Not sure about this one, might hang off and wait to see how the Shepard and Cardenas classes turn out although I do appreciate they're going for something a little different than yet another cruiser you can stick whatever the current copy & paste meta build is onto.
That said, I think I'd be able to get a decent build out of her. There's several phaser damage consoles other than tactical slot ones which, coupled with various means of power boosting, should give it more than enough damage output for all but DPS chasers. And I do like the look of that trait.
Visually very appealing, the TRIBBLE look I mean.
Stats wise I would recommend using: “NOTE: The above stats for all ships are subject to change.“
I’m not advising for a copy of the Arbiter but bringing it more in line with it seems not so wrong for the term “battlecruiser”.
Increase turn to 8, lower hull mod to 1.35 (for fleet) and give it 3(4) tac and 2 sci consoles.
Would be a better deal?
I currently use my fleet advanced heavy cruiser just for the heck of it because I adore the new Excelsior model.
Well will see...
Stats wise I would recommend using: “NOTE: The above stats for all ships are subject to change.“
They do that for every single one they post, and there hasn't been any changes to ships stats from the original post to in game ship. afaik.
But it does look better than that abomination of that Crotchfield(crossfield) ship. I imagine PWE got a sweet deal to feature all this TRIBBLE TRIBBLE from one of the worst treks in history.
Quote about STO on consoles: "Not quite as bad as No man's sky, but a close second."
I'd like to give it a try, but there are two things preventing me from doing so: the two tactical consoles of the default version and the painfully slow turn rate of 7.
If its a BC and has a BC weapon loadout, shouldn't it also come with 3 tac consoles by default and a turn rate of at least 9? Its got to something in common with the Avenger (besides the weapons loadout).
It can use dual cannons, but the slow turn rate of 7 hurts that and shoves it harder into being a beam boat (and we have too many of those as it is).
Eh, 2 tac consoles for a battlecruiser isn't a dealbreaker for me, but it is definitely less than exciting. The fleet-tier version getting a third helps.
I don't know if I'll be getting one but it's definitely pretty in both it's DSC and 2410 styles. And, given my Disco toon is gonna need an era-appropriate endgame ship and the Walker and Crossfield are both a bit prohibitive to acquire, well... we'll see what comes out before I hit 50, I guess.
I will point out one thing though.. the turn rate isn't as bad as people make it out to be.
The Kelvin Dreadnought and the Scimitar line both do great with Cannons and both have a 7 turn rate. It's do-able, especially if you're using Scatter Volley to push the firing arc to 90'. I run cannons on the Vengeance and the Scimi both with no RCS and they do just fine. Yes, you have to account for it in your piloting, but it's not that hard to figure out. If you're going to run Beams then the turn rate matters even less.
The big killer is that console layout.. I don't get it. If they were calling it a 'support ship' and giving it powers to buff team mates or something.. then cool. But calling it a battle cruiser, giving it that highly desirable 5 forward weapon layout with the ability to use cannons.. and then giving it 2(3) Tac consoles?
I am really aggravated by this release. I started reading the stats, and I was putting this one on the buy list as I like Engineering heavy ships that can run cannons. I got to the console layout and my hopes were dashed. I like the look of the ship, I like the weapon layout, the bridge officer layout is acceptable.. but that console layout just kills it for me.
> @lordbeefy7 said: > well its a gorgeous model aesthetically and I am sorely tempted on the look of it alone, however the console layout is so lacklustre that it really puts it out of my gameplans. > > BC with 2 tactical...wtheck>?? i thought that bc were hybrid vessels, a cross between the speed and agility of cruisers coupled with the firepower of a bs...why then this....its more a heavy cruiser than a bc. the fleet variant gets the third tac console granted which is an assistance, but even so, id then have to buy the cstore for the console/trait then a fleet module to get the third tac console....hmmm, really making this a hard sell there cryptic.
There are no "battleships" in STO. A BC is a cruiser which sacrifices a bit of HP in favour of cannons and some agility. Neither weapon slots nor console slots are a characteristic unique to them.
