Fantastic Game - Suggestions

posted on November 22nd, 2013, 1:39 pm

Still wish it was a mainstream part of Fleet Ops. MVAM can be engineered out the same way the original Excelsior's transwarp drive was; it turned out to not be practical, but the overall design was more than good enough for serial production.

i think so as well the Prometheus is a nice looking ship and just removing its ability would be a great solution.

"multi vector assault mode" removed
"multi targeting assault mode" would be a great replacement and means it does something other ships dont so its not stepping on another ships role (only a few ships in game can target multiple ships at once)

even as a warp-in since its a long range tactical ship

posted on November 22nd, 2013, 2:04 pm

The scene in the referred to video excerpt I think of as the "fuck you, Galor" manoeuvre

Same video, 1m14s, excerpted from The Best of Both Worlds. Enterprise clearly showed firing phasers from not only the saucer dorsal array, but also from the two nacelle pylon arrays.

Yes, but this is not the same as firing two beams from a single array, which is what I was referencing. I never said anything about firing multiple arrays simultaneously. The Enterprise does that in Nemesis too.

The appearance of the Ambassador class with multiple short strips on its saucer section also indicates that the Galaxy's long strips are a technological improvement over the older ship.

But not necessarily that that improvement is for greater power per shot... that is just your assumption. The reasoning for making a single large array could have been to improve firing arcs around the whole of the saucer; equally as plausible. As far as we know, it was the first class of ship with strip arrays compared to the dual emitter type seen on Constitution, Miranda and Excelsior class ships. Assuming that it was the first (or one of the first) to mount strip arrays, perhaps Starfleet kept the design similar to the previous multiple emplacement-type based on established convention? And only with the next generation of ships did they transition to unbroken strips?

And if we are looking at outside sources, such as the TNG Manual, I do not believe they make any statements or implications that the shorter arrays have any less shot output than the larger ones. They are all capable of discharging the same amount of energy as Type X arrays, as far as we are told.

I rather like the class, too. It's visually interesting as a rare example of a four-nacelle classes (others being the Constellation Class and the Cheyenne class) and its role (long range tactical assignments) is of interest as it's reflective of Starfleet's greater emphasis on defence since the revelation of the Borg threat in Q Who.

Still wish it was a mainstream part of Fleet Ops. MVAM can be engineered out the same way the original Excelsior's transwarp drive was; it turned out to not be practical, but the overall design was more than good enough for serial production.

I definitely agree. I love the look of the ship, its novel 4 nacelles and the fact that it is an advanced combat ship. Perfect for Fleet Ops. I also agree that the MVAM does not necessarily make sense and would be hard to coordinate in a game like Armada/Fleet Ops. But Madhatter is right... the Devs could make up a plausible excuse for MVAM not to be used at all. Whether or not the Prometheus gels with their timeline is something for their consideration though.

posted on November 22nd, 2013, 5:07 pm

Yes, but this is not the same as firing two beams from a single array, which is what I was referencing. I never said anything about firing multiple arrays simultaneously. The Enterprise does that in Nemesis too.

Ahh, had misunderstood. In which case, carefully watch this excerpt (starting at 22s) from "Conundrum" (video is the trailer, but the firing sequence was also in the final episode).

The appearance of the Ambassador class with multiple short strips on its saucer section also indicates that the Galaxy's long strips are a technological improvement over the older ship.

But not necessarily that that improvement is for greater power per shot... that is just your assumption. The reasoning for making a single large array could have been to improve firing arcs around the whole of the saucer; equally as plausible. As far as we know, it was the first class of ship with strip arrays compared to the dual emitter type seen on Constitution, Miranda and Excelsior class ships. Assuming that it was the first (or one of the first) to mount strip arrays, perhaps Starfleet kept the design similar to the previous multiple emplacement-type based on established convention? And only with the next generation of ships did they transition to unbroken strips?

I don't think I made an unreasonable assumption, though. A longer strip would have been harder to design, build, and integrate; there must have been some significant tactical advantage for it to be desirable. If wide targeting coverage can be achieved using a greater number of shorter strips (as it was on the Ambassador), I'm not sure what else other than increased power per shot is gained.

And if we are looking at outside sources, such as the TNG Manual, I do not believe they make any statements or implications that the shorter arrays have any less shot output than the larger ones. They are all capable of discharging the same amount of energy as Type X arrays, as far as we are told.

I'd have to find and check my copy (I still haven't unpacked all my books after my transatlantic move six years ago), but I believe it was that each element in the various arrays had the same output.

As an aside, in discussions like this I generally reference supplemental materials as a way to fill in gaps that aren't well explained on-screen. I generally restrict my selection of those sources to what has been done by the actual production designers who created the ships (Sternbach, Okuda, Drexler, Eaves, Jaeger, and so on) and who literally wrote the books the writers would (or, at least, should) have consulted when writing the ship-tech related elements of each story.

posted on November 22nd, 2013, 6:28 pm

Ahh, had misunderstood. In which case, carefully watch this excerpt (starting at 22s) from "Conundrum" (video is the trailer, but the firing sequence was also in the final episode).

