test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Any plans for a new Vo'Quv Skin?
System
Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
I was wondering if part of the KDF rework includes a new skin for the Vo'Quv carrier. I personally don't think either of the current ones have a true Klingon feel. Perhaps they could make a design based off of the Sword of Kahless from Klingon academy? Not the exact ship, but a modernized version of it with the traditional Klingon "Manta Ray" shape.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Hangar "pods" could be under the wings like on the current models.
Or perhaps something a bit more unconventional:
The Centauri Battlecruiser from the Babylon 5 show had a hangar in the middle of its forward section
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2077/2469257690_c1500e387a.jpg
which on the ship you propose coul correspond to the spot where the Vor'cha has its Disrputor cannon.
Why not put one hangar there?
The second could go onto the "back" of the ship once the bridge "box" has removed.
This is actually also from a Centauri ship, allbeit from the "Babylon 5 Wars" tabletop.
One of their destroyers, the Altarian had one hangar on its back
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1107/1239957141_168bc00241.jpg
http://images.frpgames.com/products/product_69333.jpg
this way it would have the typical two hangar arrangement just not side-by side.
Oh, and something that doesn't have 22nd era nacelles would be preferable.:)
That Altarian Destroyer would make for a great Raptor Skin! Just change the color to green, grey or brown and I would be happy to seen that flying around Klingon space.
Man that ship is sexy.
Well, it does lack some of the typical chacteristics of an Klingon ship like a command section and the typical characteristic of a Raptor, the nacelles.
However it does have a "beak" and somewhat birdlike wings.
While it does not shout Raptor I reminds be very much of the Orion Interceptor from "Enterprise" and it also has a forward section very similar to that of the new Orion carriers.
So green is good, but it would fit the Orions far better than the Klingon Raptors IMO.
The Hegh'ta actually looked better at release then it looks now through bad changes, the Souvereign is one of the most beloved Star Trek ships (regulary wins the "Whats your favorite Star Trek ship"-contests of certain ST pages... Tho Vo'Quv might me a BSG-knockoff but its still awsome.
But most of the recent effort was tied to new C-Store ships instead of keeping the old ones up-to-date... So yes... as soon as SOME resources are available they should be there..
...and while I'm typing:
In my humble opinion the Carriers should remain weaker as a primary vessel but have more (not less) strong airwings; isn't that the purpose for the carrier?
Give them a series of clos-in automated weapons and a couple beam weapons that can shoot out to maybe 11 klicks but with weak striking power.
Isn't that the point of a carrier :cool: ...it carries and controls large combat forces into battle (a modern US carrier carries more aircraft than many other nations have in their air force) and defends itself. Remember though that a carrier is a weaker vessel structurally than a battleship, it has a glass jaw, get past the defenses and...BOOM!
Don't turn it into a battlestar (not that I don't like battlestars, but its a completely different design philosophy
For those who scream about this not being fair to the Feds, I play mostly Federation (still can't get used to shooting Federation ships when I fly as an Orion...feels so wrong :rolleyes: ).
It's a mobile command center, hospital, drydock and planetary invasion platform.
It's not remotely similar to carriers as we have them today.
Such a vessel is so important it would have to have decent defenses of its own.
In addition it whould have to have a very strong hull due to the simple fact it is not only gigantic compared to Klingon Batlecruisers (which would be the battleships in your analogy) but must also be able to withstand the stress of continued high warp as opposed to large freighters we've seen that had only a rather low maximum speed compared to the Vo'quv.
So even without massive armor it could easily outlast a BC.
The stupid thing about the STO page is that there used to be extensive descriptions and specs about some KDF ships that were simply removed from the site without comment.
You can still find a backup of the description and specs here:
http://www.mmohub.co.uk/sto/node/21
My fear is it will be just another thing given the feds due to whines of "Its unfair"
As to the anti-KDF fed rants that our appearing in the forums;
I'm ****ed to high Stovokor that we once again have started seeing cries of " the KDF is OP" and "the KDF is getting more..." from certain fedfans once again when we KDF fans start to see some love in the way of new ships, new consoles that don't suck moQ and some revists to older ships that where nerfed too much in the past ( voQ and Karfi ), even the BoP has come under fire again as being too much an advantage for the KDF.
