A unique ship slot for a new type of capital-class weapon sounds interesting. I would support that idea. Also, I would want a science ship with a capital weapon slot.
No, I can't quite see putting CapGuns on a science vessel any more than I can see putting them on an escort-class ship.
A Dreadnought with a science slant, maybe. Think a Science Odyssey with a Capital Weapon.
Also, I'm not thinking about a new kind of weapon slot. I'm thinking about an existing weapon slot that happens to be occupied by a Capital Weapon, a restriction on which ships can mount them, and a restriction on how many Capital Weapons can be equipped on one ship.
By using up an existing slot, it means you are giving up some versatility in order to use a Capital Weapon. The advantage, hopefully, would be a longer effective range and higher damage to offset the disadvantage at close range.
My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment. You can file a "forums and website" support ticket here Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
I would thoroughly enjoy demolishing your stationary barge while your cannons pointed the opposite direction. But since your want a broadside battleship, use turrets. Battleship cannons are actually mounted on turret foundations. Since turrets already exist in game, complete broadside is already available.
Everything is mounted on some level of turret. Even the phaser lance has a 45 degree arc, and that is a spinal mount.
No RL battleships had 360 degree turrets, at least not for anything larger than anti-aircraft weapons.
Need is the word used by the Op to describe the lacking he sees of a battleship/ Tactical cruiser in STO. It fit the line of my response since we actually have Tac cruisers in STO already so the need for more was question and if the need is strong for such a vessel then why not a need for other vessel variants to acomidate other classes.
Keep in mind that I am similarly critical of some of the OP's criteria; but it was my post you were responding to, not his.
Its not a red herring but goes back to the point that the OP is not looking for a tactical cruiser for STO gameplay, as they already exist, but is looking for his Tactical Cruiser set-up for gameplay to cater to his desires.
With due respect, the closest to a tac cruiser are the Excel refit or the Tac Ody, but I still say those are tac garnished cruisers rather than tac flavored.
I actually have little issue with Tac based cruisers though I do have issue with a Tac Cruiser that is basically a copy/paste of an existing escort class. Such a vessel is not needed and takes from another type of gameplay.
Other options have been fielded that could satisfy the games "need" for another tac cruiser yet the OP has discounted them as null since they are not his design or desires.
All of my posts go back to the core of his first post and the seeming desires that fuel it.
Whereas I am suggestion a cruiser that is slightly more tac flavored than the existing options without trying to be an escort or entirely abandoning its status as a cruiser, a compromise solution.
Keep in mind that I am similarly critical of some of the OP's criteria; but it was my post you were responding to, not his.
Part of the OPs position has been that the Commander tactical slot is a must have, which is what my answer is refering to in my response to you.
Why do we need a Commander tactical BOff cruiser, especially one with both a Com BOff and a LTC BOff at tactical?
With due respect, the closest to a tac cruiser are the Excel refit or the Tac Ody, but I still say those are tac garnished cruisers rather than tac flavored.
The Ody, the MAC, the AC, the FACR, the FHCR and the HCR are all Cruisers with a good slant to being more Tactical.
Whereas I am suggestion a cruiser that is slightly more tac flavored than the existing options without trying to be an escort or entirely abandoning its status as a cruiser, a compromise solution.
What is your suggestion to fill a better Tac flavored Cruiser without going to the extremes of just copying an escorts BOff layout, I did not see it in your other posts and may have missed it.
Part of the OPs position has been that the Commander tactical slot is a must have, which is what my answer is refering to in my response to you.
Why do we need a Commander tactical BOff cruiser, especially one with both a Com BOff and a LTC BOff at tactical?
I am not arguing for both com and ltc tac, though. And again 'need' is a strong word much overused. "Desired" or "interested in" are much better choices. The word 'need' is a straw man, since this being a game, no specific new ships are 'needed.'
The Ody, the MAC, the AC, the FACR, the FHCR and the HCR are all Cruisers with a good slant to being more Tactical.
