test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

What is your beef with the Galaxy Cryptic?

13738404243232

Comments

  • reptilesbladexreptilesbladex Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    Stop spamming this post.

    How is it spam if I asked it only one other time in a related topic?

    Get off your high horse and grow up.
  • khan5000khan5000 Member Posts: 3,008 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    veraticus wrote: »
    True and not true.
    They were the biggest guns on the Galaxy true. But without the power of the warpcore to pull from their viability was extremely limited as the onboard reactors of the Saucer section could not provide the power needed for its best showing. Personal opinion, it halved their effectiveness.



    Agreed.
    But she is also more powerful than the Sovereign class.
    Others will disagree, violently so at times +), but it is true. Even the schematics back it up.

    Phasers work by passing a charge along the emitters in an array.
    Each emitter on a Mk X array can produce 5.1Mw of power.
    The main dorsal or upper array of the Galaxy class has roughly 950 emitters as seen on screen. (Power output per the tech manual is 5.1. The shows, however, indicate a much greater output. Also the tech manual lists the number of emitters at 200.)

    So lets take the main phaser arrays of the Galaxy and the Sovereign and compare them.
    Using the tech manuals we get:

    Galaxy primary Dorsal array with 200 emitters @ 5.1Mw
    Total output 1.02 Gigawatts.

    Sovereign primary Dorsal array with 95 emitters(just under a 100) @ 7.1Mw
    Total output 674 Megawatts.

    Galaxy trumps the Sovereign in the big gun fight.

    Go with on screen numbers and we get this.

    Galaxy primary Dorsal array with 950 emitters @ 5.1Mw
    Total output 4.85 Gigawatts.

    Sovereign primary Dorsal array with 450 emitter @ 7.1Mw
    Total output 3.2 Gigawatts.

    She has bigger guns, larger reactor, and could easily be equipped with MkXII arrays boosting her output to 6.75 Gigawatts. Which more than doubles the output of the largest gun on the Sovereign.

    I can't believe I am doing this but... I'm bored +)


    Based off the wiki:
    http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Galaxy_class
    12/14 phaser arrays; 2 torpedo launchers; 250 photon torpedoes; antimatter mines
    http://techspecs.startrek.acalltoduty.com/galaxy.html
    each Class X array produces 5.1MW

    Sovereign
    http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Sovereign_class
    12 phaser arrays (before refit)
    16 phaser arrays {after refit}
    1 forward quantum torpedo launcher
    3 forward photon torpedo launchers
    6 aft photon torpedo launchers
    http://techspecs.startrek.acalltoduty.com/sovereign.html
    each Class XII array produces 8.0MW

    Sovereign is more powerful
    Your pain runs deep.
    Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
  • hereticknight085hereticknight085 Member Posts: 3,783 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    How is it spam if I asked it only one other time in a related topic?

    Get off your high horse and grow up.

    You put it in the wrong place with your other post. It isn't a fleet assault cruiser or a fleet heavy cruiser. There in fact was even a thread for a fleet galaxy. Perhaps you should have gone there.
    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. B)
  • dontdrunkimshootdontdrunkimshoot Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    veraticus wrote: »
    Agreed.
    But she is also more powerful than the Sovereign class.
    Others will disagree, violently so at times +), but it is true. Even the schematics back it up.

    Phasers work by passing a charge along the emitters in an array.
    Each emitter on a Mk X array can produce 5.1Mw of power.
    The main dorsal or upper array of the Galaxy class has roughly 950 emitters as seen on screen. (Power output per the tech manual is 5.1. The shows, however, indicate a much greater output. Also the tech manual lists the number of emitters at 200.)

    So lets take the main phaser arrays of the Galaxy and the Sovereign and compare them.
    Using the tech manuals we get:

    Galaxy primary Dorsal array with 200 emitters @ 5.1Mw
    Total output 1.02 Gigawatts.

    Sovereign primary Dorsal array with 95 emitters(just under a 100) @ 7.1Mw
    Total output 674 Megawatts.

    Galaxy trumps the Sovereign in the big gun fight.

    Go with on screen numbers and we get this.

    Galaxy primary Dorsal array with 950 emitters @ 5.1Mw
    Total output 4.85 Gigawatts.

    Sovereign primary Dorsal array with 450 emitter @ 7.1Mw
    Total output 3.2 Gigawatts.

    She has bigger guns, larger reactor, and could easily be equipped with MkXII arrays boosting her output to 6.75 Gigawatts. Which more than doubles the output of the largest gun on the Sovereign.

    I can't believe I am doing this but... I'm bored +)

    nice to see someone else making this point, was getting tierd of being the only one to bring it up. the galaxy's saucer has more volume then an entire sovereign, they are in completely different weight classes and dont compete or replace each other at all.

    theres the torpedo launchers too, the galaxy has only 2, but they are the largest and most burst capable of any ship based launcher observed. seen fireing 10 at once, or sequential in about a second. the sovereign might have had quite a few launchers, but they best they could do, in nemisis, is burst 3 at a time in about a second in a half. those small launcheres added in for that last movie were only seen fireing 1 at a time too. the intrepid class could put out quite a payload, bursts of 4 per launcher was the most i saw, impressive for its size. we never saw a galaxy really go all out ether, this was the closest
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=H_XbWq49vUM they only fired a few bursts, not a sustained assault, upper limit of those torpedo launchers are unknown.
    khan5000 wrote: »
    Based off the wiki:
    http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Galaxy_class
    12/14 phaser arrays; 2 torpedo launchers; 250 photon torpedoes; antimatter mines
    http://techspecs.startrek.acalltoduty.com/galaxy.html
    each Class X array produces 5.1MW

