Page 6 of 7
Re: What are ships which are worse than the Galaxy-class?
Posted: Wed Apr 01, 2009 6:08 am
by Deepcrush
Dude, that's awsome!
The Excelsior is the Yoda of the ST ships. Old but experienced and still kickass!
Re: What are ships which are worse than the Galaxy-class?
Posted: Wed Apr 01, 2009 6:16 am
by Mark
Crap. Did that joke just backfire on me?
Re: What are ships which are worse than the Galaxy-class?
Posted: Wed Apr 01, 2009 6:18 am
by Deepcrush
Yes... yes it did. 8)
Don't Star Wars with the Jedi Master son.
Re: What are ships which are worse than the Galaxy-class?
Posted: Wed Apr 01, 2009 6:24 am
by Mark
I brought that upon myself.
Re: What are ships which are worse than the Galaxy-class?
Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 3:39 pm
by Tyyr
Prometheus - There is no ship in the Trek universe I loathe more. MVAM just seems like one of those things some fanboy on acid thought up. That is a fan wank.
Intrepid - The nacelles. They're just too small and the variable position thing just seems like an unnecessary complication.
I've never had a huge problem with the Defiant. Most Trek ships we've seen have the jack of all trades problem. They try to do an incredible amount in just one hull. Strip away all the other crap, the hotel, the research and science gear, all the extraneous stuff to get it down to guns, engines, and shields and I can buy that a much smaller ship can have all the firepower and protection of a much larger ship like the GC. Yeah its a touch on the small side, I might increase it's size by another 33% but its not that out there to me. I actually like that it's ugly as sin, most starfleet ships are good looking but from a combat standpoint very poorly designed.
I also like the Constellations. Ugly but can every ship be a Sovereign?
Re: What are ships which are worse than the Galaxy-class?
Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 3:40 pm
by Sionnach Glic
Prometheus - There is no ship in the Trek universe I loathe more. MVAM just seems like one of those things some fanboy on acid thought up. That is a fan wank.
I....I think I'm in love.
Re: What are ships which are worse than the Galaxy-class?
Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 3:42 pm
by Mikey
Tyyr wrote:Prometheus - There is no ship in the Trek universe I loathe more. MVAM just seems like one of those things some fanboy on acid thought up. That is a fan wank.
[nitpick]No, someone on acid would never come up with something so angular and unfriendly-looking. Trust me.[/nitpick]
Tyyr wrote:Intrepid - The nacelles. They're just too small and the variable position thing just seems like an unnecessary complication.
Agreed by almost everyone I've heard from on the matter.
Tyyr wrote:I also like the Constellations. Ugly but can every ship be a Sovereign?
That little junction where all four pylons meet seems like a terrible liability.
Re: What are ships which are worse than the Galaxy-class?
Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 8:00 pm
by Tyyr
Mikey wrote:That little junction where all four pylons meet seems like a terrible liability.
Starfleet ships are mostly full of such liabilities. The nacelle pylons, the Constitution class' interconnection between the saucer and engineering section, etc. The Constellation's isn't great but it's not a stand out to me as horrible design.The Oberth's pylons that are too thin even for a turbolift would be my picks for something like that.
Re: What are ships which are worse than the Galaxy-class?
Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 8:09 pm
by Mikey
Nacelle pylons have varied in design quality, but always seemed like a necessary evil (at least for Federation-specific warp tech.) The Connie's neck was always to long and exposed for my taste but at least seemed to be of pretty robust construction. The Oberth - it's just weird, but never intended to go into harm's way; the Constellation, AFAIK, was intended to be a warship/explorer.
Re: What are ships which are worse than the Galaxy-class?
Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 8:15 pm
by Reliant121
I thought the Constellation nacelle struts looked fairly bulky and robust,
Re: What are ships which are worse than the Galaxy-class?
Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 8:37 pm
by Tyyr
The location where they connect to the hull is, it's a blocky protrusion off the back of the saucer. The upper and lower nacelle pairs are each connected to a single pylon however.
Re: What are ships which are worse than the Galaxy-class?
Posted: Sun Apr 19, 2009 10:31 am
by steamrunner
Can I bring up a TOS-era ship even though this is a TNG board? I never did like the Saladin... Can you imagine getting assigned to a Saladin and seeing it for the first time? "Uh...where's the rest of it?"
Wow...6 pages and not one mention of my beloved Steamrunner...(that'll jinx me for sure!)
Re: What are ships which are worse than the Galaxy-class?
Posted: Sun Apr 19, 2009 2:28 pm
by Mikey
steamrunner wrote:Can I bring up a TOS-era ship even though this is a TNG board? I never did like the Saladin... Can you imagine getting assigned to a Saladin and seeing it for the first time? "Uh...where's the rest of it?"
Wow...6 pages and not one mention of my beloved Steamrunner...(that'll jinx me for sure!)
The Saladin isn't a canon 'Trek ship - it's a Franz Joseph ship.
(and I like the Steamrunner, too.)
Re: What are ships which are worse than the Galaxy-class?
Posted: Sun Apr 19, 2009 2:29 pm
by Deepcrush
steamrunner wrote:Can I bring up a TOS-era ship even though this is a TNG board? I never did like the Saladin... Can you imagine getting assigned to a Saladin and seeing it for the first time? "Uh...where's the rest of it?"
Wow...6 pages and not one mention of my beloved Steamrunner...(that'll jinx me for sure!)
I think that's because no one here really dislikes the Steamrunner. My personal opinion is that it really serves no use in the modern fleet that can't be better filled by other ships but... again I've got nothing against the class as its own.
Re: What are ships which are worse than the Galaxy-class?
Posted: Sat Apr 25, 2009 10:34 am
by Mark
Didn't the Saldin become cannon when it appeared on that panel shot in the movie?