i have to admit, i still run my gal x. it and my avenger are primary ships and are fully outfitted as such other than one or two consoles i don't have duplicates of. one in ap and one in phaser though.
i have been running the t6 breen carrier for a while now to get the trait. its been a lot of fun, but i think the defining item on that carrier has not been the dual hangers, its been that while the ship has a science tilt, it has much better tactical slots. even with 6 weapon slots, its maneuverability and tactical abilities increase its usefulness. if that could be applied to the gal x, it would become far more lethal.
ill be frank, i went with the galaxy on my initial play through as my choice, it was non-choice really, and i was happy with it. i set tons of beams and got good at broadsides. i had that ship a VERY long time. it was eventually replaced with a mirror sovereign and then mirror assault cruiser for better tactical slots. never retired the galaxy though. it serviced as a decent amount of extra storage, but i could never bring myself to dumping it. and for no real reason either. i had a lot of fun with it, and it is a classic.
I never thought these claims held any water, to be honest. The Galaxy in-game does not recieve any special treatment. Galaxy, Intrepid and Defiant were the most prominent ships in the TNG era and they all got a part of the trinity cake. The reason that the Galaxy "sucks" is that the trinity is not well balanced, but that has nothing to do with the ship itself. They did not deliberately make it bad, it just happens to have the specialization that worked worse in terms of launch abilities. Now the Intrepid got a T6 version, so will the Galaxy and the Defiant (Pilot). It's business as usual and not a sign for anything in my book. People really got emotional about the Galaxy and tend to interprete a lot of stuff into the matter that objectively cannot be proven.
^ This soooo much, I have been saying that for the longest time when people say that the layout was intentional to make the ship bad. When the ship was released, a T5 cruiser didnt get LTCDR anything other than engineering (as did the other ship groups with their respective focus). The ensign boff was what was defined the differences. They had a tac for the Assault Cruiser and the Star Cruiser had ta Sci. The only Ensign left was engineering. Same with the consoles.
Until LTCDRs got moved around, the differences werent that extreme. And the more narrow application of Engineering powers also didnt do much to help it either. Of course, now that the is Intel/Command boffs, Engineering will never get effort to fix it either.
"Rise like Lions after slumber, In unvanquishable number, Shake your chains to earth like dew, Which in sleep had fallen on you-Ye are many they are few"
Yeah I saw it already, but I find it hard to believe and here's why.
The Galaxy is arguably the most sought after ship in the game, it's the ultimate hero ship especially knowing that we can't have the Connie. For many the Galaxy is the one ship they most want to fly in STO and indeed the amount of Galaxys and Galaxy Dreadnoughts flying around proves that even though the dread is seriously flawed and the standard Galaxy is a joke, but still people work out ways to get a build that will do something just so they can fly their beloved hero ship, I am one of those people.
Now, think back, if Cryptic had actually made the Galaxy a very good ship, on a par with the Excelsior, how many people would have been content with that to the extent that they would never buy another ship or at least wouldn't buy as many. I know that I would probably only buy the occasional ship instead of owning most of them. It's like going through lots of different girlfriends when you are actually pining for the love of your life forever out of reach.
So if Cryptic release a T6 Galaxy with all the bells and whistles, that is actually very competitive at end game and in PvP they will immediately slam the door on a huge number of future purchases. This would signal to me that they are in dire financial trouble in much the same way that a Borg lockbox would.
Now the recent layoffs are troubling but this happens in the industry quite a lot so on it's own I don't think it's too much to worry about, but if they start throwing all their golden eggs at us at the same time such as the Iconians/Heralds, a T6 Galaxy and Neghvar, a Borg lockbox, etc then I would be at the same time delighted and also pretty convinced the game was in it's dying months.
Ok a lot of conclusions to draw and I could very easily be talking bollocks, but I may also be right. My guess is if a T6 Galaxy is introduced at all it will be as lacklustre as it's predecessor and certainly not up to the standards of the Eclipse or the Command ships.
Hope so, but doubt it.
swap galaxy with sovereign in this post and it proves it self a baseless reasoning. i think its much more likely a sovereign fan would play a video game than a galaxy fan, ether way the sov fan is probably more numerous in the fandom. the fact that there is an excellent sov in game didn't even phase any ship sales, not even the avenger, which was pretty much the same thing but better.
gross, they just stuck sovereign detail all over it. its like perfectly ruined.
those black areas are a canon item. its something from the defiant. the black areas would be ablative armor layers.
ideally, they should be colored as near to the same shade as the rest of the ship to obscure them, but the idea is a sound one, layer that stuff over vital areas like impulse drives, pylons, and the engineering hull and neck. it couldn't be put everywhere though as it probably cant be layered over the shield emiters.
