Ok, I do not know much about star trek history, so there might be some star trek logic answer, but it just seems odd that the feds don't have a carrier. Our Flagship is the Enterprise, I ship that got its name from the legendary CV 5 Enterprise aka the Big E or Lucky E. Yes there were other enterprise ships and the World war 2 enterprise was the first to be an aircraft carrier but everyone thinks ethier ww2 CV5 or star trek when they here enterprise.
Now, just so we are clear I am not asking that the Enterprise G that we hopefully won't see for a while should be a carrier, but why can't we have a Hornet or a Yorktown? For gods sake we even have the fighters for the carriers allready ingame, the little 2 seater P(won't even try to spell it) Fighters. Maybe have they launch a small fleet of those fighters.
I think it is stupid that the UFP doesn't have carriers of their own. It's a poor strategist that does not make sure you can at least EQUAL your enemy in battle.
The KDF has 4 ship types.
The UFP has 3.
However, the UFP does have 4x the amount of content, so I guess that's where the balance equals out.
Oh, an just so you know, OP, Threads about the UFP getting a carrier often go up in flames.
Oh, an just so you know, OP, Threads about the UFP getting a carrier often go up in flames.
*Hides the matches behind his back*
I have no idea what you're talking about...
On topic, I beleive the point is to give the KDF something different and unique because story content sure isn't a reason to play them. Also, do the Feds really need a carrier? Though I may think that because I dont liek carriers and think NPC spam is a cheap and lazy way to play PvP...
Also, drawing on WW2 to justify the necessity of STARSHIP carriers in the 24th century is a bit like clutching at straws without the straws...
In my own opinion I think it is due to sensitivity to losses and fighter pilots on their first combat op having a life expectancy measured in 10's of seconds.
18 years to give birth to and raise a child from infant to adulthood and then 2+ years at the academy.. All for maybe 30 seconds of pew pew prior to being popped.
I think you would have better odds of surviving a round of Russian roulette over surviving a single combat op in a fighter in STO. At least you have a 1 in 6 chance of death with only a gun to your head.. Where a single fighter op is almost a sure thing in my opinion.
With all that said a kitty carrier would still be spiffy.
Oh here I go, what are you going to carry with your carrier that a starship cant accomplish with its multitude of various torpdoes, beams, mines and other weapons of mass destruction? The power of single small craft to deliver crippling blows to heavily shielded warships is no greater than mines or torpedos and the might of beam weapons is beyond such small vessels as well. So small ships could be suicide runners I suppose splatting like bugs on the windshield. If they overload their small engines before impact I suppose they could inflict some damage.
Battlestar Galactica or its counterpart Cylon base stars are not the same precedent as they never had this kind of shielding capability. Star Wars has deflectors but still not the same defense as Star Trek shields.:p
It kind of does make sense within the context of the Star Trek Universe. Starting from Picard's era going forward, the nature of Starfleet has been kind of schizo. It's part Diplomatic Corps, part Scientific Exploration Organisation, part Military, and part Intelligence Agency; and most of their mid-large sized starships appear to be expected to carry out the functions of all four roles. It's no wonder why something as large as a Galaxy or Odyssey class starship can't work as a carrier. It's too filled with stellar cartography, sensor, engineering, lab, and weapon equipment to fit anything more than a handful of shuttles in a couple of bays!
Not only that, but Starfleet is terribly PC and seems ashamed of their military role. They can call a Defiant or Maelstrom an Escort all they want, but they're dedicated destroyers. I'm actually surprised that they call Sovereigns "Assault Cruisers" in this game in lieu of something like "Deterrence Cruiser" or something similarly deceptive.
As already stated, why would the UFP use carriers? I think it makes sense to use Peregrines and attack shuttles as starbase defense, since those are immobile and launching an attack wing to intercept long range weapons or small raiding craft makes sense, but a carrier with manned fighters is more something the klingons would use. I always imagined a fighter pilot in the KDF is a initiate, young warriors yet to prove their worth and if they survive they get promoted.
But keep in mind that, in ST lore, there are no fighters at all (except for some sub-warp interceptors used for planetary defense or policing actions, Bajor had those, romulans and I guess the Federation had also something like that, see the Mars defense line in Season 3 final of TNG)). The Klingon carriers are a invention of this game and Peregrine attack craft are actually refitted civilian vessels used by the Marquis (a federation terrorist/resistance group) because they didn't have the resources to field larger craft. In the Dominion war, the Peregrine kind off got adapted by Starfleet to carry out quick special operations but were never used en masse in massive battles. That wouldn't make sense.
