Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,241
# 11
09-15-2012, 11:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by paragon92518 View Post
(Taken from Dictionary.com)...

Cruiser

2. One of a class of warships of medium tonnage, designed for high speed and long cruising radius.


This is the actual terminology for a "Cruiser". Based on the actual definitions or possible meanings, WHY does the turn-rate of every Cruiser in STO fantastically suck? To term that question better..........

Why can there not be a smaller Cruiser with better turning? NO, I'M
NOT ASKING FOR AN ESCORT. I'm not asking for the ooomph of firepower punch an Escort may bring. Just a smaller Cruiser at T5, better turning, that's all. Think of it as a Galorish type of Cruiser. Another note....WHY does Starfleet keep making insanely huge Cruiser ships? Look at a ship of the Galor's size. It's a nice little ship with a fairly good turning rate. WHY can't Starfleet AKA Devs, design ships that function similar based on that???
Because you fail to understand the basic concept of inertia.

Large mass + high speed = bad turn rate.
Low mass + high speed = hard turns possible.


In naval terms a cruiser is a ship that is heavy enough to be considered a ship of the line (capital ship) that retains the speed and long range of lighter vessels. In the old days of sail they were called Frigates (British classification: 5th rate).

In star trek, a cruiser is a long range vessel that can move at higher warp speeds. It has nothing to do with turn rate.

There are cruisers that turn better than others. Assault Cruisers and Excelsior come to mind. Science ships are also cruisers (though technically STO did fail in this area.. ships like the Intrepid class are cruisers not science vessels). KDF has the flight deck cruisers and raptors (they are cruisers!).
http://media.tumblr.com/160cacdb395f8340dac90864182ebe16/tumblr_inline_mx9yxhItkb1qg9pkt.jpg
Ensign
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 16
# 12
09-15-2012, 03:35 PM
I find this a non question because of the simple fact we pretty much know the answer to this.

Each fleet are basically given 3 classes Frigates, Escorts, and Cruisers. Put aside the modern Navies terms because today's modern navies have warped the differences between what is what. None the less these terms are more in fact based on past ship designs when there were true Frigates, True Escorts, and True Cruisers. As for the turn rates...what do you expect for having more mass to be lighter? You will always lose something to gain something. Even the Defiant had to pay something for it's massive power. There is no one ship that is UNBEATABLE my friend, for if there were there would be no game now would there.
Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 267
# 13 Missing the point..
09-15-2012, 07:04 PM
I'm not certain it is understood what I'm saying....WHY the heck is every Cruiser the size of King Kong? Was the TOS 1701 a "mammoth beast" when she was built? no... BUT...she was a Cruiser!!!

Now...would it kill the Devs to make some other Cruiser ships that are similar to a Galor? I'm not saying flood the market...just STOP MAKING ZED ZEPPELIN TYPE Cruisers that are massive in size. Would it behoove them to make 1 or 2 other ships like a Galor? That way, if someone didn't want a WHALE, they wouldn't have to settle for that abortion of a ship...the Odyssey....err should I say "the humpback whale"!

I'll take a T5 Excalibur, or a T5 Exeter....or some completely new ship yet to be introduced.

Last edited by paragon92518; 09-16-2012 at 08:15 AM.
Rihannsu
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 629
# 14
09-16-2012, 08:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by paragon92518 View Post
I'm not certain it is understood what I'm saying....WHY the ***K is every Cruiser the size of King Kong? Was the TOS 1701 a "mammoth beast" when she was built? no... BUT...she was a Cruiser!!!
Actually the Constitution class is larger than any other canon starfleet ship of that era. Her direct replacement the Excelsior was larger still ("My God that's a big ship" -Dr McCoy). The only Federation starship of the 2240s anywhere near canon that is larger than the Connie is Franz Joseph's Federation class Dreadnought and that only shows up on a computer display in STII and III.

Quote:
Now...would it kill the Devs to make some other Cruiser ships that are similar to a Galor? I'm not saying flood the market...just STOP MAKING ZED ZEPPELIN TYPE Cruisers that are massive in size. Would it behoove them to make 1 or 2 other ships like a Galor? That way, if someone didn't want a WHALE, they wouldn't have to settle for that abortion of a ship...the Odyssey....err should I say "the humpback whale"!