    Sovereign
    http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Sovereign_class
    12 phaser arrays (before refit)
    16 phaser arrays {after refit}
    1 forward quantum torpedo launcher
    3 forward photon torpedo launchers
    6 aft photon torpedo launchers
    http://techspecs.startrek.acalltoduty.com/sovereign.html
    each Class XII array produces 8.0MW

    Sovereign is more powerful

    :rolleyes: arrays are not gun barrels, the number of them is irreverent. the only arrays that really matter are the longest ones on the saucer, the other ones are just for hitting ships small enough to actually get in the large arrays blind spots.

    the akira only has 3 phaser arrays. 1 is actually longer then the sovereign's longest, and the other 2 are each about half the size of the long one on top. an odd design choice.

    same goes for torpedo launchers. its not the number you have, its how burst capable each of them is.
  • khan5000khan5000 Member Posts: 3,008 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    nice to see someone else making this point, was getting tierd of being the only one to bring it up. the galaxy's saucer has more volume then an entire sovereign, they are in completely different weight classes and dont compete or replace each other at all.

    theres the torpedo launchers too, the galaxy has only 2, but they are the largest and most burst capable of any ship based launcher observed. seen fireing 10 at once, or sequential in about a second. the sovereign might have had quite a few launchers, but they best they could do, in nemisis, is burst 3 at a time in about a second in a half. those small launcheres added in for that last movie were only seen fireing 1 at a time too. the intrepid class could put out quite a payload, bursts of 4 per launcher was the most i saw, impressive for its size. we never saw a galaxy really go all out ether, this was the closest
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=H_XbWq49vUM they only fired a few bursts, not a sustained assault, upper limit of those torpedo launchers are unknown.



    :rolleyes: arrays are not gun barrels, the number of them is irreverent. the only arrays that really matter are the longest ones on the saucer, the other ones are just for hitting ships small enough to actually get in the large arrays blind spots.

    the akira only has 3 phaser arrays. 1 is actually longer then the sovereign's longest, and the other 2 are each about half the size of the long one on top. an odd design choice.

    same goes for torpedo launchers. its not the number you have, its how burst capable each of them is.

    ofcourse we'll disregard any information that doesn't hold up to your point of view...:rolleyes:

    the sovy has more powerful arrays...the most advanced at the time. It is a more powerful ship being the most advanced at the time. Why put starfleet's best in a weaker ship?
    However you can't compare 7 seasons of hero ship action vs 2 movies.
    Your pain runs deep.
    Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
  • dontdrunkimshootdontdrunkimshoot Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    khan5000 wrote: »
    ofcourse we'll disregard any information that doesn't hold up to your point of view...:rolleyes:

    the sovy has more powerful arrays...the most advanced at the time. It is a more powerful ship being the most advanced at the time. Why put starfleet's best in a weaker ship?
    However you can't compare 7 seasons of hero ship action vs 2 movies.

    your point of view disagrees with the basic workings of phaser arrays. thats canon, not a view point, not an opinion. most advanced =/= most powerful. they never said the enterprise E was the most powerful. the tech the sovereign launched with immediately became part of the federation parts bin, no ship is 'most advanced' for very long, considering how often upgrades are performed. if the sovereign's tech was applied to a galaxy, the gap in power between the 2 only increases. and the galaxy class gets a total system swap out every 20 years.

    emitter type and number of emitters in the array are variables. try actually reading what veraticus wrote, its laid out so even an idiot could understand.
  • admiralq1732admiralq1732 Member Posts: 1,561 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    also the Sovereign can bring more phasers to bear then a galaxy.and who says the other Galaxy arrays are as powerful as the 2 main saucer phasers.
  • veraticusveraticus Member Posts: 250 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    khan5000 wrote: »
    ofcourse we'll disregard any information that doesn't hold up to your point of view...:rolleyes:

    the sovy has more powerful arrays...the most advanced at the time. It is a more powerful ship being the most advanced at the time. Why put starfleet's best in a weaker ship?
    However you can't compare 7 seasons of hero ship action vs 2 movies.

    My car is newer than a 1996 Dodge Viper.
    But I'm going to bet on the Viper anyways in a race.

    What we can compare are the mechanics of the two ships and what we have on screen.
    The Ent-D was seen to have upgraded phaser arrays in Generations. Likely MkXI.
    The Ent-E was seen to have even tighter emitters than seen in Generations. Likely MkXII.
    We have seen the SDE(Sequential Discharge Effect) on screen that lines up with what the Tech Manuals that have stated is their state of operation.

    The number of arrays is not what is important.
    It is the number of emitters in that array that gives it its punch.
    As shown on TV in the Movies and corroborated by the creators of the models and effects and tech manuals.
    also the Sovereign can bring more phasers to bear then a galaxy.and who says the other Galaxy arrays are as powerful as the 2 main saucer phasers.

    It can't actually.
    The Sovereign has near perfect coverage do to the placement of her arrays and torpedo launchers. But she cannot bring more than one large array into play at any given time against a single ship.

    The ventral(bottom) arrays are inset into the ship.
    Meaning that the ship itself prevents the larger ventral arrays from firing straight out from the ship. She actually has to tilt slightly in order to bring them to bear against a target.
    If she does tip to bring them to bear, she takes the larger dorsal array out of the fight do to how far away it is from the edge of the ship and it sitting on a flat rather than a curved surface.