I would accept some kind of carrier launching drones, maybe as a countermeassure to fighters the KDF uses, but I really don't know why they would use those anyway
Those so-called "fighters" we so big there seemed to be no ship besides the Galaxy capable of carrying them and yet they were used.
In fact the fighters were already among the fleets when they left the starbases.
They were not tugged away for travel.
So they appearently don't need a larger ship to carry them.
Also, those "fighters" are hughe, larger than Runabout that we know have an operation range of weeks.
In addition we know it's possible for craft even without warp drive to rid inside the warpfield of one that does.
So just cluster them around larger ships and hitch a ride without consuming any fuel.
Carriers are not really needed.
A federation carrier would be nice *cough* Akira proper use *cough*, however, the Klink faction has so little content I would be upset to take this particular cookie away from them.
Also the peregrine fighter is warp capable with a reasonably long range. This would mean that starfleet would not normally employ a carrier, as the ship would need to be massive, but would employ a fleet tender. This would probably have a low sensor profile and sit quite a few light years from the battlefield to avoid ambush. Any damaged fighters would simply return there for repair and rearm.
A federation carrier would be nice *cough* Akira proper use *cough*, however, the Klink faction has so little content I would be upset to take this particular cookie away from them.
Also the peregrine fighter is warp capable with a reasonably long range. This would mean that starfleet would not normally employ a carrier, as the ship would need to be massive, but would employ a fleet tender. This would probably have a low sensor profile and sit quite a few light years from the battlefield to avoid ambush. Any damaged fighters would simply return there for repair and rearm.
Lion.
The peregrine may be warp capable, but, assuming the Feds could effectively utilise fighters in combat, I could see the necessity for a carrier role, ala the Akira. In a large fleet action, said fleet only moves as fast as its slowest vessel. If a battle group needs to move to an AOE quickly, it can't be stalled at Warp 5-7. That's where the carrier would come in.
In game terms though, I agree. Let the KDF keep 'em until they have full content.
I don't believe KDF have science vessels, at least not ones that can be purchased w/o the cstore.
I don't think that the UFP should get carriers but maybe something similar but different. Since the UFP doesn't really use fighters much in its tactics, maybe instead have some sort of large fleet support battleship.
For all those people that throw out that Starfleet doesn't have warships because that does not mesh with their doctrine, they are a military organization that has been in almost a constant state of war for decades, if that doesn't change their attitude toward the employment of full on battleships in this new erra, than their leaders are asinine. Even the UFP civilian leaders should understand that waging a wars with ships that aren't specifically suited for war is just getting people killed for no reason other than they don't want to appear too aggressive. I've always hated that argument.
More ship types, yes. However, the Federation has more individual ship classes, with 37 total between all ranks and 15 at tier 5. The KDF, meanwhile, has 33 between all ranks, 11 of which are T5. This, of course, excludes the Jem'Hadar attack ship, as it isn't exclusive to either faction, as well as shuttles and fighters, though the Federation still has the numbers advantage there with 7 to the KDF's 3.
The grass is still very much greener on the Federation's side.
I don't believe KDF have science vessels, at least not ones that can be purchased w/o the cstore.
I don't think that the UFP should get carriers but maybe something similar but different. Since the UFP doesn't really use fighters much in its tactics, maybe instead have some sort of large fleet support battleship.
For all those people that throw out that Starfleet doesn't have warships because that does not mesh with their doctrine, they are a military organization that has been in almost a constant state of war for decades, if that doesn't change their attitude toward the employment of full on battleships in this new erra, than their leaders are asinine. Even the UFP civilian leaders should understand that waging a wars with ships that aren't specifically suited for war is just getting people killed for no reason other than they don't want to appear too aggressive. I've always hated that argument.
Not having warships doesn't mean their ships aren't armed like crazy. Starfleets ships aren't warships but mainly explorers, their personnel aren't soldiers but that doesn't mean they are defenseless. Think of the trading fleets in the colonial age. Merchant ships weren't warships but most likely outgunned every frigate or early ships of the line there were. Most of Starfleet's ships load so many guns that they outright scare away minor species, if you put those ships together in a fleet they can hurt you very badly.
