Yeah, I was going from memory on the NX crew.. And you are aware that we have the NX in game already, right? As a Light Escort in Tier 1? Purchasable from the C-Store? Here's a screenie.
I know its in game. The NX and Sovvy are my fave canon ships I actually have done those red alerts with the NX. It was fun. But like I said, it would possibly be on par with the BoP of that level bracket.
Wouldn't those limit playability Katic? I think the situations (like territorial conquest PvP) need to be implemented before the tools
Well, I was thinking that instead of Starfleet giving up their commitment to peacetime ship design, they would just press every boat available into duty. At least from the core worlds (Earth, Vulcan, Andoria, Tellar) that aren't directly threatened at this time. They do it with Science Vessels (ostensibly for research) why not with Planetary Defense Craft?
I know its in game. The NX and Sovvy are my fave canon ships I actually have done those red alerts with the NX. It was fun. But like I said, it would possibly be on par with the BoP of that level bracket.
You mean the (basic) B'Rel? I don't think so. B'Rels are more than a hundred years old, but the NX design is far older. And Klingon ships tend to have longer service lives than Fed ships (except the Excelsior, obviously). I would say the NX is on par with (maybe) a Delta Class shuttle in spite of it's larger size.
A ship used to defend military resources is still an aggressive ship (used solely for war) in my book. I am (and I'd bet you are) using the Wikipedia Article as a source.
Now, Frigates (which defend Merchant Navies), Corvettes (almost exclusively used for coastal duties), and Patrol Craft (coastal defense ships).. I want to see the Trek equivalent of those. Planetary defenders, intended to hold the invaders off just long enough for Starfleet proper to get there and fight them off in earnest.
well each type of ship, destroyer, corvette, frigates, anything could be classified as an aggressive ship or non aggressive. but atleast we need something whether it be a frigate or a destroyer, a corvette, carrier, battle cruiser, missile ship, or hell even a fire ship at this point i really dont care what we get just something new, and preferably from different fed races.
im not talking about throwing the NX in with its original specs, hell overhaul these buggers and you got a fairly manageable ship through computer systems and with newer weaponry hull materials etc. btw the Aquatic Xindi ships were not so big as to fit Odysseys in them, they had one port for ships and the enterprise fit in there nicely, it may be as big as the odyssey but not able to carry one.
Which is no different than a Capital ship going from wherever it is to a planet under attack.
You have to understand, one of the main sticking points is that a Carrier doesn't have any uses the ships Starfleet already builds (Cruisers, Science Vessels, Escorts) don't already do better.
The problem here lies in that that in Trek, you have subspace comms, different ships on different sides of the Quadrant can already communicate instantaneously. There's no need to have all the Pilots/Captains in the same room when you can have them all on the same comm channel.
You can have both, neither one is mutually exclusive. You can have pre-battle planning in the carrier while changing orders on the fly through comms. It's all about whether or not you'd force pilots to sit in the cockpit by themselves for long journeys, I doubt that'd really be good for morale. I understand for planets/starbases, carriers become redundant as you can just launch your interceptors and call it a day. But for incursions into deep space where your nearest starbase/habitable planet is days away, I doubt you'd force pilots to make such a long journey or if dealing with unmanned, you're starship would actually wait that long. Carriers are just as capable of being independent as your escort/cruiser/science ships, they're just another class of ship that fulfills a role.
There's something I see again and again in these debates, Pro-fed-Carrier posters who believe that a Carrier in STO would behave and function and be as useful as a modern Naval Aircraft Carrier.
This is a mistaken assumption.
They would never function as a modern Naval carrier as they wouldn't be limited to just launching fighter craft, they'd also have armaments themselves. If built right we could even send them into a planets atmosphere and assault planetary bases while the larger ships battle royal it out in space.
Modern Naval Carrier launch Fighters and Fighter/Bombers, which can do devastating damage to Sea and Land targets, as well as assist in defending the Carrier Battle Group from the just-as-devastating attacks of the Fighter/Bombers of the enemy.
Combat in Star Trek is more along the lines of the age of the Wooden Galleons before Air Power or Steel/Iron Hulls changed changed Naval Warfare forever. Large, heavily armed ships, slugging it out with broadsides, hoping to crack the opponents hulls.
Back then, ships were made of the densest Wood they could find, Cherry, Oak, Redwood for a short time.. The idea was that the cannon shot would have difficulty penetrating the wood, and the ship which took the most severe pounding, whose hull cracked first, lost.
The Constitution was nicknamed "Old Ironsides" precisely because it was so well constructed that it cannon shot bounced off.
In Trek, ships with Shields pound at each other with high powered energy weapons until one of their shields go down, at which point the one with shields intact starts launching energy explosives (Photons or Quantums in the canon0 in order to destroy their actual hull and the ship itself.
Fighters and other small Craft in Star Trek are not capable of this. With Shield Technology in use by all the major powers, as well as the lower damage threshold of the weaponry carried by small craft, the same capability Naval Carriers have for their Fighters does not apply. A Fighter or Shuttle or Drone in Trek does not have the armament to take down the shields of a Capital Ship, and Planetary Shields (as have been mentioned in the canon, though very few planets have them) can take entire fleets of Capital ships to take down.
Fighter's in Star Trek can be just as armed and potent in dealing with capital ships. They aren't singular craft, they operate in several wings or more and the combined firepower I assume would be ample enough to be a threat. We've seen peregrines able to mount beams or cannons and be just as detrimental to an enemy vessel. Fighter craft are also maneuverable/fast little buggers and I doubt they'd be easy targets to aim at even if you had the most advanced targeting computer.
Fighters in Trek are warp-capable, independent craft. They do not need refueling (except perhaps every few months, which can be done at a Starbase), they come equipped with Replicators, and so do not need resupply, Weapons (Phaser and Disruptor banks) recharge over time with power from the Warp Reactor, basic repairs can be done, again, at a Starbase, and Crew swaps are another thing that's only going to happen every few months (again, at a Starbase).
There's no need to waste resources building a Carrier and it's Fighters better spent on a Capital Ship which can take down another Capital Ship.
That's great if they're functioning as recon/courier vessels, but for a fighter craft it's not about how independent you are it's about how readily available you can be in a battle when it starts.
In Trek, fighters do not have this advantage. Every ship they target are going to be able to go just as fast if not faster because they're all moving in the vacuum of space. Energy weapons move just slightly slower than the speed of light, torpedoes track and home in on their targets..
Because fighter craft don't have the capability of destroying torpedoes?
To put it in better terms, Fighters in Trek can't do strafing runs on a Capital Ship, they can't do bombing runs and fly over the horizon, the Capital ship is going to be right behind them, with far better armor, and far more powerful weaponry. Fighters in Naval Warfare do strikes and go home, their targets can't follow them. In Trek, they can.
Sure we'll let that Capital ship chase that lone fighter while or other squadrons continue doing attack runs. Heck we might actually want our enemy to focus solely on that individual fighter who'll be able to dodge beam/cannon fire without a hitch while the capital ship is being pounded by our torpedoes and cannon fire. Lets not forget our carrier vessel is also armed itself and is also bombarding the capital ship too.
Large numbers of fighters may be able to gradually wear a Capital ship down, but as they try, the Capital ship is going to be picking them off, and it's large crew of highly trained professionals will be repairing damage as fast or faster than the Fighters can deal it.
Put a Carrier into the equation, and the Capital ship is going to take out the fighters, then go destroy the (now much less defended) Carrier.
Coordinated with other fighter craft you could do more than just pounding the hull of enemy craft, subsystem targeting comes to mind. I also doubt it'd be an easy task to take out fighter craft, beams and cannons can miss and an experienced pilot would be able to dodge those easily. Fighter craft are just as capable of being terrors in space just like any ship and their size shouldn't be underestimated.