They would be stupid indeed, being that the Galaxy IS THE Exploration Cruiser. However, I don't think that we need to fret about that.
Well, it *IS* called Exploration Cruiser and every lower tiered Exploration Cruiser had the Galaxy and related skins on it. My guess it will have a new T6 Exploration Skin as well as the Galaxy-class itself. Think of what happened with the Intrepid's transition to T6 and getting the T6 unique Pathfinider skin.
those black areas are a canon item. its something from the defiant. the black areas would be ablative armor layers.
ideally, they should be colored as near to the same shade as the rest of the ship to obscure them, but the idea is a sound one, layer that stuff over vital areas like impulse drives, pylons, and the engineering hull and neck. it couldn't be put everywhere though as it probably cant be layered over the shield emiters.
canon on some other ship with a polar opposite design language, and not the defiant btw. i doubt the black areas on the sovereign are more ablative than any other part of the ship, they aren't even on any of those critically vulnerable places.
canon on some other ship with a polar opposite design language, and not the defiant btw. i doubt the black areas on the sovereign are more ablative than any other part of the ship, they aren't even on any of those critically vulnerable places.
its absolutely canon in the case of the defiant, inferred for other classes.
they should have had it appear during the dominion war too to, but that's beside the point.
This is a pretty cool design. I like the deflector...it looks like an upgrade. The lower saucer looks like it could add the lance phaser if you wanted.
I don't really like the impluse engine on the engineering hull. Saucer impluse engines are nice and beefy.
The phaser banks are not a big issue if they provide similar coverage. They maybe smaller due to better tech. Like on the Sovereign.
I would add a shuttlebay on the back of the engineering hull.
The phaser banks are not a big issue if they provide similar coverage. They maybe smaller due to better tech. Like on the Sovereign.
See, and that NEVER made sense.
A Phaser arrays singular advantage is the fact that you can chain up any number of emitters in that array to charge up a shot.
Thats the whole idea. In addition, the blast could be targeted anywhere withing in the arrays line of sight.
Separating your array into several smaller ones is stupid if you think about it, you are using newer, better emitters, why build smaller arrays so that you end up barely above the old array's power?
You are not gaining anything by that. You now have to fire more shots from several arrays and none of them will be able to pack the whallop a unified array of the same emitter type could deliver.
And since an array can always target anything within its LOS the argument of firing arcs becomes even more inconsequential.
Remember nemesis, had the Enterprise E have had proper large dorsal and ventral arrays, it might have been able to actually deliver more than a soft back massage to the scimitar.
More emitters per array = better, especially if you get better emitters.
A Phaser arrays singular advantage is the fact that you can chain up any number of emitters in that array to charge up a shot.
Thats the whole idea. In addition, the blast could be targeted anywhere withing in the arrays line of sight.
Separating your array into several smaller ones is stupid if you think about it, you are using newer, better emitters, why build smaller arrays so that you end up barely above the old array's power?
You are not gaining anything by that. You now have to fire more shots from several arrays and none of them will be able to pack the whallop a unified array of the same emitter type could deliver.
And since an array can always target anything within its LOS the argument of firing arcs becomes even more inconsequential.
Remember nemesis, had the Enterprise E have had proper large dorsal and ventral arrays, it might have been able to actually deliver more than a soft back massage to the scimitar.
More emitters per array = better, especially if you get better emitters.
frankly, you are both right. the main saucer arrays provided incredible fields of fire, and were supplemented by all of the other arrays spread about the hull.
the rub though is that you watch those eps and you see the duty cycle of the main arrays, its very long. and it probably gets worse if it has to deal with a break in the array. would only allow it to be fed from one end, assuming there is only one break in the line. maybe that can be cut down by keeping the array charged during combat, but another way to go would be to use shorter arrays. it allows for a faster duty cycle as well as making it a harder target. the main galaxy arrays i think are an ultimate expression o f a peace time design. a wartime design would probably have 3-5 shorter arrays in place of the single array.
good coverage is a must, though they don't always make use of it in the show. the galaxy has massive overlap of all of its arrays, i would need to look at a sovereign to see where all its arrays are to see if there is a weak or blind spot.
A Phaser arrays singular advantage is the fact that you can chain up any number of emitters in that array to charge up a shot.
Thats the whole idea. In addition, the blast could be targeted anywhere withing in the arrays line of sight.
Separating your array into several smaller ones is stupid if you think about it, you are using newer, better emitters, why build smaller arrays so that you end up barely above the old array's power?
You are not gaining anything by that. You now have to fire more shots from several arrays and none of them will be able to pack the whallop a unified array of the same emitter type could deliver.
And since an array can always target anything within its LOS the argument of firing arcs becomes even more inconsequential.
