the corrected Galaxy Class and starship seperation

posted on January 1st, 2009, 10:27 am

dude seriosuly, im gonna say more then this later but for now, at least we fricken show that we have facs instead of puting of stupid theorys like you guys do, and we now have to disprove your theroys just because you came up with them, well heres some for ya, the galaxy class is bigger then a cube and it has 200 torpedo tubes, seriosuly man come on, were trying here to get somthing to change, and you guys wont even listen or look somthing up, seriously, would some of you mind looking some stuff up, cus from what i have looked up, the galaxy claas is a kick ass ship that was made many times

posted on January 1st, 2009, 11:28 am

It's a good ship. It has strong phasers, moderate torpedoes and would perform in between the Akira/Nebula/Excelsior II and the Sovereign. Just like it is.

Now to defend the Galaxy class being a non buildable ship ...

Well, this game is about War, it is NOT Galactic Civilizations II where you need all manner of ships.

It would take many more resources to create a Galaxy class ship than to create an Akira or Excelsior that are only slighty inferior in firepower (if at all) and manage to hold all of that firepower in a faster, smaller and less crew intensive frame.

It would make zero sense to construct a Galaxy class ship in a combat zone.

posted on January 1st, 2009, 1:43 pm

Now to defend the Galaxy class being a non buildable ship ...

Well, this game is about War, it is NOT Galactic Civilizations II where you need all manner of ships.

It would take many more resources to create a Galaxy class ship than to create an Akira or Excelsior that are only slighty inferior in firepower (if at all) and manage to hold all of that firepower in a faster, smaller and less crew intensive frame.

It would make zero sense to construct a Galaxy class ship in a combat zone.

I don't really see the Sovereign being much cheaper, yet that is not a Warp-In.

posted on January 1st, 2009, 5:43 pm

I don't really see the Sovereign being much cheaper, yet that is not a Warp-In.

But it is much stronger. Besides imagine if Sovie wasnt buildable, some people would go nuts

dude seriosuly, im gonna say more then this later but for now, at least we fricken show that we have facs instead of puting of stupid theorys like you guys do, and we now have to disprove your theroys just because you came up with them, well heres some for ya, the galaxy class is bigger then a cube and it has 200 torpedo tubes, seriosuly man come on, were trying here to get somthing to change, and you guys wont even listen or look somthing up, seriously, would some of you mind looking some stuff up, cus from what i have looked up, the galaxy claas is a kick ass ship that was made many times

Which theory did I pull that you disagree with? Tell me and Ill explain best I can

posted on January 1st, 2009, 7:23 pm

According to the TNG technical manual only 6 Galaxy Class starships were initially built including the Galaxy, Enterprise, Odyssey, and Yamato.  There were another six space frames built and mothballed which were completed sometimes after the destruction of the Yamato, Odyssey and Enterprise.  It's likely that the Venture, Challenger and other Galaxy class ships we have seen were from these next six.

Those ships seen being built in "Relativity" were being built in the year 2371 which again makes it likely they are part of the next batch of six Galaxies.  The Galaxy mentioned in nemesis was the USS Galaxy which was built before the Enterprise. 

The ONLY evidence of there being more than 9 Galaxy class starships in service after the dominion war comes from Sacrifice of Angels where we see somewhere between five and nine Galaxy class starships taking place in the battle.  It is rather hard to believe Starfleet placed the entire class into that one battle suggesting there might be additional ships.

Even if Starfleet built more Galaxy class starships I find it hard to believe they ever went into "mass" production due to more advanced classes being built later and Starfleet favoring smaller ship designs.  I would guess there are no more than 20-40 Galaxy class starships in service as of 2379 (Nemesis).  On the other hand it's sister ship -- the Nebula class probably has 100+ ships in service.  Neither one are as common as the Saber, Miranda, Excelsior, Oberth, Akira, Steamrunner, Norway, etc nor should they be.  I would in fact argue that the Sovereign will have a relatively limited production as well of no more than 50-75 ships and there probably shouldn't be more than a dozen in service by 2379.  But the Federation need some teeth in the game so I understand their inclusion even if resource wise the Akira and Excelsior-II are more efficient.

That said I voted saucer-sep capable but warp-in only.  Makes sense to me!

posted on January 1st, 2009, 8:05 pm

@rahz you said

"It would take many more resources to create a Galaxy class ship than to create an Akira or Excelsior that are only slighty inferior in firepower (if at all) and manage to hold all of that firepower in a faster, smaller and less crew intensive frame."

are you out of your mind? seriously how can you even think for one second that an akira and an excelsior are equal to a galaxy class?  galaxy class has way more firepower, like a 100 year old excelsior, even a refit one could take on a galaxy, same with an akira, there is no way, and the stats that they have for galaxy right now suck, it dosent lend any help in the game because it sucks, but in actually a galaxy is very powerful

posted on January 1st, 2009, 8:13 pm

and let me also say this thing has 512 veiws right now, so people, we need more votes

posted on January 1st, 2009, 10:51 pm

Ok i got to say this are you people completely stupid and high, the galaxy class would not be discontinued after like 10 years, the excelsior is still there after 100!

