www.ditl.org

Mikey wrote: Yep. Basically, what I mentioned above. However, it still stands that the Sov had more - a lot more - and they were oriented in a more tactically-minded fashion.

Maybe I am wrong, but given how phaserstripes work on ships why does the number of said stripes tell you anything?
According to memory alpha (which I believe is an accepted canon source, in this case it dosen't matter, we have the physical model) the: Sovereign started with 12 phaser arrays and received 4 more prior to Nemesis.
Galaxy started with 11 (twelve with cobra head) arrays and received two addiational during the DW.

So I wouldn't count 2-3 smaller arrays "a lot more" I would even go further and say that if one is to count the actual emitters, the GCS would still come out on top by a rather large margin. I think I remember that GK once messured the length and amount of a GCS' stripes and emitters, I am not sure the equivalent figures exist for the SOV.

Mikey wrote:And the difference in number and placement of torp launchers - even aside from the presence of QT's - is night-and-day.

One launcher firing a maximum of 4 in sequenze, all the other ones are - as far as we know - one shot/time compared to two launchers firing bursts of 10/time. (I admit the 10 per launcher comes from the TNG Tech Manual, iirc the largest burst we see on the show was about 7 or 8 photons.). Given the size difference between the GCS'launchers and the largest SOV launcher it is not a big stretch at all that they distributed a bunch of smaller, less capable launchers around the ship. So there is a difference if one likes to theorycraft how many torps one ship can launch/time and from what direction etc, but it might be not "as night-and-day" as you would have it.

Mikey wrote:It seems pretty obvious that the Sov is primarily a warship, and is better at conducting war

Now that is actually the crux of the matter, I know it is widely accepted that this is so........but why? Why is it so obvious (eg. what did I miss?) What clues do we have other than that it looks neat? Firing a few torpedoes at a cube isn't that badass and consequently she was always outmatched. Purely from watching the movies I never would have guessed that her role is any different from any other Enterprise so far, it's only secondary sources like videogames claiming her to be some sort of super-battleship-borg-counter unit. The ONLY ship-classes we know of which got designed with primarily a tactical role in mind are the Defiant and the Prometheus iirc.

What evidence is there that the Sov's better-covered angles of fire aren't really better-covered? What evidence is there that the many more launchers on the Sov are less capable than the few on the GCS? None, save the fact that you want the Sov to be viewed as less capable.

The inclusion of a turret, the nomenclature of the class, the heavier SIF, et. al., all point to the Sov being a dedicated (or at least more dedicated) ship of war. However, this is all really moot. The big question is this: why do you feel threatened by it? It is 100% A-OK for you to say that your favorite class is the GCS. You could, if you want, detail the reasons for your opinion. Trying to make the Sov look bad doesn't make any sense as a support of that point.

I already said that the Excelsior was my fave. Does that mean I'd try to argue that the GCS wasn't more advanced, more capable in any statistical measure, etc.? Of course not - that would be ridiculous. But the superior capability of the GCS doesn't affect my opinion of the Excelsior.

Well

Mikey wrote:What evidence is there that the Sov's better-covered angles of fire aren't really better-covered?

Both classes seem to have the same coverage so I am not sure what you mean here. With phasers there is no blind spot and torpedolaunchers are facing forward and aft on both classes unless I missed some on the sov facing port and starboard, if so I apologize.

Mikey wrote:The inclusion of a turret

The turret is just an exposed launcher, I really see no difference between it and the ones on the refit E-nil or the miranda class. Its a superstructure with a hole in it shooting torpedoes.....what makes it special?

Mikey wrote:the nomenclature of the class

Are you refering to the "sovereign" because it just sounds more warlike? If so a rather weak argument imho. Alas we never hear a class designation but as far as I know it still is refered to as Explorer. (At least in some of the semi-official blueprints)

Mikey wrote:the heavier SIF

source? (I somewhat agree on this point because I imagine - without any knowledge of how a SIF is supposed to work - that a smaller, more compact ship might be able to utilise a SIF more efficiently. Still, only speculation......)

Mikey wrote:However, this is all really moot. The big question is this: why do you feel threatened by it? It is 100% A-OK for you to say that your favorite class is the GCS. You could, if you want, detail the reasons for your opinion. Trying to make the Sov look bad doesn't make any sense as a support of that point.

It might surprise you but if I would be asked about my third favouritve ship (second being the constitutions) I would probably say Sovereign. I like her, it is just I don't see why she is supposed to be the ship to end all ships. Its one of those ship classes were everyone KNOWS that she has superphasers, uber-torpedoelaunchers, strongest shields evar, and a hull of pure adamantium and a pure warship, finally an Enterprise that kicks ass and takes names.....yet, I don't see any evidence for it to be honest.

Nevertheless I agree on that I hijacked this thread for long enough for which I apologize.

Only on DITL could discussing at length the actual original topic be considered "hijacking a thread."

I, for one, never claimed that the Sovereign-class was the end-all, be-all of starship design. It is, however, only common sense to say that a newer design with a narrower focus on role is more advanced than an older one. It is not a knock against the older one, it is merely the way of things. Many people love the Connie, either the original or the refit; I don't think it would be an insult to that ship to say that the GCS is more advanced - it would just be a matter of course.

