Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 101
08-25-2011, 05:23 PM
Sovereign-Class starships were replacements for Excelsior-Class ships, they were built as modern versions of that. Sovereigns were also likely to be built in larger numbers than Galaxies. However the debate on power of the two is the whole debate.

The problem here is that the schematics don't show a lot of empty space on a Galaxy, it looks filled up with quarters for staff, support, and civie personnel. In time of prolonged war, they may gut civie stuff out. This would in fact benefit the Galaxy to plant more equipment in. But I find it odd that in Yesterday's Enterprise, the D would have something to this effect done and three K'Vorts were more than a match for the Enterprise. Yes you could argue that it was storytelling. But I do find it too much of a crutch in all cases.

The Sovereign has less total mass, meaning with even equivalent equipment it would be more maneuverable than a Galaxy, TV-show or not. Problem is that doesn't equal advantage. The Galaxy does not need that maneuverability because phasers can generally be fired anywhere and torpedoes have been "seeking" weapons since before ST VI: TUC. However, once shields drop, the Galaxy has more mass to it, meaning more to peal through to destroy. (Should look up Harry S. Plinkett's reviews of the TNG movies BTW). The D's death was lame, agreed.

Torpedoes are a totally different argument, the "Turret" system would not be superior except in pointed delivery, the torpedo delivery would be a bit faster to target, but otherwise there is no advantage other than being quantum torpedoes. As others have said, Galaxies would be refitted with those launchers, photons are outdated.

The only things that stands out still:
1. The make of the hull can outweigh the hull's apparent thickness in effectiveness.
2. Warp Cores are at best, not thoroughly described -- will explain my position.
3. Type XIIs are not described as being specifically better worse, or if they are different at all.

Ceramic armor used today is superior to other, thicker armors, of yesterday. So to me hull thickness is kind of moot. Especially since you can infer that armor is in constant development, making Sovereigns easier to update so hull armor may be better or at least equal, but that is no end-all at all. Easier because less size to build over. New Galaxies, may get that armor, so I don't think this is a valid area for discussion.

Warp Cores were a point I never agreed, ever, that the Galaxy stood on more solid ground. The argument we had before Beta was that thicker equals better. But in current understandings (and the lack of real evidence against this in ST: TNG). Matter and Anti-Matter would be flung together at the highest speeds possible. Colliders today use longer tubes to get that speed up with magnets, that could (maybe not) be the way Starfleet does theirs. Meaning tall should be better. Mini chambers does not mean contained chambers either so that may be misleading too. In final, as far as WARP POWER, the Sovereign gets the edge, that does not equal to total power output as starships have more than one power source. The Warp Core is the primary source but does not mean the Sovereign can put out more power than the Galaxy hands down.

The Type XII phaser array is not described in detail to my knowledge anywhere. As with all technological developments it may be revolutionary or it may be equivalent with smaller components to be more feasible. I concur that a single sustained shot as evidence of most TNG/DS9/VOY shows seems to be more powerful than the multi-beams seen sporadically. But it is not clear if Type XII is better or worse, or compatible with anything else. One may assume a Galaxy would be slated for refit into this type in the 20 yr cycle. The Type XII may use new methods for generating power more advanced. But I do not believe Geordi was mistaken when he said the Sovereign was more advanced at that time. It's hard to say because Technical Manuals are soft-cannon, and the shows are somewhat misleading or at least inconsistent.

A Sovy Vs. Galaxy fight would probably have been close to even in 2373, or else the Enterprise would not have been in that class. In the 25th Century, something else would make the Sovereign look weak if this were realistic. I see no evidence by the way that says a Galaxy is worth two or three Sovereigns, that is speculation. It's not a proper comparison to make. The Sovereign's hand is more specialization and refinement, the Galaxy can be generalized, it was not specialized, nothing is both because then it's a contradiction.

I am a fan of the Sovereign, of TNG Era shows/movies, it is my favorite. The Galaxy-class is actually my least favorite, it looks extremely ugly to me. But the comparison is apples and oranges. They aren't the same "class" or type of cruiser and is unfair to compare. There is not a hard-cannon guide to why one is better. There is plenty of on screen evidence that Galaxies are tough. But Star Trek is story, and all stories have flaws, I forgive the multiple premature deaths of Galaxy-class ships. I honestly think the Sovereign is better at what a Sovereign does, whatever that mission profile is. The Galaxy is that ship out there operating on it's own with a vast number of facilities and good firepower. I do know the Sovereign could not do the Galaxy's job. In war, I'm not so sure the Galaxy would be more than what a flagship is, a central coordinating platform. These are generally large vessels with great firepower in their own right, but they are typically heavily protected by a fleet of support ships too. Even if the Sovereign is weaker, I'd rather serve on it than a Galaxy.