But honestly, 18% base (!) damage doesn't make or break a build. The only time this is noticeable is if you DerPS for decimals.
^ 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
> @angrytarg said: > > @lordbeefy7 said: > > well its a gorgeous model aesthetically and I am sorely tempted on the look of it alone, however the console layout is so lacklustre that it really puts it out of my gameplans. > > > > BC with 2 tactical...wtheck>?? i thought that bc were hybrid vessels, a cross between the speed and agility of cruisers coupled with the firepower of a bs...why then this....its more a heavy cruiser than a bc. the fleet variant gets the third tac console granted which is an assistance, but even so, id then have to buy the cstore for the console/trait then a fleet module to get the third tac console....hmmm, really making this a hard sell there cryptic. > > There are no "battleships" in STO. A BC is a cruiser which sacrifices a bit of HP in favour of cannons and some agility. Neither weapon slots nor console slots are a characteristic unique to them. > > But honestly, 18% base (!) damage doesn't make or break a build. The only time this is noticeable is if you DerPS for decimals.
I suppose the dps issue can be accomodated in other consoles. Its not a cannon loadout ship for me personally...the turn is too slow so it would be a beam array.
How many other ships from TRIBBLE are coming (non lobi) and any idea if there is a mega pack of all the ships?
Space barbie in me is happy, then I saw the stats...whelp, like many others have stated, 3 tac for normal, 4 tac for fleet, would be great and got me to buy it. Now, at it stands, 2 tac consoles and it being more battleplate than battlecruiser...not my style. I love ships for their looks but they usually have to be at least decent in stats as well!
For now, I think I'll wait for more news on other ships, hopefully - the Shepard class.
> @lordbeefy7 said:
> well its a gorgeous model aesthetically and I am sorely tempted on the look of it alone, however the console layout is so lacklustre that it really puts it out of my gameplans.
>
> BC with 2 tactical...wtheck>?? i thought that bc were hybrid vessels, a cross between the speed and agility of cruisers coupled with the firepower of a bs...why then this....its more a heavy cruiser than a bc. the fleet variant gets the third tac console granted which is an assistance, but even so, id then have to buy the cstore for the console/trait then a fleet module to get the third tac console....hmmm, really making this a hard sell there cryptic.
There are no "battleships" in STO. A BC is a cruiser which sacrifices a bit of HP in favour of cannons and some agility. Neither weapon slots nor console slots are a characteristic unique to them.
But honestly, 18% base (!) damage doesn't make or break a build. The only time this is noticeable is if you DerPS for decimals.
Bortasqu' line and Negh'var line would like a word, regarding the cannon mounting/mobility while sacrificing hull. And both are designated as Battleships/Battlecruiser types(Fleet Support ability calls the Negh'var summoned a battleship). Command Battlecruiser line might be the same way, but I couldn't tell for sure.
It is interesting, how Feds finally got a poisoned gift with this lovable diaper blowout. Looks like the Samsar gets to keep its title of worst T6 ship to fly ever, though. For now.
5/3 Faction specific Battlecruiser count right now, that I know of:
Federation:
Vengeance
Arbiter
Fleet Arbiter
Avenger
Fleet Avenger
Europa
Fleet Europa
KDF:
Mogh
Fleet Mogh
Kurak
Fleet Kurak
Not sure if I would consider the Scimitar line as a battlecruiser line, as I don't own any of them. If they're classified as that, that means that the Romulans have 6, in addition to access to all the others except the Vengeance. If anyone is able to list others, feel free to do so.
Space barbie in me is happy, then I saw the stats...whelp, like many others have stated, 3 tac for normal, 4 tac for fleet, would be great and got me to buy it. Now, at it stands, 2 tac consoles and it being more battleplate than battlecruiser...not my style. I love ships for their looks but they usually have to be at least decent in stats as well!
For now, I think I'll wait for more news on other ships, hopefully - the Shepard class.
I'm personally fine with 2 tac console normal, 3 tac fleet. Not everything needs to always be tac tac tac. I like some variety. Also, while its true people can get different ships, can do things better than this one. I personally believe for some of those people, they have missed the entire point of the ship.