I admit I have not looked at all the fleet variants yet, but my understanding is that none of them have a tactical commander's station.
What is your suggestion to fill a better Tac flavored Cruiser without going to the extremes of just copying an escorts BOff layout, I did not see it in your other posts and may have missed it.
Again, swap the com eng station with the top tac station, whatever it may be (usually a Lt station). Adjust other stations as need be to balance the ship.
Actually, yes, there are "Engineering escorts" and "science escorts" in the game. They are called Birds Of Prey.
There is even a big fat science ship class: The carrier. And of course there is the big fat slow-turning engineering ship, the native cruiser.
Role
Slow&heavy
fast&light
Eng
Cruiser
Bird of Prey
Sci
Carrier
Science Vessel, Bird Of prey
Tac
[currently none]
escort
A big, slow, and in exchange for that slightly more sturdy tactical ship is just a logically missing thing in the game. But it would not be more a jack of all trades than current escorts are - in fact, slightly less so.
It would still be needing cruiser support when under heavy fire, just like an escort. It would still require science vessels for cloud control. It would, however, be able to defeat enemy ships fast, which is what tactical ships do.
And once again: The meme of big fat attack ships is out there. We all have this in our heads. Star Trek shows it on screen. Only STO is missing it currently. And that can be easily corrected, with a very simple approach like the one in Post #1 or a more complicated one like those proposed by others in this and other threads.
Carriers are their own ship class. If the D'Kyr is the Science heavy ship, then the Heavy Escort Carrier is the tactical heavy ship. Also Feds can't fly birds of prey, so I don't think engineers have a fast and light ship class, at least for Feds.
True carriers (with two hangar slots, in contrast to flight deck cruisers or flight deck escorts with only one hangar) are all Sci Commander ships. And yes, the BoP is unique to one faction (although the Romulans, should they ever come into the game, will likely also have one), but that does not change the fact that this option does indeed exist in the game.
Klinks having the BoP doesn't mean anything to Fed ship balance. You're basically saying "It exists in game, you just can't fly one as a Fed". Also, since all BoP have pure universal BOff slots, you can't really call them an "engineering" ship. They can be anything they want.
Trying to prove the Heavy Escort Carrier isn't a Carrier doesn't change the fact is a heavy, slow, tactical ship that launches fighters.
I would love to see capital ship guns, and I think that there needs to be a new tactical ship since the Engineers just got the Odyssey. So I agree with you guys there. We also need more science ships.
I dunno if I like the idea of a 'capital' weapon, because honestly we already have those in a few forms.
Spinal Phaser Lance of the Gal-X, Javelin Beam of the Guramba, Disruptor Autocannon of the Bortas. Isometric Charge of the...uhh..Koro't'inga, I think.
In a similar note, the Point Defense System and Torpedo Defense System could be classified as a 'capital' weapon.
All of those, pretty much have a primary purpose of making lots of booms happen. I feel like adding new weapons like that would diminish the usage we'd get out of what I mentioned above.
I'm not saying I am against them, I'd totally deck out my huge Bortas with them if they existed. In fact, it'd probably look like this by the time I was done:
But...just so long as all the stuff we have now isn't pretty much dropped by the wayside to do so.
On a separate note, I'd like to add in another point.
Base hull strength.
That's pretty much the 'normal armor', the structural integrity fields, etc holding the ship together. Adding more armor plating (in your engineering console slots), helps reduce the amount of damage taken, but even when that armor is gotten past, eventually your ship goes ka-boomy.
So generally thus a larger ship can better handle more weapons, it would have to give up a lot of that 'armor' to do it, by adding in more weapons ports, you'd create weak points in the armor, but gaining firepower.
What I am getting at, is that regardless of the consoles, regardless of BOFF layout...(and I'm not an engineer of ANY kind, so forgive any mistakes I might make), as a basic engineering point, if you equip a lot more guns on something, you'd still be losing those further extra armor plates, the greater structural fields, and so on.
