Just for the sake of argument, for all you Canonites. Where in all the TV shows, and movies is there ever a mention of a Klingon Carrier? Answer, there isn't one.
So by your logic and reasoning, you should be denouncing Klink carriers also.
Just for the sake of argument, for all you Canonites. Where in all the TV shows, and movies is there ever a mention of a Klingon Carrier? Answer, there isn't one.
So by your logic and reasoning, you should be denouncing Klink carriers also.
If you had read the actual description of the Vo'quv, you would have noticed that despiteits name, it's not a carrier like the ones we have today.
It's mobile outpost, docking facility and invasion platform.
Just for the sake of argument, for all you Canonites. Where in all the TV shows, and movies is there ever a mention of a Klingon Carrier? Answer, there isn't one.
So by your logic and reasoning, you should be denouncing Klink carriers also.
I answered that when HappyHappyJoyJoy asked at the start of the thread.
Just for the sake of argument, for all you Canonites. Where in all the TV shows, and movies is there ever a mention of a Klingon Carrier? Answer, there isn't one.
So by your logic and reasoning, you should be denouncing Klink carriers also.
or another question:
Where in all the TV shows, and movies, did they prove, that there IS NOT a fed carrier?!
or another question:
Where in all the TV shows, and movies, did they prove, that there IS NOT a fed carrier?!
When did they mention that the Borg never assimilated giant space dragons?
Never, logically we should start a thead where we demand assimilated giant space dragons as an additon to the NPC Borg fleet.
When did they mention that the Borg never assimilated giant space dragons?
Never, logically we should start a thead where we demand assimilated giant space dragons as an additon to the NPC Borg fleet.
If you had read the actual description of the Vo'quv, you would have noticed that despiteits name, it's not a carrier like the ones we have today.
It's mobile outpost, docking facility and invasion platform.
Feds would not build a genuine one-ship invasion force like this.
Thanks for the clarification, but it cuts both ways. If this can hold true for the Klingon forces, who's to say that the Federation does not have something just like it? Also, is it wrong to assume that the Federation has made a ship that can act as a carrier? We have established that the smaller fighters are warp capable, but the comes a point when far is just to far. The fighters can go quite a ways, but they have a limit and when that happens I'm sure there is a ship that can bring them to where they need to go and deploy them as well.
In my opinion there's no good reason for a Federation carrier. Here is a quick blow by blow of the main arguments for a fed carrier and why I am unmoved by them.
1: "It would be fun to have a carrier type ship"
If you want a carrier you can play a Klingon, and chances are when the Romulans come out they'll have a carrier as well. You don't need a federation carrier just to be able to play a carrier type ship.
2: "there were canon federation fighters therefore carriers must exist"
Completely false. Fighter aircraft existed for a long time before carrier were invented, and even now most nations have the bulk of their air power operating from stationary bases not carriers. Given that small shuttles are warp capable there is no implication that dedicated carrier ships exist for there to be fighters.
2a: "but how do the fighters get to the bases that are out of their operational range?"
They could be loaded on transports (transports are distinct from carriers in that a transport does not have the crew or infrastructure to launch the fighters) which transport them from one base to another.
3: "The Klingons have carriers so the federation would have to have carriers to counter that threat"
No, no they don't. The threat of a carrier comes from it's fighters, so long as the Federation has fighters they have that threat covered (see #2 for why fighters do not imply the existence of a carrier). A cruiser accompanied by a squadron of warp capable fighters would be superior to a carrier and it's compliment of fighters in both firepower and flexibility.
4. "There's no reason not to have federation carriers"
Untrue there are several ranging from "it would homogenize the factions if they have direct counterparts to every class, adding fed carriers is a step towards that", to "A lack of fighters is one area in which Star Trek is conceptually distinguished from other IPs such as Star Wars and Battlestar Galactica". There is also the question of what ship would be the carrier? Also How much dev time is it worth to add a fed carrier and would that time be better spent giving the Klingons more options, or developing the Romulan faction?
federation carriers would be HILARIOUS.
