Fantastic Game - Suggestions

posted on October 15th, 2013, 3:47 pm

Speaking of the Prime Directive, which I agree is basically a cop out, has any captain in the shows actually been punished for violating it? I know Kirk was demoted for rescuing Spock. I think I remember reading that Kirk violated the PD 3,924 times and even Picard violated the PD although far less frequently.

Not to my knowledge, though I think a TOS novel mentioned a captain court-marshalled when he caused an army to get slaughtered by destroying their weapons.

Starfleet seems to be fairly lenient with breaking that law if the results are good. I guess Starfleet has as many humane admirals as insane ones.

posted on October 15th, 2013, 4:41 pm

I think it's implied that there are Questions In The House when a Captain breaks the Prime Directive. I'd certainly expect that there'd be some form of review by Internal Affairs; but if you bear in mind what Picard says to Data in Redemption II--"Starfleet does not want officers who will blindly follow orders without analyzing the situation."--then as long as a solid justification can be proffered, Starfleet won't act on it.

[LHoffman]

posted on November 12th, 2013, 4:09 pm

Last edited by LHoffman on November 12th, 2013, 7:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

A month old, but I'll throw my two cents in...

I never said the Galaxy was better, its more the case that in this particular mod. The devs have put more effort into explict Federation combat vessels then developing the vessels that the Federation already have to be decent combat ships as well.

In different parts of the Guide http://guide.fleetops.net/guide/apocrypha/federation#Galaxy-Class you can read the explanation for not making the Galaxy buildable. Similarly, for Prometheus.

To be honest, I find the devs' creativity in extrapolation and logical reasoning quite refreshing. I am a bit of a skeptic myself when it comes to additions that are non-canon. So, I was wary with all the new Fed ship types... God knows it is difficult to trust others to develop legitimate ship designs that aren't a load of crap. But the devs have given us some really nice ships here, especially for the Federation, but for other factions too.

Even I could tell that this was very necessary for the game. It was necessary to provide added ships for the other races because the TV shows were really limited in what they could/would create and use in terms of new ships. Same goes for the Federation. Like it or not, this is a combat game. That is what Armada and Armada II were. The devs explain in the guide that this is a combat RTS, not a simulator. If the game did not evolve and think beyond the limits of the shows and movies, it would grow stagnant and two dimensional.

Regarding the Galaxy itself, there is plenty of canon to give evidence that the Galaxy was built as an exploration ship with rather secondary combat capability. (Believe me, I often wished it was the reverse.) There is also reference to the Galaxy being a limited run (6 vessels?) with (8?) additional spaceframes hidden away for later construction. This combined with the fact that so few were seen in TNG and DS9, why is it such a stretch to prohibit their construction in Fleet Ops?

Why would the Federation construct additional Galaxy class vessels (which are admittedly an old design) when there are plenty of new and advanced designs to choose from? I think Warp-In is a great solution to this problem and a special ability which excellently suits the nature of the Federation. Definitely not a gimmick; it is at once a good tactical move, in character for Starfleet and a deft inclusion of fan-favorite ships. Win-win-win.

In my opinion, they have failed to capture the essence of the Federation which is not all about war and conquest.

Again... see some of my above points on that. Unfortunately (or fortunately), this is a game about war and conquest. Exploration and social progress are pillars of the Star Trek (and therefore Federation) psyche, however the subject matter of this game rather precludes emphasis on those qualities.

If you think about it, the Federation would be pretty weak and boring to play if they were not geared up to fight like the other factions.

Also, I completely disagree that the developers have failed to capture the essence of the Federation. In fact, they have captured it and emphasized it: "The Federation is a defense orientated faction and has an usually flexible fleet composition. Their ships have powerful shields and have decent special abilities which compensate for their lack of firepower compared to the other factions. However, do not let this obscure the truth. The Federation has an abundance of fast ships with long range torpedo and beam based weapons - all of which make the Federation a great faction for quick hit and run attacks. Likewise, most Federation vessels have 360 degree firing arcs, which means that you can continue firing at chasing ships until these vessels are forced to break off their attacks for fear of destruction. Always keep your vessels firing at maximum range."

[diamond]

posted on November 12th, 2013, 5:53 pm

Last edited by diamond on November 12th, 2013, 6:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

So just to make this clear, the Dev's ignorance as explained here... http://guide.fleetops.net/guide/apocryp ... laxy-Class prevents the Galaxy class from getting her accurate depiction and effectively stops her from being a frontline vessel.

Yeah, you know I said that this game was better then STO... Well NOT ANYMORE... It suffers from the same problem. Defiant and warship fanboism and as usual Activision are the ONLY company that have depicted the Galaxy Class correctly in Armada II, Bridge Commander and Starfleet Command.