And I'm in agreement. Variety and customization is absolutely essential for the good of the game. But this is not the kind we need. It's just a carbon copy of something the Klingons have. That's why I do support the idea of a fourth kind of Fed Ship, just not a Carrier or a Raider, which would be copying the KDF.
I just want a vessel capable of launching fighter craft while also armed itself. Of course I wouldn't want a vessel that just launched fighters and would be a sitting duck the entire match. I want a vessel that can launch fighters and be able to contribute to a fight.
You can have both, neither one is mutually exclusive. You can have pre-battle planning in the carrier while changing orders on the fly through comms. It's all about whether or not you'd force pilots to sit in the cockpit by themselves for long journeys, I doubt that'd really be good for morale. I understand for planets/starbases, carriers become redundant as you can just launch your interceptors and call it a day. But for incursions into deep space where your nearest starbase/habitable planet is days away, I doubt you'd force pilots to make such a long journey or if dealing with unmanned, you're starship would actually wait that long. Carriers are just as capable of being independent as your escort/cruiser/science ships, they're just another class of ship that fulfills a role.
They would never function as a modern Naval carrier as they wouldn't be limited to just launching fighter craft, they'd also have armaments themselves. If built right we could even send them into a planets atmosphere and assault planetary bases while the larger ships battle royal it out in space.
Fighter's in Star Trek can be just as armed and potent in dealing with capital ships. They aren't singular craft, they operate in several wings or more and the combined firepower I assume would be ample enough to be a threat. We've seen peregrines able to mount beams or cannons and be just as detrimental to an enemy vessel. Fighter craft are also maneuverable/fast little buggers and I doubt they'd be easy targets to aim at even if you had the most advanced targeting computer.
That's great if they're functioning as recon/courier vessels, but for a fighter craft it's not about how independent you are it's about how readily available you can be in a battle when it starts.
Because fighter craft don't have the capability of destroying torpedoes?
Sure we'll let that Capital ship chase that lone fighter while or other squadrons continue doing attack runs. Heck we might actually want our enemy to focus solely on that individual fighter who'll be able to dodge beam/cannon fire without a hitch while the capital ship is being pounded by our torpedoes and cannon fire. Lets not forget our carrier vessel is also armed itself and is also bombarding the capital ship too.
Coordinated with other fighter craft you could do more than just pounding the hull of enemy craft, subsystem targeting comes to mind. I also doubt it'd be an easy task to take out fighter craft, beams and cannons can miss and an experienced pilot would be able to dodge those easily. Fighter craft are just as capable of being terrors in space just like any ship and their size shouldn't be underestimated.
I just want a vessel capable of launching fighter craft while also armed itself. Of course I wouldn't want a vessel that just launched fighters and would be a sitting duck the entire match. I want a vessel that can launch fighters and be able to contribute to a fight.
You mean the (basic) B'Rel? I don't think so. B'Rels are more than a hundred years old, but the NX design is far older. And Klingon ships tend to have longer service lives than Fed ships (except the Excelsior, obviously). I would say the NX is on par with (maybe) a Delta Class shuttle in spite of it's larger size.
lol, no, modern refit. The B'rel and excelsior were heavily refit iver their lives. Since they tossed the NX in, why not make it more useful, similarly to the B'rel. That one ship Lockerd was talking about pressing in as a carrier, could carry some revamped NX's.
If that was a mission objective itself, you would be right.
But ships have actual missions, and Fighters are never the best choice in the Star Trek Universe. they simply lack the firepower or adaptability of a Capital ship.
Any realistic task a ship could be tasked with, evacuations, landing troops, research, exploration, defense, offense.. All are better handled by Cruisers, Science Vessels or Escorts. there's nothing A Carrier can do that Starfleets current ships can't do better, because launching fighters isn't a means to itself.
You can have both, neither one is mutually exclusive. You can have pre-battle planning in the carrier while changing orders on the fly through comms. It's all about whether or not you'd force pilots to sit in the cockpit by themselves for long journeys, I doubt that'd really be good for morale. I understand for planets/starbases, carriers become redundant as you can just launch your interceptors and call it a day. But for incursions into deep space where your nearest starbase/habitable planet is days away, I doubt you'd force pilots to make such a long journey or if dealing with unmanned, you're starship would actually wait that long. Carriers are just as capable of being independent as your escort/cruiser/science ships, they're just another class of ship that fulfills a role.
Peregrines have almost the same interiors as Runabouts, in fact, when showing Peregrine interiors, they reused those same sets. Peregrines aren't cramped one or two man jobs like modern naval Fighter Planes, they have beds in the aft section, replicators and room to stand and walk about in.
The role of a Carrier is unnecessary in the Trek universe because other ships do everything better and comfortable warp-capable Fighters don't need to be carried.
They would never function as a modern Naval carrier as they wouldn't be limited to just launching fighter craft, they'd also have armaments themselves. If built right we could even send them into a planets atmosphere and assault planetary bases while the larger ships battle royal it out in space.
Modern Carriers do have armaments themselves. Mainly anti-aircraft guns and surface to air missiles. A Carrier is designed to project air power. In Trek, Fighters can project themselves, but that doesn't matter because Fighters aren't as versatile or powerful as a Capital ship.
You know what "projecting force" is in Trek? It's when you put a Galaxy Class in orbit. Fighters are, as I've said before, an annoyance. In trek, small craft are no longer a valid tactical asset. Fighters and Carriers are obsolete.
Fighter's in Star Trek can be just as armed and potent in dealing with capital ships. They aren't singular craft, they operate in several wings or more and the combined firepower I assume would be ample enough to be a threat. We've seen peregrines able to mount beams or cannons and be just as detrimental to an enemy vessel. Fighter craft are also maneuverable/fast little buggers and I doubt they'd be easy targets to aim at even if you had the most advanced targeting computer.
No, we've seen Peregrines annoy Cardassian Capital ships. But even as annoying as they were, the Cardassians didn't feel the need to go after them. They simply didn't cause enough damage to be worth the trouble. The only reason the Cardassian ships attacked by the Fighters did eventually go after them was because Dukat was intentionally using them as an excuse to open a hole in their lines to try and lure Starfleet into a trap.
Here's the video. Watch it. The fellow who posted it gave it a new soundtrack and started creatively editing it around 3:40, but that's after the important part. Count how many Capital ships the Fighters destroy. I did, there were 0. None. Nada, zip, zilch. Not a single Cardassian ship destroyed by wings upon wings of Fighters.
That's great if they're functioning as recon/courier vessels, but for a fighter craft it's not about how independent you are it's about how readily available you can be in a battle when it starts.
Which again, for comfortable warp-capable Peregrines, does not depend on a Carrier vessel.
Because fighter craft don't have the capability of destroying torpedoes?
Not in the canon they can't. Or, at least we've never seen it done. Ever. And in STO, anything short of a Chroniton, Tricobalt, or High Yield Plasma is the same, un-targetable, un-destroyable.
Sure we'll let that Capital ship chase that lone fighter while or other squadrons continue doing attack runs. Heck we might actually want our enemy to focus solely on that individual fighter who'll be able to dodge beam/cannon fire without a hitch while the capital ship is being pounded by our torpedoes and cannon fire. Lets not forget our carrier vessel is also armed itself and is also bombarding the capital ship too.
Or, because, as I said, that Capital Ship has powerful shields, it can ignore the Fighters (with no danger to itself) and annihilate it's primary target.