"Ok. Next shuttle wing. You there, johnson. Your turn to be one shotted".
"but but but SIR, i just went through 5 years of engineering to be vaporized?"
Please realize I made this thread a week before vault lol.
I know, just surprised the debate continues after the fort has been sacked. Carriers have been nerfed pretty hard in the usual Cryptic fashion and fighter wings handed out to every ship in game. If that isn't a coup de gr
I know, just surprised the debate continues after the fort has been sacked. Carriers have been nerfed pretty hard in the usual Cryptic fashion and fighter wings handed out to every ship in game. If that isn't a coup de gr
I know, just surprised the debate continues after the fort has been sacked. Carriers have been nerfed pretty hard in the usual Cryptic fashion and fighter wings handed out to every ship in game. If that isn't a coup de gr
When did they mention that the Borg never assimilated giant space dragons?
Never, logically we should start a thead where we demand assimilated giant space dragons as an additon to the NPC Borg fleet.
dude
to say
"federation can't have carriers, its not canon"
is just not true
if u don't like carriers - say it - i m fine with that
but please don't start a discussion about canon or not canon
what i have been trying to say with my post was
all we know from canon is, that there are small federation fighters (DS9).
thats it
Wait... Not to be argumentative, but why are the concept artists for Star Trek shows not allowed to have canon stuff? Most of the things they draw end up in the show and they are paid to do it by the producers of Star Trek.
Just a thought,
Quiiliitiila
Because then every idle sketch and concept they produce would have to have it's own canonical debate. It's far easier to leave somethings canonical status in the hands of CBS, who have made it a point to only accept works from Producers and staff Script writers.
War, and the accompanied arms race, is always a battle between technology and tactics, as new technology comes available, new tactics must be utilized to defeat it.
When Germany perfected the Submarine, the Allies developed the Wolf Pack, when the Germans started lying in wait rather than actively hunt, we invented the depth charge.
First, let me say that I don't mean to pick an off-topic fight or be insulting.
I was following this rather interesting debate on Federation carriers and this tidbit leapt off the screen at me. My question is, where do you get your history? This analogy, while well intentioned, is not remotely accurate. In a historical sense, that is. As I said, no offense. I just feel if one is going to use an analogy that is historically based that the history should be accurate.
First, let me say that I don't mean to pick an off-topic fight or be insulting.
I was following this rather interesting debate on Federation carriers and this tidbit leapt off the screen at me. My question is, where do you get your history? This analogy, while well intentioned, is not remotely accurate. In a historical sense, that is. As I said, no offense. I just feel if one is going to use an anlogy that is historically based that the history should be accurate.
Love the thread, though.
Your right. The tactic created against submarine wolf-packs was the convoy and depthcharges..
Though, next time can you explain why a person's wrong when you say so? Just good manners
Your right. The tactic created against submarine wolf-packs was the convoy and depthcharges..
Closer. But, no cigar.
I'd be happy to discuss this is another venue as a detailed debate on the development of Submarine/Anti-Submarine warfare would be appreciated neither on this thread or in this forum.
3: "The Klingons have carriers so the federation would have to have carriers to counter that threat"
No, no they don't. The threat of a carrier comes from it's fighters, so long as the Federation has fighters they have that threat covered (see #2 for why fighters do not imply the existence of a carrier). A cruiser accompanied by a squadron of warp capable fighters would be superior to a carrier and it's compliment of fighters in both firepower and flexibility.
I agree.
First the Klingons came into the game with cloaks across the board (technology). Feds developed the Fed-Ball to counter (tactics). Afterwhich, Klingons started using coordinated Alpha Strikes to take out healers and Escorts quickly (tactics).
As Klingons hit the cap, Carriers came into more and more popular use (technology), the Feds started using more and more AoE powers and teamwork (tactics). Klingons started to utilize more sturdy deployable BoPs and repair drones (technology).