Atekimogus wrote:Both classes seem to have the same coverage so I am not sure what you mean here. With phasers there is no blind spot and torpedolaunchers are facing forward and aft on both classes unless I missed some on the sov facing port and starboard, if so I apologize.

I am not prepared right now to dissect a diagram of either ship. More strips covering a single field of fire = better coverage. Phasers do have a firing blind spot, BTW; a phaser on the ventral surface of the primary hull, for example, cannot fire at a target below the primary hull.

Atekimogus wrote:The turret is just an exposed launcher, I really see no difference between it and the ones on the refit E-nil or the miranda class. Its a superstructure with a hole in it shooting torpedoes.....what makes it special?

Really, dude? Do you really think that in a ship newer (read: "further along the line of technological advancement") would have a launcher of no greater capability mounted in a more exposed location for no reason? Ask me for canon and I will readily admit that I have none; but it's absolutely loony to claim that the Sov included that turret when it had no greater capability than any bog-standard torpedo launcher.

Atekimogus wrote:Are you refering to the "sovereign" because it just sounds more warlike?

Of course I'm not, don't be absurd.

Atekimogus wrote:source?

Have you seen any of the denouement of Star Trek: Nemesis?

First off, the Sov's lower profile makes her more combat effective. Harder to hit.

Also, the nacelle was slammed into by debris in Nem, and the ship did not blow up (much unlike the scrape in Cause and Effect).

Also, there are the clear words of "most advanced ship in the fleet", meaning the Galaxy has ceased to hold that position.

What no Defiant? Man, that ship is like an angry, clenched fist.

If I had to pick a Starship to Captain myself, it'd have to be a Nebula class. Capable of long range exploration, can swap pots to fit her role, and she looks fantastic.

Mikey wrote: Only on DITL could discussing at length the actual original topic be considered "hijacking a thread."

Good to know then.

Mikey wrote: I am not prepared right now to dissect a diagram of either ship. More strips covering a single field of fire = better coverage. Phasers do have a firing blind spot, BTW; a phaser on the ventral surface of the primary hull, for example, cannot fire at a target below the primary hull.

I see now what you meant. Well an indepth analysis seems rather complicated since one would need to count all the stripes, asign angles, count the emitter-segments and even if you have the numbers you are still left with not knowing if a smaller, newer emitter is more powerful than an older larger one.

Mikey wrote:Really, dude? Do you really think that in a ship newer (read: "further along the line of technological advancement") would have a launcher of no greater capability mounted in a more exposed location for no reason? Ask me for canon and I will readily admit that I have none; but it's absolutely loony to claim that the Sov included that turret when it had no greater capability than any bog-standard torpedo launcher.

Let's just see what we know. We know the size of a photon torpedoe and the size of a quantum torpedo, both the same size. We know that the size of the GCS launcher and that it is supposed to be able to launch 10 (or at least 7-8) torps simultaneously. Comparing the size of the GCS launcher to the turret-launcher of the Sov one would expect that the SOV launcher is less capable which is actually consistent with what we see, aka 4 torpedo-burst. For your reference I included the lcarsheets of the Galaxy and Sov, just compare the size of the two. Since the turret consists to a large part of the captains yacht the actuall launcher is tiny. A 4 torpedo-burst really is a testament to the advanced technology of the Sov imho.

http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/bl ... heet-9.jpg
http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/bl ... eet-10.jpg

Mikey wrote:Have you seen any of the denouement of Star Trek: Nemesis?

I have.....and as I said ramming a ship vs ramming a planet seems not different to me...no indication here, that the SIF of the Sov is anything special. I agree though, that the SOV is a more compact design, no arguing with that.

Calling on the ramming, angle of attack is very different. The GCS really did little more than scrape the planet, it was almost level with the planet. Where as the Sov was virtually at an opposing angle.

Whew....I miss a couple days and this is what I end up with.

First, lemme nominate my favorite ship....the Prometheus class.


So, that said, here's what we've got.


Nominated

Prometheus
Defiant


Seconded

Miranda
Excelsior
Steamrunner
Nebula
Akira
Soverign
Refit Constitution class
Galaxy Class


Poll will go up today. Get your nominations in!!!

You may now resume bashing the GCS

Mark wrote:First, lemme nominate my favorite ship....the Prometheus class.

Mark wrote:You may now resume bashing the GCS

There won't be any time to bash the GCS once Seafort gets a hold of that Prommie comment.

He and Tyyr are welcome to have at it. It won't change my mind

It's a badass looking little ship.

Mark wrote:He and Tyyr are welcome to have at it. It won't change my mind

It's a badass looking little ship.

The design is pretty cool, once you brain bleach a certain aspect of it out of your mind.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion on MVAM, but as we only have limited info on how it actually works, and the realistic combat ability of the broken sections, we can speak intelligently.

...don't get me started... please. I have shit to do.

If you can pretend that MVAM was just an episode of data scramble in the Doc's transmission back to Voyager it's not bad.