Lt. Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 216
# 361
10-03-2012, 08:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jim940 View Post
Quantum Torpedoes, unlike Photon Torpedoes were shown to be effective against solid neutronium. Photons have a maximum theoretical explosive yield of 25 isotons (rated to 18.5 isotons), quantum's are rated at 52.3 isotons.

As of the end of Star Trek, only a handful of ships used them, none of them being the Galaxy class ships.

Each Quantum fired is therefore equal to a little over 2 photons to cause the same damage.
The Sovereign has one Quantum Torp Launcher. One.
Go back and re-read what has been said by dontdrunkimshoot. He tells you that the only way that the Sovereign can hope to outgun the Galaxy is by keeping the QT edge and firing everything she has. Every phaser bank and every torpedo launcher at once.

If certain interpretations of the Tech Manuals are true, than even that won't even the score for the Sovereign. Equip a QT launcher in the much larger Galaxy Torpedo tubes and the Sovereign gets gutted. And you can bet that the Galaxy would end up with QT once effective mass production on them was reached. She had her Phaser Arrays upgraded twice and was shot down with Type XI equipped.

Quote:
As for the F-15 and F-16, let us remember that German pilots dog fighting against F-22's manage to beat them in the Alaska war games that were recently held.

Jim
Sorry, let me rephrase then.
Replace the F-22 with the new German aircraft.
They don't suddenly ditch all prior aircraft over night do they.
Lieutenant
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 46
# 362
10-03-2012, 08:45 PM
Galaxy X Class needs to be buffed.
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,618
# 363
10-03-2012, 08:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by veraticus View Post
The Sovereign has one Quantum Torp Launcher. One.
Go back and re-read what has been said by dontdrunkimshoot. He tells you that the only way that the Sovereign can hope to outgun the Galaxy is by keeping the QT edge and firing everything she has. Every phaser bank and every torpedo launcher at once.

If certain interpretations of the Tech Manuals are true, than even that won't even the score for the Sovereign. Equip a QT launcher in the much larger Galaxy Torpedo tubes and the Sovereign gets gutted. And you can bet that the Galaxy would end up with QT once effective mass production on them was reached. She had her Phaser Arrays upgraded twice and was shot down with Type XI equipped.



Sorry, let me rephrase then.
Replace the F-22 with the new German aircraft.
They don't suddenly ditch all prior aircraft over night do they.
The f-22 is a wonderful weapons platform but was designed with a single kind of combat in mind. Once you remove that option the F-22 looses a significant part of its advantage.

American has not lost a single f-15 to combat. it has consistantly been upgraded and the E model even added ground attack capability.

The f-16 is currently in its block 70 production run and isrial is the primary buyer. The only reason america isnt in a full scale replacement program is we were replacing it with the f-35 which is cirrently in its final stages of trials.

The primary difference between a 15 and a 22 is the stealth capability and manueverability of the 22. the 15 has a larger payload than the 22 since the 22 doesn't carry external munitions. The 22 can carry external munitions but that limits its stealth ability. The 22's stealth ability is also geared toward horizontal detection not look up/down radar systems.

Think of the 22 as a BOP(its even called a raptor). Aslo not that experimental trials and acceptance of the f 22 were done in the late 80's early 90's.

Just thought I should clear that up since it seems to be the basis of an argument about technology.
Actualy reading things pefore posting will make you look smarter than yelling loudly. Reading comprehension is aparently a lost art.

Not everything you see on the internet is true - Abriham Lincoln
Ensign
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 10
# 364
10-03-2012, 11:13 PM
No need to reply (sadly) since dontdrunkimshoot pretty much said what I would have said.
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,553
# 365
10-03-2012, 11:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by roboydo View Post
No need to reply (sadly) since dontdrunkimshoot pretty much said what I would have said.
Yeah... he has a tendency to do that lol...
It is said the best weapon is one that is never fired. I disagree. The best weapon is one you only have to fire... once.
Tired of Wasting EC and Time trying to get Superior Romulan Operative BOffs? Here's a cheap and easy way to get them, with an almost 100% chance of success.
Why the Devs can't make PvE content harder.
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,839
# 366
10-04-2012, 02:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by roboydo View Post
No need to reply (sadly) since dontdrunkimshoot pretty much said what I would have said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hereticknight085 View Post
Yeah... he has a tendency to do that lol...
its nice to know im not the ONLY one here any more that will defend the galaxy's honor. now if only the galaxy in game was at least 25% of what it was in canon
gateway links-->Norvo Tigan, Telis Latto Ruwon, Sochie Heim, Solana Soleus
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,825
# 367
10-04-2012, 02:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by whamhammer1 View Post
But isn't the "X" just as "wide" as the Galaxy? I thought that's what made it elegant?

I have for the longest time argued to have them allow the Gal-X to have the original saucer to take some of the 'bling" off of it.
It's not ony that it's the relations and proportions that make this ship look better (in my eyes) than almost all other ships. The Galaxy X, looks like a kid had slapped some "cool" looking stuff on it to make it look cooler.
They killed the elegant lines and majesty of the Galaxy Class completely.


