Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,825
# 321
07-18-2014, 02:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by edalgo View Post
Oh not this phaser array length BS again!
Why BS?


Anyway, the GCS phasers are among the strongest ship mounted phaser weapons shown in canon Trek, ever.
Even if the Sovereigns where slightly stronger (which they surely are not) the GCS in STO should have more tac console slots and at least a Lt. Cmdr. tac BOFF station IMO.

-> -> -> STO players unite and say NO to ARC <- <- <-
T6 Guardian Class design / A 25th century Ambassador refit

Last edited by yreodred; 07-18-2014 at 02:50 PM.
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,425
# 322
07-18-2014, 07:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yreodred View Post
Why BS?


Anyway, the GCS phasers are among the strongest ship mounted phaser weapons shown in canon Trek, ever.
Even if the Sovereigns where slightly stronger (which they surely are not) the GCS in STO should have more tac console slots and at least a Lt. Cmdr. tac BOFF station IMO.
If it's based on the array length then it is BS. length means crap other wise why don't more ships have them. nope. mark indicates strength.
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,825
# 323
07-18-2014, 07:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by admiralq1732 View Post
If it's based on the array length then it is BS. length means crap other wise why don't more ships have them. nope. mark indicates strength.
Sorry i don't want to start the same debate all over AGAIN, but the GCS surely was outfitted with the newest equipment (Power generation/defensive sys./weapons) availlable.
Isn't that what we do all the time in STO? (Outfitting our ships with new equipment)


A sub par GCS would indicate that the devs think the GCS was a bad ship from the start and not became relatively bad because its "old".
So the question is, why do cryptics devs think the GCS was a bad ship in the first place?

-> -> -> STO players unite and say NO to ARC <- <- <-
T6 Guardian Class design / A 25th century Ambassador refit
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,934
# 324
07-18-2014, 07:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yreodred View Post
Why BS?


Anyway, the GCS phasers are among the strongest ship mounted phaser weapons shown in canon Trek, ever.
Even if the Sovereigns where slightly stronger (which they surely are not) the GCS in STO should have more tac console slots and at least a Lt. Cmdr. tac BOFF station IMO.
Then why channel energy through the deflector dish from the warp core for a much greater damage burst?

Why would Geordi isolate emitters along the array and increase EPS power to those isolated emitters for a more powerful phaser shot?

Galaxy had the most powerful phasers when launched the Mk X phasers. Also came with over 100 science labs and a dolphin tank. Canon! So Volume =/= more power either.

Sovereign wasn't built yet. Came with MkXII phasers. So did the Promethious which was stated as a long range Tactical vessel. And it's phasers are broken up, not in 1 long array.

Why would Starfleet purposely build the next large cruiser class with less powerful weapons when it's Flagship, Galaxy Class, was completely ineffective against the borg and Earth nearly assimilated?


No1 is stating that the Galaxy in Canon wasn't powerful but array length =/= more powerful phaser.

It's about which ship can effectively channel more energy through the EPS grid and phaser assembly.
-32nd Vipers- PvP Team

We'll settle this the old Navy way. First guy to die Loses!
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,825
# 325
07-18-2014, 08:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by edalgo View Post
Galaxy had the most powerful phasers when launched the Mk X phasers. Also came with over 100 science labs and a dolphin tank. Canon! So Volume =/= more power either.

Sovereign wasn't built yet. Came with MkXII phasers. So did the Promethious which was stated as a long range Tactical vessel. And it's phasers are broken up, not in 1 long array.
Not each newer ship is suppoed to top the one before. Many ships just have other purposes and mission profiles.
That doesn't mean that a Intrepid has more Firepower than a Galaxy, don't you think?

The GCS was highly modifiable. As Flagship it carried a lot of stuff not needed in a firefight.
I hope you don't seriously think that in wartime the Ent -D would still have kept the kindergarten, the kids and their families on board...

Quote:
Originally Posted by edalgo View Post
Why would Starfleet purposely build the next large cruiser class with less powerful weapons when it's Flagship, Galaxy Class, was completely ineffective against the borg and Earth nearly assimilated?
Well the Sov couldn't blast hole into a cube so it could almost fly through.

The point is we don't have any direct references between both ships. Heck we don't even have a statement comparing both ships. We can only take educated guesses.
And everything i have seen just cries that the GCS is still more than on par with the Sovereign.

Let's try to see it from that perspective:
Building a big ship takes years or even decades of planning and designing.
The sovereign just cannot be designed, build and tested in the years after the first contact with the borg, it must have been in planning stage before that, similar to the Prometheus. Those ships don't replace the one before, they complement each other.

