I'm watching the episode Yesterday's Enterprise and noted that the "C" had been lost for 22 years. We saw the USS Excalibur in the episode Data's Day with either design improvments or a major refit. My questions are these: 1.) Is the Ambassador class still being produced in the TNG era (even in limited numbers)? 2.) How many of these ships could have been produced? We sure have seen tons of Excelsiors and Mirandas but why not more Ambassadors? What percentage of the fleet would they make up? 3.) It seems the Ambassador class was the "big gun" prior to the introductionof the Nebula class and that means a looooong damn time: was there another (or several) other heavy cruisers of this general size?
I just finished building the Ambassador variant from the Sternbach sketch (what I consider to be the Apollo class) so I've got this kind of ship on my mind.
Wild speculation is welcomed! Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Well, one thing I noted was that they once mentioned that the "C" had exhausted its torpedo stores before coming through the rift. Then, during the first attack by the lone Klingon Bird-of-Prey, Captain Garrett ordered them to load torpedo bays.
Unless they borrowed some from the "D," it seems that the ship has the ability to assemble new torpedoes, probably drawing from the warp core's antimatter fuel for the warhead.
So much for all that nitpicking about Voyager's torpedo stores, eh? Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
No kidding! I imagine that the "D" replicated the torp casings and the "C" used the matter/AM from the warp core as you speculated: I thought that was how it ws always done anyway. I bet those Romulans sure were impressed by how much punsihment the "C" could take and dish out! Possibly why they never started hostilities with the Federation! Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Possibly why they never started hostilities with the Federation!
No, they captured Tasha and most of the Bridge crew, remember? They probably got plenty of information from them...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Information about the Federation stuck in a 20 year long war with the Klingons? That would explain some of Sela's scheme with the Duras sisters. It'd be just like the Romulans to stir up troulbe ans watch things unfold.
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: 1.) Is the Ambassador class still being produced in the TNG era (even in limited numbers)? 2.) How many of these ships could have been produced? We sure have seen tons of Excelsiors and Mirandas but why not more Ambassadors? What percentage of the fleet would they make up?
1. I always assumed the run was either on in limited numbers, or production ceased altogether with the advent of the Galaxys and Nebulas.
2. The 'real' reason we haven't seen more Ambassadors is that the production went to probably 90% CGI and only about 10% model photography in the later years of the different series. Since there was never a CGI version of the Ambassador, that's why we didn't see it. (And also explains its absence from Starship Spotter.)
My assumption is that Ambassadors are still around in at least as great a quantity as maybe 50% of Excelsior numbers...which would be quite a bit!
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I already knew the answer to #2 but was hoping for something to explain it in the Trek-verse.
Strange that they never CGI'd it though: it surely would'nt have been as hard to pull off as the Miranda (and that looked great!)
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
of course, the 1701C met its design goal: to look like a halfway mark between the Excelsior and the Galaxy. unfortunately, this probably made the producers think it would be redundant.. why go thru the cost og CGIing a ship that looks like two ships you already have CGIs of, and casual viewers would just mistake for one or the other anyway...
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
I don't think casual viewers really give a crap...it is only us who notice these things anyway.... Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Well for starters, the ship in "Data's Day" was the Zhukov, not the Excalibur. That ship showed up in the fifth season opener as stock footage from "Yesterday's Enterprise". The Ambassador-class model put in an appearance in that episode as well, though it probably was still labeled Zhukov. The model was subsequently relabeled as Yamaguchi for "Emissary", and not seen after that.
As I've stated in previous Amby threads, I've always beleived that these ships were produced in limited numbers as the true explorers of their day. Inasmuch as there were only twelve-ish Connies in that day, and six-ish Galaxies in TNG, there wouldn't have been many Ambassadors made. Only a handful at most, possibly in two production runs (explaining the 1xxxx and 26xxx reg numbers).
As for why we rarely see them, I take it to mean that their principal duty as explorers mean that they're out in the far reaches doing just that. The rare sight of an Amby in TNG is the exception to the rule of deep space explorers out exploring deep space. They will have naturally been superceded by the Galaxy and possibly Sovereign classes, and what few that are left are either out there or decommissioned. Considering that they may have been Starfleet's big card ship for up to 50 YEARS, it's quite a legacy to leave!