I doubt that's a very good way of putting it, but I realized that would be the trade off, regardless of anything else, even if this battleship had a primarily engineering BOFF layout, it'd still have all those weapons to fire.
I think that it is perfectly possible for the OP to have his battleship, but as I mentioned in my previous post a few pages back, he can't have his cake and eat it too.
As a totally silly matter, I'd love a battleship than for no other reason to jokingly say all the time:
I remain empathetic to the concerns of my community, but do me a favor and lay off the god damn name calling and petty remarks. It will get you nowhere.
I must admit, respect points to Trendy for laying down the law like that.
Klinks having the BoP doesn't mean anything to Fed ship balance. You're basically saying "It exists in game, you just can't fly one as a Fed". Also, since all BoP have pure universal BOff slots, you can't really call them an "engineering" ship. They can be anything they want.
Trying to prove the Heavy Escort Carrier isn't a Carrier doesn't change the fact is a heavy, slow, tactical ship that launches fighters.
I would love to see capital ship guns, and I think that there needs to be a new tactical ship since the Engineers just got the Odyssey. So I agree with you guys there. We also need more science ships.
Actually, yes, there are "Engineering escorts" and "science escorts" in the game. They are called Birds Of Prey.
There is even a big fat science ship class: The carrier. And of course there is the big fat slow-turning engineering ship, the native cruiser.
Role
Slow&heavy
fast&light
Eng
Cruiser
Bird of Prey
Sci
Carrier
Science Vessel, Bird Of prey
Tac
[currently none]
escort
A big, slow, and in exchange for that slightly more sturdy tactical ship is just a logically missing thing in the game. But it would not be more a jack of all trades than current escorts are - in fact, slightly less so.
It would still be needing cruiser support when under heavy fire, just like an escort. It would still require science vessels for crowd control. It would, however, be able to defeat enemy ships fast, which is what tactical ships do.
And once again: The meme of big fat attack ships is out there. We all have this in our heads. Star Trek shows it on screen. Only STO is missing it currently. And that can be easily corrected, with a very simple approach like the one in Post #1 or a more complicated one like those proposed by others in this and other threads.
the oddy is the slow and heavy tac. you can use the Tac hull to get the 3 tac consoles or the sci hull and get the sensor analyses
it has a LT tac spot and a Uni LTC and Ensign that you can assign tac boffs.
If the HEC has the same basic speed stats as the Tier 3 Akira, it has a "low" inertia (in practice an inertial rating has an inverse relationship to the actual amount of it), I think only matched by the Patrol Escort (which has superior turn). The Defiant runs circles around it, as does the Adv. Escort, even without MVAM.
Your amusing prejudice against planes (would you prefer that we fill space with the finest waters of Thuringia so we can sail around peacefully and feed the ducks?) honestly just reminds me of Will Smith in that I, Robot movie at this point. I WILL NEVER TRUST NEITHER A ROBOT NOR A PLANE!
Btw. Fed Dreadnought is battleship, like it or not. It can be very tough, has impressive forward spike potential, it has even cloak and heavy capital weapon. True it lacks some higher rank abilities, but everyone who flew it knows that without the extensive engineering capabilities you would be sitting duck. The only thing it lacks is the layout of that ferengi ship, instead AC layout. That would make the ship perfect battleship.
This threat actually made me bring it out of spacedock.
"Cryptic Studio’s Jack Emmert (2010): Microtransactions are the biggest bunch of nonsense. I like paying one fee and not worrying about it – like my cellphone. The world’s biggest MMO isn’t item based, even though the black market item GDP is bigger than Russia … microtransactions make me want to die.”
But you talk about nonsense. Your high rank tactical abilities wont miraculously turn a flying slug into something formidable. Especially if it dies under 10s.
