If anything, based on hull profile and size, the Sovereign was a replacement for the Excelsior, not the GCS.
For one thing the GCS has a lot more volume which opens other roles to it that no other ship in the current inventory can fill (except maybe the Sentinel and Odyssey). Just for one example, I believe somebody mentioned planetary assault earlier, which, with a max passenger load of 15,000 the GCS could carry a full division, support infrastructure, and armor and artillery, as well as providing orbital fire support (which in STO, even small away teams make use of). And there's always a role for a big, hard-to-destroy ship with heavy weaponry.
Also, there's a reason it's called a "class" of ship. The only thing that actually stays completely constant is the hull profile, and even that's not guaranteed. (I've studied this a bit: my dad was an engineering duty officer in the Navy; he actually built and refitted ships for a living, and later he worked for two different companies that were subcontractors on the Zumwalt-class.) Each new production series gets updates as it is built. A late-model GCS isn't going to be the equal of a 2363 first-run. It's going to use the same construction techniques and tech as a brand-new class, just on a larger scale because there are few ships its size.
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
So TRIBBLE any concept of progression, and make everything T6? Is that your argument? If old ships can be T6 then why bother making new ones? If Galaxy was good enough why even build a Sovereign, Odyssey, or Avenger at all? Why build a Guardian? Just stick with the T6 Galaxy, why the hell not?
Why does Mercedess-Benz have an A-Class, B-Class, C-Class, E-Class, etc.?
Why does Audi have A2, A3, A4, A6, A8....surely A 12 or TT or something are better??
Different starships fit different mission profiles. That doesn't mean that one is inherently better than the other, it just means one does a better job at 'A' while the other does a better job at 'B'.
No I don't think the Pathfinder should have an Intrepid skin, I said that already. An Intrepid INSPIRED skin, yes, a full on identical skin no. Same as I believe Guardian should have a Galaxy inspired skin but not an exact replica. Time moves on, tech gets better, older ships and cars and planes and everything else gets replaced by newer and better things.
You seem to be conventiently missing the point - the T6 pathfinder already has an Intrepid option for the skin. It already happened. It's done, in game, end of discussion.
In STO there's a T5-U Constellation on the same level as T5-U Excelsior on the same level as T5-U Ambassador on the same level as T5-U Galaxy on the same level as T5-U Sovereign on the same level as T5-U Odysey on the same level as T5-U Avenger......
I don't know why the Excelsior and Ambassador are better than the Galaxy, that doesn't make sense either and I wouldn't have made a T5 / T5U version of either of them. Isn't the base Excelsior a T3 ship? There it should have stayed, along with the Ambassador. Constellation has no business at T5 either. I didn't make those decisions and I wouldn't have gone that route at all.
I'll enlighten you on this one - because THIS IS A FREAKIN' GAME!!! Shocking, I know. :rolleyes:
Maybe you wouldn't have made those decisions. Maybe I wouldn't have either. But the fact is, they have been made, they're done. So what you're doing here is trying to have a Don Quixote like campaign against your windmill, in this case the Galaxy Class that you dislike.
Again, you bring up the ENT-era designs, but that is nothing more than Cryptic saving labor by recycling existing designs and not having to make new ones. Those are alien ships anyhow, you can make up whatever excuse you want. With Starfleet ships, Cruisers in particular, there is a clear and in-canon progression of ship designs from older to newer and the ship tiers reflect that properly. Galaxy is between the T3 Ambassador and T5 Sovereign where it belongs.
LMAO!!! :P So I can make any excuse I want for a Starfleet Captain commanding an Undine living being as a ship, but I can't make excuses about a Galaxy Class being refitted to be equiped with modern technology.
I support a Galaxy INSPIRED skin for the Guardian. Not a full T6 Galaxy as that renders the canon concept of progression in ship designs moot and destroys the purpose of the newer ships even existing.
Do you even hear yourself? Do you read what you write? Canon concept of progression?? Everyone in this game is a friggin' Fleet Admiral, acording to the progression! Is it canon concept of progerssion for a Captain to go through a minimum of 6 different commands on different ships in 1 year??
Give me a break and stop trolling, face the facts that this is a game that is suposed to grab the attention of miscellaneous fans. Even the developer doesn't shy from that.
Back under the bridge now.
Just because Starfleet decided to name a Sovereign class ship Enterprise doesn't mean it was a direct replacement for the Galaxy class.
"After a time, you may find that having is not so pleasing a thing after all as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true. Except for a T5 Connie. That would be f*%#ing awesome." - Mr. Spock
they are in totally different weight classes, and both from the exact same ship building era. how can anyone think 1 is actually supposed to strait up replace the other?
