www.ditl.org

God you're fucking stupid. Look, its been covered. I really don't care how many retards spend how many hours trying to figure in a fleet list. The OP is a modern fleet list in which we built the Paladin for. It is a purpose built ship for just this very thread. Luna is nothing that is needed. Vesta is a non canon ship using non canon tech in a non canon story line. Which leaves it meaningless when trying to place it in a fleet.

Try it like this if the above is still above your head. Go to the US Navy and when they are preparing their new fleet deployment. Try and tell them they should count in ship classes that haven't been designed yet with tech that hasn't been invented with hulls that haven't been tested yet... We'll take bets on weither they laugh at you or throw you out on your ass first. They may even multi-task.

If that example is to hard for you to get then you're just beyond help. Tough luck.

Deep is saying that the roles that the Luna and Vesta classes were built for are already fulfilled, and thus there is no real need to factor them into a hypothetical fleet. But Starfleet has no battleship, so the Paladin fills a useful role.

Rochey wrote:Deep is saying that the roles that the Luna and Vesta classes were built for are already fulfilled, and thus there is no real need to factor them into a hypothetical fleet. But Starfleet has no battleship, so the Paladin fills a useful role.

Which is true. The bit about it being "more canon" is nonsense, but the bit about not needing to use the Luna and Vesta classes is correct.

Rochey wrote:Deep is saying that the roles that the Luna and Vesta classes were built for are already fulfilled, and thus there is no real need to factor them into a hypothetical fleet. But Starfleet has no battleship, so the Paladin fills a useful role.

yes, but he's also critisizing the Luna/Vesta for being noncanon ships:

Deepcrush wrote:Vesta is a non canon ship using non canon tech in a non canon story line.

I'm just saying that if he's going to use that logic to exclude these ships it should be applied to all the noncanon ships.

See above. I think the Paladin is valid for the reason Rochey explained - we specifically created it in order to fill an empty place in the fleet line-up. The bit about it somehow being "more canon, thaough not completely canon" doesn't really hold water. In fact, I don't recall using the GCS as any sort of basis for it except maybe as a size or tonnage comparison.

Agreed.

Lt. Staplic wrote:correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see how making it weigh the same as a canon ship, is starting from canon.

I agree as well, I mentioned something like this earlier and got called a retard.

I think he's suggesting that because we've seen ships of that size before, we know canonicaly that the UFP's industrial base can deal with building such ships.

Why is this so hard to get for you guys? Really! The tonnage is that if the Paladin is similar in size and tech to the GCS. Build a fucking GCS with the Paladin upgrades and treat it like a Lakota refit for the Excelsior. You want a canon ship because you can't figure the basic's of a thread. Then there you go, just upgrade another class of similar size.

Bunch of fucking morons on here. Ten times around the same subject and you still can't get it just shut up. Stop wasting time and air from people who are worth something.

Deepcrush wrote:Again this has all been covered. To a horrid point. Why you guys are to f***ing retarded to fit this is just annoying. Vesta and Luna. Not canon, at all! Paladin, built from a canon ship. So, everything except the name is canon. Hence, why you can have it in a canon list.

Yeah yeah, we get it.
You love the Paladin, and you'll try anything to be accepted in the "canon-only" list, even though it was a ship made by fans for their own amusement.
And since you don't seem to get it either, I'll repeat it for you:
It's not canon. Never was, never will be, no matter what tech was used to design it.

Just because there's no true Battleship in the UFP doesn't validate the use of a non-canon ship in a canon list (which is the point you seem to slow to understand)...
If you use it, your list is no longer a "canon-only" list.

Two ships are NON-CANON where one ship is built from a CANON ship.

Says you.
Using canon Tech doesn't make a fanship any more canon then a ship also built from canon Tech appearing in a novel.
And to think you're the one calling us slow...

Always fun to watch someone's attempt at evidence bite them.
A.) The phaser arrays on the GCS are larger then those on the SOV.
B.) The GCS is bigger then the SOV.
C.) If you want a battleship by those standards then its the GCS, not the SOV.

Always fun to watch someone who thinks he knows everything be shown not to be right:
A.)A Battleship has the "largest calibre of guns". So I guess now you'll try to argue that the Type-X are more powerful then a Type-XII?
B.)But shorter, lesser armor, shields are weaker, and it is slower. It also has equipment that is older and less advanced the the Sovereign.
Funny, you accept the Defiant as a "monitor" role, even though it has more armor then almost any other ship, but the Sovereign as a Battleship isn't acceptable because it lacks only one characteristics, the mass, even though it is the only canon ship that fits the bill...
Oh, right, you want to be able to use the Paladin...
C.)No, because, as stated before (now I have to repeat again for you. Lucky for us I'm the slow one), a Battleship has "largest calibre of guns. Battleships were larger, better armed, and better armored than cruisers and destroyers.
Battleship design continually evolved to incorporate and adapt technological advances to maintain an edge."
So, aside from the size, the Sovie has every advantage over the GCS.

So if the only issue with the Sovie is the size, then I have no issues putting it as a Battleship.

You should merge Battleship and Battlecruiser. They aren't the same but you can still have the same ship run the role if you lack anything to fill the slot. That or you should just forget the Battleship role all together.

I like the merger idea.
That's what I'll do.
Thanks.

For Cargo ships you should add the Shelley.