Sometimes, having limitations, can make you go further, and grow better, than simply making every ship that comes out more powerful than the last. Also, having some limitations, can actually make you enjoy this game a whole lot more.
Space barbie in me is happy, then I saw the stats...whelp, like many others have stated, 3 tac for normal, 4 tac for fleet, would be great and got me to buy it. Now, at it stands, 2 tac consoles and it being more battleplate than battlecruiser...not my style. I love ships for their looks but they usually have to be at least decent in stats as well!
For now, I think I'll wait for more news on other ships, hopefully - the Shepard class.
I'm personally fine with 2 tac console normal, 3 tac fleet. Not everything needs to always be tac tac tac. I like some variety. Also, while its true people can get different ships, can do things better than this one. I personally believe for some of those people, they have missed the entire point of the ship.
Sometimes, having limitations, can make you go further, and grow better, than simply making every ship that comes out more powerful than the last. Also, having some limitations, can actually make you enjoy this game a whole lot more.
Whilst you are not wrong, it depends on one's outlook.
I mean, it's no secret that my drop-dead favourite ship is the Rhode Island variant of the Nova class. And I still use said ship frequently - has been the case since 2012. Despite that fact I still can't help but sometimes think 'My T6 Vesta could do this better'.
Oh, you like the Nova?
I thought you were just excited about dying stars.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
A console from a T6 ship equippable on any ship? That's a rare item.
Not really if you watched the latest pod cast the new person that's in charge of making ships said they almost all the new ships she has designed has consoles that are to be used on any ship... so they had a change in ship console philosophy of locking to a class they even go on to say that unless there is a reason for it to be locked to a type of ship (such as a separation console) that most ships going forward will have console that can be used on any ship...
So in the end this ship just had horrible stats for a "battlecruiser" This ship should of just been tagged as a Cruiser or Heavy Cruiser as almost all other "battlecruisers" are dps oriented ships that's why they have a 5/3 lay out and normally higher turn rates then normal cruisers.
Sad part was when I saw it I thought about getting it as well till I saw the turn rate and console lay out.. now it just appears as a lame duck ship.
Gotta say, nicely done to the cryptic artists. As with the T6 Ambassador, the ship looks absolutely amazing!
Next to the Crossfield design (somewhat flawed CBS design as the ship proportions need tweaking), Cardenas/Yeager and then this, in that order, are some cool ships out of this disco mess of a show. I somehow doubt the latter 2 will ever separate on the show and in game as the Prometheus, though.
...If only the blinding strobing effects would have an off option during combat to see these nice ships and experience something resembling Star Trek on screen...
Very nice additions to the C-Store at least. I'm not let down by the stats as I enjoy gameplay diversity even if the game just demands DPS.
Pretty sure the next few releases will have more of this 'locked behind a fleet holdings/FSM/fleet provision/character bound' must-unlock to make up for the grind/free T6 reputation fleet ship modules.
The wait for the Nova (refit) and more Romulan ships continues.
Devs: Provide the option to Turn OFF full screen flashes from enemy ship explosions
· ♥ · ◦.¸¸. ◦'¯`·. (Ɏ) V A N U _ S O V E R E I G N T Y (Ɏ) .·´¯'◦.¸¸. ◦ · ♡ ·
«» \▼/ T E R R A N ¦ R E P U B L I C \▼/ «»
﴾﴿ ₪ṩ ||| N A N I T E S Y S T E M S : B L A C K | O P S ||| ₪ṩ ﴾﴿
Space barbie in me is happy, then I saw the stats...whelp, like many others have stated, 3 tac for normal, 4 tac for fleet, would be great and got me to buy it. Now, at it stands, 2 tac consoles and it being more battleplate than battlecruiser...not my style. I love ships for their looks but they usually have to be at least decent in stats as well!
For now, I think I'll wait for more news on other ships, hopefully - the Shepard class.
