Page 3 of 7

Re: What are ships which are worse than the Galaxy-class?

Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:03 am
by Teaos
Probably, it removes a system which reduces complexity and may improve speed/efficency.

Re: What are ships which are worse than the Galaxy-class?

Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 1:55 pm
by Sionnach Glic
Aye, that was my thought on the matter, as well.

Re: What are ships which are worse than the Galaxy-class?

Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 5:13 pm
by Mark
And one that didn't even LOOK that cool visually.

Re: What are ships which are worse than the Galaxy-class?

Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 5:19 pm
by Deepcrush
Classes I hate more then the GCS?

The Excelsior refit (Ent-B). What bullshit was that. They built a ship without working PTLs. Lots of extra hull bits but with almost no armor as the Nexus wave cut through the hull yet took something like an hour to destroy a couple of transports. This was basicly the Generations way of spitting on the greatest ship (pound for pound) ever built.

Yeager... :wtf: Worthless.

Defiant... little uber ship that could. How many times do you think BB jerked himself off to this as the show went on? When she first came on screen she got her ass beat by 3 Bugs. THough it still took 3 of them to do it. That would have been an awsome ship. However, by the end of the series she was taking out a dozen or so Bugs per battle and even attacking full sized battlecruisers without worry. Started well then went to fuck.

Constellation... just crap. They had the Excelsior so why build that hunk of junk.

Re: What are ships which are worse than the Galaxy-class?

Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 5:31 pm
by Mark
I have to go along with Deep on that one. They HAD the Excelsior class, and they were still running Miranda class ships. What the hell was the point of the Constellation class?

Re: What are ships which are worse than the Galaxy-class?

Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:38 pm
by Reliant121
I believe an explanation was that the Constellation was designed to test the viability of a quad-nacelle design. It stands to reason that they might well be able to go faster, since Starfleet had never tested them before. They didn't, which is fair and the process of elimination continued. They were a failed experiment. Thats how i took the Constellations too. It also slots neatly into picard saying that the Stargazer was underpowered, as spreading the power of one Warp Core over 4 nacelles would likely mean less power to each nacelle than if it were simply two nacelles.

Re: What are ships which are worse than the Galaxy-class?

Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 9:11 pm
by Graham Kennedy
me,myself and I wrote:Personally I always figured that since the Sovereign and other ships don't have the bendy nacelles, starfleet figured out how to get the same effect without the bending. Or just chalk it up to :Q
Yeah, but that's what I mean. That explanation makes sense, but it also makes the Intrepid a fairly pathetic design. "Well we had this idea for better warp drive... but it didn't pan out and we thought of something even better. Oh well."

Re: What are ships which are worse than the Galaxy-class?

Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 9:16 pm
by Lazar
Deepcrush wrote:The Excelsior refit (Ent-B). What bullshit was that. They built a ship without working PTLs. Lots of extra hull bits but with almost no armor as the Nexus wave cut through the hull yet took something like an hour to destroy a couple of transports. This was basicly the Generations way of spitting on the greatest ship (pound for pound) ever built.
I've read that they added the secondary hull bulge just so there would be something that they could easily blow up in the Nexus scene.

Re: What are ships which are worse than the Galaxy-class?

Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 4:57 am
by Deepcrush
Well thats the OOU reason which makes a fair bit of sense. That and maybe they wanted to have something new looking.

Re: What are ships which are worse than the Galaxy-class?

Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 5:30 pm
by Mark
Bleh........I liked the NX-2000 WAY more than the E-B for sheer appearance. The E-B just didn't have the same...........feel...to it, if that makes any sense.

Re: What are ships which are worse than the Galaxy-class?

Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 8:34 pm
by Captain Seafort
Eh, Deep, have you taken a close look at the Lakota recently? Not that I'm disagreeing with your points, but I thought you liked that ship. :lol:

Re: What are ships which are worse than the Galaxy-class?

Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 8:51 pm
by Reliant121
Captain Seafort wrote:Eh, Deep, have you taken a close look at the Lakota recently? Not that I'm disagreeing with your points, but I thought you liked that ship. :lol:
Crappy looks can be excused if a ship kicks ass 8)

Re: What are ships which are worse than the Galaxy-class?

Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 9:01 pm
by RK_Striker_JK_5
I liked the COnstellation. I just saw it as another ship design from the movie era. *Shrug*

Re: What are ships which are worse than the Galaxy-class?

Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 9:22 pm
by Reliant121
I liked it as well. I always wanted to put a novel on one, one of the underpowered horses that tried to cut it in the Miranda's world but never really made it. It could be quite an interesting setting. And the obvious challenges of trying to coax decent performance out of the supposedly weak powerplant.

Re: What are ships which are worse than the Galaxy-class?

Posted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 3:45 am
by Deepcrush
Captain Seafort wrote:Eh, Deep, have you taken a close look at the Lakota recently? Not that I'm disagreeing with your points, but I thought you liked that ship. :lol:
The Lakota looks the same as any Excelsior class. What I hate is the Ent-B and her pink hull.