    Whereas the Galaxy can bring both its dorsal and ventral arrays to bear on a single target due to the sloped nature of the saucer section on which they sit.
  • khan5000khan5000 Member Posts: 3,008 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    veraticus wrote: »
    My car is newer than a 1996 Dodge Viper.
    But I'm going to bet on the Viper anyways in a race.

    What we can compare are the mechanics of the two ships and what we have on screen.
    The Ent-D was seen to have upgraded phaser arrays in Generations. Likely MkXI.
    The Ent-E was seen to have even tighter emitters than seen in Generations. Likely MkXII.
    We have seen the SDE(Sequential Discharge Effect) on screen that lines up with what the Tech Manuals that have stated is their state of operation.
    .

    but thats not an accurate match up as your car...what ever it is isn't an updated Dodge Viper.

    1996 Viper:
    0-60 - 4.6 seconds
    0-100 - 9.2 seconds

    2008 Viper:
    0-60 - 3.4 seconds
    0-100 - 7.6 seconds

    so yes newer equals better
    The very reason you guys are arguing that the Galaxy should be more powerful than the Excelsior is the reason the Sovereign is more powerful than the Galaxy. It's a newer ship.
    Your pain runs deep.
    Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
  • edited June 2013
    This content has been removed.
  • admiralq1732admiralq1732 Member Posts: 1,561 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    veraticus wrote: »
    My car is newer than a 1996 Dodge Viper.
    But I'm going to bet on the Viper anyways in a race.

    What we can compare are the mechanics of the two ships and what we have on screen.
    The Ent-D was seen to have upgraded phaser arrays in Generations. Likely MkXI.
    The Ent-E was seen to have even tighter emitters than seen in Generations. Likely MkXII.
    We have seen the SDE(Sequential Discharge Effect) on screen that lines up with what the Tech Manuals that have stated is their state of operation.

    The number of arrays is not what is important.
    It is the number of emitters in that array that gives it its punch.
    As shown on TV in the Movies and corroborated by the creators of the models and effects and tech manuals.



    It can't actually.
    The Sovereign has near perfect coverage do to the placement of her arrays and torpedo launchers. But she cannot bring more than one large array into play at any given time against a single ship.

    The ventral(bottom) arrays are inset into the ship.
    Meaning that the ship itself prevents the larger ventral arrays from firing straight out from the ship. She actually has to tilt slightly in order to bring them to bear against a target.
    If she does tip to bring them to bear, she takes the larger dorsal array out of the fight do to how far away it is from the edge of the ship and it sitting on a flat rather than a curved surface.

    Whereas the Galaxy can bring both its dorsal and ventral arrays to bear on a single target due to the sloped nature of the saucer section on which they sit.

    Do we fully know where all her phaser are on the sov? and add in she has more torp launchers for that extra kick AND she has a secondary sheild. Even if the galaxy main phaser are more powerful than the sovs, still questionable there. Her sheild allows her to out last a galaxy. The galaxy is a formiable ship no doubt. However she is promarly a peace time orient ship that can pinch hit as a battleship when needed. the sov was built in an era where they needed more combat oriented ships. And during peace time she can to many similar duties as the galaxy can but the ships design orientation matters. The sovereign in many ways is a new excelsior. during Kirks time stafleet balanced exploration and defense in the design of they're ships. during the 2340's to 2370's stafleet was in a time a relative peace and the galaxy family of ships reflect that. Just as the First Contact era of ships reflect them going more combat oriented since they have the borg, the dominion and the klingons to worry about at that time. Now in the STO timeline refits to these ships have probably blurred the lines between them again. Galaxys and Soverreigns would by default have the same mark of phaser since tech would have likely help make them modualr. But also the Oyddesy is probably testing out even more powerful phasers. That's why starfleet has so many ship classes. They test out ideas, some work some don't. Starfleet is probably the most versitile fleet in the galaxy.
  • reptilesbladexreptilesbladex Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    You put it in the wrong place with your other post. It isn't a fleet assault cruiser or a fleet heavy cruiser. There in fact was even a thread for a fleet galaxy. Perhaps you should have gone there.

    Had I seen that topic then maybe I would have. However I did not see it and chose to ask the question in a topic about other fleet cruisers because I figured it would be acceptable. And since I did not get a pissy response from anyone there like I did from you here then I was apparently right.

    My earlier post is still valid. Get over it and grow up.
  • veraticusveraticus Member Posts: 250 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    khan5000 wrote: »
    but thats not an accurate match up as your car...what ever it is isn't an updated Dodge Viper.

    1996 Viper:
    0-60 - 4.6 seconds
    0-100 - 9.2 seconds

    2008 Viper:
    0-60 - 3.4 seconds
    0-100 - 7.6 seconds

    so yes newer equals better
    The very reason you guys are arguing that the Galaxy should be more powerful than the Excelsior is the reason the Sovereign is more powerful than the Galaxy. It's a newer ship.

