the corrected Galaxy Class and starship seperation

posted on December 31st, 2008, 7:29 am

I am taking a poll on this as there is much discussion i encourage ONLY the people who feel strongly  that saucer seperation should or should not happen to vote, people who dont care or dont feel one way or another, or people who dont know what the galaxy class or saucer seperation is dont vote.  Anybody who wants more info google memory alpha and look up galaxy class, and you should be able to find saucer seperation to.

Also i didnt want to include this in the poll, but what are peoples thought of the galaxy class starship from the tng episode all good things(its a upgraded galaxy with a 3rd engine)

ok thanks 

*** please vote on this poll not the other i messed up the other poll people will not be able to see the votes i assure you this one is correct***

[Anonymous]

posted on December 31st, 2008, 7:54 am

Last edited by Anonymous on December 31st, 2008, 9:15 am, edited 1 time in total.

Well ya know you got my vote for SS:thumbsup:

There's no evidence to suggest the Galaxy was produced in small numbers. There were five or six of them seen in the battle to retake Deep Space Nine and more were seen under construction at Utopia Planetia shipyards in Voyager "Relativity." In the Dominion War, the Galaxy, Excelsior, and Miranda served as the backbone of the Federation Fleet. One was seen escorting Voyager back to Earth in "End Game." By 2379, they were seen all over the Federation.

I personally dislike the warp in feature. It takes too long for ships to warp in and sometimes you get 3 of one ship to 1 of another e.g., 3 Steamrunners to 1 Galaxy. I would rather build a ship at a yard then waste time with this feature. It doesn't add any more fun to the game and 1 ship warping in every 2-3 minutes (if even that) isn't going to decide the fate of the game.

For these reasons, I believe the Galaxy Class should require no stars to build, be buildable at a yard, and be able to saucer separate. However, due to its relatively large size (42 decks, Length: 642 meters, Beam: 463 meters, Height: 195 meters) it should have a long build time and high production cost as well as an increase in firepower and defensive value.

The rate of fire and shield recharge for type 3 torpedoes should also be increased. It's way too low to be any effective at its current level.

Build Time: 210

Crew: 600

Cost: 871 Dilithium, 364 Tritanium, 35 Supply

40 Offensive Value
45 Defensive Value
17 System Value

Phaser Base Value: 16

Torpedo Base Value: 20

I would also like to see the War Refit with additional phaser strips on the nacelles or the AGT (All Good Things) Galaxy from the final episode of TNG. I vividly remember watching the Enterprise D decloak and run and gun into the heart of that Negh'Var ripping it to shreds. That was one of the best TNG moments ever. Riker was a smart man to save it from mothball.

posted on December 31st, 2008, 8:36 am

Even though the Galaxy is a regular production starship, contrary to popular belief, it was still produced in relatively small numbers compared with others ships and, as such, I think that it should be buildable from the yard, but require credits... The Galaxy is specail and the game should certainly reflect that... Indeed, I'd much rather have a warp-in Galaxy with saucer seperation than a buildable Galaxy with none...

posted on December 31st, 2008, 8:48 am

I voted for second. If you want to be able to seperate the saucer from the stardrive, then so be it but I want the overall combat effectivness to drop when that happens...

posted on December 31st, 2008, 8:52 am

I didn't ever miss the saucer separation for a second because thanks to how A2 engine handles space battles, splitting your ship in half would give you no advantage at all... instead it would give you a huge disadvantage because it will have the same firepower in two, different parts which are easier to destroy one by one...

I Voted Leave As It Is because the current Values and abilities of the Galaxy would make it completely useless, the ExcelsiorII can do similarly in a battle, but has a special ability and Long --> Artillery range. With this in mind, i would never build Galaxy class ships for resources, but calling it in for Free is ok.
If the Galaxy will get a refit in the game, to make it stronger or let it have a special ability, i would support the idea of making it buildable or even credit-free.
However a GalaxyII would be useless again, because the Federation already has it's main heavy cruisers and battleships (or whatever class the game calls them...) with the Defiant and the Sovereign. The Galaxy can't be stronger than them (could be more durable than a Defiant but that's all i think), so we would just have a third type of large combat vessel which is not really better than the other two, so why would we pick it?...

Don't misunderstand me, i love the Galaxy class, but with the current competition and it's current attributes, it would have no real value as a buildable ship.

posted on December 31st, 2008, 8:59 am

I like the way it's handled at the moment. Don't see the need for saucer separation.

Also I hate the "Galaxy-X" from TNG's final episode. IMO it's nothing but a really ugly kitbash, so I'd prefer if it would stay out of FleetOps.

posted on December 31st, 2008, 9:27 am

It's fine.

Your stats are ridiculously skewed!

40 offensive and 45 defensive?!

That is WAY stronger than a galaxy class is. The Galaxy class is not stronger than the Sovereign. The Sovereign is hands down a more powerful ship in every area, except maybe long term durability due to a more advanced design and smaller crew.

But it has better phasers, quantum torpedoes and better shielding. I think the Galaxy class is perfect how it is.

[Anonymous]

posted on December 31st, 2008, 10:16 am

Last edited by Anonymous on December 31st, 2008, 10:22 am, edited 1 time in total.

