Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clark411" data-source="post: 1283115" data-attributes="member: 4768">Well, the first point of contention I have between comparing SF and EA fleet size is that the huge numbers spouted by Deep Space 9 were mostly Peregrin Class fighters and small "destroyer / escort" ships (smaller than the Akira Class) not far off of Keldon Class Cardassian ships.  The point of post DS9 combat was to lay down as many photon and quantum torpedoes as possible from far range and then cut to close range for fly by cinematic shots that we dorks can frame-by-frame on DVD (personally have yet to do it but.. one day..) heh.The EA forces on the other hand are primarily cap ships and carriers.  SF wouldn't know an actual capital ship if it bit them in the rear... actually they would, the Dominion had them, and did bite them in the rear quite handily.  We never saw the bigger vessels, like the Galaxy, go down rapidly in the war simply because the Galaxy wasn't huge news post ST:Generations.  The prelude to war, if we look back, did actually have a Galaxy blow up within moments of an engagement as a Dominion "bug" ship rammed it just upwards of the deflection dish.  The secondary hull, mind you, is supposedly the "battle section" of the Galaxy.  A large part of the DS9+ series' tropes suggest that Starfleet was composed primarily of overly-expensive, weak, oversized vessels that were unable to cope with the realities of the, well, late 1990's-early 0's viewer who enjoyed watching the idealism replaced with conquest, danger, and CGI space battles.  If we're going to cling to the ideas that SF is about last minute solutions, teflon protagonists, and invincible ships (You can't blow up the Enterprise!  The show is called Enterprise!) lets also acknowledge the idea that SF, on the whole, is crap and struggling to redefine itself well into the Batmovoyager series that most cringed at. An EF cap ship hull on the other hand, would most likely take a punch like that and smile.  Even if it did happen to explode, no worries- there are dozens upon dozens more.  There were only 6 or so Galaxy sister ships originally commissioned and they took years to develop and produce, and they were avoided due to their disgusting cost after that.  Every capital-equivalent ship that Starfleet produces seems to be a huge investment, while B5 tends to suggest an infrastructure that can handle a dozen or so major ships lost in engagements without immediate concern.On the whole, the bulk of SF ships are either fragile, or small.  They depend upon range to lay fire down range, and use phasers primarily to disable weapons etc or, if the shields are down, "aim at the warp core" to prove just how fragile ST technology tends to be with it's We Move Fast and Blow Up Faster engines.  B5 ships however, are lightning strike ships that lack weaknesses like 5 meter thick nacelles, blatently placed bridges, easy boom engines, and phasers that tend to scorch more than slice.My other point of "Hey I disagree"ness comes from the statement that Starfleet ships would be targeting B5 ships as they came out of jump, while B5 ships would be slower to engage.  That kind of sentiment is disproved repeatedly through the B5 series.  More often than not, ships come out of jump with their guns blazing.  The only time I can recall a hostile ship not opening fire immediately was when a Narn cap ship on autopilot and full of explosives attempted to ram B5.... has anyone else finished a post and suddenly felt this deep "Oh no, you're arguing about Star Trek and Babylon 5 on the internet!" sensation?</blockquote>

Verification