella of "Starfleet" that it became one.
the premise that the sovereign can do 95% if what a galaxy can do is laughably false.
Not really, WATCH First Contact, its made clear that the new Enterprise E is better at war and other tasks then the old Enterprise D. Its weapons, engines and computer processing power were all vastly improved compared to what was on the Enterprise D. It is made clear as day if you WATCH the movie.
the galaxy is 2.4 times larger then a sovereign, its main phaser array is almost 3 times longer, and its 2 torpedo launchers can fire 10 torpedoes in 1 second with no indication that they cant fire that many again in another second. from the tng movies, all the sovereigns torp launchers are ether single shot or burst 3. though they can be reloaded and fire again in a second or 2.
Irrelevant, the Enterprise D also had a HUGE tank area for intelligent ocean living mammals to work in to "support" the crew.
It also had schools, nurseries, and the staff to maintain them so the crew can have their families on board. Plus a HUGE shuttle bay that was not ONCE used in the show or movies, instead the two smaller shuttle bays were the only ones shown.
all that extra space is going to count for a lot more then 5% in terms of exploration and scientific capability, and its armaments are also of a higher caliber.
Nope Gordi makes it clear that the weapon systems and engines on the new Enterprise E are better then what they had available in the Enterprise D in First Contact.
In addition to that, when the Enterprise D took on a Borg cube, it only managed to win because they used Picard who at the time was assimilated to cause havoc on their systems, but when the Enterprise E fought the cube in First Contact, it didn't need anything but its weapons to win that battle.
for a ship its size, 1000 crew is extreamly sparse really.
Actually, not really, lots of stuff was never shown that was supposed to be in the ship. Plus, there is the simple fact that its not 1,000 as a "crew" compliment, per say, that crew compliment includes the ~300 family members on board according to cannon sources.
At which point, the Sovereign class has nearly the same amount of working crew members as the Galaxy, and there is no need for teachers, or other support staff for the family members.
In addition to that, for family members who are not part of Star Fleet but are doing work in other fields, the Galaxy class has room available for them to work on their own occupations instead of just being stuck in their quarters. The Galaxy needs to be big just to be a "town" in space, let alone actually do anything with it.
The introduction of the Sovereign has allowed to replace destroyed Galaxies AND Excelsior's on the front and second lines. Surviving Galaxy's were allowed to go about its primary role again, exploration. To an extent, Sovereigns did replace Galaxy's.
the sovereign is starfleet's vorcha class, a large heavy cruiser second only to the galaxy and nebula. i don't think anyone thinks the introduction of the negvar was to replace the vorcha. the negvar is an order of magnitude larger and stronger, a true battleship that could go toe to toe with a galaxy or warbird and win. the sovereign replaces the galaxy in no way. the galaxy can do the job of any other ship, no smaller ship can do any job a galaxy can do. not 95% of the jobs, not 90%, maybe not even 80%. tactically i'd guess around 65%
You have miunderstood what I have said. 95% of the capabilities of the Galaxy are to be able to conduct typical cruiser roles, the role that the Sovereign isn't capable of doing is long range exploration, which requires that bulk, space and crew of the Galaxy to do. That 5% difference in the capabilities of Sovereigns design allows it to conduct combat operations with greater proficiency than the Galaxy has.
I wasn't suggesting what it does as a percentage of mission hours/days/years, but as a percentage of what the ships CAN do between each other.
The shots on the Galaxy were mostly Beam Overload style volleys probably combined multiple arrays together (just by watching what it did) that doesn't make it "bigger", just makes it different approaches. And quantum torps are more powerfull than photons, so the SOvy doesn't need to fire 5-9 torps a volley.
http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/8792/3axissizecompare.jpg as you can see the dorsal main phaser array is approximately the same size and shape of a sov's entire saucer. according to the tech manual, that array has 200 emitters in it. each group of emitters, maybe 10 or 20, is fed by a main eps trunk and every emitter holds its own individual charge. on screen there is that moving glow effect leading to the point on the array that fires, the more of the array that takes part of that effect, the more powerful the shot will be. and it can be fired at anything any point of the array has line of sight with. in the surface of a borg cube, that array was capable of disintegrating more volume of the cube then there was volume of the ship that fired. and then the writers and producers never let it do anything like that again. :rolleyes:
because of this, the sov doesn't even have half the phaser firepower, though its combined torpedo launching capacity technically exceeded what the galaxy has been observed firing. and thats if we compare an at launch 2363 galaxy with an at launch 2372 sovereign. with quantums, type 12 emitters, and other tech it gets even worse for the sov. quantum torpedoes are just ammo, the sovereign having a launcher devoted to them is likely due to ease of munition storage. if quantums end up replacing photons nearly entirely, the concept of that specialized launcher will start looking very retro.
No, I am implying that the Galaxy is an expensive ship to operate (in both materials and crew) and that it should be doing exploration instead of wasting its capabilities in a front line combat or patrol roles that other ships (that aren't built for long range exploration) can do.
a galaxy class acting as flagship of a battle group isn't going to have families, state of the art research labs, a full compliment of shuttle craft, 10 years worth of energy and food stuffs, a symphony orchestra or whatever else it might take with it when it head out to parts unknown, no ships would. it would still have its unmatched weapons systems, high capacity shields and huge damage soaking potential just from how large it is. in battle, the sovereign does not have 95% of that. saying it had 75% of that would be extreamly generous.
Not really, WATCH First Contact, its made clear that the new Enterprise E is better at war and other tasks then the old Enterprise D. Its weapons, engines and computer processing power were all vastly improved compared to what was on the Enterprise D. It is made clear as day if you WATCH the movie.
there is 0 frame of reference to judge any of that on. it and every other ship shot a gaping hole to the same effect. there is no vast difference between the sov and any other ship tech wise, every single system is mature technology.
Irrelevant, the Enterprise D also had a HUGE tank area for intelligent ocean living mammals to work in to "support" the crew.
