Which is the Best Artillery Ship/Monitor (Star Trek Factions Compared)

[@RandomTrinidadian]

I think this is the first time i heard someone talk positively about the Freedom-class. Well.... realitivrly possite anyway.

[@GRIGGINS1]

The Oberth class says "I am the redheaded stepchild of Starfleet." The Freedom class says "Hold my Beer."

[@ransom182]

I’d say that title probably goes to the Yeager class haha. Also the Niagara class is pretty weird too.

[@merafirewing6591]

​@@ransom182 nah, the Yeager class is the Raccoon in the Garage.

[@jeffhallam2004]

Venom, I don’t know how you do this but your input and energy in these videos is unbelievable.

[@venomgeekmedia9886]

Thanks I'm glad you guys enjoy them :)

[@tsechejak7598]

Norway is in my top 5 bestest TNG/DS9 era ships. Your channel is waking people up to it making it more popular and the credit it deserves. As soon as I saw First Contact in theater for the first time, the Norway was my favorite in that battle

[@QalOrt]

Monitors are a very old class of ship, in the Spanish-American War the Americans used monitors to bombard Spanish forts in Cuba and Puerto Rico. They are pretty much a bigger version of a gunboat.

[@captainsquarters1030]

Special mention: Dukat's cargo vessel with it's land based, jury rigged, disruptor.

[@venomgeekmedia9886]

he probably took credit for the whole idea.

[@IronWarhorsesFun]

ya captured a BoP lol.

[@blackhawks81H]

Maaaannn, I just found this channel and I've been binge watching the back catalog for days. All the videos are great, but I wish he'd done more of this series too. Light/heavy cruisers, battlecruisers, etc. Either way, good shite.

[@Optimistprime.]

I have been too! I enjoy his videos. His opinions are pretty similar to my head canon, and I get to use my imagination to fill in gaps and figure out if I agree or not. Very fun channel!

[@K-Effect]

It would have been nice if the Freedom Class had the canon from the Alternate Future U.S.S. ENTERPRISE NCC-1701-D

[@mikeshriver4282]

I just love how you put your whole heart mind soul into this and you're just like me venom. to you Star Trek is a real thing in our minds that is how we can talk about it and speak about it and enjoy it with such passion because to me it's almost like these events are going to take place or already have taken place

[@shanenolan8252]

Fair point on cardassion ships

[@ISAF_Ace]

I think that the Norway comes out on top in all categories uncountably; I would however put the Ktinga equal to the Vasad in tactical score, its a purpose built warship (Yes its old) because it was very advanced for its time and likely still equal to lower tier ships like the Vasad which are not purpose built and cobbled together, the vasad does seem rugged but more in the way of something that a pirate gang would construct. The Norway is in now way stealthy and meant to make loads of noise to draw the attention of the borg so I would put it last in ambush bellow the Freedom, fast yes, stealthy absolutely not. I mean neither is the freedom but I imagine it would have a much smaller EM signature and energy signature because of its small size and less advancement. I think that siege is good, the Ktinga it above the Vasad because it has a bigger gun but would work better in groups of 3 or more where you can get a good firing line. The Freedom still to me seems like ship that was not made much, I still maintain that it would be an intersystem patrol ship or mining vessel. Not something you would churn out ever, so yeah I think that its fine there with the scores. I would say that the Freedom is more complex than the Vasad which you do point out, easily repairable and can work on the fly but overly complex because it would have been a test bed for the Galaxy class. the Ktinga you could churn out because its like a lasgun from 40K, you can build it out of anything from explodium to the much stronger cardboard and it would chug on. so yeah apart from a few score differences I would have I completely agree with the overall score, for artillery I would perhaps another category of its usage in fleet operations (how it can fit into formations, can it keep up with the rest of the fleet, would it be useful in the chaotic pub fight of a battle and manoeuvres etcetera) But I would have no idea how to measure that in a number so kicking it off a list is advisable. so in conclusion, great video, and I hate the freedom

[@Hiddenlotuslord]

Love your work. You should try one of these with either the heaviest hitters (perhaps experimental ships if you don't want to include some of these): (Borg Cube, Prometheus, Scimitar, etc), post Insurrection Sovereign, Kerchan, etc). Idk the battleship video got me going on heavy hitters lol

[@Hiddenlotuslord]

Or perhaps the heavy cruisers (Akira, Galor/Keldon (any of the versions), Jem Hadar Battle Cruiser, Vorcha (attack cruiser but why not? This is it's weight class), Valdore? (Idk the romulan equivalent tbh), the main Breen ships (forget the class name), etc

[@ralphsexton8531]

The way you describe the Vasad being easily mistaken for any other freighter sounds like the perfect Q-Ship. Those were used in both World Wars.