Not really, no. Just look at the service life of real life existing naval ships. Some battleships and aircraft carriers were in service for 50+ years. It's more than reasonable to presume that future technology would allow for vessels to have service lives double or even triple that length of time.
Using "it's ancient" as an excuse doesn't work in the slightest.
Well actual war taught many navies valuable lessons about bringing old tech to a modern fight.
They get vastly outclassed at a rapid rate, even if they are well within their own intended lifespan.
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.......
Now I won't deny I hate the Galaxy and have from the first moment I laid eyes on it in 1987. I feel it's hideously ugly and the design principles both inside and out were misguided at best. I grew up on TOS, but I immediately recognized the Constitution refit as vastly superior to the original and the Excelsior as better still. I fell in love with the Sovereign at first sight as it corrected virtually every design mistake made with Galaxy and restored grace and beauty to the Enterprise line.
This just means you hate Art Nouveau. The original Enterprise refit was Art Deco, the Excelsior was Japanese-inspired Post Modern, and the Sovereign was a return to Art Deco with a heavy Baroque infusion.
I happen to love Art Nouveau. I think the organic lines of the Galaxy-class are graceful and beautiful and indeed much more peaceful and stately compared to the Sovereign's Barqoue Deco, which I found to be too busy, dark, and belligerent. Also, I found the Excelsior's Post Modern architecture to be bubbly and strange, even cartoony.
Yes, I despise the Galaxy class. But as I said, that doesn't matter. The game takes place in 2410, and the best ships are the newest ones. If you haven't noticed, the ship tiers go in relatively chronological order with the Miranda being the first followed by the Constitution Refit followed by the Constellation followed by the Galaxy followed by the Sovereign followed by the Odyssey and then the Avenger and then the new T6 cruisers, the Eclipse and Guardian. That's how it should be. Galaxy is placed where it belongs in the hierarchy based on it's age. How is that so hard to understand and accept?
My beloved Enterprise Refit is a T2 ship because it's one of the oldest Starfleet designs still in service. The Galaxy class I utterly despise is two tiers above because it's two generations newer --and I accept this regardless of my personal feelings about the ships in question.
By those standards, an Excelsior Refit at T5 makes little sense and nor does a Defiant refit. Those ships should be more out of date than that. The Pathfinder is an all-new vessel, so yeah T6 it but it shouldn't have an Intrepid skin. Maybe some variants to make it look closer to Voyager to the point it is clear that the new ship is a homage to the old but they should not look identical. Along those lines, as I said the Guardian should have some variant options to make it look closer to the Galaxy design but again not identical. Time has passed and those old ships and old designs are out of date. Let them go.
The Galaxy is ancient in 2410. It's out of date. Let. It. Go.
Except that the Galaxy-class was designed as a mobile starbase of modular design, intended to be updated with new tech to last 100 years, not unlike other space-faring races using the same hull designs for thousands of years in canon, and just as the Federation has already done with the Excelsior-class and indeed all earlier classes like the Miranda in canon, all which were effectively upgraded and in use 100+ years after first being produced, both original and recently built.
Quite frankly, I don't think story-logic opponents of the Galaxy or any other old class realize how massive these ships are, particularly the Galaxy. It is not something you only use for a decade or two. Disassembly is not a trivial or desirable thing. The Galaxy-class is like a mobile city-state. It's not some tiny warship or research vessel. It has generations of people aboard, restaurants, schools, theaters, parks, etc. It was explicitly designed to move entire populations throughout the galaxy (its namesake) over long periods of time, which it has yet to do. One does not disassemble, say, New York City because it's old, in favor of building a new city every 40 years. Some fans tend to erroneously regard the little ship you see on the screen as a little toy that can be thrown out and replaced for more pew pew. They're wrong.
TNG accidentally contributed to this misunderstanding in All Good Things by having Riker say the Enterprise was decomissioned to show that time has passed, but just because a ship was decomissioned owing to a war doesn't automatically mean it is to be scuttled. It just means they hadn't upgraded it yet in order to recommission it.
Galaxy-class is like a mobile city-state. It's not some tiny warship or research vessel. It has generations of people aboard, restaurants, schools, theaters, parks, etc. It was explicitly designed to move entire populations throughout the galaxy (its namesake) over long periods of time, which it has yet to do. One does not disassemble, say, New York City because it's old, in favor of building a new city every 40 years.
Entire populations? Crew compliment of 1000, maximum 3000, total carrying capacity (in a necessary emergency) 15,000. I dare say you're overestimating her size a little; the Galaxy class is by no means small, but at 42 decks and a length of 640 meters, she's hardly a city.
Except we aren't discussing differences as in trying to compare a sailing ship to a modern aircraft carrier.
The GCS isn't some decrepit POS on it's last legs.
Neither am I
Your the one extrapolating my point to age of sail and modern ships, Note I said within their own intended lifespan?