It also had schools, nurseries, and the staff to maintain them so the crew can have their families on board. Plus a HUGE shuttle bay that was not ONCE used in the show or movies, instead the two smaller shuttle bays were the only ones shown.
i really don't understand why everyone thinks that this in some way takes away from the power of its weapons. its not like a school has a -10 to weapons modifier or something. all of those things could just as easily be removed as they were installed in the first place, the majority of the interior was designed to be modular.
Nope Gordi makes it clear that the weapon systems and engines on the new Enterprise E are better then what they had available in the Enterprise D in First Contact.
saying its the most advanced =/= most powerful. a 5.7mm round is more advanced then a .03.06, whats gonna leave a bigger hole though
In addition to that, when the Enterprise D took on a Borg cube, it only managed to win because they used Picard who at the time was assimilated to cause havoc on their systems, but when the Enterprise E fought the cube in First Contact, it didn't need anything but its weapons to win that battle.
there was next to no borg countermeasures ready the last time a galaxy class was shown fighting the borg. every advancement and tactic developed for that is something any ship can be upgraded to have. also, WATCH the movie. thanks again to picard they knew exactly were to shoot it. and it took the whole fleet to do it, the E's firepower was inconsequential at that point.
Actually, not really, lots of stuff was never shown that was supposed to be in the ship. Plus, there is the simple fact that its not 1,000 as a "crew" compliment, per say, that crew compliment includes the ~300 family members on board according to cannon sources.
At which point, the Sovereign class has nearly the same amount of working crew members as the Galaxy, and there is no need for teachers, or other support staff for the family members.
In addition to that, for family members who are not part of Star Fleet but are doing work in other fields, the Galaxy class has room available for them to work on their own occupations instead of just being stuck in their quarters. The Galaxy needs to be big just to be a "town" in space, let alone actually do anything with it.
Jim
i recall a quote from riker stating the exact complement of the enterprise in an episode, as in every person on board, it was something like 1014. how many were officers? how many were enlisted? how many were civilians? regardless, thats only twice the people a ship 28 times smaller had 100 years prior
there is 0 frame of reference to judge any of that on. it and every other ship shot a gaping hole to the same effect. there is no vast difference between the sov and any other ship tech wise, every single system is mature technology.
Sure there is, the Enterprise E is one of the first ships armed solely with Quantum Torpedoes, the Galaxy class was always shown firing only Photon torpedoes in both TNG and DS9.
To Quote Admiral Hayes from ST:FC's original script,
The new quantum torpedoes are doing the trick, Jean-Luc. We've destroyed forty-seven Borg ships so far... and only lost fifteen of our own.
Because the new quantum torpedoes were supposed to be the end all and be all of the fighting. You didn't need the massive amounts of photon torpedoes to cause the same damage as the Enterprise D needed.
i really don't understand why everyone thinks that this in some way takes away from the power of its weapons. its not like a school has a -10 to weapons modifier or something. all of those things could just as easily be removed as they were installed in the first place, the majority of the interior was designed to be modular.
There is no cannon evidiance that it was designed to be modular. Instead the only Cannon we have is instead of using the Galaxy class for patrolling the neutral zone, where a warship is needed not a exploration cruiser we find ourselves with the Sovereign class.
We also cannonly have evidence that the Excelsior Class is used in relatively larger numbers then the Galaxy till the end of DS9 for combat roles, and that the Excelsior is used up to at least the 31st Century.
i recall a quote from riker stating the exact complement of the enterprise in an episode, as in every person on board, it was something like 1014. how many were officers? how many were enlisted? how many were civilians? regardless, thats only twice the people a ship 28 times smaller had 100 years prior
And its also 14 times bigger then it needs to be. Sure the Defiant for example is very spartan, but the Ent was not that spartan in design. No instead you have a GIANT shuttle bay that was never used, several different medical bays available, a host of research offices, quarters for Admirals when they visit, and schools, nurseries, and a huge ten forward compared to what was on the ENT for their cafeteria, or any other ship for that matter.
It was a massive waste of time and resources to build the Galaxy class, Star Fleet learned from their (err Gene's) stupidity.
Sure there is, the Enterprise E is one of the first ships armed solely with Quantum Torpedoes, the Galaxy class was always shown firing only Photon torpedoes in both TNG and DS9.
To Quote Admiral Hayes from ST:FC's original script,
If you get to use script, which isn't hard canon. We can use Tech Manuals.
Galaxy wins.
Because the new quantum torpedoes were supposed to be the end all and be all of the fighting. You didn't need the massive amounts of photon torpedoes to cause the same damage as the Enterprise D needed.
There is no canon, soft, hard or scripted by never voiced that backs that opinion.
There is no cannon evidiance that it was designed to be modular. Instead the only Cannon we have is instead of using the Galaxy class for patrolling the neutral zone, where a warship is needed not a exploration cruiser we find ourselves with the Sovereign class.
If you get to use script, which isn't canon. We get to use Tech Manuals.
Galaxy wins.
Using Canon, the Ent D was seen more than just a few times patrolling several different and potentially hostile borders. Klingons, Romulans, Cardassian and several more.
Was even somewhat hinted at that it was the launch of the Galaxy class that helped end the war with the Tzenkethi.(I can speculate too)
We also cannonly have evidence that the Excelsior Class is used in relatively larger numbers then the Galaxy till the end of DS9 for combat roles, and that the Excelsior is used up to at least the 31st Century.
The USS Missouri was used far after she was considered obsolete.
The F-15 and the F-16 can't hold a candle to the F-22. But that doesn't mean that they will suddenly up and lose all functions.
Additionally, you don't deploy the Missouri when the coast guard is more than enough.
No, Geordi is referring to the most advance ship in the fleet in relation to combat
Nothing said on screen mentions the Ent E being the most destructive ship in the fleet.
Only that it is the most advanced and should be there. Even moreso because its commander is Captain Picard.
And its also 14 times bigger then it needs to be. Sure the Defiant for example is very spartan, but the Ent was not that spartan in design. No instead you have a GIANT shuttle bay that was never used, several different medical bays available, a host of research offices, quarters for Admirals when they visit, and schools, nurseries, and a huge ten forward compared to what was on the ENT for their cafeteria, or any other ship for that matter.
