It lists the reg for the USS Sovereign as 73811. Unto the present there hasn't been an official number for this ship; anyone remember any other unofficial ones, and their sources?
Mark
[ February 15, 2002, 12:54: Message edited by: Mark Nguyen ]
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
74222. From Rick Sternbach & Mike Okuda, I think...but don't quote me on that. LUG had 17454, but that was OBviously SO wrong.
Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
Maybe its a typo and they meant NCC-71454?
Anyway, NEVER trust registries from games. They really screw that stuff up. I remember all the mistakes in Starfleet Academy.
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
Downloading the game now... *drools*
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
The demo's hideously short - but it's good, and totally leaves you wanting more. In terms of bridge sims, it's clearly way better than anything that's come before. Hopefully, the full version will be worth the wait. Unfortunately, there's no full multiplayer mode.
Mark
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shik: 74222. From Rick Sternbach & Mike Okuda, I think...but don't quote me on that.
Sorry to disregard your wishes, but WTF??? Why was I not informed of this???
Can anyone verify???
-MMoM Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
I remember seeing the NCC-74222 number many times as well. My assumption is that it popped up just like NCC-74600 is for the Intrepid. No one really knows who said it first, but it just seems to stick.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
It's out? Hooray!
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
Oh god, I feel like I just got addicted to cocain or something... Other than a few silly issues (like not being able to fire torpedoes when you need to, and the lack of aft phasers on the GCS), I think they actually managed to things right.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Wha? I'm able to fire torpedoes just fine. However, the firing arcs do get sorta annoying. But if they weren't annoying the game probably wouldn't be nearly as fun.
Mark
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
I find the lack of torpedoe (4F, 2A) on the GCS disturbing... They should have used the system from "A Final Unity". Now that was a proper GCS torpedoe setup: a tube with a max capacity of 10, variable spread size and spread angle, all balanced out by a reasonable loading time and accuracy.
They really need more torpedoes for the GCS, I'm having to resort to using tractor beams with fighting a BoP. I mean, a lousy BoP! *ashamed*
Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :
Their registry for the Galaxy class USS Dauntless in the game is 718xx, which fits in with the other Galaxy class ships very well.
73xxx seems a good number when you remember that the Nova with 72xxx has similar features as the E-E.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
I checked: USS Dauntless, NCC-71879.
(Edit: It's not 71878)
Mark
[ February 16, 2002, 12:55: Message edited by: Mark Nguyen ]
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mark Nguyen: I checked: USS Dautless, NCC-71878.
Mark
Well, then maybe it should be NX-01-B?
There's a Sovereign you command in the later missions, anything known about her registry yet? I think it's the Icarus.
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
A Final Unity definitely hadd the best combat. i still remember going into the neutral zone and somehow destroying 3 war birds, talk about luck! i really wish that bridge commander was more realistic weapons wise. to me, it is a big flaw in what otherwise seems like a great game.
--jacob
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
I was just talking with Alex Rosenzweig over at the TrekBBS, and he told me that a while back (somewhere in the ballpark of 5 years, actually) he communicated with Okuda, who "okayed" a registry of NCC-75000 for the Sovereign. On the condition that the possibility be recognized that if the ship were ever to appear in a show/movie he could not guarantee positively that that number would be used, of course.
-MMoM
[ February 22, 2002, 18:11: Message edited by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim ]
Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :
Five years ago? When did First Contact come out?
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
1996...when FC came out.
Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :
No shit...
Wow life moves fast...
Posted by akb1979 (Member # 557) on :
2002-1996 = 6 years. That long since FC!? Wow!
Um, not really to do with the Sovereign but the Galaxy;
The TNGTM states that the Yamato (NCC-71807) was the first production Galaxy built. If that's true, how do you explain the Challenger (NCC-71099) being before it?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Cock-up.
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
Maybe we should change it to 71899. The 099 was a hommage to the orbiter Challenger, OV-099. Maybe the ship's hull remained in mothballs out of some unknown reason and was later used in the second sixpack. That way, we'd have Moore - 70564 (?) Galaxy - 70637 Challenger (unfinished) - 71099 Yamato - 71805 Enterprise - (*) Odyssey - 71832 Venture - 71854 Trinculo - 71867
What if Moore was some sort of testbed (like the orbiter Enterprise), never completed, only used for material tests and such? First launched ship was Galaxy, second should have been Challenger, but was canceled, then Yamato instead, later Enterprise, Odyssey and Venture. In this case I'd even go as far as to say Venture and Trinculo were ships of the second batch (both had some modifications). And if Moore was later reused as part of the second batch, too (according to the calendar, it was active during the war), and Challenger was also released either as part of the first or second, we had the following:
2nd: Challenger Moore Venture Tinculo *Unknown3 *Unknown4
I can live with it.
Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :
Like I've said before, it's the CGI guys who weren't told that all previous Galaxies represented by physical models had an NCC-718XX prefix. And then we get the NX-5XXXX off of the Prometheus-class, the NCC-5XXXX and NCC-6XXXX for the FC ships (and, yes, I know we rationalize that those ships "always" were there), NCC-705XX for a CGI Galaxy in a calender (luckily, it's not canon).
