no ship should be the last, there should exist a role or niche ( at least ) for everyone, as a tactical cruiser the galaxy x role have been reduced to none with all the new realease of ship.
for example the avenger "stole" him the little thing that he was the only one to be able to do in federation faction, a decloack alpha with DHC and lance.
this is a joke of a role, especially when the ship is only able to do it every 3 minute at best... but still.
avenger replace lance with a bo 3 and do much better.
What do you mean that the Typhoon could steal the role and why do you fear the release of the Typhoon?
let forget the alpha cloack role and others things.
in a general usage the galaxy dreadnought can not pretend to compete with an avenger, the ship isn't "built" to do so ( turn, speed, bo layout ).
so the avenger never really "stole" his role.
the galaxy dreadnought, in my opinion, should be a ship that have a good firepower and a good tanking capabilitie.
for now it lack in the firepower department, a lt commander tact would solve that, as well as other reorientation of stats ( +10 weapons power ect )
so this, is also what the stats of a hypothetical typhoon could be ( slow maneuvering, respectable firepower with a lt commander tact and good tanking capabilities )
the realease of a thyphoon will go to that direction in my opinion.
i don't see a dreadnought typhoon with 8 or 9 degree turn, or with just a commander engi slot and a lt sci slot.it will be an eng and sci heavy.
it turn rate will be 6 or 7.
it could be 5.5 but then it will be with broadside torpedo power that gecko was talking about.
in any case that is the role that the galaxy dreadnought could fill if it were given a ltcommander tact bo ( yeah because right now it is not )
no ship should be the last, there should exist a role or niche ( at least ) for everyone, as a tactical cruiser the galaxy x role have been reduced to none with all the new realease of ship.
for example the avenger "stole" him the little thing that he was the only one to be able to do in federation faction, a decloack alpha with DHC and lance.
this is a joke of a role, especially when the ship is only able to do it every 3 minute at best... but still.
avenger replace lance with a bo 3 and do much better.
Got news for you. The vast majority of cruisers, Excelsior and Sovy'/Regent included were left in the dust by the Avenger. The only real downside to Avenger is her limited ability to soak/heal damage in comparison. She is pretty much the cruisers answer to the Armitage (minus the fighters.)
let forget the alpha cloack role and others things.
in a general usage the galaxy dreadnought can not pretend to compete with an avenger, the ship isn't "built" to do so ( turn, speed, bo layout ).
so the avenger never really "stole" his role.
the galaxy dreadnought, in my opinion, should be a ship that have a good firepower and a good tanking capabilitie.
for now it lack in the firepower department, a lt commander tact would solve that, as well as other reorientation of stats ( +10 weapons power ect )
so this, is also what the stats of a hypothetical typhoon could be ( slow maneuvering, respectable firepower with a lt commander tact and good tanking capabilities )
the realease of a thyphoon will go to that direction in my opinion.
i don't see a dreadnought typhoon with 8 or 9 degree turn, or with just a commander engi slot and a lt sci slot.it will be an eng and sci heavy.
it turn rate will be 6 or 7.
it could be 5.5 but then it will be with broadside torpedo power that gecko was talking about.
in any case that is the role that the galaxy dreadnought could fill if it were given a ltcommander tact bo ( yeah because right now it is not )
I could even envision the Typhoon being a 5' turn rate with a stupid amount of hull and shields to compensate. Wouldnt be surprised to see a torpedo console for a "fire-for-effect" or saturation attack. The Galaxy-X, on the other hand, always has seemed to me to be a sort of proviso'-DN, just enough firepower to be considered a DN, but not the same as what a dedicated combat ship like a Klingon DN would offer, and certainly not a battleship, like they are suggesting with the Typhoon.
The only real downside to Avenger is her limited ability to soak/heal damage in comparison.
That is not true oO she's also ugly.
The Galaxy-X, on the other hand, always has seemed to me to be a sort of proviso'-DN, just enough firepower to be considered a DN, but not the same as what a dedicated combat ship like a Klingon DN would offer, and certainly not a battleship, like they are suggesting with the Typhoon.