Quote:
Originally Posted by edalgo View Post
No1 is stating that the Galaxy in Canon wasn't powerful but array length =/= more powerful phaser.

It's about which ship can effectively channel more energy through the EPS grid and phaser assembly.
Each Starfleet ship gets new tech as soon as it is availlable.
The GCS surely got new power couplings, EPS grid and phaser emitters as soon as they where availlable.
What's important is the availlable space. A wartime refit (or a non Diplomacy refit ) Galaxy Class would surely have much more fusion generators and a tougher power grid. Even if the Sovereign had better phasers (which is nonsense IMO) it still would have much more power reserves all over the ship. So in the end, even if both ships where on par concerning firepower the GCS would still have more durability and even stronger shields* but it would be slightly less maneuverable.
(* shield systems can be upgraded, so it ultimately depend on how much power can a ship generate.)


Again, as i have stated roughly 1001+ times before, the GCS was highly modifiable.
At wartimes the ship would look and perform quiet different to what we saw in the early TNG seasons. Just look at "Yeasterdays Enterprise" Ent-D to get a impression of a wartime refit Galaxy Class Starship.

-> -> -> STO players unite and say NO to ARC <- <- <-
T6 Guardian Class design / A 25th century Ambassador refit
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,934
# 326
07-18-2014, 08:56 PM
Maybe after extensive upgrades the Galaxy is on par with the Sovereign.

But it's not like the Sovereigns aren't going through upgrades of their own either.

And IMO the Sovereigns phasers are more powerful than the Galaxy's.

But in the end they're on the same side so of course they are going to share technologies and have similar equipment.

And why wouldn't the Sovereign be modular and highly customizable??

But the baseline for the Sovereign is higher than the Galaxy
-32nd Vipers- PvP Team

We'll settle this the old Navy way. First guy to die Loses!

Last edited by edalgo; 07-18-2014 at 08:58 PM.
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,425
# 327
07-18-2014, 09:35 PM
I'll put it this way. When launched the Galaxy class had the best phasers even made, at the time mark 10. Soveriegn was mark 12. Now about sto timeline both ships are likely launched bran new with the latest mark of phasers. There design differences will favor one over the other in various fields. But the array lentgh equea;s power is bull crap for why doesn't other ships use it. Example intrepid. that could easily have a single array on the upper saucer section but nope it has 2. so length does not equal power. the galaxy just has a very large fire arc with the main saucer arrays nothing more.
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,133
# 328
07-18-2014, 09:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by admiralq1732 View Post
I'll put it this way. When launched the Galaxy class had the best phasers even made, at the time mark 10. Soveriegn was mark 12. Now about sto timeline both ships are likely launched bran new with the latest mark of phasers. There design differences will favor one over the other in various fields. But the array lentgh equea;s power is bull crap for why doesn't other ships use it. Example intrepid. that could easily have a single array on the upper saucer section but nope it has 2. so length does not equal power. the galaxy just has a very large fire arc with the main saucer arrays nothing more.
This, albeit the Sovereign was launched with Mark XI arrays, I think, Mk XII are an STO thing. But STOs "marks" don't follow logic, it's just a level indicator since type-8 phaser would be completely different weapons, essentially, from say a type-9 or 10. Anyhow, while I personally think the Galaxies' power output IS indeed higher and pure firepower it tops the Sovereign (which is more manoeuvreale on the other hand, so they are even but on top in different situations), there is no indication that a longer array equals more firepower in primary or secondary canon sources (e.g. on-screen or the manuals). But I might miss something, DDIS went into great detail there and maybe I overlooked something, but essentially it's true: type-10 phasers have the same baseline power output, it doesn't matter how long an array is. The Galaxy has, however, more than 300 degrees covered with her primary weaponry, auxilliary arrays leave virtually no blind spots to exploit whereas a Sovereign or Intrepid or other newer ships do have those blind spots and need more arrays to cover them, but more arrays does also mean nothing in terms of output since you cannot fire all at once AND it just shows design flaws in terms of defensive capabilites

But I still think a deflector blast could be something Starfleet figured out with the Venture. Still an exceptional practice, but systems should be in a state where the shot doesn't rip the ship apart but only needs some time to regenerate.