I'm personally fine with 2 tac console normal, 3 tac fleet. Not everything needs to always be tac tac tac. I like some variety. Also, while its true people can get different ships, can do things better than this one. I personally believe for some of those people, they have missed the entire point of the ship.
Sometimes, having limitations, can make you go further, and grow better, than simply making every ship that comes out more powerful than the last. Also, having some limitations, can actually make you enjoy this game a whole lot more.
Well the 2/3 tac consoles made it go from a "Ouhhh i want that" to a " Mhmm maybe if I have spare zen leftover, I *might* get that just cause it looks cool"
I usually love cruisers, but I like to pew pew as well. So tac consoles and an appropriate boff layout (for me) is essential, YMMV, of course. Variety...eh, I've got loads of ships I fly for the fun of it, but not all of those space barbie ships have the stats to actually play the game with any sort of efficiency that I want, otherwise I would be flying my Wells/Intrepid more often. Seems like a part of STO's playerbase feels the same way too.
I just look for similar ships I'm using but with the DIS look, for this expansion, does not have to be more powerful than the last, but right in the ballpark would be what I want and look for.
Even worse than the Bortasqu'. At least the Bortasqu' line has a number of good consoles, and the weakest fields 3 tactical consoles. It's like a Fed only Samsar with the Europa.
Maybe someone KDF side infiltrated the Starfleet Engineering Corps, and decided this would be a good prank. I'm gonna laugh for a long time regarding this one.
Stats aside, does the "modern" Europa actually share a hull with the T6 light cruiser? That would be a nice touch.
^ 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
Stats aside, does the "modern" Europa actually share a hull with the T6 light cruiser? That would be a nice touch.
No, only the Nimitz and Europa parts are interchangeable. (But really interchangeable, not just 2 completely seperate custome options like with the Agents of Yesterday 23rd/27th century ships.)
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
> @mustrumridcully0 said: > angrytarg wrote: » > > Stats aside, does the "modern" Europa actually share a hull with the T6 light cruiser? That would be a nice touch. > > > > > No, only the Nimitz and Europa parts are interchangeable. (But really interchangeable, not just 2 completely seperate custome options like with the Agents of Yesterday 23rd/27th century ships.)
I meant is the Nimitz hull actually the Miranda T6 one? (I forgot how it's called). So the Nimitz essentially being a variant of it.
^ 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
> @mustrumridcully0 said:
> angrytarg wrote: »
>
> Stats aside, does the "modern" Europa actually share a hull with the T6 light cruiser? That would be a nice touch.
>
>
>
>
> No, only the Nimitz and Europa parts are interchangeable. (But really interchangeable, not just 2 completely seperate custome options like with the Agents of Yesterday 23rd/27th century ships.)
I meant is the Nimitz hull actually the Miranda T6 one? (I forgot how it's called). So the Nimitz essentially being a variant of it.
No, it is not.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
Comments
That said, I think I'd be able to get a decent build out of her. There's several phaser damage consoles other than tactical slot ones which, coupled with various means of power boosting, should give it more than enough damage output for all but DPS chasers. And I do like the look of that trait.
Stats wise I would recommend using: “NOTE: The above stats for all ships are subject to change.“
I’m not advising for a copy of the Arbiter but bringing it more in line with it seems not so wrong for the term “battlecruiser”.
Increase turn to 8, lower hull mod to 1.35 (for fleet) and give it 3(4) tac and 2 sci consoles.
Would be a better deal?
I currently use my fleet advanced heavy cruiser just for the heck of it because I adore the new Excelsior model.
Well will see...
They do that for every single one they post, and there hasn't been any changes to ships stats from the original post to in game ship. afaik.
But it does look better than that abomination of that Crotchfield(crossfield) ship. I imagine PWE got a sweet deal to feature all this TRIBBLE TRIBBLE from one of the worst treks in history.
If its a BC and has a BC weapon loadout, shouldn't it also come with 3 tac consoles by default and a turn rate of at least 9? Its got to something in common with the Avenger (besides the weapons loadout).
