Fantastic Game - Suggestions

posted on November 19th, 2013, 6:46 pm

It also failed to engage the Dominion at the first time and then was ultimately destroyed. Really effective ship... yeah...

you don't even read your own posts.

you defended the galaxy on the destruction of the odyssey because (quite rightly) the dominion had exotic weapons (in reality they were just made overpowered in their early eps like most sci-fi bad guys). the defiant 1 episode later suffered the exact same fate, yet is weak. hypocrisy.

when the jemhadar stopped being new (and are allowed to be killed en masse) the defiant took out half a dozen fighters in DS9 321 The die is cast. then continued destroying them in 1 volley for the rest of the show until the breen were introduced with their fancy new gun. all but one allied ship were destroyed. sadly no galaxy class ships were even invited to that battle. out of a fleet of over 300 ships we never saw a single galaxy class (yet saw several klink ktingas). that speaks volumes about how many were built.

I'm just tired of Defiant fanservice, that ship is not perfect and I wish people would stop thinking its the pinnacle of Federation design when its just an overbearing gun. Yes, I am aware about the Defiant but I was showing how funny it is that Defiant fans slag off the Odyssey but fail to remember the state the Defiant was in one episode later.

posted on November 19th, 2013, 9:15 pm

I think you people are just sore that the Enterprise-E had to save the Defiant from being destroyed in the battle of Sector 001. Truthfully, the Akira and the Steamrunner did better in that battle then the Defiant.

Just an aside that if you look around during the battle you can see at least one Steamrunner blow up in a fireball after taking a single torpedo hit. Not saying that ship didn't take punishment before that, but at least the Defiant was never destroyed in the battle. Your point is a little weak. Besides, who knows how long each ship had been fighting by the time the Enterprise arrived?

Well I first read about the Sovereign being designed to replace the Excelsior here, http://techspecs.acalltoduty.com/sovereign.html under "Mission Parameters". The Sovereign was also frequently seen on diplomatic duty during the Dominion War (Star Trek: Insurrection) and not on the frontlines, which if it was as wonderful as you and the devs think it is, it would have been leading the charge as the flagship.

Why do you take such umbrage with some level of non-canon evidence and extrapolation, yet list this as evidence to make your point. I am familiar with ACTD and they are definitely total conjecture and fiction. (Good conjecture and fiction though it is.) Again, I just find that a bit hypocritical. There is no canonical evidence anywhere that the Sovereign was intended to replace the Excelsior, when in fact there is much more evidence to suggest it will or does replace the Galaxy.

Using Insurrection as evidence of the Enterprise-E being "frequently" seen on diplomatic duty during the war is rather disingenuous. It is but one example, which took perhaps a week's time, yet you make it seem like it was indicative of the Enterprise's role. We have no idea what else the Enterprise was doing or could have been doing during the Dominion War. We should reason that the Enterprise was involved at some point, but for obvious theatrical and franchise reasons, it was not shown in DS9 or the war.

And it is interesting how you use the Enterprise-E to first diminish the Defiant and then turn around and rag on its assumed status/capabilities. It seems to be only to serve your agenda in tearing down other ship types to elevate the Galaxy... which I still do not understand.

The reason I refer to the Galaxy as an "Explorer", is because the "Explorer" is a made up category of ship. In technical military terminology, the Galaxy would be classed as a "Battleship".

Explorer is not a traditional ship type because Starfleet is not a military organization. It is fully legitimate and canon though. If anything, it highlights the fact the Starfleet vessels (at least prior to 2365) are not warships and it is improper or difficult to classify them as such. To me (2) torpedo launchers and (12) phaser arrays do not make a battleship. I would say the same for the Sovereign, though the upgraded Enterprise in Nemesis might qualify. It is my general opinion that Starfleet does not produce large, heavily armored and armed ships that would fit into the battleship category. At least within the definition of what we see on screen. In Armada and Fleet Ops, it does, however, make sense to place both the Galaxy and Sovereign in the "battleship" category for game purposes.

posted on November 19th, 2013, 10:37 pm

so much energy wasted.

Galaxy was Ship ment to explore.

no battleship, just freakingly big scout.

new scout class. the Galaxy.

posted on November 19th, 2013, 11:46 pm

So but by "Hyper-modern vessels like the Descent" made me crack up. You mean fan-made non-canon rubbish then right? Before anyone else says the Galaxy is not a battleship.

Referring to the fact that the Descent is contemporary with the time period of the mod. The Galaxy class will be knocking on to 30, and while it has a lot of capacity to be refitted and has a long expected service period, there will be certain advances that will be too difficult to incorporate. After all, you don't see DS9-era Excelsiors with phaser strips, do you?

Anyone remember the "Venture Refit" from Deep Space Nine, essentially a Galaxy war model.

From the production standpoint, the USS Venture had the nacelle phaser strips used on the 3-nacelled monster from All Good Things. When depicted with the CGI model in later episodes, the Venture no longer had them.