Done...

Revised list:

Battleship Role/Battle Cruiser: Sov

Heavy Cruiser - GCS (uprated) Nebula (uprated + new pod) Prometheus (Batch 2, MVAM removed).

Standard Cruiser - Akira and Ambassador, Excelsior if refitted "Lakota-style".

Light Cruiser - Excelsior, Norway and Steamrunner.

Destroyer/Monitor - Defiant (Thanks to Captain Seafort for the clarification).

Frigate/Escort - Saber, Miranda and Centaur.

Cargo - Sydney (U.S.S Jenolan), and Shelley

S/E - Intrepid and Nova.

Yeah yeah, we get it.
You love the Paladin, and you'll try anything to be accepted in the "canon-only" list, even though it was a ship made by fans for their own amusement.
And since you don't seem to get it either, I'll repeat it for you:
It's not canon. Never was, never will be, no matter what tech was used to design it.

Wrong... I love the Excelsior. I could give a shit about the Paladin. The Paladin wasn't built for amusement. It was built because it is NEEDED. Have you ever even opened a book about anything like this before? Or any book for that matter?

Using a ship with canon tech vs a ship with non-canon tech. Which one has canon? Don't worry, I know you won't get it. You're about as clever as any other sack bagged retard around here.

Just because there's no true Battleship in the UFP doesn't validate the use of a non-canon ship in a canon list (which is the point you seem to slow to understand)...
If you use it, your list is no longer a "canon-only" list.

Again this has been covered several times. If you can't run with it then treat it as a beefed up GCS.

Do you plan on saying anything of meaning or is this the best you're able to do?

Says you.
Using canon Tech doesn't make a fanship any more canon then a ship also built from canon Tech appearing in a novel.
And to think you're the one calling us slow...

Again, covered. Nice to see you've picked up on the mod tactic of taking things out of context when you talk about them.

Always fun to watch someone who thinks he knows everything be shown not to be right:

When you make a comment like that, it helps if you knew anything... at all even... for the subject we're in. You haven't proven anyone to anything. You just (again like most of your threads) jump and skip around topics hoping for a lucky hit.

A.)A Battleship has the "largest calibre of guns". So I guess now you'll try to argue that the Type-X are more powerful then a Type-XII?

God you're such a pathetic waste of life. You should know that Caliber doesn't make a weapon stronger. You said the largest WEAPON... not caliber. Either way, doesn't matter. The type X on the GCS are larger then the type XII. No one said that the former was more powerful. If you can't form a reply without lying about what was said. Just don't bother talking at all.

B.)But shorter, lesser armor, shields are weaker, and it is slower. It also has equipment that is older and less advanced the the Sovereign.

Doesn't matter, your words were "The largest ship" is the battleship. Again, you were wrong. Just get over it.

Funny, you accept the Defiant as a "monitor" role, even though it has more armor then almost any other ship, but the Sovereign as a Battleship isn't acceptable because it lacks only one characteristics, the mass, even though it is the only canon ship that fits the bill...

Wrong, Seafort sees it as a Monitor, I see it as a heavy destroyer. Also, we don't know that the Defiant has more armor then any other ship. Just far more then any ship its size.

Oh, right, you want to be able to use the Paladin...

Again, covered above.

C.)No, because, as stated before (now I have to repeat again for you. Lucky for us I'm the slow one), a Battleship has "largest calibre of guns. Battleships were larger, better armed, and better armored than cruisers and destroyers.
Battleship design continually evolved to incorporate and adapt technological advances to maintain an edge."
So, aside from the size, the Sovie has every advantage over the GCS.

Yeah, repeating your bullshit still leaves it as bullshit. The Sov isn't a battleship, never was. SF even classes it as a cruiser. So the best reach still leaves it as a Battlecruiser or very heavy cruiser.

GCS is larger with larger guns. Those guns just aren't as good as the ones used on a SOTA cruiser design. Saying a ship from 20 years ago is less advanced then the latest and greatest doesn't change the classes of the ships.

**********************************

Seperated for matters of ease.

Revised list:

Battleship Role/Battle Cruiser: Sov

Heavy Cruiser - GCS (uprated) Nebula (uprated + new pod) Prometheus (Batch 2, MVAM removed).

Standard Cruiser - Akira and Ambassador, Excelsior if refitted "Lakota-style".

Light Cruiser - Excelsior, Norway and Steamrunner.

Destroyer/Monitor - Defiant (Thanks to Captain Seafort for the clarification).

Frigate/Escort - Saber, Miranda and Centaur.

Cargo - Sydney (U.S.S Jenolan), and Shelley

S/E - Intrepid and Nova.

I would leave the Excelsior, Lakota refit or not, as a light cruiser. Other then that, this is a pretty damn good list.

I think the only problem is the Battleship/Battlecruiser. They are different, if only in the speed vs. armour fields.they are still different. The Sovereign is one of the fastest in the fleet, so I would flag her as a Battlecruiser. That leaves a gap for the Battleship. Which is why the Paladin was created. I agree with using it ONLY because there Is NOT a canon equivalent.

Aye, that's my take on it as well.

Don't get me wrong Preaothmin, I hate violating Canon, and it's probably my biggest fear of this new movie. I despise it. BUT I think this is a necessary exception.

Indeed. The Paladin is certainly non-canon, but there really is no canon ship to fill the role.