"Cryptic Studio’s Jack Emmert (2010): Microtransactions are the biggest bunch of nonsense. I like paying one fee and not worrying about it – like my cellphone. The world’s biggest MMO isn’t item based, even though the black market item GDP is bigger than Russia … microtransactions make me want to die.”
I dunno if I like the idea of a 'capital' weapon, because honestly we already have those in a few forms.
Spinal Phaser Lance of the Gal-X, Javelin Beam of the Guramba, Disruptor Autocannon of the Bortas. Isometric Charge of the...uhh..Koro't'inga, I think.
Totally agree that those are all basically what I'd call capital weapons. And they're equipped on ships that fit the general idea of a Dreadnought, for the most part.
I'm proposing that the designations of Dreadnoughts and Capital Weapons become official and get implemented that way for any future Capital Weapons.
Some CapGuns ought to have the advantage of extended range. Perhaps some should be designed around a devastating point-blank, shield-melting attack that's good for chewing up cruisers and carriers but not very effective against nimble escorts.
I'm also proposing that Capital Weapons might, in some cases, be considered modular. As in, you could equip them, or not. You could mount them fore, or aft. Or both. Even possibly move a CapGun from one ship to another one. (Picture a Phaser Lance on an Oddy.)
I know it doesn't entirely make sense from a canon viewpoint. Most likely, Capital Weapons would technically be integrated into the superstructure of the ship like they are with the Phaser Lance and the Energy Javelin. Not something you're supposed to be able to swap in and out. And if you could, it would take a shipyard to do it.
But technically speaking, you shouldn't be able to swap out any weapons on the fly in the first place.
By the way, I also agree that weapons and armor ought to come with some tradeoffs, at least up to a point. Or to be more accurate, there should be a relationship between hull strength, crew size, inertia and turn rate, and weapon mounts. You can increase one at the expense of something else.
My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment. You can file a "forums and website" support ticket here Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
I'm also proposing that Capital Weapons might, in some cases, be considered modular. As in, you could equip them, or not. You could mount them fore, or aft. Or both. Even possibly move a CapGun from one ship to another one. (Picture a Phaser Lance on an Oddy.)
I disgree to a point
Modular in the sense that we may be able to swap them between ships but not that the Capweapons can be place both fore and aft. Being such large, hard hitting and heavy weapons like Cannons, I think they should iether be set to a fore placement or broadside placement (if such ever comes to be) only.
Or we open cannons up to fore and aft placement.:P
I disgree to a point
Modular in the sense that we may be able to swap them between ships but not that the Capweapons can be place both fore and aft. Being such large, hard hitting and heavy weapons like Cannons, I think they should iether be set to a fore placement or broadside placement (if such ever comes to be) only.
Or we open cannons up to fore and aft placement.:P
The only reason I even suggest it is because the ships they're mounted on generally have poor turn rates and the weapons generally have poor firing arcs.
Both together means you can't hit the broad side of a barn with one at point-blank range. Assuming the barn is moving through space at a decent clip, of course
But if the weapons had extended range to compensate for the poor turn rate, I would agree that an aft placement isn't totally necessary.
My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment. You can file a "forums and website" support ticket here Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
Actually, yes, there are "Engineering escorts" and "science escorts" in the game. They are called Birds Of Prey.
The BoP is not an escort. It is a raider and trades that versatility for way lower hull, shields and one less BOff slot. Its a Jack of all trades yes, but master of none.
Escorts on the other hand are designed strictly to be escorts and have all the traits needed to fulfill that function.
There is even a big fat science ship class: The carrier.
The Carrier is its own class, not SciencE. The VoQ is anot a science ship, even though it has Science heavy BOff slots, as it has only one special science related trait which is Sub system targeting. It lacks Sensor Analysis and the +30% Shield modifier bonus of the science vessel.
Heh, I just thought about being at the wrong end of an extended-range Capital Weapon mounted on an NPC Dreadnought and trying to close to effective range of my own weapons.
It'd be awesome.