Mark
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
I agree that the Ambies are out beyond Federation Borders... exploring.
Secondly I believe the Galaxies are it's successors the Sovereigns are NOT.
I don't see why they never made a CGI version - why didn't they just buy those versions as seen on Bernd's site? They were done at Sci-Fi art or something weren't they? Any-hoo there are a few versions on the net that are very-well done.
ACTUALLY if MOJO is reading this thread HELLO MOJO - maybe you'd like to create an Ambassador (check out Bernd's site for the correct type) for the 2004 Calendar!?!
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Futurama Guy: I don't think casual viewers really give a crap...it is only us who notice these things anyway....
Sort of. Casual fans don't really care about the detailed history of every single class. But that's not the point.
The reason why the Reliant was designed to look as it does was because TPTB wanted a design that ANYONE could tell apart from the Enterprise really easily. And that's the problem with the Ambassador. It looks just a bit too similar to other classes, so much so that if they showed it on the screen briefly, casual fans could get confused and think that it is the Enterprise (or whatever.
In fact, when I first saw Yesterday's Enterprise, I had only been watching Trek for a couple of months, and I thought the ship was the movie Enterprise design.
Anyway, that's why they CGI-ed the Miranda's. No-one would mistake a Miranda for a Galaxy. The Excelsior's are a bit more similar looking, but not as much as the Ambassador.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I don't think the Ambassador was limited to anything under 50-100 starships in it's production run: things had changed (size wise) for starfleet since the short runs of the Connie and the Ambassador served much longer anyway. I've never been a fan of the idea of "refiting everything into a whole new ship" like the Connie Refit. It's more likely that the variants are design improvments added to later models. I'd like to think the Ambassador's are still exploring or in reserve fleets somewhere as I can't buy them being decommisioned before the Miranda or Excelsiors.
...and I DO think the Ambassador looks seperate enough to stand out of the small screen: you guys don't give those "casual viewers" enough credit.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Mojo's not on the next calendar. But in the Unseen Frontier (RIP), there was going to be a CGI Ambassador created for the Narendra 3 segment, detailing the last battle of the Enterprise-C. I was researching the artwork. *Sigh*...
Given that there is no Ambassador class ship with a reg higher than 26xxx that we know of, but there are plenty of Mirandas and Excelsiors with 3xxxx and 4xxxx reg numbers, it makes sense to see them a whole lot more on that basis alone. The LAST inkling we have of active-use reg number is that screen in "Nemesis", where there is no reg lower than 4xxxx. If that's any indication (especially given the known classes of those ships), there is a fair probability that most ships older than 3xxxx or so might be due for the chop.
Mark
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
I hope you weren't going to use D'Deridexii for the Romulan ships at Narendra? Something in-between the Cruiser and the big-bird would have been nice.
Is there going to be a Ships of the Line Calendar this year!?!?! (Well, next year).
Andrew
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Mojo WAS going to do some kickass pre-TNG warbirds. I only wish I coulda seen the skteches for that one - he said they were plenty cool.
If there's an SOTL calendar for next year, Mojo isn't on it yet.
Mark
Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
While I think we only know of 12 Connies, I believe there were plenty more than that. And while some people think the Excelsior replaced the Constitution, I believe that it was actually the Ambassador that replaced the Constitution--- with the Excelsior filling in a brand new role that Starfleet had just created. I would say the same thing for the Galaxy, it fills in a new role and doesn't replace the Excelsior or Ambassador, while the Sovereign replaces the Excelsior. On the docket next would be a brand new role, and then the replacement of the Ambassador.
As for how many there are [Ambassadors], plenty. I would suggest that however many Constitutions you think there are/were the number is bigger. Not necessarily 2x, but I would say at least 50% more.
As for why we never saw them. The odds of running into any specific class besides the workhorses is extremely rare [those workhorses being the Oberth, Miranda, Excelsior, and maybe Nebula]. Of course it would make sense to see other vessels unless you consider the facts of the situation. The Enterprise was performing it's duties within a limited span of influence. Within that area there might have been other vessels [we see them occasionally on the displays], but the Enterprise may never have contact with those ships. And the ships within that area would also be limited to only a two or three Ambassadors [period]. The numbers of that class, based on it being started in 2318 and continuing even into 2340's still limits the amount of ships that could have ever been built to a few hundred at the most, but I feel 150 is a more realistic number. You're talking about one or two per 5 sectors, when a ship-on-the-go [like the E-D] probably never covered more than 2 sectors a year [unless it was moving between border areas (for a while it was closer to the Klingons, then closer to the Romulans, then finally they ended up near the Cardassians)].