Remember nemesis, had the Enterprise E have had proper large dorsal and ventral arrays, it might have been able to actually deliver more than a soft back massage to the scimitar.
More emitters per array = better, especially if you get better emitters.
So you really think that the emitters would be less effective? I doubt the Sovereign class would have been designed with weaker phasers. I am sure the most advanced ship of the time had some good armaments.
Besides, the Scimitar was a beast of a ship with primary and secondary shielding. In addition, they couldn't get a proper lock. They were firing blind.
I am sure the whole saucer array was effective. However, the weapons can only draw so much power before they would compromise other systems. So, it is possible that they were able to get maximum effective power with less space. Maybe they were able to make the emitters smaller so they could put more in a smaller array. This could be the reasoning for smaller arrays on the Sovereign.
Of course, what you are saying and what I am saying is all speculation. We don't really know why there was a change. All we know is that it did with the Intrepid and Sovereign.
So you really think that the emitters would be less effective? I doubt the Sovereign class would have been designed with weaker phasers. I am sure the most advanced ship of the time had some good armaments.
Besides, the Scimitar was a beast of a ship with primary and secondary shielding. In addition, they couldn't get a proper lock. They were firing blind.
I am sure the whole saucer array was effective. However, the weapons can only draw so much power before they would compromise other systems. So, it is possible that they were able to get maximum effective power with less space. Maybe they were able to make the emitters smaller so they could put more in a smaller array. This could be the reasoning for smaller arrays on the Sovereign.
Of course, what you are saying and what I am saying is all speculation. We don't really know why there was a change. All we know is that it did with the Intrepid and Sovereign.
Well, the Sovie did have a seriously long primary saucer array. So the tech/idea wasn't completely phased out by then. My only guess is regenerative phaser tech advanced enough where smaller, more compact, arrays had some serious advantage. There could be lots of technobabble reasons - though. A power conduit burnout wouldn't take out the entire array - just the dedicated phaser strip it powers. The shorter arrays have weaker power, but much shorter firing cycles - isn't the point of the Defiant and the pulse phasers the fact that most of an energy weapon's damage is done on 'contact' - and not on sustained fire? So 3 shorter arrays firing staggered short phaser bursts would do more damage then one big array holding a blast on a targe.
Well, besides the real reason. 'The guys designing newer ships think shorter phaser arrays look cooler'. If anything, my biggest complaint with Cryptic designs would be most of them have some serious phaser blind spots. The Guardian for example - has extremely poor phaser coverage to the direct fore and direct aft.
That actually looks more like it could fit as an alternate Guardian skin, what with lengthwise oval saucer design and Ambassador concept elements.
Though frankly I wouldn't mind it or something like it on a Galaxy ship either (as an alternate skin); my issue with them was mainly the neck. Never liked the V look from the front or rear, nor the relative height from a sideview.
this array configuration couldn't be more counter intuitive, i guess you could call it athletically pleasing if you never though for a moment how arrays work, and what might be THE factor that makes them strong or not. the inner side arrays cant even line up a forward shot, the 2 forward split arrays are some of the weakest on the ship, the last you would want split for no reason, and that outer side array is like half as long as it could be, hell it should probably be connected all the way around. a proper armament on that saucer would be an array positioned at the very top of the slope down starting after that flat area on the sides, warping all the way around.
just like with several cryptic designs like the guardian and regent, that have no forward firing arc at all, as if these ships would actually broad side by choice outside this game, and fire 8 pinprick shots at once instead of 1, from their largest array. that should be able to hit any target in at LEAST 270 degrees.
a bunch of needle picks are not a more war time approach ether, those would be shots to disable, or keep a cloaked ship illuminated, shots fired in anger to destroy would use as many emitters as possible and fire from the largest array. anything else is an inefficient use of plasma
Taking up the topic of emitters in the array getting damaged:
1.) that does apply to any array no matter the size
2.) All arrays have multiple energy feeds (except the peace nick galaxy in yesterdays enterprise that apparently had one power coupling.... for 2 arrays XD) so even if thee full array get split, you still have functioning emitters left that can fire on their own. That's the beauty of an array.
Also, this applies to any size arrays really, so your point is frankly moot.
Higher grade emitters mean your array becomes a lot more powerful: if you maintain the size.
Splitting your main arrays and placing them at weird locations... is not helpful.
Its like klingon's starting to put disruptor cannons facing inward....
I'd guesstimate we'll see dev blogs this week with a release of this week (with the Strike ship promo going away) or next week (to be the flagships for 'Delta Recruits'). It seems they have a new ship or promo as the next promo ready as soon as the last one is finished.
I'm just really hoping that they shiny up the Galaxy and Venture parts to fit with the new skin. My deep hope is they don't want the new shiny looking worse with old parts used for customization.