Tactically speaking, it's an interesting problem. Staying out of the firing arc of a Capital Weapon and closing the distance while trying to avoid getting caught in a crossfire from supporting vessels.
Whole new dynamic. I would welcome it. My crew, not so much
My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment. You can file a "forums and website" support ticket here Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
The only reason I even suggest it is because the ships they're mounted on generally have poor turn rates and the weapons generally have poor firing arcs.
Both together means you can't hit the broad side of a barn with one at point-blank range. Assuming the barn is moving through space at a decent clip, of course
I was basing my response strictly on the fact that cannons are fore mount only due to thier size and heavy caliber, so to speak. As Cap weapons would be even bigger it makes sense that such a restriction should apply as well to them.
But if the weapons had extended range to compensate for the poor turn rate, I would agree that an aft placement isn't totally necessary.
Unfortuantely extended range is tricky to balance given the mechanics that STO space combat uses. If not properly balanced it will allow for sniping without the ability for the target to have the chance to retaliate. If Cap weapons are given an extended range then they should have a restricted short range modifier that makes it impossible to target within X amount of KM. thus allowing ships to close to "Boarding distance" and get inside its guns.
Frankly though I still like the Battleship idea given in this post daedelus1 though in retrospect I would change its BOff layout to something slightly better (imo).
Heh, I just thought about being at the wrong end of an extended-range Capital Weapon mounted on an NPC Dreadnought and trying to close to effective range of my own weapons.
It'd be awesome.
Tactically speaking, it's an interesting problem. Staying out of the firing arc of a Capital Weapon and closing the distance while trying to avoid getting caught in a crossfire from supporting vessels.
Whole new dynamic. I would welcome it. My crew, not so much
True, it would bring a new dynamic to combat. Though Escorts would have it easy to stay out of the firing arcs, Cruisers not so much and Science vessle would fall somehwere in between.
Unfortuantely extended range is tricky to balance given the mechanics that STO space combat uses. If not properly balanced it will allow for sniping without the ability for the target to have the chance to retaliate. If Cap weapons are given an extended range then they should have a restricted short range modifier that makes it impossible to target within X amount of KM. thus allowing ships to close to "Boarding distance" and get inside its guns.
I'm making a possibly bad assumption that there's a range modifier to accuracy, just as there is a range modifier to damage.
Currently we can shoot from 9.99km, but we won't necessarily hit or do a lot of damage if we do. The effective range of standard energy weapons is a lot closer to 5-7km, I think.
So even if a Cap Weapon had a maximum range of, say, 12 km, the effective range might be closer to 10 km.
Aren't there existing weapons in STO that have a minimum range? I'm not opposed to a short minimum range for Cap Weapons either, if the game mechanics can allow for it.
But mainly, point-blank range would be hampered by a combination of limited firing arcs and low turn rate. I'm not sure we'd need a minimum range; it would still be darn hard to hit anything that wasn't foolish enough to cross in front of you.
I can hardly keep ships in the forward arc of torpedoes mounted on large cruisers as it is. Imagine what an even tighter arc would do. Good for long-range, bad for close in.
My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment. You can file a "forums and website" support ticket here Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
You need to add one ensign slot to make this vessel on par with all the other t5 ships.
I disagree. As a Speciality vessel its fine with the current set-up. What it lacks in BOff slots is made up for in special abilites inherent to the description of its class abilities.
As described by Daedilus
Bonus ability
Broadside Firing Mode
(Maximum Weapon broadside capability of fire.)
(Improved Defenses on Firing side via Armor enhancement versus damage)
Drawbacks
Weak shielding
Armor enhancements only affects firing side of vessel.
Heavy tactical BOff slots/ Minor Engineering & Science BOff slots
Can only be stationary or travel in straight line while in Broadside Fire Mode
Slow turnrate
The Advent of a Change to a LT Engineer allows for some Shield enhancing Abilites and the Ensign Science would allow for iether a Hull enhancement or shield enhancement with making the Vessel overly powerful as a tank.