It can use dual cannons, but the slow turn rate of 7 hurts that and shoves it harder into being a beam boat (and we have too many of those as it is).
I don't know if I'll be getting one but it's definitely pretty in both it's DSC and 2410 styles. And, given my Disco toon is gonna need an era-appropriate endgame ship and the Walker and Crossfield are both a bit prohibitive to acquire, well... we'll see what comes out before I hit 50, I guess.
I Support Disco | Disco is Love | Disco is Life
The Kelvin Dreadnought and the Scimitar line both do great with Cannons and both have a 7 turn rate. It's do-able, especially if you're using Scatter Volley to push the firing arc to 90'. I run cannons on the Vengeance and the Scimi both with no RCS and they do just fine. Yes, you have to account for it in your piloting, but it's not that hard to figure out. If you're going to run Beams then the turn rate matters even less.
The big killer is that console layout.. I don't get it. If they were calling it a 'support ship' and giving it powers to buff team mates or something.. then cool. But calling it a battle cruiser, giving it that highly desirable 5 forward weapon layout with the ability to use cannons.. and then giving it 2(3) Tac consoles?
I am really aggravated by this release. I started reading the stats, and I was putting this one on the buy list as I like Engineering heavy ships that can run cannons. I got to the console layout and my hopes were dashed. I like the look of the ship, I like the weapon layout, the bridge officer layout is acceptable.. but that console layout just kills it for me.
> well its a gorgeous model aesthetically and I am sorely tempted on the look of it alone, however the console layout is so lacklustre that it really puts it out of my gameplans.
>
> BC with 2 tactical...wtheck>?? i thought that bc were hybrid vessels, a cross between the speed and agility of cruisers coupled with the firepower of a bs...why then this....its more a heavy cruiser than a bc. the fleet variant gets the third tac console granted which is an assistance, but even so, id then have to buy the cstore for the console/trait then a fleet module to get the third tac console....hmmm, really making this a hard sell there cryptic.
There are no "battleships" in STO. A BC is a cruiser which sacrifices a bit of HP in favour of cannons and some agility. Neither weapon slots nor console slots are a characteristic unique to them.
But honestly, 18% base (!) damage doesn't make or break a build. The only time this is noticeable is if you DerPS for decimals.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
> > @lordbeefy7 said:
> > well its a gorgeous model aesthetically and I am sorely tempted on the look of it alone, however the console layout is so lacklustre that it really puts it out of my gameplans.
> >
> > BC with 2 tactical...wtheck>?? i thought that bc were hybrid vessels, a cross between the speed and agility of cruisers coupled with the firepower of a bs...why then this....its more a heavy cruiser than a bc. the fleet variant gets the third tac console granted which is an assistance, but even so, id then have to buy the cstore for the console/trait then a fleet module to get the third tac console....hmmm, really making this a hard sell there cryptic.
>
> There are no "battleships" in STO. A BC is a cruiser which sacrifices a bit of HP in favour of cannons and some agility. Neither weapon slots nor console slots are a characteristic unique to them.
>
> But honestly, 18% base (!) damage doesn't make or break a build. The only time this is noticeable is if you DerPS for decimals.
I suppose the dps issue can be accomodated in other consoles. Its not a cannon loadout ship for me personally...the turn is too slow so it would be a beam array.
How many other ships from TRIBBLE are coming (non lobi) and any idea if there is a mega pack of all the ships?
For now, I think I'll wait for more news on other ships, hopefully - the Shepard class.
Bortasqu' line and Negh'var line would like a word, regarding the cannon mounting/mobility while sacrificing hull. And both are designated as Battleships/Battlecruiser types(Fleet Support ability calls the Negh'var summoned a battleship). Command Battlecruiser line might be the same way, but I couldn't tell for sure.
It is interesting, how Feds finally got a poisoned gift with this lovable diaper blowout. Looks like the Samsar gets to keep its title of worst T6 ship to fly ever, though. For now.