Nonsense, just adjust the weapons strength for the Sovereign and other Fed ships accordingly. They made the weapons weaker than the Defiant and the Defiant was only slightly stronger than the USS Lakota. It had a lot of firepower but not as much as the Galaxy Class did during the war.

posted on December 31st, 2008, 10:32 am

Nonsense, just adjust the weapons strength for the Sovereign and other Fed ships accordingly.  They made the weapons weaker than the Defiant and the Defiant was only slightly stronger than the USS Lakota. It had a lot of firepower but not as much as the Galaxy Class did during the war.

Look, you cant base the strenght of fed ships according to Enterprise D and E. That would be just nonsense.
Whether you like it or dont, the Galaxy is an old ship and cannot compare itself equally with any of the new design warships (from any race). B4 u say its constantly updated, I would reply that so is every other starship (from any race).
Seeing your posts I can conclude you dont care at all about the balancing (or the actual facts), but indeed you just want your feds to be the über race you think they are. And quite honestly, you cant argue with a person who is like that. A lot of people is telling you that Galaxy is just not as strong, yet you keep saying its the other way around.
Well anyway, I've had it with this topic. You can get the Galaxy for free and your still not happy. I even said you can have your seperation, yet you want those 2 pieces being some sort of a deadly military maneur - eventhough it is just not designed for that. Anyway man, your arguing wont change a thing

[Anonymous]

posted on December 31st, 2008, 10:51 am

Last edited by Anonymous on December 31st, 2008, 10:56 am, edited 1 time in total.

Whoa there General....don't put me in the same category as Daton Kallandor with your cantankerous ranting. Don't jump the gun and make conclusions about people you don't know.

I base my information off what I see on the screen and the Tech Manual. Yeah, you like the Galaxy how it is...that's fine too. I do care about balance, what do think the point of this whole thing is? I don't think the Feds are an uber race; I enjoy the other races as well. But the Feds are underpowered in this game and I think they need to be better balanced.

That's what I think and that's too bad if you're going to get huffy puffy about it. The whole point of the feature request and game balancing forum is for members to state what they feel should be adjusted for balance and your arguing won't change that.

posted on December 31st, 2008, 10:55 am

The Galaxy class is a heavy cruiser just like the Excelsior II, Akira and Nebula. It was only a 'dreadnought' in the Dominion War because no Federation Ship (Odyssey? LOL) had the same hull size to serve as a phaser boat, nor the same crew and size to absorb damage.

posted on December 31st, 2008, 10:58 am

Heavy Cruiser????

posted on December 31st, 2008, 11:15 am

"A little less conversation, a little more action please" 

You guys are ridiculous. You've waited this game for so long only to debate unimportant issues. Forget that, enter online and enjoy yourself.

posted on December 31st, 2008, 11:22 am

Yup.

It's a heavy explorer in non war condition, sent into action as a dreadnought because the hulls did not exist. Now it's just a heavy cruiser, it's got firepower similar to the Akira or Excelsior II (better in some regards, just due to size). But it is not designed for combat. Maneuverability is extremely low.

posted on December 31st, 2008, 11:31 am

Whoa there General....don't put me in the same category as Daton Kallandor with your cantankerous ranting. Don't jump the gun and make conclusions about people you don't know.

I made a conclusion based on your arguments. You saying that the stats for a galaxy would be a40 d45 is proof enough that your talking out of your arse a bit. Consider other battleships in the game and their stats, this ship would be more powerful than Negh'Var, Dominion Battleship, D'Deridex, Norexan and even more powerful than a Sovie (I think). Not to mention that when the Galaxy splits, according to you, it should be even more powerful then! Probably in the range of a Dominion battleship(BTW this ship, it was specifically told in the show, is THREE times as powerful as a Galaxy) or a Tavara huh?

I base my information off what I see on the screen and the Tech Manual. Yeah, you like the Galaxy how it is...that's fine too. I do care about balance, what do think the point of this whole thing is? I don't think the Feds are an uber race; I enjoy the other races as well. But the Feds are underpowered in this game and I think they need to be better balanced.

I base my opinion off the show and movies and common sense. Why would the Federation build the Sovie if Galaxy was really up to par with all the other races Battleships? That wouldnt make any sense.
How in the name of (insert appropriate deity) did you come to a conclusion that feds are underpowered? The AI is obviously strongest as Federation, that is not up to discussion. When I played with all the races, I did not get a feeling that the Federation is underpowered. Their ships are durable and are not too expensive, their tech tree is pretty short so they dont have to bust their arses to get to the top tier ships. PLUS on top of that, they get free ships, all of which are very strong btw.
The only balancing problem I see, with any of the races is the Romulans, as they seem a little overpowered with a strong early, mid and late game units.

That's what I think and that's too bad if you're going to get huffy puffy about it. The whole point of the feature request and game balancing forum is for members to state what they feel should be adjusted for balance and your arguing won't change that.

Yep its about stating what you feel should be changed to improve the BALANCE. This is where you fail, as you seek to unbalance the game. I didnt actually get huffy puffy (nice phrase BTW ), its just I hate it when so many people are trying to tell a handful of people something and they are being delibraty thick.
What wont my arguing change? The forums? I never ment to do that anyway  :rolleyes: