well that statement has so many things wrong with it yet so many good points. See heres the thing,
the defiant class was originaly designed to take on the borg so it would be fighting the equivelent if not greater of the Federation capital ships therefore it can take on capital ships.
Also the runabouts have been seen to be able to take a few hits from normal trek weapons even type 6 shuttles. weather they are a match for the enemy in terms of weaponry is another thing.
I never really did want a federation carrier but more of an effective counter against the klingon dreadnought.
the drones seemed like an idea at the time which could be benaficial. I dont like Carriers in PVP but i do love them in PVE.
though the Gal-X is a good weapon platform it is far from a dreadnought or even an effective counter to the klingon dreadnought.
I just want a ship which can hold a fleet unto its own, and if fighter craft in the form of drones is an effective way of doing it then so be it but unless we got a decent weapon platform cruiser that isn't the Gal-x then we will always have the thought of a Fed Carrier.
almost all points of why feds shouldnt have carriers are stupid and are just wrong. carriers are a necessity.
your handle is an apt description of this post.
Lockers, the dreadnaught wasn't a counter to carriers. Carriers were the counter to them. A destroyer would be a counter to a carrier. At least it's fighters.
Carriers tend to not be solitary ships. Huge investments in personnel and resources need protection. Whereas a cruiser or destroyer can operate alone. I actually think the gal-x with all turrets would be decent at ant-fighter protection. Big ship for that job though, lol
Lockers, the dreadnaught wasn't a counter to carriers. Carriers were the counter to them. A destroyer would be a counter to a carrier. At least it's fighters.
Carriers tend to not be solitary ships. Huge investments in personnel and resources need protection. Whereas a cruiser or destroyer can operate alone. I actually think the gal-x with all turrets would be decent at ant-fighter protection. Big ship for that job though, lol
yea and its also a great detterent to escorts as I have learned first hand.
Though the klingon Carrier is actualy a Dreadnought in its classification and such.
Alright so they're versatile, they're independent. They can travel at warp to one destination to the next without needing a craft to carry them. How about missions though that send your star ship into deep space where it could take hours/days before reinforcements arrived, where if you needed additional craft to defend your ship you'd have it available instantly and that's if there were no other alternatives. You have crew members who are expert fighter pilots and you have a wing of fighter craft on board at your disposal. Would you really pass that up? Fighters can be used offensively and defensively. I see no problem with a large ship carrying craft with trained pilots that can serve both as an offense and defensive tool.
If they can be launched from a space station what's the harm of launching them from a ship?
You're completely misunderstanding the point.
Fighters are useless in Trek combat. The Peregrines used in "Sacrifice of Angels' were really only there to harry (not destroy) the Cardassian attack ships, to get them angry.. Like persistent flies buzzing your ear.
You're flying about the Galaxy in a top-of-the-line Starship. It has shields, an armored hull, emergency force-fields and bulkheads, weaponry capable of destroying entire cities or if targeted correctly, laying waste to an entire planet, it's energy reserves are nearly infinite, harnessing the entire energy potential of matter itself. it is capable of going thousands of times the speed of light, and is manned by a crew of highly trained professionals.
Why would you want to leave your Starship and go fight another full-on Starship, in a dinghy?
i will probably make a new thread stating why i think they are necessary and the advantages and disadvantages a carrier would have.
no this is where the debates will be held please do not start another Fed Carrier thread, this thread is here mainly to keep it all in one spot not a thousand places. put your facts here and everyone who cares about the idea will see it.
the defiant class was originaly designed to take on the borg so it would be fighting the equivelent if not greater of the Federation capital ships therefore it can take on capital ships.
The Defiant wasn't designed to take on Borg solitary. It was built as a flexible loaded weapons platform to support larger vessels which lacked the necessary firepower to fight the Borg. The Defiant is meant for hit-and-run attacks on critical weakpoints while the target is bound in combat with more durable ships. The defiant itself gets almost destroyed multiple times by Cardassians, the Dominion, Klingons when she's out alone.
the drones seemed like an idea at the time which could be benaficial. I dont like Carriers in PVP but i do love them in PVE.
When we talk gameplaywise carriers make even less sense, because one FAW trashes them almost instantly. Carriers in PvP are most useful when using BoPs or because their pets cause lag PvE is no indicator for usefulness since you can complete the game with common gear in a shuttle.
First point to make is how some people are saying a carrier fit for use b is solely an act of aggression and therefore wont be fit for use by the federation. this is so wrong. A carrier is a really effective Defense vessel as it can carry a lot of smaller ships and crew and transport them right to for example, a planet under attack. and now i could see people saying well why dont the fighters go straight there, well being on a carrier has certain advantages, such as, all fighter pilots being able to be in the same room, and get briefed on exactly what to do so they are organized when they go out and its not just chaos with pilots not having any idea on where or who to attack. also the firepower of the carrier itself can somewhat protect the fighters, and another one would be the carrier can act more or less like a mobile base for the fighter by fulfilling certain needs and requirements such as, refueling, restocking of weapons, basic repairs, crew swaps, anything that is needed can be provided by a carrier.
