test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

No Federation Carriers.

1356

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    Yes, and no. I don't want a carrier on the fed side (and wouldn't use it if they added it tbh).

    That said, it's been stated before that Klingons have a lot of flexibility in PvP. They do, and there is no denying it. Feds should have some measure of flexibility as well. I go into every PvP match wondering what the Klinks will throw against me. I doubt you wonder the same apart from "Maybe they'll have more science ships this round?"

    So I agree, no federation carrier... but what are we gonna use to make feds "unique"?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    I think the carrier works for the Klingons... and as seen in Star Trek nemisis, the Romulan/Remans...

    In FASA The Feds had Scorpio Class Fighters... but, no carriers...

    If the Game STO advances to ship boarding ASSUALT CARRIERS would be cool, defensives weapons, but can beam troops over or sends multiple squads down to a planet and have a superior numbers thing, when doing Ground missions...
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    I could care less either way, and this topic is getting really old.

    The Dev's have stated that there are currently NO plans for a Fed carrier.

    As far as canon is concerned... Akira, that's all I am saying on the subject.

    So either way... who cares.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    Ok first of all the whole argument that Fed didn't have Carriers argument is technincaly not true, Orginal the Akira, Nebula, as well as the Excellsior (sp on all 3?) were at one point or anther calssifed as carriers. It has also been suggested some were ( i read it a while back but don't rember were) that most of the modern ships in Star Fleet, have at least 1 if not 2 or 3 squadrons of fighters ( and from what i can find a Squadron is consider 4 fighter by Star Fleet standards) so to say its not cannons may be streching it just a little bit.

    This is not quite the case.

    Akira was intended by the original designer to be a battleship/carrier, but as it turned out we never saw the carrier functionality on-screen. But the Akira has often been held up as a carrier, so perhaps a single hangar for a T5 retrofit wouldn't be untoward.

    Nebula, to the best of my knowledge (and while I would not say that knowledge is vast, that knowledge is in fact vast ^_^ ) has never been called a carrier. This being said, the hangar bay on the Galaxy/Nebula is immense; have a look at the Haynes manual for the Enterpreise. Still, I suspect that most of that space is taken up by the mandatory small craft complement.

    Excelsior as a carrier is if anything a little sketchier. Not long after ST3, a set of fan-made blueprints were pubished called 'Ingram-class Space Control Ship' which were apparently the Excelsior. Now, Sea Control Ships are a naval concept of a small, well-armed carrier intended for sea control and sea denial missions. The idea of the Space Control Ship having fighters comes from there. The other soft-canon source (Memory-Beta territory here) that gives the Excelsior fighters is the video game Star Trek: Shattered Universe. Sulu and the Excelsior's crew get thrown into the MIrror Universe's Excelsior, and that Excelsior is (for some reason) packing fighters. The non-MIrror Excelsior is not a carrier, though.

    To me, Klingons are just nuts... er, eager for personal glory enough to want to do the fighter thing. It strikes me that there's a seriously short life expectancy for fighters in the Trek universe. I don't see the Federation being particularly keen on fighters, but I wouldn't be completely against a T5 Akira having one (1) hangar as a battlecarrier. But... that should be it and all. In fact I'd like to see a Klingon battlecarrier other than that Fehk'lhrl one, and additional Klingon carrier vessels of a variety of types.

    More than that, though, there needs to be something that strongly distinguishes Klinkside from Fedside, and I don't mean just different ships. Shipbuilding is always going to be imitative, we see that even in reality. What one side can build, another side can, too. So honestly, types of ships aren't going to differentiate one side from another. To my mind, the Klinks should break from the tactical/engineering/science trifecta. Make for them some other paradigm. THAT will make them different. Unfortunately, it's too late to do that at a core gameplay level. On the other hand, Feds have the Diplomatic Corps. Make a Klingon Honor Guard ewuivalent, then expand both to have more in-game effects that are faction-specific. That will differentiate the two nicely.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    To me, honestly, the lack of carriers and fighters in Star Trek has always been mind-boggling. If you look at the starship's real-life closest counterpart, you'll see a very important trend: Battleships, Cruisers, Dreadnoughts out; Carriers, aircraft, and fast-attack sea craft in.

