Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 51
10-09-2011, 02:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feor View Post
There's always the possibility that teh Enterprise is the U.S.S. Sovereign. Perhaps the 1701-D took it's nosedive in Generations with (all things considered) relatively light casualties, and Starfleet suddenly found itself short one flagship and up one elite starship crew. So they took their biggest and fanciest ship at the time, the newly commissioned U.S.S. Sovereign, added one quick re-christening ceremony, and some serious diplomatic dancing to mollify whoever was supposed to take command of it (with huge bonus laughs if it was Jellico) and voila, one brand new flagship for the fleet.
Highly unlikely since Starfleet names its classes after the first ship of her class (and usually notes that as well, see Defiant NX-74205 dediaction plaque "first starship of her class")
http://www.bolarus.de/sibs/pic/plake8.jpg

which is not the case with the Enterprise-E.
http://www.lcarsc.com/freebies/plaque_thumb.png
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 52
10-09-2011, 03:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dontdrunkimshoot View Post
it could have been the same excelsior class, surely a galaxy classes core would be more powerful, most powerful that is, but that doesn't mean it would automatically be the most efficient. there could easily be an efficiency competition between 2 different ships with 2 different cores. also, the intrepid class and voyager wasn't even thought of yet during the 7th tng season. but i think the intrepid class was lunched the same year as tng's 6th or 7th season in universe, so it could have been the original intrepid class Geordi was competing with.
Yes and no.
The Excelsior class USS Fearless in "Where no one has gone before" was mentioned as being more efficien than the Enterprise-D, but only because of the power the traveller had and not beause the Excelsior is so efficient.

In addition I already took your thoughts about efficeincy into consideration:
The Intrepid's warpcore is also smaller than the Galaxy's but much newer.
So the efficiency thing is already taken into account there.
Also they talked about percentage values in that episode not absolutes.

When it comes to the matter of whether the "voyager" show was thought about at that point...well I'Ve got en edition of the Encyclopedia which contains the information that "Voyager" was in the works but has an equally nbulous entry about Star Trek Generations.
So just because the show was not released at that point doen (for once) not mean they had not actually thought about it at that point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dontdrunkimshoot View Post
so we see that the USS Galaxy has a registry of 70637, and according to memory alpha, the lowest nebula registry listed is USS Honshu NCC-60205, the USS nebula probably has a slightly lower number. its likely that the more utilitarian nebula class first launched in the mid to late 2350 with that number. the Galaxy, Yamato and Enterprise were all being built at approximately the same time, with the enterprise launching in 2363, so the galaxy class cant be older then 2362 or 63.

i believe the borg attacked in 2365, so the defiant was probably built in 2366 or 67, and then mothballed for a few years. its registry is NX-74205, so that number is mid 2360s. the intrepid's registry is 74600, so the intrepid is probably from about 2367. but, voyager's 74656 is not much higher, so it was probably one of the first intrepid classes, and it was launched in 2371. hmm. maybe the defiant wasn't even assigned a registry before it was pulled out of mothballs in 2371. the USS Prometheus has a sub 75000 registry in 2374, so it seems like ship building really slowed down between the 2350s and 2370s, witch is odd, considering all the new classes. USS nova's registry is 73515, so more mid 2360s

the akira class USS Thunderchild NCC-63549 actually has a registry number lower then the galaxy! so it was launched ln the very late 2350s? its possible. the Norway class USS Budapest registry of NCC-64923 puts it in a similar time frame as the akira class, another product of the 2350s apparently. the saber class USS Budapest has a registry of NCC-64923, so more 2350s. the oldest of all is the steamrunner class USS Appalachia, NCC-52136. 2340s?

and finally the USS sovereign's not quite canon registry of NX-73811, that seems kind of low. it could have been scheduled to be launched at about the same time as the first borg attack, but was pushed back to be further developed in light of new threats, and kept a registry number of a ship that proboly should have been launched years earlier.

based on all this, it apears the registry range for years is a bit like this

3555- ~60000
2360- ~65000
2362- ~70000
2364- ~72000
2366- ~73500
2368- ~74000
2370- ~74600
2372- ~74800
2374- ~75000

i think making sense of registry numbers is a bit hopeless lol
Using the registries only makes your head explode.
For example:
Springfield class (looks like the same era as the Cheyenne)
USS Chekov NCC-57302

Cheyenne USS Ahwahnee NCC-71620/NCC-73620 (the model in "Best of Both Worlds had the higher number, the ship listed in "Redemption" had the lower one).
This would actually mean the Cheyenne is more modern than the Galaxy while the Springfield is decades older (!).
It seems Starfleet assigns registries based on the what the dice said not based on any reasonable concept.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 53
10-09-2011, 04:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dontdrunkimshoot View Post
fighters in game not being useless is debatable, lol. the fighters are about the size of the Peregrine too. there's a reason there are no canon carriers, they just arnt as effective enough to bother with most of the time. the Peregrine originally was a short range courier that got uprated into a fighter anyway, that's not what it was to begin with.
Fair point, I will rephrase. There ARE fighters smaller than that in game, within the confines of Cryptic-Canon they are not intended to be useless.

