Galaxy Should be Buildable

posted on December 26th, 2011, 3:42 pm

I believe we got a little out off topic, the point is should be the galaxy buidable? Well, despite all the arguments against it, as a player I would like to have it buidable and the reason is simple for me, this is a game of fleets so I must be capable of building my fleet with the ships I want with a reasonable balance and cost. Each ship help the strategy in different ways so we can acomodate the galaxy with no problem. If the Galaxy were so obsolete it wouldn't be used as a warpin!

posted on December 26th, 2011, 4:08 pm

This is pretty simple.

The Galaxy is an explorer. Not a warship. It can fight, but it's designed to do much more.

When you're playing a match it's a war. Why build an explorer that can fight, when you can build dedicated warships? To build a Galaxy would be spending a lot of resources on something you don't need.

The only explorers on the battlefield should be ones brought in, not ones built specifically for the fight.

Therefore: Warp-in: yes. Buildable: no.

Even without the Dev's reasoning of "it's out of date technology", you'd still end up with it not being buildable. Deal with it. If you want it buildable, mod it in yourself.

As for comparisons to 20th century aircraft... why not? It's not like there are any real 24th century spaceships with shields that we can compare Star Trek ships to.

[Korloros]

posted on December 26th, 2011, 4:12 pm

Last edited by Korloros on December 26th, 2011, 5:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

This is pretty simple.

The Galaxy is an explorer. Not a warship. It can fight, but it's designed to do much more.

When you're playing a match it's a war. Why build an explorer that can fight, when you can build dedicated warships? To build a Galaxy would be spending a lot of resources on something you don't need.

The only explorers on the battlefield should be ones brought in, not ones built specifically for the fight.

Therefore: Warp-in: yes. Buildable: no.

Even without the Dev's reasoning of "it's out of date technology", you'd still end up with it not being buildable. Deal with it. If you want it buildable, mod it in yourself.

As for comparisons to 20th century aircraft... why not? It's not like there are any real 24th century spaceships with shields that we can compare Star Trek ships to.

This....right here. This is the most sense anyone has made on this. I thought I was going the right direction with a war refit of the Galaxy, but that would be like refitting a utility van with a machine gun. It is not made for that.

posted on December 26th, 2011, 4:41 pm

That was spot on, Atlantis.  Here's my take on the Galaxy class:

When the Galaxy was first put into service, high-speed warp technology was brand new and super-expensive, so it made economic sense to create a small number of large exploration craft.  I assume that as the technology got smaller and cheaper, they would begin to use smaller craft for exploration and larger craft for military might and grandiose diplomatic gestures.

The Galaxy is like the last massive supercomputer before they invented blade-racks and started distributing those supercomputer functions over a network.  It carries massive sentimental value, but there's no practical reason to keep using them.

Besides, it's been established that only a small number of Galaxies was ever built.  We know from past experience that if people are allowed to build a ship, they will build a lot of them.  I never want to see 5 galaxies in a fleet at once, that would be contrary to everything we know about the ship.  At the same time, it doesn't make sense to cap them at 1-3 and let people build them.  I think warpins should be rebalanced but not removed, perhaps it can cost resources and only work within range of a sensor platform or other fed station.  Like nuking the planet from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.

As for whether it's too old, I think it would be more work for an engineer to design a whole new chassis with new technology but the exact same shape as the old one.  We don't do this with cars or planes or boats, why would we do it with spaceships?  Also, the concept of stress fractures on spaceships makes perfect sense, and the argument that spaceships can't be compared to earth-bound vehicles is just asinine.

Also, the registry numbers of spaceships ARE known to be less than perfect.  If there are truly 70,000 hulls in a 4-digit registry system, you KNOW there's more to it.  Personally I suspect lack of foresight/simply not wanting to make it too complicated on the part of the writers.

posted on December 26th, 2011, 8:21 pm

Oh dear seriously..... now your comparing 20th century fighter jets to a 24th century space ships and technology ..... made of completely different materials and dont have shields.

Oh then there's the fact that ships in startrek regularly get hull upgrades to not only fix damage ect but also to reduce incoming damage. Fighter jets are made of titanium and other metals like steal and aluminum ect which are made to protect it from in atmosphere type degradation and some weapons fire, space ships are made so they can be protected from the harshness of SPACE and much more modern weapons and they also have shields you cant seriously start comparing those kinds of technology to make any sort of valid point.