    Instead, in Star Trek, we have a pre-WWI-style space navy: giant ships going toe-to-toe in hectic, inefficient battles, risking loads of people all at the same time instead of just risking small amounts of people (in fighters, bombers, interceptors, etc) for the same reward. And yet, Star Trek is supposed to be super-technologically advanced? I must have missed something here (oh wait! Magic Self-repairing Voyager!).

    The lack of carriers and fighters in Star Trek is obviously just one of those random Gene-isms in the setting which he probably never explained.

    In the end, I'm all for Feds and KDF both to have carriers. Let's just have the carriers have different styles of play and different attributes, so it doesn't feel cut-and-paste. It makes sense anyway, given that the Federation and the Klingons have TOTALLY different styles of battle.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    Would it have made sense in WW2 for America to forestall the development of carriers because the japanese had them? the japanese were also fairly reckless with the lives of their pilots (note kamikazees) and we werent as a culture quite as willing to accept thousands dying on suicide missions, did that stop us from using fighters? no. because if the enemy has an advantage you need to negate their advantage because it would save lives in the long run.

    The thing that people (including you) don't seem to get is that STO fighters are not the Star Trek equivalent of WW2 Aircraft. What made WW2 aircraft so effective was the inability for surface ships to effectively combat them (an advantage, which everybody knows, STO fighters do not share). Every successful defense from an aircraft attack during World War 2 can be attributed to having appropriate air cover. Take for example the attack on Pearl Harbor (there are better examples, like the Battle of Taranto where 21 obsolete British torpedo bombers sunk 31 Italian ships, losing only 2 planes); there were only 120 some Japanese Aircraft that decimated the US Pacific Fleet, despite the ships (and anti-aircraft guns) out numbering the planes almost 2:1.

    In STO, however, fighters are little more than a targeting nuisance. When a science vessel can destroy waves of fighters without so much as a failed shield, it indicates that in STO, fighters are not tactically effective. The Carrier only exists in this game because it is the only Klingon ship that beats out Federation cruisers in the amount of damage they can take. To Make a Federation Carrier would mean that not only would the Fed have 5 of the top six strongest hulls (Assault Cruiser, Star Cruiser, Exploration Cruiser Retrofit, Advanced Hv. Cruiser Retrofit, Galaxy-X; all tied a 390000 hull strength), but they would also have the top number one along with those five. And all the while T5 cruisers can still deliver high DPS, which the Carrier can't.

    The Klingon Carrier exists not to carry fighters, but to work as a 'tank' for the KDF
    , something which the Federation doesn't need another of. While I have no reason to be against other Fed ships carrying fighters, I don't have any reason to support it either because fighters aren't that useful anyways, and I'd hate to get passed up on something really awesome (like an Ambassador-Class, or a new T3 Escort) in favor of receiving the ability for Federation Fighters.


    However, attack fighters are Hard Canon, though the KDF never had any. They are, as someone very wise pointed out earlier, comparable to real life patrol boats, not aircraft. Also, there are no canon sources for a Federation Carrier, only fighters.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    if any of you noticed in one of the final battles with the dominion the federation actually used fighters so they obviously had a carrier to be posted on
    so it is canon ty
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    3022knigh wrote: »
    if any of you noticed in one of the final battles with the dominion the federation actually used fighters so they obviously had a carrier to be posted on
    so it is canon ty

    Not really, whenver a fleet got underway from a Starbase, we saw the ships go by...and the fighters.
    So the fleet goes underway and the fighters are out.
    In "Favor the Bold" they were even out long before the Federation Fleet detects the Dominion Fleet that's sent to intercept them.
    Why aren't they neatly tucked away in their supposed carriers?
    Because they don't need them.
    They have their own FTL propulsion system and, as we've seen in the TNG pilot with the Galaxy's saucer and even in Enterprise "Diversion", a ship can travel inside the warpfield of another ship so they'd hitch a ride in a ship's warpfield.
    And unlike in "Diversion" where one NX had to use its own propulsion system to encompass another identical ship, in case of the fighters they'd be encompassed in the warpfield or a ship with engines several times the size of the fighter itself.:)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    To me, honestly, the lack of carriers and fighters in Star Trek has always been mind-boggling. If you look at the starship's real-life closest counterpart, you'll see a very important trend: Battleships, Cruisers, Dreadnoughts out; Carriers, aircraft, and fast-attack sea craft in.