And yes, in hard-canon fighters have no place in a navy with force fields, cloaking devices have no place on Federation ships, and Pakleds have no place in Starfleet. But hard canon takes a back seat to the needs of the MMO medium.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 54
10-09-2011, 06:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mister_dee
Yes and no.
The Excelsior class USS Fearless in "Where no one has gone before" was mentioned as being more efficien than the Enterprise-D, but only because of the power the traveller had and not beause the Excelsior is so efficient.

In addition I already took your thoughts about efficeincy into consideration:
The Intrepid's warpcore is also smaller than the Galaxy's but much newer.
So the efficiency thing is already taken into account there.
Also they talked about percentage values in that episode not absolutes.

When it comes to the matter of whether the "voyager" show was thought about at that point...well I'Ve got en edition of the Encyclopedia which contains the information that "Voyager" was in the works but has an equally nbulous entry about Star Trek Generations.
So just because the show was not released at that point doen (for once) not mean they had not actually thought about it at that point.
the intrepid's core is not 'much' newer, the intrepid class was only launched about 5 or 6 years after the galaxy class, and the enterprise did actually receive a new core during the 7th season, forgot why though. with the way starfleet like to constantly upgrading thing i can only imagine that 7th season core is not just an off the shelf 2363 model, but the latest generation of core that size.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mister_dee
Using the registries only makes your head explode.
For example:
Springfield class (looks like the same era as the Cheyenne)
USS Chekov NCC-57302

Cheyenne USS Ahwahnee NCC-71620/NCC-73620 (the model in "Best of Both Worlds had the higher number, the ship listed in "Redemption" had the lower one).
This would actually mean the Cheyenne is more modern than the Galaxy while the Springfield is decades older (!).
It seems Starfleet assigns registries based on the what the dice said not based on any reasonable concept.
i try not to worry about the highest registries, a class of ship could be built for decades, but the lowest registrys for each class give us the closest look at when something was launched, maybe.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 55
10-09-2011, 07:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dontdrunkimshoot View Post
the intrepid's core is not 'much' newer, the intrepid class was only launched about 5 or 6 years after the galaxy class, and the enterprise did actually receive a new core during the 7th season, forgot why though. with the way starfleet like to constantly upgrading thing i can only imagine that 7th season core is not just an off the shelf 2363 model, but the latest generation of core that size.
They got it three episodes earlier in "Phantasms".
The "reason" was that otherwise there would not have been an episode.
You are right that the Enterprise got a new warpcore.
But it was a newer warpcore still compatible with the Galaxy class.
The question is (as always when it come to upgrading older ship with new tech) how advanced you can get with upgrades to older tech before it actually hurts the ship itself.
Unless you don't only replace one specific part but start to change the affected systems as well.
Those new systems in turn might start affecting other systems as well which is the point where you end up replacing much more than you planned to do.

/excessive rant ahead:

Years ago I had a lecture at university held by a very kind elder man who had been involved in the German side of the space shuttle programme, meaning the spacelab part.
His name was Ottemeyer and he explained to us how much one unrelated component can totally mess up other sytems when not naken into account properly.
He gave a rather drastic real-life example:
Imagine a solar probe taking readings from the sun and portions of it heating up due to its proximity to the sun.
To compensate the probe needs to be "rolled" to have another section of it exposed while the toher side can cool off.
To "roll" a couple of thrusters need to be fired.
The result is that the electical impulses employed to control the thrusters will titally mess up you readings unless you know in advance that in a few seconds electircal impulses will be sent through the probe to order the thrusters to fire.
But that only works if you use one specific type of thruster that works at a specific voltage and frequency.
Replace that thruster and its control unit with a new one that works with a different voltage and you might not be able to compensate as you could before.

Imagine what happens to various systems when you replace a high-powered component with an even higher-powered component without any changes to its surroundings.
Of course we can assume "it's the future, I don't care if it's realistic or not".
But since it's not just fiction but supposed to be "science fiction" IMO at least some consideration should be given to the problems that may arise when you rip out one vital part of the ship and replace it with another without any other changes.
It would mean that the new component is not really that different from the first otherwise it would wreak havoc with the power-transfer lines, the cooling and eventually the propulsion system as a whole.
/end excessive rant

So since it seems they only changed the core the question is how much different it actually was and how much more advanced compared to the old one...and of course compared to a new class of ship designed from the ground up to benefit from all the advances made until that point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dontdrunkimshoot View Post
i try not to worry about the highest registries, a class of ship could be built for decades, but the lowest registrys for each class give us the closest look at when something was launched, maybe.
Probably the healthiest strategy.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 56
10-09-2011, 08:20 AM
Would be more reasonable to add Tier 6 ships where the player can build the ship themselves from existing hulls. Each hull coming with it's own benefits and drawbacks to make them balanced and feasible to play at endgame.

As it is, the game is going to rapidly devolve into every class being a C-Store refit option at T5 which is largely stupid. If the game is going to go that route, might as well offer every hull from the beginning of the game and allow everyone to pick the hull they want to level from Start to Finish.