Coordinated with other fighter craft you could do more than just pounding the hull of enemy craft, subsystem targeting comes to mind. I also doubt it'd be an easy task to take out fighter craft, beams and cannons can miss and an experienced pilot would be able to dodge those easily. Fighter craft are just as capable of being terrors in space just like any ship and their size shouldn't be underestimated.
Let me make this easy to follow logically:
Fighters in Trek are independent warp-capable craft.
Because of 1, Fighters in Trek do not need to be carried by Carriers.
Fighters in Trek do not have the armament necessary to destroy Capital Ships.
Because of 3, Fighters are not a valid tactical option for confronting Capital Ships.
Cruisers give up a significant portion of their individual offensive capability in order to become Carriers and carry Fighters.
3 and 5, combined, mean that Carriers, even with Fighters, are not a valid tactical option for confronting Capital Ships, they also mean that a normal Cruiser is a better use of resources than a Carrier and Fighters.
I just want a vessel capable of launching fighter craft while also armed itself. Of course I wouldn't want a vessel that just launched fighters and would be a sitting duck the entire match. I want a vessel that can launch fighters and be able to contribute to a fight.
Then go play a game set in another Sci-Fi franchise, because that's not realistic for Trek.
I support a Forth type of ship on the Federation side, now I don't have anything against Carriers but on the fed side a much more appropriate (to the IP) ship would be a TRUE Dreadnought such as a Jupiter in fact it would fit perfectly as a Tier 6 Vessel when they are brought into the game later this year. The Galaxy-X is a tier 5 Dreadnought-ISH Heavy Cruiser while A Tier 6 version would naturally be something far larger and more powerful such as a Jupiter class style Ship.
This thread has lots of details for any that are interested:
For a Tier 5 "Support" vessel for the Federation I really don't think a carrier would fit the IP but a Support vessel that could drop turrets or some form of stationary platform to either help fortify an area, and heal nearby allies passively or something along those lines I can see being much more IP appropriate for the Federation.
If that was a mission objective itself, you would be right.
But ships have actual missions, and Fighters are never the best choice in the Star Trek Universe. they simply lack the firepower or adaptability of a Capital ship.
Any realistic task a ship could be tasked with, evacuations, landing troops, research, exploration, defense, offense.. All are better handled by Cruisers, Science Vessels or Escorts. there's nothing A Carrier can do that Starfleets current ships can't do better, because launching fighters isn't a means to itself.
Peregrines have almost the same interiors as Runabouts, in fact, when showing Peregrine interiors, they reused those same sets. Peregrines aren't cramped one or two man jobs like modern naval Fighter Planes, they have beds in the aft section, replicators and room to stand and walk about in.
The role of a Carrier is unnecessary in the Trek universe because other ships do everything better and comfortable warp-capable Fighters don't need to be carried.
Modern Carriers do have armaments themselves. Mainly anti-aircraft guns and surface to air missiles. A Carrier is designed to project air power. In Trek, Fighters can project themselves, but that doesn't matter because Fighters aren't as versatile or powerful as a Capital ship.
You know what "projecting force" is in Trek? It's when you put a Galaxy Class in orbit. Fighters are, as I've said before, an annoyance. In trek, small craft are no longer a valid tactical asset. Fighters and Carriers are obsolete.
No, we've seen Peregrines annoy Cardassian Capital ships. But even as annoying as they were, the Cardassians didn't feel the need to go after them. They simply didn't cause enough damage to be worth the trouble. The only reason the Cardassian ships attacked by the Fighters did eventually go after them was because Dukat was intentionally using them as an excuse to open a hole in their lines to try and lure Starfleet into a trap.
Here's the video. Watch it. The fellow who posted it gave it a new soundtrack and started creatively editing it around 3:40, but that's after the important part. Count how many Capital ships the Fighters destroy. I did, there were 0. None. Nada, zip, zilch. Not a single Cardassian ship destroyed by wings upon wings of Fighters.
Which again, for comfortable warp-capable Peregrines, does not depend on a Carrier vessel.
Not in the canon they can't. Or, at least we've never seen it done. Ever. And in STO, anything short of a Chroniton, Tricobalt, or High Yield Plasma is the same, un-targetable, un-destroyable.
Or, because, as I said, that Capital Ship has powerful shields, it can ignore the Fighters (with no danger to itself) and annihilate it's primary target.
Let me make this easy to follow logically:
Fighters in Trek are independent warp-capable craft.
Because of 1, Fighters in Trek do not need to be carried by Carriers.
Fighters in Trek do not have the armament necessary to destroy Capital Ships.
Because of 3, Fighters are not a valid tactical option for confronting Capital Ships.
Cruisers give up a significant portion of their individual offensive capability in order to become Carriers and carry Fighters.
3 and 5, combined, mean that Carriers, even with Fighters, are not a valid tactical option for confronting Capital Ships, they also mean that a normal Cruiser is a better use of resources than a Carrier and Fighters.
Then go play a game set in another Sci-Fi franchise, because that's not realistic for Trek.
your missing the whole point, and stating irrelevant facts which were just disproved, and also in that video right around 2:50 you see the fighters destroy or atleast damage a ship really bad.
your missing the whole point, and stating irrelevant facts which were just disproved, and also in that video right around 2:50 you see the fighters destroy or atleast damage a ship really bad.
Really, disprove one fact I cited. In fact, cite one fact from Trek canon backing any of your own points.
Did you notice all those times the fighters got one-shotted by the Cardassians? Do you really think Fighters in Trek are still a logical tactical option for regular use after watching that video?
Because here's the thing: That's the only time the Federation ever used Peregrines as a part of a Fleet engagement. A move borne out of desperation. Not something they're likely to repeat, especially since it didn't work.
Also, that ship at 2:50? It was moving out of formation to go after the fighters. After all, that's what Dukat had just ordered them to do. It was no more damaged than any of the other ships the Fighters attacked.
If all you want is a fourth type of Starfleet ship, we can work together and come to an compromise. If the only thing you're interested in is a Carrier, that (working together towards a compromise) won't be possible because that's an unrealistic desire with regard to the fact that this game is based on the Star Trek canon.
[*]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.
[/LIST]
I would view a carrier as more of a mobile base... a hub rather than a weapon. I see no reason why a carrier could not be used as a vessel of exploration, a huge ship like that could be very well equipped with labs to carry out research like a science vessel and it also could be used to defend a planet/station by having the capability to launch vessels like the Klingon carrier does. Out of war time it could be loaded out with runabouts and small science vessels so it can go on deep space exploration way beyond Federation space.
I dont really care if the Federation get carriers or not but I do feel they have peacetime uses and can be very high value for Exploration, research and defence all rolled in to 1 vessel.
No, we've seen Peregrines annoy Cardassian Capital ships. But even as annoying as they were, the Cardassians didn't feel the need to go after them. They simply didn't cause enough damage to be worth the trouble. The only reason the Cardassian ships attacked by the Fighters did eventually go after them was because Dukat was intentionally using them as an excuse to open a hole in their lines to try and lure Starfleet into a trap.
Here's the video. Watch it. The fellow who posted it gave it a new soundtrack and started creatively editing it around 3:40, but that's after the important part. Count how many Capital ships the Fighters destroy. I did, there were 0. None. Nada, zip, zilch. Not a single Cardassian ship destroyed by wings upon wings of Fighters.
I don't think that's fair. The Federation ships that were up against that Dominion blockade were outnumbered IIRC 2:1 with the Dominion showing no signs of budging due to orders. Regardless if Sisko sent fighters or cruisers, there was no way any ship would have been able to break through the blockade if it weren't for Gul Dukat ordering a half dozen squadrons to go after the peregrine ships. Also be aware that the peregrine craft were supposed to be annoying not threatening, it was their job to harass the Cardassian ships into breaking off. Much of the peregrines attacking was spread out through multiple ships, not just one battleship so of course damage was insignificant.