I'll take a T5 Excalibur, or a T5 Exeter....or some completely new ship yet to be introduced.
There is a smaller sized cruiser already available:

http://www.stowiki.org/Fleet_Heavy_Cruiser_Retrofit

BTW the Galor you like to reference to so much has been called a Destroyer in canon.

From: "The Sacrifice of Angels"
Quote:
DAX

(off her panel)
Sir, do you see those Galor class
destroyers...

SISKO
I see them.

BASHIR
(off his panel)
It's a trap.

SISKO
It's also an opportunity -- and
we may not get another.
(to Nog)
Ensign, have Galaxy wings Nine-One
and Nine-Three engage those
destroyers. All other ships, head
for that opening. Anyone who gets
through doesn't stop until they
reach Deep Space Nine.
My Romulan Liberated Borg character made it to Level 30 and beat the (old) Defense of New Romulus with the skill point bug.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 4,068
# 15
09-16-2012, 08:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tlamstrike View Post

BTW the Galor you like to reference to so much has been called a Destroyer in canon.

From: "The Sacrifice of Angels"
And it's been called "cruiser" in other episodes

KALITA: There are nine Galor-class cruisers about six light years away.
-DS9: Defiant

TORRES: The Maquis used to lure the Cardassians into the Badlands. Those Galor class cruisers had nowhere to run.
-Voy: Fury

so what's your point?
Rihannsu
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 629
# 16
09-16-2012, 08:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by misterde3 View Post
And it's been called "cruiser" in other episodes

KALITA: There are nine Galor-class cruisers about six light years away.
-DS9: Defiant

TORRES: The Maquis used to lure the Cardassians into the Badlands. Those Galor class cruisers had nowhere to run.
-Voy: Fury

so what's your point?
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.
My Romulan Liberated Borg character made it to Level 30 and beat the (old) Defense of New Romulus with the skill point bug.

Last edited by tlamstrike; 09-16-2012 at 08:41 AM.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 4,068
# 17
09-16-2012, 08:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tlamstrike View Post
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?
Even comparable?

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.
Ensign
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 16
# 18
09-16-2012, 01:22 PM
Comparatively Speaking, the Cruisers in Starfleet are usually the biggest ships, or big for their era. Over the Centuries the ships sizes have been getting bigger, (and for most ships the crews smaller). Best I can show you the difference is just find a book or article on Capital Ships of World War II.

Cruisers were literally a Battleships little brother. You could hurt your neck looking at the number of guns bristling these things. Then you add Pocket Cruisers, Escorts, and a slew of other ships in the Cruiser range and you will see Cruisers were massive ships compared to Frigates, Escorts, and Destroyers.
Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 267
# 19
09-17-2012, 06:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tlamstrike View Post
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.
If the Galor is a light cruiser...it should be outmatched and outgunned by say...the T5 Excelsior...then?...Anytime I've witnessed PvP, it's usually the opposite.

The Light Cruiser might not be the best term to describe the Galor, at least how it is used in-game.

Last edited by paragon92518; 09-17-2012 at 06:39 AM.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 315
# 20
09-17-2012, 08:44 AM
Ship classifications has always been fairly arbitrary and up to the country owning the ship. The best example is Germany's "pocket battleships" designed to skirt treaty rules over the number of battleships allowed. Likewise, The US calls their largest ship a cruiser, not dreadnought or battleship. And the size and range of escorts (sometimes called patrol ships) vary greatly depending on the owner of the ship.

The turn radius of ships has nothing to do with the naval classification for cruisers. It's more closely associated with displacement or combat role. And comparing a Cardassian "destroyer" (which was likely a made up classification, similar to NATO's classification for soviet ships) to a Federation cruiser based on name conventions alone is absolutely unfair. You need to look at the actual specs and design considerations, not the names.
Kobayashi Maru
Join Date: Sept 2008


"Holographic tissue paper for the holographic runny nose. Don't give them to patients." - The Doctor
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 01:51 AM.