The Galaxy X may be classified as heavy runabout tug and it still wouldn't change the fact that in the one scene we've seen her in battle her phaser lance ripped through a Negh'var's Shields AND Hull like it was made of paper. With two shots. Which both hit, by the way. Even if we asume that the rest of the ship wasn't modified and the two stubby horns on the top do nothing but look menacing, that cannon alone makes it a battleship by default - i have never seen the "eh, good enough"-phaser banks do that to an undamaged, equal (or even superior) ship. Denying that the Galaxy X is anything but a warship (or at least a seriously overpowered, upgraded explorer that was heavily armed by comparison in the first place) is bordering on being childish, i'm sorry.
Fact is, that the Galaxy "X" is not worth it the "X"!
This Ship is since introduction a "Joke" and we ve discussed many times about its Statistics and we wished Cryptic to increase it, like the Hull, Shields, more Accuracy for the Lance and +10/+10 Energy Amplifiers and a Lt.Cmd Tac as Minimum for a "Dreadnought".
I`ve heard/read it somewhere, that PWE is planing to introduce a 3-Pack Version of the Galaxy "X".
Lets wait also...
Fleet Leader:Hellenic Space Force
Characters FED: TAC Ponos - TAC Tromos - ENG Athena - ROM TAC Phovos - SCI Martyrium - REM Apatros
Fleet: La Familia: SCI Stave
KDF Fleet: Syndicate of Shadows: ENG Sha'Kal
The Galaxy X may be classified as heavy runabout tug and it still wouldn't change the fact that in the one scene we've seen her in battle her phaser lance ripped through a Negh'var's Shields AND Hull like it was made of paper. With two shots. Which both hit, by the way.
That didn't happen in the Prime Universe. So it's not indicative of the firepower of the ship in this game.
That didn't happen in the Prime Universe. So it's not indicative of the firepower of the ship in this game.
That's a pretty weak argument, and there are two good reasons why:
A) Consider - a huge number of ships that NEVER appeared on screen outgun this onscreen battleship. The early STO-timeline is thematically very close to the alternative future seen in All Good Things (war with the Blingons, Worf working for the klingon government, the very existance of the Galaxy X itself, the Olympic Class) - there is absolutely no need to assume the general specs of this particular refit should have changed despite possessing the very same features as the canon ship, given to it for the very same reasons.
Building upon the first sentance of the first point: just because a ship isn't entirely canon (well, it IS canon; "canon" doesn't mean it HAS to happen in the Prime Timeline... which Boom-Boom Abrams aborted anyways, making this argument rather pointless*) doesn't mean it has to be bad. If we went by that logic the Odyssey would be even worse than the Galaxy, most romulan and klingon ships would only fly in circles fireing at their own tails and we'd all be cruisin' in highpowered Scimitars because it'd be the only ship worth being flown.
* let's just go ahead and make this point number... ah... C). Intruigingly you use the term "Prime Universe". Well... there is none anymore. Until we're actually shown otherwise onscreen we have to go with the fact that the temporal incursion that sent Spock and Not-Khan back in time destroyed the Prime Timeline as we know it, replacing it with that... thing with oversized Uberships, even bigger oversized Uberships and two Khan-ripoffs in a row. STO's timeline is non-canon by default, but considering we are talking about STO we are going by STO-rules. And Cryptic has decided that the future of the Prime Timeline would closely resemble the possible future of All Good Things, Galaxy X, Olympic, naughty Klingons and more. Gameplay-reasons aside (which boil down to "We don't care" in the case of the Galaxy X) we can, should, must deduce that the in-lore version of the Galaxy X is as identical to the alternative future Enterprise D as it can get without actually being the alternative future Enterprise D. Starfleet is not stupid. Well, they are, kinda, sometimes, but bear with me. Starfleet would not install a twohundred (#madeupnumber) meter long Phaser Lance on a Galaxy-saucer if it didn't hit relyably. Imagine the energy-waste that would be. No engineer worth half a damn would agree to this if the in-lore Lance was a bad as it's gameplay counterpart.
A) Consider - a huge number of ships that NEVER appeared on screen outgun this onscreen battleship. The early STO-timeline is thematically very close to the alternative future seen in All Good Things (war with the Blingons, Worf working for the klingon government, the very existance of the Galaxy X itself, the Olympic Class) - there is absolutely no need to assume the general specs of this particular refit should have changed despite possessing the very same features as the canon ship, given to it for the very same reasons.