Devs, don't let your ignorance and bias basically dictate ship balance. Never bodes well in any fandom. Go to canon, correct sources like the actual engineering manual and LEARN how capable the Galaxy is as a battleship.

Oh and re-watch DS9 while you are at it... except the Odyssey, NO OTHER Galaxy Class ship was destroyed in ANY of the BATTLE SCENES in Deep Space Nine. So get your facts straight before you try to justify your own bias.

If you don't like the original Galaxy, then just add a refit version because by your OWN timeline, the Galaxy is STILL in her refit phase that lasts for well over 100 years and the F****** Excelsior got a version II so WHY HASN'T THE SUPERIOR GALAXY!?

F.A.V.O.U.R.I.T.I.S.M

posted on November 12th, 2013, 6:05 pm

F.A.V.O.R.I.T.I.S.M

you spelt "F.A.V.O.U.R.I.T.I.S.M" wrong

posted on November 12th, 2013, 6:09 pm

F.A.V.O.R.I.T.I.S.M

you spelt "F.A.V.O.U.R.I.T.I.S.M" wrong

I thought I had but still doesn't really change my point.

posted on November 12th, 2013, 7:14 pm

So just to make this clear, the Dev's ignorance as explained here... http://guide.fleetops.net/guide/apocryp ... laxy-Class prevents the Galaxy class from getting her accurate depiction and effectively stops her from being a frontline vessel.

http://guide.fleetops.net/database/federation - The Galaxy seems pretty accurately depicted here (classified as a Large Battleship). Her combat capabilities are pretty decent, though understandably not THE best. Nothing is stopping her from being a "frontline vessel", in fact she is one. She just will not be all over the front line. Theoretically, Battleships should be more important and harder to come by anyway, therefore making them fewer in number than smaller ships. Most people will have more Akiras and Sabers in a given game than they would Sovereigns, or Galaxies for that matter.

If you don't like the original Galaxy, then just add a refit version because by your OWN timeline, the Galaxy is STILL in her refit phase that lasts for well over 100 years and the F****** Excelsior got a version II so WHY HASN'T THE SUPERIOR GALAXY!?

The Excelsior had a long canon history and was very widely utilized. Unfortunately, the next TV show did not jump 75 years ahead of TNG and show Galaxies as the typical extra ship in a given episode... the Excelsior was that ship in TNG, that is just the way it worked out. The lineage of Excelsior merited an improved version. It would certainly be a little early to create a Galaxy II. And just because Excelsior is factually or fictionally more popular doesn't mean you need to get upset about it.

It seems like most of your problem can be boiled down to the fact that the Galaxy is simply not buildable. More so than the Defiant being classed as a battleship. Well there is a solution, but I don't know if it will solve all your problems.

Here's how you can build it:
http://guide.fleetops.net/guide/faq/factions#Why-isnt-the-Galaxy-Class-buildable

F.A.V.O.U.R.I.T.I.S.M

I have to say it is a little hypocritical to accuse the devs of favoritism when it is clearly what you are exhibiting. At least they have plausible reasons for what they are doing. If Fleet Ops is so flawed because of it you can always just play Armada II. Seems like the Defiant and Galaxy are in their proper places for you there.

posted on November 12th, 2013, 9:35 pm

I have to say it is a little hypocritical to accuse the devs of favoritism when it is clearly what you are exhibiting. At least they have plausible reasons for what they are doing. If Fleet Ops is so flawed because of it you can always just play Armada II. Seems like the Defiant and Galaxy are in their proper places for you there.

Yep. I have to agree with LHoffman.

The Galaxy was definitely the most powerful vessel of its time when it was created, but it has aged a bit since then. In the FleetOps timeline, vessels like the Desent are the newest and best thing, the Galaxies of FleetOps are similar in strength to the Excelsiors of TNG.

Another reason that Galaxies are not buildable/ easily refit is because of their original purpose: to be gigantic floating city labratories. The Federation is more likely to put resources towards more combat oriented vessels like the Sovereign.

With that said, however, it would be nice if the Galaxy had a special ability that was not nearly as lame as its current ability. Something offensive that involved the deflector dish would make sense canonically since the Enterprise frequently use it in a creative fashion.

And saucer separation would be nice just for the fun of it, even though it's virtually useless in actual gameplay.

posted on November 12th, 2013, 11:16 pm

While I personally love the Galaxy class, there is only one episode where it was ever referred to as a battleship, and that was in the alternate reality created by the Enterprise C jumping into the future. ALL other times she is referred to as a vessel of exploration. It was never built exclusively for battle, and while it was at the time the most powerful starship the federation had, other ships have since surpassed it, and it was known to have not been a mass produced vessel. And the Galaxy in FO is pretty badass when you get her ranked up so I'm not sure what your beef is diamond.