If we are to go solely on what occurs on screen (which is rife with inaccuracies and inconsistencies of its own), then I would agree that, for example, the Vorcha is generally weaker than the Galaxy. But we have such a small on-screen sample size for (actual) engagements between the Galaxy and the D'Deridex, how do we justify which would win one-on-one? Even the V-13, as you point out, has such little screen time, how do we characterize it at all?

Oh I agree, it's very hard to characterise. But that's what makes discussing it fun! And we know that the game itself has little resemblance to how things are depicted on-screen, starting with the Venture class. In game, it has a pulse phaser. On screen, it had beams. It's the result of shoehorning things into the game's framework.

Besides, who knows how long each ship had been fighting by the time the Enterprise arrived?

From the audio played on the Enterprise's bridge before she warps off to join the fight, we can be fairly sure the Defiant had been part of the engagement from the start.

Using Insurrection as evidence of the Enterprise-E being "frequently" seen on diplomatic duty during the war is rather disingenuous.

I'd have to watch it again, but I'm pretty sure that Picard grumbles about going around putting out one diplomatic brush fire after another. I don't consider that as evidence of the Sovereign class' role, though; more that Starfleet had decided that Picard's diplomatic skills while showcasing the flagship were a better war contribution than front-line duty.

To me (2) torpedo launchers and (12) phaser arrays do not make a battleship.

The Galaxy's torpedo launchers are considerably more capable than the Excelsior's, though. Rapid launch, multiple simultaneous launch -- they were designed to be as capable as the rest of the vehicle.

I would say the same for the Sovereign, though the upgraded Enterprise in Nemesis might qualify.

Even pre-Nemesis, the Enterprise E had a fair few torpedo launchers, although I'd expect the only launcher as capable as the Galaxy's is the quantum torpedo turret. The Nemesis version was a bit over the top though; even more than the Akira.

new scout class. the Galaxy.

Ooh, ooh, Dominus -- can the Galaxy class have Grey Mode, please?

[diamond]

posted on November 19th, 2013, 11:58 pm

Last edited by diamond on November 20th, 2013, 12:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

Again, a lot of this is conjecture but then most of Star Trek is conjecture. I am just tired of seeing the Galaxy, which had an extremely good service run and proved very reliable being sidelined for ships that didn't work right off the drawing board like the Sovereign and Defiant. Remember, the Sovereign had problems with both its structural integrity field and the regenerative shielding.

But everyone thinks these ships are superior and love them. The Galaxy was the last REAL starship built because it combined elements for defensive, exploitative and scientific duties and could fill almost any mission profile. The successor in utility would have to be the Intrepid, being essentially, a smaller, faster, exploration vessel.

However I see the intrepid isn't sidelined in this game by an overpowered Defiant and half a dozen ships that don't exist in the canon universe. You can actually build the Intrepid and I would take building ships like the Ambassador and Nebula over building non-canon ships like the Canaveral and Monsoon or Avalon any day.

posted on November 20th, 2013, 12:01 am

diamond wrote:The reason I refer to the Galaxy as an "Explorer", is because the "Explorer" is a made up category of ship. In technical military terminology, the Galaxy would be classed as a "Battleship".

Ironic, he's arguing about a made up category for a made up ship. Anyone else find this amusing?

posted on November 20th, 2013, 12:04 am

diamond wrote:The reason I refer to the Galaxy as an "Explorer", is because the "Explorer" is a made up category of ship. In technical military terminology, the Galaxy would be classed as a "Battleship".

Ironic, he's arguing about a made up category for a made up ship. Anyone else find this amusing?

Despite it being a made-up ship. When in the navy, ships have specific titles (e.g. Frigate, Destroyer, Battleship, Carrier etc) which refers to the ships military role even if the ships mission and intended purpose is not military. On Starfleet Command and in other sources, apocryphal of course, I have heard the Galaxy referred to as a "battleship" several times.

posted on November 20th, 2013, 12:15 am

diamond wrote:The reason I refer to the Galaxy as an "Explorer", is because the "Explorer" is a made up category of ship. In technical military terminology, the Galaxy would be classed as a "Battleship".

Ironic, he's arguing about a made up category for a made up ship. Anyone else find this amusing?

Despite it being a made-up ship. When in the navy, ships have specific titles (e.g. Frigate, Destroyer, Battleship, Carrier etc) which refers to the ships military role even if the ships mission and intended purpose is not military. On Starfleet Command and in other sources, apocryphal of course, I have heard the Galaxy referred to as a "battleship" several times.

Right but on screen its always referred to as an Explorer, that's its primary purpose. I agree that the Galaxy would be a battleship if outfitted for war, however its generally agreed upon that the Galaxy, due to size and technology involved, was not a mass produced vessel like the Miranda or Excelsior. Which is why I don't mind it being a warpin ship. Its a damn fine ship in this game and because they are rare to get makes them that much cooler to me. If it was buildable I think It would lose some of its charm.

