test content
  • Games
  • Social
  • Arc News
  • Support
  • Zen
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Forums > Home› Feedback› Federation Discussion

Sydney Class: U.S.S. Jenolan as a playable starship?

willamsheridanwillamsheridan Member Posts: 1,189 Arc User
edited December 2014 in Federation Discussion
We are in the Delta quadrant but also in the Jenolan Sphere where the Crew of the U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701-D found and rescued Scotty 75 years after he crash landed on the Surface of the Sphere.

It would be great to get a Playable Sydney Class T5.

A small ship, Turnrate and Hull Between a Science ship and an Escort (14-15° Turn, 36000 Hull), Boff layout like this maybe (Commander Tac, Lt. Cdr Eng, Lt Eng, Lt. Sci and Ensign Universal). Can equip Dual Cannons.
Post edited by willamsheridan on

Comments

  • ddesjardinsddesjardins Member Posts: 3,056 Media Corps
    edited November 2014
    The Jenolan was a cargo vessel.

    I'd love to have a federation cargo vessel, with unique abilities (say cheaper commodities) that i could run, rather than free market ships.
  • willamsheridanwillamsheridan Member Posts: 1,189 Arc User
    edited November 2014
    ddesjardins wrote: »
    The Jenolan was a cargo vessel.

    I'd love to have a federation cargo vessel, with unique abilities (say cheaper commodities) that i could run, rather than free market ships.

    So what? The Olympic class was or is a class of medical Transport ships. But they can use heavy weapons in STO. We have Suliban cel ships and we have Risian Luxury Cruisers (not exactly a Battleship)
    And we can Fly the NX class in 2410.

    So A Jenolan Engineering/escort would not exactly be canon but isn´t that exactly the point that makes it good for STO? Its non canon so its on the same level as most other things in STO.

    And it was a Starfleet transport, not a civilian so there is no reason why it shouldn´t be armed, there is no reason why it shouldn´t have been refitted and armed to serve in the Klingon-Federation War
  • adverberoadverbero Member Posts: 2,045 Arc User
    edited November 2014
    Asuming its inclusion as a playable starship also allows its use as a costume in Foundry missions I'd love to have it in game

    Could be used instead of generic ships as a Federation civilian branch vessel
    solar_approach_by_chaos_sandwhich-d74kjft.png


    These are the Voyages on the STO forum, the final frontier. Our continuing mission: to explore Pretentious Posts, to seek out new Overreactions and Misinformation , to boldly experience Cynicism like no man has before.......
  • emacsheadroomemacsheadroom Member Posts: 994 Arc User
    edited December 2014
    willamsheridan wrote: »
    And it was a Starfleet transport, not a civilian so there is no reason why it shouldn´t be armed, there is no reason why it shouldn´t have been refitted and armed to serve in the Klingon-Federation War

    Hey guys! Why can't this boat be refitted and armed to do the same job as this boat or even this boat??? They're both boats and they float on water, right? I know it's a good idea because I'm too short-sighted to think of a reason why it wouldn't be!
  • odyssey47odyssey47 Member Posts: 524 Arc User
    edited December 2014
    Since the Jenolen model was pretty much just an upside down Star Trek 5 shuttlecraft, they can give us both.
  • baelogventurebaelogventure Member Posts: 1,002 Arc User
    edited December 2014
    emacsheadroom wrote: »
    Hey guys! Why can't this boat be refitted and armed to do the same job as this boat or even this boat??? They're both boats and they float on water, right? I know it's a good idea because I'm too short-sighted to think of a reason why it wouldn't be!

    Because they already did that with the Risian Corvette and Risian Luxury Cruiser.

    The first is turning a Speedboat into a Destroyer.

    The second is turning a Carnival Cruiser Liner into a Battleship.

    I only wonder what the third Risian ship will be, a Luxury Space Hotel turned into a Dreadnought?
  • artan42artan42 Member Posts: 10,450 Bug Hunter
    edited December 2014
    ddesjardins wrote: »
    The Jenolan was a cargo vessel.

    It doesn't say that on the page you linked.
    22762792376_ac7c992b7c_o.png
    Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
    JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
    #TASforSTO


    '...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
    'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
    'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
    '...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
    'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
    '...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek

    Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
  • willamsheridanwillamsheridan Member Posts: 1,189 Arc User
    edited December 2014
    artan42 wrote: »
    It doesn't say that on the page you linked.