GET OVER YOURSELVES FEDS! YOU ARE NOT GODS GIFT TO STO!
We Klingon fans are fans of the genre, we've supported the genre for decades and we've been here a very long time waiting for some Dev love and when it comes our way its a crime?
jaH nga'chug'egh
/end rant
Im already hearing the rumblings of Feddies whispering that both Carriers are overpowered on Tribble.
The funny things the same players that are saying the Carriers are overpowered are flying around in MVAM and Defiant Refits that can pop targets in one volley.
Heaven forbid that you survive their almighty alpha strike because then youre either a hacker or your vessel is overpowered :rolleyes:
I pray to Kahless I don't have to endure that junk again
They are wrong. The Carriers are no more powerful than iether of those two vessels you mentioned, just different.
No stats where raised on the VoQ
The Kar'fi got a buffing to make it a little better.
Pets where diminished in numbers but buffed to compensate.
We have pet commands now.
What great event do they claim has pushed the Carriers into OP land. They do not cloak or have Universal slots? So whats the great whine?
Spam? Heck with that -we have toomany ways to offset spam - its no longer a viable excuse for our nerfing.
Its Firepower? lol The Defiant-R has more, The Excelsior has more, the Gal-X has more.
Its the turnrate isn't it? Its too fast.
You hear the intestinal grumblings of small egoes wishing for more to make themselves feel larger.
nothing more.
Actually, it is the hardest thing to kill because the aircraft act as its eyes and ears against incomming attacks from the skies. It is save from sea attacks because of destoryer-escorts covering its flanks and sweeping for submarines. There is a reason why there is only ONE carrier per carrier-battle group. It is a fleet with the aircraft carrier as its command ship.
As to its glass jaw, take a look at what happened in World War 2 when the Japanese carriers sent out ALL of their aircraft in one go. The US pilots chased after them and attacked devistating the carriers while their aircraft were ALL on the deck refueling and rearming.
A lone sub (or BOP/Defiant-R or Galaxy-X in this case) that can sneak in against the carrier without its escort is easy pickings becasue the carrier doesn't see it comming.
yes its fleet and fighters make up the most of its defence but when they fail the carrier can still take a good hit better then anyother ship today.
If you compare WW2 era and modern era carriers you'll notice the modern ones have no actual armor.
The reason is that it serves no purpose except take up weight.
Aside from a deck that is designed to withstand an incoming plane out of control it has no belt or bulge or other armor whatsoever.
The reason is that WW2 era carriers were usually armored to withstand rather small caliber fire.
Essex had 0.75 inch belt which is actually little compared to the 4 inch the New Orleans class heavy cruisers had (4 inch).
The late-1954 Midway had 7.5 inch belt which is quite an increase but actually still rather limited compared to the 12.5 inch the Iowa had.
On any more recent design you'll notice they have no armor.
Reason is that while the Midway was still a result of WW2, ships built after that were built in an era where naval weaponry shifted away from guns to missiles that don't really care whether the ship is armored or not.
In addition bulge is totally useless post WW2 because torpedoes don't hit the side of the ship and detonate, they detonate under the ship.
And when you look at the size of modern warheads like the Russian type 65 torpedo which has up to nearly half a ton of explosives a carrier can consider itself lucky to survive one fo those.
So no, carriers are not built to last under fire.
They are in fact rather big and only protected by their battlegroup and fighters not by armor.
The reson a carrier might survive a it better than other ships has more to do with the fact it weights 100 times as much as a Ticonderoga class cruiser.
But a carrier is not built to soak up damage.
Drop Marines, launch small craft (but fewer than a carrier) and slug it out in its own right...
The thing would fly like a cement truck, but killing it could make you remenise fondly about the Borg
It takes time to get used to wrinting long stuff in the forums.