The Enterprise-F is a logical step. It appears to replace the Galaxy, I'm not sure what it's mass is and cannot say if it will be. But CBS pulls the strings and when they say it's better, it will be better. Per the looks, it seems to be intentionally geared to the late TNG period of style for ships. The coloration and elongated proportions is appropriate, if predictable. At least it's new.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 102
08-26-2011, 03:27 AM
I've discovered the post that lead to this debate firing up again:

http://forums.startrekonline.com/sho...5&postcount=43

Thanks dontdrunkimshoot. Thanks a lot. As soon as someone says "Galaxy is the heaviest hitter" or something like that, everyone jumps on it and we have a threadnaught in the making.

And Liandras, your opinionated attitude has just fueled the fire while adding nothing:

http://forums.startrekonline.com/sho...6&postcount=51

Funny how a thread about a completely different ship has been derailed by it. I think it's the most hotly debated trek subject on the forums that doesn't have anything to do with STO directly. Personally, I refuse to to think one ship is stronger than the other. I believe that both ships could have equal combat strength.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 103
08-26-2011, 05:05 AM
Ok, my thought on it is I will not play the ship. I think parts of it look nice but it's overall from the front a bit ugly. I do not like the neck design. I do not like the end of the hull, etc. Anyway, it's looking too much like a futuristic ship like J when it doesn't need to be.

From the scope of the ship, I'd like to know it's measurements before I recommend anybody fly the darned thing. What is it's beam, what is it's impulse modifier, turn rate, etc.... If it is as slow as the Galaxy or in that neighborhood I'll warn my guys away from it....

Then again this is my 2 cents...

btw... I dunno how long the thread will be open so...check your posts before the mighty hammer of the forum gods close it...
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 104 getting back on topic
08-26-2011, 05:27 AM
THe F is a interesting design to be sure, and they did do a good job of it bringing it to life. Myself i hold judgement of liking or hating it until I can actually see/fly/fight with the finished product. I am sure, as in most things, there are folks who will "hate it" and those that "love it".

Lets get our hands on it first, then lets restart the discussion.

Right now, far too many unknown factors in the mix and with no ship to fly, well I am just going to go into hover mode and wait for it... then make a decision.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 105
08-26-2011, 07:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forgotten-Nemesis View Post

And Liandras, your opinionated attitude has just fueled the fire while adding nothing:

http://forums.startrekonline.com/sho...6&postcount=51

Funny how a thread about a completely different ship has been derailed by it. I think it's the most hotly debated trek subject on the forums that doesn't have anything to do with STO directly. Personally, I refuse to to think one ship is stronger than the other. I believe that both ships could have equal combat strength.
You are most welcome and prepare to see more of it

I am a person who give his opinion and does not hold back and that is a simple fact and warning for those who do not like it I know it doesn't make me a lot of friends, but frankly I don't care I am not here for people to think I am so nice.

Anyway seeing there is this desire to get back on topic for some odd reason let's go:

The F is well odd for one reason to me, the neck makes no sense, why put huge gabs in there which reduces the ships structural integrity and takes away space that could have been used for anything like quarters or torpedo storage and science labs? So fill out the neck and the thing makes more sense, still won't be my favourite design, but it won't be the instant hate the Galaxy was for me, hell I cannot even watch TNG because of that damn ship.

As for combat power, it will likely beat the crap out of anything in the fleet right now (story wise not game play) technology evolution is at full speed due the war (always works want good tech, go have a war) so I would expect it to have newly designed phaser banks, better torpedoes! (quantums are like 30 years old now, so if not new warheads at least improved ones) and mainly better shields. Starfleet vessels have the best shields only second to the borg, it has been the thing the ships combat wise where known for.

I do not expect much in the sense of science labs and likes from this vessel, it is a ship design and build in times of war so the focus will be on this and the rest it can do, but only average at best. I think when the war ends you will see a new cruiser on the drawing board, more in the direction of the Galaxy in therms of purpose (I just pray better looking).

I do hope that STO will last long enough that one day we will get to see the Enterprise 1701-G (for Good )
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 106
08-26-2011, 08:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mongoson View Post
THe F is a interesting design to be sure, and they did do a good job of it bringing it to life. Myself i hold judgement of liking or hating it until I can actually see/fly/fight with the finished product. I am sure, as in most things, there are folks who will "hate it" and those that "love it".

Lets get our hands on it first, then lets restart the discussion.

Right now, far too many unknown factors in the mix and with no ship to fly, well I am just going to go into hover mode and wait for it... then make a decision.
Well, they could give us the basic specs of it... hull impulse modifier, turn rate and such... perhaps that will give us some grounds to know what it will be like and whether or not it is worth flying.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 107
08-26-2011, 11:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forgotten-Nemesis View Post
I've discovered the post that lead to this debate firing up again:

http://forums.startrekonline.com/sho...5&postcount=43

Thanks dontdrunkimshoot. Thanks a lot. As soon as someone says "Galaxy is the heaviest hitter" or something like that, everyone jumps on it and we have a threadnaught in the making.

