Galaxy Should be Buildable

posted on December 23rd, 2011, 5:17 am

Galaxy Class Explorer MKIIa masses 5.1 million metric tons

refer back  to floating city...

posted on December 23rd, 2011, 5:31 am

refer back  to floating city...

On missions that could take her outside of the Federation for 10 years a floating city would be part of the need specifacation. Even modern Battleships and Aircraft Carriers fit that discription. they can have crews upwards of 5000 souls.

posted on December 23rd, 2011, 7:00 am

"Galaxy should be buildable" -> "Thousands of civilians including entire families should be thrust into every battle to probably die, their only hope of escape being a separation maneuver that leaves them with less defensive power and no warp. They should be sent in an entire city ship that has all the luxuries of home." or "An entire city ship that's mostly empty cause it was designed to support thousands of civilians should be sent into battle. It should hav, as its main escape ability, separation capablities that leave one half with all the battle capabilities the entire ship had, but less area to protect, and the other half be for escaping using no warp and very limited defenses." and "the ship should be one that was retired years ago."
Absolutely not gonna happen.

On missions that could take her outside of the Federation for 10 years a floating city would be part of the need specifacation. Even modern Battleships and Aircraft Carriers fit that discription. they can have crews upwards of 5000 souls.

Those 5000 are all military personnel. No children or civilians. They all hav duties to do.
Remember TNG, where we saw they had kindergarten on the ship? It did well for the show, but thinking about it all in context makes you realize just how insane the idea is. The ship was in danger almost every single episode, and far more lives were put on the line than needed. And to support all those lives, far more infrastructure was needed on-ship. That's a tremendous waste of resources and energy compared to something like the Defiant.

posted on December 23rd, 2011, 7:30 am

As many of you know, the galaxy and I go way back, and for that reason I have tried to restrain myself from posting.  However I feel as though I need to add my two cents.

What we are talking about here is an argument, that has been made many times before, and discussed in great detail.  When talking about star trek, and about ships from the show that are in fleetops we have to remember that the game we see is an interpretation of the star trek universe.  As it is an interpretation it is okay to disagree!  That being said however, I don't really think you can argue that the galaxy should be this or that, because there is nothing really definitive coming from the show.  What we have are guidelines, and beyond that, we don't know, we can only come up with ideas, and thoughts of what might be.  Those ideas are exactly what the devs have turned into a great game that everyone here seems to have a pretty good time playing.

Every point here, every contention that people have stated can be countered by someone, depending on what their interpretation of the evidence is, and their own distinct point of view.  I feel that all the views  in this thread, and in the numerous galaxy threads still lingering on the forum, have been presented and seen by the developers of this mod, and the developers have decided on a certain course.  Therefore I personally feel that this thread has no purpose; the views have been stated, the course has been set, all that is left to do is sit back and see where it goes.  Right now, that course is looking pretty good.

[Nebula_Class_Ftw]

posted on December 23rd, 2011, 7:47 am

Last edited by Nebula_Class_Ftw on December 23rd, 2011, 7:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

The Galaxy class was not designed for a combat role. This was made very, very clear in TNG, especially when we saw the alternate future with a combat Galaxy class (also at least one other time I remember it specifically stated to not be a warship, but can't remember precisely.) That was definitive.
Sending a Galaxy class, with the civilians kept at home, to fight is sensible as every ship is needed to assure victory.
Building them for a fight is batshit insane. Maybe you guys are thinking it will cost about as much as an E2. To be realistic at all with ship costs, it wouldn't. The cost of all those extra dekks would drive the tritanium price up well above the sovereign. The dilithium to support all that shielding and structural integrity fields would be around as much as a Sovereign too. And it's not near as powerful.
Why would you pay a Sovereign's cost for a Galaxy class?

tl;dr: if the Galaxy is made buildable, it should hav realistic costs. This means it would be a hilariously underpowered joke ship that you send as a "look at me, I'm so rich in moons I can send fleets of battle-capable giant luxury liners with thirty year old tech instead of battleships! " type of ship.

[kainalu]

posted on December 23rd, 2011, 9:34 am

Last edited by kainalu on December 23rd, 2011, 11:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

the nebula makes a little more sense. Same basic layout, but much more compact. People seem to miss one biiig point. Warships are made only big enough for their guns, crews, fuel, and ammo. They are not comfortable.

Even modern Battleships and Aircraft Carriers fit that discription. they can have crews upwards of 5000 souls.

The aircraft carrier references are out of place. They are big for a reason. Aircraft carriers also have aircraft patrolling around them and escorts. You cannot send one alone. As for battleships, usually mid size ones are more historically effective. See : Yamato, and Bismark. Bad stuff happens to ships built big for pride.

The galaxy being that large would have made sense for an carrier. Many, many small vessels, weapons, fuel, replicators, hangars, engineers.  As for a battleship, not happening. Not an efficient enough design.

