Galaxy class torpedo special

posted on May 1st, 2009, 7:41 pm

Except the torpedo fire rate is reduced by a large amount, the hull regeneration and shield regeneration go down don't they??

Personally i have no need for a vessel that fires torpedoes slowly to then fire even more slowly while Klingon B'rel's swap it and destroy it with ease especially when its shield and hull aren't regenerating at the rate normally seen meaning prolonged combat situations are even more deadly.


As for the best multi targetting...

You can give a Sphere what... 4 beam modules, that can target 4 different vessels with a weapon that will not miss and won't do reduced damage agaisnt destroyers....

Or for fun you can give it 3 Beam modules (still hits 4 targets no as it starts with a beam weapon?) and then equip with whatever you want... Regeneration, Torpedo (for even more firepower) or Holding beam (Destroyers might be fast but if your holding them they aren't going anywhere lol)

Lets see thats just a Sphere, there is of course the Cube. Tactical Cube, Asimilator etc. All borg vessels are multi targetting beasts.

Field of Fire with the Klingons is somewhat effective for multi target situations.

Dreaded Norway of course....

Um.... hows the galaxy the best multi threat combatant?

posted on May 1st, 2009, 8:19 pm

Yep anytime i go into a battle with ships and i have a galaxy class, i turn on the type 3 torpedoes. The main reason is so that they will erode other ships shields while doing dmaage to their target, making it easier to hit other enemy ships when my fleet moves onto it. It would be nice to see a phaser or torpedo spread on something though.... perhaps it would work better if they disable the respective types of weapons for like 10 seconds after firing?

posted on May 1st, 2009, 8:24 pm

You can give a Sphere what... 4 beam modules, that can target 4 different vessels with a weapon that will not miss and won't do reduced damage agaisnt destroyers....

Or for fun you can give it 3 Beam modules (still hits 4 targets no as it starts with a beam weapon?) and then equip with whatever you want... Regeneration, Torpedo (for even more firepower) or Holding beam (Destroyers might be fast but if your holding them they aren't going anywhere lol)

Prime Module all the way.  Every ship the cube shoots starts losing Special Energy rapidly, and the Prime Module gives great stat adds.  Prime Module is the real beauty in Optimize.

posted on May 1st, 2009, 8:33 pm

Vor'chas and Warbird charred hulls littered the battlefield.

Which has nothing to do with their strength relative to the Galaxy - there simply are a lot more of them availible. If you use a certain shiptype as one of your main ships-of-the-line, of course you're going to end up with a bigger number of them destroyed.

[Anthony]

posted on May 1st, 2009, 9:11 pm

Last edited by Anthony on May 1st, 2009, 9:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Which has nothing to do with their strength relative to the Galaxy - there simply are a lot more of them availible. If you use a certain shiptype as one of your main ships-of-the-line, of course you're going to end up with a bigger number of them destroyed.

Thats as much a false assumption as the person before you to be entirely fair.

A main line of battle unit may prove to be the most resiliant and sustain the least casualites. Unlikely but you can't assume there were A) More Vorcha than Galaxy as you see a lot of Galaxy fight in DS9 dominion war... easily over 15 seperate hull forms i think its confirmed at. Some speculate at 30-50 Galaxies which is a lot.

Even if you only have 12 Galaxies, and 3 of them are destroyed (25% casualties) and the opponent has 200 Vorcha's at the start of the War, builds 100 but loses 100 you have at minimum a 33% cassualty ratio, at most a 50%. THe Galaxy in either case outpreforms the Vorcha attack cruiser.
It stands therefore that if you have a battlefield littered with your main fighting unit that it has a low survivability and that there are more effective fighting units out there no??? Unless your going to say that Destroyers in WW2 were more effective that Cruisers? Or that Aircraft carriers were not more effective than Cruisers and Battleships. THere were less of them so therefore you can't draw a comparison? I hope thats not the case because it was obvious that even in limited number the Aircraft carrier dominated the battlefield

C) The Galaxy is confirmed in most fan cannon AND stated in Cannon to have had the highest kill ratio in the Dominion war. Therefore it outstrips the Warbird and Vorcha in combat capability.

posted on May 1st, 2009, 9:33 pm

Apparently this is a somewhat controversial topic. Perhaps having multiple option would be cool.

Multi targetting phasers and torpedoes. Good for multiple targets.

This should be pretty much as it is ingame now just with the addition of a multi targetting phaser. only 1 extra target though for the phasers.

Phaser spread and torpedo spread. Good for single targets.

I see the phaser spread as being shots that recharge faster and burst much shorter than currently ingame but with same damage. While the torpedo spread should fire 5 torps at once taking about half the time it would to fire 5 torps in succession. There should be a good chance to miss with the torpedo spread though. Shields recharge and regeneration should still be slowed when using thses weapons.

posted on May 1st, 2009, 9:36 pm

Your math is off because it assumes a one-class fleet make-up. You'll have less Galaxy casulties if there's only a small number of them and the bulk of your fleet is made up of different ships. You'll get lots of vorcha and warbird casualties when the bulk of your fleet consists of those ships.