Ok after reading the last ten or so pages to catch up, I still think its relevent to re post this since it solves a few problems people kept complaining about.
*REPOSTED*
Honestly I thought we were getting one by the name of Typhoon Class....only problem is people want it to be a Sovreign Skin....that is not a good Idea, the Sovreign is nothing close to that big nor powerful. and if it is going to be a battle ship then its going to be a new class of ship, one with broadside weapons and dedicated to weapon power... it wouldn't be a battle ship if you couldn't fire 5 cannons bradside....yes 5...imagine the carnage.
there would be drawbacks of course, for one, when it enters broadside fire mode it cannot move and shields would be down, but the cannons have half the cooldown of normal ships.
I would allow for firing in BSM while stationary at no modifier ACC and while moving at a small modifier to ACC.
I would keep shields up even while in BSM as with escort shields they will no be all that powerful or easily buffed under the idea for its BOff layout below.
there will be serious power lashbacks while in broadside mode, lashbacks you have to correct yourself, prefferably in a minigame style. this would occur offten if you try to do constant fire for more than 10 seconds, it would take some skill to cool it down or it could cause some damage which would need components to repair.
I disagree. Being stationary allows for no Bonus Defense so this vessel will be extremely easy to hit and will suffer Criticals more often while under attack. I would also do away with the 10 seconds or hit cooldown idea and just let the weapon energy drain determine how long a player is willing to use BSM. I assume Cap Weapons will have a massive drain of near if not more than -15 per volley.
The use of a minigame would be a distraction too much in combat for the player, in my opinion.
shields would be that of a normal escort but there would be armor that comes with the ship and greatly makes up for the lack of shield power. this also means it would be hard to take the armor down even with kinetic (IE torpedos) force. but the armor must take up all 4 slots for engineering consoles.
The Escort level shields seem to be a good balancer but I would make the special armor consoles bound to this vessel only, take up only two Engineer console slots and be similair to Victorium Alloy
Battleship Victorium Alloy (2 consoles combined)
+ 30.5% Kinetic damage resistance
+ 30.5% All Energy Damage Resistance
This would leave two Engineer consoles open to add more Armor or other Engineering Consoles as the player see fit. THis bonus coupled with Skills, BOff Abilities and other bonus from further equipment, etc should make the Battleship hard to kill but no impossible in a team setting.
it would have 4 engineering consoles, and 5 tactical, but 1 science.
it would be nearly completely dedicated to tactical with Boffs, 2 commanders 1 LTcmdr for tactical. 1 ensign engineering and 1 ensign sci.
I would suggest;
Commander Tactical
LTC tactical
LT: Engineer
Ensign: Science
This would allow for excellent Tactical Ability assingment without any dead BOff slots and allow for a minor level of protective buffing through Engineering and Science BOff slots.
this would be a true battle ship. so it would also include slots specificly for turrets.
remember this isnt like the ships we have now, it would be an entirely new class all on its own.
*Addidional posts added)
the armor would be sacrificial. meaning there will be a power to either lift one side or the other, never both, the side which goes into Broadside fire mode must be unarmored and only with the escort level shields. this would even it out just enough so it has serious firepower.
and I also quoted "hell I dont care if it has Tri-Beams instead of cannons, in order for a ship to be classified as a battleship it needs to be a big hulking gun platform.
people keep thinking "oh do this setup" or "have this Boff arangment" that will make it a battleship. no I dont want a refit, or a new arangment, I want the Typhoon, and I want it to be a new class all to its own, something STO does NOT already have and something we CAN'T do in other means, something to change PvP, and PvE. something to show, this is a ship designed to kill the bad guy and its not afraid to show it.
Comments
No, I can't quite see putting CapGuns on a science vessel any more than I can see putting them on an escort-class ship.
