test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Galaxy class

15859606264

Comments

  • whamhammer1whamhammer1 Member Posts: 2,290 Arc User
    edited May 2015
    edalgo wrote: »
    Agreed.

    Honestly people, especially guys, do it all the time in nearly all facets of life.

    What would have happened in WWII if the 2 Yamato battleships squared against the US Iowa battleships without any aircraftcarriers?

    Which fighter would win in a dogfight? F22 or Su37?

    Which car is faster?

    Which baseball team win in a series? The 1927 Yankees or the 1998 Yankees?

    Which ship is better the Galaxy or the Sovereign? ?????


    It goes on endlessly and we have fun debating it along the way.

    Exactly. To answer your questions though:

    1) there would be a big zoggin' 'uge battleship fight that the winners would have been the first guys to land a square and critical hit. Ships would've sunk, sailors would have died. Movies and songs would have been made.

    2) The one that doesnt get shot down

    3) the faster car is

    4) the 1998 Yankees would win, the 1927 Yankees are all dead.

    5) Depends on what role is needed to be performed.
  • whamhammer1whamhammer1 Member Posts: 2,290 Arc User
    edited May 2015
    jellico1 wrote: »



    Here is where you arguement falls apart has no logic and become nonsense and where all the frustration comes from

    The shape of a ship hull has very little meaning

    The interior size of the hull does

    But to cryptic the interior size of a hull and the amount of crew has no meaning the amount of supplies you can carry has no meaning to ability to put ( modern) equipment into a hull has no meaning to a old ship /Hull verses a new ship has no meaning

    A old hull can be striped of its old equipment like a impulse engine and replaced with a new one giving the old hull the same performance as a new one..............A newly constructed old Hull can be fitted with a state of the art engine and give that old/Brand new hull the same performance and a new looking hull

    A hull is a box to hold the equipment you put into it...nothing more

    From a engineering point of view a old hull is easier to produce than a new one , you have the shipyard tooled up for it , It takes years to equip a new shipyard for a new hull

    Now more nonsense from cryptic

    This escort has 50 crew

    It can repair hull 10 time faster than a engineering ship with a crew of 1000

    it can operate with no crew left alive

    it has more tactical bridge officer powers than a ship with 20X the amount of crew

    It carrys the same amount of equipment as a ship 10X its size and does more damage is faster has the same range can do the same doff missions basically can do anything the larger ship can do most of the time better

    Basically you arguement is just as foolish as cryptics is in its game design

    Its nonsense not logical has no common sense factor in it............pure STO foolishness

    from a games view maybe needed but dont try to use any logic to make some believe it it is logical :P

    Its clear that cryptic uses no logic or rules to make ships that make any common sense ...Just what will sell

    I mean they tried to use the trinity system to make a navel starship combat game ...How Dumb is that !!!

    God, I wish this game would make the crew size matter. Out of a crew of 750, I swear 700 of the are barbers and barkeeps!
  • dontdrunkimshootdontdrunkimshoot Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited May 2015
    I see the array = more firepower vs array = better coverage only argument is still going. I don't usually weigh in on these debates but I think it might be fun.

    So let's set some premises up
    The GCS has a 200 emitter array all lined up next each other in a strip.
    Each emitter can handle 5.1 MW of power right
    So is it safe to assume that each emitter is capable of shots at 5.1 MW power per sec?
    Each emitter is capable of shooting the beam in any direction it can 'see'

    If this is the case then the idea that an array's only advantage is to increase coverage does not make sense.

    NX-01's Phase Cannons were rated at a peak of 500GJ which is roughly 138 MW/h why would the MKX array be so much less potent than a technology 100 years old?

    5.1 MW isn't actually all that much power and we see many ships shots doing far greater damage than 5.1MW can produce such as using the main array to drill into a planet's crust or the level of damage done to the borg cube.

    The GCS Shields are somewhere between 4-5GW an assumption I making based on the Husnock ship that Uxbride created where they were hit with enough power to drop the shields but not damage the ship and Worf says it was over 4GW of particle energy. That being the case a 5.1MW shot wouldn't even tickle...

    The power output of the GCS warp core is 12.75 billion gigawatts. Knowing that enemy ships of the same caliber probably have similar shields we logically should see beams from each emitter being fired instead of one beam. The GCS can power that many emitters with ease.

    If each emitter is capable of firing at anything LOS then one long array makes less sense in terms of increased coverage since many of the emitters would be incredibly redundant. I would expect to see small arrays of few emitters dotted around the hull instead.

    If each emitter has it's own EPS supply then there would seem to be no benefit to passing the charge along the array just for better coverage.

    We would also have to be wondering why the Federation would have created a ship so impotent in the offense category.