I can't stand it when someone says the Ambassador was a limited run, when we know for a fact that we've never seen even half of Starfleet on screen. [Now, someone is going to bring up the statements on the fleet from Wolf 359, and I want you to shutup now. The only explaination I can give for that is that it was a Fleet, not the Starfleet... might have even been the 1st fleet which would have been very important as the homeguard]. I can't stand it when someone says the Ambassador isn't around anymore--- they use the same type of arguements that people started to use after the E-D was destroyed to say that the Galaxy Class was being retired and the Sovereign Class was replacing it... OY!
I need to go, I've ranted enough...
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
Just when I thought this thread was over...
Two points about J's argument:
1. What role did big, multi-role starships serve? Explorers. What were Connies, Excelsiors, Ambassadors, and Galaxies said to be? Biggest of their time, and used for exploring. Hence, they were all of the same role and purpose, Explorers.
2. Forget Wolf 359, what was that, a dozen ships onscreen, tops? Think about the various major battles from the Dominion War. We never seen a single Ambassador onscreen. There was at least one at Wolf 359, but not a single one seen in the whole of DW AFAIK. I'd wish for there being a lot more of them, though. They're very pretty ships.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
For the record, I think that the ships in the "graveyard" scene of Wolf 359 represented the ships tha the Borg had tractored for assimilation or something. Objects in motion, and all that; the other 30 ships were either blown up entirely (Saratoga) or their wreckage just kept on going once the Borg were done with them (Excelsior-Melbourne, Bonestell, etc.). That should tie up where all the other ships were...
Back to the Ambassadors. There has never been, and will never be a definitive fleet size. Anything we speculate wil never be truly substantiated, even in the course of an episode. I agree that the Ambies are probably the true successors to the Connie exploration mission, but that their numbers were still probably small; if not due to onscreen evidence, then because of their generally accepted mission as frontline explorers in the first place.
Mark
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by David Templar: Just when I thought this thread was over...
Two points about J's argument:
1. What role did big, multi-role starships serve? Explorers. What were Connies, Excelsiors, Ambassadors, and Galaxies said to be? Biggest of their time, and used for exploring. Hence, they were all of the same role and purpose, Explorers.
The same role the Galaxy eventually had: Defense in times of conflict and limited exporation (as a class)in times of peace. I imagine the Ambassador and Galaxy classes were used as explorers mabye 70% of their operational lifetimes at most and as troubleshooters within the Federation the rest of the time. Theses are the Federation's Big Guns and they'd want them handy in case of trouble. Eventually the newer, more powerful classes free up ships like the Ambassador to really explore: that's why the Stargazer was out making exciting First Contact missions while the Ambassador's were used for patrols like the "C" was. It's really the only way I could justify ships like the Stargazer being a explorer when Ambassador class ships were available too.
[ May 30, 2003, 07:57 PM: Message edited by: Jason Abbadon ]
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
Um, can you re-articulate that?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
No sleep and Pakled level typing skills can make for "intresting" posts at times. Better?
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mark Nguyen: Mojo WAS going to do some kickass pre-TNG warbirds. I only wish I coulda seen the skteches for that one - he said they were plenty cool.
If there's an SOTL calendar for next year, Mojo isn't on it yet.
Mark
Do you think he'd give us a look at one?
Did he give his reasons for not doing another Calendar?
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Maybe a lot of the Ambassadors were destroyed in the Cardassian Wars?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Or in the ill-fated Seventh Fleet.
Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
quote:Originally posted by David Templar: Just when I thought this thread was over...
Two points about J's argument:
1. What role did big, multi-role starships serve? Explorers. What were Connies, Excelsiors, Ambassadors, and Galaxies said to be? Biggest of their time, and used for exploring. Hence, they were all of the same role and purpose, Explorers.
On point 2 really quick... yes, Wolf 359 is forgettable.