Besides, they did accomplish their purpose. In a way they toyed with Gul Dukat into eventually thinking he could use Sisko's plan against him.
Because here's the thing: That's the only time the Federation ever used Peregrines as a part of a Fleet engagement. A move borne out of desperation. Not something they're likely to repeat, especially since it didn't work.
They were also seen in "What you leave you behind" not just "Sacrifice of Angels." One was also seen assisting the Defiant in "Shattered Mirror." too which took out a bird of prey locked on to the Defiant.
this is why this thread is up, so people can argue their debates and be proven wrong or right....also, Proxima Class has to be in game asap i need it as a Federation Battleship asap. CBS owns the rights to it so maybe it can become reality.
They were also seen in "What you leave you behind" not just "Sacrifice of Angels." One was also seen assisting the Defiant in "Shattered Mirror." too which took out a bird of prey locked on to the Defiant.
Shattered mirror took place in the mirror universe didn't it?
Anyway, what can a fighter do that a shuttle can't?
for one thing, it has more power for weapons, tougher armor and shields and possibly a torpedo launcher.
Ya know, I wonder. I don't think the peregrines were fighters, because of their size. They're bigger than runabouts. Look at the reman fighters. Bare bones. I think what people are calling fighters would be frivilous when you think about it. So much wasted resource and space.
I don't think that's fair. The Federation ships that were up against that Dominion blockade were outnumbered IIRC 2:1 with the Dominion showing no signs of budging due to orders. Regardless if Sisko sent fighters or cruisers, there was no way any ship would have been able to break through the blockade if it weren't for Gul Dukat ordering a half dozen squadrons to go after the peregrine ships. Also be aware that the peregrine craft were supposed to be annoying not threatening, it was their job to harass the Cardassian ships into breaking off. Much of the peregrines attacking was spread out through multiple ships, not just one battleship so of course damage was insignificant.
It was two to one, you did recall correctly. The Peregrines weren't tying to break through the blockade, only to anger a Cardassian into breaking formation, you know this. However, a small force of Escorts, tough enough not to be one-shotted, but small enough not to warrant the movement of the entire blockade, could have done the job, could have caused enough damage to drive a Cardassian Captain or two into a rage over their losses and make them break formation. As it was, nine waves of five fighters each couldn't even provoke a Cardassian.
Do you know how easy it is to provoke a Cardassian? Very.
Besides, they did accomplish their purpose. In a way they toyed with Gul Dukat into eventually thinking he could use Sisko's plan against him.
Actually, they didn't, as you admit but then reverse yourself (for some reason) The idea was to create a hole in the line so the Fleet could punch through that weakness and drive to DS9, where they would work to retake the station before the minefield fell.
Only the Defiant made it through. And if it hadn't been for Rom disabling the stations weapons, it would have been destroyed upon arrival.
The strategy was objectively a failure, and only the deus ex machina of the Wormhole Aliens prevented the Dominion from winning the war.
They were also seen in "What you leave you behind" not just "Sacrifice of Angels." One was also seen assisting the Defiant in "Shattered Mirror." too which took out a bird of prey locked on to the Defiant.
First off, Shattered Mirror was in the Mirror Universe. That's the Mirror Defiant, a Mirror Peregrine, and a Mirror BoP. The comparison doesn't hold water, especially since Mirror Universe technology is known to be inferior to the Prime Universes Technology (Klingons without Cloaking devices, for example).
And I think you should look back at the scenes with the Peregrines in "What you leave behind", it's mostly recycled footage from "Sacrifice of Angels". And again, we never see a Peregrine destroy a capital ship. Not to mention that the final push for Cardassia is, again, a desperate gamble with no guarantee of success.
if you listen to the Founder talking with Kira in that episode, as well as the briefing with Martok, Sisko, and VA Ross, we can estimate that the odds of success were probably 50/50.
There will never, ever, be a Starfleet carrier. That is word of dev. Repeated word of dev. Carriers are explicitly Klingon-exclusive content.
That is the way it should be.
Forget thematic and philosophical arguments. Forget parity. Fact is, the carrier is a Klingon feature. It's going to remain that way.
Unfortunately a Dev has already said that a possible Caitain Carrier is in the works, with possibly side firing weapon bays. So you are right in a way. The feds are not getting a carrier. They are getting a Carrier/Destroyer hybrid.
YaY! STO diversity and half-Sa'Hut-ery.
There will never, ever, be a Starfleet carrier. That is word of dev. Repeated word of dev. Carriers are explicitly Klingon-exclusive content.
That is the way it should be.
Forget thematic and philosophical arguments. Forget parity. Fact is, the carrier is a Klingon feature. It's going to remain that way.
Just like Gozer 100% emphatically stated that beyond all shadow of a doubt the STFs will never be reworked to be "PuG Friendly..."
Granted its debatable if the current incarnation of them can be defined as pug friendly, but between the queues, the splitting of the missions and the rest of the changes it sure seems like the intent was to do exactly the opposite of what was stated at a given point in time.
The only absolute in this game is everything is subject to change...
It was two to one, you did recall correctly. The Peregrines weren't tying to break through the blockade, only to anger a Cardassian into breaking formation, you know this. However, a small force of Escorts, tough enough not to be one-shotted, but small enough not to warrant the movement of the entire blockade, could have done the job, could have caused enough damage to drive a Cardassian Captain or two into a rage over their losses and make them break formation. As it was, nine waves of five fighters each couldn't even provoke a Cardassian.
Do you know how easy it is to provoke a Cardassian? Very.
I doubt escorts could do enough damage either, you're talking about a wall of enemy ships consisting of 1200+ that could open fire on your escorts if they even got into weapons range. There was no way the Federation would be able to break through regardless if you sent fighters or escorts.
And I think you should look back at the scenes with the Peregrines in "What you leave behind", it's mostly recycled footage from "Sacrifice of Angels". And again, we never see a Peregrine destroy a capital ship. Not to mention that the final push for Cardassia is, again, a desperate gamble with no guarantee of success.
if you listen to the Founder talking with Kira in that episode, as well as the briefing with Martok, Sisko, and VA Ross, we can estimate that the odds of success were probably 50/50.
Doesn't mean the peregrines didn't have an active role in the battle. Regardless of recycled scenes or not they were still present. There's really no way to tell how effective/ineffective they are being that Sacrifice had the Dominion outnumbering the Federation and What you Leave only showing brief glimpses of peregrine craft flying by.
While fighters have always been apart of air warfare, there was a reason for that, Fighters are more manuverable in the air, they have less resistance, less forces acting on them unlike their big brothers the larger planes.
in space while it has its own set of rules about how "Flight" works, at best its not "Flight" its more like a perptual Jump. Controled falling and pushing. its why the Federation ships don't land, and don't have Discernable wings, (You COULD call they pylons wings but thats another aregument) and the Combat shuttles we have seen are either scout ships (Insurection) a ship that needs to be small and manuverable in the ATMOSPHERE
space is more like an ocean, with starships being more like Subs. While its almost as sacraligous to bring these two up in comparesion I shall
First Star Wars,
Why did they have fighters? Answer : The defense systems on the larger ships were ment to fend of large ships, but they also used a Balistic base weapon (Plasma BLOTS) and while the targeting computers were good, it still took manual aiming to hit a target, Human errror, and the faster a target goes the harder it is for a human to hit it. but even then, fighters were slaughtered by the DOZENS when they were against the star destroyer just by crossfire.