Took me a while to get the hang of it especially since English is not my first language either.
So my pleasure if I could help a bit with my excessive ranting.
You use capital lettere where the English language uses none, very much like I do sometime so my guess is we're not that distant as far as our native language is concerned.:)
Well if we use the Klingon Battlecruiser as an counterpart to the old Battleships
and the Klingon Vo'quv as a counterpart to the Supercarriers of the real world
then the analogy is not quite right.
The reason is that while the carriers of the real world were about twice as heavy as a battleship
(Iowa class 58,000 tons vs supercarrier roughly 100,000 tons)
the Klingon carriers are actually much bigger than that.
http://suricatasblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/klingonships18.png
given that the Vo'quv is a little less than twice as long as a Negh'var and twice as wide and twice to thrice as high, the result would be a ship about 8 times as heavy.
Just some numbers for comparison:
4,500,000 tons Galaxy
4,310,000 tons Negh'var
4,320,000 tons Warbird (yes it's 1041 mters long bit it's as hollow as the souls of its crew)
So the Vo'quv would be somewhere round 34,000,000.
It wold be like comparing a carrier to a regular cruiser, and in that case there is precedence of those being as heavily armored as cruisers.
In addition, the central section does not seem to actually house any kind of small craft, only the modules under the wings do.
There might be a "tunnel" or "corridor" that goes through the central section to connect one hangar to the other but otherwise it's not the same as a real-wold carrier.
Those are arranged quite differently:
http://media.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/SHIP_CVN-71_Theodore_Roosevelt_Cutaway_lg.jpg
And there is something else you might want to keep in mind:
The fundamental changes in weapons technology after World War 2 (the shift from guns to missiles) resulted in the removal of armor as I mentioned.
It applied to everything from destroyers to cruisers to supercarriers.
Older ships were not stripped of their armor because that would have cost more than it was worth.
However in the Star Trek universe such a fundamental change never took place.
Technology and tactics had remained very much the same for...well ever.
So in case of the Klingon carriers, it probably means those things have almost the same amor as a battlecruiser but also have more power for structural reinforcement fields to keep the hull in one piece.
And a hit on a comparatively small ship would mean you'd blow a large chunk of its hull off.
On a carrier a hit of the same size would mean you blow a hole into a comparatively small area.
Such a hit is also less likely to damage too many key systems on such a big ship at once because they'd be spread all over the ship and there'd be more backups than on a small ship.
This increased ability to cope with damage must be represented in some fashion in an MMO.
Since we don't have any serious damage model (would love to see that, would allow the ships to be much more different) in this game there's only one thing they can use and those are of course the hitpoints.
And there's another reason why a hit on a Vo'quv could not have the same devastating effect a Russian Torpedo would have on a USN Super Carrier:
In space noone can sink you.:)
What makes a carrier a carrier, in space?
Well nothing special.
1.) you need a way to launch your ships without loosing atmosphere - covered that with force fields.
2.) The Facilities to repair and do maintenance - thanks to replicators and transporter buffering, we got that shiite covered too.
3.) Storage space for the things you want to launch. - err... hammer space. yeah.... I mean they stuffed impossibly large quantities of stuff intoo the delta flyer so....
So basically your carrier could be a BOX with life support, a huge hatch secured by forcefields and a decent replicator system.
Said box could be towed or tucked onto hulls for transport, then ditched at a safe location to start launch operations.....
So, the Vo'quv, massive vessel that she is would not actually have to spend that much internal volume on actual flight operations. Unlike a wet navy carrier, space carriers have less trouble with Lady Gravity pulling down everything. No complex systems that dictate construction are needed to bring birds into the fight and retrieve them.
And as such the ship can be build sturdy as heck, because the wet water navy carrier design rules simply do not apply to a spaceborn carrier.
In fact, as far as Star Trek is concerned: EVERY ship with a shuttle hangar can also serve as carrier for fighters.... Remember the Galaxy's main shuttle bay in the saucer section? That thing could hold at least 20 peregrines... and even more scorpions because those things are space go karts.