Point 1. I disagree with you. While each of them filled a role of exploration they did it differently and sometimes not at all. The Constitution was the first exploration vessel, and because the Feds knew absolutely nothing about exploration dangers it wasn't able to fulfill that role completely, but was capable of holding it's own in battle. The Excelsior was the learning process from the Constitution, plus the hope of faster travel via transwarp. The Ambassador was more heavy cruiser than explorer in both design and use-- I imagine the Ambassador stuck in defensive roles while other ships like the Constellation were doing the exploration [as someone else has already suggested]. The Galaxy Class does even less exploration than the Ambassador sticking more to the duties of a good-will ambassador to friendlies/allies/indifferent states, and serving in the role of a battlecruiser when necessary. So yes, the same general term may apply, but in extermely varying roles, which is what I meant. It seems that Explorers are built to be able to go out and stay for long times, like Voyager did [and that one ship from DS9's "Sound of Her Voice"] but it seems they don't all do that.
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: The same role the Galaxy eventually had: Defense in times of conflict and limited exporation (as a class)in times of peace. I imagine the Ambassador and Galaxy classes were used as explorers mabye 70% of their operational lifetimes at most and as troubleshooters within the Federation the rest of the time. Theses are the Federation's Big Guns and they'd want them handy in case of trouble.
True, but I wouldn't have exploration so high. I mean look at the E-D it was stuck doing more diplomacy than exploration, had it lasted into the war it would have also had more combat than exploration IMO.
quote:Eventually the newer, more powerful classes free up ships like the Ambassador to really explore:
Like the Akira, Steamrunner, Sabre, and Norway each capable of fulfilling the same defensive roles as the Ambassador, on it's level if not higher.
quote:that's why the Stargazer was out making exciting First Contact missions while the Ambassador's were used for patrols like the "C" was. It's really the only way I could justify ships like the Stargazer being a explorer when Ambassador class ships were available too.
It's a good justification too.
As for two other comments: Undoubtedly the Ambassador's numbers during TNG would be significantly lower as a direct result of the Cardassian Conflicts. The destruction or near destruction of the 7th Fleet could also explain why we never saw an Ambassador. 1) We all know that no matter how many Ambassadors tehre are they would be limited in number. 2) That limited number would likely mean that unless Starfleet saw it necessary to deploy a significant portion of the Ambassadors to that area of space they would exist in little numbers or none at all for the war effort.
Owing that originally the Ambassadors wouldn't have been allowed to go on the long-term exploration missions they should have, then later they would be. This limits even more the amount of Ambassadors that would have remained within the area to be used for defensive.
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
I still like the idea that a lot of the Ambassadors were just out on deep space exploration. I cannot believe Starfleet could have possibly recalled all of its starships for the War, especially if these ships were on the other side of the Federation or at some location that happened to be 2 or more years outside of the Federations defended space.
-OR-
Keep in mind too, that we only really saw or specifically heard of 2 or 3 of the battle fleets that participated the war, which is only 1/3rd of the known number of fleets. Sure its strange that we did not see any Ambassadors in the retaking of DS9, but consider how many Galaxies we saw! They very much could have had the Galaxies and additional fodder (Exc, Mir, Akira's) on the front line fleets, like we saw, and very well could have easily had the Ambassadors as the big guns behind the Federation lines. Seeing as for all the Galaxies on the lines, there couldnt have been too many behind the lines, leaving a void the Ambassadors very easily could have filled. Again, at least 2/3s of the known fleets we not even seen, if even mentioned. There is a LOT of room for the Ambassadors to be fit into the picture unseen. Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Many Ambassadors may have been tld to maintain their position if they were on the far side of Fed space exploring and could not return within a couple of month's time. In the New Frontier books, Peter David has the Ambassador class Excalibur ordered to stay out of the fighting along with several other ships and crews as a failsafe in case the Federation fell, those ships could continue a gurillia campaign and potentially rebuild the fleet. Might explain why those pansys on the Enterprise E (or any Soverign or Prometheus for that matter)were nowhere to be found in the battles.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
I still think that the Ambassadors were Explorers through and through. Plus, using the Enterprise-C as a measuring stick isn't necessarily a good thing - Starfleet's Enterprises have always been in a "best of the best" sort of positon within the fleet. In fact, aside from the E-nil (and Pre-E, for that matter), Enterprises are generally NOT on missions of true deep-space exploration.