Now for the advantages of fighters themselves, to show they arent just useless things that will get destroyed, they are small and cheap to make compared to normal sized ships, you can overwhelm an enemy with firepower from multiple directions and have him shooting all over the place while you concentrate your fire. Fighters are also really useful for drawing fire off of more valuable targets and onto themselves, and fast and maneuverable enough to not get hit a lot and to get out before they are destroyed, and the biggest thing going for fighters would be numbers, although one or two fighters may not be able to take down a ship say 3-6 may be able to take it down enough to where it has the disadvantage and the carrier or another ship could finish it off.
now advantages of the carrier. it would be heavily armoured, high hull strength, high shields, you would be able to support a fleet really effectively, could act as say even a mobile base as the carrier captain could be the one in a really organized fleet to be the one to issue orders and such as he could launch fighters at a certain enemy and get one of his escorts to go support his fighters and something like this would be the foundation of a really organized and tight team.
some disadvantages of the carrier, obviously slow, a huge target, vulnerable to escorts doing cannon or torpedo runs(flying within range, firing a volley then leaving, and repeating). As the carrier would have a large size, major damages to the carrier itself would be costly. and its a ship which does have a major support role as well as an attack role in a battle, so it would be easy to play it wrong and not use it to its potential, and it has to be used in conjunction with other ships to be effective so having 2 or more on a team at once would not be very good in the end.
This section is more of a quick explanation of specs it would have good and bad, no numbers or anything just an idea.
Advantage - high hull armour, high shields, fighters, 4 fore and aft weapon slots, special consoles(i will describe these below)
Disadvantage - slow speed, really slow turn rate, wont have a huge damage output because cannons or anything that really just fires forward is useless because of the turn rate, needs good teamwork to be used effectively.
special consoles - i think it should have a console or two that allows for an anti fighter/torpedo/mine turret, or an additional weapons slot one on each side that only mounts turrets, as a carrier would be vulnerable to other fighters and slow firing torpedos and mines, this should somewhat counter it but not make it OP.
and the biggest reason for a carrier is variety and customization, you need those two things to have a good game and keep people interested, and like myself i dont like playing for the klingon faction but i do however like playing as a carrier, in all space/naval games that i have played i have played as a carrier whenever possible.
those are me views on a fed carried, feel free to disagree or agree, although i know some people with disagree with some pointless arguments from what i have seen on this thread so far.
Ok I have an idea for a federation carrier that is inspired both by modern carrier roles as well as the current needs of the federation and its philosophy. And technobabble! I present the following, which has probably been suggested before:
The Mirage Class Light Cruiser
Design History
When the federation began work on the Odyssey Class they began to realize their own limitations. While the Odyssey is an impressive feat of engineering and unsurpassed in capability, it is also expensive in manpower and material. With all the difficulties facing the federation and the current strain on resources they needed something to be where the Odyssey could not and the Mirage was born.
The design goal of the Mirage was to design an inexpensive Light Cruiser that could be customized to fill nearly any role with a small crew size. They began with the time tested hull design of the Miranda Class. They then increased the height slightly to make room for the experimental 'photonic deck'. This deck utilizes star-fleets recent advances in photonic technology to supplement the ship's internal components as needed or to fill other roles.
In addition the rollbar of the Mirage has been redesigned to serve as a photonic generator. This generator will allow the Mirage to create photonic support vessels that would serve specialized roles as well as expanding the photonic deck's capabilities with the external components of the Mirage.
Stats
Hull: 32,000
Shield Multiplier: 1.0
Weapons: 3 Fore, 3 Aft
Crew: 100
Bridge Officers: Ensign Universal, Lieutenant Tactical, Lieutenant Engineering, Lieutenant Science, Commander Universal.
Device Slots: 3
Consoles: 3 of each
Turn Rate: 10
Bonus Power: +5 all subsystems
*Can equip Dual Cannons, but not Dual Heavies
Photonic Reconfiguration (Sets base amounts)
Alpha Mode: +10 Weapons, -5 Shield & Aux, +2 turn rate
Beta Mode: Standard
Gamma Mode: +15 Aux (replaces +5 all), 1.15 Shield Multiplier
Photonic Support (May have 2 out at a time)
Attack Fighter: Phaser Array + Torpedo + High Yield
Support Runabouts: Phaser Array + Extend Shield
Recon Scout: Phaser Array + Attack Pattern Beta
Now as far as balance goes I really don't know, on one hand I feel it is too strong and flexable, on the other hand I feel it's a weak MVAE. But I feel the concept is sound.
I know I'm a terribad writer but I think this ship makes sense and would be extremely fun to fly. It would also fill most of the holes in Starfleet's current ship line up and is something I could see them constructing.
First point to make is how some people are saying a carrier fit for use b is solely an act of aggression and therefore wont be fit for use by the federation. this is so wrong. A carrier is a really effective Defense vessel as it can carry a lot of smaller ships and crew and transport them right to for example, a planet under attack. and now i could see people saying well why dont the fighters go straight there, well being on a carrier has certain advantages, such as, all fighter pilots being able to be in the same room, and get briefed on exactly what to do so they are organized when they go out and its not just chaos with pilots not having any idea on where or who to attack. also the firepower of the carrier itself can somewhat protect the fighters, and another one would be the carrier can act more or less like a mobile base for the fighter by fulfilling certain needs and requirements such as, refueling, restocking of weapons, basic repairs, crew swaps, anything that is needed can be provided by a carrier.
