Galaxy Class Starship

[Don Mappin]

As promised, a new vessel this week. This time the mainstay of the of TNG era, the Galaxy-class. She can dish out quite a bit of damage when necessary and has plenty of reinforced systems to take a punch. Best of all her separation systems provide a unique tactical option for commanders daring enough to take advantage of this feature.

Galaxy-class Starship
Production Data
	Origin			United Federation of Planets
	Class and Type		Galaxy-class Explorer
	Year Launched		2356
Hull Data
	Structure		35
	Size/Decks		8/42 decks
	Length/Height/Beam	642/195/463 meters
	Complement		1,012
Operational Data
	Transporters		8 standard, 8 emergency
	Cargo Units		80
	Shuttlebay		1 saucer section a, 2 stardive section a
	Shuttlecraft		24 Size worth
	Tractor Beams		1 fv, 1 av
	Separation System	Yes
	Sensor System		Class 4 (+4/E)
	Operations System	Class 4 (E)
	Life Support		Class 4 (E)
Propulsion Data
	Impulse System		Class 7 (.92c) (D) in saucer and stardrive sections
	Warp System		Class 8 (Warp 6/9.2/9.6) (E)
Tactical Data
	Phaser Arrays		Type X	(saucer x2, stardrive x3, stardrive x1 concealed/E)
	Penetration		6/6/6/0/0 (standard), 4/4/4/0/0 (saucer), 6/5/5/0/0 (stardrive)
	Photon Torpedoes	Type VI (stardrive x2/E)
	Penetration		5/5/5/5/5 (standard)
	Deflector Shield	Class 6 (D)
	Protection/Threshold	17/4
Miscellaneous Data
	Maneuver Modifiers	+4 C, -3 H, +4 T

[AslanC]

Heh-heh-heh

Can't wait to see what all those numbers mean in game terms

[Lockhart]

I'm starting to understand what you meant earlier, Don. The Galaxy is a lot tougher than the Constitution, but it's not really because of inflated numbers. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like the further along the letter associated with a system the more reliable that system is. I'm guessing this because the Galaxy has Es behind most of its systems, and the Constitution has ratings from B to E.

The Galaxy also seems to have further range and higher penetration numbers for its weapons (although I still don't understand the exact difference between a 3 and a 6 penetration rating). Anyway, thanks again for the advance preview.

Lockhart

[Angry_Cartman]

I noticed that the Constitution has 40 structure pts while the Galaxy has 35. Now of course it's very hard to assign meaning to a bunch of stats without having the rules, but does structure pts work like in LUG Trek (ie a set number you just deduct damage pts from) or is this some sort of target/treshold number?

I also noticed that the torpedo launcher stats seem to be abstractly "stated". There is no reference to spread or range values. That is not a bad thing; in fact it may be much more in line with what we saw on screen (ie "come about and fire phasers on my mark") and it may even resolve some of the issues that crept up in LUG (such as the torpedo range problem). I mean, in the shows when there was ship combat the orders that were given were always of a very general nature; there was no issues about positionning the ship to ge the best firing angle, the exact range effectiveness, when to fire phasers or torpedoes, etc (as it should be because ST is not a military show).

I feel that RPG ship combat should be handled as if ships were an "extension" of the characters, and not along the conventional bases of wargaming (but of course a companion wargame for those who are into that sort of thing is always awesome - and would be very useful to the folks running a more militant type of Trek games in settings like the Dominion War or say the Klingon-Romulan War, like we used to run with FASA Trek). So the fact that a Galaxy-class torpedo launcher can launch a volley of 10 torpedoes, and that a B'rel can launch 4 will be represented by the Galaxy having (for the sake of example, not knowing what the system is like) say a +4 torpedo rating and the B'rel a +2. Also, it would be neat if no hard figures would be given for the weapon and movement ranges; just keeping it in generic terms like "point-blank", "medium phaser range", extreme sensor range" or "high impulse", kinda like in the SWRPG.

It would also seem that the sizing practice from LUG was kept, as the Constitution is rated size 6 and the Galaxy size 8.

Well so far this looks promising. Thanks Don for the preview!

[AndorMan]

In most of my campaigns, each vessel design has it's own advantages and disadvantages. As we've seen with the Constitution class stats, Decipher seems to be including something similar.

Shouldn't the Galaxy Class have some kind of rule stating that they're prone to computer problems and failures? The Enterprise-D seemed to have problem with it's computer system all the time. I don't need to run that many diagnostics on my desktop!



'Jus teasin'...

AndorMan
Have Andorians, Will Travel

[Don Mappin]

Structure would be synonymous with Superstructure from Icon. You’ll find that vessels don’t vary widely in structure values—you can only form a hull out of so much material that can take so much of a beating, regardless of size.

If you’re curious, the Constitution has more structure because remaining space was converted to structure to reinforce the hull. The Galaxy needed all of its space for actual components.

Cartman, you’ve got a good grasp already of what we’re trying to achieve with the system and philosophies. Good observations!

AndorMan, keep in mind you’ve seen at this point two ships. There are lots of traits and not every vessel out of spacedock is bristling with advantages or disadvantages. Most show up during play. You’ll find that the individual ship write-ups include vessels and their unique traits, such as the Enterprise being Famous and a Flagship. The best illustration of this is the Voyager as she is a heavily-modified Intrepid bolstered by some really strong traits.

Ships are, for lack of a better term, treated as characters and rightfully so.