    My car isn't designed to be a super car.
    Just as the Sovereign does not appear to have been designed to be a battleship capable of replacing a still perfectly functional Galaxy class design.
    It wasn't supposed to be. Find me a link, a legitimate link from a canon source that states that the Sovereign was specifically designed to replace the Galaxy class.
    No wikipedia nor memory Alpha/Beta count unless they also supply a source.
    Do we fully know where all her phaser are on the sov? and add in she has more torp launchers for that extra kick AND she has a secondary sheild. Even if the galaxy main phaser are more powerful than the sovs, still questionable there. Her sheild allows her to out last a galaxy. The galaxy is a formiable ship no doubt. However she is promarly a peace time orient ship that can pinch hit as a battleship when needed. the sov was built in an era where they needed more combat oriented ships. And during peace time she can to many similar duties as the galaxy can but the ships design orientation matters. The sovereign in many ways is a new excelsior. during Kirks time stafleet balanced exploration and defense in the design of they're ships. during the 2340's to 2370's stafleet was in a time a relative peace and the galaxy family of ships reflect that. Just as the First Contact era of ships reflect them going more combat oriented since they have the borg, the dominion and the klingons to worry about at that time. Now in the STO timeline refits to these ships have probably blurred the lines between them again. Galaxys and Soverreigns would by default have the same mark of phaser since tech would have likely help make them modualr. But also the Oyddesy is probably testing out even more powerful phasers. That's why starfleet has so many ship classes. They test out ideas, some work some don't. Starfleet is probably the most versitile fleet in the galaxy.

    We do know where all the phaser arrays and torpedo tubes are at.
    The majority of her torpedo tubes appear to be single fire tubes, whereas the Galaxy has two large torpedo tubes capable of anywhere from 10-24 within a single reload cycle.

    During the Galaxy's time frame Starfleet was in conflict with several races such as the Cardassians, Romulans, Tezkinthi, and several others.
    Those conflicts demanded a more modernized fleet. The Galaxy class ship was a ship that was capable of being sent to those sites alone, and taking over the roll of several smaller ships by itself.

    Lets also look at the size difference of these ships.

    The Galaxy class weighs in at a whopping 4,500,000 metric tonnes.
    That is 9,920,801,798 pounds!

    The Sovereign class weighs in at 3,255,000 metric tons.
    That is 7,176,046,634 pounds!

    A 2,744,755,164 pound difference. Almost 3 million pounds...

    She is smaller than the Ambassador, the Nebula and only just outweighs the Akira and Niagra classes.

    http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/8792/3axissizecompare.jpg <-- For size comparison between the two ships.
  • skyranger1414skyranger1414 Member Posts: 1,785 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    veraticus wrote: »
    A 2,744,755,164 pound difference. Almost 3 million pounds...

    She is smaller than the Ambassador, the Nebula and only just outweighs the Akira and Niagra classes.

    Of course the Sovvy would be smaller. The Defiant showed Starfleet that space whales are pretty much useless in combat so all future ships should be made smaller and more nimble as a rule.

    For all the firepower the Galaxy was purported to have it was never enough to simply deal with most of the random wacky alien ships of the week. Honestly, you can pull any number form any source you want and it won't matter, in the shows the Galaxy was shown to be a lame duck. The only exception to the rule was the Galaxy-X, that for a brief moment showed us a cool Galaxy variant.

    Now, if you want to argue that it should be a better ship simply because it IS the ship a lot of fans associate with Trek, then that's different. But don't try to convince us with numbers that the actual shows don't back up.
  • sterlingwarbirdsterlingwarbird Member Posts: 186 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    Of course the Sovvy would be smaller. The Defiant showed Starfleet that space whales are pretty much useless in combat so all future ships should be made smaller and more nimble as a rule.

    For all the firepower the Galaxy was purported to have it was never enough to simply deal with most of the random wacky alien ships of the week. Honestly, you can pull any number form any source you want and it won't matter, in the shows the Galaxy was shown to be a lame duck. The only exception to the rule was the Galaxy-X, that for a brief moment showed us a cool Galaxy variant.

    Now, if you want to argue that it should be a better ship simply because it IS the ship a lot of fans associate with Trek, then that's different. But don't try to convince us with numbers that the actual shows don't back up.

    Your argument is rendered invalid when the Defiant got blown up by one energy dampening torpedo, which OTHER ships could deal with (I.E. Galaxy) and due to its "ablative armour" should have still been able to take a considerable pounding without its shields however the ship was pretty much abandoned and destroyed.

    I must admit, I cheered when the Defiant was destroyed. It was never a real starship to begin with, just a bad Starfleet attempt with pushing the lines of star-ship development. If you remember, could a Defiant bring down a Dominion Dreadnought... NO! The ship got slaughtered...

    Hmmmm must have missed that episode eh in the STO development circles... you know, where the Defiant CAN'T shamelessly blow up dreadnoughts without some sort of "plan"... because on a sheer one to one fight... they got seriously owned.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-sLkA8s0OQ - USS Valiant "A Normal Defiant"

    USS Defiant - "Protected by the Power of Plot"

    Even JAKE said that SISKO would never attack a Dominion Dreadnought head on... but apparently, its alright to in STO... just rack them up eh?
  • stardestroyer001stardestroyer001 Member Posts: 2,615 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    Your argument is rendered invalid when the Defiant got blown up by one energy dampening torpedo, which OTHER ships could deal with (I.E. Galaxy) and due to its "ablative armour" should have still been able to take a considerable pounding without its shields however the ship was pretty much abandoned and destroyed.

    I must admit, I cheered when the Defiant was destroyed. It was never a real starship to begin with, just a bad Starfleet attempt with pushing the lines of star-ship development. If you remember, could a Defiant bring down a Dominion Dreadnought... NO! The ship got slaughtered...

