test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Proposed changes to Klingon ships

jgp1975jgp1975 Member Posts: 1 Arc User
edited August 2012 in Klingon Discussion
This is a topic that I have grumbled about for a long time, and with changes to ships slots I feel that the topic may now have merits worth discussing.

Klingon ships (B'rel, Raptor, K'tinga, Vor'cha, Negh'Var) were all designed using the Klingon tactic of heavy forward attack. Heavy forward weapons coverage, heavy forward shields, and small craft being fast and agile. Small craft strafe, larger craft keep the enemy with in the forward half of the ship. STO has never honored this idea. Most other Trek games have tried to stick to the canon lore.

So what I am suggesting is a modification to the Klingon ships. The Bortas Disruptor Autocannon console has started the offer the idea of heavy forward weapons. I suggest they make the fore weapons count 1 slot higher, and remove one aft weapon slot on all ships. The B'rel never had aft weapons, so 3 fore slots for dual cannons/torps. The Raptor config works with my suggestions. K'tinga was limited light weapons on the aft, so 3 fore 1 aft. The Vor'Cha and Negh'Var had some aft coverage mostly torp/mine/missle coverage, so a 5 fore 3 aft coverage would make sense. The cruiser/battleships would benefit from a point defense console, or maybe one fighter/frigate bay.

Klingon ship shields should be a 40% fore, 20% port/starboard, 20% aft configuration. Some suggestions show fast ships having 45% fore, 15% aft alternate set up. Federation ships were noted for their strong even facing shields, but Klingons opted to put more energy usage in to weapons/engines. Also Klingons used more hull armor then Federation ships since Klingons were feudal rather then explorers.

Now I have not forgotten that Gorn, Orion, and Nausicaans ships will not follow these designs. I honestly would not want them to use them. Klingons are well known to capture enemy ships, and use them. Covert Ops, reverse engineering, or ransom. The Klingons use any advantage allowed. Cloaking Tech was offered by the Romulans in exchange for ships, though the Romulan gave older versions of cloaking devices for premium Klingon ships (Bird of Prey/K'Tinga Cruisers mostly). Klingons are crafty, resourceful, and will sacrifice for victory. Gorn Shield Tech, along with advanced Hull Designs, would explain why the shields and weapons are more equalized. Orions use of fighters/shuttles/platforms would also remove heavy forward weapons, and lack of missile usage. The Nausicaans use simular tactics to the Klingons, and so they would have simular designs.

In the end I would like to see a move to heavier frontal weapons/shields for Klingon ships to better define the Klingons ships. It would a unique feature, and would change the tactics used. In PVP the head on attack would be pointless against Klingon ships, as it should be. You do not run head on toward an angered beast. You find a way to flank it, and attack it on the weak side.

I do not expect others to agree, and I do accept that this might be something the game engine can not support. I still want to suggest it. If I say nothing it will never change. Even if this just gets the community,or the Devs, thinking of new ways to augment the game play I will be happy.

Thanks for reading.
Post edited by jgp1975 on

Comments

  • lordmalak1lordmalak1 Member Posts: 4,681 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    Out of the box ST:O got the shield config wrong- they use a 4 sided 'box', where canon and many other trek games are hexagonal (6 sides). Strike 1.

    ST:O configures the weapons into the 4 sided box with fore/aft only arcs, where most other trek space games use the hexagonal model where there are left/right firing arcs. Strike 2.

    ST:O forced the Federation sci-cruiser doctrine onto the KDF cruisers, making them primarily science/exploration cruisers instead of 'Battle' cruisers that warlike species use to conquer enemies with. Strike 3.

    ST:O took a stupid B&B theme and ran with it- they took a small/lightly armed patrol ship (BoP) and turned into the heart of the fleet, with powers beyond absurd. Side retired.
    KBF Lord MalaK
    Awoken Dead
    giphy.gif

    Now shaddup about the queues, it's a BUG
  • misterde3misterde3 Member Posts: 4,195 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    The reason other games (in other words all SFC games except the last one) used the hexagonal approach is because they were a direct copy of Star Fleet Battles to the PC with the only change being that the ships used different models.
    Guess what: SFB is played on a hex map.:)
  • lordmalak1lordmalak1 Member Posts: 4,681 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    misterde3 wrote: »
    The reason other games (in other words all SFC games except the last one) used the hexagonal approach is because they were a direct copy of Star Fleet Battles to the PC with the only change being that the ships used different models.
    Guess what: SFB is played on a hex map.:)

    Yup- the king of ALL trek games, been playing it since '82. The hexagonal model has been in ST films as well, so it's actually canon.
    KBF Lord MalaK
    Awoken Dead
    giphy.gif

    Now shaddup about the queues, it's a BUG
  • misterde3misterde3 Member Posts: 4,195 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    lordmalak1 wrote: »
    Yup- the king of ALL trek games, been playing it since '82. The hexagonal model has been in ST films as well, so it's actually canon.

    SFB is not Star Trek actually.
    In fact its an entirely different universe.
    The Prime Directive RPG specifically adresses this and states "This is not Star Trek".