Let's then remember that in that episode, the Galaxy X was Riker's "pet" ship with modifications made to it under his own tastes and whims. And the Neg'Vahr it tears through isn't the same Neg'Varh that actually ends up appearing in the Prime Universe in DS9.
* let's just go ahead and make this point number... ah... C). Intruigingly you use the term "Prime Universe". Well... there is none anymore. Until we're actually shown otherwise onscreen we have to go with the fact that the temporal incursion that sent Spock and Not-Khan back in time destroyed the Prime Timeline as we know it, replacing it with that... thing with oversized Uberships, even bigger oversized Uberships and two Khan-ripoffs in a row.
When you say Not-Khan do you mean Nero?
we are going by STO-rules.
If we're going by STO rules then the ship is fine as is, according to STO rules. You can't cite the episode All Good Things and then try to double back and cite STO's timeline instead.
If we're going by STO rules and STO's timeline, then the Galaxy X is exactly as STO feels it should be.
Let's then remember that in that episode, the Galaxy X was Riker's "pet" ship with modifications made to it under his own tastes and whims.
Who said that? We only know he chose the ship. Don't make up stuff here, mister. For all we know that's standart gear for Galaxys in that timeline. I was actually surprised we didn't see one in the Dominion War.
And the Neg'Vahr it tears through isn't the same Neg'Varh that actually ends up appearing in the Prime Universe in DS9.
Close enough. Just looking at both versions at a glance there's not more difference between those ships than between the 4 and 6 foot model of the D which was always supposed to be the same ship yet spontaniously grew and lost a deck or two in the saucer section, sometimes within the same episode. Do what i do and blame CGI.
When you say Not-Khan do you mean Nero?
Yes.
If we're going by STO rules then the ship is fine as is, according to STO rules. You can't cite the episode All Good Things and then try to double back and cite STO's timeline instead.
If we're going by STO rules and STO's timeline, then the Galaxy X is exactly as STO feels it should be.
STO-rules and STO-timeline show us a future close to All Good Things. Considering STO cites the episode in broadstrokes every time it shows something that appeared in it i feel rather confident in citing both, yes. Add to that the aforementioned thoughts - that Starfleet wouldn't install the Lance if it didn't work properly. That Starfleet apparently had a very good reason to install it, given the war with the Klingons in both continuities i might put my fingers on said reason being the same. That design follows purpose. If the ship has the same features at the same time with the same level of technology in the same circumstances, if the ship was copied from the episode in every way but it's onscreen OP-ness - then it follows that that ship is the same.
Also Gameplay and Story Segregation. But that's a cheap copout.
Since Khan himself appears in the second film, I say just call him Nero. Things get confusing otherwise.
STO-rules and STO-timeline show us a future close to All Good Things. Considering STO cites the episode in broadstrokes every time it shows something that appeared in it i feel rather confident in citing both, yes.
I don't feel confident at all since ships in this game really don't work like they did on screen.
You got a quote for that? (no flametalk, serious question)
Since Khan himself appears in the second film, I say just call him Nero. Things get confusing otherwise.
Eh. Not unless he becomes the actual topic. It's a respect-thing: the movie get's none from me*.
* technically untrue - i like the Kelvin scene, but that's about it. Well, parts of it. If you dig too deep you uncover the typical JJ-stuff. Ship looks nice though.
The Galaxy X may be classified as heavy runabout tug and it still wouldn't change the fact that in the one scene we've seen her in battle her phaser lance ripped through a Negh'var's Shields AND Hull like it was made of paper. With two shots. Which both hit, by the way. Even if we asume that the rest of the ship wasn't modified and the two stubby horns on the top do nothing but look menacing, that cannon alone makes it a battleship by default - i have never seen the "eh, good enough"-phaser banks do that to an undamaged, equal (or even superior) ship. Denying that the Galaxy X is anything but a warship (or at least a seriously overpowered, upgraded explorer that was heavily armed by comparison in the first place) is bordering on being childish, i'm sorry.
Number one, I never said it wasn't a warship, I said it was based off of an (Exploration) Cruiser, which is considered a warship. I also said it proviso-DN because it barely hits that mark, considering ships that were built from the bottom up as a DN, namely the KDF. Please read what I actually typed.