[@tilasole3252]

12:37 regardless what the ship looks like, any fighting vessel should be able to scan multiple ships and tell which ones are armed. Regardless what shielding they have, such as the Cardassian Union where it can hide what it carries. In war and knowing these ships are used for fighting, you'd simply attack it regardless.

[@brianrogers7360]

I designed a ship years ago for the FASA game. She was the Manta Ray class Battleship. 4 torpedo launchers and 6 phasers(4 in one bank alone) She resembled the Miranda class, but much larger. Quad warp nacelles. And well armoured and excellent shields. Extremely powerful

[@venomgeekmedia9886]

Sounds a bit like the Andor 2 missile cruiser.

[@brianrogers7360]

@@venomgeekmedia9886 they were also equipped with 350 combat troops. In my 1st battle with her, I obliterated an L-24, crippled a 2nd, and heavily damaged a 3rd. With only minor shield damage to me.

[@DFuxa]

You should probably include a score multiplier of some sort for each category in your next compares list. That would allow you to include something like defense or let you show how unimportant something like calibre is.

[@dontdrunkimshoot8220]

I think monitor would more accurately describe ships like the Cheyenne, new Orleans, etc, than ships like these packing or revolving around a siege cannon. Those galaxy class development project derivatives eclipse the very definition of monitor, packing oval saucer spanning phaser arrays many times longer than those found on the ambassador class battleships of the day. it would be like a WW1 era navy putting 15 inch gun turrets on a new heavy cruiser type wile their current battleships had no better than 12 inch guns. Its a cool name and concept though so i can see why you use it. Think id refer to these types of ships as fire support cruisers or strike cruisers, or space trebuchet lol

[@venomgeekmedia9886]

Yeah these are a funny category. Since they rely on beam weapons. There is a class for a similar role but using torpedoes that being a torpedo/missile cruiser like the andor, brinok, or akira.

[@LemunRuss-sp6uh]

More like a ambassador Verent more so than cheyenne witch is more of a interdiction cruiser like a Norway or a new Orleans witch is a heavy frigate

[@jayburn00]

During ww2, monitors were used to provide extra shore bombardment. They were slow, had poor maneuvering, and armor was an afterthought. There is a sub-type called a river monitor, which is exactly what it sounds like. Monitors are sometimes still considered for production today as possibly cheaper alternatives to more expensive destroyers and cruisers. Similar in concept is the Arsenal ship. Basically, a modern monitor or arsenal ship would have tons of missiles, be slow, and less expensive to operate than blue water ships with weaker firepower (arsenal ships and monitors are not meant for combat in open water).

[@jayburn00]

They sort of created a stealthy arsenal ship recently when they converted a few Ohio class ballistic missile submarines into conventionally armed cruise missile carriers. Each ballistic missile tube was converted into a magazine and launch tube for 7 cruise missiles, totalling about 154 cruise missiles in the missile tubes, not counting what could be launched from the torpedo tubes (there are cruise missiles that can be launched from torpedo tubes, I don't think the converted ohios have these, but it would not be difficult for them to have that capability). In effect, it's an arsenal ship that is underwater and able to launch its missiles at any target in the region it happens to be in. An expensive version, going against part of the concept, but having a similar tactical effect of having a lot of cruise missiles ready to fire from where ever it is lurking. For comparison, any other cruise missile carrying ship in the US Navy has its cruise missiles number in the 10s, not hundreds, a max of about 56 from what I read.

[@cdrocrossdiscovery]

There's a Freedom class in my ST audio drama. The USS Liberty NCC-68701. The Norway is my pick for top dog. Another tale finely told.