    Instead, in Star Trek, we have a pre-WWI-style space navy: giant ships going toe-to-toe in hectic, inefficient battles, risking loads of people all at the same time instead of just risking small amounts of people (in fighters, bombers, interceptors, etc) for the same reward. And yet, Star Trek is supposed to be super-technologically advanced? I must have missed something here (oh wait! Magic Self-repairing Voyager!).

    The lack of carriers and fighters in Star Trek is obviously just one of those random Gene-isms in the setting which he probably never explained.

    In the end, I'm all for Feds and KDF both to have carriers. Let's just have the carriers have different styles of play and different attributes, so it doesn't feel cut-and-paste. It makes sense anyway, given that the Federation and the Klingons have TOTALLY different styles of battle.

    They do have them; they've just been shown to be largely ineffective. On screen, any ship of decent size swats down a fighter with a single shot; and, in Star Trek, weapons are generally fired with pinpoint accuracy.

    Really, the closest things to fighters that were actually useful were Birds of Prey, Defiant class starships, Dominion 'battle bugs', and Cardassian Hidekis. Aside from the Defiant (which had the advantage of 'plot armour'), even those did not fare all that well when facing larger vessels (usually anyway; the Odyssey doesn't count ;)).

    Shields in Star Trek turn space combat into a contest of brute force; one must have the power required to bring the shields down in order to do any damage to the target. This means big guns, big power sources, and thus big ships. This, in turn, means that everyone wants even more shields, and thus even bigger power sources. Fighters can be shrugged off far too easily; and the protection offered by their shields is minimal.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    I vote YES on having Federation carriers... As has already been decided earlier in this forum, canon has nothing to do with it, and because both sides (Fed and Klingon) have vastly different play-styles the carriers would be handled differently.

    Also, who's to say the Fed. carrier would be built anything like the Klingon one? The two ships would most likely be hugely different and not complete copies of one another. We would not be getting the Klingon carrier, because it would play nothing like one. The only similarity would be the ability to launch ships, thats not so bad.

    Also I put forth (how predictable for me) that the carrier for the Federation (if they get one) should be a retrofit of the Jupiter Class Dreadnought (if it is not put into the game beforehand).

    Quiiliitiila
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    meh just shove a hanger either side of the jupiter class... done... however we have more important things to worry about first such as... "When can I and my Undine brothers destroy Vulcan?"
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    I'm kinda on the fence with this fed carrier thing. I'm ok with them adding it but I'm also ok with them not adding it.

    Oh, and about the cannon isue, was there ever any cannon referance to Klingon carriers?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    Bobservo wrote:
    I'm kinda on the fence with this fed carrier thing. I'm ok with them adding it but I'm also ok with them not adding it.

    Oh, and about the cannon isue, was there ever any cannon referance to Klingon carriers?

    No, it was decided (and I agree) that there was never any canon references to Klingon carriers.

    Quiiliitiila
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    With the ability to launch scorpon fighters do we even need a fed carrier?

    Just add some more interesting pet craft for crafting and different shuttle groups that buff you or allies, debuff the enemy, or attack your target.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    Fenrir1536 wrote: »
    With the ability to launch scorpon fighters do we even need a fed carrier?

    Just add some more interesting pet craft for crafting and different shuttle groups that buff you or allies, debuff the enemy, or attack your target.

    Yes we do (well we don't need them, just want them) because the Scorpion fighters are limited to 50 uses and you may only have a limited amount of them at any given time (10 I think it is). While I know that Klingon carriers have a limited number, they have an infinite amount, plus they don't have something like a 5 minute cool down in-between uses. Plus, it is just a plug-in that takes up space, not a unique ability.

    Quiiliitiila
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    The KDF should have never gotten dreadnought class ships to begin with. Dreadnoughts should only be NPC ships...I hope to never see the Jupiter as a playable ship. Plus now that they've made them commonplace, once the Romulans come out, everyone's going to be running around in a Scimitar. That's right, a Scimitar. With a battle cloak, impenetrable shields, wings of scorpion fighters, a million hull and a thalaron cannon.