Amazing! You learn something new every day... Nice clip. Wow, that must be a 21 year old TV spot.

I don't think I made an unreasonable assumption, though. A longer strip would have been harder to design, build, and integrate; there must have been some significant tactical advantage for it to be desirable. If wide targeting coverage can be achieved using a greater number of shorter strips (as it was on the Ambassador), I'm not sure what else other than increased power per shot is gained.

Yes, your assumption was perfectly reasonable, and the more I consider it, especially with added footage provided above, I am in agreement with you. I am not sure how we even got on this line in the first place, but it has been a good discussion.

I'd have to find and check my copy (I still haven't unpacked all my books after my transatlantic move six years ago), but I believe it was that each element in the various arrays had the same output.

I would check mine, which I have handy at home, but I do believe that you are correct. However, this would then imply (based on your reasoning) that the larger arrays have the capacity for higher power bursts than the smaller ones. It is what it is I suppose.

As an aside, in discussions like this I generally reference supplemental materials as a way to fill in gaps that aren't well explained on-screen. I generally restrict my selection of those sources to what has been done by the actual production designers who created the ships (Sternbach, Okuda, Drexler, Eaves, Jaeger, and so on) and who literally wrote the books the writers would (or, at least, should) have consulted when writing the ship-tech related elements of each story.

That is the best application and I use it for the same purposes. It is just difficult when you run into people who are strict on canonical information. In my opinion, there does have to be some leeway, especially when you give information from creators and designers.

posted on November 22nd, 2013, 8:57 pm

I am not sure how we even got on this line in the first place, but it has been a good discussion.

Something similar to the wiki-walk phenomenon, I expect; you know, where you start off reading an article on the Alcubierre drive and, three hours later, find you have a tab open on Thatcham railway station.

That is the best application and I use it for the same purposes. It is just difficult when you run into people who are strict on canonical information. In my opinion, there does have to be some leeway, especially when you give information from creators and designers.

It's interesting the way in which film and published materials have fed off each other over the years. Production designers have gone back to them when looking for materials to display briefly on computer screens (examples include material from the Franz Joseph blueprints and the FASA RPG books), or details from them used in script elements (the establishing shot for the Epsiolon IX listening post in TMP has background radio chatter that uses information gleaned from The Star Fleet Technical Manual).

It's also useful to have when the production and FX teams make on-screen gaffes that were either only apparent in hindsight or had to be left in due to lack of time / budget (examples include shifting registries for various ships, and the occasion in "Darmok" where the Enterprise fires a phaser from the forward torpedo tube).

I try to make sure I specifically cite and justify my use of secondary sources when I use them. Some people don't like it in these discussions (hi Myles! ), and that's a position I understand (re: Myles, I have a lot of respect for him and his knowledge of Trek; plus he has a Fluttershy avatar, which is awesome) and accommodate by flagging secondary sources as such.

What I consider to be tertiary source material (novels, fan material, etc) I very rarely refer to on these boards, primarily sticking to what is known of the background for the mod (the devs have played things close to their chest on their take of the post-Nemesis timeline; some information is in the Guide, but it's fragmented across several categories and only gives a very narrow view into their story vision.

posted on November 22nd, 2013, 10:03 pm

Something similar to the wiki-walk phenomenon, I expect; you know, where you start off reading an article on the Alcubierre drive and, three hours later, find you have a tab open on Thatcham railway station.

Do I! All the time...

That is the best application and I use it for the same purposes. It is just difficult when you run into people who are strict on canonical information. In my opinion, there does have to be some leeway, especially when you give information from creators and designers.

What I consider to be tertiary source material (novels, fan material, etc) I very rarely refer to on these boards, primarily sticking to what is known of the background for the mod (the devs have played things close to their chest on their take of the post-Nemesis timeline; some information is in the Guide, but it's fragmented across several categories and only gives a very narrow view into their story vision.

Agreed. It is my personal opinion that what the Devs have come up with, both in story and vision, is much preferable to the bat$#!T crazy stuff they are doing to Trek canon with the current string of movies. Respect to JJ Abrams, but he is not the guy for Star Trek. I think the path that Fleet Ops has laid out is much more appealing and desirable to TNG-era Trek fans especially. At least it retains some character of 'Star Trek' and doesn't blow the universe up.

posted on November 23rd, 2013, 1:35 am

Something similar to the wiki-walk phenomenon, I expect; you know, where you start off reading an article on the Alcubierre drive and, three hours later, find you have a tab open on Thatcham railway station.

Do I! All the time...

That is the best application and I use it for the same purposes. It is just difficult when you run into people who are strict on canonical information. In my opinion, there does have to be some leeway, especially when you give information from creators and designers.

What I consider to be tertiary source material (novels, fan material, etc) I very rarely refer to on these boards, primarily sticking to what is known of the background for the mod (the devs have played things close to their chest on their take of the post-Nemesis timeline; some information is in the Guide, but it's fragmented across several categories and only gives a very narrow view into their story vision.

