the corrected Galaxy Class and starship seperation

posted on January 6th, 2009, 2:00 am

and no that 25 percent thing dosent work, the galaxy class needs to have thhat ability, period

posted on January 6th, 2009, 2:58 am

I wouldn't know; the warp-in has never been kind enough to give me one.

posted on January 6th, 2009, 4:54 am

well they suck right now, they need to be improved, and given back the saucer seperation

posted on January 7th, 2009, 12:16 am

and now, more people want saucer seperation then those who do not

posted on January 7th, 2009, 11:43 pm

and no that 25 percent thing dosent work, the galaxy class needs to have thhat ability, period

Why? Why doesn't it work? Why does it need that ability, period? Reasons are needed.

The saucer seperation as a military thing just sucks, but serves well (in the show and in a gameplay idea) as an escape method for all the civilians and families. Given that, as a warp-in ship, it's not purpose-built for combat, so there would be the normal civilians and families on board, so the 25% idea gives a pretty good way of getting them out of trouble.

posted on January 7th, 2009, 11:44 pm

if you had actually read anything i wouldnt have to explain to you, and im not going to, go back and read the posts

[Atlantis]

posted on January 7th, 2009, 11:48 pm

Last edited by Atlantis on January 7th, 2009, 11:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

There's no need to get so uppity about it, I only asked you to explain the reasons behind your opinion.

The 25% thing was only mentioned on the previous page, and there have been none of your posts since then, explaining why it wouldn't work.

So I'll ask again. Why wouldn't the 25% thing work?

posted on January 8th, 2009, 12:07 am

well i thot you were talking abouyt the whole seperation, so saorry for the confusion, i do not like the 25 percent thing because by then your weakend, and you cannot use it tactically before then,

for instance say you are a galaxy class defending a mining colony, 4 brels come to attack, you know that you need to protect both sides to prevent any losses of ships or stations, or at least hold them off till help arrives (if there are any ships close enough) but you are only one ship, a galaxy class, so using the galaxys signature ability, you do a starship seperation, each half proceds to one of the two groups, and take on two brels each, now wuth both halfs you avert any losses of mining ships, by splitting up the starship

posted on January 8th, 2009, 1:20 am

Here is what I think about the Galaxy Class.

The Galaxy class was designed to be a support ship. It has a special ability, and that is why it needs credits. As for the warp in, The Galaxy class is an older ship compared to the ones you see at the shipyards in Fleetops. I think that the Warp In was meant to say that they discontinued the Galaxy class construction at the Federation, but there are still Galaxys in service.

posted on January 8th, 2009, 4:40 am

the galaxy class was most definelty not a support ship, and was definetly not discontinued its shown in the show that many more were made, and no, it is not an older ship at all, what do you call the excelsior? or the miranda those are the older ships, the galaxy is the cutting edge

posted on January 8th, 2009, 6:18 am

'the galaxy class was most definelty not a support ship, and was definetly not discontinued its shown in the show that many more were made, and no, it is not an older ship at all, what do you call the excelsior? or the miranda those are the older ships, the galaxy is the cutting edge'

I call it outdated.

It and the Nebula are the oldest classes of Federation ship in Fleet Operations.

The Exelsior II and Miranda II are new hulls. And therefore new ships!

posted on January 8th, 2009, 6:33 am

dude the galaxy class has recieved many upgrades, there is no way an excelsior could  take a galaxy class, a galaxy class is way more powerful, so stop blowing off your thoughts, and look it up like i have, cus right now your spouting off flase info

posted on January 8th, 2009, 6:42 am

You sir, are an IDIOT.

You can't possibly speak to the exact specifications of the Excelsior II which is non-canon firstly and secondly is NOT an Excelsior equivalent to the Lakota refit. It has a new saucer, hull and stardrive section. Can the galaxy say that? You also have yet to prove to me that the ingame Galaxy is a venture refit.

And furthermore:

Do you see Nacelle phaser strips from the Venture Refit? I don't, why don't you zoom in and look. This points to the Galaxy class being the 'standard' Galaxy class that we've always known. P.S. Canon references for the 'ton' of upgrades?

I can link to pictures of the Excelsior II and Miranda II to show they only resemble their namesakes as well. I seriously doubt you should be having this debate with me. I know I am being rude, but you started it.

posted on January 8th, 2009, 10:14 am

Rhaz, you're not rude.

However, I doubt that ray will except any answer that doesn't support his own opinion. I mean,he even interprets the Memory Alpha articles in a way that they support his claim, whereas I'd say they most definitely don't.

posted on January 8th, 2009, 11:19 am

You sir, are an IDIOT.

You can't possibly speak to the exact specifications of the Excelsior II which is non-canon firstly and secondly is NOT an Excelsior equivalent to the Lakota refit. It has a new saucer, hull and stardrive section. Can the galaxy say that? You also have yet to prove to me that the ingame Galaxy is a venture refit.

Do you see Nacelle phaser strips from the Venture Refit? I don't, why don't you zoom in and look. This points to the Galaxy class being the 'standard' Galaxy class that we've always known. P.S. Canon references for the 'ton' of upgrades?

I can link to pictures of the Excelsior II and Miranda II to show they only resemble their namesakes as well. I seriously doubt you should be having this debate with me. I know I am being rude, but you started it.

The physical difference between the Miranda-II & Excelsior-II and their namesakes is identical to the physical difference between the Constitution & Constitution Refit. Was it stated that they are not refits?