View Single Post
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,704
# 8
10-10-2012, 09:12 AM
Originally Posted by ccarmichael07 View Post
The classification of "submarine" for the Exclesior is not based on capability, but rather size.

The size is the primary factor I'm discussing here. Granted, I get into scope of work but mostly the Naval comparison was on size, and the Excelsior is too small to be a Battleship, and too large to be a Missle Cruiser, when compared to the Oddy/Sovie/Galaxy or the next step down of the Intrepid/Armitage.
So why not call the Excel' a heavy cruiser then? Isn't that between a battleship and a guided missile cruiser? Submarines live off of a stealth factor.

Originally Posted by ccarmichael07 View Post
And yes, the spec is similar to the Armitage, but it doesn't have the teeth of an Armitage because it lacks fighters and cannon, but it has the survivability edge on the Armitage thru hull and consoles.

The Armitage is a nice SIZE of ship, but for the most part, I don't like it's style. I much prefer a more "standard" Starfleet design template. Saucer, Hull, Nacelles that are on pylons up behind the saucer. That's primarily what I'm looking for, without having to take a monster cruiser that can't turn within a lightyear radius.

I'm looking for a bit more nimble light cruiser type ship, like the USS Port Royal, rather than the Battleship like the USS Missouri.

If you don't like that the Armitage mounts fighters and dhc/dc, don't mount them, use lighter weapons. I can't help you as far as the appearance. Otherwise the Armitage does the exact same job.