    And actualy the Sydney class was a class of Transport ships, not Cargo vessels. I had that wrong too. But also there is no reason why it shouldn´t have weapons or be refitted as an small Cruiser/Escort.

    And really a Cargo/Transport ship as an Cruiser/escort would be a Rpoblem while all those abilities and weapon Systems and ground/Space sets that have nothing to do with Star Trek are no Problem?

    For me Tetryon and AP Weapons on a Federation Ship or the Constitution class still in service in 2410 are bigger Problems than that. And if Excelsiors, Mirandas, Constellations and Connies are still flying around, the Sydney class could be too and could have been refitted
  • baudlbaudl Member Posts: 4,060 Arc User
    edited December 2014
    emacsheadroom wrote: »
    Hey guys! Why can't this boat be refitted and armed to do the same job as this boat or even this boat??? They're both boats and they float on water, right? I know it's a good idea because I'm too short-sighted to think of a reason why it wouldn't be!
    generaly true, but flower class corvettes of WW2 are directly based on a whale catcher ship design: "The Flower-class was based on the design of the Southern Pride, a whale-catcher;" (source)
    refittet, or redisigned civilian ships for military purposes do and did exist. And in the case of the flower class they were actually very successful designs.


    to me this class looks like a predecessor of the aquarius.
    Go pro or go home
  • oldravenman3025oldravenman3025 Member Posts: 1,892 Arc User
    edited December 2014
    baudl wrote: »


    to me this class looks like a predecessor of the aquarius.





    I never thought of this before. And it's a very good point.
  • mvp333mvp333 Member Posts: 509 Arc User
    edited December 2014
    I'm indifferent on this, but I might as well note that if the Jenolan was originally a freighter, that means it's got a lot of empty space and pretty good engines capable of moving it reasonably fast with a full load of cargo. That space and those engines can be put to good use for combat.
  • travalliantravallian Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited December 2014
    emacsheadroom wrote: »
    Hey guys! Why can't this boat be refitted and armed to do the same job as this boat or even this boat??? They're both boats and they float on water, right? I know it's a good idea because I'm too short-sighted to think of a reason why it wouldn't be!

    This is hilarious, I totally just lol'ed... :D
    "Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment... I am well versed in disappointment, having walked this road a very long time..."
  • nikolaykuznetsovnikolaykuznetsov Member Posts: 149 Arc User
    edited December 2014
    baudl wrote: »
    generaly true, but flower class corvettes of WW2 are directly based on a whale catcher ship design: "The Flower-class was based on the design of the Southern Pride, a whale-catcher;" (source)
    refittet, or redisigned civilian ships for military purposes do and did exist. And in the case of the flower class they were actually very successful designs.


    to me this class looks like a predecessor of the aquarius.
    mvp333 wrote: »
    I'm indifferent on this, but I might as well note that if the Jenolan was originally a freighter, that means it's got a lot of empty space and pretty good engines capable of moving it reasonably fast with a full load of cargo. That space and those engines can be put to good use for combat.

    Most of us are flying something like King George V class and Admiral Class (as British ship designs are in focus) there are few of Colossus and Majestic class around. Everything you wrote is right and understandable but corvettes were ships for convoy protection (mostly ASW protection) do you know any admiral or captain who would trade battleship chair for corvette chair? What is the in game future of under gunned ship? There are no civilian refit battleship equivalents that I'm aware of. Closest thing are auxiliary cruisers.
    Give us please up-gunned and up-armored variants of canon ships - Galaxy, Sovereign, Prometheus, Nebula, Vorcha, Negh'var, D'deridex not one time seen freighter ship.
    Max. One-Hit: 114,966 (Quantum Torpedo - Salvo II (Federation Typhoon Class Battleship))
  • bcwhguderian1941bcwhguderian1941 Member Posts: 804 Arc User
    edited December 2014
    Aside from this being a "Science Fiction" environment, I think if you took a "Real Life" look at the
    engineering issues involved with "re-tasking" a maritime craft, and the same for a space craft,
    there will be little to no comparison. :)


    BCW.
Sign In or Register to comment.