I agree with you that they have expanded their tactical department and should have created some ships designed for combat (they actually have, Defiants are destroyers, the Akira-Class dedicated gunships etc.) but Starfleet is not the U.S. Navy. I hate that Star Trek becomes more and more Warhammer 40k. Starfleet has sharp teeth, but won't bite until you cross the line
More ship types, yes. However, the Federation has more individual ship classes, with 37 total between all ranks and 15 at tier 5. The KDF, meanwhile, has 33 between all ranks, 11 of which are T5. This, of course, excludes the Jem'Hadar attack ship, as it isn't exclusive to either faction, as well as shuttles and fighters, though the Federation still has the numbers advantage there with 7 to the KDF's 3.
The grass is still very much greener on the Federation's side.
T5 ships are all that really matters the way the game is atm, each time you reach a new tier it makes the previous tier obsolete, I'd be OK with having fewer total ships but more or at least equal top tier ships.
The Federation has an entirely different Shipbuilding ethos than the Empire, Carriers are not faction-appropriate. Starfleet builds Cruisers for Exploration, Science Vessels for research, and Escorts for defense. Carriers are strictly weapons of aggression, they have no scientific, diplomatic, or exploratory value. Starfleet builds all it's vessels with peacetime uses in mind. Carriers don't have any that aren't better filled by other ships already anyway.
Federation fighters are all warp-capable, long-range craft, with heads, bunks, and replicators, Carriers aren't necessary for them to operate effectively.
The Empire has an entirely different view of death than the Federation does. Klingons desire death in battle it's one of the few ways to earn an honored place in Sto'Vo'Kor. Starfleet seeks to avoid it if at all possible. And without the plot armor that was always available to the main casts of the series (last minute beam-outs, ejections, etc..), the attrition rate of Starfleet Fighter Pilots would be unacceptable.
Considering the shields and firepower of mainline vessels, Fighters are rarely the best option. Sending Fighters against a BoP is like sending speedboats with crews armed with handguns against a modern Submarine with a Titanium Hull. The Speedboats won't do any damage, the Sub can destroy them all easily, or evade them entirely, either way, the speedboats aren't going to win. There's a reason why very few KDF Carrier Jockeys use Fighters, and a great many use BoPs.
Shipwise, parity matters very little. What matters is how the ships are used. I, for example, use a a Science Officer in a Nebula to hunt down and destroy Carriers. In spite of their pets, in spite of their hulls and shields, the U.S.S. Eisenhower tends to wipe the floor with them, especially if I have a good wingman in an Escort.
As far as playstyles go, that's not really an argument. Carriers are freely available if you get a Klingon to the cap, or for C-Points if you're impatient. You could roll Joined Trill and pretend to be a spy for the Federation if you like, there's nothing wrong with rolling a Klingon if you want to play a Carrier, hundreds of people have done just that.
This is the most reasonable I have ever been on the subject of a Federation Carrier. I don't want to bring out the big guns, but I will if you make me.
T5 ships are all that really matters the way the game is atm, all previous each time you reach a new tier it makes the previous tier obsolete, I'd be OK with having fewer total ships but more top tier ships.
Well, given that the Federation currently has both more total ships and T5 ships, this isn't really an issue anyway.
The Federation has an entirely different Shipbuilding ethos than the Empire, Carriers are not faction-appropriate. Starfleet builds Cruisers for Exploration, Science Vessels for research, and Escorts for defense. Carriers are strictly weapons of aggression, they have no scientific, diplomatic, or exploratory value. Starfleet builds all it's vessels with peacetime uses in mind. Carriers don't have any that aren't better filled by other ships already anyway.[/I]
Like I said, this makes no sense since they have been at war for decades, that may have been the design philosophy at one time yes but if that hasn't changed by the time the game takes place, where peacetime hasn't been the norm for decades, than the UFP deserved to get conquered.
Take WWII for instance, the allied nations weren't necessarily aggressive nations with the most advanced military, but from the start in 1939 to the end in 1945 those nations quickly learned that they need to make advancements in their armaments to compete and win and during those 6 years, military technology and just tech in general advanced in leaps and bounds.
Now you can't tell me that in the decades of war that the Federation has been in, they haven't realized that "hey, if we built warships and trained soldiers for war, than we could end this war(s) sooner and put an end to the killing."
Like I said, this makes no sense since they have been at war for decades, that may have been the design philosophy at one time yes but if that hasn't changed by the time the game takes place, where peacetime hasn't been the norm for decades, than the UFP deserved to get conquered.
Take WWII for instance, the allied nations weren't necessarily aggressive nations with the most advanced military, but from the start in 1939 to the end in 1945 those nations quickly learned that they need to make advancements in their armaments to compete and win and during those 6 years, military technology and just tech in general advanced in leaps and bounds.