A Phaser arrays singular advantage is the fact that you can chain up any number of emitters in that array to charge up a shot.
Thats the whole idea. In addition, the blast could be targeted anywhere withing in the arrays line of sight.
Separating your array into several smaller ones is stupid if you think about it, you are using newer, better emitters, why build smaller arrays so that you end up barely above the old array's power?
You are not gaining anything by that. You now have to fire more shots from several arrays and none of them will be able to pack the whallop a unified array of the same emitter type could deliver.
And since an array can always target anything within its LOS the argument of firing arcs becomes even more inconsequential.
I disagree. I understand the long phaser array idea very well, it's the same thing as a longer barrel on a rail gun providing longer acceleration and higher velocity.
But just because that's how the galaxy does it doesn't mean that it's the ONLY way it can be done.
Don't you guys find it interesting that only Galaxy derivative ships have that particular design feature? Despite the fact that the Sovereign has Mk XII phaser arrays which are presumed to be stronger?
I'm not going to lean so hard on the established technology of the 2360s, especially at the rate that technology was advancing in the TNG era.
That's not to say that I'm opposed to other features, such as Galaxy Heavy Phaser array, but I would think that Starfleet has figured out how to get more out of less.
Remember nemesis, had the Enterprise E have had proper large dorsal and ventral arrays, it might have been able to actually deliver more than a soft back massage to the scimitar.
That argument is bogus. The E-E expended and immense amount of energy and ammo just trying to hit the damn Scimitar. And they knocked out main power when they knocked her out of warp, so the Enterprise spent the whole fight on auxiliary.
More emitters per array = better, especially if you get better emitters.
True as that may be that doesn't mean that every Starfleet ship is going to post the maximum it's capable of. There are other design requirements that must be accounted for.
"Rise like Lions after slumber, In unvanquishable number, Shake your chains to earth like dew, Which in sleep had fallen on you-Ye are many they are few"
It's possible that Sovereign-style arrays are popular due to redundancy. If the Galaxy-type arrays take direct damage, it's possible that sections of the array are rendered inoperable. Perhaps it's better to have more arrays which are harder to take all of them down, as opposed to one main array that can be knocked out in a couple shots.
That being said, I'm not sure why the Sovereign wouldn't use large, concentric arrays instead.
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!
just like with several cryptic designs like the guardian and regent, that have no forward firing arc at all, as if these ships would actually broad side by choice outside this game, and fire 8 pinprick shots at once instead of 1, from their largest array. that should be able to hit any target in at LEAST 270 degrees.
a bunch of needle picks are not a more war time approach ether, those would be shots to disable, or keep a cloaked ship illuminated, shots fired in anger to destroy would use as many emitters as possible and fire from the largest array. anything else is an inefficient use of plasma
Yes, not to mention, the defensive aspect of engaging the enemy - bringing the most, or at least your heaviest, weapons to bear on the enemy while presenting the smallest target to him. A Galaxy is a huge ship from any aspect, but there's still less to hit from the front, than from broadside. Probably why torpedoes don't fire out the sides.
"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
That being said, I'm not sure why the Sovereign wouldn't use large, concentric arrays instead.
It's quite obvious actually, at least to me. The Galaxy Class is a product of an era when known scientific facts as well as coherency and continuity played ar huge role in the development of Star Trek and the technology involved. The Sovereign Class is a result of pure moviemaking needs a.k.a. the old Galaxy model is not good enough for movies, nor is it "cool" or fresh enough anymore. So the anwer would be - nobody really bothered with the need to explain how or why, it was there for purely entertainment purposes. A artistic design decision trumping tech continuity.
Don't take this as bashing the Sovereign Class, but I'm amost 100% sure that the scientific backgorund as well as technological continuity played a very minor role in it's design as oposed to the Galaxy Class where almost 100% of the details have been really deeply thought through in order to make more scientific and technological "sense", something Roddenberry insisted on.
I'm sure noone will argue that TNG as a show had a unique approach with more scientific and technological basis, coherency and continuity in the technologies used in Star Trek than any other Star Trek show and especially the movies.
Yes, not to mention, the defensive aspect of engaging the enemy - bringing the most, or at least your heaviest, weapons to bear on the enemy while presenting the smallest target to him. A Galaxy is a huge ship from any aspect, but there's still less to hit from the front, than from broadside. Probably why torpedoes don't fire out the sides.
Well, Cryptic needed to offer a gimick to cruises , and it seems they chose the ideas of a Man-o-War or WWII battleship theme. They did more or less fixed the problem of most firepower from the narrowest profile with the Omni-Directional beams (at least for AntiProtons). With a KBB and an AP turret, or another Energy type beam, one can fire pretty much the kitchen sink at the fore arc, and get ahead of the low DPS to energy drain all rear turrets offer.