Now for the advantages of fighters themselves, to show they arent just useless things that will get destroyed, they are small and cheap to make compared to normal sized ships, you can overwhelm an enemy with firepower from multiple directions and have him shooting all over the place while you concentrate your fire. Fighters are also really useful for drawing fire off of more valuable targets and onto themselves, and fast and maneuverable enough to not get hit a lot and to get out before they are destroyed, and the biggest thing going for fighters would be numbers, although one or two fighters may not be able to take down a ship say 3-6 may be able to take it down enough to where it has the disadvantage and the carrier or another ship could finish it off.
now advantages of the carrier. it would be heavily armoured, high hull strength, high shields, you would be able to support a fleet really effectively, could act as say even a mobile base as the carrier captain could be the one in a really organized fleet to be the one to issue orders and such as he could launch fighters at a certain enemy and get one of his escorts to go support his fighters and something like this would be the foundation of a really organized and tight team.
some disadvantages of the carrier, obviously slow, a huge target, vulnerable to escorts doing cannon or torpedo runs(flying within range, firing a volley then leaving, and repeating). As the carrier would have a large size, major damages to the carrier itself would be costly. and its a ship which does have a major support role as well as an attack role in a battle, so it would be easy to play it wrong and not use it to its potential, and it has to be used in conjunction with other ships to be effective so having 2 or more on a team at once would not be very good in the end.
This section is more of a quick explanation of specs it would have good and bad, no numbers or anything just an idea.
Advantage - high hull armour, high shields, fighters, 4 fore and aft weapon slots, special consoles(i will describe these below)
Disadvantage - slow speed, really slow turn rate, wont have a huge damage output because cannons or anything that really just fires forward is useless because of the turn rate, needs good teamwork to be used effectively.
special consoles - i think it should have a console or two that allows for an anti fighter/torpedo/mine turret, or an additional weapons slot one on each side that only mounts turrets, as a carrier would be vulnerable to other fighters and slow firing torpedos and mines, this should somewhat counter it but not make it OP.
and the biggest reason for a carrier is variety and customization, you need those two things to have a good game and keep people interested, and like myself i dont like playing for the klingon faction but i do however like playing as a carrier, in all space/naval games that i have played i have played as a carrier whenever possible.
those are me views on a fed carried, feel free to disagree or agree, although i know some people with disagree with some pointless arguments from what i have seen on this thread so far.
best description of a carrier role i've read. it is just not plausible that with all the other races creating carriers to launch swarms of fighters that the federation would sit back and allow themselves to fall behind which would mean eventually getting overpowered by sheer numbers.
Ok I have an idea for a federation carrier that is inspired both by modern carrier roles as well as the current needs of the federation and its philosophy. And technobabble! I present the following, which has probably been suggested before:
The Mirage Class Light Cruiser
Design History
When the federation began work on the Odyssey Class they began to realize their own limitations. While the Odyssey is an impressive feat of engineering and unsurpassed in capability, it is also expensive in manpower and material. With all the difficulties facing the federation and the current strain on resources they needed something to be where the Odyssey could not and the Mirage was born.
The design goal of the Mirage was to design an inexpensive Light Cruiser that could be customized to fill nearly any role with a small crew size. They began with the time tested hull design of the Miranda Class. They then increased the height slightly to make room for the experimental 'photonic deck'. This deck utilizes star-fleets recent advances in photonic technology to supplement the ship's internal components as needed or to fill other roles.
In addition the rollbar of the Mirage has been redesigned to serve as a photonic generator. This generator will allow the Mirage to create photonic support vessels that would serve specialized roles as well as expanding the photonic deck's capabilities with the external components of the Mirage.
Stats
Hull: 32,000
Shield Multiplier: 1.0
Weapons: 3 Fore, 3 Aft
Crew: 100
Bridge Officers: Ensign Universal, Lieutenant Tactical, Lieutenant Engineering, Lieutenant Science, Commander Universal.
Device Slots: 3
Consoles: 3 of each
Turn Rate: 10
Bonus Power: +5 all subsystems
*Can equip Dual Cannons, but not Dual Heavies
Photonic Reconfiguration (Sets base amounts)
Alpha Mode: +10 Weapons, -5 Shield & Aux, +2 turn rate
Beta Mode: Standard
Gamma Mode: +15 Aux (replaces +5 all), 1.15 Shield Multiplier
Photonic Support (May have 2 out at a time)
Attack Fighter: Phaser Array + Torpedo + High Yield
Support Runabouts: Phaser Array + Extend Shield
Recon Scout: Phaser Array + Attack Pattern Beta
Now as far as balance goes I really don't know, on one hand I feel it is too strong and flexable, on the other hand I feel it's a weak MVAE. But I feel the concept is sound.
I know I'm a terribad writer but I think this ship makes sense and would be extremely fun to fly. It would also fill most of the holes in Starfleet's current ship line up and is something I could see them constructing.
I think a new Proxima Class Refit should be in order for a Dreadnought/Carrier replacement. it may be old to some but it can be refitted just like the Gal-X did in its origination. found out CBS owns the rights to the Proxima class and has been used in multiple games but most notably Star Trek Legacy. Still it is one of the best ships out there.
First point to make is how some people are saying a carrier fit for use b is solely an act of aggression and therefore wont be fit for use by the federation. this is so wrong. A carrier is a really effective Defense vessel as it can carry a lot of smaller ships and crew and transport them right to for example, a planet under attack.
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.
And now i could see people saying well why dont the fighters go straight there, well being on a carrier has certain advantages, such as, all fighter pilots being able to be in the same room, and get briefed on exactly what to do so they are organized when they go out and its not just chaos with pilots not having any idea on where or who to attack.
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.
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.
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.
