Just found this

Nomad Terror said:
What we see in Sovereign vs Galaxy is that the Sovereign is only slightly longer but almost half the height (24 decks vs 42 decks). The Soverign certainly is smaller.
Click to expand...

It's not smaller. The ship is just arranged differently. The Galaxy class had its saucer mounted high above the drive section, leading to a plethora of smaller decks. The Sovereign Class, OTOH, makes better use of the horizontal space, thus having fewer but longer decks. There is some internal space shaved off in the saucer section, but that's mostly a loss of crew quarters and science labs. i.e. Areas of zero tactical value.
 
But the trick is that Star Trek has an extremely rich canon from which assertions may be derived. Thanks to the richness of the Universe, including canon Tech Manuals, we know that concepts like a true space fighter don't make sense in the Star Trek universe. What we have for "fighter-craft" (and yes, they are called that to differentiate from regular shuttlecraft like a runabout) are really small starships with sufficiently scaled down equipment. Their tactical ability is so far below the larger ships, that the Maquis are forced to use unorthidox tactics (i.e. one off "tricks") to destroy targets.
Click to expand...

Paramount's official position is that *none* of the printed material, including technical manuals, is 'canon'.
 
AKAImBatman said:
The Sovereign is NOT smaller. Whoever told you that, lied. She might be lighter than the Galaxy class (again, less comfort space) and she may be a different shape. But she is NOT "smaller".
Click to expand...

What an odd thing to be defensive about. Having half the internal space certainly seems smaller to me, even if it's a few feet longer.
 
Aye, It may be longer, but its not as tall or as wide and less than half of the suggested volume.

As for invasion for the PSone, i really enjoyed it, I prefered the first two colony wars games however, (even though a fair bit of the original colony wars dev team worked on invasion).

One thing about invasion was that it had terrible terrible box art, even worse than freespace 2!

invas.jpg
 
You know, whenever I hear the words 'Star Trek' and 'Canon' mixed together, I have to smile. Especially since any Trek fan worth their walt knows the canonicity of data comes from only what is seen in episodes or movies - everything else is waiting to be revised, or is flat-out wrong. Going to a Trek-fan site to get 'canon' data is like going to a Star Wars slash story to get canon information on Obi Wan's lovelife. :D

About the only fighter-type craft outside of shuttles we've seen in ST are those fighter-style craft in DS9, and maybe that two-pilot craft in ST9. Star Trek's always been about the naval battles when it comes to their battle scenes, even if those ships fly about more like fightercraft half the time.
 
I like the design of the YSS Typhon, from Invasion.I once designed a ship that was similar to the Typhon, the USS Hurricane NX-80000

USS_Hurricane07.jpg

USS_Hurricane06.jpg
 
Well, it's too bad if the Star Trek universe doesn't allow for fighter craft to be effective, because that's the main thing it's missing IMO.
 
Hm... I dunno... Star Trek doesn't have quite the same "style" as Wing Commander. The thing with Star Trek is that they're at a crossroads between "unlimited" and "limited" technology. Most of it really seems to be that the technology on the vessels often requires large amounts of space, making shuttle craft size fighters largely ineffective.
 
FlashFire82 said:
Hm... I dunno... Star Trek doesn't have quite the same "style" as Wing Commander. The thing with Star Trek is that they're at a crossroads between "unlimited" and "limited" technology. Most of it really seems to be that the technology on the vessels often requires large amounts of space, making shuttle craft size fighters largely ineffective.
Click to expand...

The thing with Trek tech is that it's mostly based around systems which require a lot of energy, which is generated (mostly) with antimatter or fusion reactors; this goes double for their combat capability, which means that capital ships end up being the main combatants. The only really effective and practical non-energy weapons they've got in ST as of the DS9/Voyager era are the photon and quantum torpedoes, and like any other missile those require space for storage, which reduces the number of 'missiles' a shuttlecraft-sized ship can carry.

In other words, in Trek, they're basicaly back to WW1 methods of naval combat - big ships fight other big ships, and the ship with the most guns and armor wins, so long as it can hit the other craft. This is probably the main reason we don't see huge dreadnoughts outside of the Dominion fleet of DS9, or Borg cubes; unless you've either got incredible resources, or a higher technology base compared to your enemies, the loss of maneuverability and speed is not worth the tradeoff in shields and armor - especially if you can't hit the guy y ou're aiming for, due to their being that nimble.
 
The game Starfleet Command also have fighters. And shuttles with phasers, not the same thing.
 
That still qualify as "shuttles with phasers", which are separate from the fighters on that game series.

EDIT: Thanks for the info.

They don't do much good on the game, but they draw fire, if you're in trouble.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top