Now you can't tell me that in the decades of war that the Federation has been in, they haven't realized that "hey, if we built warships and trained soldiers for war, than we could end this war(s) sooner and put an end to the killing."
Considering that sticking by their principles and maintaining a ship design philosophy around exploration and diplomacy over military might has won them every war they've been in, it's not hard to believe that the Federation would do any differently now.
Also I don't want the devs to anger Roddenberry's ghost any more than they probably already have.
Like I said, this makes no sense since they have been at war for decades, that may have been the design philosophy at one time yes but if that hasn't changed by the time the game takes place, where peacetime hasn't been the norm for decades, than the UFP deserved to get conquered.
Take WWII for instance, the allied nations weren't necessarily aggressive nations with the most advanced military, but from the start in 1939 to the end in 1945 those nations quickly learned that they need to make advancements in their armaments to compete and win and during those 6 years, military technology and just tech in general advanced in leaps and bounds.
Now you can't tell me that in the decades of war that the Federation has been in, they haven't realized that "hey, if we built warships and trained soldiers for war, than we could end this war(s) sooner and put an end to the killing."
The WWII analogy only works to an extent. The Wehrmacht surprised the Allies with new technologies and tactics, but the Allies still had a fairly strong military tradition to fall back on to help them catch up. There was a relatively short gap between the two world wars. In Star Trek, the Federation enjoyed nearly a century of peace, prior to the Dominion, that allowed their complacency and disfavourable attitude towards war and aggression to become a near-universal ethos amongst their worlds. Remember how much Picard and Riker scoffed at the uncivilised and barbaric exercise that was a Federation wargame?
The Federation and Starfleet took a completely defensive and reactionary stance when it came to warfare and aggression. Yes, their ships had weapons, but they also had families living on board their flagship. Sure, a Starfleet officer could pick up a phaser and defend himself if necessary, but the organisation as a whole had no concept of true ground combat tactics as graphically displayed in "the Siege of AR-588" (lucky for them, neither did the Jem'Hadar). So yes, between the end of Nemesis and the current timeline of STO, the Federation has been in a near constant state of both cold and hot war, but I don't feel that it has been quite long enough for the entirety of its peoples to have shaken off their century-old "high and mighty" (for lack of a better term) attitude towards war. Hence we do have some purely aggressive ship designs (most Escorts, some Cruisers), but I doubt a carrier is something they've given much thought to. And if they have, it's still only a blueprint.
The WWII analogy only works to an extent. The Wehrmacht surprised the Allies with new technologies and tactics, but the Allies still had a fairly strong military tradition to fall back on to help them catch up. There was a relatively short gap between the two world wars. In Star Trek, the Federation enjoyed nearly a century of peace, prior to the Dominion, that allowed their complacency and disfavourable attitude towards war and aggression to become a near-universal ethos amongst their worlds. Remember how much Picard and Riker scoffed at the uncivilised and barbaric exercise that was a Federation wargame?
The Federation and Starfleet took a completely defensive and reactionary stance when it came to warfare and aggression. Yes, their ships had weapons, but they also had families living on board their flagship. Sure, a Starfleet officer could pick up a phaser and defend himself if necessary, but the organisation as a whole had no concept of true ground combat tactics as graphically displayed in "the Siege of AR-588" (lucky for them, neither did the Jem'Hadar). So yes, between the end of Nemesis and the current timeline of STO, the Federation has been in a near constant state of both cold and hot war, but I don't feel that it has been quite long enough for the entirety of its peoples to have shaken off their century-old "high and mighty" (for lack of a better term) attitude towards war. Hence we do have some purely aggressive ship designs (most Escorts, some Cruisers), but I doubt a carrier is something they've given much thought to. And if they have, it's still only a blueprint.
That makes sense, a lot more than just saying Starfleet doesn't do warships.
What I'm saying is that the longer these wars go, the more Starfleet should realize that they don't have the luxury of just writing off the idea of warships. I would argue that they owe it to their men & women in uniform to give them whatever edge they can. With enemies like the Borg, you don't get to say "We don't do warships".
That makes sense, a lot more than just saying Starfleet doesn't do warships.
What I'm saying is that the longer these wars go, the more Starfleet should realize that they don't have the luxury of just writing off the idea of warships. I would argue that they owe it to their men & women in uniform to give them whatever edge they can. With enemies like the Borg, you don't get to say "We don't do warships".
Precisely. The Federation is slowly waking up to this fact. Assuming the game lasts long enough, it'd be kind of interesting to see future Episodes tell a story of a Federation that starts to degrade into something more strongly resembling the Terran Empire.