Also the firepower of the carrier itself can somewhat protect the fighters, and another one would be the carrier can act more or less like a mobile base for the fighter by fulfilling certain needs and requirements such as, refueling, restocking of weapons, basic repairs, crew swaps, anything that is needed can be provided by a carrier.
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.
Now for the advantages of fighters themselves, to show they arent just useless things that will get destroyed, they are small and cheap to make compared to normal sized ships, you can overwhelm an enemy with firepower from multiple directions and have him shooting all over the place while you concentrate your fire. Fighters are also really useful for drawing fire off of more valuable targets and onto themselves, and fast and maneuverable enough to not get hit a lot and to get out before they are destroyed, and the biggest thing going for fighters would be numbers, although one or two fighters may not be able to take down a ship say 3-6 may be able to take it down enough to where it has the disadvantage and the carrier or another ship could finish it off.
Again, you're assuming Fighters in Trek are as useful, and have similar capabilities to Fighter Planes in modern Naval Warfare. They simply do not. It's a different Ball Game.
Fighters in the modern Naval era are fast, blindingly so, faster than any target they could attack except perhaps other fighters. They have this advantage because they are flying, moving through the air, while Ships are pushing against the water and thus severely limited in speed.
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..
It's very very different than a Fighter Plane evading anti-aircraft fire and flak.
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.
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.
And the biggest reason for a carrier is variety and customization, you need those two things to have a good game and keep people interested.
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 dont like playing for the klingon faction but i do however like playing as a carrier, in all space/naval games that i have played i have played as a carrier whenever possible.
The thing is, Star Trek isn't Star Wars or BattleStar Galactica, it's not an IP where Carriers are appropriate or effective. If you want Spaceborn Carrier play, if that's all you care about, by all means, go find a Star Wars or BattleStar Galactica game to play. It won't hurt our feelings, we promise.
But Carriers aren't right for Trek, they don't make logical sense, and they would be a severe departure from the IP/canon/lore.
You know what I like?
I like RTS games and RPGs. If I'm playing a game and it's not STO, it's usually Civilization, or Skyrim, or D&D (3.5), or Command & Conquer (RA3). But you don't see me trying to get RTS or heavy RPG elements into STO, do you?
Ya know, the larger TOS/TMP era ships would make good carriers. There we may have a legitimate cost/benefit reason to make it.
yea its kind of what I figured with them. I would love it to be the counter to the klingon dreadnougt one way or another, but its double hull would make it great for a carrier since you can put a joint flight deck on top.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Again, you're assuming Fighters in Trek are as useful, and have similar capabilities to Fighter Planes in modern Naval Warfare. They simply do not. It's a different Ball Game.
Fighters in the modern Naval era are fast, blindingly so, faster than any target they could attack except perhaps other fighters. They have this advantage because they are flying, moving through the air, while Ships are pushing against the water and thus severely limited in speed.
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..
It's very very different than a Fighter Plane evading anti-aircraft fire and flak.
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.
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.
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.
The thing is, Star Trek isn't Star Wars or BattleStar Galactica, it's not an IP where Carriers are appropriate or effective. If you want Spaceborn Carrier play, if that's all you care about, by all means, go find a Star Wars or BattleStar Galactica game to play. It won't hurt our feelings, we promise.
But Carriers aren't right for Trek, they don't make logical sense, and they would be a severe departure from the IP/canon/lore.
You know what I like?
I like RTS games and RPGs. If I'm playing a game and it's not STO, it's usually Civilization, or Skyrim, or D&D (3.5), or Command & Conquer (RA3). But you don't see me trying to get RTS or heavy RPG elements into STO, do you?
but still there is one advantage carriers will have no matter how you look at it, launching fighters = more firepower, if you launch say 6 fighters, they will do damage and if you were in an equal fight before the fighters then you now win. and theres a few other things i disagree with that you said but its really pointless to argue them because we obviously both have our opinions and no matter what we say we could keep going on, so i will just say this. carriers do have some advantages and disadvantages, and if it fits into a trek game is more or less a matter of opinion. however since we both support a 4th ship type an want more variety and customization, if we are not to have a carrier, i would still like to see ships from other fed species, and as for type of ship, maybe some sort of destroyer although escort fit that role fairly well, althought a destroyer imo should be inbetween a escort an cruiser.
but still there is one advantage carriers will have no matter how you look at it, launching fighters = more firepower, if you launch say 6 fighters, they will do damage and if you were in an equal fight before the fighters then you now win. and theres a few other things i disagree with that you said but its really pointless to argue them because we obviously both have our opinions and no matter what we say we could keep going on, so i will just say this. carriers do have some advantages and disadvantages, and if it fits into a trek game is more or less a matter of opinion. however since we both support a 4th ship type an want more variety and customization, if we are not to have a carrier, i would still like to see ships from other fed species, and as for type of ship, maybe some sort of destroyer although escort fit that role fairly well, althought a destroyer imo should be inbetween a escort an cruiser.
You have to give up firepower in order to make the space need to store the fighters making the ship weaker compared to similarly sized ships.
Did anyone else wonder why the bug ship is called the Jem Hadar fighter? Even the Dominion, who cares even less for life than the klingons, didn't use Hornet (F/A-18) sized/style fighters.
You have to give up firepower in order to make the space need to store the fighters making the ship weaker compared to similarly sized ships.