5/3 Faction specific Battlecruiser count right now, that I know of:
Federation:
Vengeance
Arbiter
Fleet Arbiter
Avenger
Fleet Avenger
Europa
Fleet Europa
KDF:
Mogh
Fleet Mogh
Kurak
Fleet Kurak
Not sure if I would consider the Scimitar line as a battlecruiser line, as I don't own any of them. If they're classified as that, that means that the Romulans have 6, in addition to access to all the others except the Vengeance. If anyone is able to list others, feel free to do so.
I'm personally fine with 2 tac console normal, 3 tac fleet. Not everything needs to always be tac tac tac. I like some variety. Also, while its true people can get different ships, can do things better than this one. I personally believe for some of those people, they have missed the entire point of the ship.
Sometimes, having limitations, can make you go further, and grow better, than simply making every ship that comes out more powerful than the last. Also, having some limitations, can actually make you enjoy this game a whole lot more.
Oh, you like the Nova?
I thought you were just excited about dying stars.
Not really if you watched the latest pod cast the new person that's in charge of making ships said they almost all the new ships she has designed has consoles that are to be used on any ship... so they had a change in ship console philosophy of locking to a class they even go on to say that unless there is a reason for it to be locked to a type of ship (such as a separation console) that most ships going forward will have console that can be used on any ship...
So in the end this ship just had horrible stats for a "battlecruiser" This ship should of just been tagged as a Cruiser or Heavy Cruiser as almost all other "battlecruisers" are dps oriented ships that's why they have a 5/3 lay out and normally higher turn rates then normal cruisers.
Sad part was when I saw it I thought about getting it as well till I saw the turn rate and console lay out.. now it just appears as a lame duck ship.
Next to the Crossfield design (somewhat flawed CBS design as the ship proportions need tweaking), Cardenas/Yeager and then this, in that order, are some cool ships out of this disco mess of a show. I somehow doubt the latter 2 will ever separate on the show and in game as the Prometheus, though.
...If only the blinding strobing effects would have an off option during combat to see these nice ships and experience something resembling Star Trek on screen...
Very nice additions to the C-Store at least. I'm not let down by the stats as I enjoy gameplay diversity even if the game just demands DPS.
Pretty sure the next few releases will have more of this 'locked behind a fleet holdings/FSM/fleet provision/character bound' must-unlock to make up for the grind/free T6 reputation fleet ship modules.
The wait for the Nova (refit) and more Romulan ships continues.
Well the 2/3 tac consoles made it go from a "Ouhhh i want that" to a " Mhmm maybe if I have spare zen leftover, I *might* get that just cause it looks cool"
I usually love cruisers, but I like to pew pew as well. So tac consoles and an appropriate boff layout (for me) is essential, YMMV, of course. Variety...eh, I've got loads of ships I fly for the fun of it, but not all of those space barbie ships have the stats to actually play the game with any sort of efficiency that I want, otherwise I would be flying my Wells/Intrepid more often. Seems like a part of STO's playerbase feels the same way too.
I just look for similar ships I'm using but with the DIS look, for this expansion, does not have to be more powerful than the last, but right in the ballpark would be what I want and look for.
Even worse than the Bortasqu'. At least the Bortasqu' line has a number of good consoles, and the weakest fields 3 tactical consoles. It's like a Fed only Samsar with the Europa.
Maybe someone KDF side infiltrated the Starfleet Engineering Corps, and decided this would be a good prank. I'm gonna laugh for a long time regarding this one.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
No, only the Nimitz and Europa parts are interchangeable. (But really interchangeable, not just 2 completely seperate custome options like with the Agents of Yesterday 23rd/27th century ships.)
> angrytarg wrote: »
>
> Stats aside, does the "modern" Europa actually share a hull with the T6 light cruiser? That would be a nice touch.
>
>
>
>
> No, only the Nimitz and Europa parts are interchangeable. (But really interchangeable, not just 2 completely seperate custome options like with the Agents of Yesterday 23rd/27th century ships.)
I meant is the Nimitz hull actually the Miranda T6 one? (I forgot how it's called). So the Nimitz essentially being a variant of it.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
No, it is not.