As far as side firing torps, we have seen guided torps in the IP, so they might be able to cover the port and starboard. Up until DS9, there really wasnt much move and shoot happening and it was filmed nose to nose, probably because it would be harder to film broadsides between the "hard" models (non-cgi), so they never bothered to put them on ships.
I disagree. I understand the long phaser array idea very well, it's the same thing as a longer barrel on a rail gun providing longer acceleration and higher velocity.
But just because that's how the galaxy does it doesn't mean that it's the ONLY way it can be done.
Don't you guys find it interesting that only Galaxy derivative ships have that particular design feature? Despite the fact that the Sovereign has Mk XII phaser arrays which are presumed to be stronger?
I'm not going to lean so hard on the established technology of the 2360s, especially at the rate that technology was advancing in the TNG era.
That's not to say that I'm opposed to other features, such as Galaxy Heavy Phaser array, but I would think that Starfleet has figured out how to get more out of less.
That argument is bogus. The E-E expended and immense amount of energy and ammo just trying to hit the damn Scimitar. And they knocked out main power when they knocked her out of warp, so the Enterprise spent the whole fight on auxiliary.
True as that may be that doesn't mean that every Starfleet ship is going to post the maximum it's capable of. There are other design requirements that must be accounted for.
mk12 emitters are more powerful then mk10, but the biggest sovereign array is lest then half the size of the biggest galaxy, its going to have a LOT less emitters. having slightly more powerful emitters isn't going to make up the difference. there's also nothing preventing a galaxy class from getting upgraded to mk12 across the board too.
as far as smaller ships having smaller arrays go, every one of those newer classes has arrays proportional to their smaller size, compared to the array/size ratio the galaxy has. the sovereign is less then half the size of a galaxy, its big guns are less then half it's size, wheres the controversy? bigger ships are going to have more plasma conduits, be more flushed with plasma waiting to be used. if smaller ships had bigger guns, they ether wouldn't be able to keep up an acceptable rate of fire, or not use full array discharges because the EPS system couldn't keep up with the draw. plus, the only ship an array like the galaxy's would fit on, is the galaxy. call the saucer too bulky all you want, they couldn't fit a gun like that on anything else
It's quite obvious actually, at least to me. The Galaxy Class is a product of an era when known scientific facts as well as coherency and continuity played ar huge role in the development of Star Trek and the technology involved. The Sovereign Class is a result of pure moviemaking needs a.k.a. the old Galaxy model is not good enough for movies, nor is it "cool" or fresh enough anymore. So the anwer would be - nobody really bothered with the need to explain how or why, it was there for purely entertainment purposes. A artistic design decision trumping tech continuity.
Don't take this as bashing the Sovereign Class, but I'm amost 100% sure that the scientific backgorund as well as technological continuity played a very minor role in it's design as oposed to the Galaxy Class where almost 100% of the details have been really deeply thought through in order to make more scientific and technological "sense", something Roddenberry insisted on.
I'm sure noone will argue that TNG as a show had a unique approach with more scientific and technological basis, coherency and continuity in the technologies used in Star Trek than any other Star Trek show and especially the movies.
True words.
What angers me the most is the radical change of design from Galaxy to Sov. (aside from the technical things)
TNG established a majestic and unique ship design with the Galaxy and Nebula Class. Their emphasis on round shapes and a heavy saucer and small nacelles where really different to anything i have seen. But then suddenly they discarded that design in favour of a more mainstream "fast" looking design. Not very innovative IMO.
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
It's quite obvious actually, at least to me. The Galaxy Class is a product of an era when known scientific facts as well as coherency and continuity played ar huge role in the development of Star Trek and the technology involved. The Sovereign Class is a result of pure moviemaking needs a.k.a. the old Galaxy model is not good enough for movies, nor is it "cool" or fresh enough anymore. So the anwer would be - nobody really bothered with the need to explain how or why, it was there for purely entertainment purposes. A artistic design decision trumping tech continuity.
Don't take this as bashing the Sovereign Class, but I'm amost 100% sure that the scientific backgorund as well as technological continuity played a very minor role in it's design as oposed to the Galaxy Class where almost 100% of the details have been really deeply thought through in order to make more scientific and technological "sense", something Roddenberry insisted on.
I'm sure noone will argue that TNG as a show had a unique approach with more scientific and technological basis, coherency and continuity in the technologies used in Star Trek than any other Star Trek show and especially the movies.
Now how exactly are the moves with the Sovy' at a max of up to hours each, enough to tell a story, supposed to show higher continuity of technology than a tv show that ran for multiple seasons? A long running show about a refuse barge could even outdo three movies for that just for the content worth of time and plot device.
