Galaxy class torpedo special

posted on May 3rd, 2009, 8:54 pm

Sorry, just got out of the Competition Battle and another 4v4 and I still am going to stick with the Galaxy's special being beautiful. It definitely is perfect for warp in attacks because you can kill 3 freighters at once, rather than only 1, especially when time is of the essence. The cooldown isn't really that much worse (and the shield regen doesn't make a real difference), and because the torps always hit you kill freighters and destroyers much faster (they are small afterall, so a big miss-chance). I disagree with the arguments against it completely unless I am shown some proof of the special being useless in MP.

posted on May 3rd, 2009, 9:35 pm

I never contridicted my self...

If you are comparing a Vorcha to a destroyer or an aircraft carrier then i'd say you are way off. A Vorcha is clearly a battlecruiser...

And history proved that battlecruisers got mauled time and time again by battleships. Put a fast ship with low armour against a ship with 360 arc coverage, heavy armour and shields as well as the ability to turn on the spot any how (we see that in countless TNG episodes) and you have a dead vorcha.

Now if said Vorcha was launching 4 wings of klingon fighters i think they Galaxy might die, but thats not going to happen and the Galaxy could probably carry more fighters anyhow.


At NO point have i contridicted myself as regards the aircraft carrier being inferior to the battleship. I said all along it was a more potent weapon.

The closest thing to an aircraft carrier in startrek yet is the Akira (reputed in an interview to have fly through shuttlebays), the prometheus (MVAM) or a ship designed to carry fighters.

Oddly enough the battleship would maul any battlecruiser, cruiser or destroyer even now a days. It loses against an aircraft carrier not because of Manouverability but because of an aircrafts ability to attack below its weapons enevlope. Which comes down to sensor ability.... That and aircraft carried torpedoes which are just plain bad news for a battleship.

The Galaxy has no part of it that won't have 2 to 3 Phaser arrays out of its 12 engaging the Vorcha and if the vorcha attacks the rear or front arcs it will recieve 10 Photon torpedoes in the face. It can't fire while cloaked and has a delay in uncloaking... Your going to end up with a phaser in your face in that case. Its shields are weaker as is its general ability to take hull damage (klingon ships have always fallen apart fast compared to federation).

I'm sorry but i've not seen ANY examples in episodes of a Vorcha having more manouverability than a galaxy, The Enterprise regularly turned on a literal dime.

As i said, there are no aircraft carriers in startrek that match up to a modern day aircraft carrier. Result being that the battleship still rules. Cruisers, Destroyers and Battlecruisers all lost out against them, if you want me to give you examples then i will happily provide those examples.

posted on May 3rd, 2009, 9:39 pm

Sorry mate, submarines kick the crap out of battleships 

There was a reason the battleship was discontinued... and don't give me expense or the aircraft carrier as an excuse.

posted on May 3rd, 2009, 10:01 pm

Sorry mate, submarines kick the crap out of battleships 

There was a reason the battleship was discontinued... and don't give me expense or the aircraft carrier as an excuse.

Yeah well we aren't talking about the Romulans which are blatently the submarine race as Nemesis showed. Though to be fair the Scimitar was like a highly manouverably submarine battleship destroyer hybrid... That could also do the aircraft carrier thing.


The battleship didn't get discontinued because of one factor alone. Anyone who says so is in my opinion stating a flawed fact. It was a combination of multiple things. Mainly.

1) The Torpedo was a cheap weapon that could sink an expensive asset

2) The Submarine was a relatively cheap asset that could deliver the Torpedo... it had no endurance in WW2 though.

3) Where the Submarine had no endurance and could be countered by effective destroyer screens (Battle of the atlantic) or effective escort aircraft carriers (again battle of the atlantic) the Aircraft carrier could deliver over the horizon ordnance.

4) The over the horizon attacks from an aircraft carrier were done by MSU (multiple small units) all capable of carrying a torpedo or a dive bomb that targetted the weak areas of a battleship. They could come in under the attack envelope of the battleship and avoid major casualties

5) The Battleship was easy to "mission kill" despite heavy armour the conning towers were still relatively easy to knock out and in that case the battleships fire control went to pot. Engagements beyond napolionic style engagements would then prove difficult. This also covers rudder (bismark), Bridge, engine room (bismark again) or a catostrophic lucky hit (HMS Hood is most famour but there are others)

6) The battleship unlike the aircraft carrier could not project its power beyond the horizon and thus had limited range. Required radar search and find units in the form of destroyers and cruisers.

