Galaxy Class

posted on November 24th, 2009, 5:07 pm

Ok guys, I guess I'll  just have to keep nagging unitl they make the Galaxy Class buildable Besides, if they're made buildable, all the ones that think it's an ugly, useless ship will have more of them to destroy. This is entirely through a Ferengi point of view.

Good luck with that.

posted on November 24th, 2009, 5:28 pm

If you manage to nag them until they make the Galaxy buildable, I'll nag them until it's back to warp-in.

Where is my Borg Cone?

posted on November 24th, 2009, 5:45 pm

In my opinion, not having the Galaxy be buildable makes sense. The Galaxy, when originally designed, had an estimated service span of 100 years. By Fleet Ops' time period, it's already almost half way through its original service lifetime. Further more, the Dominion War caused Starfleet to modernize its forces on a massive scale, which probably cut down the service time of every ship significantly. The Galaxy at this point in time would probably be like the Excelsior by the time of DS9, no longer in production but still in the fleet.

yep, thats the idea

If Starfleet did modernize its forces on a massive scale, then why in Quarks name a large ammount of the Fed fleet in Fleet Ops consist of vessels, that belong to a museum since the ENT D launched???  :woot:

posted on November 24th, 2009, 5:58 pm

If Starfleet did modernize its forces on a massive scale, then why in Quarks name a large ammount of the Fed fleet in Fleet Ops consist of vessels, that belong to a museum since the ENT D launched???  :woot:

  You know ... this question has been answered a million times.  Take a look through older Galaxy threads (ther are plenty) and then you might already have your answer.  In fact, this silly question has been answered 2 or 3 times in THIS thread.  Read them.

posted on November 24th, 2009, 6:06 pm

Ok guys, I guess I'll  just have to keep nagging unitl they make the Galaxy Class buildable Besides, if they're made buildable, all the ones that think it's an ugly, useless ship will have more of them to destroy. This is entirely through a Ferengi point of view.

Well, if you want a buildable galaxy, how about a ship that would be a future generation galaxy? Because the original is to be retired, so maybe make a new one. Like a Galaxy II class.
'Galaxy 3' of A2 Files
'Joslin Class' of Legacy Files

If anyone else has a better "Galaxy II" then I'm more than open to hear it.

[Anonymous]

posted on November 24th, 2009, 7:06 pm

Last edited by Anonymous on November 24th, 2009, 7:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

uugh, well the first one is ok, but the second one?!?!?  four nacelles? Really? 
how about this'un


or my favorite


or


but please anything other than a 4 nacelled galaxy abomination

posted on November 24th, 2009, 7:12 pm

I think Doca had one that he liked especially - I know it was in the last thread where this topic was mentioned 

posted on November 24th, 2009, 7:20 pm

lol which one's that dom, there have been literally hundreds *facepalm*

posted on November 24th, 2009, 7:24 pm

Star Trek Armada II: Fleet Operations - Galaxy Evo

Reading the post again, well, at least it's one that he liked better than the EVO 

Reply number six

posted on November 24th, 2009, 7:40 pm

Lol gamer, i guess this isn't the first time you have suggested a 4 nacelled galaxy

Hmmm... how about a hybrid of all 3 ships?

A Dawnstar Saucer with the EVO's Saucer integrated nacelles. The Allegiance's Stardrive with maybe a little bit of some micro re-detailing. And maybe 4 nacelles? Besides all the nacelles look very similar to me. But I don't want a fight over which 'Galaxy-Relative' is better. So maybe just take the best of all 3 and put them together like my idea.

Besides... I think the Galaxy Class family needs a Quad-Nacelle ship... because I always thought of them looking real good.

lol

posted on November 25th, 2009, 9:10 pm

The only ship I have seen that has four nacelles and doesnt look terrible is the Prometheus.

Sorry but the stargazer was awful, and the Cheyenne is fugly. I rest my case.

posted on November 25th, 2009, 9:36 pm

The only ship I have seen that has four nacelles and doesnt look terrible is the Prometheus.

Sorry but the stargazer was awful, and the Cheyenne is fugly. I rest my case.

  I liked the Constellation class ...

  It was a cool throwback between the TOS movie style and TNG.

posted on November 25th, 2009, 9:40 pm

  I liked the Constellation class ...

   It was a cool throwback between the TOS movie style and TNG.

Well the Constellation Class was more original... i'll give it that. I guess I have more of a problem with just slapping two extra nacelles on a pre-existing space-frame and calling it a 'new' design

posted on November 25th, 2009, 9:43 pm

Yeah, that 4 nacelle galaxy is clearly over-compensating for something...

[Pappy63]

posted on November 25th, 2009, 11:31 pm

Last edited by Pappy63 on November 26th, 2009, 7:09 am, edited 1 time in total.

Well there is a 4 nacellled version of the Excelsior that is not  to  nappy looking. If I remember correctly It is cannon Built as a study model  by Bill George for Star Trek III movie . from  the Web page I got it from(Ex.Astris Scientiea) All It would need is a thickening  of the under side  of the "neck"  by adding some  type of structure  to   house a  torpedo  tube  retrofit adding 7 tubes, 5 bow facing,and  2 on the   stern. and  a slight upscaling  in size  to equal a Galaxy class 's mass.  you could call it a "Levithian refit " if you kept it the same size as the Excelsior II.

Attachments