Comments
i have been running the t6 breen carrier for a while now to get the trait. its been a lot of fun, but i think the defining item on that carrier has not been the dual hangers, its been that while the ship has a science tilt, it has much better tactical slots. even with 6 weapon slots, its maneuverability and tactical abilities increase its usefulness. if that could be applied to the gal x, it would become far more lethal.
ill be frank, i went with the galaxy on my initial play through as my choice, it was non-choice really, and i was happy with it. i set tons of beams and got good at broadsides. i had that ship a VERY long time. it was eventually replaced with a mirror sovereign and then mirror assault cruiser for better tactical slots. never retired the galaxy though. it serviced as a decent amount of extra storage, but i could never bring myself to dumping it. and for no real reason either. i had a lot of fun with it, and it is a classic.
^ This soooo much, I have been saying that for the longest time when people say that the layout was intentional to make the ship bad. When the ship was released, a T5 cruiser didnt get LTCDR anything other than engineering (as did the other ship groups with their respective focus). The ensign boff was what was defined the differences. They had a tac for the Assault Cruiser and the Star Cruiser had ta Sci. The only Ensign left was engineering. Same with the consoles.
Until LTCDRs got moved around, the differences werent that extreme. And the more narrow application of Engineering powers also didnt do much to help it either. Of course, now that the is Intel/Command boffs, Engineering will never get effort to fix it either.
That's not bad, but I just ran into this and it would be my preference.
http://rushedart.deviantart.com/art/An-Introduction-498059702
http://suricatafx.deviantart.com/art/Unused-image-2014-371743822
http://suricatafx.deviantart.com/#/art/Ships-of-the-Line-2014-Entry-371743084
That up there looks like a fattened up sovereign. Not that its bad though. would buy.
swap galaxy with sovereign in this post and it proves it self a baseless reasoning. i think its much more likely a sovereign fan would play a video game than a galaxy fan, ether way the sov fan is probably more numerous in the fandom. the fact that there is an excellent sov in game didn't even phase any ship sales, not even the avenger, which was pretty much the same thing but better.
gross, they just stuck sovereign detail all over it. its like perfectly ruined.
my first thought when looking at those was, boy, i wish people that had no idea how arrays work didnt waste thier time desiging fan ships.
i love that impulse drive arrangement though that's probably the same basic size as an ambassador, maybe slightly smaller using the windows for scale.
minimal hanger though.
gross, they just stuck sovereign detail all over it. its like perfectly ruined.
those black areas are a canon item. its something from the defiant. the black areas would be ablative armor layers.
ideally, they should be colored as near to the same shade as the rest of the ship to obscure them, but the idea is a sound one, layer that stuff over vital areas like impulse drives, pylons, and the engineering hull and neck. it couldn't be put everywhere though as it probably cant be layered over the shield emiters.
They would be stupid indeed, being that the Galaxy IS THE Exploration Cruiser. However, I don't think that we need to fret about that.
Well, it *IS* called Exploration Cruiser and every lower tiered Exploration Cruiser had the Galaxy and related skins on it. My guess it will have a new T6 Exploration Skin as well as the Galaxy-class itself. Think of what happened with the Intrepid's transition to T6 and getting the T6 unique Pathfinider skin.
The same is going to happen with the T6 Negh'Var.
IMO, of course.
canon on some other ship with a polar opposite design language, and not the defiant btw. i doubt the black areas on the sovereign are more ablative than any other part of the ship, they aren't even on any of those critically vulnerable places.
its absolutely canon in the case of the defiant, inferred for other classes.
they should have had it appear during the dominion war too to, but that's beside the point.
This is a pretty cool design. I like the deflector...it looks like an upgrade. The lower saucer looks like it could add the lance phaser if you wanted.
I don't really like the impluse engine on the engineering hull. Saucer impluse engines are nice and beefy.
The phaser banks are not a big issue if they provide similar coverage. They maybe smaller due to better tech. Like on the Sovereign.
I would add a shuttlebay on the back of the engineering hull.
See, and that NEVER made sense.
A Phaser arrays singular advantage is the fact that you can chain up any number of emitters in that array to charge up a shot.
Thats the whole idea. In addition, the blast could be targeted anywhere withing in the arrays line of sight.
Separating your array into several smaller ones is stupid if you think about it, you are using newer, better emitters, why build smaller arrays so that you end up barely above the old array's power?
You are not gaining anything by that. You now have to fire more shots from several arrays and none of them will be able to pack the whallop a unified array of the same emitter type could deliver.
And since an array can always target anything within its LOS the argument of firing arcs becomes even more inconsequential.
Remember nemesis, had the Enterprise E have had proper large dorsal and ventral arrays, it might have been able to actually deliver more than a soft back massage to the scimitar.