Then, count in the INTENT of these designs, as exemplified in the nigh-fact (and admittedly nigh-dated) text of the TNG-TM. Galaxies and Ambassadors are the "primary instruments of exploration" of the fleet. The conclusion that I'm trying to reach here is that from all we see of the "big" starships, that they are fully equipped per design to be EXPLORERS. That we rarely see them in that capacity is not necessarily a strike against them; most of this evidence is from the Enterprise, and we generally accept this as the exception to the rule. Enterprises are more frequently seen as troubleshooters, and this can easily be due to their role as one of the most important ships in the fleet.
This is not to say that other ships aren't used for exploration; the Constellations are obviously well equipped for this as well, but are simply not as big or as glamouous as the Ambies or Galaxies. I still think that the Ambassadors are smaller production runs for ships and that they were simply decommissioned, destroyed or unavailable for most of the war. What Ambies there were can easily be lost in the clouds of starships we see in DS9. Just because the VFX guys didn't have a model doesn't mean they weren't there.
Mark
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
Any or all of this makes as much sense as the next, as we may never know the truth behind the Ambassador legacy.
However, I guess on the other hand...3 other Ambassadors (presumably) were mentioned during the run (other than the Yamaguchi) of DS9, somewhat proving their existance...
Those being the Valdemar ("Tribunal") then the Gandhi ("Defiant") and then during the actual war-war the Exeter was mentioned as being in the 9th fleet ("You are Cordially Invited")....
...so though not seen...they at least still exist... Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
I'm with Mark on this.
Another prespective on why we didn't see any Ambassadors during the DW would be that we're always following the Defiant around, and the Defiant was always leading the charge. Maybe, for whatever reason, the Ambassador is simply not suited for an assault role, and is hanging just behind the chargers with all them New Orleans, Cheyenne, and whatever else we didn't see. Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
Back to the differences between the two types of Ambassadors, I think Jonah has come up with a really good idea. We know that some of the Ambassadors are explorers, and the Horatio was explicitly named as a heavy cruiser. Jonah suggested that the refitted version seen as the Yamaguchi and Zhukov could be the heavy cruiser version, built as such from the yard. The regular version seen as the Enterprise-C is the explorer version.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I have to disagree, although it's a very good idea that some starships have intended variants for specific roles (like the Venture).
As to there being diffrent types of Ambassadors: I think that's what the Apollo was. I think the "Heavy Cruiser" term refers to all Ambassadors after the much larger Galaxy class came about and is used to avoid confusion. After all, Starfleet refers to the Defiant as an escort while the Cardassians call it a Warship (the Nebula too for that matter!). I think the diffrences have to represent a design upgrade: after all, the Galaxy is a new class and still has at least one upgrade that we've seen in the Venture and the Excelsiors had their upgrade too while still keeping the class name. That's not to say that there could still be older Ambassadors without the upgrade still in service at the fringe of Fed space.
The Ambassador was probably the fleet's main exploration ship even into the DS9 era and many were likely "out there" during the war. I really like the idea of Ambassadors in the fleet action: we just didint see them atthe rear or as the main ships of the second wave of ships. All I know is that my own fleet o' models includes the USS California with it's registry of NCC-60218 and she does'nt have the second shuttlebay, so there. That makes it canon. Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
The Cardassians call any Starfleet starship with decent weaponry (i.e. not a freighter) a "warship" -- because their own fleet is nothing but warships anyway. Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Plus, the classification of Defiant as an escort was a deliberate misnomer. Probably to hide its existence and for various politcal reasons. You can probably bet that the Prometheus has a similar classification. Executive shuttle, perhaps.
There is always an upgrade for a reason, though not necessarily for a specific mission. The Venture, for example, was the ONLY ship we've seen that way - the USS Galaxy and all other ships of her ilk seen after "WOTW" were not equipped with the extra phaser banks. It was obviously not a fleetwide upgrade.
Mark
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Didn't they reuse that "WOTW" shot in another episode? Was that ship also suppossed to be the Venture, or was it another one?
And does anyone have any idea why those extra phaser banks were left on? Was it a concious decision designed to show an upgrade, did they get glued on too tightly to remove, or did someone simply forget to take them off?
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: Didn't they reuse that "WOTW" shot in another episode? Was that ship also suppossed to be the Venture, or was it another one?