It was a massive waste of time and resources to build the Galaxy class, Star Fleet learned from their (err Gene's) stupidity.
Jim
Form vs Function.
This argument only exists when one has to be sacrificed for the other.
In Star Trek they didn't have to build a gun, then a ship. They could do both without compromising either the gun or the ship.
Starfleet can build a luxury liner with as much firepower as the Defiant/Sovereign/Galaxy class vessels. Just because its posh doesn't mean it can't kick your butt.
Anyone recall the Sona ship interiors?
And err, who would have won in a straight up fight between any of those ships and the Ent E? (Hint: It wouldn't be the Ent E)
Quantum Torpedoes, unlike Photon Torpedoes were shown to be effective against solid neutronium. Photons have a maximum theoretical explosive yield of 25 isotons (rated to 18.5 isotons), quantum's are rated at 52.3 isotons.
As of the end of Star Trek, only a handful of ships used them, none of them being the Galaxy class ships.
Each Quantum fired is therefore equal to a little over 2 photons to cause the same damage.
As for the F-15 and F-16, let us remember that German pilots dog fighting against F-22's manage to beat them in the Alaska war games that were recently held.
with out all that 'useless heft', the ship wouldn't be large enough to have the array that it has. star ships arent as singularly purposed like the sea going navy ships we have now. they serve as towns, universities in terms of research, warships, embassies, and outposts that can move thousands of times faster then the speed of light. the galaxy being all those things does not take away from the few times it got to show its true power, nether do alll the other times it fell on its face and was completely infective so the plot could be advanced. stupid, stupid, stupid writers. :mad:
in reference to tech manuals
wrote:
"The tech manuals are written by ST production staff, same as the Encyclopedia (Mike Okuda). Since their contents report on what is canon, they are technically canon." - Harry Lang, Senior Director of Viacom Consumer Products Interactive division, posts on StarTrek.com forum, January 2005.
Quantum Torpedoes, unlike Photon Torpedoes were shown to be effective against solid neutronium. Photons have a maximum theoretical explosive yield of 25 isotons (rated to 18.5 isotons), quantum's are rated at 52.3 isotons.
As of the end of Star Trek, only a handful of ships used them, none of them being the Galaxy class ships.
Each Quantum fired is therefore equal to a little over 2 photons to cause the same damage.
As for the F-15 and F-16, let us remember that German pilots dog fighting against F-22's manage to beat them in the Alaska war games that were recently held.
Jim
TORPEDOES ARE AMMO. even an excelsior could be supplied with them, thats canon
Quantum Torpedoes, unlike Photon Torpedoes were shown to be effective against solid neutronium. Photons have a maximum theoretical explosive yield of 25 isotons (rated to 18.5 isotons), quantum's are rated at 52.3 isotons.
As of the end of Star Trek, only a handful of ships used them, none of them being the Galaxy class ships.
Each Quantum fired is therefore equal to a little over 2 photons to cause the same damage.
The Sovereign has one Quantum Torp Launcher. One.
Go back and re-read what has been said by dontdrunkimshoot. He tells you that the only way that the Sovereign can hope to outgun the Galaxy is by keeping the QT edge and firing everything she has. Every phaser bank and every torpedo launcher at once.
If certain interpretations of the Tech Manuals are true, than even that won't even the score for the Sovereign. Equip a QT launcher in the much larger Galaxy Torpedo tubes and the Sovereign gets gutted. And you can bet that the Galaxy would end up with QT once effective mass production on them was reached. She had her Phaser Arrays upgraded twice and was shot down with Type XI equipped.
As for the F-15 and F-16, let us remember that German pilots dog fighting against F-22's manage to beat them in the Alaska war games that were recently held.
Jim
Sorry, let me rephrase then.
Replace the F-22 with the new German aircraft.
They don't suddenly ditch all prior aircraft over night do they.
Comments
No, it was a house of cards propped up by plot armor. DS9 made it a society that was actually achievable and credible.
all the tng movies would have been more awesome if the enterprise D wasn't destroyed and instead reft into a more war time configuration. first contact could have been D vs borg rematch, they could have separated the saucer and tried to self destruct the star drive instead of have everyone abandon ship, insurrection wouldn't have changed much, and the nemisis battle would have been just as epic, but a bit different. the D wouldn't move quite as fast, but we would proboly be able to see massive volumes of torps launched, and a scimitar not unscathed at the end of the fighting.
the sovereign class was the final replacement of the excelsior, and was to become the excelsior of its time. only back when the excelsior was new, it was the largest. mid 24th century there is a size tier above that with the galaxy and nebula. it could be seen as a final ambassador replacement too, they are very nearly the same volume. the sovereign fits well at the top of the new releases in the 2360s and 70s that include the nova, defiant, saber, intrepid, norway, steamrunner, and akira.
Later (especially) the producers of DS9 turned Star Treks humanity into a much more generic and ordinary Sci Fi humanity. People behaved like they where much more from today and the high moral standards became just a hollow ideal. With DS9 Star Trek became "just another" Sci fi series, over the years. The producers removed what was special about Star Trek IMO.
In some way they did what cryptic did too, they took someone elses work and turned it inside out.
Don't missunderstand me, i like (some) DS9 characters very much, but i don't like the direction Star Trek went with DS9.
It would have been EPIC!
Just imagine the Enterprise -D entering the Battle of 001, or the meeting in space with the phoenix.:cool:
The borg would have assimilated the corridors we all know, instead of assimilating a ship we don't even know (or care) in the first place. It would have been much more emotional.
With introdiction of the Galaxy Class and the Nebula, i was really hoping that Starfleet ships would look more majestic, elegant, fluid and mighty in the future. But with the Sovereign, they did a step back to designs with long nacelles and angular design elements on starfleet ships. Design wise, the Sovereign looks more like a ship between the Excelsior and the Ambassador, but not like a ship that was designed AFTER the galaxy.