Then Klingons got the (fire-while-cloaked) B'rel Retrofit (technology), and Feds started using more and more mines (tactic/technology). Now Klingons are spamming mines too, because they want to reveal and damage the cloaked Tactical Escort Retrofits out there(tactic/technology).
The introduction of the cloaking Tractor Mines on both sides will further fuel the arms race.
Tactics and technology, elevating hand in hand. As it should be.
The debate here is whether the Feds should develop "true" Carrier tech, to my mind, the answer is no, for a myriad of reasons.
Klingons have a single huge advantage over Feds, they use teamwork far more effectively, as a small faction, with dedicated PvPers making up the bulk, it's a natural advantage, for the moment.
Once there's more PvE content to enable leveling a KDF toon without any significant grinding, the faction will grow, and that advantage will fade as more PvE oriented KDF players become the norm.
I'd be happy to discuss this is another venue as a detailed debate on the development of Submarine/Anti-Submarine warfare would be appreciated neither on this thread or in this forum.
Now I'm curious. Send me a PM if you have the time
First, let me say that I don't mean to pick an off-topic fight or be insulting.
I was following this rather interesting debate on Federation carriers and this tidbit leapt off the screen at me. My question is, where do you get your history? This analogy, while well intentioned, is not remotely accurate. In a historical sense, that is. As I said, no offense. I just feel if one is going to use an analogy that is historically based that the history should be accurate.
Love the thread, though.
Meh. WWII isn't exactly my period, if you take my meaning, I was operating from memory from my World History class, oh, about a decade ago?
I'd be gratified if you'd provide a better, more historically accurate example of the concept I was trying to illustrate
Though, next time can you explain why a person's wrong when you say so? Just good manners
I'd be happy to do it now.
Development concepts on the depth charge actually pre-date WWI (circa 1910) and the actual weapon was put into production and usage about 1916. This was not a reaction to any tactics being used by anyone as there was not an actual war on (it's only 1910) but rather a natural progression of a keen weapons development program.
The Wolf Pack was developed after the institution of the convoy system in WWI. Although, equipment limitations of the period severely hampered its implementation by the Germans during that war. Only in WWII, and then only after the fall of France, when the Germans gained access to the long range communictaions equipment and ports on the west coast of France were they really able to implement the Wolf Pack to it's fullest potential. The Allies never had a need for the Wolf Pack in either theater of operations mainly because Germany had very few merchant ships and the Japanese never fully appreciated or implemented a convoy system in the Pacific. There were instances of Submarine skippers acting in small groups in the Pacific a few times but there was no "Wolf Pack" system as highly developed as the German one.
As for who "perfected" the submarine, one can argue many sides on that one. All nations who designed and built submarines added to the designs of the others. It's only natural. The German's can be given credit for placing a greater emphasis, earlier on, than most countries. That was out of necessity. They had, in both wars, always lacked the abilities to project sea power via a surface fleet that could compete with the Allies. They and the US both recognized the the uses of a weapon that would greatly hamper island based, import economies (Great Britain & Japan) and fully exploited the weapon to its greatest potential.
One could argue the submarine's 'perfection' only came with the launch of the USS Nautilus and the institution of nuclear propulsion. A true Submarine. The rest before were merely 'submersibles'.
I must say that I am the one holding up the flag of canon Star Trek (almost all my BOff's wearing the original uniforms etc. etc.) and i also dislike one or another thing in STO (much improved already, lets have a look at the ships and the oribtal dock, great work cryptic!), but a if it comes to a Fed carrier, I'd like to see the U.S.S. Typhon NX-85808 from Star Trek: Invasion. That concept with Valkyrie Fighters were great. I'd like to command a Valkyrie like in ST:I and have a similar feeling to it, engaging bigger ships in group, dogfights, etc etc. That would add a totally new playstyle to STO.
I know everyone is hating me now, but think about that -> even this isnt canon it could be a great idea. We already got Peregrine's in Star Trek universe, so why no Typhon and Valkyries? Even as "normal" carrier?
Let me see if I get this right. Hard canon is from the movies and TV shows and Soft canon is from after market things like games, books, etc. Correct?