Now take this into consideration in star trek Beam weapons have almost removed human error in Ship to Ship fighting, yes it is harder to hit a faster moving target but the computers are so good, it only take a couple of shots to hit it, and since the time from fire to hit is almost instant it doesn't require any leading by the gunner.
Now lets look at BSG
Again they had fighters, but look at what they had, a Large Battlestar (Carrier) with alot of firepower and alot of point defense. why did they have fighters? BALLISTIC WEAPONS, here the weapons are bullets, there are no Lasers, turbolasers phasors, or Turboplasmaphasors. balistic weapons in space operate on two laws. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, and an object in motion tends to stay inmotion unless acted apon by an equal but opposite force.
Fighters dominated there because there were no shields as well, it let smaller more manuverable ships hit key systems, and since balistic weapons take time to go from point a to point b. I admint in space it probably travels alot faster ((since there is no resistance once fired)) but still there isn't an instant hit, meaning the closer you are the more likely you are to hit, and putting a Carrier right next to another carrier just insures mutial death,
In star treak fighters probably existed for along time until the first starship and the first space battle, even probably fighting for the first few as well before being proven useless.
the reasons these hypothetical fighters were dummied out are as follows
the advent of phasors reduced the need for human aiming skill, the need to be sure every round fired will hit. while also reducing the efficancy for a fighters. since there was no "dodging" (More like luck) invovled any more.
the Federation operates in SPACE not in the air or ground. I'm sure. No almost positive that if there was ever a large scale war between one race and the federation and the entire race was like that ((Lets say the borg but unable to adapt)) whats to stop lets say Enterprise from geting into a very high orbet targeting a bunker and blowing it to kingdom come, safe from Surface to Air attacks ((Another failing of fighters))
on top of this, Federation ships DO NOT LAND, They don't need to, they have teleporters, there is no "Landing zone" its this is a good spot to put troops place them here *Bam* instant 50 some odd soldiers and supplies out of no where.
the klingons really shouldn't have a Carrier either, since their BoPs are more than capable of surviving on their own long journeys. fighters once again causing lives and resources, a BOP can enter atmosphere ((Something a Federation ship can't do, well maybe the defiant)) but its wings let it manuver in skyies, allowing more carpet bombing tactics, but again while its much more devistating that a precision phasor strike from the enterprise. its much more dangerous, but thats how the klingons work. they pride them selves on being dangerous and not always doing the smart move,
A BoP doing a bombing run will deffinatly stop any advancing ground forces cold. all it would take would be the federation ship to shot it from orbit, and while yes their manuverability does cause problems to ships that don't have a 360 defense range most ships do.
Another thing you have to consider is the BoP is comparable to the old TOS enterprise in terms of tech. If a BoP can fly, mount guns, and fight, to klingons they are considered ready for active duty, the federation keeps all of their ships up to scuff.
BoPs are a dying relic from an old way of fighting, Carriers have already gone the way of the dinosaur because of the major failings a fighter would have against a modern enemy ship, a ship what has the accuracy to hit a fighter, but with weapons designed to rip a ship the size of a small moon to shreads.
The closest the federation will ever get to fighters are the escorts. and there is a reason
you know how I said space has diffrent rules than Air? it does, it also has its own resistances, because there isn't any air on wings, turning is indeed hard for larger ships, as well as stoping. escorts are designed to deal with hit and run tactics, using higher power weapons, high accuracy fighting that just won't allow for a full 360 arc of fire.
Think of it this way,
Escorts are star treks fighters, just larger, Much, much larger, they have more directional weapons but the are a very Specific job, Defend. An example would be the Enterprise Vs the Defiant,
The enterprise has Torpedos, and Phasor arrays standard, 360 fireing arc for phasors, torpedos directional (Foward back)
to avoid taking massive damage any body can say go in from the sides, but that opens you up to Two arrays,
either way your taking a hit, the defiant on the other hand may have arrays as well, but it also is much Smaller, allowing it to turn and pelt torpedos and more directional weapons on a target,
so while the enterprise has two phasors on the defiant, the definat comming in on the enterprises side has 3 phasors and 2 torpedos on it.
This is a standard fighter technic come in where its weak, but you have to take into consideration of shields, shields change the game, a ship like the enterprise has more energy to power their shields, and if the focus the energy on their side, they would only feel a bit of bleed through, the defiant doesn't have as powerful of a shield or even as much energy.
By this the escort is actually pretty much done for right? Why do we have escorts?
Because NEVER does a BoP, fight alone, yea the enterprise would decimate any lone Escort but lets give the escort 9 friends with him, that much focused power (Since as stated earlier escorts have more directional weapons to reduce size)) would equate to about 2 crusiers broad siding another cruiser. why not just do that though?
Have 2 cruisers on one cruiser? because all one cruiser has to do is focus on one, disable it and its a fair fight, with 10 escorts, you can lose one and still hit hard,
the escorts we have are to PREVENT that. they arn't fighters, in all honesty in a real situation an escort could just be a floating robot gun turret and show the same results, why doesn't the federation do that?
Resources, if an escort was a robot, there would need to be a Control ship, a Carrier, if you will.
so lets have a theoretical battle now
Voyager.Defiant.Enterprise VS An alien Carrier with Drones equating to about half a defiant ((2 drones= a definat size wise) with about 15 drones
The defiant's job here is to keep the drones from dealing to much damage to the enterprise and voyager, keeping the drones off the two ships vunerable size, the Enterprise is the main power house, one shotting or two shotting the drones with its weapons. the Voyager providing support such as extending its shields. the three ships move on the carrier, now much lighter due to drones being deployed, it lines up for a broad side, somethinhg that takes a while since its still heavy. The enterprise puts its shields to maximum while the defiant is taking some damage but doing its job, the drones now sensing the plan of the ships start defending the carrier
This is where the Voyager sneaks in and deals a hit to the control tower, the loss of signal kills the drones, one shot to defeat a swarm. if the Voyager was lost, would the defiant have stoped attacking the drones? the fighters? no, it would have redoubled its efforts to protect the enterprise.
you do realize the federation ships can land right? they dont need to mind you but they do land. in fact it has been repeated somewhere in the dev log or something the devs awnsered which requested why the saucer sections of certain ships had small squares, this is becuse they were desigend to land.
On top of this, Federation ships DO NOT LAND, They don't need to, they have teleporters, there is no "Landing zone" its this is a good spot to put troops place them here *Bam* instant 50 some odd soldiers and supplies out of no where.
you do realize the federation ships can land right? they dont need to mind you but they do land. in fact it has been repeated somewhere in the dev log or something the devs awnsered which requested why the saucer sections of certain ships had small squares, this is becuse they were desigend to land.
also voyager has landed on numerous occasions.
Interestingly enough, you're both right. The Constitution & Galaxy Saucers, the Defiant Class, the Nova/Rhode Island Class, and the Intrepid class were all capable of landing planetside.
However, the landing capabilities of the Constitution, & Galaxy Saucers, as well as the Defiant, were for emergency purposes. Say they had a catastrophic hull breach and an ongoing cascade failure in the main computer (shortly to disable the emergency force fields containing the breach). They were landing capable in the hopes that they would be able to get down to an M Class Planet and land as a last resort just short of completely abandoning the ship.
The Nova/Rhode Island and Intrepid classes had landing capability for a different reason. They're science vessels, and their design philosophy took into account that they may be assigned to long term assignments on one planet, say, cataloging a unique ecosystem, or observing an interesting (but safe) geological event. They were designed to land so that instead of beaming researchers down, and back up, and down, and back up, and.. Instead of that, they could land and become a temporary base camp for the researchers.
Both of these uses are consistent with the non-aggressive nature of Starfleet.