I never understood why the Producers thought a design like the Sovereign would be "better" for the big screen than the Galaxy Class. In contrast to the Galaxy Class, the Sovereign has only very few angles where it really looks good IMO. Especially from behind that ship looks horrible, having its long but narrow Nacelles point towards the beholder is just a pain. Its Pylons look much too fragile to hold those rediculus big Nacelles.
I could go on and on, but i think discussing about taste leads us nowhere.
Thank you for reading.
They were going for a more majestic and sleek look. The Galaxy certainly was majestic, I won't debate that, but it was a little clunky. The Sovereign was designed to flow better on the eyes, which it did with it's more streamlined profile. And it was certainly sleeker, and far easier to believe that it could pull off some of the maneuvers it did in both First Contact and Insurrection. I mean, I know the Galaxy could probably pull off some of those turns and other things, but the Sovereign just looked better doing it. No offense.
Sounds interesting.
No it "evolved" into some Marxist ideal society. That is what TNG showed. One where just like the USSR, eventually, if there is external pressure, it will either collapse or change to protect itself. DS9 was society realizing that not everyone wants to live in that Utopia, and people born to that Utopia sometimes need to violate their own principles and ideals if they are to survive as a culture.
All they probably did, is remove the familes, seal off any non-essential areas and then send them to battle. By limiting power use to all but offensive and defensive roles plus limiting the need to protect now empty areas of the ship. It is more or less ready to go into battle.
But I'll have to note, that even in TNG, Flag ships of high ranking officers, and ships meant for patrolling the neutral zone etc, (aka defensive roles) were typically Excelsior class ships.
Enterprise D was a exploration ship, as such its bulk and its additional compliment of science personal, and families etc can be carried around. But it was far from being a War ship, only in TNG's alternate universes is it mentioned that the Galaxy Class is actually armed for war.
Pretty much.
Jim
Or make the cool-down for batteries on cruisers either not linked to each other or shorter (to make use of large cargo bays). (JNot the best idea, but an idea nonetheless)
Or the Federation citizens believed enough that they had conquered humanities demons during a time of great prosperity, only to learn that their beliefs weren't so true . Much like America in the late fifties and early sixties.
Or much of the Federation didn't even know that it had its own "demons" hiding in the shadows
There are plenty of reasons to start building Sovy's in place of new Galaxies, among them may be:
For me, the whole Utopian society of TNG was far fetched to begin with. The human condition requires conflict to grow. The second that everything becomes sanitized and near perfect, it turns on itself. Honestly, once DS9 got rolling (after the first season or so) it was a refreshing break from TNG, where everyone and everything was the "best of the best of the best", even the "screwballs" there were the best screwballs (I do get the "flagship" thing, but come on). Man cannot live on "sugar and spice" alone.
And all of that is your opinion, just as much as other people who have opinions otherwise. I found the Galaxy to be far too "top heavy" with the design of the saucer section. Any models I had of the ship always wants to tip over frontwards, where Connie', Excel' and Sovy' classes aren't like that so much. It was this guy with a tiny body and a massive head. To me, the Galaxy just doesn't look right.
It's not a very good joke, tbh, but yes, I'm familiar with it. Thanks for asking, I guess.
I would love to fly it, but as it impemented in STO it doesn't reflect what I would consider a good ship.
The solution to this would (imho) be very simple. A bit different boff layout and the rotation of 3 forward and 3 backward hardpoints by 90 degrees.
Now if we fit that with one forward firing torpedo ramp, one backward firing torpedo ramp and 6 beam arrays this resulsts in a broadsider that fires it's broadside forward and rearward, everytime supported by a torpedo tube.
One could even kite Donatra with this ship and do something usefull in PvE !
I'm fully aware my solution would paint the ship in a corner, but given the weapons available to fed cruisers there are not that many fitting options anyway.
Boff layout as follows:
Lt tac
Commander engi
Lt engi
Lt Cmdr sci
Ensign sci
One may call it the phantasy universe Galaxy. :P
Not going to happen, and in all likelyhood not possible with the hardcode of the game. The ship still wouldn't do tight turns. However, the amount of crowd control on this ship should make up for it.
Close enough to the shows where they mostly found a sci/eng solution to their problems rather than Picard just screaming "all weapons fire at will !"
I know the first officer was a tac but some concessions to game balancing have to be made.
that boff layout came up actually many times, in all those numerous posts about the galaxy class.
Myself i would like to see it on the normal version and the fleet version, but as you said thats just a phantasy.
i could see this with a gravity well 1 and a TBR1...with the right skills this alone is a massive dmg boost.
It would also perfectly mirror the nebula class which has the commander sci and the ltdcmdr engi.
but thats a fantasy the responsible people at cryptic do not share, or they want to introduce a this boff layout later with another new design.
(I never liked TOS much)
Maybe it was the more detached approach that was so different to any other Sci Fi show i knew then. My point is, no matter which incarnation of Trek shows a more "realistic" mankind, the people in charge of DS9 changed roddenberrys Trek in a way it was never intended to.
Maybe that's what i dislike about it the most.
People in charge of a Star Trek product who change things where they really should keep their dirty hands off. I mean if someone has a good idea about a Sci Fi series then they should be bold enough to create their own Universe, instead of distorting someone elses work.
For example, you don't take Tolkiens world and make it a "movie for adults" (if you know what i mean).
Of course it's my opionion, just like you are writing your opinion in every post here.
Everyone writes his/her opinion. (sorry, if you didn't know that.;))
As i already said, taste is nothing one should argue about. I grew up with the Galaxy Class and i like it much more than this "Excelsior reincarnation", they call Sovereign Class.
They could have easily reworked the Galaxy Class Design to make it look more sleek or different. For example, just look at the numerous possibilities that are availlable in STO and these are just the beginning.And there could be much more nice and cool looking Galaxy Class ship parts in STO, if Cryptic had some really talented modelers, who had a bit more taste about proportions and relations. (sorry guys).
Personally i don't solely use the original Galaxy Class ship parts in STO.