    Hmmmm must have missed that episode eh in the STO development circles... you know, where the Defiant CAN'T shamelessly blow up dreadnoughts without some sort of "plan"... because on a sheer one to one fight... they got seriously owned.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-sLkA8s0OQ - USS Valiant "A Normal Defiant"

    USS Defiant - "Protected by the Power of Plot"

    Even JAKE said that SISKO would never attack a Dominion Dreadnought head on... but apparently, its alright to in STO... just rack them up eh?

    Several problems with this argument here.

    1) We never saw a Galaxy-class withstanding the Breen energy-drain torpedo attacks. We never saw the Galaxy-class in the Second Battle of Chin'toka, period. Sorry, but you can't compare two things if one of them is purely conjectural.

    2) Ablative armor is designed to dissipate upon being hit, and take most of the energy with it, so as to protect the ship. Once the ablative armor is gone, the ship is vulnerable, just like any other starship. (Only exception is the Endgame Voyager, which seems to have the ability to regenerate the ablative armor via power from the warp core, given time.)

    3) STO, as we all know (see this thread), doesn't follow canon.
    stardestroyer001, Admiral, Explorers Fury PvE/PvP Fleet | Retired PvP Player
    Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
    My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
  • dontdrunkimshootdontdrunkimshoot Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    stating ships based on canon is an awful idea anyway, theres to much plot armor or plot driven losses. stating them based off tech manuals information would be better. if you do it that way, not surprisingly, the biggest ship with the biggest guns would be most powerful. but, the devs stated things based on their inner fanboy, thats why something like a defiant in game can fight and defeat anything. when in cannon it was a match for an 80 year old tarded up light cruiser. given the size difference, thats still plenty impressive. but a galaxy could swat the defiant like a fly long before it could come close to piercing its shields. id say an ambassador, intrepid, akira, and sovereign could too.
  • sterlingwarbirdsterlingwarbird Member Posts: 186 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    stating ships based on canon is an awful idea anyway, theres to much plot armor or plot driven losses. stating them based off tech manuals information would be better. if you do it that way, not surprisingly, the biggest ship with the biggest guns would be most powerful. but, the devs stated things based on their inner fanboy, thats why something like a defiant in game can fight and defeat anything. when in cannon it was a match for an 80 year old tarded up light cruiser. given the size difference, thats still plenty impressive. but a galaxy could swat the defiant like a fly long before it could come close to piercing its shields. id say an ambassador, intrepid, akira, and sovereign could too.

    Its not fair, its been unfair for certain ships for too long and some Cryptic's devs should be shot for what they did to this game. I don't mean that figuratively either. PvP is a total P2W-fest BECAUSE of Cryptic constantly releasing ships that are way too powerful to compare to other vessels to make people by them. That is the hallmark of a bad company.

    The Defiant needs to be put back in its place in favor for the REAL starfleet vessels that are constantly being sidelined for non-faction lockbox TRIBBLE.
  • khan5000khan5000 Member Posts: 3,008 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    veraticus wrote: »
    My car isn't designed to be a super car.
    Just as the Sovereign does not appear to have been designed to be a battleship capable of replacing a still perfectly functional Galaxy class design.
    It wasn't supposed to be. Find me a link, a legitimate link from a canon source that states that the Sovereign was specifically designed to replace the Galaxy class.
    No wikipedia nor memory Alpha/Beta count unless they also supply a source.

    You are not going to find a quote because there is none. Just like you won't find from a canon source stating that it is not. However we have logical conjecture. They didn't give Picard another Galaxy class. They put him in the Sovereign. Stands to reason that the Sovy is/was a better ship than the Galaxy. It is mentioned as the most advanced ship in the fleet. Stands to reason everything about the ship is an upgrade from previous ships. Just like it stands to reason that the ENT retrofit is a better ship than TOS ENT, or the ENT B being better than the A, or the C being better than the B, the D being better than the C....so why isn't the E better than the D/



    We do know where all the phaser arrays and torpedo tubes are at.
    The majority of her torpedo tubes appear to be single fire tubes, whereas the Galaxy has two large torpedo tubes capable of anywhere from 10-24 within a single reload cycle.

    During the Galaxy's time frame Starfleet was in conflict with several races such as the Cardassians, Romulans, Tezkinthi, and several others.
    Those conflicts demanded a more modernized fleet. The Galaxy class ship was a ship that was capable of being sent to those sites alone, and taking over the roll of several smaller ships by itself.

    Lets also look at the size difference of these ships.

    The Galaxy class weighs in at a whopping 4,500,000 metric tonnes.
    That is 9,920,801,798 pounds!

    The Sovereign class weighs in at 3,255,000 metric tons.
    That is 7,176,046,634 pounds!

    A 2,744,755,164 pound difference. Almost 3 million pounds...

    She is smaller than the Ambassador, the Nebula and only just outweighs the Akira and Niagra classes.

    http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/8792/3axissizecompare.jpg <-- For size comparison between the two ships.
    http://johneaves.wordpress.com/2010/12/10/the-evolutions-of-the-uss-midway-cv-41-and-the-uss-enterprise-ncc-1701-e/
    John Eaves designed the ship
    "The ?E? was designed for the 1996 Star Trek film, First Contact, and the written description of the ship was that it was the battle bird of Starfleet with the sole purpose of battling an inevitable attack from the Borg! Thus the design of the ship followed a different path more towards the aggressive rather than the peaceful ?D? that Andy designed."
    Your pain runs deep.
    Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
  • khan5000khan5000 Member Posts: 3,008 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    Your argument is rendered invalid when the Defiant got blown up by one energy dampening torpedo, which OTHER ships could deal with (I.E. Galaxy) and due to its "ablative armour" should have still been able to take a considerable pounding without its shields however the ship was pretty much abandoned and destroyed.