[@Fizwalker]

Here is a little historical background and what monitors are. Simplified, Monitors originated in the U.S. Civil war with USS Monitor. A ridiculously small platform with a ridiculously big gun. The last monitors were used in WWI in the channel. They fell out of use because they are the purest form of focused glass cannon. WWI Monitors had 15" guns, no armor and a cursory set of secondary armament. By WWII they ceased to exist. Why? They were immobile and completely unable to defend themselves. Further resources used to correct these deficiencies would be better used to build cruisers and battleships. You won't see a monitor in Star Trek because even your basic multi-role patrol ship has more firepower than any of the monitors or the past. Remember, your photon torpedoes are many times more powerful than the fission weapons used to end WWII.... and they're able to be fired from ranges the planet can't respond.

[@krim7]

The Freedom-class is an iconic & wondrous design. It is my favorite of the weird Galaxy Kit Bash ships that never received a proper model (like the Nebula).

[@sonofeyeabovealleffoff5462]

There should be a TON more research into Disruptors. They've never really elaborated on power-settings or levels. Its always just DISRUPTORS... no other information added.

[@venomgeekmedia9886]

Yeah and there's a lot of variety.

[@sonofeyeabovealleffoff5462]

@@venomgeekmedia9886 Agreed with very little information. Like are there types and parameters?

[@augustusclaudiusvenorius6292]

Other than assuming the Norway is stocked with quantum torpedoes (which, during the Dominion War, I find highly dubious), I really like these videos!

[@venomgeekmedia9886]

yeah i do agree while i might have the capacity for quantum torpedoes i doubt if they were often used. probably reserved for use against key enemy ships.

[@admiralcasperr]

It needs to be pointed out that a monitors and artilleries have slightly to significantly different definitions (depending on who you ask). How I summarise them is: Monitor: Ships made to engage craft larger then themselves at medium or longer range. Possessing almost comically oversized guns, they excel at punching up their weight. This however comes at a cost of low toughness, subpar manoeuvrability and lacking additional capabilities. Artillery: Made to engage craft of similar size or larger. Artillery ships come with a large complement of long range weapons, and excel at combat at considerable distance from the enemy; Note that monitors just need to have a big gun, not necessarily a very long range one, unlike artillery, which doesn't need particularly large guns, but they have to be long range. Its usually most practical to have both a big and long range gun cuz of obvious tradeoffs, but still, these are different.

[@miamijules2149]

Good list Venom.... ratings and rationales are dead on.

[@venomgeekmedia9886]

Glad that you agree.

[@ussvoyager8650]

Even though the K'Tinga class Battlecruiser came second it's still my favourite

[@RichtorLazlo]

In the graphic novel “debt of honor” by Chris Claremont , Kor’s k’tinga was outfitted by scoty with a starfleet spine weapon that was super powerful 💥, the gun was so big that the k’tinga was the only ship that had a long enough hull that lined up with the warp core for the massive amounts of power the gun required, I believe it was a one shot every few minutes gun cause it drained the power so low.

[@ldl1477]

that would have been an awesome callback

[@robmcelwee389]

The term monitor originated during the US civil war. It was the first ship with a rotating turret and armor.

[@IronWarhorsesFun]

The K'tinga gets my vote as it makes the best use of existing resources. It is taking a 30 years old design keeping them relevant. it is cheap, it is effective and unlike the others, except for the Norway it can fight in a close battle if necessary (though unless those secondary weapons have been upgraded as you said it's going to be a problem). K'tinga can probably shoot and scoot very well because it's a Klingon ship, which means it is its fast and it has a cloak. The K'tinga refit saves the KDF from having to sink resources into a brand new ship and works perfectly with their if it ain't broke don't fix it mentality. Also, it's the only one that has a cloak which gives it the ability to ambush and perform alpha strikes. The vasaad while a good design is hamstrung by not being a purpose-built warship (though I am sure by the dominion war it was). The Norway is your typical federation ship that moonlights as something else when not doing its primary job and frankly while it is superior to all the others it has a huge wasted space for SOME REASON instead of a secondary hull. Half the ship is quite literally wasted space which makes no sense for a ship that should be packing as big a generator as possible for its main gun. The Vasaad has by the time of the Dominion war likely lost a lot of value as an ambush ship as its use would be well known as a Q ship. Also as ships originally intended to fight the fast uber blitzkrieg style of the Klingons aside from ambushing an attacker that thinks it's a Freighter i can't see it doing a great job especially with the fixed arc of its gun. once you figure out its use as a Q ship it lost a lot of its value.

[@venomgeekmedia9886]

Certainly in a broken battle the vasad is more of a liability but in a linear engagement she can hide behind the battle lines while still bombarding that of the enemy.