Explanation for the Challanger? It's one of the 6 original spaceframes broken up and hidden as told by the TNG TM.
So, we have USS Galaxy prototype with an NX/NCC-706XX registry, 1st batch production ships with NCC-718XX registries, and the hidden 6 frames that might be activated now with NCC-710XX registries.
Easier to read chart:
Prototype NX/NCC-706XX: USS Galaxy, NCC-70637
Hidden Builds not finished as of USS Enterprise-D completion (as stated in the TNG TM) NCC-710XX: USS Challenger, NCC-71099 Unknowns #2-6
First Production Batch NCC-718XX: USS Yamato, NCC-71807 (it's a 7 now! Happy? ) USS Enterprise, NCC-1701-D (special case, this also fits with the TNG TM stating that Big E was the third Galaxy produced) USS Odyssey, NCC-71832 USS Venture, NCC-71854 (so it has extra phaser arrays on the nacelles. whoopdeedo! I still say it's part of the first batch.) USS Trinculo, NCC-71867 (same as above) Unknown #6
As you can see, I would have thought that the hidden batch would have kept the prefix set by the USS Galaxy, so ideally these ships would all have NCC-706XX or (if you want) NCC-70XXX registries. However, USS Challanger changes that, and USS Galaxy is simply a loner, for now at least.
Next time, I just hope they'll do more research. I mean, look at Bridge Commander, the game! They got it right with their fictional USS Dauntless, Galaxy-class, with an NCC-718XX registry, maybe we should compile a registry prefix list (I think Frank, who has a SWDAO and Starfleet Ships site, already made one) and hand it over to the CGI guys.
And, before anyone reads into this post too much, no, this is not an attack against the CGI guys. As I've said, it's not their fault they were not informed about these small details as the physical modelers had been, and yes, I know Okuda himself labeled quite a few models himself like the USS Yamato (changing it from the NCC-1305(I believe)-E registry.
EDIT: Beaten by Amasov! Oh well, I still like my idea better. It seems unlikely batches would have different registry prefixes. Look at the Excelsiors with their NCC-14XXX and NCC-42XXX, the Mirandas with NCC-21XXX and NCC-31XXX, and the Danubes with NCC-72XXX.
[ February 24, 2002, 16:04: Message edited by: Ace ]
Posted by akb1979 (Member # 557) on :
I see that you two (Capt. Kyle Amasov and Ace) can't read. The Yamato is NCC-71807 not 5!
Grrrrrr! Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Or maybe the Galaxy- and Constitution-classes share some common registry irregularities...ones that are better just shrugged off...
-MMoM Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :
Hehe. To tell you the truth, I just copied Amasov's list.
What's with the rolling eyes, MMoM?
[ February 24, 2002, 12:36: Message edited by: Ace ]
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
I just think it was a mistake, and we should simply look the other way and not make a big deal out of it...
-MMoM Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Incidentally, I'm takling about the Challenger's reg, not the typo.
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
Yes, blame me. I wont edit the post. The 5 will be there for all time. Wait a moment... I got it from my shiplist, so... D'OH! Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Scene: At Utopia Planitia, sometime in the late 2340s.
Admiral Mark: Ahh, life is good. We’re on schedule with the Galaxy class, the Cardassians are dealt with, and Canada is leading 2-1 after the first period. What could possibly go wrong?
Commander Ron: Uh, Admiral? We’ve got a call from the Andorian hull frame production facility. They’ve figured out a nifty new way of making hull frames that are somehow superior to the old ones! Starfleet now wants us to make the first six Galaxy class ships out of these better frames, and to ship the old ones off to hide somewhere.
Admiral Mark: Crap. We’re already working on the first two! Look, tell ‘em that we can make the last four of the first batch with the new frames, and ship the other two with the rest of the old ones.
Commander Ron: Okay, fine.
Admiral Mark: Great! So everything’s fixed up then. We’re still on track, and soon we’ll launch the USS Galaxy, NCC-70564.
[BOOM!]
Admiral Mark: What the hell was that?!
Commander Ron: An unspecified construction accident on the Galaxy, sir. Nevermind what actually happened, but the point is that the USS Galaxy won’t be the first to launch. In fact, the hull won’t be finished until after we’re done with the Yamato and the Enterprise, at least.
Admiral Mark: Crap again. Okay, well we can’t have the first Galaxy-class ship not being the USS Galaxy – it just doesn’t sound right. We’ll just have to rename the next ship in the queue as the Galaxy, and shuffle the old hull to be finished later.
Commander Ron: But there’s precedent for the first ship in the class not being the namesake, sir. Why, back in the 20th century—
Admiral Mark: Shut up, Ron. Look, keep this quiet and I’ll name a ship after you, okay?
Commander Ron: Okay.
Mark
[ February 24, 2002, 12:58: Message edited by: Mark Nguyen ]
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
That long since FC!? Wow!![[Wink]](wink.gif)
It seems unlikely batches would have different registry prefixes. Look at the Excelsiors with their NCC-14XXX and NCC-42XXX, the Mirandas with NCC-21XXX and NCC-31XXX, and the Danubes with NCC-72XXX.![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)