A Dreadnought with a science slant, maybe. Think a Science Odyssey with a Capital Weapon.
Also, I'm not thinking about a new kind of weapon slot. I'm thinking about an existing weapon slot that happens to be occupied by a Capital Weapon, a restriction on which ships can mount them, and a restriction on how many Capital Weapons can be equipped on one ship.
By using up an existing slot, it means you are giving up some versatility in order to use a Capital Weapon. The advantage, hopefully, would be a longer effective range and higher damage to offset the disadvantage at close range.
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
Everything is mounted on some level of turret. Even the phaser lance has a 45 degree arc, and that is a spinal mount.
No RL battleships had 360 degree turrets, at least not for anything larger than anti-aircraft weapons.
R.I.P
Carriers are their own ship class. If the D'Kyr is the Science heavy ship, then the Heavy Escort Carrier is the tactical heavy ship. Also Feds can't fly birds of prey, so I don't think engineers have a fast and light ship class, at least for Feds.
Klinks having the BoP doesn't mean anything to Fed ship balance. You're basically saying "It exists in game, you just can't fly one as a Fed". Also, since all BoP have pure universal BOff slots, you can't really call them an "engineering" ship. They can be anything they want.
Trying to prove the Heavy Escort Carrier isn't a Carrier doesn't change the fact is a heavy, slow, tactical ship that launches fighters.
I would love to see capital ship guns, and I think that there needs to be a new tactical ship since the Engineers just got the Odyssey. So I agree with you guys there. We also need more science ships.
Spinal Phaser Lance of the Gal-X, Javelin Beam of the Guramba, Disruptor Autocannon of the Bortas. Isometric Charge of the...uhh..Koro't'inga, I think.
In a similar note, the Point Defense System and Torpedo Defense System could be classified as a 'capital' weapon.
All of those, pretty much have a primary purpose of making lots of booms happen. I feel like adding new weapons like that would diminish the usage we'd get out of what I mentioned above.
I'm not saying I am against them, I'd totally deck out my huge Bortas with them if they existed. In fact, it'd probably look like this by the time I was done:
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb57524/starwars/images/d/da/EclipseHangsOminouslyInSpace-FoC.jpg :P
But...just so long as all the stuff we have now isn't pretty much dropped by the wayside to do so.
On a separate note, I'd like to add in another point.
Base hull strength.
That's pretty much the 'normal armor', the structural integrity fields, etc holding the ship together. Adding more armor plating (in your engineering console slots), helps reduce the amount of damage taken, but even when that armor is gotten past, eventually your ship goes ka-boomy.
So generally thus a larger ship can better handle more weapons, it would have to give up a lot of that 'armor' to do it, by adding in more weapons ports, you'd create weak points in the armor, but gaining firepower.
What I am getting at, is that regardless of the consoles, regardless of BOFF layout...(and I'm not an engineer of ANY kind, so forgive any mistakes I might make), as a basic engineering point, if you equip a lot more guns on something, you'd still be losing those further extra armor plates, the greater structural fields, and so on.
I doubt that's a very good way of putting it, but I realized that would be the trade off, regardless of anything else, even if this battleship had a primarily engineering BOFF layout, it'd still have all those weapons to fire.
I think that it is perfectly possible for the OP to have his battleship, but as I mentioned in my previous post a few pages back, he can't have his cake and eat it too.
As a totally silly matter, I'd love a battleship than for no other reason to jokingly say all the time:
"*gasp* You sank my battleship!"
the oddy is the slow and heavy tac. you can use the Tac hull to get the 3 tac consoles or the sci hull and get the sensor analyses
it has a LT tac spot and a Uni LTC and Ensign that you can assign tac boffs.
vids and guides and stuff
[9:52] [Zone #11] Neal@trapper1532: im a omega force shadow oprative and a maoc elite camander and here i am taking water samples
vids and guides and stuff
[9:52] [Zone #11] Neal@trapper1532: im a omega force shadow oprative and a maoc elite camander and here i am taking water samples
This threat actually made me bring it out of spacedock.