Go build your Strawmen elsewhere
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.......
The Galaxy was clearly not designed for a Starfleet engaged in routine combat, because it was toting around hundreds of civilians and kids inside. That fact alone makes it unsuitable as a ship that is being sent out looking for a fight, because what idiot would want to be posted to a warship sailing out to be shot at with their spouse and children onboard?
Starfleet building warships gets you the Defiant and the Enterprise-E: Smaller ships without nonessential personnel inside, optimized for shooting stuff. It's certainly feasible for Galaxies to still be around in STO's timeframe, but they would not be front-line combat ships because no admiral wants to be known as the one who sent a boatload of kids off to be assimilated by the borg. It's bad for PR.
The Galaxy was clearly not designed for a Starfleet engaged in routine combat, because it was toting around hundreds of civilians and kids inside. That fact alone makes it unsuitable as a ship that is being sent out looking for a fight, because what idiot would want to be posted to a warship sailing out to be shot at with their spouse and children onboard?
Starfleet building warships gets you the Defiant and the Enterprise-E: Smaller ships without nonessential personnel inside, optimized for shooting stuff. It's certainly feasible for Galaxies to still be around in STO's timeframe, but they would not be front-line combat ships because no admiral wants to be known as the one who sent a boatload of kids off to be assimilated by the borg. It's bad for PR.
No, the Enterprise was configured to carry civilians and kids. That isn't what she was designed for. 70 percent of the Saucer is empty modular space. That can be swapped out for shield generators, extra power sources, housing for soliders, storage for their gear.
The Sovereign is a dedicated battleship. The Galaxy is a modular battleship. In a straight up knock down drag out - the Galaxy's configuration is what will decide the battle. Is it an exploration/science refit? Is it one who's been optimized for battle?
And remember - if you want a pure battleship - the Saucer is very easily detached from the Galaxy. The Battle Section is honestly a very mean little thing. Even in TNG - the ship was designed to saucer sep every other episode so family could escape, but the filming and disconnect/connect sequence took so long that it was made a special situation.
The Galaxy was clearly not designed for a Starfleet engaged in routine combat, because it was toting around hundreds of civilians and kids inside. That fact alone makes it unsuitable as a ship that is being sent out looking for a fight, because what idiot would want to be posted to a warship sailing out to be shot at with their spouse and children onboard?
Starfleet building warships gets you the Defiant and the Enterprise-E: Smaller ships without nonessential personnel inside, optimized for shooting stuff. It's certainly feasible for Galaxies to still be around in STO's timeframe, but they would not be front-line combat ships because no admiral wants to be known as the one who sent a boatload of kids off to be assimilated by the borg. It's bad for PR.
The Galaxy class proved that they were front-line combat ships in the Dominion War. In fact, I'm fairly certain they were the backbone of most fleets engaging the Dominion forces. If not for them, the Federation probably would've gotten facerolled out of the Alpha Quadrant. Look at the way the mighty Mirandas explode by the dozens. Even the Excelsiors get taken out now and again. Apart from the Odyssey, none were lost in the war, though, at times they took a severe pounding.
If the admirals don't want to be in the middle of a PR s#!tstorm, then they make a policy change: no civilians/families on board ships going into known combat zones.
"After a time, you may find that having is not so pleasing a thing after all as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true. Except for a T5 Connie. That would be f*%#ing awesome." - Mr. Spock
If the admirals don't want to be in the middle of a PR s#!tstorm, then they make a policy change: no civilians/families on board ships going into known combat zones.
I would hope when war was declared, that this would be a given.
Also It may sound callous, but anybody living on board an armed vessel thats operated by a military, should be made aware that the ship represents a legitimate military target and they are accepting that risk death or capture if the ship was destroyed in combat by living aboard.
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.......
The Galaxy was clearly not designed for a Starfleet engaged in routine combat, because it was toting around hundreds of civilians and kids inside. That fact alone makes it unsuitable as a ship that is being sent out looking for a fight, because what idiot would want to be posted to a warship sailing out to be shot at with their spouse and children onboard?
Starfleet building warships gets you the Defiant and the Enterprise-E: Smaller ships without nonessential personnel inside, optimized for shooting stuff. It's certainly feasible for Galaxies to still be around in STO's timeframe, but they would not be front-line combat ships because no admiral wants to be known as the one who sent a boatload of kids off to be assimilated by the borg. It's bad for PR.
You've got it wrong. The Galaxy Class is an explorer first and foremost, it's main intended role was to operate as standalone for a large sequence of years without any contact with friendly facilities while on exploration endeavors in deep space.