Did anyone else wonder why the bug ship is called the Jem Hadar fighter? Even the Dominion, who cares even less for life than the klingons, didn't use Hornet (F/A-18) sized/style fighters.
so lets have the carriers which may or may not exist one day launch "NX-01" class ships, give them tractor beams and phasers with photon torps and we got ourselves some decent fighters.....computer controled mind you. its small enough to make a good drone and big enough to do damage in tri's
but still there is one advantage carriers will have no matter how you look at it, launching fighters = more firepower, if you launch say 6 fighters, they will do damage and if you were in an equal fight before the fighters then you now win. and theres a few other things i disagree with that you said but its really pointless to argue them because we obviously both have our opinions and no matter what we say we could keep going on, so i will just say this. carriers do have some advantages and disadvantages, and if it fits into a trek game is more or less a matter of opinion. however since we both support a 4th ship type an want more variety and customization, if we are not to have a carrier, i would still like to see ships from other fed species, and as for type of ship, maybe some sort of destroyer although escort fit that role fairly well, althought a destroyer imo should be inbetween a escort an cruiser.
I would disagree with the assumption that fighter = more firepower. A Fighter in Trek is an annoyance, not a threat, and the energy requirements for Fighter Support could easily be thrown into the Main Weapons of the Capital ship to result in more useful damage.
Shields change the game considerable from how Fighters work in Star Wars (where shields are far less effective) or Battlestar Galactica (where there are no Shields at all). In Star Trek, fighters aren't worth the trouble. That's why we've never seen them used in canon as anything more than a diversionary tactic.
The thing about Carriers in Trek is.. Well, we've never seen the Feds or the KDF use them (Carriers) in a canon production, and the one (kind of) Carrier we did see (the Scimitar) didn't use them, not even when twoValdore-type (Mogai) Romulan warships joined the fight on Enterprises side.
Combined, the uses we see and the uses we don't see speak volumes about the effectiveness of Carriers and Fighters in Trek.
And I would agree, I want to see other species vessels too. Andorian Warships, Tellerite Cruisers, by all means. But Carriers, from any faction, still run into the basic logic hurdles I've described so many times..
Now, I'm not much for the term destroyer, a Destroyer is an offensive vessel, a hunter, a predator. It doesn't fit with the Starfleet ethos.
The motto of the US Marines is "Semper Fidelis" always loyal, representing the brotherhood of the Corps as a military organization and their dedication to the US. A fine military motto.
The motto of the US Army is "This We'll Defend" denoting the Armys role of taking and holding territory. A fine military motto.
The motto fo the US Navy is "Non sibi sed patriae" Not self but country, showing their selfless dedication to the USA. A fine military motto.
The motto of the US Airforce is "Aim High...Fly, Fight, Win" denoting their exact goal, to win in combat whatever their country asks them to win. A fine military motto.
The motto of Starfleet is "Ex Astris Scientia" from the stars, knowledge, it denotes their commitment to exploration, discovery, and the pursuit of scientific truth. It is not the motto of a military organization.
However, we only have one Frigate in the game, the starter Miranda/Shikaar/Centaur. I would like to see more of them, something with "off" abilities, slots, and stats. A Tac ship with high Shields and Hull but a low turn rate. A Cruiser with a high turn rate with low shields and Hull, A Science Ship with middle shields and hull, low turn, but can equip DHCs..
Or, as has been proposed elsewhere, a ship with port and starboard weapons slots.
Starfleet as many new Trek fans know it as from the 2009 JJ movie is "A Humanitarian Peacekeeping Armada."
also Katic, a while ago I made a thread for what ships i wanted to see added, one of my personal request was the Aquatic Xindii ship, i wanted it to be a carrier of sorts for the NX-01 class...i wish it would be one day least just the ship alone.
Starfleet as many new Trek fans know it as from the 2009 JJ movie is "A Humanitarian Peacekeeping Armada."
also Katic, a while ago I made a thread for what ships i wanted to see added, one of my personal request was the Aquatic Xindii ship, i wanted it to be a carrier of sorts for the NX-01 class...i wish it would be one day least just the ship alone.
The NX had a crew of 35, I don't think even Starfleet of 2409 could fully automate one. And considering how much larger the Xindi aquatic ship was, I'd say it could even hold an Odyssey, which makes it too big for a playable ship if you ask me.
Also, the Xindi aren't members of Starfleet or the KDF. But we do know that in one future timeline (not necessarily this one), they do join the Federation.
But I am also very fond of both the Xindi Aquatic ship (and the Voth city-ship).
Personally, I'm hoping the Xindi and the Voth both get their own future FEs.
In canon, the NX had 80 people in its crew, just saying
Ya know... The NX could make a good platform for a BoP type ship for the feds. Small, can take a beating (really, that sucker took a BEATING) Plus, the NX is small, manueverable, and probably of similar capability to a BoP in modern times.
I would disagree with the assumption that fighter = more firepower. A Fighter in Trek is an annoyance, not a threat, and the energy requirements for Fighter Support could easily be thrown into the Main Weapons of the Capital ship to result in more useful damage.
Shields change the game considerable from how Fighters work in Star Wars (where shields are far less effective) or Battlestar Galactica (where there are no Shields at all). In Star Trek, fighters aren't worth the trouble. That's why we've never seen them used in canon as anything more than a diversionary tactic.
The thing about Carriers in Trek is.. Well, we've never seen the Feds or the KDF use them (Carriers) in a canon production, and the one (kind of) Carrier we did see (the Scimitar) didn't use them, not even when twoValdore-type (Mogai) Romulan warships joined the fight on Enterprises side.