Does anyone here remember the board game Star Fleet Battles that first came out in the late 70's. It was a VERY detailed depicion of ship combat in the Star Trek Universe.
All of the races had carriers in that game. Though, not at first. I know some don't believe soft canon should not beget more soft canon but, hey. I'm open to it.
I have not played enough of the game yet to have a carrier with my Klingon (I hate the term Klink. Klink was a colonel on Hogan's Heroes.) character and my Fed is only a Rear Admiral Upper Half 2. I have also yet to see any in use as I have only PvP'd a little and plan to PvP a lot more.
Anyways, I'm starting to ramble...
By the way. Did I mention that I'm looking to join a fleet that will help train people in PvP?
I know everyone is hating me now, but think about that -> even this isnt canon it could be a great idea. We already got Peregrine's in Star Trek universe, so why no Typhon and Valkyries? Even as "normal" carrier?
I like the idea.
I don't hate you, but I do disagree. I don't want the Feds to have Carriers. I'm not a KDf-centric player, I have three Feds at the Cap, but nonetheless, I disagree.
I think Fed Carriers would be a horrible addition to the game. Lots of people are complaining about mine-spam and pet-spam, but as far as PvP goes, that used to only affect FvK Space pvP, now, with the Scorpion fighters, it's getting bad in FvF Space PvP, so the solution proposed by Fed-Carrier fans is to add to the problem with a dedicated Fed Carrier? I don't get the logic there.
Also, speaking to canon, video games, well, they aren't.
Even if CBS were to launch a new Video Game through Atari, say, a third-person action-adventure, set in 2411, it wouldn't have to follow the soft-canon as put forth by STO, the canon it would have to begin with is the hard canon presented by the shows and movies.
Now, there's a key difference with this scenario as well, Atari owns Cryptic, and could, legally, use any and all Cryptic-designed ships. However, Star Trek Invasion was made by Activision, and Cryptic/Atari is legally barred from using anything from it. Even if Cryptic does bow to the calls for a Fed Carrier, it won't have Valkyrie fighters, and there's no way it will be the Typhoon.
Came in late to this thread but I do like and support the various comments regarding the appropriateness of Fed carriers, namely:
Because of shield technology and propulsion technology in Trek, the obvious need for a carrier to hold smaller craft is fairly rendered moot; specifically a shield technology protects everywhere, which, applied to small craft with lesser power weapons, does not do enough as opposed to say real life counterparts where area defense is no where close to a shield. Propulsion wise, warp technology is available for smaller craft, mitigating the need for a larger craft to carry them.
Of course, having Klingon carriers negate that but in general that is a semi-technical reason not to have one.
I too am mixed about carriers in the game. I appreciate in RL that carriers are the major power projectors of nations' navies but in Trek it does stay with the old era navies where battleships and dreadnaughts rule and it has its own nice feel to it.
I would say however that if carriers are a mainstay then they should follow the RL counterpart a little more than what can be seen in the Klingon arsenal.
Carriers forgo mass weaponry of battleships and such because their weapons ARE the small craft fighters. The carrier class should have vastly different gameplay... say the ability to fight from 25k out (increase their detection or what not) and make their small craft do their thing. Defense can be augmented in the form of short range weaponry or stronger shields, but shouldn't have any offensive power outside of the small craft.
As to the small craft themselves.... the Honor Harrington series developed a technical reason for having carriers in that world and I believe can be used in this setting as well. That is, the small craft can carry very powerful energy weapons that can compete against capital ship weaponry; the only problem is it is very very short ranged (ideal for small craft).
We can retrofit small craft in the game now that a Klingon carrier carries. Something like small craft that shoots an energy weapon with BO3 and also have the capability of launching photon torpedos; the former having a cooldown of some sort, but has a range of 3k.
For faction flavor differentiations.... I say then no Fed carriers and just enable the Feds to be better at swatting down smaller craft, like defense turrets (console/device) or just live with what's in game (scatter/volley/FAW).
