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

SuperSaiyaMan12 · Post by **SuperSaiyaMan12** » Sat Mar 21, 2009 12:00 am

With all the hatred for it on this site, what ship classes are arguably just as bad or worse in Star Trek?

katefan · Post by **katefan** » Sat Mar 21, 2009 12:57 am

I am not crazy about the Oberth class; I always thought it looked silly with two sections of ship that cannot be easily accessed between them. And the Constellation is a very clunky looking design. I dislike 'em both more than the Galaxy.

Post by **Teaos** » Sat Mar 21, 2009 3:03 am

The canon Defiant, ugly, to small, to uber for its size.

SuperSaiyaMan12 · Post by **SuperSaiyaMan12** » Sat Mar 21, 2009 3:45 am

Teaos wrote:The canon Defiant, ugly, to small, to uber for its size.

The Defiant is so fricking awesome though. Ugly? Its not meant to be as graceful as the other ships. Small? Its like a large Attack Fighter. And of course its uber, its awesome. A badass ship.

Post by **Teaos** » Sat Mar 21, 2009 3:53 am

Just because it wasnt ment to be pretty doesnt mean I cant hate it for being ugly.

And it is not a large fighter/attack ship. Apparently it can theoretically take on battleships and cruisers just one generation removed from the SotA and beat them.

That is to powerful for a ship that size.

And since we see it on screen it is canon and there is no denying it. But it just simply shouldnt be that powerful for its size.

JudgeKing · Post by **JudgeKing** » Sat Mar 21, 2009 9:36 am

The Yaeger-class.

Sionnach Glic · Post by **Sionnach Glic** » Sat Mar 21, 2009 10:44 am

Can you define the question a bit more? By "just as bad, or worse", do you mean in terms of aesthetics, survivability, design, effeciency, etc?

katefan · Post by **katefan** » Sat Mar 21, 2009 1:19 pm

I agree in regards to the Defiant, it is way too powerful for it's size. It is a fank-wank uber ship.

Post by **Mikey** » Sat Mar 21, 2009 2:04 pm

The issue with the Defiant that I have is that it was even stated in canon to be too powerful for its size/systems. The only reason it works at all is because of O'Brien's pixie dust. That, and the the fact that the same ship is a different size every week.

Discounting the "franken-fleet," I'm going to have to with the Constellation. I was never a fan of that bezelled saucer look; and the whole ship can be completely destroyed with one good shot to the little neck where all four nacelles are attached to the primary hull.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Sat Mar 21, 2009 2:14 pm

If we go by safety then I don't think we have seen a poorer design then the GCS. The E-A in ST:V comes close but she was rushed out of dock and fixed shortly after, so I'll give that a pass. I'll go with the Intrepid, manual overrides for doors can malfunction, the computer components can catch diseases, access codes for the senior officers can be used by the fry cook, and of course the ubiquitous holodeck problems.

SteveK · Post by **SteveK** » Sat Mar 21, 2009 3:44 pm

Teaos wrote:
That is to powerful for a ship that size.

And since we see it on screen it is canon and there is no denying it. But it just simply shouldnt be that powerful for its size.

I don't think that's a fair criticism. Generally speaking the Federation can field ships that combine luxury cruise liner, science ship, hospital ship and warship and have them be the equal of dedicated warships from other cultures. That leads me to believe that their weapon technology is generally superior to their enemies, its no wonder that when they build a dedicated warship that it kicks ass.

Reliant121 · Post by **Reliant121** » Sat Mar 21, 2009 7:28 pm

The Defiant gets my pick. It is an extraordinarily disgusting ship to look at, but i would let that pass, if it werent for what it is. Simply put, its a fan-wank. So much power, in such a little hull. Thats not right. It can take on uber-upgraded Excelsiors with probably more firepower than a Galaxy, and still come out on top.

Sionnach Glic · Post by **Sionnach Glic** » Sat Mar 21, 2009 10:03 pm

This is why I asked for clarification as to what the thread-maker wanted. Being fan-wank doesn't make a ship bad in and of itself. Hell, the Defiant class is easily one of the best ships around, in-universe.

JudgeKing · Post by **JudgeKing** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:10 am

Reliant121 wrote:The Defiant gets my pick. It is an extraordinarily disgusting ship to look at, but i would let that pass, if it werent for what it is. Simply put, its a fan-wank. So much power, in such a little hull. Thats not right. It can take on uber-upgraded Excelsiors with probably more firepower than a Galaxy, and still come out on top.

Last time I checked, the Defiant and Lakota were practically even in that battle. Either one could've destroyed the other if they fired their quantum torpedoes.

Post by **Teaos** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:27 am

Even fighting it to a draw is unrealistic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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