Combined, the uses we see and the uses we don't see speak volumes about the effectiveness of Carriers and Fighters in Trek.
And I would agree, I want to see other species vessels too. Andorian Warships, Tellerite Cruisers, by all means. But Carriers, from any faction, still run into the basic logic hurdles I've described so many times..
Now, I'm not much for the term destroyer, a Destroyer is an offensive vessel, a hunter, a predator. It doesn't fit with the Starfleet ethos.
The motto of the US Marines is "Semper Fidelis" always loyal, representing the brotherhood of the Corps as a military organization and their dedication to the US. A fine military motto.
The motto of the US Army is "This We'll Defend" denoting the Armys role of taking and holding territory. A fine military motto.
The motto fo the US Navy is "Non sibi sed patriae" Not self but country, showing their selfless dedication to the USA. A fine military motto.
The motto of the US Airforce is "Aim High...Fly, Fight, Win" denoting their exact goal, to win in combat whatever their country asks them to win. A fine military motto.
The motto of Starfleet is "Ex Astris Scientia" from the stars, knowledge, it denotes their commitment to exploration, discovery, and the pursuit of scientific truth. It is not the motto of a military organization.
However, we only have one Frigate in the game, the starter Miranda/Shikaar/Centaur. I would like to see more of them, something with "off" abilities, slots, and stats. A Tac ship with high Shields and Hull but a low turn rate. A Cruiser with a high turn rate with low shields and Hull, A Science Ship with middle shields and hull, low turn, but can equip DHCs..
Or, as has been proposed elsewhere, a ship with port and starboard weapons slots.
actually a destroyer is a defensive ship, first used to escort fleets and prevent the threat of torpedo boats.
actually a destroyer is a defensive ship, first used to escort fleets and prevent the threat of torpedo boats.
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.
Just for reference I do not use modern nuclear super carriers as inspiration. Instead I feel the amphibious assault ships such as the Wasp Class, or the older escort carriers of WW2, and the modern helo carriers. The main advantage these ships have is the ability to change their load out of support craft to suit the specific mission.
In the case of the mirage if needed it could serve as a transport ship for a large number of soldiers or civilians by using the photonic deck as a barracks of sort. Or it could be a bio containment area for sensitive medical research. If class 4 probes were required it could create them, if runabouts to ferry large numbers were needed it could do that instead.
In canon, the NX had 80 people in its crew, just saying
Ya know... The NX could make a good platform for a BoP type ship for the feds. Small, can take a beating (really, that sucker took a BEATING) Plus, the NX is small, manueverable, and probably of similar capability to a BoP in modern times.
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.
Comments
the defiant class was originaly designed to take on the borg so it would be fighting the equivelent if not greater of the Federation capital ships therefore it can take on capital ships.
Also the runabouts have been seen to be able to take a few hits from normal trek weapons even type 6 shuttles. weather they are a match for the enemy in terms of weaponry is another thing.
I never really did want a federation carrier but more of an effective counter against the klingon dreadnought.
the drones seemed like an idea at the time which could be benaficial. I dont like Carriers in PVP but i do love them in PVE.
though the Gal-X is a good weapon platform it is far from a dreadnought or even an effective counter to the klingon dreadnought.
I just want a ship which can hold a fleet unto its own, and if fighter craft in the form of drones is an effective way of doing it then so be it but unless we got a decent weapon platform cruiser that isn't the Gal-x then we will always have the thought of a Fed Carrier.
please provide facts to support this.
facts with proof might i add
your handle is an apt description of this post.
Lockers, the dreadnaught wasn't a counter to carriers. Carriers were the counter to them. A destroyer would be a counter to a carrier. At least it's fighters.
Carriers tend to not be solitary ships. Huge investments in personnel and resources need protection. Whereas a cruiser or destroyer can operate alone. I actually think the gal-x with all turrets would be decent at ant-fighter protection. Big ship for that job though, lol
yea and its also a great detterent to escorts as I have learned first hand.
Though the klingon Carrier is actualy a Dreadnought in its classification and such.
You're completely misunderstanding the point.
Fighters are useless in Trek combat. The Peregrines used in "Sacrifice of Angels' were really only there to harry (not destroy) the Cardassian attack ships, to get them angry.. Like persistent flies buzzing your ear.
You're flying about the Galaxy in a top-of-the-line Starship. It has shields, an armored hull, emergency force-fields and bulkheads, weaponry capable of destroying entire cities or if targeted correctly, laying waste to an entire planet, it's energy reserves are nearly infinite, harnessing the entire energy potential of matter itself. it is capable of going thousands of times the speed of light, and is manned by a crew of highly trained professionals.
Why would you want to leave your Starship and go fight another full-on Starship, in a dinghy?
Oh, I can't wait to see this.
no this is where the debates will be held please do not start another Fed Carrier thread, this thread is here mainly to keep it all in one spot not a thousand places. put your facts here and everyone who cares about the idea will see it.
The Defiant wasn't designed to take on Borg solitary. It was built as a flexible loaded weapons platform to support larger vessels which lacked the necessary firepower to fight the Borg. The Defiant is meant for hit-and-run attacks on critical weakpoints while the target is bound in combat with more durable ships. The defiant itself gets almost destroyed multiple times by Cardassians, the Dominion, Klingons when she's out alone.
When we talk gameplaywise carriers make even less sense, because one FAW trashes them almost instantly. Carriers in PvP are most useful when using BoPs or because their pets cause lag
I think they close threads that cover something that already has a thread on it, so put it here.