The Excelsior wasn't built to house primarily civilians. It's a far better Warship which is why it's still around, compared to the Galaxy, which makes a truly terrible Warship for cost.
Sure, the Galaxy is tough as all hell - it can stand up to the Romulan Warbirds of it's time, which are far bigger (though have less internal volume), but that toughness comes at a cost that is disproportionate.

It's the reason ships like the Akira outperform it in it's war duties despite being smaller and cheaper (the memory alpha stats are bull - the photon launcher count of the Akira varies whenever it's mentioned but it's almost always bigger than 10, the highest being around 15)

Just look at the Defiant for another example of what a no-nonsense, compact war-only design does for combat value.

posted on January 1st, 2009, 11:47 pm

The galaxy is much more powerful that an exelsior.

Its faster, larger, more torpedos, larger Gj output on the phasers (5.22 Gj i think, but not 100% sure)

but this is were i say we should be able to refit the feds ships. Almost all Fed ships have been refitted. Even the Enterprise-E got some additional rear torpedo launchers, above the shuttle bay. The Nebula has more varients than i have fingers (so more than 11 lol)

The Galaxy was never put into production like the Nebula was, not because of the resource cost (the federation has resources coming out of its ears) But more due to the fact that it took longer, was more complex, and had a larger crew.

And heres proof that not all Galaxy classes have families on board.

Ronald D. Moore commented "Perhaps [still] on "some" Galaxy-class ships, but I think this was an experiment that failed." [2] "I think that the "family friendly" starship notion was an interesting idea, but one that didn't pan out. There was always something awkward about Picard ordering the ship into battle situations with kiddies running through the corridors. And no matter how much lip service we paid to the "our families are part of our strength" concept, it never seemed very smart or very logical to bring the spouse and kids along when you're facing down the Borg, or guarding the Neutral Zone, or plunging the ship into uncharted spatial anomalies."
(Memory Alpha)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And Im sure that they didnt send galaxies with kids on them in to fight the dominion, its just logical

posted on January 1st, 2009, 11:56 pm

And heres proof that not all Galaxy classes have families on board.

Ronald D. Moore commented "Perhaps [still] on "some" Galaxy-class ships, but I think this was an experiment that failed." [2] "I think that the "family friendly" starship notion was an interesting idea, but one that didn't pan out. There was always something awkward about Picard ordering the ship into battle situations with kiddies running through the corridors. And no matter how much lip service we paid to the "our families are part of our strength" concept, it never seemed very smart or very logical to bring the spouse and kids along when you're facing down the Borg, or guarding the Neutral Zone, or plunging the ship into uncharted spatial anomalies."
(Memory Alpha)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And Im sure that they didnt send galaxies with kids on them in to fight the dominion, its just logical

I sure hope they didn't leave the civvies onboard when they sent ships into Dominin War fleet clashes - the fact is though, that the room for those civvies, and all the infrastructure that is needed to support them, is still in the ship.
Now instead of a huge ship with thousands of civilians, you got a huge ship with room for thousands of civilans. Room that's not used for stuff that could be used in combat - more armor, more ammo, more weaponry, etc.

posted on January 2nd, 2009, 12:02 am

You are right of cause.

What iv heard but been unable to find facts on is that the Galaxy refit for the dominion wars, was refitted to house more officers and also fed 'troops' (if thats what you call them), like boarding parties. I have no evidence on this YET, but it sounds legittiment, i mean why would they put all that space to waste.

[DatonKallandor]

posted on January 2nd, 2009, 12:08 am

Last edited by DatonKallandor on January 2nd, 2009, 12:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

Using the space for marines would be sensible use for it in wartime (and boy would the marines love it - Galaxy quarters are incredibly luxurious compared to what enlisted rank and file would get in wartime), but a refit can only go so far.
You can't exactly rip out a large part of a ship and replace it (you can, but it's not efficient - you do stuff like that when you're at peace and have time and resources to waste) - there comes a point when it's cheaper and more time effective to just build new ships that are optimized for the conflict you're having.

posted on January 2nd, 2009, 12:42 am

I never considered using the Galaxy as a Marine transport. Since a lot of a Galaxy's space isn't even used, it would be easy to make the modifications.

posted on January 2nd, 2009, 12:47 am

Yes that could actually translate well into FleetOps - a higher boarding party strenght due to having specialized boarding parties? The old "shoot them till their shields drop then board" command?

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

And there, finally we would have a reason for separation, keep the marines on the saucer section and give it improved boarding parties, then you can beam onto enemy ships and only drop shields on one ship. While still having the quite capable stardrive section firing away.

It would need extreme balancing to keep it from being overpowered though without crippling a powerful starship (Read as: My favourite ).