    I must admit, I cheered when the Defiant was destroyed. It was never a real starship to begin with, just a bad Starfleet attempt with pushing the lines of star-ship development. If you remember, could a Defiant bring down a Dominion Dreadnought... NO! The ship got slaughtered...

    Hmmmm must have missed that episode eh in the STO development circles... you know, where the Defiant CAN'T shamelessly blow up dreadnoughts without some sort of "plan"... because on a sheer one to one fight... they got seriously owned.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-sLkA8s0OQ - USS Valiant "A Normal Defiant"

    USS Defiant - "Protected by the Power of Plot"

    Even JAKE said that SISKO would never attack a Dominion Dreadnought head on... but apparently, its alright to in STO... just rack them up eh?

    Every Star Trek ship is as strong or as weak as the plot says it is....for every scene of Galaxy awesomeness there is also a scene of Galaxy fail on the series
    Your pain runs deep.
    Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
  • veraticusveraticus Member Posts: 250 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    khan5000 wrote: »
    You are not going to find a quote because there is none. Just like you won't find from a canon source stating that it is not. However we have logical conjecture. They didn't give Picard another Galaxy class. They put him in the Sovereign. Stands to reason that the Sovy is/was a better ship than the Galaxy. It is mentioned as the most advanced ship in the fleet. Stands to reason everything about the ship is an upgrade from previous ships. Just like it stands to reason that the ENT retrofit is a better ship than TOS ENT, or the ENT B being better than the A, or the C being better than the B, the D being better than the C....so why isn't the E better than the D

    Advanced does not equal more.
    It equals advanced. Flagship does not mean the most powerful. It means nothing. It could be a yacht if that is where command decided to set-up shop.

    During TNG: Descent the USS Gorkon, an Excelsior class vessel, was the flagship of the fleet during a Borg Threat.

    In First Contact, Admiral Hayes was onboard an class of vessel unmentioned. This ship was the Flagship of the fleet until such time as its destruction and arrival of the Enterprise E. Also against the Borg, and it doesn't appear to have been a Sovereign or Galaxy class vessel either.

    During the Dominion War the USS Defiant was often the fleets Flagship, despite existing at the same time as the fleets usual flag bearer, the USS Enterprise(A-E) and overall command belong to Adm. William Ross.

    The IKS Rotarran. Flagship of the Klingon Empire.
    Also a regular sized Bird of Prey. Clearly not the most powerful ship the Klingons had to offer.

    Last but not least.
    Using your logic of latest being greatest.
    Vesta
    Luna
    Prometheus
    Nova
    Intrepid
    Sovereign
    khan5000 wrote: »
    http://johneaves.wordpress.com/2010/12/10/the-evolutions-of-the-uss-midway-cv-41-and-the-uss-enterprise-ncc-1701-e/
    John Eaves designed the ship
    "The ?E? was designed for the 1996 Star Trek film, First Contact, and the written description of the ship was that it was the battle bird of Starfleet with the sole purpose of battling an inevitable attack from the Borg! Thus the design of the ship followed a different path more towards the aggressive rather than the peaceful ?D? that Andy designed."

    I like that link.
    But it doesn't say anything about replacing the Galaxy class as the top dog.
    The Vorcha and the B'Rel are the Kilngons battledogs. Neither can take on a Negh'Var.
    The Mogai is the Romulans battle bird. Can't take on a D'Deridex though.
    Look at the U.S. Navy during WWII. The Battleship was the immensely powerful, yet there were far more destroyers and cruisers. Even the mighty aircraft carrier isn't the battle dog as it were. It's the destroyers with their incredibly advanced tech, ballistic missiles and submarine warfare suits that put them in that role. Could it be filled by an Iowa class battleship? Yes it could. And it would be even more devastating, but so would the hit to your bank account and resources.

    She was designed to be a more aggressive ship than others.
    Hence the sleeker more battle oriented design.
    Similar to the Defiant's design goals.
    Lighter faster, and capable of delivery a large punch but on a smaller frame.

    For example, look at Germany's pocket battleships of WWII.
    They were termed pocket battleships by the British due to the heavy armament on them.
    But go ahead and compare one to a full sized battleship such as the Bismark or Iowa class battleships... those will blow it out of the water in a straight fight.

    The advantages of fielding a smaller though slightly less powerful ship is numerical superiority. Sherman tanks vs the Panther tank.
    The Panther is the clearly superior tank, yet the Sherman due to the ease of production and sheer number output overwhelmed the superior design of the Panther and Tiger Tanks.
  • veraticusveraticus Member Posts: 250 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    Of course the Sovvy would be smaller. The Defiant showed Starfleet that space whales are pretty much useless in combat so all future ships should be made smaller and more nimble as a rule.

    For all the firepower the Galaxy was purported to have it was never enough to simply deal with most of the random wacky alien ships of the week. Honestly, you can pull any number form any source you want and it won't matter, in the shows the Galaxy was shown to be a lame duck. The only exception to the rule was the Galaxy-X, that for a brief moment showed us a cool Galaxy variant.

    Now, if you want to argue that it should be a better ship simply because it IS the ship a lot of fans associate with Trek, then that's different. But don't try to convince us with numbers that the actual shows don't back up.

    Go back and watch the DS9 episode Sacrifice of Angels.
    Watch the Galaxy rip right through the enemy ships.
    Continue to watch and you will see that the Galaxy class ships even broke through the lines and then proceeded to flank the enemy. They attacked them from BEHIND!
    No other ship was seen to be capable of doing that.