As far as the Defiant goes, its exactly where it belongs, it IS a dedicated warship designed for 1 thing, defeat the Borg. The fact that it has been shown on screen as a Defiant class BATTLESHIP indicates this pretty clearly. I don't understand why people have such a hard time accepting this.

posted on November 12th, 2013, 11:28 pm

As far as the Defiant goes, its exactly where it belongs, it IS a dedicated warship designed for 1 thing, defeat the Borg. The fact that it has been shown on screen as a Defiant class BATTLESHIP indicates this pretty clearly. I don't understand why people have such a hard time accepting this.

In all honesty, people aren't a fan of accepting the Defiant of it's battleship because of its size. It seems rather small in comparison to something like a Galaxy or Sovereign, and therefore people want it to be less powerful.

As far as my take on the Defiant in FO goes: I never build the darn things because they are expensive and take up room in my Eriadi yard cue. However, as far as I know, the devs have balanced it very nicely with the other ships, and therefore I'm not sure what all of the fuss is about.

posted on November 13th, 2013, 10:41 am

F.A.V.O.R.I.T.I.S.M

you spelt "F.A.V.O.U.R.I.T.I.S.M" wrong

No, he did not

posted on November 13th, 2013, 10:56 am

No, he did not

you completely missed the point. surprisingly, so did he.

i deliberately ignored all those words he typed and went after the most trivial thing in his post. he was supposed to take offence to the correction, defend his regional spelling, and spew forth another paragraph of nonsensical vitriol. i felt like a right twat when he just rolled over and edited his post.

posted on November 13th, 2013, 11:34 am

No, he did not

you completely missed the point. surprisingly, so did he.

i deliberately ignored all those words he typed and went after the most trivial thing in his post. ....

Fascinating, i did the same with half the topic

posted on November 13th, 2013, 2:26 pm

While I personally love the Galaxy class, there is only one episode where it was ever referred to as a battleship, and that was in the alternate reality created by the Enterprise C jumping into the future. ALL other times she is referred to as a vessel of exploration. It was never built exclusively for battle, and while it was at the time the most powerful starship the federation had, other ships have since surpassed it, and it was known to have not been a mass produced vessel. And the Galaxy in FO is pretty badass when you get her ranked up so I'm not sure what your beef is diamond.

The prime-universe episode where the crew lost their identity also called it a battleship after one look at its specs, so it's probably not called a battleship for the same reason Defiant's called an 'escort'.

Just saying: that's actually 2 episodes, 1 not an alternate timeline.

posted on November 13th, 2013, 3:46 pm

]
The prime-universe episode where the crew lost their identity also called it a battleship after one look at its specs, so it's probably not called a battleship for the same reason Defiant's called an 'escort'.

Just saying: that's actually 2 episodes, 1 not an alternate timeline.

Are you referencing "Conundrum"? I believe that there are some mitigating circumstances in that episode. First, the person who calls the Enterprise a "battleship" is the imposter alien who's presence is to convince the crew that they are fighting a war and on the spearhead ship. Of course he is going to call the Enterprise a battleship. Secondly, in the eyes of the imposter's race (and his enemies), the Enterprise IS a battleship. In fact, she more like a god-ship; blowing away the "enemy ships" while remaining completely unharmed.

It's my opinion that canon Star Trek has always been inconsistent, or at least vague, with its ship classifications. This is most true for Starfleet vessels. The Federation's nature during TNG (show) timeline suggests that they do not construct "battleships" in the same way the Klingons or even the Romulans do. The Enterprise D, while powerful and strong, is routinely outclassed by alien ships of similar size or a couple ships of smaller size (and theoretical ability). Perhaps the Galaxy is a de factor Starfleet battleship, because it is (was) the largest and best armed, but it clearly does not match up as a battleship with other races.

At most, it seems like there are two military classifications of ships in the Star Trek shows/movies: either cruiser or battleship. I have seen very little else. Granted I have watched precious little of DS9, but am very well versed in TNG and TOS. For the most part, this lack of proper and consistent ship classification can be attributed to the fact that it really did not matter to the plot or substance of the shows/movies. The general fandom probably doesn't care about the distinctions between small ships and big ships. Star Trek is not Star Wars; space battles have always been a secondary aspect of the franchise compared to exploration and moral issues.

So I guess it is up to us fanboys to reconcile the technical stuff.