EDIT: Oh, and nobody dare to say the dolphin tanks are redundant. They rock! And I think the dolphins are even superior navigators if I don't confuse that info with something else...
-> STO players unite and say NO to ARC <- -> Click if you prefer the old forum design! <-
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh

Last edited by angrytarg; 07-18-2014 at 10:01 PM.
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,825
# 329
07-18-2014, 09:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by edalgo View Post
Maybe after extensive upgrades the Galaxy is on par with the Sovereign.
Extensive?
Both ships differ just 10 years.
That's nothing compared to the Excelsior which is supposed to be on par with a new ship BUILD for combat (defiant). I think Starfleets capabilities to keep ships up to date is remarkeable.
The GCS is on par with the Sovereign in any case.

Just think about it.
Starfleet isnt stupid, they wouldn let their most complex ship become obsolete ten years after introduction, that would be absolute nonsense. As i said before, both ships aren't rivals they complement each other.
Just because Picard got the Sovereign after carelessly letting the big -D get destroyed, doesn't mean his next ship MUST be totally superior.
(Personally i think it's quite the contrary.)

Remember when the Intrepid was first on screen, they also said something about it being the most avanced ship. (or something similar)
Do you seriously think the Intrepid has stronger phasers, shields or a higher power output than a Galaxy?

Quote:
Originally Posted by edalgo View Post
And IMO the Sovereigns phasers are more powerful than the Galaxy's.
Why?
Do you seriously think the Galaxy Cannot be modified to equip the same phaser emitters?

Quote:
Originally Posted by edalgo View Post
But in the end they're on the same side so of course they are going to share technologies and have similar equipment.

And why wouldn't the Sovereign be modular and highly customizable??
It is, but the point is the GCS has more space to be customized. Rip out the leisure stuff, the kindergarten and all the other nonsense , you could basicly put a Sovereign into it, lol.
So lets say the ship needs more fusion reactors or shield emitters (or whatever the situation requires), the GCS has the advantage of having more space at hand to mount different, or the same equipment as a Sovereign. (just more or bigger in size)

Quote:
Originally Posted by edalgo View Post
But the baseline for the Sovereign is higher than the Galaxy
As i said before, there's only 10 years difference between both ships.
By now (STO) both ships are 30-40 years old and got more than one overhaul in the meantime.
The more time passes the more diminishing the technical differences become.

The GCS is just the bigger ship in the end, less maneuverable but more power to generate and more durability.


Ultimately the difference between both ships should be a matter of taste. Do you want a faster more maneuverable ship or a slower more sturdy one?
In STO the relation between both ships should be similar. Both should be strong ships, just suited for different playstyles. But one shouldn't be completely bad while the other one can compete on top level.
That's not right IMO.

-> -> -> STO players unite and say NO to ARC <- <- <-
T6 Guardian Class design / A 25th century Ambassador refit
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,425
# 330
07-18-2014, 10:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by angrytarg View Post
This, albeit the Sovereign was launched with Mark XI arrays, I think, Mk XII are an STO thing. But STOs "marks" don't follow logic, it's just a level indicator since type-8 phaser would be completely different weapons, essentially, from say a type-9 or 10. Anyhow, while I personally think the Galaxies' power output IS indeed higher and pure firepower it tops the Sovereign (which is more manoeuvreale on the other hand, so they are even but on top in different situations), there is no indication that a longer array equals more firepower in primary or secondary canon sources (e.g. on-screen or the manuals). But I might miss something, DDIS went into great detail there and maybe I overlooked something, but essentially it's true: type-10 phasers have the same baseline power output, it doesn't matter how long an array is. The Galaxy has, however, more than 300 degrees covered with her primary weaponry, auxilliary arrays leave virtually no blind spots to exploit whereas a Sovereign or Intrepid or other newer ships do have those blind spots and need more arrays to cover them, but more arrays does also mean nothing in terms of output since you cannot fire all at once AND it just shows design flaws in terms of defensive capabilites

But I still think a deflector blast could be something Starfleet figured out with the Venture. Still an exceptional practice, but systems should be in a state where the shot doesn't rip the ship apart but only needs some time to regenerate.
I think the Galaxy and Sovie have the same power output. And i have always considered opposites sides of the same coing. Galaxy is more peace oriented. That is not to say she can't punch hard but the Standard Galaxy is a multi mission explorer that can do several things at opnce and can defend her crew but note a good portion of the crew is civilain. they were ment to explore unknown regions for 10 years before a severe refit. Sov on the other hand is gear more for combat. while she has a similar role in peace time she is deswign more be more survivalbe then the Galaxy since within a decade most of the first production line had been destroyed. In the end Galaxy has the edge in exploration and science while the sov hasthe edge in combat.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:26 AM.