7) The battleship was so expensive it actually became difficult to subject it to the gauntlet of war and inevitable loses it would suffer.

These are all major reasons for its discontinuation of build. Anyone who says it was just one thing is probably not correct (myself included).

However Submarines in WW2 were not at all effective compared to the Anti submarine warefare availiable. The battle of the Atlantic proved the dominance of the Destroyer and Aircraft Carrier over the submarine. Not to mention the submarines limited striking range and endurance.

Only now a days are submarines truly forces to be rekoned with. They are very capable hunter killers and the modern "battleship" equivalent. However when you plot battleship losses to submarines against aircraft you will soon see that WW2 submarines were not the be all and end all you claim to be.

The Royal Navy developed exceptionally capable ASW methods. As well as very capable radar methods. Their aircraft carriers and escort carriers also proved a very effective ASW asset.

Even today when you consider that a submarine, or a unit of submarines must close within torpedo range (10-20 miles) to "attack" a surface asset you start to see problems. Especially when the range of a high threat strike is probably 5-10 miles. A modern destroyer or frigate is likely to be able to place down 2 Helicopters with an area coverage of double the engagement range. This is not including the ships own Sonar equipment.

When you consider an Aircraft carrier will be gaurded by 2-3 surface ships, 1 of which a dedicated ASW platform you start to see even bigger problems. Especially when that Aircraft carrier can carry between 9-25 ASW units depending on the type. All able to provide long range CONSTANT ASW ability.

Then again submarines now a days, especially nuclear powered submarines, are very quiet. They are capable hunter killers and demonstrate this time and time again. The soviets used them as an answer to the NATO aircraft superiority.

As shown above there is no one COMPLETE statement in war. It has an almost infinte number of variables and conditions that have to be analysed, predicted and studied.

The Submarine is a capable platform of war, it is an out and out hunter killer and does what the name implies. It does not do this without risk to itself or with the ease at which your post suggests however.

The aircraft carrier is the ULTIMATE symbol and tool of conventional (excluding Balistic missiles) modern power projection. It can deploy a friendly airbase within striking distance of any land target in the modern world. It can have replacements ferried out to it and can stay on call 365 days a year, 24 hours a day.

Yet it requires protection because it is a high cost asset. It also requires a constant supply line that can be attacked (by a submarine for example). Thus it is not without its own risks and vulnerabilities...

We really (or i could at any rate) go on and on about Naval Warfare, how it has changed since Admiral Horatio Nelson's time. Whether Convoy systems would work in a modern war, how long a modern war could be sustained, the merits of different modern war platforms..... However it would hijack this thread just a little!!!

Back on topic...

The Galaxies special... Good or Bad!!!

posted on May 4th, 2009, 3:42 am

The vorcha is a battle cruiser just like you said. I never said that it was a destroyer or a aircraft carrier, its a cruiser. Also why do you keep making aircraft carrier analogs there are none in star trek. Also a modern destroyer would maul a battleship. The bigger ships make an even better target for the destroyers missiles. The biggest reason that battleships were discontinued was because they could not keep up with the aircraft carrier centered "task force" so they just got left behind, and regulated to duties such as shore bombardment.

On topic: the galaxy special is somewhat lackluster but it seems to work ok.

posted on May 4th, 2009, 1:51 pm

The vorcha is a battle cruiser just like you said. I never said that it was a destroyer or a aircraft carrier, its a cruiser. Also why do you keep making aircraft carrier analogs there are none in star trek. Also a modern destroyer would maul a battleship. The bigger ships make an even better target for the destroyers missiles. The biggest reason that battleships were discontinued was because they could not keep up with the aircraft carrier centered "task force" so they just got left behind, and regulated to duties such as shore bombardment.

On topic: the galaxy special is somewhat lackluster but it seems to work ok.

Do you really think even a block 3 Harpoon, or TSAM could penetrate a battleships armour... Thats providing that the missile penetrates the inner layer of RAM and Phalanx CIWS' that are present on the Iowa class.

Seen as they are the only battleships still in service i think its fair to use them as an example. Lets take a flight II Arleigh Burke, a Type 45 Destroyer (most recent) and the new Horizon frigates the Italians and French have.