    So we must conclude that either than TM is wrong and emitters are more powerful than 5.1 MW or that there is some way for the emitters to fire more powerful shots. If we assume that the TM is wrong then that still doesn't explain the reason behind the array strip or the passing energy across it.

    If we allow that at least some amount of energy is able to be passed along the emitters creating a more powerful shot then that would explain the array strip, the energy passing along it and the more powerful phaser shot.There would have to be a limit to the amount of energy that could be built up in such a fashion or we would see ships that are outwardly nothing but arrays.

    For me I think I fall somewhere in the middle. I can't fathom why the Federation would design such an advanced starship intended to be the best it could engineer with so little punching power from it's energy weapons. I am not sure that the TM is right either as 5.1 MW seems so little but at least if it were able to pass the entire array's worth of energy to one shot it would be a 1020 MW shot which is more than I would expect but I think more reasonable than a 5.1 MW shot.

    Or am I just being silly here?

    excellent logical analysis and explanation. and yes, many have concluded that the per emitter output in the book is ether wrong, or each emitter segment is tiny and there are a lot more then 200, each grove on the discharge plate might even signify an emitter segment. or both. for ease of argument, the numbers in the book are generally referenced during explanation, to prevent confusion.

    surely power isn't a limiting factor on any system used at sub-light, even weapons and shields. propelling the ship faster then the speed of light, not to mention more then 1000 times the speed of light, must take orders of magnitude more power that anything else on the ship. we see the ent-e in nemisis fight the scimitar with it's warp core offline, apparently just the impulse fusion reactors were enough to run the ship at full combat speed, run the phasers, and keep the shields up, and recharging. at least until it apparently burned through its entire deuterium supply, right before it did its ram.

    if anything is a limiting factor to the phasers, its their draw on the EPS conduits, and how many MW each emitter can channel. at any given moment, the huge saucer section must have a ton of plasma on hand, and i theorize this allows it to properly support such large arrays, where smaller ships could not. if a ship has to much array, it could suck all the plasma out of the system if fired to often, causing essentially brownouts to other critical systems as they become power starved. its a mater of their not being pipes leading to ship systems from the core, that are as large as those leading to the warp nacelles. probably due to concerns that if these conduits were breached, half the populated sections of the ship would flood with a billion GW worth of plasma nearly instantly. it would be like hitting the powder magazine on a navel ship.
  • angrytargangrytarg Member Posts: 10,910 Arc User
    edited May 2015
    excellent logical analysis and explanation. and yes, many have concluded that the per emitter output in the book is ether wrong, or each emitter segment is tiny and there are a lot more then 200, (...)

    But if people honestly start to argue the numbers in the book the discussion is based is just wrong you can pretty much stop discussing at all. The point of the whole debate is to connect the dots to make work what we are supplied with. The moment someone disregards either on-screen canon or the TM for whatever reason they are straightforward just making stuff up to bend the facts to their own theory. The same is true for what seems to be an error as long as it is not acknowledged or corrected - the moment a TM or the show depicts one thing this thing IS true, there's no way around that and that thing has to be included in every debate. It's not possible to cherrypick stuff.
    lFC4bt2.gif
    ^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
    "No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
    "A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
    "That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
  • dontdrunkimshootdontdrunkimshoot Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited May 2015
    angrytarg wrote: »
    But if people honestly start to argue the numbers in the book the discussion is based is just wrong you can pretty much stop discussing at all. The point of the whole debate is to connect the dots to make work what we are supplied with. The moment someone disregards either on-screen canon or the TM for whatever reason they are straightforward just making stuff up to bend the facts to their own theory. The same is true for what seems to be an error as long as it is not acknowledged or corrected - the moment a TM or the show depicts one thing this thing IS true, there's no way around that and that thing has to be included in every debate. It's not possible to cherrypick stuff.

    you really need to read entire paragraphs
    excellent logical analysis and explanation. and yes, many have concluded that the per emitter output in the book is ether wrong, or each emitter segment is tiny and there are a lot more then 200, each grove on the discharge plate might even signify an emitter segment. or both. for ease of argument, the numbers in the book are generally referenced during explanation, to prevent confusion.

    and yes, connecting the dots is whats important, the exact output doesn't really mater at all, its how the process works. thats why i didn't bring them up, until i had to to prove a point.
  • gpgtxgpgtx Member Posts: 1,574 Arc User
    edited May 2015
    the low MW seems to be correct and consistant as they even give low MW out put per emitter in the DS9 TM when they give the brief summer of the ships (akira, excelsior, nebula, war galaxy, yager, ect) even the defiants miny rear array has a pretty low output per emitter need to reread it though to get the exact number
    victoriasig_zps23c45368.jpg
  • neo1nxneo1nx Member Posts: 962 Arc User
    edited May 2015
    gpgtx wrote: »
    the low MW seems to be correct and consistant as they even give low MW out put per emitter in the DS9 TM when they give the brief summer of the ships (akira, excelsior, nebula, war galaxy, yager, ect) even the defiants miny rear array has a pretty low output per emitter need to reread it though to get the exact number

    Can you post the them? I am really curious about defiant and akira emitter outpout
  • calamar017calamar017 Member Posts: 33 Arc User
    edited May 2015
    In another thread, someone complained about the Galaxy class in game being a "gimped Titanic" and wanted a better one. That sentiment is one I've seen a lot, with people who grew up on TNG having an attachment to that ship and wanting it to be made as a viable endgame ship if not THE main flagship as it was lo those decades ago when TNG was still on the air. My reply to him was as follows:



    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.