The reason Starfleet decided to make such a huge class of ships was because they wanted a ship that would be able to carry and support all the facilities needed for a small town to operate, so crewmembers would be able to take their families and not be separated from their loved ones on the long-term missions that could last up to 10 years. (a timeframe in which the Galaxy is due for a minor refit)
Now, you're right about one thing - the Galaxy does not go around looking for a fight, nor does Starfleet in general. It is however more than capable of giving one if necessary. In canon when the Galaxy was released, the only thing more powerfull was a Starbase. In canon it's still the ship with the largest pair od ventral and dorsal phaser arrays in existence. With the biggest torpedo launchers capable of firing a spread of a dozen photon torpedoes simultaneously.
It is asinine to think that Starfleet would allow civilians to be stationed aboard a ship that can't protect them, especially a ship sent on missions to explore unknown and uncharted space where it can encounter pretty much anything. The fact is, the Galaxy Class was the most powerfull thing Starfleet had ever built - it was not designed to pick fights, it was designed to end them without even starting them. It was the Federation's statement - they made a ship so powerfull that it would be enough for it to just appear and anyone with half a brain would stop and reconsider.
And there's the fact that the saucer fulfilled the role of a "life raft" for civilians in case the situation got really dire. Plus the fact that 70% of the Galaxy Class is modular, so it can be modified depending on the situation. The ones in the DW didn't have civilians on board, but what they did is cut through dominion lines like a hot knife through cheese and then turned back to make another pass from behind while the rest of the fleet caught fires like paper planes.
I would hope when war was declared, that this would be a given.
Also It may sound callous, but anybody living on board an armed vessel thats operated by a military, should be made aware that the ship represents a legitimate military target and they are accepting that risk death or capture if the ship was destroyed in combat by living aboard.
Eh, well, we could get into whether Starfleet is a military or not (it is, by default) but it doesn't really matter because the people who would attack a Federation starship will see it as a military vessel/legitimate target as you say. But, I would argue that would be common sense to know you are accepting that risk. Also, it's not just glory-hungry Klingons to watch out for. You could die when the ship encounters an unexpected galactic phenomenon and just blows up. Doesn't matter if you're a warship engaged in combat or an exploration ship engaged in charting star systems. You'll be just as dead.
/tangent
Back to ******** about the Galaxy class.
"After a time, you may find that having is not so pleasing a thing after all as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true. Except for a T5 Connie. That would be f*%#ing awesome." - Mr. Spock
Need I point out that the Enterprise was only destroyed because the BoP in question had access to its shield frequency. And guess what, the Enterprise STILL managed to destroy it before going down. And I've been watching DS9 a lot lately. I always rag on that show, so I wanted to be able to say I actually saw it. Anyway, in every fleet engagement I've seen thus far, the Galaxy makes up the backbone of the fleet. Yes, there are Excelsiors mixed in there, but there are also nebulas, and even Mirandas. These ships are far more dated than the Galaxy is, yet still see plenty of service (mostly as cannon fodder). And they stay in service because they get updated, refits, and overhauls. Yes, some get replaced by superior ships (the Ambassador was retired and replaced by the Galaxy), but considering the sheer versatility of the Galaxy class itself, wouldn't it be more likely that it would remain as a support ship to newer designs (Sovereign class)? And as I recall, only 2 or 3 Galaxy Class starship's were ever seen being destroyed. The EnterpriseD in Generations, the Odyssey in DS9, and I think there was a third later on in DS9, but I don't really remember. That's it.
Need I point out that the Enterprise was only destroyed because the BoP in question had access to its shield frequency. And guess what, the Enterprise STILL managed to destroy it before going down. And I've been watching DS9 a lot lately. I always rag on that show, so I wanted to be able to say I actually saw it. Anyway, in every fleet engagement I've seen thus far, the Galaxy makes up the backbone of the fleet. Yes, there are Excelsiors mixed in there, but there are also nebulas, and even Mirandas. These ships are far more dated than the Galaxy is, yet still see plenty of service (mostly as cannon fodder). And they stay in service because they get updated, refits, and overhauls. Yes, some get replaced by superior ships (the Ambassador was retired and replaced by the Galaxy), but considering the sheer versatility of the Galaxy class itself, wouldn't it be more likely that it would remain as a support ship to newer designs (Sovereign class)? And as I recall, only 2 or 3 Galaxy Class starship's were ever seen being destroyed. The EnterpriseD in Generations, the Odyssey in DS9, and I think there was a third later on in DS9, but I don't really remember. That's it.
On screen, three were seen destroyed. The USS Yamato (NCC-71807) by the Iconian computer virus; the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D) by Klingons using shield penetrating weapons; and the USS Odyssey (NCC-71832) also victim to shield penetrating weapons and being rammed by enemy vessel.
Additionally the Galaxy seems to get its TRIBBLE kicked rather easily all the time.