However, when it comes to landing Troops, a Galaxy Class, with bunk room for more than 8500 troops, 6 Transporters, and three shuttlebays, can easily ground mass amounts of troops far faster, and with less expense, than a landed purpose built landing craft. And the idea of building an entirely Carrier in case they need to ground troops, well, that's just silly.
I doubt escorts could do enough damage either, you're talking about a wall of enemy ships consisting of 1200+ that could open fire on your escorts if they even got into weapons range. There was no way the Federation would be able to break through regardless if you sent fighters or escorts.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I don't think sending Defiants instead of Peregrines would have allowed the fleet to punch through, I think Defiants instead of Peregrines would have succeeded in getting some Cardassians angry because they could have destroyed a Cardassian ship or two.
Doesn't mean the peregrines didn't have an active role in the battle. Regardless of recycled scenes or not they were still present. There's really no way to tell how effective/ineffective they are being that Sacrifice had the Dominion outnumbering the Federation and What you Leave only showing brief glimpses of peregrine craft flying by.
That fact that we never saw a Peregrine destroy a single Capital ship through the course of the entire war speaks volumes about their effectiveness.
[QUOTE=Katic;4036343That fact that we never saw a Peregrine destroy a single Capital ship through the course of the entire war speaks volumes about their effectiveness.[/QUOTE]
Never got a chance to, their firepower was just too spread out while also dodging adjacent ships firing at them. It was never Sisko's intention to utilize his fighter wings in destroying enemy ships, he just just hoping that he could use them to goad the Cardassians enough to break formation. It'd be the same with escort ships too. You could manage to destroy a ship, but then you'd lose yours in the process. How many escorts and personnel would we lose if we had just sent them in the place of peregrines? At least with peregrine craft the casualties are minimal.
Comments
I know its in game. The NX and Sovvy are my fave canon ships
Well, I was thinking that instead of Starfleet giving up their commitment to peacetime ship design, they would just press every boat available into duty. At least from the core worlds (Earth, Vulcan, Andoria, Tellar) that aren't directly threatened at this time. They do it with Science Vessels (ostensibly for research) why not with Planetary Defense Craft?
You mean the (basic) B'Rel? I don't think so. B'Rels are more than a hundred years old, but the NX design is far older. And Klingon ships tend to have longer service lives than Fed ships (except the Excelsior, obviously). I would say the NX is on par with (maybe) a Delta Class shuttle in spite of it's larger size.
well each type of ship, destroyer, corvette, frigates, anything could be classified as an aggressive ship or non aggressive. but atleast we need something whether it be a frigate or a destroyer, a corvette, carrier, battle cruiser, missile ship, or hell even a fire ship at this point i really dont care what we get just something new, and preferably from different fed races.
Except launch fighter craft.
You can have both, neither one is mutually exclusive. You can have pre-battle planning in the carrier while changing orders on the fly through comms. It's all about whether or not you'd force pilots to sit in the cockpit by themselves for long journeys, I doubt that'd really be good for morale. I understand for planets/starbases, carriers become redundant as you can just launch your interceptors and call it a day. But for incursions into deep space where your nearest starbase/habitable planet is days away, I doubt you'd force pilots to make such a long journey or if dealing with unmanned, you're starship would actually wait that long. Carriers are just as capable of being independent as your escort/cruiser/science ships, they're just another class of ship that fulfills a role.
They would never function as a modern Naval carrier as they wouldn't be limited to just launching fighter craft, they'd also have armaments themselves. If built right we could even send them into a planets atmosphere and assault planetary bases while the larger ships battle royal it out in space.
Fighter's in Star Trek can be just as armed and potent in dealing with capital ships. They aren't singular craft, they operate in several wings or more and the combined firepower I assume would be ample enough to be a threat. We've seen peregrines able to mount beams or cannons and be just as detrimental to an enemy vessel. Fighter craft are also maneuverable/fast little buggers and I doubt they'd be easy targets to aim at even if you had the most advanced targeting computer.
That's great if they're functioning as recon/courier vessels, but for a fighter craft it's not about how independent you are it's about how readily available you can be in a battle when it starts.
Because fighter craft don't have the capability of destroying torpedoes?
Sure we'll let that Capital ship chase that lone fighter while or other squadrons continue doing attack runs. Heck we might actually want our enemy to focus solely on that individual fighter who'll be able to dodge beam/cannon fire without a hitch while the capital ship is being pounded by our torpedoes and cannon fire. Lets not forget our carrier vessel is also armed itself and is also bombarding the capital ship too.
Coordinated with other fighter craft you could do more than just pounding the hull of enemy craft, subsystem targeting comes to mind. I also doubt it'd be an easy task to take out fighter craft, beams and cannons can miss and an experienced pilot would be able to dodge those easily. Fighter craft are just as capable of being terrors in space just like any ship and their size shouldn't be underestimated.
I just want a vessel capable of launching fighter craft while also armed itself. Of course I wouldn't want a vessel that just launched fighters and would be a sitting duck the entire match. I want a vessel that can launch fighters and be able to contribute to a fight.
i approve of this
lol, no, modern refit. The B'rel and excelsior were heavily refit iver their lives. Since they tossed the NX in, why not make it more useful, similarly to the B'rel. That one ship Lockerd was talking about pressing in as a carrier, could carry some revamped NX's.
If that was a mission objective itself, you would be right.
But ships have actual missions, and Fighters are never the best choice in the Star Trek Universe. they simply lack the firepower or adaptability of a Capital ship.
Any realistic task a ship could be tasked with, evacuations, landing troops, research, exploration, defense, offense.. All are better handled by Cruisers, Science Vessels or Escorts. there's nothing A Carrier can do that Starfleets current ships can't do better, because launching fighters isn't a means to itself.
Peregrines have almost the same interiors as Runabouts, in fact, when showing Peregrine interiors, they reused those same sets. Peregrines aren't cramped one or two man jobs like modern naval Fighter Planes, they have beds in the aft section, replicators and room to stand and walk about in.
The role of a Carrier is unnecessary in the Trek universe because other ships do everything better and comfortable warp-capable Fighters don't need to be carried.
Modern Carriers do have armaments themselves. Mainly anti-aircraft guns and surface to air missiles. A Carrier is designed to project air power. In Trek, Fighters can project themselves, but that doesn't matter because Fighters aren't as versatile or powerful as a Capital ship.
You know what "projecting force" is in Trek? It's when you put a Galaxy Class in orbit. Fighters are, as I've said before, an annoyance. In trek, small craft are no longer a valid tactical asset. Fighters and Carriers are obsolete.
No, we've seen Peregrines annoy Cardassian Capital ships. But even as annoying as they were, the Cardassians didn't feel the need to go after them. They simply didn't cause enough damage to be worth the trouble. The only reason the Cardassian ships attacked by the Fighters did eventually go after them was because Dukat was intentionally using them as an excuse to open a hole in their lines to try and lure Starfleet into a trap.
Here's the video. Watch it. The fellow who posted it gave it a new soundtrack and started creatively editing it around 3:40, but that's after the important part. Count how many Capital ships the Fighters destroy. I did, there were 0. None. Nada, zip, zilch. Not a single Cardassian ship destroyed by wings upon wings of Fighters.
Which again, for comfortable warp-capable Peregrines, does not depend on a Carrier vessel.
Not in the canon they can't. Or, at least we've never seen it done. Ever. And in STO, anything short of a Chroniton, Tricobalt, or High Yield Plasma is the same, un-targetable, un-destroyable.
Or, because, as I said, that Capital Ship has powerful shields, it can ignore the Fighters (with no danger to itself) and annihilate it's primary target.