And Liandras, your opinionated attitude has just fueled the fire while adding nothing:

http://forums.startrekonline.com/sho...6&postcount=51

Funny how a thread about a completely different ship has been derailed by it. I think it's the most hotly debated trek subject on the forums that doesn't have anything to do with STO directly. Personally, I refuse to to think one ship is stronger than the other. I believe that both ships could have equal combat strength.
the thread has 1701-F for FAIL in the title, what kind of thread quality did you expect? whats been discuses has merit because this odyssey class can be perceived as the successor to the galaxy class. its not my fault that whenever i drop 'turns out the much huger galaxy is actually tactically superior' the sovereign zealots just about lose it, all the wile at least ive made rational argument. i even tried to brain storm how all these big cruisers fit together here, http://forums.startrekonline.com/sho...2&postcount=88 . i also tried to end the debate about it by posting all those links. there's still so little information about the odyssey class that there's really not a lot more that can be discussed about it alone.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 108
08-26-2011, 11:18 AM
Whatever dontdrunkimshoot, the truth is dan6526 is right.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 109
08-26-2011, 01:08 PM
Well if we are comparing the size of ships to their power. I have and seen Star Cruiser class ships that dwarf the Sovereign and the Galaxy in size. I'm just hoping the future Enterprise ship will fall under the Star Cruiser flag as there is no "Refit" for them. The dreadnaught. the Exploration Re-fit, and the Excel refit fit under either the Assault or Re-fit skill.

... I just don't to lose my sci-powers and such to be "good"
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 110
08-26-2011, 09:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RAJ_2011
Whatever dontdrunkimshoot, the truth is dan6526 is right.
I want to go on the record as saying, in a more clear manner:

"I do not necessarily think the Sovereign is superior to the Galaxy."

My major point was that the comparison is flawed from the start. While some elements are comparable, not all are. As my dear colleague, dontdrunkimshoot, put it the Sovy is a "kick down in size," though I think it is a bit overstated size difference and the Galaxy a bit overstated, but that is all opinion. In the end, the Galaxy will eventually obtain equivalent level technology (would have in STO's timeframe) and in many ways would be able to outperform the Sovereign in key areas. The Sovereign's edge would dwindle with successive refits bringing the Galaxy perfectly on par--perhaps not in the ways people would expect. In my opinion the Odyssey-Class would then be launched and trounce, from a Star Trek perspective, either ship regardless of fanboyism displayed by either Galaxy or Sovy side.

I really do try to balance all the TM stuff and Show stuff because focusing on one just pulls you out of what IS there. Semi-canon/soft-canon, measuring stuff on the models, size of special effects, all this stuff used as evidence is all well and good, but if you go based solely on one thing, you end up with skewed results.

Consider that every ship class depicted in Star Trek as the main vessel for the show suffers the Hero-Ship-itus. It will be superior, even when it should not be, it will last longer when it should not, and must be the underdog in situations it should not. BIG case in point: the Galaxy-class vs. the Borg Cube in Best of Both Worlds, it did more than the Starfleet Division amassed there, grant it the fight was merely a distraction. And it did it separated, meaning the Impulse Engines and other fusion reactors were the only source of power for it's long arrays, making the shorter ones powered better with the Stardrive section no less.

What if you use Tech Manual info, for Ship-X vs. Scimitar? The TM seems to state that any ship with a relatively long enough phaser array should be okay against it because disruptors and torpedoes shouldn't do enough even in the number there. So the Galaxy should not be fearful or anything with comparable shields/power/phaser array length/output/number of emitters/active emitters (meaning both the Galaxy and Sovereign should not really be that bad off with Galaxy more comfortable). But what ship realistically should be able to stand toe-to-toe to the Scimitar? I hardly believe any ship (other than a hero-ship) would. I find it amusing that the Enterprise was to meet with a small fleet that was headed by the U.S.S. Galaxy herself (see astrometrics before they enter the nebula). What if they met up before the engagement? The Enterprise still would have outlasted the Galaxy for the sole reason that she is the hero-ship. The TM makes fights that SHOULD be one-sided flipped, therefore it can be incongruous with the show. And all this misses the very simple, understated point: it's a story to be watched, for fun.

I think the Constitution-Refit was the best ship in all of Starfleet, but that Connie is old, outdated, and gone. The same happens to ALL ships, even the Galaxy. Just go for the ride, we'll have a new Enterprise, it will be cool, a new ship, that apparently will be promptly dismembered courtesy of the KDF. So I'll captain my Sovy and support the Enterprise-F, I'm going to have some fun, and do my best to disappoint those Klingons.
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 07:29 AM.