In regards to childish, I refer you to this for perspective....
Got news for you. The vast majority of cruisers, Excelsior and Sovy'/Regent included were left in the dust by the Avenger. The only real downside to Avenger is her limited ability to soak/heal damage in comparison. She is pretty much the cruisers answer to the Armitage (minus the fighters.)
I could even envision the Typhoon being a 5' turn rate with a stupid amount of hull and shields to compensate. Wouldnt be surprised to see a torpedo console for a "fire-for-effect" or saturation attack. The Galaxy-X, on the other hand, always has seemed to me to be a sort of proviso'-DN, just enough firepower to be considered a DN, but not the same as what a dedicated combat ship like a Klingon DN would offer, and certainly not a battleship, like they are suggesting with the Typhoon.
Just, Lord, don't bring out the Jupiter....
News flash for you. The only thing the avenger beats the other fed cruisers at is a DHC boat. Now that's a very important role, but the avenger can do more damage as a beam boat. If you set it up as a beam boat though, it's redundant because the excel is set up with the same number of consoles, a little different boff seating but still, a very tac minded aux2bat beam boat, and it tanks a lot better too. If you run the avenger as a DBB, idk I haven't done that, so no comment.
Got news for you. The vast majority of cruisers, Excelsior and Sovy'/Regent included were left in the dust by the Avenger. The only real downside to Avenger is her limited ability to soak/heal damage in comparison. She is pretty much the cruisers answer to the Armitage (minus the fighters.)
that was what i thaught too in the first place, but now i think it is not.
the avenger just stole their place in the firepower departement due to the turnrate and 5 tact console slot and the abilitie to slot DHC for pvp, for stf beam are better.
for the rest, just like you said the ship is more limited in it ability to soak/heal damage.
so even if that don't mean much in pve, it will change what you will be able to do with it in pvp.
therefore change it role in comparison to the others, meaning their will be things that will still be done better by the others cruiser.
drunk have more experienced than me on the subject maybe you should ask him the question.
The Galaxy-X, on the other hand, always has seemed to me to be a sort of proviso'-DN, just enough firepower to be considered a DN, but not the same as what a dedicated combat ship like a Klingon DN would offer, and certainly not a battleship, like they are suggesting with the Typhoon.
in sto? yes that what it look like indeed, a proviso'-DN.
but that is not what it look like in the episode all good things.
but even with that definition of your it daesn't fit, because if 3 tact console an ensign and a lt tac is enought to be considered a DN well the assault cruiser could be too, and no one would call the assault cruiser a DN.
beside cryptic call it a DN, so a DN it is, we don't loose 2 cruiser command for a proviso'-DN.
so now cryptic, make this ship worthy of the name you give it ( and for wich you make it loose 2 cruiser command ), give it a lt commander tact bo and it will look like less of a joke then.
that was what i thaught too in the first place, but now i think it is not.
the avenger just stole their place in the firepower departement due to the turnrate and 5 tact console slot and the abilitie to slot DHC for pvp, for stf beam are better.
for the rest, just like you said the ship is more limited in it ability to soak/heal damage.
so even if that don't mean much in pve, it will change what you will be able to do with it in pvp.
therefore change it role in comparison to the others, meaning their will be things that will still be done better by the others cruiser.
drunk have more experienced than me on the subject maybe you should ask him the question.
in sto? yes that what it look like indeed, a proviso'-DN.
but that is not what it look like in the episode all good things.
but even with that definition of your it daesn't fit, because if 3 tact console an ensign and a lt tac is enought to be considered a DN well the assault cruiser could be too, and no one would call the assault cruiser a DN.
beside cryptic call it a DN, so a DN it is, we don't loose 2 cruiser command for a proviso'-DN.
so now cryptic, make this ship worthy of the name you give it ( and for wich you make it loose 2 cruiser command ), give it a lt commander tact bo and it will look like less of a joke then.
Both versions of the avenger only have 4 tactical consoles. The fleet Excel/regent both have the same console layout, and nearly identical boff setups, and can tank better. I facestomp avengers in my excel now, especially cannon boats.
You could also say they are both Cryptic developed ships sold in the C store, the Oddy is in no way a counterpart to the Scimmy other than in the way it is purchased.