If it were that Fed carriers are introduced, I'd rather they not be true carriers in the way I described above (make the Klingon ones more like that) and more a "battle carrier": that is, small squadrons of 4 - 6 at any given time, while maintaining ship of the line type weapons. In essence, making a class that has the scorpion fighter device, only permanent.
Comments
So by your logic and reasoning, you should be denouncing Klink carriers also.
If you had read the actual description of the Vo'quv, you would have noticed that despiteits name, it's not a carrier like the ones we have today.
It's mobile outpost, docking facility and invasion platform.
http://news.mmosite.com/content/2009-07-27/20090727233926665.shtml
Feds would not build a genuine one-ship invasion force like this.
I answered that when HappyHappyJoyJoy asked at the start of the thread.
or another question:
Where in all the TV shows, and movies, did they prove, that there IS NOT a fed carrier?!
When did they mention that the Borg never assimilated giant space dragons?
Never, logically we should start a thead where we demand assimilated giant space dragons as an additon to the NPC Borg fleet.
European, Asian or South American?
Thanks for the clarification, but it cuts both ways. If this can hold true for the Klingon forces, who's to say that the Federation does not have something just like it? Also, is it wrong to assume that the Federation has made a ship that can act as a carrier? We have established that the smaller fighters are warp capable, but the comes a point when far is just to far. The fighters can go quite a ways, but they have a limit and when that happens I'm sure there is a ship that can bring them to where they need to go and deploy them as well.
Quiiliitiila
Also a very valid question... :^D
1: "It would be fun to have a carrier type ship"
If you want a carrier you can play a Klingon, and chances are when the Romulans come out they'll have a carrier as well. You don't need a federation carrier just to be able to play a carrier type ship.
2: "there were canon federation fighters therefore carriers must exist"
Completely false. Fighter aircraft existed for a long time before carrier were invented, and even now most nations have the bulk of their air power operating from stationary bases not carriers. Given that small shuttles are warp capable there is no implication that dedicated carrier ships exist for there to be fighters.
2a: "but how do the fighters get to the bases that are out of their operational range?"
They could be loaded on transports (transports are distinct from carriers in that a transport does not have the crew or infrastructure to launch the fighters) which transport them from one base to another.
3: "The Klingons have carriers so the federation would have to have carriers to counter that threat"
No, no they don't. The threat of a carrier comes from it's fighters, so long as the Federation has fighters they have that threat covered (see #2 for why fighters do not imply the existence of a carrier). A cruiser accompanied by a squadron of warp capable fighters would be superior to a carrier and it's compliment of fighters in both firepower and flexibility.
4. "There's no reason not to have federation carriers"
Untrue there are several ranging from "it would homogenize the factions if they have direct counterparts to every class, adding fed carriers is a step towards that", to "A lack of fighters is one area in which Star Trek is conceptually distinguished from other IPs such as Star Wars and Battlestar Galactica". There is also the question of what ship would be the carrier? Also How much dev time is it worth to add a fed carrier and would that time be better spent giving the Klingons more options, or developing the Romulan faction?
"Ok. Next shuttle wing. You there, johnson. Your turn to be one shotted".
"but but but SIR, i just went through 5 years of engineering to be vaporized?"
Please realize I made this thread a week before vault lol.
I know, just surprised the debate continues after the fort has been sacked. Carriers have been nerfed pretty hard in the usual Cryptic fashion and fighter wings handed out to every ship in game. If that isn't a coup de gr
dude
to say
"federation can't have carriers, its not canon"
is just not true
if u don't like carriers - say it - i m fine with that
but please don't start a discussion about canon or not canon
what i have been trying to say with my post was
all we know from canon is, that there are small federation fighters (DS9).
thats it
Because then every idle sketch and concept they produce would have to have it's own canonical debate. It's far easier to leave somethings canonical status in the hands of CBS, who have made it a point to only accept works from Producers and staff Script writers.
---
/em charge
First, let me say that I don't mean to pick an off-topic fight or be insulting.