Njm, having the ability switch between a phaser-focus, and a torpedo focus would be nice - it'd introduce a trade-off: Phasers would have less damage per second, but torpedoes rely more on chance because of their inherent miss chance.

[Anthony]

posted on May 1st, 2009, 9:53 pm

Last edited by Anthony on May 1st, 2009, 9:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Its not off. If you do a comparison between the Vorcha and the Galaxy the Galaxy got the Higher kill ratio. It lost less of its original hull classes to the war. It has more firepower and is more multi purpose than the Vorcha...

It is a better, reliable heavier ship. Its simple. The type 45 is a more advanced and capable ship than the type 23. The type 23 might be cheaper and thus used as the bulk of the fleet but that doesn't change the fact that the Type 45 will out preform the Type 23.

While "quantity has a quality of it's own" quantity is usually regarded as a seperate thing to quality and most high quantity units are of low quality in relative terms.


In TNG episodes it was often stated and shown the galaxy could blitz a Vorcha. In DS9 it was an obvious flagship over cruiser and thus clearly more capable... you don't put senior captains, task force leaders, wing leaders and generally senior command staff in a ship that only matches up to the enemies cruiser. It achieved a higher kill rate. It lost less of it's original forms.

If your only argument is

"But more vorchas mean they will be targetted in a fleet more" than i could argue against that. Given a Vorcha wing or a Galaxy wing i know which one i would get rid of first. The Galaxy... It has 360 degree wide coverage multiple phaser arrays. Along with Torpedo launchers capable of high burst fire.... It has superior shields and is capable of taking more damage (its bigger)... Overall i will focus on it because it is a more valuable war asset.
It is also more likely to have experienced staff or admirals on it.

Then again the vorcha is easier to kill.. Perhaps i'll kill off more vorcha's so i can stretch the enemy fleets thing in future engagements. Perhaps my ship is going to be able to go toe to toe with the Vorcha's and sustain less serious loses so it will have a net worth of being a more valuable encounter.



It all depends in a fleet action so just because they are the mainstay doesn't mean they will get targetted more or that they are automatically more capable ships.

The evidence is in the Galaxies favour... Of course its going to be... It was a class that bore the name Enterprise.. they didn't give that to an Intrepid, Akira or Defiant class no matter how capable in combat. Or a Nova no mattter how good at science. Enterprise went to a flag ship.. a deadly ship and a powerful class.
The galaxy class was the feature of the TNG so it's hardly surprising every small task force/relief force/ fleet contains at least one of the ships as a command ship of some sort.

Finally when they wanted to really shock us. They didn't have an Excelsior, Sabre, Miranda, Intrepid or Nebula blown up by the Dominion in a first contact episode... They had the venerable galaxy class.. The class of ship that fought off the Borg (no way a vorcha doing that even with Picard etc on it), that made first contact with loads of species and always prevailed... destroyed.


EDIT
OH DatonKallandor.. my math was percentage not raw number based. It is thus fractional and so takes into account larger numbers of vessels and thus compares the final remaining against initial in a ratio. The higher ratio shows a more "survivable" class.

[Anonymous]

posted on May 1st, 2009, 10:37 pm

Last edited by Anonymous on May 1st, 2009, 10:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Except the torpedo fire rate is reduced by a large amount, the hull regeneration and shield regeneration go down don't they??

Yes, there is a significant reduction in shield recharge and fire rate. Look at the ODF files. A wing of fast destroyers can easily gank the galaxy with this reduction and it's totally useless against large battleships. This severely limits the use of the special ability. I'd rather have no ability and increased rate of fire and shield recharge when getting down to the nitty gritty.

Plus you can't compare the Vorcha and the Warbirds during the war to the Galaxy. The Galaxy was uprated into a beast and suffered no losses during the Dominion war while Excelsiors, Warbirds, and Vorchas were blown to smithereens.

Therefore, wouldn't it be more logical to make the Galaxy a powerful command cruiser for FO instead of being more like a low powered heavy cruiser?

posted on May 1st, 2009, 10:56 pm

Why does everyone keep saying that.

What is it with society and sheltering mediocracy at the moment??

The Galaxy was a large expensive ship. It was upgraded to be a beast and so it out preformed the Vorcha, Excelsior and Warbird. Now the real question.


Was its capability and results worth the cost in upgrading and building

or was the Vorcha better value for money?

However which was better....

IN RAW terms the Galaxy is clearly a superior ship.

posted on May 2nd, 2009, 12:29 am

I have to disagree.

The bulk of the Klingon Fleet is composed of Vorcha.  Approximately 65% of it if memory serves.  This means that Vorcha class cruisers are the ship being shot at 65% of the time when shooting at Klingon vessels.

The Galaxy composes approximately 1-5% of the Federation fleet.  Using Dominion War loss statistics doesn't work for this reason.

posted on May 2nd, 2009, 12:51 am

So by your argument the Aircraft carrier was not more effective and a more capable ship than the WW2 destroyer or cruiser.