    But even if the Galaxy was an amazing ship, she's still vastly outdated just like my beloved Refit Enterprise from TMP and TWOK. Time moves on and beloved ships get outdated and replaced by modern designs. That's how it works. It happens to cars too. Why can't some people accept that and move on from the Galaxy, especially when the Guardian exists to represent the Ambassador / Galaxy design lineage in the modern setting?

    Okay, first off, the Enterprise-D was destroyed by a B'rel, yes. But it was destroyed in a battle in which it HAD NO SHIELDS. I don't care how shiny and sophisticated a ship is....if it has no shields and the opposing ship DOES have shields, the shiny, sophisticated ship is at a disadvantage.

    Second, the Galaxy-class was not intended as a warship. It's an Explorer-configuration ship....in other words, it was meant for deep space, long-term scientific exploration. It carries a formidable array of weapons and defenses as a matter of course, but that wasn't the primary function of the Galaxy-class. It DID serve admirably during the Dominion War as one of Starfleet's top-of-the-line capital ships. Even in the current time period on STO, there are presumably few ships in the Federation that exceed the capabilities of a Galaxy-class starship, even if it is not the most modern design.

    As for aesthetics, I love the Galaxy-class, but that's just me. I rolled Andromeda-class JUST to have an updated, T6 vessel in a Galaxy-exterior. But I understand personal ship preference is just that...preference.
  • gpgtxgpgtx Member Posts: 1,574 Arc User
    edited May 2015
    neo1nx wrote: »
    Can you post the them? I am really curious about defiant and akira emitter outpout


    sure


    akira has 6 mk10 phaser arrays producing 5.1Mw per emiiter and is classified as a heavy cruiser

    defiants phaser cannons are odd as they just say that have the same performance as a typical mk9 array (note it does not say emitter) from a cruiser. did not go int as much detail as i remembered

    also as of note the miranda-class was upgraded to have 6 MK8 phaser arrays 2 phaser cannons and 4 torpedo launchers.... the Miranda was a tough little ship in the fire power out gunning the defiant. just it had hull and shields of a wet noodle
    victoriasig_zps23c45368.jpg
  • dontdrunkimshootdontdrunkimshoot Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited May 2015
    calamar017 wrote: »
    Okay, first off, the Enterprise-D was destroyed by a B'rel, yes. But it was destroyed in a battle in which it HAD NO SHIELDS. I don't care how shiny and sophisticated a ship is....if it has no shields and the opposing ship DOES have shields, the shiny, sophisticated ship is at a disadvantage.

    Second, the Galaxy-class was not intended as a warship. It's an Explorer-configuration ship....in other words, it was meant for deep space, long-term scientific exploration. It carries a formidable array of weapons and defenses as a matter of course, but that wasn't the primary function of the Galaxy-class. It DID serve admirably during the Dominion War as one of Starfleet's top-of-the-line capital ships. Even in the current time period on STO, there are presumably few ships in the Federation that exceed the capabilities of a Galaxy-class starship, even if it is not the most modern design.

    As for aesthetics, I love the Galaxy-class, but that's just me. I rolled Andromeda-class JUST to have an updated, T6 vessel in a Galaxy-exterior. But I understand personal ship preference is just that...preference.

    the enterprise was destroyed by a plot driven core breach, which the dialog blamed on that last torpedo, the second fired right at the beginning most likly. like the odyssey battle, the tiny attacker was dealing basically superficial damage, most shots not even causing hull breaches. in typical tng fashion, insisted on solving a problem with the ships entire arsenal, they exploiting a weakness and usied a trick to win. even though in this situation especially, it was incredibly stupid, a shielded bop wouldn't have lasted 10 seconds against concentrated fire from a GCS.


