View Single Post
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,628
# 54
09-20-2012, 03:49 PM
Originally Posted by paragon92518 View Post
But that doesn't explain the Nebula.

Changing stance?
No, the argument was the Ambassador was shorter that the Sovereign and so it had to be more maneuverable.

Science ship or not, the size/mass don't equal a 9 base turn. Perhaps that theory has been debunked
There is more that mass to determine how maneuverable a ship is, I believe I point out the Enterprise B was a Excelsior refit were the amount of impulse thrusters double, there is no indication the ship mass also doubled meaning the ship should theoretical be far more maneuverable (check the location of the new thrusters) but in the game the Advanced Heavy Cruiser have the exact same turn rate at T3 and T5, a possible explanation is the T5 is more armored and so have far more mass meaning the extra thrusters are just compensating.

In the Nebula case you dont even know were the impulse thrusters are since the Nebula by design have no visible thrusters.

I make no statements on the Nebula because, simply put, there is not enough data for me to make a informed statement, the only argument I made on the Ambassador is what it was designed as and I will just not repeat myself.

Considering the damn blasted thing is not even out yet having arguments seems to be some people want to have their cake, eat it and have seconds since you are going to get the damn thing but it appears unless it can run circles on a B'rel and destroy a Bortas in a single shot its clearly broken.


Yes, I do hate the damn ship because after months of reading about it I simply cannot stand it ... and you people did it, not the ship itself and by God I cannot wait until its out and this arguments die out.