It was reused in one of two or both of these episodes: "Dr. Bashir, I Presume" &/or "Sacrifice of Angels"...I'm pretty sure it was both...
As far as if it was the Venture or not, I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be, as nothing indicated otherwise as it was reused footage...
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Yep. For all we know, the Venture was the flagship of the ninth fleet's Starfleet contingent. Since the fleet was HQed there under General Martok, it could have been one of any number of ships there weekly, for all we knew.
Tying this back to the Ambassadors, there are any number of examples of USN warships of the same class being outfitted with different weapon complements. Some Los Angeles class submarines were refitted with vertical launch systems for Tomahawk cruise missiles; ditto for at least one class of destroyers. Some classes have a helicopter bay tacked on to some ships, while others do not. The Ambassador (and to a more extreme extent, the Enterprise-B/Lakota variant of the Excelsior) class could easily be like this. It need not be a specific upgrade, nor does it necessarily make one ship superior to her yardmates. Nor is it necessarily indicative of a complete Movie-E-style refit or overhaul.
Mark
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Maybe an Ambassador class was sent to guard each Federation World?
Posted by Fleet-Admiral Michael T. Colorge (Member # 144) on :
With at least 150 members as of First Contact, I'm sure that there are still a significant number of Ambassador Class starships around. It's just we so far have focused on a small percent of Federation Space. No matter what or who explored it, 8,000 light years is still freaking big.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
After the Breen attack on Earth and the fall of Betazed, I'm sure either an Ambassador or a Galaxy (along with several smaller ships)was stationed near any remotely strategic Fed member-world system.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Then again, what good is one starship against an invasion fleet? It probably can't even put up a delaying action, and will be wastefully lost when a simple subspace alarm buoy could have been sacrificed in its stead. Better bundle up your ships in a few potent fleets and hope that those fleets manage to get to places before the enemy does.
Or perhaps spread them out evenly and allow them to pull together into fleets wherever necessary? Which takes us back to deploying one per planet, come to think of it.
If the two variants of Ambassadors are divided into "explorers" and "heavy cruisers", I'd argue that the Enterprise is the heavy cruiser while the Yamagochi is the explorer. After all, the latter has a bigger sensor array beneath the saucer, and a more extensive shuttlebay arrangement.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
The fleet shots we saw were pretty unrepresentative of the fleet as a whole based on previous eps; we saw what, seven different classes regularly? (Galaxy, Miranda, Excelsior, Defiant, Akira, Steamrunner, Sabre). So I have no problems with the Ambassadores being elsewhere or simply not seen in the shots we saw.
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wraith: The fleet shots we saw were pretty unrepresentative of the fleet as a whole based on previous eps; we saw what, seven different classes regularly? (Galaxy, Miranda, Excelsior, Defiant, Akira, Steamrunner, Sabre). So I have no problems with the Ambassadores being elsewhere or simply not seen in the shots we saw.
For that matter, we really didn't see all that many Steamrunners or Sabres in the same extent that we saw the Akiras.
Then we have those 2 or 3 other 'kitbash' designs that popped up (ie "Centuar") as well, Ambassadors could very easily been the "big guns back home" defending the assets of the Federation, as they are 'big guns', big enough to be a last lines of defense, but not as big at the Galaxies which were the first lines of defense.
Think about it, something had to be defending Earth, Vulcan, Andor, Betazed...etc...
And again, the Exeter was at least mentioned (and Akagi) as two other classes not seen but evidently present....plus all of those mentioned on the okuda-gram diplays that served in various fleets.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Why are some people up about consigning some classes to rear guard? This would make sense if some ships are decisively defective or outdated, but nothing we've seen of the Ambassador class indicates this. They've flown combat missions before (Wolf 359, arguably the Romulan blockade), and we've seen innumerable times how almost any Starfleet ship can be really really powerful. I don't see why what few Ambassadors there are would not be used on the front lines.
Mark
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
We are just trying to come up with an explainable reason as to why they were so obviously absent in all of the observed front line battles....
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Now that I really think about it, there is a large grouping of starship classes that had to be assigned to either fleets we didint see or rearguard/ planetary defense actions.