[@IronWarhorsesFun]

@@venomgeekmedia9886 what about The wasted space on the Norway?

[@ycplum7062]

I think you have combined several classes of ships (i.e. monitor, artillery, assault) into one. A monitor is fundamentally a defensive ship. None exists since WW I. Back in the days (before WW I), a monitor was a ship with battleship-sized guns, batleship level of armor (or close to it) at about half the displacement. They were able to do this because the monitor had no range and very slow speed (i.e. half to two-third that of a battleship) since they were never intended to be far from the harbor they are suppose to protect and would act in concert with land-based naval guns. They would never be used in open water engagements since they can't maneuver worth a damn, assuming they some how got that far out to sea. Some monitors could be towed long distances to act as artillery (aka fire support or land attack, since we use guided missiles these days) ships. In these circumstances, there would be no threat from enemy ships (except maybe torpedo boats sallying out. The only threat would be land based naval guns. Assault ships transport troops to the ground, or in this case, planetside. They rarely have any firepower to speak of, much less long range firepower. You have to have control of the sea and air for assault ships to operate. Lets say you wanted to evaluate an artillery/fire support ship. I would discount troop carrying capacity, secondary armaments, and ambush capability. If you insist on ambush capability, I would look at cloaking and its ability to not be detected. By not being detected, I mean shield its power emissions and the ability to power back up quickly. Appearing as a frieghter is not a defense for the Cardassians. Freighters are legitimite targets of war. They would simply be attacked, boarded or destroyed out right. And unless the captain is a total idiot (which can occur if the all power script writer decides to do so), they should approach from a direction where there main weapons system is not pointing.

[@z3r0_35]

Correction: there were still some monitors around in World War II. Two notable classes were the Erebus-class and the Roberts-class (the former were a holdover from WWI while the latter were new ships), both of which saw most of their service providing fire support in the Mediterranean, then later doing the same at Normandy and elsewhere.

[@HeadlessChickenTO]

An idea for your next Best "insert ship type". Have you possibly looked into something along the lines of a heavy cruisers like an Akira or Excelsior vs Vorcha vs Galor vs I guess the Dominion Battlecruiser would be the best matchup for that faction vs maybe the Valdore type Warbird?

[@venomgeekmedia9886]

I was thinking of something similar. Best multi role cruiser.

[@red.5475]

Would it have been possible to upgrade K'Tinga class Cruisers with more modern photon torpedo and disruptor armament?

[@venomgeekmedia9886]

It's simply too small to house a multi shot launcher or mount a modern disruptor array.

[@raw6668]

Honestly, I think you should have put survivability and defense as a category. For even in siege combat, they have to get close enough to the target to hit it. Meaning weapon fire will be a problem if only to deal with the station firing back with a spread of torpedoes and long-range beam weapons. Not to mention with how maneuverable and fast starship with FTL drive, direct combat is not available in the Star Trek Universe that can wrap onto a fleet, even if there are ways to disrupt warp fields away from a target, as most will still be near a target. We see this in a modern world as there is a reason why many modern military forces are transitioning from artillery set pieces like howitzers to more mobile tank versions, drones, and fighters to handle artillery.

[@venomgeekmedia9886]

this is true to an extent. however people have been calling the end of artillery for at least 50 years. and i see no sign of them going anywhere especially with "SMART" munitions and possibly new propellants. you suggest performing warp hit and runs against fortified targets. while possible you would never be able to hit them hard enough as the lance draws power from the warp core, so needs time to charge up.

[@raw6668]

@@venomgeekmedia9886 That was not what I was suggesting at all. I meant the entire fleet drop out of warp right on top of the artillery ships to engage in ship-to-ship combat, even siege combat if the station has allied ships. I am suggesting in the Star Trek Universe, ship-to-ship combat is inevitable, and not being prepared for it would be stupid. Also, as working with the US Airforce, I can tell you that they never throw things away if it is still usable, but you can tell if they plan to retire it unofficially if they are not buying or maintaining a certain number. I mean technically, the US Army, still has cannons in service to be used as weapons of war, doesn't mean they are ever going to use them in the most desperate of circumstances.