    the galaxy was designed to have its interior configuration be around 70% modular, and was equipped with a huge arsenal. we saw 1 GCS in detail, the enterprise, outfitted to the teeth in a scientific, diplomatic and crew supporting configuration, that demonstrated it was a drag on the ship's combat potential. we see a totally different configuration in yesterdays enterprise, the ship is optimized to be a battleship. presumably during the dominion war, the galaxy's are outfitted similarly, or their hulls are mostly empty, with nothing that could drag down combat performance.
  • neo1nxneo1nx Member Posts: 962 Arc User
    edited May 2015
    gpgtx wrote: »
    sure


    akira has 6 mk10 phaser arrays producing 5.1Mw per emiiter and is classified as a heavy cruiser

    defiants phaser cannons are odd as they just say that have the same performance as a typical mk9 array (note it does not say emitter) from a cruiser. did not go int as much detail as i remembered

    also as of note the miranda-class was upgraded to have 6 MK8 phaser arrays 2 phaser cannons and 4 torpedo launchers.... the Miranda was a tough little ship in the fire power out gunning the defiant. just it had hull and shields of a wet noodle

    great! thank
  • neo1nxneo1nx Member Posts: 962 Arc User
    edited May 2015
    I see the array = more firepower vs array = better coverage only argument is still going. I don't usually weigh in on these debates but I think it might be fun.

    So let's set some premises up
    The GCS has a 200 emitter array all lined up next each other in a strip.
    Each emitter can handle 5.1 MW of power right
    So is it safe to assume that each emitter is capable of shots at 5.1 MW power per sec?
    Each emitter is capable of shooting the beam in any direction it can 'see'

    If this is the case then the idea that an array's only advantage is to increase coverage does not make sense.

    NX-01's Phase Cannons were rated at a peak of 500GJ which is roughly 138 MW/h why would the MKX array be so much less potent than a technology 100 years old?

    5.1 MW isn't actually all that much power and we see many ships shots doing far greater damage than 5.1MW can produce such as using the main array to drill into a planet's crust or the level of damage done to the borg cube.

    The GCS Shields are somewhere between 4-5GW an assumption I making based on the Husnock ship that Uxbride created where they were hit with enough power to drop the shields but not damage the ship and Worf says it was over 4GW of particle energy. That being the case a 5.1MW shot wouldn't even tickle...

    The power output of the GCS warp core is 12.75 billion gigawatts. Knowing that enemy ships of the same caliber probably have similar shields we logically should see beams from each emitter being fired instead of one beam. The GCS can power that many emitters with ease.

    If each emitter is capable of firing at anything LOS then one long array makes less sense in terms of increased coverage since many of the emitters would be incredibly redundant. I would expect to see small arrays of few emitters dotted around the hull instead.

    If each emitter has it's own EPS supply then there would seem to be no benefit to passing the charge along the array just for better coverage.

    We would also have to be wondering why the Federation would have created a ship so impotent in the offense category.

    So we must conclude that either than TM is wrong and emitters are more powerful than 5.1 MW or that there is some way for the emitters to fire more powerful shots. If we assume that the TM is wrong then that still doesn't explain the reason behind the array strip or the passing energy across it.

    If we allow that at least some amount of energy is able to be passed along the emitters creating a more powerful shot then that would explain the array strip, the energy passing along it and the more powerful phaser shot.There would have to be a limit to the amount of energy that could be built up in such a fashion or we would see ships that are outwardly nothing but arrays.

    For me I think I fall somewhere in the middle. I can't fathom why the Federation would design such an advanced starship intended to be the best it could engineer with so little punching power from it's energy weapons. I am not sure that the TM is right either as 5.1 MW seems so little but at least if it were able to pass the entire array's worth of energy to one shot it would be a 1020 MW shot which is more than I would expect but I think more reasonable than a 5.1 MW shot.

    Or am I just being silly here?

    yeah, i haven't think about it this way, it nullify the " theory" that i have made against the " longer= more powerfull " where i introduced a limit in energy build up that would arise before we reach the 200 emitter build up.

    but as you explain if that were the case the phaser shot of the galaxy would not be very powerfull indeed.
    but nethertheless they should be a limit anyway, but numbers show that it is not reach with the 200 emitter of 5.1MW

    nice post:)
  • dontdrunkimshootdontdrunkimshoot Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited May 2015
    cant trust much of what the ds9 tech manual says about ships, that section has painfully obvious copy/paste errors. the akira for example doesn't even have 6 arrays, it has 3
  • gpgtxgpgtx Member Posts: 1,574 Arc User
    edited May 2015
    i was mainly laughing at the miranda out gunning the defiant

    you can tell that whole section was an after thought. the main book is pretty nice though

    and truthfully i have never looked at the akira model that close to know how many arrays it even has. i assumed it had the 2 main arrays 2 arrays on the pylons then 2 smaller arrays on the under side of the saucer near the back

    well it does the main saucer array then 2 half arrays on the under side of the saucer
    http://www.oocities.org/stg63541/akira-diagrams.jpg
    victoriasig_zps23c45368.jpg
  • induperatorinduperator Member Posts: 806 Arc User
    edited May 2015
    shpoks wrote: »
    Bah, everyone knows that Rainbow Dash rulz!!!