Let me make this easy to follow logically:
Then go play a game set in another Sci-Fi franchise, because that's not realistic for Trek.
This thread has lots of details for any that are interested:
http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=219190
For a Tier 5 "Support" vessel for the Federation I really don't think a carrier would fit the IP but a Support vessel that could drop turrets or some form of stationary platform to either help fortify an area, and heal nearby allies passively or something along those lines I can see being much more IP appropriate for the Federation.
your missing the whole point, and stating irrelevant facts which were just disproved, and also in that video right around 2:50 you see the fighters destroy or atleast damage a ship really bad.
Really, disprove one fact I cited. In fact, cite one fact from Trek canon backing any of your own points.
Did you notice all those times the fighters got one-shotted by the Cardassians? Do you really think Fighters in Trek are still a logical tactical option for regular use after watching that video?
Because here's the thing: That's the only time the Federation ever used Peregrines as a part of a Fleet engagement. A move borne out of desperation. Not something they're likely to repeat, especially since it didn't work.
Also, that ship at 2:50? It was moving out of formation to go after the fighters. After all, that's what Dukat had just ordered them to do. It was no more damaged than any of the other ships the Fighters attacked.
If all you want is a fourth type of Starfleet ship, we can work together and come to an compromise. If the only thing you're interested in is a Carrier, that (working together towards a compromise) won't be possible because that's an unrealistic desire with regard to the fact that this game is based on the Star Trek canon.
I would view a carrier as more of a mobile base... a hub rather than a weapon. I see no reason why a carrier could not be used as a vessel of exploration, a huge ship like that could be very well equipped with labs to carry out research like a science vessel and it also could be used to defend a planet/station by having the capability to launch vessels like the Klingon carrier does. Out of war time it could be loaded out with runabouts and small science vessels so it can go on deep space exploration way beyond Federation space.
I dont really care if the Federation get carriers or not but I do feel they have peacetime uses and can be very high value for Exploration, research and defence all rolled in to 1 vessel.
I don't think that's fair. The Federation ships that were up against that Dominion blockade were outnumbered IIRC 2:1 with the Dominion showing no signs of budging due to orders. Regardless if Sisko sent fighters or cruisers, there was no way any ship would have been able to break through the blockade if it weren't for Gul Dukat ordering a half dozen squadrons to go after the peregrine ships. Also be aware that the peregrine craft were supposed to be annoying not threatening, it was their job to harass the Cardassian ships into breaking off. Much of the peregrines attacking was spread out through multiple ships, not just one battleship so of course damage was insignificant.
Besides, they did accomplish their purpose. In a way they toyed with Gul Dukat into eventually thinking he could use Sisko's plan against him.
They were also seen in "What you leave you behind" not just "Sacrifice of Angels." One was also seen assisting the Defiant in "Shattered Mirror." too which took out a bird of prey locked on to the Defiant.
Shattered mirror took place in the mirror universe didn't it?
Anyway, what can a fighter do that a shuttle can't?
Ya know, I wonder. I don't think the peregrines were fighters, because of their size. They're bigger than runabouts. Look at the reman fighters. Bare bones. I think what people are calling fighters would be frivilous when you think about it. So much wasted resource and space.
It was two to one, you did recall correctly. The Peregrines weren't tying to break through the blockade, only to anger a Cardassian into breaking formation, you know this. However, a small force of Escorts, tough enough not to be one-shotted, but small enough not to warrant the movement of the entire blockade, could have done the job, could have caused enough damage to drive a Cardassian Captain or two into a rage over their losses and make them break formation. As it was, nine waves of five fighters each couldn't even provoke a Cardassian.
Do you know how easy it is to provoke a Cardassian? Very.
Actually, they didn't, as you admit but then reverse yourself (for some reason) The idea was to create a hole in the line so the Fleet could punch through that weakness and drive to DS9, where they would work to retake the station before the minefield fell.
Only the Defiant made it through. And if it hadn't been for Rom disabling the stations weapons, it would have been destroyed upon arrival.
The strategy was objectively a failure, and only the deus ex machina of the Wormhole Aliens prevented the Dominion from winning the war.
First off, Shattered Mirror was in the Mirror Universe. That's the Mirror Defiant, a Mirror Peregrine, and a Mirror BoP. The comparison doesn't hold water, especially since Mirror Universe technology is known to be inferior to the Prime Universes Technology (Klingons without Cloaking devices, for example).
And I think you should look back at the scenes with the Peregrines in "What you leave behind", it's mostly recycled footage from "Sacrifice of Angels". And again, we never see a Peregrine destroy a capital ship. Not to mention that the final push for Cardassia is, again, a desperate gamble with no guarantee of success.
if you listen to the Founder talking with Kira in that episode, as well as the briefing with Martok, Sisko, and VA Ross, we can estimate that the odds of success were probably 50/50.
That is the way it should be.
Forget thematic and philosophical arguments. Forget parity. Fact is, the carrier is a Klingon feature. It's going to remain that way.
Unfortunately a Dev has already said that a possible Caitain Carrier is in the works, with possibly side firing weapon bays. So you are right in a way. The feds are not getting a carrier. They are getting a Carrier/Destroyer hybrid.
YaY! STO diversity and half-Sa'Hut-ery.
devs have never said that, they said "it is not on our board at the moment" and that was a year ago now people are stringing the idea around.
Just like Gozer 100% emphatically stated that beyond all shadow of a doubt the STFs will never be reworked to be "PuG Friendly..."
Granted its debatable if the current incarnation of them can be defined as pug friendly, but between the queues, the splitting of the missions and the rest of the changes it sure seems like the intent was to do exactly the opposite of what was stated at a given point in time.
The only absolute in this game is everything is subject to change...
I doubt escorts could do enough damage either, you're talking about a wall of enemy ships consisting of 1200+ that could open fire on your escorts if they even got into weapons range. There was no way the Federation would be able to break through regardless if you sent fighters or escorts.
Doesn't mean the peregrines didn't have an active role in the battle. Regardless of recycled scenes or not they were still present. There's really no way to tell how effective/ineffective they are being that Sacrifice had the Dominion outnumbering the Federation and What you Leave only showing brief glimpses of peregrine craft flying by.
While fighters have always been apart of air warfare, there was a reason for that, Fighters are more manuverable in the air, they have less resistance, less forces acting on them unlike their big brothers the larger planes.
in space while it has its own set of rules about how "Flight" works, at best its not "Flight" its more like a perptual Jump. Controled falling and pushing. its why the Federation ships don't land, and don't have Discernable wings, (You COULD call they pylons wings but thats another aregument) and the Combat shuttles we have seen are either scout ships (Insurection) a ship that needs to be small and manuverable in the ATMOSPHERE
space is more like an ocean, with starships being more like Subs. While its almost as sacraligous to bring these two up in comparesion I shall
First Star Wars,
Why did they have fighters? Answer : The defense systems on the larger ships were ment to fend of large ships, but they also used a Balistic base weapon (Plasma BLOTS) and while the targeting computers were good, it still took manual aiming to hit a target, Human errror, and the faster a target goes the harder it is for a human to hit it. but even then, fighters were slaughtered by the DOZENS when they were against the star destroyer just by crossfire.
Now take this into consideration in star trek Beam weapons have almost removed human error in Ship to Ship fighting, yes it is harder to hit a faster moving target but the computers are so good, it only take a couple of shots to hit it, and since the time from fire to hit is almost instant it doesn't require any leading by the gunner.
Now lets look at BSG
Again they had fighters, but look at what they had, a Large Battlestar (Carrier) with alot of firepower and alot of point defense. why did they have fighters? BALLISTIC WEAPONS, here the weapons are bullets, there are no Lasers, turbolasers phasors, or Turboplasmaphasors. balistic weapons in space operate on two laws. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, and an object in motion tends to stay inmotion unless acted apon by an equal but opposite force.