    The Galaxy X isn't a dreadnought, nor is the Typhoon battleship, and yet we can't even play the typhoon for fear that it would be overpowered. How is it fair that the Klinks can have a Vo'Quv? The Kar'fi is fine, but the Vo'quv should have never been introduced.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    Yes we do (well we don't need them, just want them) because the Scorpion fighters are limited to 50 uses and you may only have a limited amount of them at any given time (10 I think it is). While I know that Klingon carriers have a limited number, they have an infinite amount, plus they don't have something like a 5 minute cool down in-between uses. Plus, it is just a plug-in that takes up space, not a unique ability.

    Quiiliitiila

    That is exactly my point, with more items like the Scorpion fighters you wouldn't need a dedicated carrier ship because every federation ship could have limited carrier capability.

    The only thing you need to do to replenish your "stock" of scorpion fighters is run "The VAULT" again. With a cooldown of 2 minutes per deployment with a maxium of 2 deployments on screen at any given time you are not going to run out of scorpions in any engagement outside of your last 5 or so you effectively function as a Klingon carrier in that regard.

    The plug in device nature of it is part of my point as well. You have to chose weather you want to deploy X craft, use the subspace field modulator, batteries, deterium burns, or whatever else cryptic comes up with.

    I think it could be a fun way to further make crafting relevant, justifiably bring in other support craft ingame, and give players more build options in their layout. I don't really see a downside to this idea outside of making a carbon copy Klingon Carrier for Federation use irrelevant.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    Presumably, crews had access to...condoms in Star Trek, even if they weren't on screen...
    I think they did show them in Nemesis. Pretty sure that's what the Remen uniforms are...

    BTW - No Fed carriers.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    I think they did show them in Nemesis. Pretty sure that's what the Remen uniforms are...

    In DS9, we found out that in the future, men get a shot every month to render them sterile, but that if they miss that shot, they become fertile again.

    Toilets were explicitly mentioned on Voyager. So were (sonic) showers.

    And to be on-topic, there are some of us, yes, even those of us who are mainly Fed players, who don't want Fed Carriers, or Carrier-like functionality Fed-side.

    Carriers should be strictly a KDF thing. If you want to play a Carrier, go level a KDF character.

    If you don't want to grind through the abysmal lack of KDF PvE to get to Brigadier General and play a Carrier, argue for more KDF Content (Two birds with one stone, woot!), don't be lazy and just demand a Carrier Fed-side you can purchase off the C-store and use with a Character you've already leveled.

    If you don't like the "feel" of the KDF but still want to play a Carrier, fine, wait until the Romulans come in-game, they'll have Carriers too.

    If you're inpatient, self-righteous, and just can't accept no for an answer, too bad, we've all got to grow up sometime. :p
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    Intrepidox wrote: »
    this.

    it's obnoxious self-entitled players like the op that are ruining this community. "I don't like X so X better not be in the game, you hear me devs!"

    anyway, for me +1 for carriers. would love to play one on the fed side.

    Yeah +10 me on wanting a Fed Carrier, It is absolutely suicide for the Federation not to employ carriers to counter the Klingon carriers. And further more nothing about this game is canon, its 30 or 40 years in the future, so who is to say what is canon and not canon at this juncture in the ST universe. Canon makes for boring gameplay, with no room for growth or new things. So take canon and shove it.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    Yeah +10 me on wanting a Fed Carrier, It is absolutely suicide for the Federation not to employ carriers to counter the Klingon carriers. And further more nothing about this game is canon, its 30 or 40 years in the future, so who is to say what is canon and not canon at this juncture in the ST universe. Canon makes for boring gameplay, with no room for growth or new things. So take canon and shove it.

    Ya, thats just really bad logic. The countermeasure to a tactic, isn't to copy the tactic.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    Ya, thats just really bad logic. The countermeasure to a tactic, isn't to copy the tactic.

    You are correct, the best countermeasure would be a stealthy (cloaked) vessel carrying a super weapon. Oh, that's right the Romulans lay claim to that.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    WarpVis wrote: »
    You are correct, the best countermeasure would be a stealthy (cloaked) vessel carrying a super weapon. Oh, that's right the Romulans lay claim to that.

    Lol. I ment more along the lines of this example.