Reference:
USS Yamato
USS Odyssey
oh yes because an ancient computer virus form the iconians and a suicide run by a race that was making a point is a great way to judge a ship
and again how did the odyssey get it's TRIBBLE kicked it hull tanked the the jem'hadar and was leaving under it's own power as soon as they retrieved what they came for.
also only 3 galaxies have ever been lost out of the total of at least 12 constructed (there was 16 on screen at one time though)
on screen there was twice as many constitutions destroyed and way more excelsior
The Galaxy was clearly not designed for a Starfleet engaged in routine combat, because it was toting around hundreds of civilians and kids inside. That fact alone makes it unsuitable as a ship that is being sent out looking for a fight, because what idiot would want to be posted to a warship sailing out to be shot at with their spouse and children onboard?
Starfleet building warships gets you the Defiant and the Enterprise-E: Smaller ships without nonessential personnel inside, optimized for shooting stuff. It's certainly feasible for Galaxies to still be around in STO's timeframe, but they would not be front-line combat ships because no admiral wants to be known as the one who sent a boatload of kids off to be assimilated by the borg. It's bad for PR.
why do people always say this. the Enterprise was caring kids the Enterpise was fitted to be a mobile embassy as it seeked out new worlds for it;s diplomatic mission
the Venture in DS9 was fitted as a more combat oriented ship chances are it did not have the number fo civilians the Enterpise had. the Odysssey also did not have families on board ether and it's bridge was also more utilitarian then the wood grain and lounge chairs of the Enterpise
You've got it wrong. The Galaxy Class is an explorer first and foremost, it's main intended role was to operate as standalone for a large sequence of years without any contact with friendly facilities while on exploration endeavors in deep space.
The reason Starfleet decided to make such a huge class of ships was because they wanted a ship that would be able to carry and support all the facilities needed for a small town to operate, so crewmembers would be able to take their families and not be separated from their loved ones on the long-term missions that could last up to 10 years. (a timeframe in which the Galaxy is due for a minor refit)
Now, you're right about one thing - the Galaxy does not go around looking for a fight, nor does Starfleet in general. It is however more than capable of giving one if necessary. In canon when the Galaxy was released, the only thing more powerfull was a Starbase. In canon it's still the ship with the largest pair od ventral and dorsal phaser arrays in existence. With the biggest torpedo launchers capable of firing a spread of a dozen photon torpedoes simultaneously.
It is asinine to think that Starfleet would allow civilians to be stationed aboard a ship that can't protect them, especially a ship sent on missions to explore unknown and uncharted space where it can encounter pretty much anything. The fact is, the Galaxy Class was the most powerfull thing Starfleet had ever built - it was not designed to pick fights, it was designed to end them without even starting them. It was the Federation's statement - they made a ship so powerfull that it would be enough for it to just appear and anyone with half a brain would stop and reconsider.
And there's the fact that the saucer fulfilled the role of a "life raft" for civilians in case the situation got really dire. Plus the fact that 70% of the Galaxy Class is modular, so it can be modified depending on the situation. The ones in the DW didn't have civilians on board, but what they did is cut through dominion lines like a hot knife through cheese and then turned back to make another pass from behind while the rest of the fleet caught fires like paper planes.
your almost right. the whole exploration and civilian packing is merely an option package to check mark or not. it wasn't designed to do anything in particular, other then be huge, with enough modular space to be customized into the ideal ship for the chosen mission profile, and to have gigantic phaser arrays that are without peer in all of canon, and torpedo launchers that are likewise. with so much of the ship modular, it can be refit into whatever they want it to be. i think this is likely true for most newer ship designs, but never quite to the magnitude achieved with the galaxy class.
in the enterprise-D's case, it was configured to be a gilded flagship. a flying embassy, a flying research institute, the embodiment of all naive federation ideals, thats what the modular space was all used for. but thats just the enterprise, they could take a galaxy hull, and set it up to be completely different, like a full time battleship like seen in yesterdays enterprise. it was the same ship, only optimized and configured for combat. or it could be set up any way in between, a balance between what the enterprise was, and a war time configuration. i bet every galaxy class was a totally different ship on the inside.
On behalf of Starfleet Dental, I shall contribute to this by now ridiculous and overly entitled arguement with logic and facts taken directly from what we all know and love: Star Trek canon! (Proper show canon, the expanded universe novel gibberish does not qualify.)
The Ambassador, Excelsior, and Constellation all share something the Galaxy does not: They were designed and built during a period of high tension and immenent war with both the Klingons and Romulans. They are essentially products of an arms race with very military minded design philosophy.
The Galaxy was designed during an era of (as TNG showed us with the arrival of the borg) "naiive" galactic peace, with exploration, luxury, and diplomatic showboating as it's primary lines of thinking with defense and military being afterthoughts due to the above mentioned "naiive" attitudes of all now being at peace.