[@venomgeekmedia9886]

@@raw6668 ok. so generally in offense they are kept to the rear. only brought forward once the situation is established. defensively again the will be the most protected part of the fleet, and in open campaign will generally be employing ambush tactics. and your right about never formally retiring equipment but i would also say that particularly today its due to the level of uncertainty regarding the modern battlefield i thought artillery had been shown to be incredibly effective when combined with good recon/ observation. and more cost effective than jets, drones, or missiles.

[@philly83]

The first battle of ds9 kinda showed how out of place the katinga was for siege warfare.

[@venomgeekmedia9886]

In what way?

[@ChairmanMo]

The Katinga was used incorrectly because it did not stay at stand off range and start blasting. They flew up close to the station for no reason.

[@damiendarling7509]

Quick question how powerful is the lance phaser compared to normal phaser.big star trek fan

[@ChairmanMo]

The ratings all seem to be right. Nothing to disagree with here; other then the whole use of the term Monitor. Artillery Ship is a more accurate term.

[@swampking7914]

I have a question do any of the ships in the next generation can still pulverized their whole Pleading if their shields go down it seems like a useful feature on most ships

[@venomgeekmedia9886]

i assume that what is referred to as the 'structural integrity field'. but also take into account that starship hulls are probably thicker and made of more resilient materials.

[@dragdragon23]

What also is tech level as in where it's at, How fast was it up graded from what start point and The space nation capability to do so? The slowest of the three is the Klingons who may of been given some help from their Federation allies, But not very supportive to schooling of scientist since they favor warrior skills over anything else. The federation is number one hands down for leaning more science and Engineering education that funnels to Starfleet ship continued advancement! The cardassians is a very close to the federation for they are or were very hungry for the number one seat of all the space nations, even more so than the Romulans are and That's why they continued to up to the end of the Dominion war be violent toward the Federation. They'd pushed hard than even the Federation on their sciences and Engineering education to the point that their people had suffered and Was sacrificed for these goals. Since we haven't mentioned the Romulans, I will. It seems they are showing a lag behind in tech as they new generation of warships becomes fewer with less innovation and Only their cloak tech is still top notch for them to have a winning lead even over the Federation, But for how long?

[@johnn9977]

As also great work!!!!

[@dot2562]

the original saying was jack of all trades,master of one😊

[@infinitecanadian]

The Freedom class would probably be a destroyer leader rather than a monitor.

[@mikealpha2611]

Well on the availability cost ECT. any Cardassian ship is going to be rare compared to Federation or KDF ships. The Cardassian Empire is tiny which means less ships and less manufacturing power.

[@venomgeekmedia9886]

While the union is smaller it is more heavily militarised to make up for this.

[@TimothyChapman]

Name the Norway Class vessel "Minnesota" :)

[@RandomTrinidadian]

To be fair, there were alot of Norwegians that settled in Minnesota

[@Optimistprime.]

To me, I have always thought of the Freedom class and the challenger class to be more of a border patrol ships within federation space. They might have been the first ships to arrive at wolf 359

[@madrabbit9007]

My first choice would be the Ktinga because it is a tried and true warship. Yes its older but with modernized weapons it would do far better than the rest in a close in knife fight. The Vasat on the other hand is little more than a WWII Q ship, a freighter with a big gun. The Freedom was a cobbled together mess and the Norway is just a little too specialized for when things go pear shaped.

[@nfineon]

When you put a point on KEEP IT ON! Don't delete it as you are talking it makes it that much harder for others to follow along when the numbers keep disappearing.

[@andyb1653]

One could also compare these ships to WW2 Tank Destroyers, like the Jagdpanther or Stug.

[@nathanielmeade5731]

The StuG is an assault gun which is basically a direct fire SPG

[@torlekjpec5708]

@@nathanielmeade5731 depends on which version.

[@venomgeekmedia9886]

Definitely stugs and Jagdpazers were cheaper and arguably just as effective as standard tanks.

[@andyb1653]

@@nathanielmeade5731 You're splitting hairs. I just mean they feature large, forward-facing fixed guns as their primary weapon, specifically designed for "shoot 'n' scoot" tactics.

[@andyb1653]

@@venomgeekmedia9886 Aye, and they're particularly effective against vehicles (vessels) that sport heavy armor.