    When someone tries to punch you, you try to block. You don't punch at the same time hoping to one shot them, do you?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    Please for the love of god. No matter how many people ask, beg, whine. A bunch of people and Myself want nothing to do with Federation Carriers. Not just because it is not Canonly possible. But because this isn't frickin Battlestar Galactica. This is Star Trek. We are the United Federation Of Planets. Not the Rebel Alliance.

    So please. Cryptic. I'm asking you this. I know you have no plans for this and I'm thankful for that. But can that be indefinably?

    Thank You.

    Support plz?

    I have not taken the time to read all post so I'm sorry if this has been said.

    The Akira-Class had fighters in her bay during the dominion war
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    Strumpan wrote: »
    I have not taken the time to read all post so I'm sorry if this has been said.

    The Akira-Class had fighters in her bay during the dominion war

    Actually, that ones been debunked, the Akira has never been seen on-screen launching or receiving fighters.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    Ya, thats just really bad logic. The countermeasure to a tactic, isn't to copy the tactic.

    Actually its very good logic, why do you think we have AC carriers today in the military? Because we needed a counter to the enemies carriers. The best thing to shoot down a fighter or bomber is another fighter. We would all be speaking Japanese now if not for AC carriers. Plus fighters make perfect offensive weapons, they can do a lot of damage, cause havoc and chaos and disarray among the enemy and are more cost effective and disposable than a multibillion dollar ship. So yeah it makes perfect sense for the feds to have carriers. Plus for all you Canonites, as much as you may want to deny it, Fed carriers, and fighters are Canon.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    Lol. I ment more along the lines of this example.

    When someone tries to punch you, you try to block. You don't punch at the same time hoping to one shot them, do you?

    Actually I grab them and slam them up against any hard unyielding object nearby, or the ground if that's all there is.

    Sorry, Real bad temper I have.

    As for this thread's topic, again I suggest tolerance.

    Allow everyone to have what they want without restricting their creativity due to one's opinion.

    I would also like to fly a Fed Carrier.

    What this means is I'm willing to pay money to buy this ship and money is good for the game. :)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    Strumpan wrote: »
    I have not taken the time to read all post so I'm sorry if this has been said.

    The Akira-Class had fighters in her bay during the dominion war

    thats correct, one has to read about it.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    Actually its very good logic, why do you think we have AC carriers today in the military? Because we needed a counter to the enemies carriers. The best thing to shoot down a fighter or bomber is another fighter. We would all be speaking Japanese now if not for AC carriers. Plus fighters make perfect offensive weapons, they can do a lot of damage, cause havoc and chaos and disarray among the enemy and are more cost effective and disposable than a multibillion dollar ship. So yeah it makes perfect sense for the feds to have carriers. Plus for all you Canonites, as much as you may want to deny it, Fed carriers, and fighters are Canon.

    The best thing to shoot down a fighter or bomber is a satelite or a missile. Far more cost effective and limits loss of life of your own people. Actually.... with a few experimental weapons systems, we've been able to knock down aircraft with lasers. I think the fighters day may be numbered when it comes to industrialized nations banginf heads.

    The US I believe is the only nation in RL that posses "Super carriers" Most, if not all, other nations use escort carriers that carry about a dozen VTOL aircrafy and helicopters.

    Plus, fighters don't neccessarily beget carriers. Need i remind people that the european and american navies almost destroyed any hope of a carrier in the pre WW2 era? We only built them because the japanese built them. And the japanese used them to great effect, and kept them low cost by building them on the hulls of large freighters.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    Lol. I ment more along the lines of this example.

    When someone tries to punch you, you try to block. You don't punch at the same time hoping to one shot them, do you?

    A bit off topic but wasn't that how Bruce Lee's "Way of the Intercepting Fist" worked?

    "When the distance is wide, the attacking opponent requires some sort of preparation. Therefore, attack him on his preparation of attack." "To reach me, you must move to me. Your attack offers me an opportunity to intercept you."This means intercepting an opponent's attack with an attack of your own instead of a simple block.

    When confronting an incoming attack, the attack is parried or deflected and a counter attack is delivered at the same time. Not as advanced as a stop hit but more effective than blocking and counter attacking in sequence. This is also practiced by some Chinese martial arts.

    I like Bruce Lee. :)
Sign In or Register to comment.