While the destroyer or cruiser form the numbers of a fleet and were capable in a specific role, their multi role capability was far lower. They did not have the operational range of an aircraft carrier. They did not tally up the kills, the overall kill ratio was far lower and in the end they were not as capable as the Aircraft carrier.


The same applies here. The Vorcha may be a capable cruiser in itself. However that does not mean it is more capable than a Galaxy.

A Galaxy can destroy a Vorcha in combat. It can do scientific and diplomatic missions that a Vorcha cannot do. It can preform medical situations and emergancy evacutation where the Vorcha cannot.

In the Dominion war, despite being thrown at the harder more powerful ships (it itself is a harder more powerful ship) it achieved a better KILL RATIO than the Vorcha. It achieved the HIGHEST kill Ratio of the war.

In addition there is no way a Vorcha class could stop a borg cub the way the Galaxy did at the time. (I doubt it would have had the scientific, medical and combat blend that enabled the defeat of the borg at the hands of a highly capable crew)

Another analagy is that by your argument one cannot say that the Medievel knight was a more efficient and capable killing machine than the lowly peasant. Which of course is rubbish. Yes there were less knights and so less targets but they were far more effective weapons than a peasant.

Finally just because 5% of the fleet is made up of the Galaxy doesn't mean it won't come under the heaviest fire.

Every shot of DS9 engagements show Galaxy class ships at the FRONT of a federation formation and subsaquently in the THICK of the fighting.


On another note there is no way the Vorcha made up 65% of the Klingon fleet. That honour is far more likely to go to the Bird of Prey/K'Vort class. You see these things opperating in wolf packs for every 1 Vorcha. (And well i might add).

I can understand you saying quantity has a quality of itself, I could even understand you saying One on One the Galaxy is superior but it will lose out because it can't be designed in enough numbers (Panther Vs T-34 argument... Yes i know the T-34 was actually the better thank but its a classic argument.)

However how you can say the Vorcha is a better ship when a Galaxy is a better combatant, a better humanitarian, a better amabassador AND a better scientific ship.... Baffels me?


Does this mean the Neg'Var, the Sovereign and the Norexian are not as capable? Are you saying that the Vorcha and the Akira etc are the most capable ships in the alpha quadrant?

posted on May 2nd, 2009, 1:38 am

Im gonna poke my nose in here for a moment, hope it doesnt get bitten off .
If you look at teh relative power of all of the akiras/vorchas versus all of the galaxies/sovvies/norexans, you see that the former has much more total power than the latter. Also, the "cube effect" comes into play: the larger ships are bigger targets, and when one is lost, more of the class of ship's power is lost. So if you look at total power, you can say that akiras/vorchas are stronger. However, in a one on one fight, the stronger ship will always win (excluding tactics/officers/etc.).

posted on May 2nd, 2009, 2:00 am

Im gonna poke my nose in here for a moment, hope it doesnt get bitten off .
If you look at teh relative power of all of the akiras/vorchas versus all of the galaxies/sovvies/norexans, you see that the former has much more total power than the latter. Also, the "cube effect" comes into play: the larger ships are bigger targets, and when one is lost, more of the class of ship's power is lost. So if you look at total power, you can say that akiras/vorchas are stronger. However, in a one on one fight, the stronger ship will always win (excluding tactics/officers/etc.).

This is true, however when talking about ship capabilities you rarely consider it in a 20 Akira versus 4 Sovereign. There is a reason the Norexans/Sovvies/Galaxies are all more capable ships.

There is also the point of scientific, diplomatic and medical capabilities. The Akira/Vorcha have far more limited capabilities than the Galaxy/Sovereign.

So you have a ship that one on one is more capable than the Vorcha. Is more multi-mission specific and therefore certainly a more capable ship.

I think that you also need to take into account that i'm talking about the series as oppossed to the game.

The Akira in the series is a beast of a combat ship but nothing more nothing less, with 15 Photon Torpedo launchers and 4 Phaser strips it is also somewhat limited in role and would get mauled by destroyers/fighters etc without backup.

I donno about it then. What i do know is that the Vorcha is less capable than the Galaxy.

posted on May 2nd, 2009, 5:55 pm

However how you can say the Vorcha is a better ship when a Galaxy is a better combatant, a better humanitarian, a better amabassador AND a better scientific ship.... Baffels me?


Does this mean the Neg'Var, the Sovereign and the Norexian are not as capable? Are you saying that the Vorcha and the Akira etc are the most capable ships in the alpha quadrant?

Because, if you look back, I never said that.  What I said was that basing the determination on Dominion War loss/kill ratios was invalid due to sampling sizes.  Further you have to consider that Federation ships support one another directly, Klingon vessels don't tend to.

Further, the comparison is yet more flawed by the fact that the era equivalent to the Galaxy is not the Vor'cha, but the Negh'var.

You are comparing Cruisers and Battleships.  Just because in FO time they call the Galaxy a Cruiser doesn't mean it wasn't Starfleet's Battleship.