It is more likely that starfleet engineer corps will look at the KDF carrier and produce a ship to deal with it. This would probably be armed with heavy shielding and armour and point defence phaser banks/ turrets.
I doubt starfleet would enjoy sending pilots to their deaths so easily, however, fighters do tend to carry heavy, disposable, weaponry for their size. This would be a definate candidate for Starfleet to look into dealing with.
This is the most reasonable I have ever been on the subject of a Federation Carrier. I don't want to bring out the big guns, but I will if you make me.[/QUOTE]
To explore strange new worlds and civilisations and to boldly go where man has gone before. The federation have never been about waging war, and that is why there are no carriers. Klingons on the other hand are a belligerent species so they have no science ships instead.
Comments
The KDF has 4 ship types.
The UFP has 3.
However, the UFP does have 4x the amount of content, so I guess that's where the balance equals out.
Oh, an just so you know, OP, Threads about the UFP getting a carrier often go up in flames.
*Hides the matches behind his back*
I have no idea what you're talking about...
On topic, I beleive the point is to give the KDF something different and unique because story content sure isn't a reason to play them. Also, do the Feds really need a carrier? Though I may think that because I dont liek carriers and think NPC spam is a cheap and lazy way to play PvP...
Also, drawing on WW2 to justify the necessity of STARSHIP carriers in the 24th century is a bit like clutching at straws without the straws...
18 years to give birth to and raise a child from infant to adulthood and then 2+ years at the academy.. All for maybe 30 seconds of pew pew prior to being popped.
I think you would have better odds of surviving a round of Russian roulette over surviving a single combat op in a fighter in STO. At least you have a 1 in 6 chance of death with only a gun to your head.. Where a single fighter op is almost a sure thing in my opinion.
With all that said a kitty carrier would still be spiffy.
Actually, the KDF has five:
1. Cruiser
2. Science
3. Escort
4. Carrier
5. Raider (BoP)
Battlestar Galactica or its counterpart Cylon base stars are not the same precedent as they never had this kind of shielding capability. Star Wars has deflectors but still not the same defense as Star Trek shields.:p
Not only that, but Starfleet is terribly PC and seems ashamed of their military role. They can call a Defiant or Maelstrom an Escort all they want, but they're dedicated destroyers. I'm actually surprised that they call Sovereigns "Assault Cruisers" in this game in lieu of something like "Deterrence Cruiser" or something similarly deceptive.
But keep in mind that, in ST lore, there are no fighters at all (except for some sub-warp interceptors used for planetary defense or policing actions, Bajor had those, romulans and I guess the Federation had also something like that, see the Mars defense line in Season 3 final of TNG)). The Klingon carriers are a invention of this game and Peregrine attack craft are actually refitted civilian vessels used by the Marquis (a federation terrorist/resistance group) because they didn't have the resources to field larger craft. In the Dominion war, the Peregrine kind off got adapted by Starfleet to carry out quick special operations but were never used en masse in massive battles. That wouldn't make sense.
I would accept some kind of carrier launching drones, maybe as a countermeassure to fighters the KDF uses, but I really don't know why they would use those anyway
In fact the fighters were already among the fleets when they left the starbases.
They were not tugged away for travel.
So they appearently don't need a larger ship to carry them.
Also, those "fighters" are hughe, larger than Runabout that we know have an operation range of weeks.
http://img815.imageshack.us/img815/4859/373peregrinecomparison.jpg
In addition we know it's possible for craft even without warp drive to rid inside the warpfield of one that does.
So just cluster them around larger ships and hitch a ride without consuming any fuel.
Carriers are not really needed.
Also the peregrine fighter is warp capable with a reasonably long range. This would mean that starfleet would not normally employ a carrier, as the ship would need to be massive, but would employ a fleet tender. This would probably have a low sensor profile and sit quite a few light years from the battlefield to avoid ambush. Any damaged fighters would simply return there for repair and rearm.
Lion.
The peregrine may be warp capable, but, assuming the Feds could effectively utilise fighters in combat, I could see the necessity for a carrier role, ala the Akira. In a large fleet action, said fleet only moves as fast as its slowest vessel. If a battle group needs to move to an AOE quickly, it can't be stalled at Warp 5-7. That's where the carrier would come in.
In game terms though, I agree. Let the KDF keep 'em until they have full content.
I don't believe KDF have science vessels, at least not ones that can be purchased w/o the cstore.
