Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 21
03-02-2012, 03:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yogurt21
Enterprise D from memory Alpha


so tier 4 should have what at least 8 fore and 7 aft weapon slots?

you can't equate cannon weaponry with the current system, it just wouldn't work
You are partially right here, that wouldn't work... but.... a friend of mine pointed out to me the other day that most of the Federation starships actually used Dual Phaser Arrays, and it is only STO that prevents you from mounting these on the rear of the ship. So divide both those numbers by 2 and it's (Emphasis on this) TECHNICALLY right to only have 4/3 or 4/4 for weapon banks.

*Edit*

What I just said still doesn't make the larger ships right, namely the Galaxy and such, but you get my point... I hope
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 22
03-02-2012, 04:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sprint01
It's not an actual NX-class ship. It's a Replica. I never understood the argument that it's supposedly a 200 year old ship.
You would think 200 years into the future would make the ship "better"?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 23
03-02-2012, 05:12 PM
I think that what he was trying to say is that they would have better equipment on it now then when it was commissioned 200 years ago
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 24
03-02-2012, 05:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by testament7
You would think 200 years into the future would make the ship "better"?
There are a couple of things involved here:

First, if you're the appropriate level you can equip a NX with Mk XII gear and make it "better." Any gear beyond Mk II makes it "better." In Star Trek terms that's called Refitting. Refitting is not the same as Retrofitting - where you completely upgrade the ship's design.

Second, as has been said a couple of times now, the reason the NX isn't "better" is because CBS doesn't want it "better." Cryptic can make a T5 NX, or a T5 TOS Connie, or a T5 anything, but they can't put it in the game unless CBS allows it.

This situation is the classic canon clash.

Does it make sense that Starfleet would create new ships that look like old ships? No, but the fans want them so they are in the game in some form.

If Starfleet did create these ships in the 25th Century would they be better then their 23rd and 24th Century counterparts? Yes, because of advanced technology and materials.

Do we really know what the stats are for a 23rd Century opponent to see if the 25th Century Replicas aren't better? No. For all we know 23rd Century ships might be T-2 whereas the NX is T1.

There's no proper way to balance all that out. Fans want them so they're in the game even though canonically they shouldn't be available, but they're only in the game in a form that CBS will allow.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 25
03-03-2012, 01:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cosmic_One View Post
Does it make sense that Starfleet would create new ships that look like old ships? No,
Why?
In our history, did you see basic ship design change from ship to ship every year?
Ships have had the same basic design for 500 years or more, only changing when tech changed. They got bigger to allow for more cannon decks, got more masts, then got rid of the masts and got chimneys, and so on. It's pretty easy to follow the design changes based on the tech available at the time.

Using an old hull design shouldn't really have any drawbacks, 200 years in the future the tech is better and smaller, you can shove more in the same hull than you could back then. This is especially true in Trek, where all ships have the same basic layout - saucer, nacelles, connecting pylons.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 26
03-03-2012, 02:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by perji
Why?
In our history, did you see basic ship design change from ship to ship every year?
Ships have had the same basic design for 500 years or more, only changing when tech changed. They got bigger to allow for more cannon decks, got more masts, then got rid of the masts and got chimneys, and so on. It's pretty easy to follow the design changes based on the tech available at the time.

Using an old hull design shouldn't really have any drawbacks, 200 years in the future the tech is better and smaller, you can shove more in the same hull than you could back then. This is especially true in Trek, where all ships have the same basic layout - saucer, nacelles, connecting pylons.
However as we've seen throughout our history the shape also has a hughe influence on how a ship can handle stress and impact damage, not to mention the effect it has on hydrodynamics (in ST that would correspond with subsace geometry).
As a result the HMS Victory is a ship yes but when you look at ther actual shape she has little to do with the King George V class of WW2

http://www.jotika-ltd.com/KitPics/LRG/Victory_lrg.jpg

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/att...ggeorgev01.jpg

There are also other details like the inner arrangement that goes along with the external arrangement that has a great deal of effect as the internal skeletal structure has to correspond with the general outer arrangement and the skeletal struture gives the ship stability and allows it to withstand stress caused by travel at high speeds, the stress of maneuvering and of course impacting damage.

So to build a new ship that looks similar to an old one they'd have to sit down and figure out a way to make the new methods of construction work with an outmoded hull design that even with the new materials will most likely be less efficient than a newer hull design that was created with these innovations in mind in the first place.
And all for...nostalgia?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 27
03-03-2012, 02:39 AM
One could just as easily ask why we don't see replica Ford Model A's (late 1920s-early 1930s) for sale, given that we could fit them with unleaded fuel-injected V6 engines instead of their original carburated straight-four engines that had 1/3 as much horsepower.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 28
03-03-2012, 02:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChibiClari View Post
One could just as easily ask why we don't see replica Ford Model A's (late 1920s-early 1930s) for sale, given that we could fit them with unleaded fuel-injected V6 engines instead of their original carburated straight-four engines that had 1/3 as much horsepower.
Or why the US military doesn't seem to want to bring back the Sherman as a retro-tank.
The combination of a modern engine with a new 75/76 mm gun and composite armor would probably make it a killer on the battlefield.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 29
03-03-2012, 03:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChibiClari View Post
One could just as easily ask why we don't see replica Ford Model A's (late 1920s-early 1930s) for sale, given that we could fit them with unleaded fuel-injected V6 engines instead of their original carburated straight-four engines that had 1/3 as much horsepower.
Of course, they could ask. However, stranger things have been done with customized cars over the years. Not restorations. Some really do just want the style of the car. For all we know, someone has actually done what you suggest. Say a Ford Model-T kit with a modern electric motor for clean energy? It would look the way the owner prefers. And run more softly than its 1930's predecessor. Just because we haven't seen an established manufacturer mass produce such a thing, doesn't mean they can't do it.

IMO, starship Engineers love a challenge. But, perhaps CBS just doesn't see it that way.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 30
03-03-2012, 10:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psi'a Meese
Of course, they could ask. However, stranger things have been done with customized cars over the years. Not restorations. Some really do just want the style of the car. For all we know, someone has actually done what you suggest. Say a Ford Model-T kit with a modern electric motor for clean energy? It would look the way the owner prefers. And run more softly than its 1930's predecessor. Just because we haven't seen an established manufacturer mass produce such a thing, doesn't mean they can't do it.

IMO, starship Engineers love a challenge. But, perhaps CBS just doesn't see it that way.
Difference is that while some people would be crazy enough to do something like this in their free time in their back yard (where such an endeavor is still economic BS) no military would do such a thing as it gets people killed if they started to retrofit a Sopwith Camel instead of using the Euro Fighter.
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 06:04 PM.