Yes, it's basic metallurgy: Bend a bar made of any material often enough and in the end it'll break.
On earth for jet fighters it's the G forces which put stress on the chassis. In space it is warp flight, radiation, space dust and a thousand other little things.

Centuries apart, but the principle stands and your attempt to ridicule only shows poor judgment on your end and not on mine

posted on December 26th, 2011, 8:35 pm

Dude I admire your enthusiasum but it is clear you are not reall open to the possibilty that you might be wrong.

Quite open, particularly because there's so much technical detail needed about the ships that I just don't know one way or the other. If you would like to point me to the text of the technical manual you've read, I might be able to change my points of view. I try a ground up approach, starting with how the conduits handle power and then going up to what that means for system scaling. You seem to be working down from a larger system being more powerful, which, altho intuitive, is not how many real-world systems work. Some do to a limited extent, which may be the way Trek power systems would work.

[Tyler]

posted on December 26th, 2011, 8:42 pm

Last edited by Tyler on December 26th, 2011, 8:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Guess what? That's not a Galaxy class! It would be pointless anyways, since the shape itself causes problems with resource cost. A lot of the colors would be wrong too...

Your point? Building a ship with new tech in the body is no different to building a ship with refits already built in instead of the original specs. What does shape have to do with costs? It'sd the same general size as the Sovereign, the fact that one's a different shape to the other isn't changing anything.

As I mentioned before, I'm not really concerned with the 'buildable Galaxy' thing (I know how to mod); I'm just enjoying the thread.

posted on December 26th, 2011, 9:14 pm

Yes, it's basic metallurgy: Bend a bar made of any material often enough and in the end it'll break.
On earth for jet fighters it's the G forces which put stress on the chassis. In space it is warp flight, radiation, space dust and a thousand other little things.

Centuries apart, but the principle stands and your attempt to ridicule only shows poor judgment on your end and not on mine

Again that's not my point, futuristic materiel's are bound to last much longer than our current tech and yet again you missed my point well done.

My whole point isn't that it wont ever break its that it wont break in anywhere near the time a current century piece of tech will and these ships have lives of 100s of years. The galaxy hasn't been around for that long for it to be in the state where its said well its a rusted old bucket now just stick it will a kirk era excell 1.....

Anything that counters your opinion is deemed ridiculing by you? that's because your wrong....

Also you should learn the difference between rude... and blunt.

posted on December 26th, 2011, 9:38 pm

Quite open, particularly because there's so much technical detail needed about the ships that I just don't know one way or the other. If you would like to point me to the text of the technical manual you've read, I might be able to change my points of view. I try a ground up approach, starting with how the conduits handle power and then going up to what that means for system scaling. You seem to be working down from a larger system being more powerful, which, altho intuitive, is not how many real-world systems work. Some do to a limited extent, which may be the way Trek power systems would work.

No not working down so much as sideways You see I have been studing the tech behind trek for more then 20 years so I have seen just about every idea that has ever been from before there TNG and even 1 movie. I have also been able to learn a great deal about the real world science that would inform these system if we had them here to really tinker with.  If you want to hunt down good tech books for this I would recomend these to start.

The StarTrek the next Generation Technical Manual by Rich Sternbach an Michael Okuda
The StarTrek Deep Space Nine Technical Manual by Herman Zimmerman, Rich Sternbach, and Doug Drexler
Also get as many versions of the The Star Trek Encyclopedia by Michael Okuda, Denise Okuda and Debbie Mirek as you can because of revisions.
The same with Star Trek Chronology: The History of the Future by Michael Okuda and Denise Okuda
You will also want The Physics of Star Trek by Lawrence M. Krauss.
and Star Trek: Science Logs by Andre Bormanis

Now if you want to expand you thought process beyound the limite of TV I also recomend

both Ships of the Star Fleet:by Todd Allen Guenther
Star Trek: Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise by Shane Johnson
Star Trek Starfleet Technical Manual: by Franz Joseph

These website might also interest you

Ex Astris Scientia - Bernd Schneider's Star Trek Site

Ex Astris Scientia - EAS Fleet Yards

The Starfleet Museum - A Report by Masao Okazaki

Advanced Starship Design Bureau - Home

Journal of Applied Treknology - Index

http://drexfiles.wordpress.com/

http://probertdesigns.com/Folder_TECH/Probert_HOME.html

http://johneaves.wordpress.com/

http://www.asdb.net/asdb/publications.htm

http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/index.html

You see that while alot of work did go into trying to make Star Trek 100% consistant vast amounts of inconsistance has always been a part of the 'cannons'. Over time as a fam I and many others have abbandon the coonnon only thought process in an atempt to better construct both a universe and technology that makes consistent since accross not just the TV and Movies bat also games like A2 and mods like FO. Go have a look around.  You will find all sorts of things including contradiction but you should also find you trek experiance enriched for the work

posted on December 26th, 2011, 9:57 pm

Again that's not my point, futuristic materiel's are bound to last much longer than our current tech and yet again you missed my point well done.