YAA BOO to you too LMAO
So I was checking something completely unrelated out on STO Wiki, and noticed that the wiki refers to both the USS Odyssey and the USS Enterprise F as Odyssey class Federation Dreadnoughts.
Which would bring it right in line with the Bort and Scim. 3-pack dreadnought ships.
Both versions of the avenger only have 4 tactical consoles. The fleet Excel/regent both have the same console layout, and nearly identical boff setups, and can tank better. I facestomp avengers in my excel now, especially cannon boats.
man! you are right!
what was i thinking? i confuse it with the scimitar?:D
i see, the ship got 4 tact in cstore version, 1 more than the other, but in fleet version it didn't get a 5th tac but a 2nd sci.
well in any case that just reinforce what i said about it.
News flash for you. The only thing the avenger beats the other fed cruisers at is a DHC boat. Now that's a very important role, but the avenger can do more damage as a beam boat. If you set it up as a beam boat though, it's redundant because the excel is set up with the same number of consoles, a little different boff seating but still, a very tac minded aux2bat beam boat, and it tanks a lot better too. If you run the avenger as a DBB, idk I haven't done that, so no comment.
Run it with any forward arc fighting technique and its better than the other Fed Cruisers for dps.
Single Cannon/ Turret
DBB/Turret
DHC (or DC)/ Turret
Even BA if you consider staying the the forward BA arc
I've been using:
FA:
2xDHC
2xSingle Cannon
1xTorp
RA:
2x Turret
1x KCB.
It doesnt hit as hard in the front 45, as a DHC heavy loadout, but I am still using a good bit of my guns when my target is to my sides. The ship turns well, but its no escort.
buddy i play the Galaxy X with my Vice Admirals and i like the darn thing heck i have even gotten one to turn halfway decently (God i love Fleet Neutronium and RCS Consoles)
anyways the Galaxy X isn't that bad a ship.....also my theory is that some aspects of All Good Things happened in the Prime Universe and that is why we have the Olympic Class the Galaxy X Class and a bunch of Ensigns and Lieutenants in old Mothballed ship Classes *Miranda Class, NX Class, Oberth Class, Constitution Class* and why we have a War with the Klingons
and why Q chooses to pick on us every Christmas\Valentines Day.....cause Picard is..... Dead
so yeah also i have used my Constitution Class at Vice Admiral so.......yeah
Lol another better my galaxy thread when there is nothing wrong with it. Almost every proposed fix there is a ship already the exist with the same layout. Few exception. But really there is nothing wrong with the Galaxy.
Comments
no ship should be the last, there should exist a role or niche ( at least ) for everyone, as a tactical cruiser the galaxy x role have been reduced to none with all the new realease of ship.
for example the avenger "stole" him the little thing that he was the only one to be able to do in federation faction, a decloack alpha with DHC and lance.
this is a joke of a role, especially when the ship is only able to do it every 3 minute at best... but still.
avenger replace lance with a bo 3 and do much better.
let forget the alpha cloack role and others things.
in a general usage the galaxy dreadnought can not pretend to compete with an avenger, the ship isn't "built" to do so ( turn, speed, bo layout ).
so the avenger never really "stole" his role.
the galaxy dreadnought, in my opinion, should be a ship that have a good firepower and a good tanking capabilitie.
for now it lack in the firepower department, a lt commander tact would solve that, as well as other reorientation of stats ( +10 weapons power ect )
so this, is also what the stats of a hypothetical typhoon could be ( slow maneuvering, respectable firepower with a lt commander tact and good tanking capabilities )
the realease of a thyphoon will go to that direction in my opinion.
i don't see a dreadnought typhoon with 8 or 9 degree turn, or with just a commander engi slot and a lt sci slot.it will be an eng and sci heavy.
it turn rate will be 6 or 7.
it could be 5.5 but then it will be with broadside torpedo power that gecko was talking about.
in any case that is the role that the galaxy dreadnought could fill if it were given a ltcommander tact bo ( yeah because right now it is not )
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
Got news for you. The vast majority of cruisers, Excelsior and Sovy'/Regent included were left in the dust by the Avenger. The only real downside to Avenger is her limited ability to soak/heal damage in comparison. She is pretty much the cruisers answer to the Armitage (minus the fighters.)