All use sea hugging missiles. The Type 45 has Harpoon C RGM's. These will not be detected untill the final interception phase of the missile and then they will execute "jinx manouvers". The Iowa has 4 Phalanx CIWS' so it will probably be capable of engaging with two of these. The type 45 is fitted for 8 Harpoons. You are looking at 3 of those being shot down. The remaining 5 Harpoons will strike the Iowa class battleship. Given that much of a modern missiles damage is done by unused fuel setting fire to the inside of the warship the damage will be minimal. Sea hugging missiles hit near the waterline of the ship and this will hit the main belt of the Iowa class battleship.... Result is no damage.


The Horizon will use block 3 Exocet, Harpoon or the Italian ASuW missile. These are again all sea hugging missiles and the same situation will occur. They will hit near the waterline and on the main belt of the Battleship. The Exocet is an even smaller missile than the Harpoon and minimal damage WILL occur.

The Flight II Burke may stand a chance, due to the larger number of Harpoons it carries as well as the potential to carry TSAM's which are larger missiles again. Through sheer weight of missiles the burke may be able to achieve a "mission kill" on the Iowa.


Now lets look at an Iowa class battleship in Cold War era (so still using a obsolete package against a modern package of destroyers). It has 9 16" guns that will destroy all three ships stated above as soon as they come into range. It has a verible battery of 5" guns that are GP and can put up anti air flak (with modern targetting capabilities) as well as 4 Phalanx CIWS' (very very effective systems). More importantly it carries about 32 TLAM so it can provide tactical missile strike on any land target within 300-500 miles. FINALLY it carries 16 RGM-84 Harpoons. These outrange all of the above ships ASuW missiles. Not good for the destroyers.

As if thats not enough it has the ability to deploy 16 UAV's to provide search and discovery with basic radar systems on them.

The important consideration is also SENSORS. The Iowa will not turn on its radar and thus even in good weather will be a difficult target to find at the 80-100 mile engagement range of the Harpoon missile. Due to the potential for an Iowa to carry UP TO 48 Anti Surface Harpoons (standard is 32 TLAM's, 16 Harpoons) the respective destroyers CANNOT afford to switch on active search radars due to the Iowa's superior range...

All the while it will attempt to close with the respective destroyers where it can engage them with superior gunnery and blow them out of the water.


A modern destroy could "mission kill" a battleship if it managed to score a hit on the radars, rudder, etcetc (would have to use a SAM programed for ASuW because modern sea hugging missiles hit the ships low hull/waterline)

It couldn't just easily "destroy" an Iowa, remember that the Glamorgan managed with 3 leanders to sneak into an American Carrier battlegroup during wargames and get a target lock on the Aircraft carrier good enough to sink it.... Now if a single county class cruiser can do that to a WHOLE american carrier battlegroup what do you think that an Iowa battleship COULD do to a single destroyer.

Now a modern day aircraft carrier or submarine could probably obliterate a solitary Iowa battleship but again there are multiple variables...

You cannot just say "X will happen to Y" in warfare... It won't happen like that. One thing is for certain a modern day destroyer is actually a less powerful threat than a refitted cold war era Iowa.. Or even the Pre- WWII Vangaurd battleship for the Royal Navy...

The fact it opperates in SAG, or a CVBG or a ARG is what makes it dangerous. As well as its versitility.

(Did you know a modern day warship has to have 60% or more fuel or it won't function as a stable weapons platform due to the roll it will experience on the sea?)

__________


As too no aircraft carriers in startrek, i mentioned that. However i was using the aircraft carrier/battleship/cruiser analogy to show that ships of different classes can be compared and that just because a maritime asset is cheaper does not mean it is more/less effective. Its achievements as a class must be taken into account.


Oh, there are clearly aircraft carriers of some sort in startrek because in the later seasons of VOY and DS9 "fighter" type craft start appearing in numbers. In an interview the designers of the Akira and a producer of DS9 said the Akira was capable of carrying large numbers of "fighter/strike craft" due to its fly through shuttlebays. That it was an aircraft carrier/ assault ship hybrid. (15 Torpedo tubes!!!!)

On topic:
Well if it works then perhaps people are right and it should be left as is. I shall have to test it more, due to its slower speed i never thought to use it as a strike force against mining freighters however as it warps in i suppose that accounts for some of the speed needed in a hit and run... Using its torpedoes to hit 3 freighters at once could be useful i guess...