    <.< >.> <.<

    "Bekk engage the cloak, now!"

    *dissapears*

    Excuse me? Everyone knows Twilight Sparkle Pwns all others
  • yreodredyreodred Member Posts: 3,527 Arc User
    edited May 2015
    the enterprise was destroyed by a plot driven core breach, which the dialog blamed on that last torpedo, the second fired right at the beginning most likly. like the odyssey battle, the tiny attacker was dealing basically superficial damage, most shots not even causing hull breaches. in typical tng fashion, insisted on solving a problem with the ships entire arsenal, they exploiting a weakness and usied a trick to win. even though in this situation especially, it was incredibly stupid, a shielded bop wouldn't have lasted 10 seconds against concentrated fire from a GCS.


    the galaxy was designed to have its interior configuration be around 70% modular, and was equipped with a huge arsenal. we saw 1 GCS in detail, the enterprise, outfitted to the teeth in a scientific, diplomatic and crew supporting configuration, that demonstrated it was a drag on the ship's combat potential. we see a totally different configuration in yesterdays enterprise, the ship is optimized to be a battleship. presumably during the dominion war, the galaxy's are outfitted similarly, or their hulls are mostly empty, with nothing that could drag down combat performance.
    Thanks for writing this!
    Everytime someone mentiones ST:7 and the loss of the -D by a BoP, i feel the urge to clarify things, lol. (what a terrible movie)
    "...'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

    A tale of two Picards
    (also applies to Star Trek in general)
  • angrytargangrytarg Member Posts: 10,910 Arc User
    edited May 2015
    gpgtx wrote: »
    i was mainly laughing at the miranda out gunning the defiant

    (...)

    But why? The Defiant is a nimble frigate, a B'Rel with maybe some more powerful cannons. The Miranda is a cruiser with quite a lot of upgrading potential. There's no reason you couldn't simply rig cannons to the hull - I mean the Miranda part of the TM is not copy pasted. What drunk means is that they are I think two or three of the kitbash ships that feature the exact same description, the Miranda part though was uniquely written if I remember correctly.

    It make ssense in my book. You just can't upgrade the Miranda's hull over the old spaceframe. The Defiant class really is not the powerhouse some people think it is. If you look at the battle scenes, Siko's Defiant was even flanked by Mirandas - they filled the exact same battlefield role.
    lFC4bt2.gif
    ^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
    "No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
    "A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
    "That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
  • dontdrunkimshootdontdrunkimshoot Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited May 2015
    the miranda does have 6 banks, but they aren't arrays. one of the mysteries during the time are how the phasers work on those 23rd century ships still in service. on modern ships, the space frame itself is designed around were arrays can nest, you cant just take an old design, start cutting holes in the outer hull and frame itself, and try to hack job in modern armament if you want something space worthy with at least half the potential hull integrity it had before.

    im guessing they instal a several emitter wide surface discharge plate to replace the ball turrets, and have routed to it an exploded version of typical emitter segment hardware like prefire chambers and whatnot. i'd guess each of these banks has about the output of a 30 to 50 emitter segment arrays, and probably take up a LOT of room underneath the hull.
  • gpgtxgpgtx Member Posts: 1,574 Arc User
    edited May 2015
    with how small they are i keep forgetting the Miranda was a light cruiser with a crew of 200 (the one nacelle destroyers had a crew of 150)


    also one thing i noticed. the brief bit the nebula is mentioned int eh TNG manual it is said to have mkIX phasers but the nebula in the DS9 manual it was upgraded to mkX

    also when talking about the galaxy they have separate brackets for the uprated versions not much is different armament has 2 more phasers and instead of just photon torpedoes it just says torpedoes giving the impression the war galaxies can use quantum. and it's max warp is 9.9 up form 9.6 of the enterpise-d (the 9.6 is given for the standard galaxy)
    victoriasig_zps23c45368.jpg
  • whamhammer1whamhammer1 Member Posts: 2,290 Arc User
    edited May 2015
    yreodred wrote: »
    Thanks for writing this!
    Everytime someone mentiones ST:7 and the loss of the -D by a BoP, i feel the urge to clarify things, lol. (what a terrible movie)

    This is the biggest problem with Star Trek "canon", plot devices are too conviently used and consistency has never been truely maintained or even considered, even inside of each series. Techno-babble and plot-armor have turned hero ships into Greek comodies or dramas, depending on the desired outcomes. Peoples beliefs and expectations ignore parts to filter and compensate to their narrative of what they believe is what the "real truth" is.

