Originally Posted by neo1nx

first i am not the kind of guy you described, and so are many like me, i don't want the galaxy x to be as nimble as the negvar, far from it,i don't known where you see me asking for that.
what i asked however is that the gap should be reduced, that sound more realistic to me,and asking a cruiser of 6 degree to gain 0.5 degre turn rate is far from feeling the gap with the negvar and make it as nimble as him, far from it.
so let me remind you galaxy x 6 base degree turn rate.....negvar 8base degree turn rate.

i don't want the galaxy x to be the best ( beside best is a personal and subjective idea ) i want him to have a realistic and efficient setup according to it design purpose ( make wars )
if i have to loose something for it, by all mean, if cryptic said we are buffing the turn rate of the galaxy but we also reducing it hull, no problem with me. having 50000 hull point will not save your life forever against good player.

and althrought the breen is an exellent warship and i am in love with it design, i would prefer to stay with my galaxy x, and i don't want the setup of the breen on my galaxy x nor it turn rate.
i have made a thread where i clearly expose the change i would like to do with this ship and if you get to see it you will see that i don't ask for unrealistic changes, or a IWIN ship.
the change i propose won't do anything to a bad pilot with a bad build, the galaxy x would still be a hard ship to master, and will for sure be less resilient, but that the only compromise that i found ( that engage only me ) to be acceptable and coherent.
here is the tread
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/sh...d.php?t=394971

Originally Posted by sollvax

The terms "battle cruiser" and "pocket battleship" are interchangable

My favourite World war two ship was a pocket battle ship

Originally Posted by wunjee

"Pocket Battleship" wasn't even an official designation. Their official designation was "Panzerschiffe". They were essentially light cruisers with big guns. There is no "official" designation for a ship of that classification because nobody else has been dumb enough to do it..

Originally Posted by sollvax

Try heavy Cruisers with big guns and heavy armour plate

Originally Posted by wunjee

Uh, have you looked at the armor schemes of the Panzershiffes?

Compare the armor schemes of these 3 ships.

Emden (Light Cruiser)
Graf Spee (Panzerschiffe)
Prinz Eugen (Heavy Cruiser)

I guarantee you Graf Spee's armor scheme is MUCH more similar to Emden's then Prinz Eugen's..




No they didn't. The Germans and the British shared naval designations since well before WWI. A British Battlecruiser as comparable to a German battlecruiser, a Destroyer was a Destroyer, Cruiser was a Cruiser, etc.

US, Britain, Germany, Japan, Russia, France and Italy all shared a pretty similar designation system for their navies.

Originally Posted by sollvax

Sadly you are mistaken

but its not worth the argument

So ill let this go (you might like to visit the Royal naval museum at portsmouth some time)