Saucer, Neck, Nacelles, Venture.
Engineering Hull, Pylons Galaxy Class
Thats how i would imagine a Movie suitable Galaxy class refit. But again that's just MY opinion.
I find it just a bit unfair that the Galaxy Class is pictured as inferior than the Sovereign, just because the people in charge have a bad taste.
As i have written (i think) about hundred times by now, the Galaxy was the most modular and refit- friendly ship Starfleet has ever build. There was just no need to introduce another top Starfleet Battleship/cruiser/ whatever you want to call it. To show fast paced action sequences they easily could have seperated the ship to make some really AWESOME action sequences.
In STO, the Galaxy class easily could last another 50 years along the biggest and toughest Starfleet ships without any problem, what it needs is a more "balanced" console Layout, maybe 3 Eng, 2 Tac, 3 Sci and one universal.
And instead of its Lt. Sci and Ensign Engineering it should get a ensign and a Lt. universal.
They even could lower the Hull HP about some percent IMO. I would be perfectly OK with such a ship. It doesn't have to be on Par with the Odyssey or it's Klingon Counterpart, but it needs to be more than just a boring tank and heal ship. (There are other ships in STO that would suit to that role much better IMO.)
Alone for the numerous people who love that ship, Cryptic should have made the Galaxy Class a bit more versatile and a bit more fun to fly. They easily could have used one of their own designs (the Typhoon Class or the Federation Dreadnought) to be the flying brick in STO.
I know they won't chage the Galaxy Class anymore. All they want to do, is to press more money out of the playerbase.
The only thing i could see them doing is to release something like a "special Exploration/Battle/TNG edition", a "mirror universe" or a "yesterday's Enterprise" version of the Galaxy class and charge som ZEN for it. In that way everyone would get what he wants.
YOU could keep flying the "Brick" ship, CRYPTIC would make money, and the Galaxy Class FANS would finally get a ship that is much more useable and fun to fly. Win - Win - Win for everyone! :cool:
Thank you for reading.
Thats simply being a different class of ship. It doesn't signify anything.
Smaller ships have always been viable pertaining to what their role is. Different ships have different roles. It (again) doesn't signify anything.
Exploration is the charter of Star Fleet.
Galaxy class is well within its 100 year designed service. It should absolutely be a viable ship considering its size and being specifically designed to receive upgrades readily and easily.
Sure lets, say it doesn't replace the Galaxy. that is because the Galaxy was made for long range exploration. The Sovereign can do 95% of what the Galaxy does, is smaller, requires a smaller crew. The Galaxy can do it what does best, exploring, without being taxed on combat/patrol duty.
And the Galaxy, in-game, has received cutting edge technology to make it a more combat capable role, it's called the Galaxy-X. That's going to be your hardened combat role Galaxy.
It signifies that ships of the line don't need to be as large as the Galaxy when the Sovy makes more sense for day to day operations.
If a fleet can do almost as much with a smaller vessel than larger ships, why not? The fleet doesn't need a honkingly big 1,000 member crewed ship for partol and typical cruiser-ish roles. Why build all of those Galaxy class when the Sovereigns design can pretty much do everything but go on large range exploration?
Exploration is ONE of the things Starfleet does, it also provides for the defense and saftery of Federation worlds and territories.They still have plenty of Galaxy's to do exploration, why risk them for more mundane missions that don't make use of their long range capabilities
For exploration, yes, keep them in that role, thats what it does best. The Sovereign is more than capable of handling the other duties
You do realize that they have a combat version of the Galaxy, the Galaxy X. With the exception of the lance and a different turn rate (and inertia) its as good as the Sovereign for dps. Add the lance in, it's better.
As far as the R version goes. I am using my Tac in it and it has been doing fine in STF and Fleet Mark events.
Front
1xDBB
2xBA
1x 180' Quantum Torp
Rear
3xBA
1x Q torp
If I need to turn, I ditch the saucer, otherwise I HYT1 and FAW2 to get the job done.
Also the Galaxy does have at least 50 years worth more time in its design, but why risk a ship that requires so much materials to build to have the capacity for long range missions when you can build a more compat/patrol orientated design instead (Sovy').
And you are also aware that if you turn the Galaxy's sauver section 90', it looks amazingly like the Sovy's Saucer section?
the premise that the sovereign can do 95% if what a galaxy can do is laughably false. the galaxy is 2.4 times larger then a sovereign, its main phaser array is almost 3 times longer, and its 2 torpedo launchers can fire 10 torpedoes in 1 second with no indication that they cant fire that many again in another second. from the tng movies, all the sovereigns torp launchers are ether single shot or burst 3. though they can be reloaded and fire again in a second or 2.
all that extra space is going to count for a lot more then 5% in terms of exploration and scientific capability, and its armaments are also of a higher caliber. when a galaxy isn't serving as a battleship during a war, its likely intended to spend a decade at a time away from federation space all by itself, and it has room for all the equipment and supplies it needs to do it. during tng, you didn't see any galaxys doing that, but the class was still less then a decade old then and still likely proving itself before they were sent that far out. just in case there was any flaw in it that would result in a loss like the Yamato, in that case it was an Iconian virus. they were thinking in terms of a 100 year period, they proboly wouldn't even consider the class properly vetted and broken in for at least 10 years. its the smaller ships that stay closer to home and do more limited exploring, filling in the gaps in a galaxy's exploration pattern for example.
for a ship its size, 1000 crew is extreamly sparse really. it can support 5000 more then that if it needs too. connies that were a almost 28 times smaller had over 400 crew. and for a fleet of tens of thousands of ships, the resources to make a galaxy over any other class is a drop in the bucket, in yearly ship building the difference would be lost if there was any rounding on the cost sheets.
the galaxy X is the ugliest pos in the game, its just a terrible ship in every way and promotes a playstyle that is unworkable. any other dpsing cruiser will do a hilariously better job, this even in pve. oh and any conclusion you draw in pve is worthless, you can role your face across the key board and beat elite stfs. you are never asked to even use 50% of your ships potential in pve, but in pvp the closer to 100% you are, the more likely you will do well. its pvp that you will see exactly how terrabad both galaxy's are.