Totally agree that those are all basically what I'd call capital weapons. And they're equipped on ships that fit the general idea of a Dreadnought, for the most part.
I'm proposing that the designations of Dreadnoughts and Capital Weapons become official and get implemented that way for any future Capital Weapons.
Some CapGuns ought to have the advantage of extended range. Perhaps some should be designed around a devastating point-blank, shield-melting attack that's good for chewing up cruisers and carriers but not very effective against nimble escorts.
I'm also proposing that Capital Weapons might, in some cases, be considered modular. As in, you could equip them, or not. You could mount them fore, or aft. Or both. Even possibly move a CapGun from one ship to another one. (Picture a Phaser Lance on an Oddy.)
I know it doesn't entirely make sense from a canon viewpoint. Most likely, Capital Weapons would technically be integrated into the superstructure of the ship like they are with the Phaser Lance and the Energy Javelin. Not something you're supposed to be able to swap in and out. And if you could, it would take a shipyard to do it.
But technically speaking, you shouldn't be able to swap out any weapons on the fly in the first place.
By the way, I also agree that weapons and armor ought to come with some tradeoffs, at least up to a point. Or to be more accurate, there should be a relationship between hull strength, crew size, inertia and turn rate, and weapon mounts. You can increase one at the expense of something else.
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
R.I.P
The only reason I even suggest it is because the ships they're mounted on generally have poor turn rates and the weapons generally have poor firing arcs.
Both together means you can't hit the broad side of a barn with one at point-blank range. Assuming the barn is moving through space at a decent clip, of course
But if the weapons had extended range to compensate for the poor turn rate, I would agree that an aft placement isn't totally necessary.
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
R.I.P
It'd be awesome.
Tactically speaking, it's an interesting problem. Staying out of the firing arc of a Capital Weapon and closing the distance while trying to avoid getting caught in a crossfire from supporting vessels.
Whole new dynamic. I would welcome it. My crew, not so much
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
R.I.P
True, it would bring a new dynamic to combat. Though Escorts would have it easy to stay out of the firing arcs, Cruisers not so much and Science vessle would fall somehwere in between.
R.I.P
I'm making a possibly bad assumption that there's a range modifier to accuracy, just as there is a range modifier to damage.
Currently we can shoot from 9.99km, but we won't necessarily hit or do a lot of damage if we do. The effective range of standard energy weapons is a lot closer to 5-7km, I think.
So even if a Cap Weapon had a maximum range of, say, 12 km, the effective range might be closer to 10 km.
Aren't there existing weapons in STO that have a minimum range? I'm not opposed to a short minimum range for Cap Weapons either, if the game mechanics can allow for it.
But mainly, point-blank range would be hampered by a combination of limited firing arcs and low turn rate. I'm not sure we'd need a minimum range; it would still be darn hard to hit anything that wasn't foolish enough to cross in front of you.
I can hardly keep ships in the forward arc of torpedoes mounted on large cruisers as it is. Imagine what an even tighter arc would do. Good for long-range, bad for close in.
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
I disagree. As a Speciality vessel its fine with the current set-up. What it lacks in BOff slots is made up for in special abilites inherent to the description of its class abilities.
As described by Daedilus
Bonus ability
Broadside Firing Mode
(Maximum Weapon broadside capability of fire.)
(Improved Defenses on Firing side via Armor enhancement versus damage)
Drawbacks
Weak shielding
Armor enhancements only affects firing side of vessel.
Heavy tactical BOff slots/ Minor Engineering & Science BOff slots
Can only be stationary or travel in straight line while in Broadside Fire Mode
Slow turnrate
The Advent of a Change to a LT Engineer allows for some Shield enhancing Abilites and the Ensign Science would allow for iether a Hull enhancement or shield enhancement with making the Vessel overly powerful as a tank.
R.I.P