My whole point isn't that it wont ever break its that it wont break in anywhere near the time a current century piece of tech will and these ships have lives of 100s of years. The galaxy hasn't been around for that long for it to be in the state where its said well its a rusted old bucket now just stick it will a kirk era excell 1.....

Anything that counters your opinion is deemed ridiculing by you? that's because your wrong....

Also you should learn the difference between rude... and blunt.

You should stop listening to your own choir. You accused me of being rude and yet here you are missing the point once again.

There is a phrase for your condition: Deus ex machina - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A believe that future technology will conquer any obstacle in it's path.

Warp flight is a fictional technology for FTL travel. Star trek mentions inertial dampeners more than once indicating that the whole process of acceleration to FTL is a violent process and it is safe to assume that it'll place consider strain on a chassis. Futuristic materials aren't a safeguard, but a necessity.

The comparison between the stresses on 20th/21st century jet fighters as a result from G-forces and the potential stress on a spacecraft during acceleration to FTL speed is a valid one.

This may be like cursing in church for a SF oriented community like Star Trek, but to think technology will solve every problem is naive at best.

posted on December 26th, 2011, 10:17 pm

You should stop listening to your own choir. You accused me of being rude and yet here you are missing the point once again.

There is a phrase for your condition: Deus ex machina - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A believe that future technology will conquer any obstacle in it's path.

Warp flight is a fictional technology for FTL travel. Star trek mentions inertial dampeners more than once indicating that the whole process of acceleration to FTL is a violent process and it is safe to assume that it'll place consider strain on a chassis. Futuristic materials aren't a safeguard, but a necessity.

The comparison between the stresses on 20th/21st century jet fighters as a result from G-forces and the potential stress on a spacecraft during acceleration to FTL speed is a valid one.

This may be like cursing in church for a SF oriented community like Star Trek, but to think technology will solve every problem is naive at best.

I stopped reading your crap after the first 2 lines, quote me where i said your rude.... learn some dam English if you want a debate.

posted on December 26th, 2011, 11:11 pm

I stopped reading your crap after the first 2 lines, quote me where i said your rude.... learn some dam English if you want a debate.

Congratulations, you managed to make me stop after only 3 words. I tend to have a great tolerance for idiocy, but at this time i am unsure if i should morn or congratulate you on exceeding the patience of a patient person.

The fact that you stopped reading displays a false believe in technology and an unwillingness to learn and listen. You sire, are no longer worthy of my attention/replies in this topic.

posted on December 27th, 2011, 12:20 am

Congratulations, you managed to make me stop after only 3 words. I tend to have a great tolerance for idiocy, but at this time i am unsure if i should morn or congratulate you on exceeding the patience of a patient person.

The fact that you stopped reading displays a false believe in technology and an unwillingness to learn and listen. You sire, are no longer worthy of my attention/replies in this topic.

Lol i notice you didn't answer me there haha, you sir are so arrogant you can't admit when your wrong nor admit when you made a mistake when ever your proven wrong ou try to claim they have been rude rather than admit your wrong and its pathetic. I didn't waste my time with your post because you are incapable of reading what's said properly and if can't read mine properly i won't waste a min with yours

posted on December 27th, 2011, 1:32 am

Is it possible to just lock this and get it over with? At each other's throats over an imaginary star ship! 

Look, I like the galaxy class and all, but isn't this a little extreme? 

posted on December 27th, 2011, 2:00 am

I notice someone is butt hurt and ignores argument only to counter with "you're rude, technology solves everything, i stopped reading after.."

I do not know your age, but you start by ridiculing an example and further onwards you ignore any arguments to support previous example. And you have the galls to call me rude?

If you have something working inside that bone structure on top of you neck and shoulders, read and learn. Otherwise do yourself a huge favor and stop showing your ignorance.

As to the suggestion by kainula, it's probably best to hit the kill switch on this train wreck.