I could even envision the Typhoon being a 5' turn rate with a stupid amount of hull and shields to compensate. Wouldnt be surprised to see a torpedo console for a "fire-for-effect" or saturation attack. The Galaxy-X, on the other hand, always has seemed to me to be a sort of proviso'-DN, just enough firepower to be considered a DN, but not the same as what a dedicated combat ship like a Klingon DN would offer, and certainly not a battleship, like they are suggesting with the Typhoon.
Just, Lord, don't bring out the Jupiter....
The Galaxy X may be classified as heavy runabout tug and it still wouldn't change the fact that in the one scene we've seen her in battle her phaser lance ripped through a Negh'var's Shields AND Hull like it was made of paper. With two shots. Which both hit, by the way. Even if we asume that the rest of the ship wasn't modified and the two stubby horns on the top do nothing but look menacing, that cannon alone makes it a battleship by default - i have never seen the "eh, good enough"-phaser banks do that to an undamaged, equal (or even superior) ship. Denying that the Galaxy X is anything but a warship (or at least a seriously overpowered, upgraded explorer that was heavily armed by comparison in the first place) is bordering on being childish, i'm sorry.
This Ship is since introduction a "Joke" and we ve discussed many times about its Statistics and we wished Cryptic to increase it, like the Hull, Shields, more Accuracy for the Lance and +10/+10 Energy Amplifiers and a Lt.Cmd Tac as Minimum for a "Dreadnought".
I`ve heard/read it somewhere, that PWE is planing to introduce a 3-Pack Version of the Galaxy "X".
Lets wait also...
Characters FED: TAC Ponos - TAC Tromos - ENG Athena - ROM TAC Phovos - SCI Martyrium - REM Apatros
Fleet: La Familia: SCI Stave
KDF Fleet: Syndicate of Shadows: ENG Sha'Kal
That didn't happen in the Prime Universe. So it's not indicative of the firepower of the ship in this game.
That's a pretty weak argument, and there are two good reasons why:
A) Consider - a huge number of ships that NEVER appeared on screen outgun this onscreen battleship. The early STO-timeline is thematically very close to the alternative future seen in All Good Things (war with the Blingons, Worf working for the klingon government, the very existance of the Galaxy X itself, the Olympic Class) - there is absolutely no need to assume the general specs of this particular refit should have changed despite possessing the very same features as the canon ship, given to it for the very same reasons.
* let's just go ahead and make this point number... ah... C). Intruigingly you use the term "Prime Universe". Well... there is none anymore. Until we're actually shown otherwise onscreen we have to go with the fact that the temporal incursion that sent Spock and Not-Khan back in time destroyed the Prime Timeline as we know it, replacing it with that... thing with oversized Uberships, even bigger oversized Uberships and two Khan-ripoffs in a row. STO's timeline is non-canon by default, but considering we are talking about STO we are going by STO-rules. And Cryptic has decided that the future of the Prime Timeline would closely resemble the possible future of All Good Things, Galaxy X, Olympic, naughty Klingons and more. Gameplay-reasons aside (which boil down to "We don't care" in the case of the Galaxy X) we can, should, must deduce that the in-lore version of the Galaxy X is as identical to the alternative future Enterprise D as it can get without actually being the alternative future Enterprise D. Starfleet is not stupid. Well, they are, kinda, sometimes, but bear with me. Starfleet would not install a twohundred (#madeupnumber) meter long Phaser Lance on a Galaxy-saucer if it didn't hit relyably. Imagine the energy-waste that would be. No engineer worth half a damn would agree to this if the in-lore Lance was a bad as it's gameplay counterpart.
/rant.
Let's then remember that in that episode, the Galaxy X was Riker's "pet" ship with modifications made to it under his own tastes and whims. And the Neg'Vahr it tears through isn't the same Neg'Varh that actually ends up appearing in the Prime Universe in DS9.
When you say Not-Khan do you mean Nero?
If we're going by STO rules then the ship is fine as is, according to STO rules. You can't cite the episode All Good Things and then try to double back and cite STO's timeline instead.
If we're going by STO rules and STO's timeline, then the Galaxy X is exactly as STO feels it should be.
Close enough. Just looking at both versions at a glance there's not more difference between those ships than between the 4 and 6 foot model of the D which was always supposed to be the same ship yet spontaniously grew and lost a deck or two in the saucer section, sometimes within the same episode. Do what i do and blame CGI.