Now for the advantages of fighters themselves, to show they arent just useless things that will get destroyed, they are small and cheap to make compared to normal sized ships, you can overwhelm an enemy with firepower from multiple directions and have him shooting all over the place while you concentrate your fire. Fighters are also really useful for drawing fire off of more valuable targets and onto themselves, and fast and maneuverable enough to not get hit a lot and to get out before they are destroyed, and the biggest thing going for fighters would be numbers, although one or two fighters may not be able to take down a ship say 3-6 may be able to take it down enough to where it has the disadvantage and the carrier or another ship could finish it off.
now advantages of the carrier. it would be heavily armoured, high hull strength, high shields, you would be able to support a fleet really effectively, could act as say even a mobile base as the carrier captain could be the one in a really organized fleet to be the one to issue orders and such as he could launch fighters at a certain enemy and get one of his escorts to go support his fighters and something like this would be the foundation of a really organized and tight team.
some disadvantages of the carrier, obviously slow, a huge target, vulnerable to escorts doing cannon or torpedo runs(flying within range, firing a volley then leaving, and repeating). As the carrier would have a large size, major damages to the carrier itself would be costly. and its a ship which does have a major support role as well as an attack role in a battle, so it would be easy to play it wrong and not use it to its potential, and it has to be used in conjunction with other ships to be effective so having 2 or more on a team at once would not be very good in the end.
This section is more of a quick explanation of specs it would have good and bad, no numbers or anything just an idea.
Advantage - high hull armour, high shields, fighters, 4 fore and aft weapon slots, special consoles(i will describe these below)
Disadvantage - slow speed, really slow turn rate, wont have a huge damage output because cannons or anything that really just fires forward is useless because of the turn rate, needs good teamwork to be used effectively.
special consoles - i think it should have a console or two that allows for an anti fighter/torpedo/mine turret, or an additional weapons slot one on each side that only mounts turrets, as a carrier would be vulnerable to other fighters and slow firing torpedos and mines, this should somewhat counter it but not make it OP.
and the biggest reason for a carrier is variety and customization, you need those two things to have a good game and keep people interested, and like myself i dont like playing for the klingon faction but i do however like playing as a carrier, in all space/naval games that i have played i have played as a carrier whenever possible.
those are me views on a fed carried, feel free to disagree or agree, although i know some people with disagree with some pointless arguments from what i have seen on this thread so far.
The Mirage Class Light Cruiser
Design History
When the federation began work on the Odyssey Class they began to realize their own limitations. While the Odyssey is an impressive feat of engineering and unsurpassed in capability, it is also expensive in manpower and material. With all the difficulties facing the federation and the current strain on resources they needed something to be where the Odyssey could not and the Mirage was born.
The design goal of the Mirage was to design an inexpensive Light Cruiser that could be customized to fill nearly any role with a small crew size. They began with the time tested hull design of the Miranda Class. They then increased the height slightly to make room for the experimental 'photonic deck'. This deck utilizes star-fleets recent advances in photonic technology to supplement the ship's internal components as needed or to fill other roles.
In addition the rollbar of the Mirage has been redesigned to serve as a photonic generator. This generator will allow the Mirage to create photonic support vessels that would serve specialized roles as well as expanding the photonic deck's capabilities with the external components of the Mirage.
Stats
Hull: 32,000
Shield Multiplier: 1.0
Weapons: 3 Fore, 3 Aft
Crew: 100
Bridge Officers: Ensign Universal, Lieutenant Tactical, Lieutenant Engineering, Lieutenant Science, Commander Universal.
Device Slots: 3
Consoles: 3 of each
Turn Rate: 10
Bonus Power: +5 all subsystems
*Can equip Dual Cannons, but not Dual Heavies
Photonic Reconfiguration (Sets base amounts)
Alpha Mode: +10 Weapons, -5 Shield & Aux, +2 turn rate
Beta Mode: Standard
Gamma Mode: +15 Aux (replaces +5 all), 1.15 Shield Multiplier
Photonic Support (May have 2 out at a time)
Attack Fighter: Phaser Array + Torpedo + High Yield
Support Runabouts: Phaser Array + Extend Shield
Recon Scout: Phaser Array + Attack Pattern Beta
Now as far as balance goes I really don't know, on one hand I feel it is too strong and flexable, on the other hand I feel it's a weak MVAE. But I feel the concept is sound.
I know I'm a terribad writer but I think this ship makes sense and would be extremely fun to fly. It would also fill most of the holes in Starfleet's current ship line up and is something I could see them constructing.
best description of a carrier role i've read. it is just not plausible that with all the other races creating carriers to launch swarms of fighters that the federation would sit back and allow themselves to fall behind which would mean eventually getting overpowered by sheer numbers.
[
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.
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.
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.
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.
Again, you're assuming Fighters in Trek are as useful, and have similar capabilities to Fighter Planes in modern Naval Warfare. They simply do not. It's a different Ball Game.
Fighters in the modern Naval era are fast, blindingly so, faster than any target they could attack except perhaps other fighters. They have this advantage because they are flying, moving through the air, while Ships are pushing against the water and thus severely limited in speed.
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..
It's very very different than a Fighter Plane evading anti-aircraft fire and flak.
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.
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.
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.