    She took out top of the line Cardassian battle-cruisers with just a few well placed shots.

    Could take multiple shots, torpedoes even, to her hull even without shields and come out of the battle under her own power and continue to fight.

    According to all canon sources, not a single Galaxy vessel was lost during the Dominion War. No the Odyssey was not during the Dominion War. It was prior to it.

    As far as I can recall there are only two Galaxy class vessels that have been lost to hostile forces. The Odyssey from a suicide run. And the Ent-D to a warpcore induced breach via the Duras Sisters.
  • khan5000khan5000 Member Posts: 3,008 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    veraticus wrote: »
    Advanced does not equal more.
    It equals advanced. Flagship does not mean the most powerful. It means nothing. It could be a yacht if that is where command decided to set-up shop.

    At no time did I say flagship means more powerful. The ENT-E is described as the most advance ship in the fleet. Now would you put that in a ship that just has higher computing power??? or a ship with higher armor?? It stands to reason that if you label something as the most advanced ship in the fleet it does everything better than every other ship. If scientists created the most advance person ever would it be because he is taller or stronger or because he can do anything anyone else can do better.


    Last but not least.
    Using your logic of latest being greatest.
    Vesta
    Luna
    Prometheus
    Nova
    Intrepid
    Sovereign



    I like that link.
    But it doesn't say anything about replacing the Galaxy class as the top dog.
    The Vorcha and the B'Rel are the Kilngons battledogs. Neither can take on a Negh'Var.
    The Mogai is the Romulans battle bird. Can't take on a D'Deridex though.
    Look at the U.S. Navy during WWII. The Battleship was the immensely powerful, yet there were far more destroyers and cruisers. Even the mighty aircraft carrier isn't the battle dog as it were. It's the destroyers with their incredibly advanced tech, ballistic missiles and submarine warfare suits that put them in that role. Could it be filled by an Iowa class battleship? Yes it could. And it would be even more devastating, but so would the hit to your bank account and resources.

    the link was to show that the idea that the Sovy was built for war and the galaxy was built for peace was even in the mindset of the show/movie makers. However to use your WW2 example the battleship was the pinnacle of destruction but at the time of WW2 that was old thinking. WW2 showed that the aircraft carrier was the most powerful naval asset. A Grumman TBF Avenger could drop a 2,000 pound bomb on a battleship at a range of hundreds of miles. Battlegroups were formed around carriers (much like today) and Battleships were relegated to bombardment of landing zones. However i think you are getting caught up in the ship named classes....both Galaxy and Sovy should be considered battleships just of different classes much like we have the Nimitz Class Carriers and the Gerald R Ford Class carriers which are about to come out and which the new Enterprise carrier is going to be a part of.

    She was designed to be a more aggressive ship than others.
    Hence the sleeker more battle oriented design.
    Similar to the Defiant's design goals.
    Lighter faster, and capable of delivery a large punch but on a smaller frame.

    For example, look at Germany's pocket battleships of WWII.
    They were termed pocket battleships by the British due to the heavy armament on them.
    But go ahead and compare one to a full sized battleship such as the Bismark or Iowa class battleships... those will blow it out of the water in a straight fight.

    The advantages of fielding a smaller though slightly less powerful ship is numerical superiority. Sherman tanks vs the Panther tank.
    The Panther is the clearly superior tank, yet the Sherman due to the ease of production and sheer number output overwhelmed the superior design of the Panther and Tiger Tanks.

    The Littoral Combat Ship is replacing the frigate and is smaller.
    and yet both tanks would not compare to the Abrams...a newer tank
    Your pain runs deep.
    Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
  • gpgtxgpgtx Member Posts: 1,579 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    why do people still think the galaxy was built for peace the ENTERPRISE-D was built for peace not the class as a whole. the class was built to be any ware form a fleet command base at the front line to diplomatic envoy or mobile medical center to deep space exploration.

    the Galaxy was also suppose to be refitted every 20 years with the most advanced technology of that time so after 20 years the galaxy class would also have the same mk XII phasers as the sov quantum torp launchers and bio-neural computer systems regenerative shields and ablative armor as all the ablative is is a second skin layer that has to be replaced after it's burned off any way except voyager which regenerated so it's safe to say all ships have regenerative ablative armor now.

    the same happens in the real world the ship my dad served on in the 70's was originally built in the 50's by the time my dad was on it it had the same technology as every other ship in the fleet as it continually got refits when he came on board it just finished getting a 18 month refit to bring it back up to current specs and modern weaponry. this was back in 1979 for a frigate (or destroyer escort the ship was reclassified a few times). if the US navy would do that to a 30 year old frigate that only had 10 years left in it's hull life (it was scheduled to be decommissioned in 1988) i am pretty sure starfleet which is modeled after the US navy would continue to refit the galaxy which has a hull life of 100 years
    victoriasig_zps23c45368.jpg
  • khan5000khan5000 Member Posts: 3,008 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    gpgtx wrote: »
    why do people still think the galaxy was built for peace the ENTERPRISE-D was built for peace not the class as a whole. the class was built to be any ware form a fleet command base at the front line to diplomatic envoy or mobile medical center to deep space exploration.