Yes.
STO-rules and STO-timeline show us a future close to All Good Things. Considering STO cites the episode in broadstrokes every time it shows something that appeared in it i feel rather confident in citing both, yes. Add to that the aforementioned thoughts - that Starfleet wouldn't install the Lance if it didn't work properly. That Starfleet apparently had a very good reason to install it, given the war with the Klingons in both continuities i might put my fingers on said reason being the same. That design follows purpose. If the ship has the same features at the same time with the same level of technology in the same circumstances, if the ship was copied from the episode in every way but it's onscreen OP-ness - then it follows that that ship is the same.
Also Gameplay and Story Segregation. But that's a cheap copout.
Riker himself in the episode.
Since Khan himself appears in the second film, I say just call him Nero. Things get confusing otherwise.
I don't feel confident at all since ships in this game really don't work like they did on screen.
Eh. Not unless he becomes the actual topic. It's a respect-thing: the movie get's none from me*.
* technically untrue - i like the Kelvin scene, but that's about it. Well, parts of it. If you dig too deep you uncover the typical JJ-stuff. Ship looks nice though.
I have to watch the episode again. It's been a few years.
Number one, I never said it wasn't a warship, I said it was based off of an (Exploration) Cruiser, which is considered a warship. I also said it proviso-DN because it barely hits that mark, considering ships that were built from the bottom up as a DN, namely the KDF. Please read what I actually typed.
In regards to childish, I refer you to this for perspective....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xz7_3n7xyDg&feature=kp
that was what i thaught too in the first place, but now i think it is not.
the avenger just stole their place in the firepower departement due to the turnrate and 5 tact console slot and the abilitie to slot DHC for pvp, for stf beam are better.
for the rest, just like you said the ship is more limited in it ability to soak/heal damage.
so even if that don't mean much in pve, it will change what you will be able to do with it in pvp.
therefore change it role in comparison to the others, meaning their will be things that will still be done better by the others cruiser.
drunk have more experienced than me on the subject maybe you should ask him the question.
in sto? yes that what it look like indeed, a proviso'-DN.
but that is not what it look like in the episode all good things.
but even with that definition of your it daesn't fit, because if 3 tact console an ensign and a lt tac is enought to be considered a DN well the assault cruiser could be too, and no one would call the assault cruiser a DN.
beside cryptic call it a DN, so a DN it is, we don't loose 2 cruiser command for a proviso'-DN.
so now cryptic, make this ship worthy of the name you give it ( and for wich you make it loose 2 cruiser command ), give it a lt commander tact bo and it will look like less of a joke then.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
So I was checking something completely unrelated out on STO Wiki, and noticed that the wiki refers to both the USS Odyssey and the USS Enterprise F as Odyssey class Federation Dreadnoughts.
Which would bring it right in line with the Bort and Scim. 3-pack dreadnought ships.
Or something.
man! you are right!
what was i thinking? i confuse it with the scimitar?:D
i see, the ship got 4 tact in cstore version, 1 more than the other, but in fleet version it didn't get a 5th tac but a 2nd sci.
well in any case that just reinforce what i said about it.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
Run it with any forward arc fighting technique and its better than the other Fed Cruisers for dps.
Single Cannon/ Turret
DBB/Turret
DHC (or DC)/ Turret
Even BA if you consider staying the the forward BA arc
I've been using:
FA:
2xDHC
2xSingle Cannon
1xTorp
RA:
2x Turret
1x KCB.
It doesnt hit as hard in the front 45, as a DHC heavy loadout, but I am still using a good bit of my guns when my target is to my sides. The ship turns well, but its no escort.
anyways the Galaxy X isn't that bad a ship.....also my theory is that some aspects of All Good Things happened in the Prime Universe and that is why we have the Olympic Class the Galaxy X Class and a bunch of Ensigns and Lieutenants in old Mothballed ship Classes *Miranda Class, NX Class, Oberth Class, Constitution Class* and why we have a War with the Klingons
and why Q chooses to pick on us every Christmas\Valentines Day.....cause Picard is..... Dead
so yeah also i have used my Constitution Class at Vice Admiral so.......yeah
who have revived this necro thread?
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271