Lots of classes of a later vintage than the Ambassador were never shown: the Springfield, Freedom, New Orleans, Apollo, Challenger, Niagra, Chyenne, Sydney (the perfect troop transport),Renaissance, Excelsior "B" variants and Norway were not shown in fleet action and that means that hundreds of starships were busy doing something else in the majoe engagments that were shown. ...on the other hand, we never knew the composition of the Seventh Fleet or the fleet that destroyed the Dominion's shipyards.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Any o you guys got a list of all the Ambassador class ships known? I lost the link to MMM's site and I aint seen hin around these parts lately....
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
From ditl.org:
NCC 10521 USS Ambassador NCC 10532 USS Horatio (NCC 1701-C USS Enterprise) NCC 26136 USS Zhukov NCC 26198 USS Valdemar NCC 26510 USS Yamaguchi NCC 26517 USS Excalibur NCC 26531 USS Exeter NCC 26632 USS Gandhi NCC 26849 USS Adelphi
Dunno if it's complete... But lookit the ratio of 10xxx numbers!
Mark
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
...Plus, out of all those Ambassadors, the only one we KNOW was active in TNG's time was the Horatio -- and that one bit the dust in "Conspiracy."
It's quite possible that the early Ambassadors were decommissioned, and the second batch (the 26's) are on their last leg...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
The Excalibur was part of the Tachyon sensor net in Redemption pt.II, I believe.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Zhukov, Valdemar, Yamaguchi and Ghandi were all active at the time they were mentioned or seen, too.
Mark
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
I know that... but their active status says nothing about their condition. The Zhukov was on simple ferrying duty, the Excalibur was a shoo-in for Picard's fleet, and the Valdemar could have just been there to make things look more impressive alongside the Enterprise (which was one of the other ships sent to the border).
That's all speculation, of course... all I was saying originally was that the new ones are STILL relatively old (older than some of the Mirandas and most Excelsiors).
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
Ambassador Chronological History & Status:
NCC 10521, USS Ambassador, Pre-2344, Status Unknown
NCC 1701C, USS Enterprise, 2344, Destroyed (@ Narendra III)
NCC 26849, USS Adelphi, ca. 2354, Status Unknown
NCC 10532, USS Horatio, 2364, Destroyed (Near Dytallix B)
NCC 26510, USS Yamaguchi, 2367, Destroyed (@ Wolf 359)
NCC 26517, USS Excalibur, 2368, In Service (During Klingon Civil War)
NCC 26136, USS Zhukov, 2368, In Service ("Ferrying")
NCC 26198, USS Valdemar, 2370, In Service (Along Cardassian DMZ)
NCC 26632, USS Gandhi, 2371, In Service (Surveyed Lorenze Cluster)
NCC 26531, USS Exeter, 2374, In Service (During Dominion War)
And for the anal retentive folks :
1) The Excalibur was additionally mentioned in �Survival Instinct� (VGR) but no date of reference was given.
2) The Exeter was additionally (or initially) mentioned in �Non Sequitur� (VGR) in an alternate reality, so the credibility is questionable.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Personally, I'm convinced that the Excalibur was at Wolf 359. Despite the awful logic, it is consistent with other VGR episodes to have drones from that event found traipsing around the Delta Quadrant.
It would also explain why the Excalibur had so little crew in "Redemption" -- it had been in drydock for a full year getting repaired. And most of the crew had probably either abandoned ship or been assimilated before that.
Not sure how well that theory could hold up, but it's worth a shot...
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Well, there's absolutely no evidence to say that every single Borg incident involved a starship called Enterprise or Voyager. The Excalibur's alleged independent encounter could just as easily be separate from everything else.
Mark
Posted by Adm_Amit (Member # 1046) on :
Regarding the on-screen dissapearance of the Ambassador-class I had read that the actual filming model of the Ambassador was damaged and subsequently "mothballed". I'll look for the reference to justify this claim of mine.
Now I know this doesn't give the VFX companies a big excuse on not being able to reproduce a digital model of the Ambassador. I think that whoever "wrote" or directed the Dominion battle sequences must have either not put enough thought into them or just got lazy and decided to use whatever digital models they had instead of making new models for "older" starfleet ships (ambassador, niagra, etc) and including them alongside the "newer" well-known vessels (galaxy, nebula, norway, steamrunner, akira, excelsior,etc).