Information is subject to change without notice.

[Commander Ramey]

<Gnashing of teeth>
I'd just like to put in my fifteen cents (this due to inflation and the current exchange rate between latnum and federation credits)...

I LOVE haveing hard ranges. I like haveing the hard numbers to use, it gives you the ability to say well, the other ship is at 24,000 km and your characters can then say hey he's in medium range for whatever... I want to get a little closer... Close to 10000 km... I just like reality. Call me a perfectionist... Plus my players and I are all either ex military or influenced by the overpowering will of those of us that are he he .

I LOVE the maneuver rateings - VERY nice. Each vessel SHOULD be more or less maneuverable - it adds alot to the whole system of combat, and even to maneuvering to other things. Yeah so I am a GM that likes to let players botch sometimes and smack into the docking pylon he he he he. Gives them something to laugh about later.

I don't understand the whole structural points thing however... I just can't see how a Constitution Refit would be able to take more of a pounding than a Galaxy... I know I haven't seen the rules, and I know that a Galaxy is a little less sturdy... But it's BIGGER. It has alot more area to take the pounding... GAWD I wish I could get my grubby hands on the books. (Subtlty isn't one of my problems he he)...

THANK you for another heart pounding look at the system though Mr. Mappin. I just wish I could quinch my thirst... Ha ha.

Chris

"No no no. What gave you the idea to open fire on us anyway? We were WAVEING at you you knucklehead!!! You almost shot your own Tactical officer!"
-To my assistant tac officer. Man they get thumb happy sometimes!

[NobAkimoto]

Can you at least make the Galaxy class be size 120? Y'know, since the ship's got 20 times the mass of a Connie? j/k

It looks good, though it really doesn't seem to take a whole lot of internal volume into account.

[Angry_Cartman]

Cmdr Ramey,

I agree with you about the Consitution having more hull strength than the Galaxy. But the cool thing about a simplified system is that you can change variables without upsetting the overall balance too much. Personnally, i'd either boost the Galaxy to at least 60 pts, or keep the Galaxy at 35 and lower the Constitution to say 20 pts.

I don't mean to be snotty or anything, and I'm saying this as constructive criticism, but you can expect a lot of flak from gamers if very wildly different ships like the old Constitution and the Galaxy have about the same hull ratings.

However, I'd prefer NO hard numbers. As i said it's a great way to get around some of the issues that made LUG Trek space combat break down. Because TPTB once wrote 10 years ago in a tech manual that torpedoes have more than 10 times the range of phasers now we're kinda screwed when it comes to using hard figures for ST gaming. If your players like hard figures, than you can always use approximations. If they are confronted by an enemy ship at long torpedo range, just say they are about 3 million klicks away. If they are supposed to within short phaser range then just say that they're 10K klicks away, and so forth.

Also, if the RPG system was too close to a wargaming system, then it would cause problems in the future when Decipher releases a true wargame. If wargaming-like RPG rules had been used, then the future wargame would look like an extension of the RPG rules and there isn't too much appeal in that.

I do hope though that if they release a ST wargame, that it will be a TRUE wargame, not some neo-simili-wargame where you toss discs around or whatever. I'd like to see a system that can handle a fair amount of ships, like B5 Fleet Action. And of course hard numbers and everyting else. I also hope that there will be true ship differentiation. Personnally, I could see ships like the Galaxy or the Negh'Var as well armed and defended, but sluggish; and then well-rounded cruisers (like the Steamrunner) with medium armament, defenses and manoeuvrability and then the smaller "escort" type ships with light systems but with awesome manoeuvrability. And if they're looking for a way to get around the "torpedoes-have-10-times-the-range-of-phaser" problem I know someone who has a solution

[tonyg]

Hey folks, we don't really know HOW the new game uses the numbers. For instance, the SIZE rating might modify the actual damage taken by a ship.

For instance, maybe the SIZE is subtracted from any penetrating damage (much LUG's Resistance ratings or SPACEDOCK's Hull ratings). This would give the Galaxy a better ability to absorb mutiple hits, while leaving it slightly more suspectible to a massive ciritical hit that manages to bypass the shields.

Even if this isn't the case, the higher Structure Rating for Constitution class appears to fit in well with what we see on TV. When hit by a an attack that penetrates the shields, a Galaxy class ship seems to go up in a big fireball unless there is a major character aboard. In fact, most ships in TREK that don't have regular character aboard go up quickly when the shields are down. Meanwhile those old Constitution class ships usually wound up as a burnt out hull (allowing the set to be reused, and leading to a substantial savings in the production costs).

[Don Mappin]

Well, you can always remove the structural reinforcement of the Consitution and put it back at its default.

Which is sturdier, your grand-dad's 54 ford or today's 2001 SUV? Bells and whistles (and years of progress) do not necessarily equate to 'tougher.'

But your points are taken. Any more questions?

[tonyg]

Don,

What are C, H and T maneuvers?

I'm guessing C is for is used for closing/runnig away, T is for Tactical Maneuvering, but I am onlyguessing.

Could you tell us what the leeters stand for?

[Erik Filean]

Originally posted by Don Mappin
Any more questions?

Yes, please. If it steps on no toes at Decipher to reveal this tidbit, just what do the abbreviations "C," "H," and "T" for maneuver categories represent?

[Erik Filean]

Hey, Tony, is it that great minds think alike, or that two idiots never had an original thought between them?

[tonyg]

Erik,

You took the words right...





Now cut that out!