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

The Next Generation
Sionnach Glic
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 26014
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 10:58 pm
Location: Poblacht na hÉireann, Baile Átha Cliath

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

Post by Sionnach Glic »

Its general design did, yes.
"You've all been selected for this mission because you each have a special skill. Professor Hawking, John Leslie, Phil Neville, the Wu-Tang Clan, Usher, the Sugar Puffs Monster and Daniel Day-Lewis! Welcome to Operation MindFuck!"
Mark
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 17671
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 12:49 am
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii

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

Post by Mark »

So, even if that's not what it's CANNON name is, that silly looking thing is in fact part of history now.
They say that in the Army,
the women are mighty fine.
They look like Phyllis Diller,
and walk like Frankenstein.
Sionnach Glic
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 26014
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 10:58 pm
Location: Poblacht na hÉireann, Baile Átha Cliath

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

Post by Sionnach Glic »

Indeed it is. Though its capabilities are still ambiguous.
"You've all been selected for this mission because you each have a special skill. Professor Hawking, John Leslie, Phil Neville, the Wu-Tang Clan, Usher, the Sugar Puffs Monster and Daniel Day-Lewis! Welcome to Operation MindFuck!"
User avatar
Reliant121
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
Posts: 12263
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 5:00 pm

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

Post by Reliant121 »

Once again, I really don't mind the Saladin or whatever it may be called in actual canon. It's just a little small and incomplete looking. what I do mind is the Hermes which is meant to be a fair bit weaker, looking absolutely identical.
Sionnach Glic
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 26014
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 10:58 pm
Location: Poblacht na hÉireann, Baile Átha Cliath

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

Post by Sionnach Glic »

Meh. Given the wildly varying sizes of Klingon ships that all look the same, I can buy one Fed vessel externaly resembling another.
"You've all been selected for this mission because you each have a special skill. Professor Hawking, John Leslie, Phil Neville, the Wu-Tang Clan, Usher, the Sugar Puffs Monster and Daniel Day-Lewis! Welcome to Operation MindFuck!"
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
Posts: 35635
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:04 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA
Contact:

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

Post by Mikey »

The size of the hull, and lack of a secondary hull, mean it can't really be upgraded to a different role; but being downgraded to a more lightly armed role isn't a stretch for me.
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
User avatar
Captain Seafort
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 15548
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Blighty

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

Post by Captain Seafort »

The issue isn't so much two externally identical (or almost identical) ships having significantly different capabilities, but that the two ships are apparently the same age, or as near as makes no difference. If one had been significantly older then it could simply have been passed off as new technology using the same basic hull, as with the Spruances and the Ticos.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
Posts: 35635
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:04 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA
Contact:

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

Post by Mikey »

It does seem odd that an indentical size and configuration would be used contemporarily for dissimilar roles.
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
Atekimogus
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 1193
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 11:10 pm
Location: Vienna

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

Post by Atekimogus »

SuperSaiyaMan12 wrote:With all the hatred for it on this site, what ship classes are arguably just as bad or worse in Star Trek?
From a purley aesthetic point of view every other ship designed after the GCS. (with the possible exception of the d'deridex warbird if we also count non Federation ships)

Defiant - didn't look like a federation ship at all. With another paint job she would pass as an klingon, cardassian, or any other alien of the week ship. Sure you can only make so many saucer shapes but then what is wrong with it?

Intrepid - Altough she has smooth and elegant lines I just find her plain ugly. Granted she is nowhere near as fragile looking then previous starships but somehow that makes her look fat, ugly and cumbersome especially compared to an E-A. (Make a size comparision between Intrepid and Constitution on ditl and maybe you will understand what I mean)

NX - To be honest, if she wouln't be an Akira rip off I think with just a few touches to make her look more fitting into her timeframe the design wouldn't be all that bad but compared to a GCS? No chance.

Sovereign - They had a Cadillac with the GCS but wanted a Porsche and got the Sovereign. As with the respective cars, when asked I admit I find both beautiful but if I must choose between the two I prefer the mighty Space cadillac to the small sports-sovereign.

imho Star Trek ship design reached its height with Mr. Probert and most things after him are inferior.
I'm Commander Shepard and this is my favorite store on the Citadel.
Post Reply