As such it is quite canonical that the "pure" Galaxy is lacking in firepower, and due to it's growing age is becoming more of an engineering annoyance (hence all the engi slots, and as compared to older navy ships of today within about the same age range requiring more and more frequent maintainance). Especially due to being pressed into duties it was never originally intended for.
In comparrison, the Ambassador, Excelsior, and Constellation retrofits are better compared to the missile cruiser modernizations of older WW2 vessels of even the Iowa class battleship retrofits: Ships built during times of tension with war in mind being retrofitted to serve in modern conflicts.
Also comparable to the things of today is the Galaxy-X "war" version of the ship to an auxilliary cruiser, essentially a ship not originally built for war, rearmed and retrofitted to serve in combat duty, while still not performing as well as dedicated ships built with military use in mind, such as the Ambassador, Excelsior, or Constellation.
Not to mention, our only statements of the Galaxy "pure" version's military surperiority over the older Ambassador come from an alternate timeline (Yesterday's Enterprise), and as such cannot be applied to the "prime" timeline that STO takes place in, or regarded in any serious manner, as this alternate Galaxy was built to different standards and with a different purpose in mind to it's "prime" counterpart.
Hopefully this will explain to you in a most canonical manner, our dearest and beloved publicans, why what is essentially a cruise ship with guns bolted to it, is inferior to an older proper ship of the line, and why the current iterations of the Galaxy are very show and canon accurate!
*All STO content must be CBS approved, who currently hold the rights to Star Trek canon in general for all non-reboot content. All facts and arguements stated above are made to explain their decisions relating to why the Galaxy exists as it does within STO.
Inversely, the lack of good space traits on non-human Fed bridge officers provides an explanation to why the majority of the crew members on the shows were human.
Comments
Umm, none if i remember right....
http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/blueprints/Starfleet-Bridge-Variations/Page_28.jpg
there's one in the captains ready room, one of the doors on the bridge leads to one, and there's a bathroom in every single crew quarters.
this is the least dank meme ever.
For one thing the GCS has a lot more volume which opens other roles to it that no other ship in the current inventory can fill (except maybe the Sentinel and Odyssey). Just for one example, I believe somebody mentioned planetary assault earlier, which, with a max passenger load of 15,000 the GCS could carry a full division, support infrastructure, and armor and artillery, as well as providing orbital fire support (which in STO, even small away teams make use of). And there's always a role for a big, hard-to-destroy ship with heavy weaponry.
Also, there's a reason it's called a "class" of ship. The only thing that actually stays completely constant is the hull profile, and even that's not guaranteed. (I've studied this a bit: my dad was an engineering duty officer in the Navy; he actually built and refitted ships for a living, and later he worked for two different companies that were subcontractors on the Zumwalt-class.) Each new production series gets updates as it is built. A late-model GCS isn't going to be the equal of a 2363 first-run. It's going to use the same construction techniques and tech as a brand-new class, just on a larger scale because there are few ships its size.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
were do you think you are? this is STO, were every ship, but the connie, can be tier 5. oh but the rules are different for tier 6?
:DLOL:D
Why does Mercedess-Benz have an A-Class, B-Class, C-Class, E-Class, etc.?
Why does Audi have A2, A3, A4, A6, A8....surely A 12 or TT or something are better??
Different starships fit different mission profiles. That doesn't mean that one is inherently better than the other, it just means one does a better job at 'A' while the other does a better job at 'B'.
You seem to be conventiently missing the point - the T6 pathfinder already has an Intrepid option for the skin. It already happened. It's done, in game, end of discussion.
In STO there's a T5-U Constellation on the same level as T5-U Excelsior on the same level as T5-U Ambassador on the same level as T5-U Galaxy on the same level as T5-U Sovereign on the same level as T5-U Odysey on the same level as T5-U Avenger......
....so really, what's your angle here? Trolling?
I'll enlighten you on this one - because THIS IS A FREAKIN' GAME!!! Shocking, I know. :rolleyes:
Maybe you wouldn't have made those decisions. Maybe I wouldn't have either. But the fact is, they have been made, they're done. So what you're doing here is trying to have a Don Quixote like campaign against your windmill, in this case the Galaxy Class that you dislike.
LMAO!!!
*throws a shovel* Here, I promissed you this.
Do you even hear yourself? Do you read what you write? Canon concept of progression?? Everyone in this game is a friggin' Fleet Admiral, acording to the progression! Is it canon concept of progerssion for a Captain to go through a minimum of 6 different commands on different ships in 1 year??
Give me a break and stop trolling, face the facts that this is a game that is suposed to grab the attention of miscellaneous fans. Even the developer doesn't shy from that.
Back under the bridge now.