    the Galaxy was also suppose to be refitted every 20 years with the most advanced technology of that time so after 20 years the galaxy class would also have the same mk XII phasers as the sov quantum torp launchers and bio-neural computer systems regenerative shields and ablative armor as all the ablative is is a second skin layer that has to be replaced after it's burned off any way except voyager which regenerated so it's safe to say all ships have regenerative ablative armor now.

    the same happens in the real world the ship my dad served on in the 70's was originally built in the 50's by the time my dad was on it it had the same technology as every other ship in the fleet as it continually got refits when he came on board it just finished getting a 18 month refit to bring it back up to current specs and modern weaponry. this was back in 1979 for a frigate (or destroyer escort the ship was reclassified a few times). if the US navy would do that to a 30 year old frigate that only had 10 years left in it's hull life (it was scheduled to be decommissioned in 1988) i am pretty sure starfleet which is modeled after the US navy would continue to refit the galaxy which has a hull life of 100 years

    if you look at the post i made a few posts back even the guy who designed the Sovereign said the same thing.
    Now yes the Navy does refit and upgrade their ships however those ships are bred for a single purpose...they are built for war.
    In my time in the navy i was stationed on the USS Constellation CV-64, a Kitty Hawk class carrier. It was in service for 41 years and had plenty of upgrades and refits...however there can only be so many times of putting new tech in an old ship when its cheaper/easier to just design a new ship. A perfect example of this is the leap from the Nimitz class carrier to the Gerald R Ford Class.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_r_ford_class
    Your pain runs deep.
    Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
  • gpgtxgpgtx Member Posts: 1,579 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    the galaxy was built though for refits in mind it's whole interior volume can be removed and reconfigured for any mission making the refit process less involved then other ships

    the TNG tech manual that came out for the movie generations talks about this and the ent-d's refit in the movie that upgraded it's systems (the new bridge shown) and weapon systems for the upcoming dominion threat and to change it's role from diplomatic to more combat oriented

    the upgrades they gloss over where the change form mkx to mkxi phasers and the mkv photons to mkviii photons. and increased shields that can function against dominion weaponry

    need to keep in mind the galaxy is only 5 years older then the defiant and 8 years older then the sov there is not a huge advancement in technology from the 3 ships all are equally "old" in the time frame of sto
    victoriasig_zps23c45368.jpg
  • veraticusveraticus Member Posts: 250 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    khan5000 wrote: »
    if you look at the post i made a few posts back even the guy who designed the Sovereign said the same thing.
    Now yes the Navy does refit and upgrade their ships however those ships are bred for a single purpose...they are built for war.
    In my time in the navy i was stationed on the USS Constellation CV-64, a Kitty Hawk class carrier. It was in service for 41 years and had plenty of upgrades and refits...however there can only be so many times of putting new tech in an old ship when its cheaper/easier to just design a new ship. A perfect example of this is the leap from the Nimitz class carrier to the Gerald R Ford Class.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_r_ford_class

    So was the Galaxy.
    The Galaxy class was designed to take on all major threats to the Federation and her allies.
    The Federation was clashing with the Tholians, rogue elements of the Klingon Empire, the Tzenkethi, Cardassians, and had to be capable of facing a renewed Romulan threat.
    And would have been built with something in mind towards the unknown, since that is what the Federation does. Goes where no man has gone before.

    The Galaxy is a true Battleship.
    The Sovereign would be a Battle-Cruiser, or a Pocket Battleship. She has firepower comparable to a larger ship, but not the mass or armor.

    As for your Abrams. That one doesn't work. There is almost a 40 year gap between those two.
    Yet only an 8 year gap between the Galaxy and the Sovereign with mature technologies instead of tech in its infancy such as Computer tech which doubles in power roughly every 18 months. You don't see internal combustion engines doing that.

    She doesn't have the same size guns, nor does she have the size to compete with the other large ships from surrounding powers.

    Number of guns means very little.
    Look at the number of guns on an Aircraft Carrier vs on a Battleship.
    The Battleship has the larger guns. But the Aircraft Carrier has planes.

    The Galaxy was designed to be in service for 100+ years.
    Major overhauls every 20 years and smaller ones every 4 or when needed.
    We saw several upgrades throughout her life on-screen.

    Going strictly but what we have seen on-screen. She is even the faster ship.
    Maximum sustainable speed of 9.6. Whereas we have only seen Warp 8 from the Sovereign on-screen. Though I am willing to acknowledge the 9.7 highpoint(makes sense)

    Going by the best that both ships have shown on screen. (Yes the best, not the worst. We are after all trying to see these ships at their best yes?)
    The Galaxy hits harder with Phasers. Has larger guns. Can fire more torpedoes per tube than the Sovereign. Is significantly larger. Is faster. And has actually been called a Battleship.
  • edited June 2013
    This content has been removed.
  • sterlingwarbirdsterlingwarbird Member Posts: 186 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    The Defiant was way over-estimated, it was far too powerful for its size and had serious flaws in its design as a result of the Federation engineers cutting corners. In Star Trek: Armada, the ship is easiest class, next to the Venture and later the Saber to actually build. The ship is small and disposable... like the Excelsior. The Excelsior had her glory days now she is nothing but a workhorse, the Lakota was the only refit of its kind and that kind of refit was not installed again because it was done behind Starfleet's back by Admiral Leyton. The ship is old and worthless... it has seen better days.

    ACCEPT IT CRYPTIC and make the ships CANON!
  • hereticknight085hereticknight085 Member Posts: 3,783 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    ACCEPT IT CRYPTIC and make the ships CANON!

    The only catch here being... this game is NOT canon.
    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. B)
This discussion has been closed.