I was following this rather interesting debate on Federation carriers and this tidbit leapt off the screen at me. My question is, where do you get your history? This analogy, while well intentioned, is not remotely accurate. In a historical sense, that is. As I said, no offense. I just feel if one is going to use an analogy that is historically based that the history should be accurate.
Love the thread, though.
Your right. The tactic created against submarine wolf-packs was the convoy and depthcharges..
Though, next time can you explain why a person's wrong when you say so? Just good manners
Closer. But, no cigar.
I'd be happy to discuss this is another venue as a detailed debate on the development of Submarine/Anti-Submarine warfare would be appreciated neither on this thread or in this forum.
I agree.
First the Klingons came into the game with cloaks across the board (technology). Feds developed the Fed-Ball to counter (tactics). Afterwhich, Klingons started using coordinated Alpha Strikes to take out healers and Escorts quickly (tactics).
As Klingons hit the cap, Carriers came into more and more popular use (technology), the Feds started using more and more AoE powers and teamwork (tactics). Klingons started to utilize more sturdy deployable BoPs and repair drones (technology).
Then Klingons got the (fire-while-cloaked) B'rel Retrofit (technology), and Feds started using more and more mines (tactic/technology). Now Klingons are spamming mines too, because they want to reveal and damage the cloaked Tactical Escort Retrofits out there(tactic/technology).
The introduction of the cloaking Tractor Mines on both sides will further fuel the arms race.
Tactics and technology, elevating hand in hand. As it should be.
The debate here is whether the Feds should develop "true" Carrier tech, to my mind, the answer is no, for a myriad of reasons.
Klingons have a single huge advantage over Feds, they use teamwork far more effectively, as a small faction, with dedicated PvPers making up the bulk, it's a natural advantage, for the moment.
Once there's more PvE content to enable leveling a KDF toon without any significant grinding, the faction will grow, and that advantage will fade as more PvE oriented KDF players become the norm.
Now I'm curious. Send me a PM if you have the time
Meh. WWII isn't exactly my period, if you take my meaning, I was operating from memory from my World History class, oh, about a decade ago?
I'd be gratified if you'd provide a better, more historically accurate example of the concept I was trying to illustrate
I'd be happy to do it now.
Development concepts on the depth charge actually pre-date WWI (circa 1910) and the actual weapon was put into production and usage about 1916. This was not a reaction to any tactics being used by anyone as there was not an actual war on (it's only 1910) but rather a natural progression of a keen weapons development program.
The Wolf Pack was developed after the institution of the convoy system in WWI. Although, equipment limitations of the period severely hampered its implementation by the Germans during that war. Only in WWII, and then only after the fall of France, when the Germans gained access to the long range communictaions equipment and ports on the west coast of France were they really able to implement the Wolf Pack to it's fullest potential. The Allies never had a need for the Wolf Pack in either theater of operations mainly because Germany had very few merchant ships and the Japanese never fully appreciated or implemented a convoy system in the Pacific. There were instances of Submarine skippers acting in small groups in the Pacific a few times but there was no "Wolf Pack" system as highly developed as the German one.
As for who "perfected" the submarine, one can argue many sides on that one. All nations who designed and built submarines added to the designs of the others. It's only natural. The German's can be given credit for placing a greater emphasis, earlier on, than most countries. That was out of necessity. They had, in both wars, always lacked the abilities to project sea power via a surface fleet that could compete with the Allies. They and the US both recognized the the uses of a weapon that would greatly hamper island based, import economies (Great Britain & Japan) and fully exploited the weapon to its greatest potential.
One could argue the submarine's 'perfection' only came with the launch of the USS Nautilus and the institution of nuclear propulsion. A true Submarine. The rest before were merely 'submersibles'.
Enough though. I could go on forever.
Sorry if I'm a little verbose.
I know everyone is hating me now, but think about that -> even this isnt canon it could be a great idea. We already got Peregrine's in Star Trek universe, so why no Typhon and Valkyries? Even as "normal" carrier?