That and not every ship can have amazing specials... For instance the Excelsior's special is pretty "dull" yet it is a very useful one in the openning moments of battle. (Especially against larger ships!!)

posted on August 23rd, 2009, 6:58 am

Been a while since I poked my head in here, and I confess I didn't read all the essays written throughout. Dominus you are correct about the galaxy special being useful against freighters, but I fi d once I get into ship to ship combat situations with small fleets the galaxy is the first to go, I almost always have trouble keeping them alive while my ambassadors and excelsiors always seem to survive. I've actually experimented with a burst weapon on my galaxy it's interesting she fires 10 torps all at once every 8.25 seconds while having the reduced shield recharge. Smaller vessels usually survive 2 vollys because of hit chance while larger battleships like the v13 break pretty even with the galaxy, I really think a burst torp weapon would be very beneficial to the multi role capabilities of the galaxy class. The original special should stay as a second option. If your interested in testing I can upload my modified odfs for testing.

posted on August 23rd, 2009, 11:39 am

Hmmm... When I look towards the Galaxy class starship I believe it is slightly over powered due to the fact that it can fire multiple torpedoes at multiple targets. I personally believe that either the torpedoes should have reduced damage to larger chassis or there should be some other negative effect. Because if you think about it, if someone were to have 8 Galaxies, you could easily pown a fleet of 24 destroyers or 18 cruisers. Normaly I'd be in favor of power but the Galaxy is a cruiser and should be lowered down so it isn't so far above its 'chassis sharers' (ships in same chassis)

I was thinking of introducing the Deflector Beam. You can fire it on one ship causing heavy damage, but it would cause damage to the Galaxy itself as well as disabling its own weapons system because of so much energy pulsed out of the deflector basically burning out the system until Geordie LaForge can fix it.

posted on August 23rd, 2009, 12:10 pm

Cruiser? The Galaxy could easily qualify for a Dreadnought. The Galaxy Class with the ability to hit several targets with Torpedos is already balanced.

Good luck getting 8 of them, by the way.

posted on August 23rd, 2009, 12:48 pm

The Galaxy is a large battleship (both classification systems apply). The Galaxy was much more powerful before the latest patch (due to the 100% hit chance on multi-target torpedoes), however it is still a worthy foe by all means. Even if you only get one of them in your first warp-in, that is usually enough to spell the doom of 1-2 Destroyers, and of course the mining station that you've attacked. That being said, it's the last fighting ship I destroy, as I want to kill those darn Excelsiors, Steamrunners etc first to reduce the DPS the fastest. Incidentally two Galaxies is usually a nightmare as those multitargetting torpedoes absolutely will massacre most enemy forces (if you leave them till later game they are even more effective of course). I really don't think the ship needs to become more powerful. 30 offense/35 defense is very powerful for a "free" ship.

posted on August 23rd, 2009, 7:55 pm

It really isnt more powerful. the rate of fire for the 10 torpedo burst is slow taking 8.25 seconds. I calculated this by taking the difference between the single fire rate and the 3 shot multiple target rate .75 between each torpedo

1 shot = 1.5
3 shots = 3.0
10 shots = 8.25

Shield recharge is the lowered rate that multi target uses, and if you think about it it really isnt that much of an improvement over the 3 shot multi target. which over the course of 9 seconds fires 9 torpedoes. Alternately the rate could be slowed further to 10 seconds for reload on the burst to balance it out nicely with the multi target. I like the galaxy clas as she is balance isnt messed up at all Im just trying to get some more features added to her because in my opinion shes kinda lack luster, and gets overwhelmed easily.

posted on August 23rd, 2009, 8:02 pm

Ah, but you do not consider at least one of the gameplay implications: because you have hit 3 ships many times, 3 ships are dangerously close to losing shields and all 3 must retreat, rather than 1 if you want to save them.

[Njm1983]

posted on August 23rd, 2009, 8:33 pm

Last edited by Njm1983 on August 23rd, 2009, 8:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Not quite sure I follow.

Im a firm believer in both special abilities giving the galaxy some diversity in situations:

Engaging multiple cruisers and destroyers.
Engaging single battleships.

Heres the file with the adjusted odfs try it ingame: Right now its only masons galaxy. and it just changes the torp weapon to the bursted shot. though id like to have both at some point.

Attachments

galaxy odfs.rar

(24.11 KiB) Downloaded 192 times

posted on August 23rd, 2009, 10:10 pm

I think the galaxy is well worth it and it's special can cause serious damage to small vessels.

Personally i'd like to see the Galaxy buildable if only to use them as heavy hitter groups

posted on August 24th, 2009, 11:44 pm

But no offence, it doesn't make canonoicale sense to have them buildable.