    One of the biggest problems was Rodenberry's flip on canon in the '70s. He signed off on things to be canon and then flipped again in he late 70s early 80s up till TMP. This continued in TNG when consistency wasnt held between the writers and continued through all of the otherseries. Primordial ooze is cleaner than the canon in ST.
  • rikersdadrikersdad Member Posts: 74 Arc User
    edited May 2015
    I really wanted the T6 Fleet Galaxy but with Lt sci and limited sci and tac consoles its just a tank
    the Guardian blows it away for pve and still does not get me high scores.
    sad, I will just wait for a T6 Sovereign then.
  • yreodredyreodred Member Posts: 3,527 Arc User
    edited May 2015
    This is the biggest problem with Star Trek "canon", plot devices are too conviently used and consistency has never been truely maintained or even considered, even inside of each series. Techno-babble and plot-armor have turned hero ships into Greek comodies or dramas, depending on the desired outcomes. Peoples beliefs and expectations ignore parts to filter and compensate to their narrative of what they believe is what the "real truth" is.

    One of the biggest problems was Rodenberry's flip on canon in the '70s. He signed off on things to be canon and then flipped again in he late 70s early 80s up till TMP. This continued in TNG when consistency wasnt held between the writers and continued through all of the otherseries. Primordial ooze is cleaner than the canon in ST.

    That's just how i see it too.
    Star Treks inconsistency within the series alone makes it always a matter of debate. I think that's because each writer had different ideas about trek, if any at all. The ony thing to blame is the film industry and time pressure. (Too many cooks spoil the broth imo.)

    Compared to other francises Trek is still one of the most consistent ones, i think. But on the other side a francise like Lord of the Rings and Tolkiens work in general is much more consistent afaik.
    I think that comes from the very different origin of both works. While the basics of LotR was more or less a hobby made by one single man and then became more a multi million $ francise (the movies), Star Trek on the other side was never given so much love to the detail imo.
    It was always about making money and Roddenberry never had total control over it or had the chance to create a whole "story" about it (something like a timeline or a rough history of things to come). Star Trek was continued by very different people which isn't bad per se. But each one of those ppl respect to the "source" was very different imo.

    Sure we are "just" talking about one single ship here mainly, but i think it is a symptom of much more that's going on with Trek. Values that where once hold dear are now worth much less. It (Trek) became much more mainstream, instead of keeping its true spirit.
    When there where stories about a humanity that has overcome greed, hunger, war and other "childish" things, it was a universe where the heroes where heroes not because of their kill count or war effords, but because their goal was to prevent wars and all the horror that come with it.
    But now we are here at STO and look at War propaganda posters and do nothing else than to shoot and kill. But that's nothing new for Star trek games of course, because game producers obviously don't know what else to do with Star Trek.

    But now we have people from the series (Voyager cast/Nimoy/Quinto/Masterson/Cosby/Dorn) lending their voice for this game and thus legitimate STO and give it a much bigger relevance regarding to canon i am afraid.

    EDIT:
    rikersdad wrote: »
    I really wanted the T6 Fleet Galaxy but with Lt sci and limited sci and tac consoles its just a tank
    the Guardian blows it away for pve and still does not get me high scores.
    sad, I will just wait for a T6 Sovereign then.
    Yeah, a guardian-like BOFF layout just with a Command twist instead of Intel would have been perfect for the GCS imo.
    But i'm not much about DPS, my goal is versatility and as you said a "normal" Cruiser abilities are just limited.

    EDIT:
    But the question remains why STOs Exploration Cruiser only has a Lt. Science station?
    (but a ship called "Guardian", which implies tankyness, on the other hand has a Lt. Cmdr science station...)
    "...'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

    A tale of two Picards
    (also applies to Star Trek in general)
  • supergirl1611supergirl1611 Member Posts: 809 Arc User
    edited May 2015
    rikersdad wrote: »
    I really wanted the T6 Fleet Galaxy but with Lt sci and limited sci and tac consoles its just a tank
    the Guardian blows it away for pve and still does not get me high scores.
    sad, I will just wait for a T6 Sovereign then.

    The tier 6 Galaxy is a powerhouse, the Guardian can out sci it with the ltd sci station but the Tier 6 Galaxy has some serious teeth now, don't take her to lightly. She can in PvE kick some serious TRIBBLE these days.
  • jer5488jer5488 Member Posts: 506 Arc User
    edited May 2015
    gpgtx wrote: »
    i was mainly laughing at the miranda out gunning the defiant

    you can tell that whole section was an after thought. the main book is pretty nice though

    and truthfully i have never looked at the akira model that close to know how many arrays it even has. i assumed it had the 2 main arrays 2 arrays on the pylons then 2 smaller arrays on the under side of the saucer near the back

    well it does the main saucer array then 2 half arrays on the under side of the saucer
    http://www.oocities.org/stg63541/akira-diagrams.jpg

    The problem with the Defiant and firepower is - in every major encounter with a serious capital ship, she fares pretty poorly. The Vor'cha in Way of the Warrior, the Keldons in 'Defiant', the Lakota in Paradise Lost, the Jem Dreadnought in Valiant, the Cube in First Contact.