Agreed. It is my personal opinion that what the Devs have come up with, both in story and vision, is much preferable to the bat$#!T crazy stuff they are doing to Trek canon with the current string of movies. Respect to JJ Abrams, but he is not the guy for Star Trek. I think the path that Fleet Ops has laid out is much more appealing and desirable to TNG-era Trek fans especially. At least it retains some character of 'Star Trek' and doesn't blow the universe up.

Sorry but the Prometheus, Intrepid and Defiant are NOT TNG-era ships so I really think you should take that back.

posted on November 23rd, 2013, 1:58 am

Sorry but the Prometheus, Intrepid and Defiant are NOT TNG-era ships so I really think you should take that back.

Actually DS9 and TNG ran concurrently for 4 seasons and Voyager picked up immediately after TNG ended, and overlapped DS9 for 5 seasons. So technically all those ships are TNG era. we are only talking about a 14 year span here.

posted on November 23rd, 2013, 6:27 am

Sorry but the Prometheus, Intrepid and Defiant are NOT TNG-era ships so I really think you should take that back.

I can't say how LHoffman defines it, but I think of "TNG era" as encompassing the period between "Encounter at Farpoint" and "Nemesis". As these bookends of the timespan are adventures starring Picard & co, it seems reasonable to me to use "TNG era" as a term that encompasses all of the screen material set in the 24th century.

posted on November 23rd, 2013, 6:55 am

Sorry but the Prometheus, Intrepid and Defiant are NOT TNG-era ships so I really think you should take that back.

I can't say how LHoffman defines it, but I think of "TNG era" as encompassing the period between "Encounter at Farpoint" and "Nemesis". As these bookends of the timespan are adventures starring Picard & co, it seems reasonable to me to use "TNG era" as a term that encompasses all of the screen material set in the 24th century.

Yeah basically what I was implying. TNG, DS9, VOY, and the TNG movies are all TNG era.

posted on November 23rd, 2013, 12:31 pm

Sorry but the Prometheus, Intrepid and Defiant are NOT TNG-era ships so I really think you should take that back.

I can't say how LHoffman defines it, but I think of "TNG era" as encompassing the period between "Encounter at Farpoint" and "Nemesis". As these bookends of the timespan are adventures starring Picard & co, it seems reasonable to me to use "TNG era" as a term that encompasses all of the screen material set in the 24th century.

Well I don't actually think that because I see the eras in their design lineage because of the recurrent themes that go through the ship designs, you have;

TOS Era (Constitution Era - Constitution, Miranda (Original), Proxima (Original))
TMP Era (Excelsior Era - Excelsior, Constitution (Refit), Miranda (Refit), Apollo, Proxima (Refit))
Transitional Era (Ambassador Era - Ambassador, Constellation)
TNG Era (Galaxy Era - Galaxy, Nebula, Niagra, New Orleans, Freedom, Challenger)
MOV Era (Sovereign Era - Sovereign, Intrepid, Defiant, Prometheus)

Unfortunately, the TNG Movie era is terribly disjointed in design lineage hence why the Intrepid, Defiant and Nova Class all look wildly different and you can't really classify that era.

posted on November 23rd, 2013, 12:55 pm

Well I don't actually think that because I see the eras in their design lineage because of the recurrent themes that go through the ship designs, you have;

well you're alone then. everyone else has agreed on 4 eras. ENT, TOS, TMP (movies 1-6 and early times in 7) and TNG era (TNG pilot to Nemesis).

and this era scheme does match ship designs, TOS and TMP era ships are easy to categorise. TNG era ships all have red bussard collectors with blue nacelle glows and more windows on the hull. even TMP ships like the miranda got the blue glows added to them when DS9 switched to CGI. phasers were blue in TOS, red in TMP, and finally stayed orange for all of TNG. photon torps also made the change from red to orange from TMP to TNG.

The defiant clearly belongs in TNG era as it was built during the years TNG was set. sisko worked on the design of the defiant before he transferred to DS9, it was only shelved when the borg didn't immediately come back for more after BoBW. starfleet apparently assumed the borg had just forgotten about the cube they lost.

DS9 and VOY are clearly part of TNG era.

posted on November 23rd, 2013, 2:33 pm

Well I don't actually think that

Good for you. But just because you have a different, and undeclared, definition doesn't mean LHoffman should "take that back".

posted on November 23rd, 2013, 5:11 pm

well you're alone then. everyone else has agreed on 4 eras. ENT, TOS, TMP (movies 1-6 and early times in 7) and TNG era (TNG pilot to Nemesis).

You forgot the Lost Era (TLE) covering the time between the TMP and TNG eras.

posted on November 23rd, 2013, 5:21 pm

well you're alone then. everyone else has agreed on 4 eras. ENT, TOS, TMP (movies 1-6 and early times in 7) and TNG era (TNG pilot to Nemesis).

You forgot the Lost Era (TLE) covering the time between the TMP and TNG eras.

there's a reason it's called lost: never shown in canon. it's not really an era, per se, TLE is just a convenient misnomer to describe a gap between defined eras. there's also another lost era between ENT and TOS that's even bigger.