Actual Definition of a "CRUISER"...
View Single Post
Join Date: Jun 2012
09-16-2012, 08:52 AM
Originally Posted by
That it's a class that lines up between Cruisers and Destroyers. The OP is comparing Starfleet cruisers to something that is not in the same class. The Galor seems to fall in the Light Cruiser or Destroyer Leader classification. While the Starfleet ships are almost universally called a Heavy Cruiser (or Star Cruiser etc), the only Light is the T1 Centaur.
Considering how inconsistent the authors were about the Cardassians over the years (Galors were also called "warship" and their armament has been called "phaser", "disruptor" and "phase-disruptor") it's possible it's just an error.
It seems the basic problem is that Cryptic stuffed all ships into three categories and used the term "cruiser" for one of them.
Given that we have so many ships of different sizes and ages in those categories there is a whole lot of overlap and confusion.
For example the Constitution was a "Heavy Cruiser" during the movie era, but so was the Ambassador in TNG's first season.
Does this make both ships equal?
With regards to the ships of the other factions we face an even bigger problem given some might have a tendency to build rather compact ships (Klingons) or giants (Romulans).
So where does the Galor stand?
In terms of her size she's roughly comparable to the Excelsior.
In terms of performance...who knows?
Probably depends on which generation of Excelsior you throw against which generation of Galor.
We also don't know how old the Galors are, we only know the version in TNG was called "type 3" which might mean it's the second refit...or not.
However she basically seemed to maneuver like an Excelsior so I'd stick to the cruiser designation since that'd would make at least some kind of sense.