Its not lets say - it is an absolute. It was not designed or intended to replace the Galaxy. Saying the sovereign can do 95% of what a Galaxy can isn't even worth addressing and you're implying that the Galaxy wasn't designed for combat? The Galaxy was designed and constructed right after the Federations most turbulent era (aside from the Dominion war) and has displayed remarkable tactile efficiency.
Of course not all ships need to be as large as a Galaxy. As mentioned before different ships have different purposes. Otherwise the US Navy would be filled with Air Craft carriers instead of the several classes that serve with multiple different roles.
Why don't you understand different ships have different roles? Thats the fundamental flaw in your lack of understanding. Yet at the same time you point out the difference between a Galaxy and a Sovereign - that one is better suited for deep exploration than the other. Yet then you imply that the sovereign could do just as good, which is somewhat ridiculous.
Which would be why the Galaxy carried the biggest guns in the fleet along with the largest torpedo launcher.
Interesting, you seem to be implying a Galaxy class is toothless.
The introduction of the Sovereign has allowed to replace destroyed Galaxies AND Excelsior's on the front and second lines. Surviving Galaxy's were allowed to go about its primary role again, exploration. To an extent, Sovereigns did replace Galaxy's.
You have miunderstood what I have said. 95% of the capabilities of the Galaxy are to be able to conduct typical cruiser roles, the role that the Sovereign isn't capable of doing is long range exploration, which requires that bulk, space and crew of the Galaxy to do. That 5% difference in the capabilities of Sovereigns design allows it to conduct combat operations with greater proficiency than the Galaxy has.
I wasn't suggesting what it does as a percentage of mission hours/days/years, but as a percentage of what the ships CAN do between each other.
The shots on the Galaxy were mostly Beam Overload style volleys probably combined multiple arrays together (just by watching what it did) that doesn't make it "bigger", just makes it different approaches. And quantum torps are more powerfull than photons, so the SOvy doesn't need to fire 5-9 torps a volley.
No, I am implying that the Galaxy is an expensive ship to operate (in both materials and crew) and that it should be doing exploration instead of wasting its capabilities in a front line combat or patrol roles that other ships (that aren't built for long range exploration) can do.
One of my Characters (tactical) uses the Galaxy -R with the following configuration:
Weapons
Front:
3x Disruptor Hybrid Beam array MK XI
180 degrees Quantum torpedo Launcher
Aft:
3x Disruptor Hybrid Beam array MK XI
Quantum torpedo LauncherMK XII
That way i get decent (for a galaxy Class) boardside firepower. Combined with 2x EptW1 and 2x EptS2, FAW1 and Torp. Spread II, it gets the best out of that ship (for my expectations).
You can also use Eject Warp plasma (or a comoparable console) to nail the enemy and to debuff it's resistances. I even use Directed energy modulation to tease out the last bit of offensive this ship can get.
But that's not the Point. ANY other ship in the game has better possibilities to be active in combat! Even the tiny Fleet Nova Class or the Galor Class has more firepower (thats just Intolerable, imo)!
That is what bothers me, the Galaxy is the cruiser with the LEAST offensive capabilities of all ships in the game! It would be better if it had a Lt. Cmdr science availlable, but its BOFF layout consists mostly of Engineering Slots. That's just stupid. (sorry for being blunt)
Every other ship has better possibilities to be active in combat if it is more tactical or science abilities. That's what bothers me most about the BO layout of that ship, it is just too frel***g passive.
For a ship that is iconic and popular as the Galaxy Class, the devs have made a awful job to make it a fun to fly ship!
(or to affirm my personal theory, the devs just hate TNG)
That's no reason to picture the big, expensive ship, as inferior or just toothless. Especially since the Regent came out, all other federation cruisers are just a laugh, especially the Galaxya class, because (as i already said) has the least offensive powers of all ships in the game.
Both ships should be at least equal, they could even make the Galaxy the science counterpart to the tactical heavy regent class. Personally i wouldn't care if the galaxy class wouldn't be that passive anymore.
... this doesn't make the sovereign look better, sorry. Quite the contrary, now that i have that picture in mind i find it even more ugly.
It's wideness is what makes the Galaxy look unique, majestic and refreshigly different to other ships. The Galaxy Class doesn't need to look fast, it looks powerful and majestic.
A long saucer, looks just cheap in my opinion, like it wanted to say "hey look at me, i look fast", you know what i mean. I'm going to stop here to grumble about that ship design, it won't help anyway.
Thank you for reading.
Please read my response to roboydo
Just to make sure that we are on the same page, when you say "battleship" are you referring to warship?
And as far as needing an "at-least 10 year shakedown" of a ships primary role capability once active. That would be a production nightmare for such an effort. Do you understand the downtime needed for any real intent of exploration if that was the case? You'd be more than a quarter into its product-life-cycle before anything the does exploration wise would be realized. Project-wise, that would be a real feasibility issue for Starfleet.
Not really, to make a ship that is 28 times larger would require SIGNIFICANTLY more resources and labor per unit to construct. Labor, per unit was also be much higher, lets say for giggles (and easier math)both materials and labor require 10 times more per unit to produce a Galaxy than a Constitution class ship, you can produce 10 of the smaller ships per Galaxy and those 10 ships will have far more total capability ("utils" in economic terms) than that one Galaxy will.
In the end you will only produce a few Galaxy class ships, mostly as replacements for other exploration ships as they end their service life cycle and the few that are beyond recoup quantity for new exploration missions. You will find a smaller than Galaxy design than the Galaxy to be a "battle leader" to keep cost down and maximize utility, while not loosing combat capability. Thus the Sovereign.
Being that yreodred said he doesn't do PvP, I was responding to his desire to be more effective in PvE. As far as them being bad in PvP, if Fed' players would do teamwork HALF as well as the Klingon players do in PvP I would argue against that. Many f the ships in PvP never have thier potential understood on the Fed side because everyone seems to want to go "solo-Kirking" and taking on the whole KDF by themselves (getting squished in the process) I don't even bring my Nebula anymore because most players won't make use of its abilities in a team environment.
