Dominion Battleship

Granitehewer · Post by **Granitehewer** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 1:04 pm

wild digression time: i hope that the 2000 'romulan troops' that attempted to establish a beachhead on vulcan, were remans, can't stand 'em!
RE: Dominion Battlecruiser, Jem Hadar apparently can endure standing for prolonged periods and don't seem to require any creature-comforts, so even smaller dominion vessels can have a relatively staggering troop capacity, that would be unheard of, in the fleets of many other races.

Deepcrush · Post by **Deepcrush** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 4:35 pm

So then why build such a large ship and not fill it out with weapons. That would be a horrible waste of resources and meaningless if you could build 12 battlecruiser for the same cost.

Granitehewer · Post by **Granitehewer** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 6:21 pm

psychology of intimidation?

Deepcrush · Post by **Deepcrush** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 6:25 pm

Yes well psychology tells me that 12 battlecruisers coming at me would make me need new pants.

Granitehewer · Post by **Granitehewer** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 6:31 pm

hahaha lol
The dominion battleship is really imposing though beyond its capabilities, almost like a terror weapon(like the executor was, compared to the conventional star destroyers), i say pampas all around for anyone not in a sovereign class, although riker clearly needs pampas, judging by his expressions......

Post by **Captain Seafort** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 6:46 pm

Given its relatively weak armament for its size it's possible that the battleship's primary role is planetary assault, rather than ship-to-ship combat. I'd expect a dedicated battleship that size to outgun a Galaxy by something like 10-to-one, in the same way the E-nil did Kruge's BoP.

Deepcrush · Post by **Deepcrush** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 7:02 pm

Thats a fine idea, maybe its meant to land troops and just carries enough firepower to protect its self from single vessels that are going to be raiding supply lines. As for its size it should be like the scimitar in combat rating if it were a true battleship. So she is a carrier after all!

Granitehewer · Post by **Granitehewer** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 7:05 pm

Am curious to know, who here believes that the existance of the 4,800m dominion dreadnought, with the 2mill, troop capacity as being an intended vessel in the 'trek universe,rather than a special effects glitch/embellishment, i personally just plum for the 1,200 metre 'valiant' vessel

Deepcrush · Post by **Deepcrush** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 7:12 pm

I don't like the idea of the super battle ship but i don't mind speaking about. However i don't believe it was ever truly fielded.

Sionnach Glic · Post by **Sionnach Glic** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 7:16 pm

True, out of universe it was just an effects goof. However, in universe, they do exist.

Thorin · Post by **Thorin** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 7:16 pm

Granitehewer wrote:Am curious to know, who here believes that the existance of the 4,800m dominion dreadnought, with the 2mill, troop capacity as being an intended vessel in the 'trek universe,rather than a special effects glitch/embellishment, i personally just plum for the 1,200 metre 'valiant' vessel

I think it's just a glitch, like most things, but being the geeks we are, we are unnaturally forced to find an in-universe explanation

Granitehewer · Post by **Granitehewer** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 7:20 pm

in common parlance,is a geek the same as a nerd, or does one sire marginally more respect, than t'other?
Think i'm both, possibly

Sionnach Glic · Post by **Sionnach Glic** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 7:49 pm

Over here, 'Geek' is more a derogatory name, while 'nerd' implies the person is very smart. Oddly enough, over here a lot of people stereotype poeple who watch science fiction as being very clever. I guess that mostly stems from Star Trek, with average Joe assuming we can understand all that technobabble.

Thorin · Post by **Thorin** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 8:04 pm

Well here "geek" is a less offensive term but "nerd" generally means more clever, while still being geekish. Generally the two are interchangable.

Post by **Graham Kennedy** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 8:17 pm

It's an odd debate, the whole "do we believe in X just because of Y" thing.

I generally take the view that "if it's on screen, it's true unless there's something else on screen which says it isn't."

Within that context, I prioritise what people say over what we see in FX. What people say is what the writers intend; what the FX guys do is more open to interpretation.

But if it's there in FX, and there's no reason to think it's wrong, then I generally accept it.

In this case, the ship is there on screen, and it's that big. If somebody in a line of dialogue had said "wow, it's more of those ships that the Valiant fought!" then I'd have disregarded the FX in a heartbeat. But nobody did.

So... why NOT believe in a 4.8 km ship? We know ships that big are possible, we know that there are Trek species that use them. So do we rule it out just because we don't want to believe in it?

You might say "they just wanted to make the ship look more powerful, we should assume it's a normal battleship". But in that argument you relying on the fact that it looks like the same ship - you are in fact relying on the FX. But you're accepting every detail of how it looks except the size. So you accept some aspects of the FX... and reject other aspects. It's a completely arbitrary argument. It sums up to "I don't want to accept a big ship so I won't."

You could equally argue "they wanted a big powerful ship here, we should assume it's this big but should look different to the battleship". You're doing the exact same thing, accepting some aspects of the FX and not others. It's no different in kind from argument one, so why not? Again it's purely bias.

It seems to me that a genuinely unbiased view would have to look at what is actually there, and accept it unless there is a real reason not to do so.