    And where is the hexagonal thing mentioned if I may ask?
  • lordmalak1lordmalak1 Member Posts: 4,681 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    misterde3 wrote: »
    SFB is not Star Trek actually.
    In fact its an entirely different universe.
    The Prime Directive RPG specifically adresses this and states "This is not Star Trek".

    And where is the hexagonal thing mentioned if I may ask?

    ??
    StarFleet battles isn't 'star trek' ? -News to me. Unless this is some new disclaimer since the old ADB days trying to distance themselves from the B&B 're-imagining' of Star Trek. SFB was never 'canon' trek as most of the material was taken from the TOS tech manuals and never made it to television or the big screen.


    Also, look at the tac displays in the movie ships: The klingon attack in the opening of the first movie, theres another one in the BoP in the undiscovered country. I remember a few more scattered throughout the series' but the movie ones are easiest to find.
    KBF Lord MalaK
    Awoken Dead
    giphy.gif

    Now shaddup about the queues, it's a BUG
  • lostusthornlostusthorn Member Posts: 844
    edited August 2012
    Frankly with the way the rest of the game is structured, it would make kdf cruisers into big big targets. Get a escort on your butt is already trouble for a cruiser of any kind. Having your aft shields reduced so much spells pretty much instant death in pvp.
  • kamenskshaxkamenskshax Member Posts: 20 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    lordmalak1 wrote: »
    Out of the box ST:O got the shield config wrong- they use a 4 sided 'box', where canon and many other trek games are hexagonal (6 sides). Strike 1.

    ST:O configures the weapons into the 4 sided box with fore/aft only arcs, where most other trek space games use the hexagonal model where there are left/right firing arcs. Strike 2.

    ST:O forced the Federation sci-cruiser doctrine onto the KDF cruisers, making them primarily science/exploration cruisers instead of 'Battle' cruisers that warlike species use to conquer enemies with. Strike 3.

    ST:O took a stupid B&B theme and ran with it- they took a small/lightly armed patrol ship (BoP) and turned into the heart of the fleet, with powers beyond absurd. Side retired.

    To me all the games appear to have got stuck on the board game concept - space is 3D - so why no "upper" and "lower" shields/weapons?
  • misterde3misterde3 Member Posts: 4,195 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    lordmalak1 wrote: »
    ??
    StarFleet battles isn't 'star trek' ? -News to me. Unless this is some new disclaimer since the old ADB days trying to distance themselves from the B&B 're-imagining' of Star Trek. SFB was never 'canon' trek as most of the material was taken from the TOS tech manuals and never made it to television or the big screen.


    I kid you not.
    That's the reason there's that "Star Fleet Universe" icon on every product.
    Because that's what it is.
    Not the Star Trek universe but the Star Fleet universe.
    I don't know when they started it but it's the official stance by the people who make the game.
    Doesn't make it any less great than it is though.
    However it does have an entirely different history in "both directions" from the perspective of the Original Series.
    You can read a bit more about it on their own page:

    http://starfleetgames.com/aboutsfu.shtml

    http://starfleetgames.com/documents/Timeline.pdf
    lordmalak1 wrote: »
    Also, look at the tac displays in the movie ships: The klingon attack in the opening of the first movie, theres another one in the BoP in the undiscovered country. I remember a few more scattered throughout the series' but the movie ones are easiest to find.

    Yes and no.
    The Klingon coordinate system is not based on sqares like ours, it's based on triagles.
    And of course you can use triangles to build a hex out of them.
    I think this is what you mean:

    http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/1690/vlcsnap2011080510h29m15.png

    This is from DS9 and should show it a bit more clearly:

    http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/3766/wallmapcloseup.png
  • lordmalak1lordmalak1 Member Posts: 4,681 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    Still, triangles can make squares but I don't see a hint of a square on any KDF chart or display, and the first pic you posted clearly outlines a hexagon.

    I will concede the weakness in the design of this game, and the complete lack of side bearing weapons as a 'gift' to those players uninterested in complex mechanix- this isn't a simulator. Simplicity was designed in to attract a 'pew-pew' crowd with short attention spans.
    :D
    KBF Lord MalaK
    Awoken Dead
    giphy.gif

    Now shaddup about the queues, it's a BUG
  • bitemepwebitemepwe Member Posts: 6,760 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    I agree the shield revamp would not work as the game is not designed for it, though I do like the idea that Klingon battle cruisers get a revamp to a more forward slotted weapon aproach.

    A Vor'cha, Negh'var,K'tinga with a 5/3 set-up makes more since than the standard 4/4 that beam boats abide by normally. Given teh Klingon use of cannons and our often higher turn rate, it makes sense to me.
    The BortasQu would be the only vessel to suffer since it has the crappy turnrate.

    The Raptors could be left as they are since they all have one less weapon slots as it is.
    The BoPs could be left untouched as well since they have even one less weapon slot than the Raptors.

    All other KDF ships could be left alone as being from different races they may have differing design philosophies than the Klingon "in your face" approach to combat.
    Leonard Nimoy, Spock.....:(

    R.I.P
  • meurikmeurik Member Posts: 856 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    To me all the games appear to have got stuck on the board game concept - space is 3D - so why no "upper" and "lower" shields/weapons?