Weapons
Fore: 1DBB, 1 Torp and 2 BAs
Aft: 2BAs and 2 Torps
This maximises the damage potential of your Beam arrays while giving things in front of you a nasty dose of spike damage from the DBB and behind a nasty torp surprise (using The appropriate doffs) this combined with the cycling EPtWs and and AP:B should give you a good 700+ damage per hit, if you use the BO build then you can use a weapon battery, add that to your EPtW3 and your engi power boost skills for a nasty BO from the DBB.
Use whatever equipment you want although I find the full MACO Mk XII will add an extra 2k or so to that forward firing arc.
The following console layout would also help
Eng: Borg, RCS/Neutronium (depending upon RCS effectiveness), 2x Neutronium
Sci: Saucer sep, 2x Field gen
Tac: 2x Energy
This will maximise your resistances while (hopefully) giving you a slight turn boost to keep that DBB on target, I have focused the build for defence/team support but that is what the ship is good at and true to TNG I have put most of it's firepower forward facing although the rear still has a good kick to it while keeping some decent DPS in it's broadside, trading beam numbers for damage on each. of course if you can't keep the forward DBB on target moving forwards there is always reverse.
Alternatively you could do what others have already suggested you do i.e. get a different ship
But isn't the "X" just as "wide" as the Galaxy? I thought that's what made it elegant?
I have for the longest time argued to have them allow the Gal-X to have the original saucer to take some of the 'bling" off of it.
If you put on MK XII Very Rare weapons in place of those MK XI's, you will notice a decidedly greater difference. I throw on a DBB to make better use of the front on firepower, especially when the saucer is separated. I know that when I have fought against most Galaxy's I tended to go nose on becuase most are BA happy.
I never said it was inferior or toothless, just different. As far as a Lt. Cmdr Sci, that wouldn't be so bad, but then you'd still be limited to a maximum Lt. Tac boff. Would that really be what you want (although two lt. tacs would be interesting). You'd be giving up an awfull lot on the Engi Boff side.
I think the whole design difference is in the profiles. The Sovy' seems to designed with a minimal frontal (and rear) area in mind. To me, that means it is designed to be much more aggressive than the Galaxy is, charging in nose first with a fair amount of speed. I likeit , you don't. There are people to this day that get in heated arguments over which Camaro is the better looking: first generation or second generation and the main difference is in one is much sleeker than the other.
Man, is your color/font scheme a killer, it probably took more time pasting the font/color instructrions than the actual content of my post :P
Except ofcourse that in the end, Cannon wise, the Excelsior class is shown to be still flying in the 31st century. Mainly because smaller versatile ships are more handy.
Not really, the "United Space Probe Agency" was about exploration, of which Kirk did work for them, it was not until TNG when they merged the two agencies under the umbrella of "Starfleet" that it became one.
Not really, WATCH First Contact, its made clear that the new Enterprise E is better at war and other tasks then the old Enterprise D. Its weapons, engines and computer processing power were all vastly improved compared to what was on the Enterprise D. It is made clear as day if you WATCH the movie.
Irrelevant, the Enterprise D also had a HUGE tank area for intelligent ocean living mammals to work in to "support" the crew.
It also had schools, nurseries, and the staff to maintain them so the crew can have their families on board. Plus a HUGE shuttle bay that was not ONCE used in the show or movies, instead the two smaller shuttle bays were the only ones shown.
Nope Gordi makes it clear that the weapon systems and engines on the new Enterprise E are better then what they had available in the Enterprise D in First Contact.
In addition to that, when the Enterprise D took on a Borg cube, it only managed to win because they used Picard who at the time was assimilated to cause havoc on their systems, but when the Enterprise E fought the cube in First Contact, it didn't need anything but its weapons to win that battle.
Actually, not really, lots of stuff was never shown that was supposed to be in the ship. Plus, there is the simple fact that its not 1,000 as a "crew" compliment, per say, that crew compliment includes the ~300 family members on board according to cannon sources.
At which point, the Sovereign class has nearly the same amount of working crew members as the Galaxy, and there is no need for teachers, or other support staff for the family members.
In addition to that, for family members who are not part of Star Fleet but are doing work in other fields, the Galaxy class has room available for them to work on their own occupations instead of just being stuck in their quarters. The Galaxy needs to be big just to be a "town" in space, let alone actually do anything with it.
Jim
the sovereign is starfleet's vorcha class, a large heavy cruiser second only to the galaxy and nebula. i don't think anyone thinks the introduction of the negvar was to replace the vorcha. the negvar is an order of magnitude larger and stronger, a true battleship that could go toe to toe with a galaxy or warbird and win. the sovereign replaces the galaxy in no way. the galaxy can do the job of any other ship, no smaller ship can do any job a galaxy can do. not 95% of the jobs, not 90%, maybe not even 80%. tactically i'd guess around 65%
http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/8792/3axissizecompare.jpg as you can see the dorsal main phaser array is approximately the same size and shape of a sov's entire saucer. according to the tech manual, that array has 200 emitters in it. each group of emitters, maybe 10 or 20, is fed by a main eps trunk and every emitter holds its own individual charge. on screen there is that moving glow effect leading to the point on the array that fires, the more of the array that takes part of that effect, the more powerful the shot will be. and it can be fired at anything any point of the array has line of sight with. in the surface of a borg cube, that array was capable of disintegrating more volume of the cube then there was volume of the ship that fired. and then the writers and producers never let it do anything like that again. :rolleyes:
because of this, the sov doesn't even have half the phaser firepower, though its combined torpedo launching capacity technically exceeded what the galaxy has been observed firing. and thats if we compare an at launch 2363 galaxy with an at launch 2372 sovereign. with quantums, type 12 emitters, and other tech it gets even worse for the sov. quantum torpedoes are just ammo, the sovereign having a launcher devoted to them is likely due to ease of munition storage. if quantums end up replacing photons nearly entirely, the concept of that specialized launcher will start looking very retro.