More emitters per array = better, especially if you get better emitters.
frankly, you are both right. the main saucer arrays provided incredible fields of fire, and were supplemented by all of the other arrays spread about the hull.
the rub though is that you watch those eps and you see the duty cycle of the main arrays, its very long. and it probably gets worse if it has to deal with a break in the array. would only allow it to be fed from one end, assuming there is only one break in the line. maybe that can be cut down by keeping the array charged during combat, but another way to go would be to use shorter arrays. it allows for a faster duty cycle as well as making it a harder target. the main galaxy arrays i think are an ultimate expression o f a peace time design. a wartime design would probably have 3-5 shorter arrays in place of the single array.
good coverage is a must, though they don't always make use of it in the show. the galaxy has massive overlap of all of its arrays, i would need to look at a sovereign to see where all its arrays are to see if there is a weak or blind spot.
So you really think that the emitters would be less effective? I doubt the Sovereign class would have been designed with weaker phasers. I am sure the most advanced ship of the time had some good armaments.
Besides, the Scimitar was a beast of a ship with primary and secondary shielding. In addition, they couldn't get a proper lock. They were firing blind.
I am sure the whole saucer array was effective. However, the weapons can only draw so much power before they would compromise other systems. So, it is possible that they were able to get maximum effective power with less space. Maybe they were able to make the emitters smaller so they could put more in a smaller array. This could be the reasoning for smaller arrays on the Sovereign.
Of course, what you are saying and what I am saying is all speculation. We don't really know why there was a change. All we know is that it did with the Intrepid and Sovereign.
Well, the Sovie did have a seriously long primary saucer array. So the tech/idea wasn't completely phased out by then. My only guess is regenerative phaser tech advanced enough where smaller, more compact, arrays had some serious advantage. There could be lots of technobabble reasons - though. A power conduit burnout wouldn't take out the entire array - just the dedicated phaser strip it powers. The shorter arrays have weaker power, but much shorter firing cycles - isn't the point of the Defiant and the pulse phasers the fact that most of an energy weapon's damage is done on 'contact' - and not on sustained fire? So 3 shorter arrays firing staggered short phaser bursts would do more damage then one big array holding a blast on a targe.
Well, besides the real reason. 'The guys designing newer ships think shorter phaser arrays look cooler'. If anything, my biggest complaint with Cryptic designs would be most of them have some serious phaser blind spots. The Guardian for example - has extremely poor phaser coverage to the direct fore and direct aft.
I'd be fine with and buy that, I am a Primarily KDF player, so sacrificing some hull and size for turn rate is fine in my book.
Even if it is a Fed Cruiser with only beams. One Baby Galaxy Please.
T6 Galaxy, Nebula, New Orleans, 3-pk, one can only dream.
T5U Galaxy-X is already a mean girl, else I would be saying 4pk. Unless they made her lance more phantom like or went integrated cloaking device.
That actually looks more like it could fit as an alternate Guardian skin, what with lengthwise oval saucer design and Ambassador concept elements.
Though frankly I wouldn't mind it or something like it on a Galaxy ship either (as an alternate skin); my issue with them was mainly the neck. Never liked the V look from the front or rear, nor the relative height from a sideview.
http://rushedart.deviantart.com/art/Unused-image-2014-371743822
this array configuration couldn't be more counter intuitive, i guess you could call it athletically pleasing if you never though for a moment how arrays work, and what might be THE factor that makes them strong or not. the inner side arrays cant even line up a forward shot, the 2 forward split arrays are some of the weakest on the ship, the last you would want split for no reason, and that outer side array is like half as long as it could be, hell it should probably be connected all the way around. a proper armament on that saucer would be an array positioned at the very top of the slope down starting after that flat area on the sides, warping all the way around.
just like with several cryptic designs like the guardian and regent, that have no forward firing arc at all, as if these ships would actually broad side by choice outside this game, and fire 8 pinprick shots at once instead of 1, from their largest array. that should be able to hit any target in at LEAST 270 degrees.
a bunch of needle picks are not a more war time approach ether, those would be shots to disable, or keep a cloaked ship illuminated, shots fired in anger to destroy would use as many emitters as possible and fire from the largest array. anything else is an inefficient use of plasma
1.) that does apply to any array no matter the size
2.) All arrays have multiple energy feeds (except the peace nick galaxy in yesterdays enterprise that apparently had one power coupling.... for 2 arrays XD) so even if thee full array get split, you still have functioning emitters left that can fire on their own. That's the beauty of an array.
Also, this applies to any size arrays really, so your point is frankly moot.
Higher grade emitters mean your array becomes a lot more powerful: if you maintain the size.