Fighters dominated there because there were no shields as well, it let smaller more manuverable ships hit key systems, and since balistic weapons take time to go from point a to point b. I admint in space it probably travels alot faster ((since there is no resistance once fired)) but still there isn't an instant hit, meaning the closer you are the more likely you are to hit, and putting a Carrier right next to another carrier just insures mutial death,
In star treak fighters probably existed for along time until the first starship and the first space battle, even probably fighting for the first few as well before being proven useless.
the reasons these hypothetical fighters were dummied out are as follows
the advent of phasors reduced the need for human aiming skill, the need to be sure every round fired will hit. while also reducing the efficancy for a fighters. since there was no "dodging" (More like luck) invovled any more.
the Federation operates in SPACE not in the air or ground. I'm sure. No almost positive that if there was ever a large scale war between one race and the federation and the entire race was like that ((Lets say the borg but unable to adapt)) whats to stop lets say Enterprise from geting into a very high orbet targeting a bunker and blowing it to kingdom come, safe from Surface to Air attacks ((Another failing of fighters))
on top of this, Federation ships DO NOT LAND, They don't need to, they have teleporters, there is no "Landing zone" its this is a good spot to put troops place them here *Bam* instant 50 some odd soldiers and supplies out of no where.
the klingons really shouldn't have a Carrier either, since their BoPs are more than capable of surviving on their own long journeys. fighters once again causing lives and resources, a BOP can enter atmosphere ((Something a Federation ship can't do, well maybe the defiant)) but its wings let it manuver in skyies, allowing more carpet bombing tactics, but again while its much more devistating that a precision phasor strike from the enterprise. its much more dangerous, but thats how the klingons work. they pride them selves on being dangerous and not always doing the smart move,
A BoP doing a bombing run will deffinatly stop any advancing ground forces cold. all it would take would be the federation ship to shot it from orbit, and while yes their manuverability does cause problems to ships that don't have a 360 defense range most ships do.
Another thing you have to consider is the BoP is comparable to the old TOS enterprise in terms of tech. If a BoP can fly, mount guns, and fight, to klingons they are considered ready for active duty, the federation keeps all of their ships up to scuff.
BoPs are a dying relic from an old way of fighting, Carriers have already gone the way of the dinosaur because of the major failings a fighter would have against a modern enemy ship, a ship what has the accuracy to hit a fighter, but with weapons designed to rip a ship the size of a small moon to shreads.
The closest the federation will ever get to fighters are the escorts. and there is a reason
you know how I said space has diffrent rules than Air? it does, it also has its own resistances, because there isn't any air on wings, turning is indeed hard for larger ships, as well as stoping. escorts are designed to deal with hit and run tactics, using higher power weapons, high accuracy fighting that just won't allow for a full 360 arc of fire.
Think of it this way,
Escorts are star treks fighters, just larger, Much, much larger, they have more directional weapons but the are a very Specific job, Defend. An example would be the Enterprise Vs the Defiant,
The enterprise has Torpedos, and Phasor arrays standard, 360 fireing arc for phasors, torpedos directional (Foward back)
to avoid taking massive damage any body can say go in from the sides, but that opens you up to Two arrays,
either way your taking a hit, the defiant on the other hand may have arrays as well, but it also is much Smaller, allowing it to turn and pelt torpedos and more directional weapons on a target,
so while the enterprise has two phasors on the defiant, the definat comming in on the enterprises side has 3 phasors and 2 torpedos on it.
This is a standard fighter technic come in where its weak, but you have to take into consideration of shields, shields change the game, a ship like the enterprise has more energy to power their shields, and if the focus the energy on their side, they would only feel a bit of bleed through, the defiant doesn't have as powerful of a shield or even as much energy.
By this the escort is actually pretty much done for right? Why do we have escorts?
Because NEVER does a BoP, fight alone, yea the enterprise would decimate any lone Escort but lets give the escort 9 friends with him, that much focused power (Since as stated earlier escorts have more directional weapons to reduce size)) would equate to about 2 crusiers broad siding another cruiser. why not just do that though?
Have 2 cruisers on one cruiser? because all one cruiser has to do is focus on one, disable it and its a fair fight, with 10 escorts, you can lose one and still hit hard,
the escorts we have are to PREVENT that. they arn't fighters, in all honesty in a real situation an escort could just be a floating robot gun turret and show the same results, why doesn't the federation do that?
Resources, if an escort was a robot, there would need to be a Control ship, a Carrier, if you will.
so lets have a theoretical battle now
Voyager.Defiant.Enterprise VS An alien Carrier with Drones equating to about half a defiant ((2 drones= a definat size wise) with about 15 drones
The defiant's job here is to keep the drones from dealing to much damage to the enterprise and voyager, keeping the drones off the two ships vunerable size, the Enterprise is the main power house, one shotting or two shotting the drones with its weapons. the Voyager providing support such as extending its shields. the three ships move on the carrier, now much lighter due to drones being deployed, it lines up for a broad side, somethinhg that takes a while since its still heavy. The enterprise puts its shields to maximum while the defiant is taking some damage but doing its job, the drones now sensing the plan of the ships start defending the carrier
This is where the Voyager sneaks in and deals a hit to the control tower, the loss of signal kills the drones, one shot to defeat a swarm. if the Voyager was lost, would the defiant have stoped attacking the drones? the fighters? no, it would have redoubled its efforts to protect the enterprise.
also voyager has landed on numerous occasions.
Interestingly enough, you're both right. The Constitution & Galaxy Saucers, the Defiant Class, the Nova/Rhode Island Class, and the Intrepid class were all capable of landing planetside.
However, the landing capabilities of the Constitution, & Galaxy Saucers, as well as the Defiant, were for emergency purposes. Say they had a catastrophic hull breach and an ongoing cascade failure in the main computer (shortly to disable the emergency force fields containing the breach). They were landing capable in the hopes that they would be able to get down to an M Class Planet and land as a last resort just short of completely abandoning the ship.
The Nova/Rhode Island and Intrepid classes had landing capability for a different reason. They're science vessels, and their design philosophy took into account that they may be assigned to long term assignments on one planet, say, cataloging a unique ecosystem, or observing an interesting (but safe) geological event. They were designed to land so that instead of beaming researchers down, and back up, and down, and back up, and.. Instead of that, they could land and become a temporary base camp for the researchers.
Both of these uses are consistent with the non-aggressive nature of Starfleet.
However, when it comes to landing Troops, a Galaxy Class, with bunk room for more than 8500 troops, 6 Transporters, and three shuttlebays, can easily ground mass amounts of troops far faster, and with less expense, than a landed purpose built landing craft. And the idea of building an entirely Carrier in case they need to ground troops, well, that's just silly.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I don't think sending Defiants instead of Peregrines would have allowed the fleet to punch through, I think Defiants instead of Peregrines would have succeeded in getting some Cardassians angry because they could have destroyed a Cardassian ship or two.
That fact that we never saw a Peregrine destroy a single Capital ship through the course of the entire war speaks volumes about their effectiveness.
Never got a chance to, their firepower was just too spread out while also dodging adjacent ships firing at them. It was never Sisko's intention to utilize his fighter wings in destroying enemy ships, he just just hoping that he could use them to goad the Cardassians enough to break formation. It'd be the same with escort ships too. You could manage to destroy a ship, but then you'd lose yours in the process. How many escorts and personnel would we lose if we had just sent them in the place of peregrines? At least with peregrine craft the casualties are minimal.