Quote:
Originally Posted by whamhammer1 View Post
If you put on MK XII Very Rare weapons in place of those MK XI's, you will notice a decidedly greater difference. I throw on a DBB to make better use of the front on firepower, especially when the saucer is separated. I know that when I have fought against most Galaxy's I tended to go nose on becuase most are BA happy.
Lol, believe it or not i use the Polarized Deisruptor Arrays MK XII [dmg] on it (i'm only doing PvE anymore). I just forgot that i installed them already.

As i already said, that's not the point. Everything i did with the Galaxy Class can be done with any other ship in the game and i would get a better result. Its BOFF & console layout make the Galaxy Class the most passive (and boring) ship in the game. Just be able to take endless damage WITHOUT being able to strike back is NOT, i repeat NOT satisfying.

You see, my point is that the Galaxy Class is too passive COMPARED to other ships in the game.


Quote:
Originally Posted by whamhammer1 View Post
I never said it was inferior or toothless, just different. As far as a Lt. Cmdr Sci, that couldn't be so bad, but then you'd still be limited to a maximum Lt. Tac boff. Would that really be what you want (although two lt. tacs would be interesting). You'd be giving up an awfull lot on the Engi Boff side.
I say the Galaxy Class is inferior compared to the Assault cruiser or any other ship in STO.
As i already said, being able to tank forever and let others do the work (PvP) or to tickle your enemy to death (PvE/solo) just isn't satisfying (especially for the Galaxy Class). It NEEDS to be more active. I am not talking about MY build or skills or stuff like that, i have no problem making other Cruisers (relatively) active and offensive in this game. It's the Galaxys BOFF & Console Layout, one Tac Lt. and two tac consoles are just too little. In addition, it has three science consoles, but ony one Lt Science. This doesn't help much, it just makes that ship even more of a flying brick.

The devs haven't made ANY other ship this passive and boring like the Galaxy Class.
I get that some ship has to be the most passive one, but to make the Galaxy Class that ship is just intolerable. The devs easily could have used one of their own ugly and misshaped creations for that role. They made the Galaxy Class a completely different ship as it is used to be, even in other games.
If they had eve the slightest idea about the Galaxy Class they would have given it a Lt. universal instead of its Lt Science AND gave it two Science consoles instead of three and added one universal console.

It would be ok if it had two Lt. Tactical BOFF stations, which would still be inferior to the Regent. But it would massively boost the Galaxy Class versatility and give it a much more active role.
My favourite alternative would be to make its Science Lt. into a universal one. So it would reflect the "real" Galaxys modularity a bit.


Quote:
Originally Posted by whamhammer1 View Post
Man, is your color/font scheme a killer, it probably took more time pasting the font/color instructrions than the actual content of my post
Sorry about that, i find that color combination muchg less stressful for the eye, than the default White Font / Black background.
If it takes too much time, then just skip it and leave the font just white, thats no problem.


Quote:
Originally Posted by dontdrunkimshoot View Post
its nice to know im not the ONLY one here any more that will defend the galaxy's honor. now if only the galaxy in game was at least 25% of what it was in canon
You said it!


Thank you for reading.

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

Last edited by yreodred; 10-04-2012 at 02:29 AM.
Ensign
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 10
# 368
10-04-2012, 02:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dontdrunkimshoot View Post
its nice to know im not the ONLY one here any more that will defend the galaxy's honor. now if only the galaxy in game was at least 25% of what it was in canon
I just like things that make sense. The Galaxy class has shown (canonically speaking) incredible firepower, incredible endurance and was designed to be upgraded easily and readily.

A ship that large and well constructed coupled with its mission directive is going to be a powerhouse and meant to be "that" for a hell of a long time.
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,839
# 369
10-04-2012, 03:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by roboydo View Post
I just like things that make sense. The Galaxy class has shown (canonically speaking) incredible firepower, incredible endurance and was designed to be upgraded easily and readily.

A ship that large and well constructed coupled with its mission directive is going to be a powerhouse and meant to be "that" for a hell of a long time.
and then there are instances were it performs so poorly that the bridge crew should be court marshaled for criminal negligence and reckless endangerment of the crew. but those bad examples can jut be explained away as incompetence, you cant take back or try to average out its best showings.


there is nothing about the galaxy that would harshly out date it like say the excelsior that lacks arrays or the ambassador that has extreamly short arrays for a ship its size from a modern standpoint.

lack of phaser arrays should have shortened the excelcior's shelf life, but regardless the complacent starfleet kept it around for WAY to long. the bulk of the fleet being so tactically inferior with a limit to how far they could be upgraded without ripping apart the superstructure is proboly why wars with the cardasian and tzenkethi lasted years, even decades.

they were about 20 years behind when the smaller classes introduced in the 2360s started finally launching imo. just in time to get produced in enough numbers to make a difference against the borg and dominion.

then theres cryptic's odyssey, thats about 25 years to early as far as a ship being made that tops the galaxy. for the record, i was ADAMANTLY trying to explain to logan during the mesh building the importance of long arrays if nothing else, on this ship especially if it was going to replace the galaxy. huh, ok i'll keep that in mind, and then the oddy was launched with sub sovereign sized arrays.