See Prometheus. Would probably kick some Galaxy ass because its main role and the reason for it's existence is to be a mid-size battleship with huge guns. More firepower, faster, smaller. Computers and internal layout optimized for war. But the galaxy would be a much better ambassadorial ship. No dignitary would stay in defiant-sized quarters for very long....

posted on December 23rd, 2011, 10:09 am

Ive always had a soft spot for the galaxy. With the soverign and newer ships thou starfleet would not build a Galaxy vessel but they would deffinatly update any exsisting ships with newer tech especially during the dom war as it would of taken less resources to pimp than build a new ship from scratch.
+1 on warpin only 

posted on December 23rd, 2011, 7:23 pm

Why do you guys keep thinking that Galaxy is some nurf herding weakling and Soverign is th uber ship of the century? From a firepower standpoint a Galaxy MKIIa and Soverign are even in Phasers and Soverign only has a slight edge in torpedos because the multiple lunchers are harder to knock out. In defence the shields of the Soverign and Galaxy would also be about even as the MKIIa can have regenerative shielding too. Soverign has hull armor but it is not as comprehnsive as that on Defiant and is 1.9 million tons lighter then Galaxy. This translates into Soverign being more menuverable but her hull being not quite as durable as Galaxies. But this is as it should be because of the different missions of each class.

Nebula VS Galaxy is like Constitution VS Miranda. Nebula can carry all the same weapons and technology that Galaxy or Soverign does. Nebula has a more compact profile that improves her shield efficency at the expence of topend warp speed; Galaxy is faster. Nebula has different Impules engines. Her 2 main primary hull engines are mounted in exhaust  shrouds for stealth and ENCOM ops. She also has less Hanger space then Galaxy as the Saucer bay of Galxy we no included on Nebula. Nebula carries fewer phasers and doesn't have as good Ventral stern covage as Galaxy. Nebulas tonage is also lighter at 4.3 million tons to Galaxies 5.1 so her hull is margenally less durable.

"Galaxy should be buildable" -> "Thousands of civilians including entire families should be thrust into every battle to probably die, their only hope of escape being a separation maneuver that leaves them with less defensive power and no warp.

I do not see the logic of how you arrived at that stament as it is completely unsupported by facts. The crew complament of a Galaxy is 1012. Thats STARFLEET personel. Wenever possible any Civilans are off loaded like USS Odyssey did at DS9 before her destruction by the Jemhadar.

The Galaxy class was not designed for a combat role.

That is only half true. The Galaxy class was not designed for a combat role first. If she had not been intended to fight she would have no guns. Galaxy is an Explorer first, Battleship second. But she was very much designed to fight.

[Nebula_Class_Ftw]

posted on December 23rd, 2011, 7:49 pm

Last edited by Nebula_Class_Ftw on December 23rd, 2011, 8:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I do not see the logic of how you arrived at that stament as it is completely unsupported by facts. The crew complament of a Galaxy is 1012. Thats STARFLEET personel. Wenever possible any Civilans are off loaded like USS Odyssey did at DS9 before her destruction by the Jemhadar.

Did you miss the word "or"? I don't put words in my post for you to ignore them.
If you bring in a Galaxy on short notice, chances are it won't hav time to offload those civs. The building at yards right in the battlefield is an abstraction. So you either bring the civilians OR you build all those extra dekks for no reason.

That is only half true. The Galaxy class was not designed for a combat role first. If she had not been intended to fight she would have no guns. Galaxy is an Explorer first, Battleship second. But she was very much designed to fight.

Space is dangerous. That's why the Galaxy has guns. In a universe where your ship is in danger every episode, even the peace ships hav adequate combat capabilities. But the Galaxy was never a battleship at all. Starfleet was being very very peaceful-leaning when it was designed.

Why do you guys keep thinking that Galaxy is some nurf herding weakling and Soverign is th uber ship of the century? From a firepower standpoint a Galaxy MKIIa and Soverign are even in Phasers and Soverign only has a slight edge in torpedos because the multiple lunchers are harder to knock out. In defence the shields of the Soverign and Galaxy would also be about even as the MKIIa can have regenerative shielding too. Soverign has hull armor but it is not as comprehnsive as that on Defiant and is 1.9 million tons lighter then Galaxy. This translates into Soverign being more menuverable but her hull being not quite as durable as Galaxies. But this is as it should be because of the different missions of each class.

First off, what do you mean by the MKII? It's not on Memory Alpha, and the Venture Variant only has extra phasers and a third nacelle. You're venturing well into uncanon territory, and making obviously false statements about the intentions concerning relative ship armaments/defenses.
Sovereign was meant to be the super high tech replacement, much more battle ready. That was the entire point of Star Trek Generations. And why would the Sovereign be less durable? It has better structural integrity fields (inferred, but I think it's safe to assume a new state of the art ship has better fields than a refit of an old ship) and ablative armor.