I like the idea.
Does anyone here remember the board game Star Fleet Battles that first came out in the late 70's. It was a VERY detailed depicion of ship combat in the Star Trek Universe.
All of the races had carriers in that game. Though, not at first. I know some don't believe soft canon should not beget more soft canon but, hey. I'm open to it.
I have not played enough of the game yet to have a carrier with my Klingon (I hate the term Klink. Klink was a colonel on Hogan's Heroes.) character and my Fed is only a Rear Admiral Upper Half 2. I have also yet to see any in use as I have only PvP'd a little and plan to PvP a lot more.
Anyways, I'm starting to ramble...
By the way. Did I mention that I'm looking to join a fleet that will help train people in PvP?
I don't hate you, but I do disagree. I don't want the Feds to have Carriers. I'm not a KDf-centric player, I have three Feds at the Cap, but nonetheless, I disagree.
I think Fed Carriers would be a horrible addition to the game. Lots of people are complaining about mine-spam and pet-spam, but as far as PvP goes, that used to only affect FvK Space pvP, now, with the Scorpion fighters, it's getting bad in FvF Space PvP, so the solution proposed by Fed-Carrier fans is to add to the problem with a dedicated Fed Carrier? I don't get the logic there.
Also, speaking to canon, video games, well, they aren't.
Even if CBS were to launch a new Video Game through Atari, say, a third-person action-adventure, set in 2411, it wouldn't have to follow the soft-canon as put forth by STO, the canon it would have to begin with is the hard canon presented by the shows and movies.
Now, there's a key difference with this scenario as well, Atari owns Cryptic, and could, legally, use any and all Cryptic-designed ships. However, Star Trek Invasion was made by Activision, and Cryptic/Atari is legally barred from using anything from it. Even if Cryptic does bow to the calls for a Fed Carrier, it won't have Valkyrie fighters, and there's no way it will be the Typhoon.
Because of shield technology and propulsion technology in Trek, the obvious need for a carrier to hold smaller craft is fairly rendered moot; specifically a shield technology protects everywhere, which, applied to small craft with lesser power weapons, does not do enough as opposed to say real life counterparts where area defense is no where close to a shield. Propulsion wise, warp technology is available for smaller craft, mitigating the need for a larger craft to carry them.
Of course, having Klingon carriers negate that but in general that is a semi-technical reason not to have one.
I too am mixed about carriers in the game. I appreciate in RL that carriers are the major power projectors of nations' navies but in Trek it does stay with the old era navies where battleships and dreadnaughts rule and it has its own nice feel to it.
I would say however that if carriers are a mainstay then they should follow the RL counterpart a little more than what can be seen in the Klingon arsenal.
Carriers forgo mass weaponry of battleships and such because their weapons ARE the small craft fighters. The carrier class should have vastly different gameplay... say the ability to fight from 25k out (increase their detection or what not) and make their small craft do their thing. Defense can be augmented in the form of short range weaponry or stronger shields, but shouldn't have any offensive power outside of the small craft.
As to the small craft themselves.... the Honor Harrington series developed a technical reason for having carriers in that world and I believe can be used in this setting as well. That is, the small craft can carry very powerful energy weapons that can compete against capital ship weaponry; the only problem is it is very very short ranged (ideal for small craft).
We can retrofit small craft in the game now that a Klingon carrier carries. Something like small craft that shoots an energy weapon with BO3 and also have the capability of launching photon torpedos; the former having a cooldown of some sort, but has a range of 3k.
For faction flavor differentiations.... I say then no Fed carriers and just enable the Feds to be better at swatting down smaller craft, like defense turrets (console/device) or just live with what's in game (scatter/volley/FAW).
If it were that Fed carriers are introduced, I'd rather they not be true carriers in the way I described above (make the Klingon ones more like that) and more a "battle carrier": that is, small squadrons of 4 - 6 at any given time, while maintaining ship of the line type weapons. In essence, making a class that has the scorpion fighter device, only permanent.