[@ditzy_neko3362]

i always believed that the K'tinga was a missile cruiser. it being basically a mobile launch vehicle for torpedoes it can carry whatever type of weapon it has the fire control to release. with a cloak and her (still relatively powerful) disruptors this ship could be one hell of a raider. also its Torpedoes and sensors are the real limit to its range. I do not believe this fits in with what a Monitor is. K'tinga's in the Dominion war era are prefect for the role of commerce raider. Normally we see the K'tinga work in squadrons of 3 ships deep inside enemy space. They choose their targets, engage quickly and do not loiter. I believe they would be very successful commerce raiders, aken to the US submarine war in the Pacific in WWII and the mission of the German cruiser Admiral Graf Spee.

[@venomgeekmedia9886]

Definitely. Even though it had disruptors we mostly see them using torpedoes.

[@marcuspacheco3815]

Caliber = % of an inch. And refers to the boar diameter or diameter of the projectile only.

[@stangundam01]

shame we didn't see the norway, freedom & vasad on screen in the dominion war or special ships from the game dominion wars in ds9's D.W as that would've been really cool to see. I like the norway from this but it has me thinking of what the defiant could've been if they'd done more with the design like making it a fusion of itself the back of the miranda, the torpedo pods of the new orleans, a warp engine setup like the constellation meets the Phantom Intel Escort from STO with the phaser cannons able to switch from cannon mode to norway style long range phaser lance or even to take it further with the long range mode or L.R.M like that of the vertiron array from enterprise - they already call the defiant a warship might as well really look & feel the part

[@carolheward6479]

Wouldn't the k tinga have its disruptors upgraded from its original type? No forward torpedo launcher on the k tinga is an odd feature. Its an artillery ship. Klingon ships are so simple i thought they would always upgun their ships especially during a massive war. What about the b rells in ds9 are they upgunned? Also dont b rell class ships always have aft torpedo launchers as well as forward?

[@matthewcaskey1051]

I agree with you

[@lynngreen7978]

This use of the term Monitor is confusing to me, as in most Sci-fi settings (including older Trek books) a Monitor is a ship with displacement comparable to a frigate, but with no FTL drive.

[@sovietdominion]

another thing that might explain it is that the Vasad is the only beta ship and not many people know it

[@venomgeekmedia9886]

Yeah that is another level of obscurity which is a shame because they have some great designs.

[@Freddie1980]

Has anyone else noticed if their comments deleted/disappear?

[@tsechejak7598]

I would’ve chosen vadad over Katinga or freedom, not that I hate the Katinga, I love that ship, but from TOM and lost era more than TNG, its not really one I care for when in TNG era, other then cool cannon fodder and really brave who take Katingas into battle.

[@AV8R1701E]

I don’t think it’s a bias against Cardassian ships, I thinks it’s more that most are beta cannon and people just simply are not familiar with them. It would seem the polls are consistent with what people have seen on screen.

[@venomgeekmedia9886]

True. But equally we don't see Norway on screen much.

[@aldousjosea.castro1887]

K'Tinga main disruptor cannon is equal to a modern Phaser in power.

[@shanenolan8252]

They used monitor's in the American civil war. Uss monitor for example

[@alanrickett2537]

Why do you think the Norway has weak sheild and armour, i have seen write ups that say it has very good shields.

[@sonofeyeabovealleffoff5462]

I prefer this channel over ResurrectedStarships.

[@venomgeekmedia9886]

You do me too much credit

[@sonofeyeabovealleffoff5462]

@@venomgeekmedia9886 if I may state this... I'm trying to start a fight, merely set some ground here for my statement. Please hear me out. He's got a problem... with understanding that Star Trek couldn't take on Star Wars Without solely using the Q. I have several websites and technical book stuff that explains how Star Wars Capital ship firepower and shields by the time of the Galactic Civil War (The Original Trilogy Era which is five to six years long in the timeline) has reached teraton-level on the TNT Equivalent Yield for nuclear weapons and his patrons are stupidly toxic. I've got into several hours debate with him and his followers. You also have a better ability to ground your explanations for Star Trek firepower and tactics based on observation and speculation from written sources and screen events. For example... a Romulan Warbird DOES have a micro-singularity/artificial black-hole that powers it, a Star Destroyer (which has been written in several crucial books which are now arbitrarily ignored for no reason by fans) states that the standard Imperial I and II classes and anything above are powered by small hypermatter annihilation reactors, giving them the power of a miniature sun. His followers and he blatantly ignore this. Trust me, I've been dabbling in Star Trek vs Star Wars since 2008. They also seem to not understand that on that channel that like Star Trek, Star Wars has power settings for their weapons and that the teraton calls merely come from *MAXIMUM* firepower like when glassing a planet. This channel is far more grounded in reality. I know Star Wars IS NOT covered on this channel and it's Star Trek. I'm just saying he makes a lot of assumptions about how powerful the weapons are in Star Trek. You on the other hand demonstrate their capabilities and in your ship versus ship matches give grounded and pretty realistic scenarios. Hell I was VERY surprised when you introduced the concept of the Phaser-Lance. Something that Star Trek was sorely needing for a long-range puncher. I'm actually a huge fan of that.