We're talking canon Galaxy class here, start a new thread if you want to talk about building expanded universe/fanon Galaxy variants.

posted on December 23rd, 2011, 8:03 pm

Why do you guys keep thinking that Galaxy is some nurf herding weakling and Soverign is th uber ship of the century? From a firepower standpoint a Galaxy MKIIa and Soverign are even in Phasers and Soverign only has a slight edge in torpedos because the multiple lunchers are harder to knock out. In defence the shields of the Soverign and Galaxy would also be about even as the MKIIa can have regenerative shielding too. Soverign has hull armor but it is not as comprehnsive as that on Defiant and is 1.9 million tons lighter then Galaxy. This translates into Soverign being more menuverable but her hull being not quite as durable as Galaxies. But this is as it should be because of the different missions of each class.

Nebula VS Galaxy is like Constitution VS Miranda. Nebula can carry all the same weapons and technology that Galaxy or Soverign does. Nebula has a more compact profile that improves her shield efficency at the expence of topend warp speed; Galaxy is faster. Nebula has different Impules engines. Her 2 main primary hull engines are mounted in exhaust  shrouds for stealth and ENCOM ops. She also has less Hanger space then Galaxy as the Saucer bay of Galxy we no included on Nebula. Nebula carries fewer phasers and doesn't have as good Ventral stern covage as Galaxy. Nebulas tonage is also lighter at 4.3 million tons to Galaxies 5.1 so her hull is margenally less durable.

What is this Galaxy Mk II you're talking about. There's no such thing unless you're talking about this vessel: Refit Galaxy Class - Specs

You're making a lot of claims which you cannot support by data from memory alpha.
Nobody is saying that the Galaxy is weak, heck at one time it was the federation flagship and at that time a very imposing ship.

In the FO time line the Galaxy has been replaced by the Sovereign class as flagship and this would not have happened if the Sovereign didn't represent a better design.

posted on December 23rd, 2011, 8:06 pm

For the love of god, DITL is not a credible source. For anything. That said, you're right.

posted on December 23rd, 2011, 8:42 pm

Memory Alpha doesn't have an article about the galaxy Refit and although far from reliable i prefer DITL to info from Memory Bravo.

posted on December 23rd, 2011, 8:53 pm

Did you miss the word "or"? I don't put words in my post for you to ignore them.
If you bring in a Galaxy on short notice, chances are it won't hav time to offload those civs. The building at yards right in the battlefield is an abstraction. So you either bring the civilians OR you build all those extra dekks for no reason.
Space is dangerous. That's why the Galaxy has guns. In a universe where your ship is in danger every episode, even the peace ships hav adequate combat capabilities. But the Galaxy was never a battleship at all. Starfleet was being very very peaceful-leaning when it was designed.
First off, what do you mean by the MKII? It's not on Memory Alpha, and the Venture Variant only has extra phasers and a third nacelle. You're venturing well into uncanon territory, and making obviously false statements about the intentions concerning relative ship armaments/defenses.
Sovereign was meant to be the super high tech replacement, much more battle ready. That was the entire point of Star Trek Generations. And why would the Sovereign be less durable? It has better structural integrity fields (inferred, but I think it's safe to assume a new state of the art ship has better fields than a refit of an old ship) and ablative armor.

We're talking canon Galaxy class here, start a new thread if you want to talk about building expanded universe/fanon Galaxy variants.

So let me get this straight the entier crux of your argument is that just because you have not seen a model year 2380 Galaxy fresh out of the yard on screen they don't exist. I Seriouly Logic dictates that just like any real world Navy SF would not manufactur 20 year old parts for a new ship when newer better parts are sitting on the shelf. Oh and News flash FO IS an Expanded Universe so my arguments for a modern upto date Galaxy are completely appropreate.  If you are going to build one, build the right one.

You're making a lot of claims which you cannot support by data from memory alpha.
Nobody is saying that the Galaxy is weak, heck at one time it was the federation flagship and at that time a very imposing ship.

Look again. While I might be infering some numbers like extact tonage based on known addition equipment memory alpha ceirtainly supports the statement the Galaxies systems are every bit as upto date as Prometheus or Soverign.

Ultimately the point of my argument is simple. I don't see where the existance of the Galaxy class as a fully modern battleship in anyway threatens Soverigns posision as the Crown Jewel of Tac Fleet, because they where designed to fulfill different mission rolles in the larger fleet structure. Soverign Class ships are going to be more nummeruse then Galaxy class ships. Writing Galaxy out of the story line is redundant and pointless. Keep her as a Warpin but the FO presentation needs a Buff both offensivly and Defensivly. Getting a Galaxy to warpin should be like winning the lottery; not "at least its not..." Thats what I would like to see.

posted on December 23rd, 2011, 10:07 pm

FO isn't in the same universe as conventional Star Trek EU, hence the lack of Luna-class ships. With that in mind, the 2380 Galaxy refit is just as real as the invisible pink unicorn.

posted on December 23rd, 2011, 10:41 pm

That pink enough?

Attachments