The leveling process would simply be a case of opening weapon and bridge slots on the ship as you level up. Incidentally, this removes the entire need for ship tokens and dilithium shortages since folks only need to buy one ship in all their lifetime.

The Dilithium would go towards UPGRADING the ship as time progresses which is far more sensible.

Oh wait... I forgot that would cheat Cryptic of C-Store garbage of offering ships at every tier folks buy throughout the leveling process.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 57
10-09-2011, 11:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mister_dee
Yes and no.
The Excelsior class USS Fearless in "Where no one has gone before" was mentioned as being more efficien than the Enterprise-D, but only because of the power the traveller had and not beause the Excelsior is so efficient.

In addition I already took your thoughts about efficeincy into consideration:
The Intrepid's warpcore is also smaller than the Galaxy's but much newer.
So the efficiency thing is already taken into account there.
Also they talked about percentage values in that episode not absolutes.

When it comes to the matter of whether the "voyager" show was thought about at that point...well I'Ve got en edition of the Encyclopedia which contains the information that "Voyager" was in the works but has an equally nbulous entry about Star Trek Generations.
So just because the show was not released at that point doen (for once) not mean they had not actually thought about it at that point.



Using the registries only makes your head explode.
For example:
Springfield class (looks like the same era as the Cheyenne)
USS Chekov NCC-57302

Cheyenne USS Ahwahnee NCC-71620/NCC-73620 (the model in "Best of Both Worlds had the higher number, the ship listed in "Redemption" had the lower one).
This would actually mean the Cheyenne is more modern than the Galaxy while the Springfield is decades older (!).
It seems Starfleet assigns registries based on the what the dice said not based on any reasonable concept.
Having read a bunch of stuff about registries, what makes the most sense to me is that the registry pattern is likely {ship type}-{contract number}XX So Starfleet, rather than commissioning A starship, puts out a contract for something like 6 Galaxies, 6 Nebulas, 30 Runabouts, and a dozen Centaurs. (for example)

Under that scheme the original Enterprise was a standard ship contract (NCC), of the seventeenth contract (17), and the second ship built in that contract (01, with the 00 constitution being first. Though the constitution class is a bit of an oddity, since the Constitution was NCC-1700, but there's also a number of ships in various canon and quasi-canon sources with lower registries, such as the NCC-1071 Constellation and (the lowest I've found) the USS Eagle, NCC-956. My theory there is that they weren't originally called Constitution Class. Numerous places, early in the show, they were referred to as "starship" or "spaceship" class. Perhaps the Constitution did something great enough that it merited renaming the entire class in its honour.

Other examples:
U.S.S. Excelsior, Experimental Ship (NX), 20th contract (20), first ship of contract (00) = NX-2000
U.S.S. Galaxy, standrad ship type (NCC), 706th contract, 37 ship built in that contract = NCC-70637
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 58
10-09-2011, 12:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermbot View Post
Fair point, I will rephrase. There ARE fighters smaller than that in game, within the confines of Cryptic-Canon they are not intended to be useless.

And yes, in hard-canon fighters have no place in a navy with force fields, cloaking devices have no place on Federation ships, and Pakleds have no place in Starfleet. But hard canon takes a back seat to the needs of the MMO medium.
Actually fighter do have a role, as a sort of support. Is that role as big as a capital ship? No. But to add to larger ships total firepower at a lower cost per unit.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 59
10-09-2011, 12:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feor View Post
Having read a bunch of stuff about registries, what makes the most sense to me is that the registry pattern is likely {ship type}-{contract number}XX So Starfleet, rather than commissioning A starship, puts out a contract for something like 6 Galaxies, 6 Nebulas, 30 Runabouts, and a dozen Centaurs. (for example)

Under that scheme the original Enterprise was a standard ship contract (NCC), of the seventeenth contract (17), and the second ship built in that contract (01, with the 00 constitution being first. Though the constitution class is a bit of an oddity, since the Constitution was NCC-1700, but there's also a number of ships in various canon and quasi-canon sources with lower registries, such as the NCC-1071 Constellation and (the lowest I've found) the USS Eagle, NCC-956. My theory there is that they weren't originally called Constitution Class. Numerous places, early in the show, they were referred to as "starship" or "spaceship" class. Perhaps the Constitution did something great enough that it merited renaming the entire class in its honour.

Other examples:
U.S.S. Excelsior, Experimental Ship (NX), 20th contract (20), first ship of contract (00) = NX-2000
U.S.S. Galaxy, standrad ship type (NCC), 706th contract, 37 ship built in that contract = NCC-70637
Or the Constitution class was a significant improvement on the "starship" class that actually facilitated a need to rename the class and add a new ship contract. The Eagle, Constelation and Defiant were from different contract purchases and later brought up to the "Constitution" class secifications.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 60
10-09-2011, 05:27 PM
EDIT: Wow, didn't see the last few pages; my point is no longer relevant. Post retracted.
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 02:43 PM.