    The Defiant deals a very serious punch - yes. She delivers an absurd amount of firepower. For a ship of her size. Compared to a BOP or a Jem Bug - she's an absolute monster. But whenever she faces something that she can't down in a single volley, the flaws start showing.

    Does she outgun a Miranda? That's debatable. A Miranda with modern phasers and quantums could probably deliver a comparable assault - especially as she could carry more torpedoes. Is she more dangerous then a comparably outfitted Miranda? Yes - with maneuverability alone.

    The Defiant - in my opinion - is a tender. She parks at a deep space outpost or babysits a freighter convoy, or they travel in a wolf pack and do heavy, brutal surgical strikes. She isn't the best ship for anything frontline without serious support. As much as I LOVE the Defiant, and I do - Sisko should have been placed in command of the Venture or another Galaxy for his roll as a command ship in the Dominion War. The Defiant didn't have the resources or the power to be that important.
  • warmaker001bwarmaker001b Member Posts: 9,204 Arc User
    edited May 2015
    jer5488 wrote: »
    The Defiant - in my opinion - is a tender. She parks at a deep space outpost or babysits a freighter convoy, or they travel in a wolf pack and do heavy, brutal surgical strikes. She isn't the best ship for anything frontline without serious support. As much as I LOVE the Defiant, and I do - Sisko should have been placed in command of the Venture or another Galaxy for his roll as a command ship in the Dominion War. The Defiant didn't have the resources or the power to be that important.

    A person with the rank of Captain does not have command of a major station like DS9 and a capital ship such as the Galaxy-class at the same time. Now, if Starfleet ordered him to be the Commanding officer of some big ship and there was a change of command of DS9 for someone else to be its commander, then that's different. Actually, to be technical, command of any warship is a full-time responsibility, from the smallest ship to the most massive.

    It's a trap that DS9 fell into, IMO. Initially the creators wanted a different Star Trek show that wasn't focused on being aboard a ship. Yet that's exactly what they needed to do at many times during the course of the show's history, especially once the Dominion War started. Lots of things can be done to make DS9 the setting of a story. But apparently not enough, hence getting a small, capable ship posted at DS9 to give the heroes their means of "traveling to adventure."
    XzRTofz.gif
  • angrytargangrytarg Member Posts: 10,910 Arc User
    edited May 2015
    A person with the rank of Captain does not have command of a major station like DS9 and a capital ship such as the Galaxy-class at the same time. Now, if Starfleet ordered him to be the Commanding officer of some big ship and there was a change of command of DS9 for someone else to be its commander, then that's different. Actually, to be technical, command of any warship is a full-time responsibility, from the smallest ship to the most massive.

    It's a trap that DS9 fell into, IMO. Initially the creators wanted a different Star Trek show that wasn't focused on being aboard a ship. Yet that's exactly what they needed to do at many times during the course of the show's history, especially once the Dominion War started. Lots of things can be done to make DS9 the setting of a story. But apparently not enough, hence getting a small, capable ship posted at DS9 to give the heroes their means of "traveling to adventure."

    According to the TM, the Defiant Class was designed - aside from the Borg thing which was very early in the design process - as a mobile defensive platform to up the defensive capabilities of stationary installations over runabouts and internal defenses. So the USS Defiant wasn't really an independent asset, it was stationed at DS9 as a part of the starbase. At least this is how I see it without falling into the trap of once again making real-life comparisions to today's militaries.
    lFC4bt2.gif
    ^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
    "No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
    "A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
    "That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
  • hawkishmonkhawkishmonk Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited May 2015
    In the interest of curiosity I decided to see what I could come up with in terms of on screen firepower and ignore the TM. Since most o the shots we see hit alloys and such that we are not aware of the composition or are fictional I went on a hunt for something we could quantify.

    I remembered at least one episode where the Ent-D drilled into the crust of a planet an I thought that would be a good benchmark since we know the materials being hit. I ended up choosing Legacy (s04x06) as it was the most informative. In the show they say that the people they are looking are under 2km of granite.

    The solution was to use the main array to drill through 1.6km and beam an away team down. Now they didn't say why they wouldn't do that and beam the crew up but they also didn't say that the nature of the rock was different. While they said it would take several hours to reconfigure the main array for drilling it was not specified that they were increasing the power output or anything so I think it is safe to assume that this is a normal full power shot. It takes them ~15 sec to drill through.

    Correct me if I am wrong but the beam width is topically 6 meters?