[@jonathankennedy8358]

freedom had a total of 16 not 15

[@shanenolan8252]

Cheers

[@cmdrtianyilin8107]

Best Trek Artillery Ship? Vaadwaur Juggernaut from STO.

[@malachicasey4534]

You need to look up USS Monitor ironclad

[@HITMANPegas]

I would put #1 Vasad (the only one that is an Artillery ship.) #2K'tinga #3 Norway #999 Freedumb

[@LemunRuss-sp6uh]

Venom.the Norway isn't a monitor its fast / attack pursuit cruiser my friend.as for the freedom I dont know what you would call it I would call it just No the other two the Cardy yes I could see you calling it that.the klingon I guess you could call it that .but for sure the Norway is not a monitor.

[@charleslee8505]

No I pretty much agree with you on there something I want to consider because I am playing Starfleet battles I'm designing my own personalized ship said because let's face it it's fun to create your own shifts with the with the gaming system and and so forth but yeah I don't disagree with what how you rate it oh it's not a Kardashian fanboy you know not a federation Fanboy either but you know hey Chris gets to shove I will probably pick federation over Kardashian but that doesn't mean when you never play a kardashianship

[@LemunRuss-sp6uh]

The Norway id no glass canon my friend like all anti borg ship she's a heavy hitter with a good jaw so to speak. But in your defence I don't think she's what did you call it a monitor artlary ship I don't agree with that.shes a interdiction / intersept or pursuit cruiser the Lance phaser that you speak of would be used while your chasing someone down .a seage cruiser would. Look more like a ambassador verint it would need to be able to take a lot of damage and none of this ships are able to take that kind of pounding

[@vallettapetracyneran8587]

no my argument against the Vasad is that it is a modified Civilian ship rather than a purpose built vessel. Sorry your not gonna convince me that CIVILIAN SHIP has the fire power to match a Federation starship.

[@vallettapetracyneran8587]

@@venomgeekmedia9886 even then it is not going to work as well as something purpose built to the role.

[@vallettapetracyneran8587]

@@venomgeekmedia9886 true and I would lump the freedom and the Vasad in the same category. The K'tinga is a purpose built warship. And it was designed to be fairly easy to refit with new tools and toys to slay ones enemies for glorious honor. An the Norway as you pointed was purpose built for the role. The Freedom "oh look I slapped a cannon on her maybe this will fix all here problems." The Vasad suffers form same issue as the freedom.

[@trevynlane8094]

You can hear how much he hates the Freedom whenever he mentions it. Don't blame him, it is a terrible ship.

[@haroldchase1881]

Monitors go back to the American civil war. Matter of fact the first one was Named da da da USS monitor.

[@revilixjohnsen9496]

Sorry, but it is all opinion: I think even if the Freedom isnt a gread Ship. I would give it an advantage, because i value the part (Can do stuff on its one) more. But shure the cadasians used what they got well. Just wouldnt call the ship better. I would call the tactics better.

[@TimothyChapman]

I wish the Freedom Class' score was lower. Much lower. It breaks the rules of always needing pairs of nacelles.

[@winkles2314]

Does it’s job here though, regardless of nacelles

[@venomgeekmedia9886]

Or the saladin. I will agree its ungainly and probably why Jeffrey's insisted on pairs of engines.

[@theodoremccarthy4438]

@Snake Plisken The Larson cheats by having two support struts, which gives it better visual symmetry.

[@HITMANPegas]

The K'tinga isn't an Artillery ship, but the Chuq'Beh is. You have a Vasad, which is an artillery ship-the only one here. The Norway is a siege ship, and the K'tinga is a Gunboat like a Constitution class ship. The Freedom is just stupid and useless, a Challenger class. would have been better