The thing is, Star Trek isn't Star Wars or BattleStar Galactica, it's not an IP where Carriers are appropriate or effective. If you want Spaceborn Carrier play, if that's all you care about, by all means, go find a Star Wars or BattleStar Galactica game to play. It won't hurt our feelings, we promise.
But Carriers aren't right for Trek, they don't make logical sense, and they would be a severe departure from the IP/canon/lore.
You know what I like?
I like RTS games and RPGs. If I'm playing a game and it's not STO, it's usually Civilization, or Skyrim, or D&D (3.5), or Command & Conquer (RA3). But you don't see me trying to get RTS or heavy RPG elements into STO, do you?
yea its kind of what I figured with them. I would love it to be the counter to the klingon dreadnougt one way or another, but its double hull would make it great for a carrier since you can put a joint flight deck on top.
but still there is one advantage carriers will have no matter how you look at it, launching fighters = more firepower, if you launch say 6 fighters, they will do damage and if you were in an equal fight before the fighters then you now win. and theres a few other things i disagree with that you said but its really pointless to argue them because we obviously both have our opinions and no matter what we say we could keep going on, so i will just say this. carriers do have some advantages and disadvantages, and if it fits into a trek game is more or less a matter of opinion. however since we both support a 4th ship type an want more variety and customization, if we are not to have a carrier, i would still like to see ships from other fed species, and as for type of ship, maybe some sort of destroyer although escort fit that role fairly well, althought a destroyer imo should be inbetween a escort an cruiser.
You have to give up firepower in order to make the space need to store the fighters making the ship weaker compared to similarly sized ships.
Did anyone else wonder why the bug ship is called the Jem Hadar fighter?
so lets have the carriers which may or may not exist one day launch "NX-01" class ships, give them tractor beams and phasers with photon torps and we got ourselves some decent fighters.....computer controled mind you. its small enough to make a good drone and big enough to do damage in tri's
I would disagree with the assumption that fighter = more firepower. A Fighter in Trek is an annoyance, not a threat, and the energy requirements for Fighter Support could easily be thrown into the Main Weapons of the Capital ship to result in more useful damage.
Shields change the game considerable from how Fighters work in Star Wars (where shields are far less effective) or Battlestar Galactica (where there are no Shields at all). In Star Trek, fighters aren't worth the trouble. That's why we've never seen them used in canon as anything more than a diversionary tactic.
The thing about Carriers in Trek is.. Well, we've never seen the Feds or the KDF use them (Carriers) in a canon production, and the one (kind of) Carrier we did see (the Scimitar) didn't use them, not even when two Valdore-type (Mogai) Romulan warships joined the fight on Enterprises side.
Combined, the uses we see and the uses we don't see speak volumes about the effectiveness of Carriers and Fighters in Trek.
And I would agree, I want to see other species vessels too. Andorian Warships, Tellerite Cruisers, by all means. But Carriers, from any faction, still run into the basic logic hurdles I've described so many times..
Now, I'm not much for the term destroyer, a Destroyer is an offensive vessel, a hunter, a predator. It doesn't fit with the Starfleet ethos.
The motto of the US Marines is "Semper Fidelis" always loyal, representing the brotherhood of the Corps as a military organization and their dedication to the US. A fine military motto.
The motto of the US Army is "This We'll Defend" denoting the Armys role of taking and holding territory. A fine military motto.
The motto fo the US Navy is "Non sibi sed patriae" Not self but country, showing their selfless dedication to the USA. A fine military motto.
The motto of the US Airforce is "Aim High...Fly, Fight, Win" denoting their exact goal, to win in combat whatever their country asks them to win. A fine military motto.
The motto of Starfleet is "Ex Astris Scientia" from the stars, knowledge, it denotes their commitment to exploration, discovery, and the pursuit of scientific truth. It is not the motto of a military organization.
However, we only have one Frigate in the game, the starter Miranda/Shikaar/Centaur. I would like to see more of them, something with "off" abilities, slots, and stats. A Tac ship with high Shields and Hull but a low turn rate. A Cruiser with a high turn rate with low shields and Hull, A Science Ship with middle shields and hull, low turn, but can equip DHCs..
Or, as has been proposed elsewhere, a ship with port and starboard weapons slots.
also Katic, a while ago I made a thread for what ships i wanted to see added, one of my personal request was the Aquatic Xindii ship, i wanted it to be a carrier of sorts for the NX-01 class...i wish it would be one day least just the ship alone.
The NX had a crew of 35, I don't think even Starfleet of 2409 could fully automate one. And considering how much larger the Xindi aquatic ship was, I'd say it could even hold an Odyssey, which makes it too big for a playable ship if you ask me.
Also, the Xindi aren't members of Starfleet or the KDF. But we do know that in one future timeline (not necessarily this one), they do join the Federation.
But I am also very fond of both the Xindi Aquatic ship (and the Voth city-ship).
Personally, I'm hoping the Xindi and the Voth both get their own future FEs.
Ya know... The NX could make a good platform for a BoP type ship for the feds. Small, can take a beating (really, that sucker took a BEATING) Plus, the NX is small, manueverable, and probably of similar capability to a BoP in modern times.
actually a destroyer is a defensive ship, first used to escort fleets and prevent the threat of torpedo boats.
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.
In the case of the mirage if needed it could serve as a transport ship for a large number of soldiers or civilians by using the photonic deck as a barracks of sort. Or it could be a bio containment area for sensitive medical research. If class 4 probes were required it could create them, if runabouts to ferry large numbers were needed it could do that instead.
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.