www.ditl.org

Rochey wrote:A bigger hull allows space for bigger reactors, more fuel, more shield generators/projectors, thicker armour, more guns and more ammunition. Ergo, bigger is better when it comes to ships.

Which all add more weight and limit manuverablity.

Also, just because you have more space does not mean it can be used for everything and anything. A car may have a huge trunk, that does not mean you can install a larger engine.

True. Everything we've seen in 'Trek (up to the Sov) has indicated that "bigger = better;" but that's assuming a ship that was designed from the beginning to take advantage of its increased volume. There is certainly a terminal velocity of sorts of upgrades, after which the ship just can't take any further advantage of its space. In the case of the GCS, it's easy to begin by swapping many of the civilian amenities for upgrades. Once you have used up that available space and mass, you will run into the issues of lowered maneuverability, etc.

It seems in the Trek Universe bigger=better was the prevailing theory for a very long time. Recently we have seen the development of pure warships and the trend has been that they are smaller. The Akira and Defiant classes are prime examples.

m52nickerson wrote:Which all add more weight and limit manuverablity.

This is just as true of all battleships - they're not intended to dance about like fighters, they're intended to pack the biggest punch in the fleet.

A car may have a huge trunk, that does not mean you can install a larger engine.

It does, however, mean that you could fit an extra fuel tank, increasing your range.

Recently we have seen the development of pure warships and the trend has been that they are smaller. The Akira and Defiant classes are prime examples.

But we still see the GCS used as the Feds premier warship. Given that the Feds have never built a pure-role warship, it makes sense for them to start small.

Or put a big gun in the trunk! More guns is always good!

Hmmm... a GCS with a gun rack behind the impulse vents...

REDNECK POWER!!!!!!!!!!

The Enterprise A did have Phasers in the galley - you wouldn't want to get caught trying to steal cookies out of that kitchen.

kostmayer wrote:The Enterprise A did have Phasers in the galley - you wouldn't want to get caught trying to steal cookies out of that kitchen.

yeah, but to really show Redneck Power, they would have had to use that phaser to actually shoot dinner.

Yup, the phasers were right next bacon cuts.

Mikey wrote:

kostmayer wrote:The Enterprise A did have Phasers in the galley - you wouldn't want to get caught trying to steal cookies out of that kitchen.

yeah, but to really show Redneck Power, they would have had to use that phaser to actually shoot dinner.

Where'd you think the beef done come from... Fresh cattle down in the hold don't kill em selves.

Which all add more weight and limit manuverablity.

Of course it will. Your point being?

The role of a battleship is not to be quick and maneouverable, it's to smash enemy ships apart and blow shit up. For that role, bigger=better.

Movement! Naval ships move on basically a 2 dimensional plane, not counting subs. Starships do not, they are capable of banking back and forth and a whole host of other maneuvers that a naval vessel could not possible do.

Your point being? That doesn't affect my statement in any way. More space = more guns and generators.
Ergo, bigger = better.

Also, just because you have more space does not mean it can be used for everything and anything. A car may have a huge trunk, that does not mean you can install a larger engine.

As Seafort pointed out, however, it can be used to further enhance your car's abilities in other respects.

It seems in the Trek Universe bigger=better was the prevailing theory for a very long time. Recently we have seen the development of pure warships and the trend has been that they are smaller. The Akira and Defiant classes are prime examples.

So? The GCS was a jack-of-all-trades. It was never designed as a pure battleship. It had a load of civillian equipment and facilities in it as well. It stands to reason that when all that stuff is removed, you could build a much smaller ship. Hence the smaller Defiant and Akira designs.

But if you're going to do all that gutting then you wont have a GCS anymore. It will be something new, that works and doesn't blow. Again, no longer a GCS. Isn't our DITL Battleship about the same size as a GCS? Yet our ship would wreck a GCS like it was an after thought.

Quite right. The idea is of a heavily refitted ship based on the GCS frame.

In the end its not a GCS but a ship based off of the GCS.