a galaxy class acting as flagship of a battle group isn't going to have families, state of the art research labs, a full compliment of shuttle craft, 10 years worth of energy and food stuffs, a symphony orchestra or whatever else it might take with it when it head out to parts unknown, no ships would. it would still have its unmatched weapons systems, high capacity shields and huge damage soaking potential just from how large it is. in battle, the sovereign does not have 95% of that. saying it had 75% of that would be extreamly generous.
there is 0 frame of reference to judge any of that on. it and every other ship shot a gaping hole to the same effect. there is no vast difference between the sov and any other ship tech wise, every single system is mature technology.
i really don't understand why everyone thinks that this in some way takes away from the power of its weapons. its not like a school has a -10 to weapons modifier or something. all of those things could just as easily be removed as they were installed in the first place, the majority of the interior was designed to be modular.
saying its the most advanced =/= most powerful. a 5.7mm round is more advanced then a .03.06, whats gonna leave a bigger hole though
there was next to no borg countermeasures ready the last time a galaxy class was shown fighting the borg. every advancement and tactic developed for that is something any ship can be upgraded to have. also, WATCH the movie. thanks again to picard they knew exactly were to shoot it. and it took the whole fleet to do it, the E's firepower was inconsequential at that point.
i recall a quote from riker stating the exact complement of the enterprise in an episode, as in every person on board, it was something like 1014. how many were officers? how many were enlisted? how many were civilians? regardless, thats only twice the people a ship 28 times smaller had 100 years prior
Sure there is, the Enterprise E is one of the first ships armed solely with Quantum Torpedoes, the Galaxy class was always shown firing only Photon torpedoes in both TNG and DS9.
To Quote Admiral Hayes from ST:FC's original script,
Because the new quantum torpedoes were supposed to be the end all and be all of the fighting. You didn't need the massive amounts of photon torpedoes to cause the same damage as the Enterprise D needed.
There is no cannon evidiance that it was designed to be modular. Instead the only Cannon we have is instead of using the Galaxy class for patrolling the neutral zone, where a warship is needed not a exploration cruiser we find ourselves with the Sovereign class.
We also cannonly have evidence that the Excelsior Class is used in relatively larger numbers then the Galaxy till the end of DS9 for combat roles, and that the Excelsior is used up to at least the 31st Century.
No, Geordi is referring to the most advance ship in the fleet in relation to combat. Of which,
And its also 14 times bigger then it needs to be. Sure the Defiant for example is very spartan, but the Ent was not that spartan in design. No instead you have a GIANT shuttle bay that was never used, several different medical bays available, a host of research offices, quarters for Admirals when they visit, and schools, nurseries, and a huge ten forward compared to what was on the ENT for their cafeteria, or any other ship for that matter.
It was a massive waste of time and resources to build the Galaxy class, Star Fleet learned from their (err Gene's) stupidity.
Jim
If you get to use script, which isn't hard canon. We can use Tech Manuals.
Galaxy wins.
There is no canon, soft, hard or scripted by never voiced that backs that opinion.
If you get to use script, which isn't canon. We get to use Tech Manuals.
Galaxy wins.
Using Canon, the Ent D was seen more than just a few times patrolling several different and potentially hostile borders. Klingons, Romulans, Cardassian and several more.
Was even somewhat hinted at that it was the launch of the Galaxy class that helped end the war with the Tzenkethi.(I can speculate too)
The USS Missouri was used far after she was considered obsolete.
The F-15 and the F-16 can't hold a candle to the F-22. But that doesn't mean that they will suddenly up and lose all functions.
Additionally, you don't deploy the Missouri when the coast guard is more than enough.
Nothing said on screen mentions the Ent E being the most destructive ship in the fleet.
Only that it is the most advanced and should be there. Even moreso because its commander is Captain Picard.
Form vs Function.
This argument only exists when one has to be sacrificed for the other.
In Star Trek they didn't have to build a gun, then a ship. They could do both without compromising either the gun or the ship.
Starfleet can build a luxury liner with as much firepower as the Defiant/Sovereign/Galaxy class vessels. Just because its posh doesn't mean it can't kick your butt.
Anyone recall the Sona ship interiors?
And err, who would have won in a straight up fight between any of those ships and the Ent E? (Hint: It wouldn't be the Ent E)
As of the end of Star Trek, only a handful of ships used them, none of them being the Galaxy class ships.
Each Quantum fired is therefore equal to a little over 2 photons to cause the same damage.
As for the F-15 and F-16, let us remember that German pilots dog fighting against F-22's manage to beat them in the Alaska war games that were recently held.
Jim
with out all that 'useless heft', the ship wouldn't be large enough to have the array that it has. star ships arent as singularly purposed like the sea going navy ships we have now. they serve as towns, universities in terms of research, warships, embassies, and outposts that can move thousands of times faster then the speed of light. the galaxy being all those things does not take away from the few times it got to show its true power, nether do alll the other times it fell on its face and was completely infective so the plot could be advanced. stupid, stupid, stupid writers. :mad:
in reference to tech manuals
TORPEDOES ARE AMMO. even an excelsior could be supplied with them, thats canon
The Sovereign has one Quantum Torp Launcher. One.
Go back and re-read what has been said by dontdrunkimshoot. He tells you that the only way that the Sovereign can hope to outgun the Galaxy is by keeping the QT edge and firing everything she has. Every phaser bank and every torpedo launcher at once.
If certain interpretations of the Tech Manuals are true, than even that won't even the score for the Sovereign. Equip a QT launcher in the much larger Galaxy Torpedo tubes and the Sovereign gets gutted. And you can bet that the Galaxy would end up with QT once effective mass production on them was reached. She had her Phaser Arrays upgraded twice and was shot down with Type XI equipped.
Sorry, let me rephrase then.
Replace the F-22 with the new German aircraft.
They don't suddenly ditch all prior aircraft over night do they.