Splitting your main arrays and placing them at weird locations... is not helpful.
Its like klingon's starting to put disruptor cannons facing inward....
I'm just really hoping that they shiny up the Galaxy and Venture parts to fit with the new skin. My deep hope is they don't want the new shiny looking worse with old parts used for customization.
But just because that's how the galaxy does it doesn't mean that it's the ONLY way it can be done.
Don't you guys find it interesting that only Galaxy derivative ships have that particular design feature? Despite the fact that the Sovereign has Mk XII phaser arrays which are presumed to be stronger?
I'm not going to lean so hard on the established technology of the 2360s, especially at the rate that technology was advancing in the TNG era.
That's not to say that I'm opposed to other features, such as Galaxy Heavy Phaser array, but I would think that Starfleet has figured out how to get more out of less.
That argument is bogus. The E-E expended and immense amount of energy and ammo just trying to hit the damn Scimitar. And they knocked out main power when they knocked her out of warp, so the Enterprise spent the whole fight on auxiliary.
True as that may be that doesn't mean that every Starfleet ship is going to post the maximum it's capable of. There are other design requirements that must be accounted for.
That being said, I'm not sure why the Sovereign wouldn't use large, concentric arrays instead.
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
Cryptic typically puts out the news of upcoming ship releases 1-2 days prior.
Yes, not to mention, the defensive aspect of engaging the enemy - bringing the most, or at least your heaviest, weapons to bear on the enemy while presenting the smallest target to him. A Galaxy is a huge ship from any aspect, but there's still less to hit from the front, than from broadside. Probably why torpedoes don't fire out the sides.
It's quite obvious actually, at least to me. The Galaxy Class is a product of an era when known scientific facts as well as coherency and continuity played ar huge role in the development of Star Trek and the technology involved. The Sovereign Class is a result of pure moviemaking needs a.k.a. the old Galaxy model is not good enough for movies, nor is it "cool" or fresh enough anymore. So the anwer would be - nobody really bothered with the need to explain how or why, it was there for purely entertainment purposes. A artistic design decision trumping tech continuity.
Don't take this as bashing the Sovereign Class, but I'm amost 100% sure that the scientific backgorund as well as technological continuity played a very minor role in it's design as oposed to the Galaxy Class where almost 100% of the details have been really deeply thought through in order to make more scientific and technological "sense", something Roddenberry insisted on.
I'm sure noone will argue that TNG as a show had a unique approach with more scientific and technological basis, coherency and continuity in the technologies used in Star Trek than any other Star Trek show and especially the movies.
Well, Cryptic needed to offer a gimick to cruises , and it seems they chose the ideas of a Man-o-War or WWII battleship theme. They did more or less fixed the problem of most firepower from the narrowest profile with the Omni-Directional beams (at least for AntiProtons). With a KBB and an AP turret, or another Energy type beam, one can fire pretty much the kitchen sink at the fore arc, and get ahead of the low DPS to energy drain all rear turrets offer.
As far as side firing torps, we have seen guided torps in the IP, so they might be able to cover the port and starboard. Up until DS9, there really wasnt much move and shoot happening and it was filmed nose to nose, probably because it would be harder to film broadsides between the "hard" models (non-cgi), so they never bothered to put them on ships.
mk12 emitters are more powerful then mk10, but the biggest sovereign array is lest then half the size of the biggest galaxy, its going to have a LOT less emitters. having slightly more powerful emitters isn't going to make up the difference. there's also nothing preventing a galaxy class from getting upgraded to mk12 across the board too.
as far as smaller ships having smaller arrays go, every one of those newer classes has arrays proportional to their smaller size, compared to the array/size ratio the galaxy has. the sovereign is less then half the size of a galaxy, its big guns are less then half it's size, wheres the controversy? bigger ships are going to have more plasma conduits, be more flushed with plasma waiting to be used. if smaller ships had bigger guns, they ether wouldn't be able to keep up an acceptable rate of fire, or not use full array discharges because the EPS system couldn't keep up with the draw. plus, the only ship an array like the galaxy's would fit on, is the galaxy. call the saucer too bulky all you want, they couldn't fit a gun like that on anything else
What angers me the most is the radical change of design from Galaxy to Sov. (aside from the technical things)
TNG established a majestic and unique ship design with the Galaxy and Nebula Class. Their emphasis on round shapes and a heavy saucer and small nacelles where really different to anything i have seen. But then suddenly they discarded that design in favour of a more mainstream "fast" looking design. Not very innovative IMO.
Now how exactly are the moves with the Sovy' at a max of up to hours each, enough to tell a story, supposed to show higher continuity of technology than a tv show that ran for multiple seasons? A long running show about a refuse barge could even outdo three movies for that just for the content worth of time and plot device.