According to the ship's designer, he considered a replacement to the Excelsior Class.
http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/8792/3axissizecompare.jpg
they are in totally different weight classes, and both from the exact same ship building era. how can anyone think 1 is actually supposed to strait up replace the other?
Well actual war taught many navies valuable lessons about bringing old tech to a modern fight.
They get vastly outclassed at a rapid rate, even if they are well within their own intended lifespan.
This just means you hate Art Nouveau. The original Enterprise refit was Art Deco, the Excelsior was Japanese-inspired Post Modern, and the Sovereign was a return to Art Deco with a heavy Baroque infusion.
I happen to love Art Nouveau. I think the organic lines of the Galaxy-class are graceful and beautiful and indeed much more peaceful and stately compared to the Sovereign's Barqoue Deco, which I found to be too busy, dark, and belligerent. Also, I found the Excelsior's Post Modern architecture to be bubbly and strange, even cartoony.
Except that the Galaxy-class was designed as a mobile starbase of modular design, intended to be updated with new tech to last 100 years, not unlike other space-faring races using the same hull designs for thousands of years in canon, and just as the Federation has already done with the Excelsior-class and indeed all earlier classes like the Miranda in canon, all which were effectively upgraded and in use 100+ years after first being produced, both original and recently built.
Quite frankly, I don't think story-logic opponents of the Galaxy or any other old class realize how massive these ships are, particularly the Galaxy. It is not something you only use for a decade or two. Disassembly is not a trivial or desirable thing. The Galaxy-class is like a mobile city-state. It's not some tiny warship or research vessel. It has generations of people aboard, restaurants, schools, theaters, parks, etc. It was explicitly designed to move entire populations throughout the galaxy (its namesake) over long periods of time, which it has yet to do. One does not disassemble, say, New York City because it's old, in favor of building a new city every 40 years. Some fans tend to erroneously regard the little ship you see on the screen as a little toy that can be thrown out and replaced for more pew pew. They're wrong.
TNG accidentally contributed to this misunderstanding in All Good Things by having Riker say the Enterprise was decomissioned to show that time has passed, but just because a ship was decomissioned owing to a war doesn't automatically mean it is to be scuttled. It just means they hadn't upgraded it yet in order to recommission it.
Entire populations? Crew compliment of 1000, maximum 3000, total carrying capacity (in a necessary emergency) 15,000. I dare say you're overestimating her size a little; the Galaxy class is by no means small, but at 42 decks and a length of 640 meters, she's hardly a city.
Neither am I
Your the one extrapolating my point to age of sail and modern ships, Note I said within their own intended lifespan?
Go build your Strawmen elsewhere
The Galaxy was clearly not designed for a Starfleet engaged in routine combat, because it was toting around hundreds of civilians and kids inside. That fact alone makes it unsuitable as a ship that is being sent out looking for a fight, because what idiot would want to be posted to a warship sailing out to be shot at with their spouse and children onboard?
Starfleet building warships gets you the Defiant and the Enterprise-E: Smaller ships without nonessential personnel inside, optimized for shooting stuff. It's certainly feasible for Galaxies to still be around in STO's timeframe, but they would not be front-line combat ships because no admiral wants to be known as the one who sent a boatload of kids off to be assimilated by the borg. It's bad for PR.
No, the Enterprise was configured to carry civilians and kids. That isn't what she was designed for. 70 percent of the Saucer is empty modular space. That can be swapped out for shield generators, extra power sources, housing for soliders, storage for their gear.
The Sovereign is a dedicated battleship. The Galaxy is a modular battleship. In a straight up knock down drag out - the Galaxy's configuration is what will decide the battle. Is it an exploration/science refit? Is it one who's been optimized for battle?
And remember - if you want a pure battleship - the Saucer is very easily detached from the Galaxy. The Battle Section is honestly a very mean little thing. Even in TNG - the ship was designed to saucer sep every other episode so family could escape, but the filming and disconnect/connect sequence took so long that it was made a special situation.
The Galaxy class proved that they were front-line combat ships in the Dominion War. In fact, I'm fairly certain they were the backbone of most fleets engaging the Dominion forces. If not for them, the Federation probably would've gotten facerolled out of the Alpha Quadrant. Look at the way the mighty Mirandas explode by the dozens. Even the Excelsiors get taken out now and again. Apart from the Odyssey, none were lost in the war, though, at times they took a severe pounding.
If the admirals don't want to be in the middle of a PR s#!tstorm, then they make a policy change: no civilians/families on board ships going into known combat zones.
I would hope when war was declared, that this would be a given.
Also It may sound callous, but anybody living on board an armed vessel thats operated by a military, should be made aware that the ship represents a legitimate military target and they are accepting that risk death or capture if the ship was destroyed in combat by living aboard.