I don't think that the UFP should get carriers but maybe something similar but different. Since the UFP doesn't really use fighters much in its tactics, maybe instead have some sort of large fleet support battleship.
For all those people that throw out that Starfleet doesn't have warships because that does not mesh with their doctrine, they are a military organization that has been in almost a constant state of war for decades, if that doesn't change their attitude toward the employment of full on battleships in this new erra, than their leaders are asinine. Even the UFP civilian leaders should understand that waging a wars with ships that aren't specifically suited for war is just getting people killed for no reason other than they don't want to appear too aggressive. I've always hated that argument.
The grass is still very much greener on the Federation's side.
Not having warships doesn't mean their ships aren't armed like crazy. Starfleets ships aren't warships but mainly explorers, their personnel aren't soldiers but that doesn't mean they are defenseless. Think of the trading fleets in the colonial age. Merchant ships weren't warships but most likely outgunned every frigate or early ships of the line there were. Most of Starfleet's ships load so many guns that they outright scare away minor species, if you put those ships together in a fleet they can hurt you very badly.
I agree with you that they have expanded their tactical department and should have created some ships designed for combat (they actually have, Defiants are destroyers, the Akira-Class dedicated gunships etc.) but Starfleet is not the U.S. Navy. I hate that Star Trek becomes more and more Warhammer 40k. Starfleet has sharp teeth, but won't bite until you cross the line
T5 ships are all that really matters the way the game is atm, each time you reach a new tier it makes the previous tier obsolete, I'd be OK with having fewer total ships but more or at least equal top tier ships.
This is the most reasonable I have ever been on the subject of a Federation Carrier. I don't want to bring out the big guns, but I will if you make me.
Like I said, this makes no sense since they have been at war for decades, that may have been the design philosophy at one time yes but if that hasn't changed by the time the game takes place, where peacetime hasn't been the norm for decades, than the UFP deserved to get conquered.
Take WWII for instance, the allied nations weren't necessarily aggressive nations with the most advanced military, but from the start in 1939 to the end in 1945 those nations quickly learned that they need to make advancements in their armaments to compete and win and during those 6 years, military technology and just tech in general advanced in leaps and bounds.
Now you can't tell me that in the decades of war that the Federation has been in, they haven't realized that "hey, if we built warships and trained soldiers for war, than we could end this war(s) sooner and put an end to the killing."
Also I don't want the devs to anger Roddenberry's ghost any more than they probably already have.
The WWII analogy only works to an extent. The Wehrmacht surprised the Allies with new technologies and tactics, but the Allies still had a fairly strong military tradition to fall back on to help them catch up. There was a relatively short gap between the two world wars. In Star Trek, the Federation enjoyed nearly a century of peace, prior to the Dominion, that allowed their complacency and disfavourable attitude towards war and aggression to become a near-universal ethos amongst their worlds. Remember how much Picard and Riker scoffed at the uncivilised and barbaric exercise that was a Federation wargame?
The Federation and Starfleet took a completely defensive and reactionary stance when it came to warfare and aggression. Yes, their ships had weapons, but they also had families living on board their flagship. Sure, a Starfleet officer could pick up a phaser and defend himself if necessary, but the organisation as a whole had no concept of true ground combat tactics as graphically displayed in "the Siege of AR-588" (lucky for them, neither did the Jem'Hadar). So yes, between the end of Nemesis and the current timeline of STO, the Federation has been in a near constant state of both cold and hot war, but I don't feel that it has been quite long enough for the entirety of its peoples to have shaken off their century-old "high and mighty" (for lack of a better term) attitude towards war. Hence we do have some purely aggressive ship designs (most Escorts, some Cruisers), but I doubt a carrier is something they've given much thought to. And if they have, it's still only a blueprint.
That makes sense, a lot more than just saying Starfleet doesn't do warships.
What I'm saying is that the longer these wars go, the more Starfleet should realize that they don't have the luxury of just writing off the idea of warships. I would argue that they owe it to their men & women in uniform to give them whatever edge they can. With enemies like the Borg, you don't get to say "We don't do warships".
Precisely. The Federation is slowly waking up to this fact. Assuming the game lasts long enough, it'd be kind of interesting to see future Episodes tell a story of a Federation that starts to degrade into something more strongly resembling the Terran Empire.
I doubt starfleet would enjoy sending pilots to their deaths so easily, however, fighters do tend to carry heavy, disposable, weaponry for their size. This would be a definate candidate for Starfleet to look into dealing with.
Can we have an aegis destroyers please?
Lion.
I beg of you. Please do.