Posted by Triton (Member # 1043) on :
Well we could probably write volumes coming up with a reasonable fiction explanation for the no-appearance of the Ambassor-class in the fleet sequences of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. One of the reasons that I was thinking of is that members of the class were being used on other fronts of the war. Doesn't Ross command the eighth fleet? So you begin to wonder which ships constitute fleets 1-7. or if there are even more than 8 fleets and what ship classes constitute these fleets.
Because early in the war the characters talk about heavy ship losses, Bashir in particular, perhaps the Ambassador-class ships didn't fare very well in their engagements and were destroyed.
I think that the idea that the Yamaguichi/Enterprise-C minature was damaged could very well be the reason why we didn't see it. Also time and budget constraints always seem to effect which things we see in an episode. We would also probably be remarking about how "cheesy" the Niagara, Springfield, and Challenger-class models look if they ever appeared again in a Trek episode. By the way, I was surprised at the number and quality of the space battles we did see during the run of DS9 because of the expense of special effects.
Maybe another reason why we didn't see the Ambassador-class was just simply for a dramatic or storytelling reason. You cannot very well say in dialogue that the war is not going well for the Federation, ship losses are high, and that most of the Federation's ship building facitilities are damaged and incapable of replacing the ships that have been lost, and then show a fleet composed entirely of "contemporary" and powerful explorer classes or ships-of-the-line.
I think that it makes the Federation's plight much more desperate worrisome if you add several ancient Miranda-class and Excelsior-class vessels, and kitbash variants of the Constitution and Excelsior classes, and deploy them as frontline warships in the fleet.
If we had seen the Eighth Fleet composed of more "contemporary" and powerful starship classes, may be we would be writing threads asking why did Sisko need to act the way he did "In the Pale Moonlight" to get the Romulans to commit themselves to the Dominion war effort?
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
THEY WERE BEHIND THE CAMERA SPACE IS BIG
Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :
Haha.
It could also be the design team thought the Ambassador was too close in its appearance to the Galaxy class.
It's a shame they couldn't make up new designs and designate those as the rarely seen TNG classes of Niagra and the like...on the other, I'm sure someone would argue that they violated continuity then...
I liked the fleet scenes of DS9, though, and it was quite fun to watch Excelsiors rolling across asteroid fields with Mirandas. The downside is that we've got certain viewers who took the pretty explosions to mean that the older vessels "suck." Ah well.
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
One final thought, if the Ambassadors are out exploring, they're probably mostly oriented towards the galactic core, there the density of stars to explore is the greatest. In the event of war, they'd be drawn into action in the Federation's "northern" sectors, whereas the Fleet actions we witness took place in the "east", along the Federation-Cardassian border. Why did we seen other explorers, like Galaxies, then? Maybe because Starfleet thought to keep them close at hand for troubleshooting purposes, just like they did the Ent-D.
quote:Originally posted by Ace: The downside is that we've got certain viewers who took the pretty explosions to mean that the older vessels "suck." Ah well.
By my count, most of the Akiras shown were blown away very, very fast. I don't think of them as sucky, though, no more I'd hold it against Mirandas or Excelsiors. What I hate is when people say "those Akiras were taken out first because they posed the great threat with their |_|63r f19|-|73rs and 15 torpedoes tubes!!!!"
Yeah, [censored].
Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :
I wasn't talking about you David.
Oh, I can't wait for the DVDs to come out so we can all watch those fleet scenes again after five years (they don't show DS9 in my area).
Here's a question: Why, after the loss of the Enterprise-C, wasn't there another Enterprise for the next 20 years since Starfleet seems so fond of the name after Kirk made it famous?
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Maybe it's because she was listed as missing. They held out hope that she might return or show up & have wreckage be found or SOMEthing.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
They started building the E-D not too long after the loss of the E-C. They probably didn't expect it to take so bloody long for them to finish building the thing.
Mark
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
Damn space monkeys...
What the hell does Starfleet expect when they pay their contractors in bananas....??
Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
Because the Galaxy Class was more than likely within Starfleet's mind by 2340, the E-C was lost in 2342, they would have held out hope for the E-C because they had no clue what happened to it they held out hope for a couple years. Finally she was listed MIA presumed destroyed and the name was freed up. Instead of using one of the older classes, Starfleet decided to wait and give the name to the newest most prostegious class yet, which would be out of the drydock in less than ten years [or so they thought].
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)