You've got it wrong. The Galaxy Class is an explorer first and foremost, it's main intended role was to operate as standalone for a large sequence of years without any contact with friendly facilities while on exploration endeavors in deep space.
The reason Starfleet decided to make such a huge class of ships was because they wanted a ship that would be able to carry and support all the facilities needed for a small town to operate, so crewmembers would be able to take their families and not be separated from their loved ones on the long-term missions that could last up to 10 years. (a timeframe in which the Galaxy is due for a minor refit)
Now, you're right about one thing - the Galaxy does not go around looking for a fight, nor does Starfleet in general. It is however more than capable of giving one if necessary. In canon when the Galaxy was released, the only thing more powerfull was a Starbase. In canon it's still the ship with the largest pair od ventral and dorsal phaser arrays in existence. With the biggest torpedo launchers capable of firing a spread of a dozen photon torpedoes simultaneously.
It is asinine to think that Starfleet would allow civilians to be stationed aboard a ship that can't protect them, especially a ship sent on missions to explore unknown and uncharted space where it can encounter pretty much anything. The fact is, the Galaxy Class was the most powerfull thing Starfleet had ever built - it was not designed to pick fights, it was designed to end them without even starting them. It was the Federation's statement - they made a ship so powerfull that it would be enough for it to just appear and anyone with half a brain would stop and reconsider.
And there's the fact that the saucer fulfilled the role of a "life raft" for civilians in case the situation got really dire. Plus the fact that 70% of the Galaxy Class is modular, so it can be modified depending on the situation. The ones in the DW didn't have civilians on board, but what they did is cut through dominion lines like a hot knife through cheese and then turned back to make another pass from behind while the rest of the fleet caught fires like paper planes.
Eh, well, we could get into whether Starfleet is a military or not (it is, by default) but it doesn't really matter because the people who would attack a Federation starship will see it as a military vessel/legitimate target as you say. But, I would argue that would be common sense to know you are accepting that risk. Also, it's not just glory-hungry Klingons to watch out for. You could die when the ship encounters an unexpected galactic phenomenon and just blows up. Doesn't matter if you're a warship engaged in combat or an exploration ship engaged in charting star systems. You'll be just as dead.
/tangent
Back to ******** about the Galaxy class.
On screen, three were seen destroyed. The USS Yamato (NCC-71807) by the Iconian computer virus; the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D) by Klingons using shield penetrating weapons; and the USS Odyssey (NCC-71832) also victim to shield penetrating weapons and being rammed by enemy vessel.
The USS Galaxy (NCC-70637) was seen in late DS9 taking heavy damage, but survived as it was a part of the fleet waiting for the Enterprise-E and the Scimitar in "Nemesis": http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/nemesishd/nemesishd1651.jpg
Commanding Officer: Captain Pyotr Ramonovich Amosov
Dedication Plaque: "Nil Intentatum Reliquit"
oh yes because an ancient computer virus form the iconians and a suicide run by a race that was making a point is a great way to judge a ship
and again how did the odyssey get it's TRIBBLE kicked it hull tanked the the jem'hadar and was leaving under it's own power as soon as they retrieved what they came for.
also only 3 galaxies have ever been lost out of the total of at least 12 constructed (there was 16 on screen at one time though)
on screen there was twice as many constitutions destroyed and way more excelsior
why do people always say this. the Enterprise was caring kids the Enterpise was fitted to be a mobile embassy as it seeked out new worlds for it;s diplomatic mission
the Venture in DS9 was fitted as a more combat oriented ship chances are it did not have the number fo civilians the Enterpise had. the Odysssey also did not have families on board ether and it's bridge was also more utilitarian then the wood grain and lounge chairs of the Enterpise
your almost right. the whole exploration and civilian packing is merely an option package to check mark or not. it wasn't designed to do anything in particular, other then be huge, with enough modular space to be customized into the ideal ship for the chosen mission profile, and to have gigantic phaser arrays that are without peer in all of canon, and torpedo launchers that are likewise. with so much of the ship modular, it can be refit into whatever they want it to be. i think this is likely true for most newer ship designs, but never quite to the magnitude achieved with the galaxy class.
in the enterprise-D's case, it was configured to be a gilded flagship. a flying embassy, a flying research institute, the embodiment of all naive federation ideals, thats what the modular space was all used for. but thats just the enterprise, they could take a galaxy hull, and set it up to be completely different, like a full time battleship like seen in yesterdays enterprise. it was the same ship, only optimized and configured for combat. or it could be set up any way in between, a balance between what the enterprise was, and a war time configuration. i bet every galaxy class was a totally different ship on the inside.
Inversely, the lack of good space traits on non-human Fed bridge officers provides an explanation to why the majority of the crew members on the shows were human.