    For reference here is the shot https://youtu.be/plyPRids0ms?t=320

    With that information we have something that can be quantified. Since I am not that great at math I took this over to /r/theydidthemath on reddit and this is the answer /u/reptile449
    Well it looks like the ground is being vaporised rather than melted. Hard to find an exact boiling point for granite as it consists of multiple minerals, but if we go with silica that gives us a number for material like sand and quartz (One of the minerals in granite), which is 2500K.
    Specific heat capacity (Energy to raise 1 kilogram by 1 Kelvin) is apparently 703J.
    The density is 2.648 g/cm3. Which is 2648 Kg/m3.
    I'm not sure what to go with for the area of the hole, you say the beam is 6m in diameter but in the footage going by a Human/Earth scale it looks smaller than that. I'll go with 6m for now but could change it.
    Area of a circle is pi(r2), so here it is 28.27 m2. Multiply that by 1600 and we get a volume of 45238 m3.
    45238 x 2648 = 119,792,697 Kg. That's a lot of mass.
    I think this takes place on Tarkana IV. It's a human colony world apparently, but it looks like a desert in the clip so I'll go with 30 degrees C as the surface temperature here. Which is 303 K. I'll assume this is the temperature of the whole 1.6 Km deep chunk, though this won't be accurate.
    Temperature difference is: 2500-303=2197K.
    SHC x Mass x temperature change gives us the total energy from the laser.
    703 x 119792697 x 2197=1850 x 1011 J.
    Over 15 seconds, so divide by 15 to get power.
    1850 x 1011 / 15 = 123.3*1011
    That is 12.3 TW, assuming the laser is 100% efficient. In comparison the average power consumption of the world in 2010 was 16 TW.

    Another user came up with a similar answer at 15.5 TW.

    Far and away more power than any of us would have guessed I think.

    Thoughts...?
  • yreodredyreodred Member Posts: 3,527 Arc User
    edited May 2015
    A person with the rank of Captain does not have command of a major station like DS9 and a capital ship such as the Galaxy-class at the same time. Now, if Starfleet ordered him to be the Commanding officer of some big ship and there was a change of command of DS9 for someone else to be its commander, then that's different. Actually, to be technical, command of any warship is a full-time responsibility, from the smallest ship to the most massive.
    Agreed, especially a big ship of the size of a Galaxy or even miranda is much more complex than just a smaller "boat" you can dock at the station and forget about until its needed.
    But that's exatly what the Defiant was intended for (just in bigger numbers).
    It never was a pocket battleship many of its hardcore fans (hello devs!) want it, it's more or less a overpowered patrol craft, nothing more.
    At the beginning of STO (and still today) i found it staggering that Cryptics devs just ignored that and made it on par with big ships like the Sovereign, Nebula and Galaxy (or better said: excel by far).
    I'm sorry to say that, but that's one of the biggest (trek) nonsense i have ever heard of.


    It's a trap that DS9 fell into, IMO. Initially the creators wanted a different Star Trek show that wasn't focused on being aboard a ship. Yet that's exactly what they needed to do at many times during the course of the show's history, especially once the Dominion War started. Lots of things can be done to make DS9 the setting of a story. But apparently not enough, hence getting a small, capable ship posted at DS9 to give the heroes their means of "traveling to adventure."
    Apparently the producers of DS9 wheren't so radical and imaginative as they like to think of themselves, lol.
    You can observe the jump DS9 made when the Defiant was introduced, suddenly the show accelerated and became really good.
    Frankly, DS9 felt like a neverending "of Bajor"-mission, before they introduced the Defiant. :D
    "...'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

    A tale of two Picards
    (also applies to Star Trek in general)
  • jer5488jer5488 Member Posts: 506 Arc User
    edited May 2015
    A person with the rank of Captain does not have command of a major station like DS9 and a capital ship such as the Galaxy-class at the same time. Now, if Starfleet ordered him to be the Commanding officer of some big ship and there was a change of command of DS9 for someone else to be its commander, then that's different. Actually, to be technical, command of any warship is a full-time responsibility, from the smallest ship to the most massive.

    Agreed - I mostly meant during his time during the retake operations while the Station was in Dominion hands. To be perfectly honest - the Defiant should have had a dedicated Command officer on board when she shipped to DS9 in the first place, a roll that Worf eventually took on.
  • dontdrunkimshootdontdrunkimshoot Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited May 2015
    ships like the defiant and miranda don't strike me as craft that would require a rank of captain for the commanding officer. any command track lt commander would be fit to be it's skipper. these kind of ships will only ever be conducting short range missions, inside of federation territory, and probably micromanaged by the local admiral in charge of the sector. dax and worf were the defiant's skippers all the time. they don't need a tested diplomat, they don't need someone who has demonstrated they can run a ship independent of supply lines and support for a number of years, they don't need someone with over a decade of command experience. excelsiors and intrepids are probably the smallest ships they want full captains in charge of, they could potentially operate outside of federation territory, actually do some exploration or be on the front lines.
Sign In or Register to comment.