The other thing you have to consider is theres no way you can get all the canon ships in the game for the feds, theres just too many. And to be honest the devs have the right to put in their own ships, its their mod and they can do what they want. I personally also really like the Constellation class, but its not in fleet ops. That's not gonna make me stop liking or playing the game. Also the ships the devs made up are pretty neat designs, they arnt ugly as hell like most of the STO junk.

posted on November 20th, 2013, 4:21 am

I think I have a solution...

Galaxy classes should be built in game if the following rules are observed:

1. User must build all other structures
2. User must build a gigantic shipyard (time elapsed: 15 minutes)
3. User must build a galaxy class starship (time elapsed: 2 hours)

This way, the time that it would take to build a Galaxy class would be represented in game... snicker snicker

posted on November 20th, 2013, 1:59 pm

I'd have to watch it again, but I'm pretty sure that Picard grumbles about going around putting out one diplomatic brush fire after another. I don't consider that as evidence of the Sovereign class' role, though; more that Starfleet had decided that Picard's diplomatic skills while showcasing the flagship were a better war contribution than front-line duty.

Yes, I believe he says exactly that. While I like to leave some room for doubt and possibility, you and Diamond may be more correct here than I thought. At least as it pertains to the Enterprise.

To me (2) torpedo launchers and (12) phaser arrays do not make a battleship.

The Galaxy's torpedo launchers are considerably more capable than the Excelsior's, though. Rapid launch, multiple simultaneous launch -- they were designed to be as capable as the rest of the vehicle.

Even pre-Nemesis, the Enterprise E had a fair few torpedo launchers, although I'd expect the only launcher as capable as the Galaxy's is the quantum torpedo turret. The Nemesis version was a bit over the top though; even more than the Akira.

Pre-Nemesis there should have been (3) or (5), depending how you count. For Nemesis, I guess there were (4) or (5) more (again, depending how you count twin tube launchers) for a total of (7) or (10). This is much more in-line with battleship specs, especially considering the total of (16) Type XII phaser arrays come Nemesis. Compare that to (2) and (12) of more inferior types on the Galaxy. My point is not that the Sovereign is more advanced; that is obvious. Just that the Sovereign, both in weapons and hull design, is purpose built for combat situations, while the Galaxy is not. Capable the Galaxy certainly is, but that does not mean it can be called a battleship. And of course the Galaxy is much more advanced than the Excelsior, though I am not sure why you included that point.

The Nemesis level Enterprise definitely exceeds the Akira overall, but supposedly the Akira has something approaching (15) torpedo tubes. That is just awesome in and of itself and part of what makes it one of the coolest Fed ships! It always annoyed me that the Akira was a phasers only ship in Armada when it is supposed to rely heavily on torpedoes.

posted on November 20th, 2013, 3:17 pm

Diplomatic functions is probably something nearly any Starfleet ship can do, regardless of their actual role. A comfy lounge, warm environment and friendly crew tend to be fairly common in Starfleet. This one just happened to have one of their best diplomats commanding it and they needed allies.

I can see them also not wanting to waste their shiny new (and expensive) toy on some backwater world.

posted on November 20th, 2013, 3:40 pm

Diplomatic functions is probably something nearly any Starfleet ship can do, regardless of their actual role. A comfy lounge, warm environment and friendly crew tend to be fairly common in Starfleet. This one just happened to have one of their best diplomats commanding it and they needed allies.

I can see them also not wanting to waste their shiny new (and expensive) toy on some backwater world.

They sent the Enterprise-E to Baku, didn't they? That seems like a waste of a shiney new ship in the middle of a war, doesn't it?

posted on November 20th, 2013, 3:54 pm

Diplomatic functions is probably something nearly any Starfleet ship can do, regardless of their actual role. A comfy lounge, warm environment and friendly crew tend to be fairly common in Starfleet. This one just happened to have one of their best diplomats commanding it and they needed allies.

I can see them also not wanting to waste their shiny new (and expensive) toy on some backwater world.

They sent the Enterprise-E to Baku, didn't they? That seems like a waste of a shiney new ship in the middle of a war, doesn't it?

No, they didn't.

posted on November 20th, 2013, 6:18 pm

...
I can see them also not wanting to waste their shiny new (and expensive) toy on some backwater world.

Yeah, next time send Ensign Redshirt with a Runabout!

I think it makes sense to send larger, more or less state of art, multi purpose Explorers, lead by experienced captains, for these kind of crucial (probably) long distance missions - which they were intended for in the first place.

Also, the Sovi isn't that shiny. Next gen Explorer was probably already on the drawing board.

posted on November 20th, 2013, 7:12 pm

By 'backwater worlds', I was talking about worlds lower-priority (and probably forgotten by most in the Federation) than the Core worlds, founding planets and Earth. Not the potential allies which, as Picards said, Starfleet needs as many of as they can get.