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6043/7...74a4d2f5_o.jpg
http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/9...classscale.jpg
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7210/6...ee00e393_o.jpg

evaluating the oddy the same way we do the galaxy does not go well for it. first of all its size, its absurd that it is that large. its saucer is ruffly the same size as a galaxy's and its secondary hull proboly has even more volume. why would they make that ship so big and not give it weapons proportional with its size? its 100% form, 0% function, unless you buy the part about the twin neck helping slipstream. how is this ship going to serve as starfleets premier battleship for 50-75 years if its incapable of having half the firepower a galaxy armed with the same emitter type would have? the galaxy already had more room then you could possibly need for any mission it could go on, save for perhaps something transgalactic. i doubt by 2409 even with slip stream would starfleet be ready to try that.

http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/9...isecompare.jpg

this is the size the odyssey should have been, a step back in size a bit, and with an array not split in 2. the result of all the lessons learned from the galaxy and sovereign, and all the other classes of similar age. but its like they took that book of lessens and flushed it down the toilet and then designed it
gateway links-->Norvo Tigan, Telis Latto Ruwon, Sochie Heim, Solana Soleus
Ensign
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 10
# 370
10-04-2012, 04:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dontdrunkimshoot View Post
and then there are instances were it performs so poorly that the bridge crew should be court marshaled for criminal negligence and reckless endangerment of the crew. but those bad examples can jut be explained away as incompetence, you cant take back or try to average out its best showings.
Actually I would argue against that. Albeit I am not sure what instances you are talking about the two most used instances for a Galaxy's "weakness" are typically the Odyssey's destruction and Generations. In both examples they actually show heavily just how much fortitude the Galaxy has in her frame and design.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dontdrunkimshoot View Post
there is nothing about the galaxy that would harshly out date it like say the excelsior that lacks arrays or the ambassador that has extreamly short arrays for a ship its size from a modern standpoint.

lack of phaser arrays should have shortened the excelcior's shelf life, but regardless the complacent starfleet kept it around for WAY to long. the bulk of the fleet being so tactically inferior with a limit to how far they could be upgraded without ripping apart the superstructure is proboly why wars with the cardasian and tzenkethi lasted years, even decades.

they were about 20 years behind when the smaller classes introduced in the 2360s started finally launching imo. just in time to get produced in enough numbers to make a difference against the borg and dominion.
Can't agree with you enough. For brevity sake, ships todays are a lot of times 30+ years old. They were designed to absorb new technology as it was made. Hell, the battleships of yesteryear were refitted during the Gulf war and they weren't designed to absorb new tech but they did. I am pretty sure designers and engineers of the 24th century would be "better" at it (it being the concept of modular and adaptive design) and keep this well in mind when greating a capital ship like the Galaxy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dontdrunkimshoot View Post
then theres cryptic's odyssey, thats about 25 years to early as far as a ship being made that tops the galaxy. for the record, i was ADAMANTLY trying to explain to logan during the mesh building the importance of long arrays if nothing else, on this ship especially if it was going to replace the galaxy. huh, ok i'll keep that in mind, and then the oddy was launched with sub sovereign sized arrays.

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6043/7...74a4d2f5_o.jpg
http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/9...classscale.jpg
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7210/6...ee00e393_o.jpg

evaluating the oddy the same way we do the galaxy does not go well for it. first of all its size, its absurd that it is that large. its saucer is ruffly the same size as a galaxy's and its secondary hull proboly has even more volume. why would they make that ship so big and not give it weapons proportional with its size? its 100% form, 0% function, unless you buy the part about the twin neck helping slipstream. how is this ship going to serve as starfleets premier battleship for 50-75 years if its incapable of having half the firepower a galaxy armed with the same emitter type would have? the galaxy already had more room then you could possibly need for any mission it could go on, save for perhaps something transgalactic. i doubt by 2409 even with slip stream would starfleet be ready to try that.

http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/9...isecompare.jpg

this is the size the odyssey should have been, a step back in size a bit, and with an array not split in 2. the result of all the lessons learned from the galaxy and sovereign, and all the other classes of similar age. but its like they took that book of lessens and flushed it down the toilet and then designed it
I think the easiest way to sum it up is they tried to make something that looks "cool". Looking at these pictures its clear as day (as you point out) it isn't an efficient design for phaser stripping. It's ridiculous. There is a reason why a bubble is the most efficient shape in nature. Rounding it would have given it far more with to work with. Hell, even the the monstrously ugly Enterprise J was round. That said I would only be repeating what you said - very good post, my man,
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 11:08 PM.