    Check out Bridge Commander (released in 2002). It has forward, aft, left, right, top and bottom shields. It has full 360-degree ship movement and firing arcs, with "left" weapons capable of firing 90 degrees up, down, left, right and forward from it's mounting (depending on the ships configuration/hardpoint).
    HvGQ9pH.png
  • trueprom3theustrueprom3theus Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    Yup, roach is right, the game mechanics won't allow more than 4 shield facings. And since changing the shield mechanics probably needs many changes, it won't happen. On the top of that, we're talking about the kdf, the poor and abused kid of sto, lol. But it's an interesting concept though and I would like it being implemented. what they could do is to allow a weapon from back to be moved to the front, especially for higher turn rate ships. But then some other faction may consider it op...

    And yea, bridge commander was the closest game to the cannon star trek.
    Hear! Sons of Kahless
    Hear! Daughters too.
    The blood of battle washes clean.
    The Warrior brave and true.
    We fight, we love, and then we kill...
  • bitemepwebitemepwe Member Posts: 6,760 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    Yup, roach is right, the game mechanics won't allow more than 4 shield facings. And since changing the shield mechanics probably needs many changes, it won't happen. On the top of that, we're talking about the kdf, the poor and abused kid of sto, lol. But it's an interesting concept though and I would like it being implemented. what they could do is to allow a weapon from back to be moved to the front, especially for higher turn rate ships. But then some other faction may consider it op...

    And yea, bridge commander was the closest game to the cannon star trek.

    Unless you ran all beams on a battle Cruiser it shouldn't be OP, and even then it would not be OP as a 4/4 Cruiser can still Broadside all beams like a 5/3 Battle cruiser would be able to.

    The 5 forward weapons would not be OP becuase even with a burst shot, once your target gets out of the limited cannon firing arc the only weapons you have on them would be your rear Turrets or at most two beams.
    Frankly it would make the BCs more vulnerable to those rear arc creeping escorts and make the BC player ahve to think more about his/her attacking posture.

    Plus I think it fits the IP for Klingons very well.
    Leonard Nimoy, Spock.....:(

    R.I.P
  • lordmalak1lordmalak1 Member Posts: 4,681 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately depending on your point of view) other games assigned a BPV to each weapon and when equipping a ship you were limited to the BPV total allowed on any given ship, so it was VERY unlikely that you'd run into an all-cannon equipped ship unless it gave up some other unit (say an Aux reactor or a couple of weapon mounts). ST:O doesn't use that type of system so it's very common to see ships running around overloaded with weapons of a single type.

    A change to this system this late in the game isn't going to happen.

    The 5/3 layout works rather well tho, as a torp launcher, pair of cannons and pair of beams cover the front 235 deg arc nicely, and a torp and pair of turrets are a nice rear defensive setup, that can be swapped for beams as ST:O doesn't need any drone defenseon ships.
    KBF Lord MalaK
    Awoken Dead
    giphy.gif

    Now shaddup about the queues, it's a BUG
  • dontdrunkimshootdontdrunkimshoot Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    in nemisis, it was clear their were 6 shield facing on at least the enterprise, the 4 sides, dorsal and ventral. but as far as gameplay is concerned, im most happy with 4. the flight angles we are limited to makes any more facing an over complication, to even engage an enemy with low arc weapons you have to be at approximately the same plain as him. having 4 v 6 is a minor, unimportant issue really, its the setups of the ships themselves that are not quite right.


    i would make enumerable changes to all ships, but proboly to kdf the most. the system in place is great imo, the engine and gameplay system is solid, its just the entries associated with the ships that need work. you can have balance and a closer interpretation to canon, saying you have to chose 1 or the other is a cop out, it can totally be done.
  • cidstormcidstorm Member Posts: 1,220 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    Im ok with how the shields work right now and can't think of a single canon shot of shields being shown as six sided. The moving a weapon to the front idea is really interesting though. Maybe it could be a console option?
  • misterde3misterde3 Member Posts: 4,195 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    lordmalak1 wrote: »
    Still, triangles can make squares but I don't see a hint of a square on any KDF chart or display, and the first pic you posted clearly outlines a hexagon.

    Not sure what you're aiming at with this.
    Yes triangles can make squares.
    Triangles with a right angle for example.
    With these triangles it's impossible since they're even sided ones with 60 degree angles.
    The best you can get out of those would be a parallelogram.
    And since the Klingons seem to like threes, a hexagon make more sens aestetically speaking than a prallelogram which always looke kinda crooked.

    Still the triangle is the smallest element in the Klingon "grid" not the hex like in SFB.
    *scratches head* are we really debating geometry right now?
    Oh boy do I feel nerdy today.:)
  • tancrediivtancrediiv Member Posts: 728 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    I'm not going to get into the circular mines bigger than your argument going on in this thread as they are useless arguing that raise my blood pressure and make me think "get off my lawn" curmudgeon like thoughts. The idea of more attack front and less rear is interesting, but the shield stuff would just make the KDF more the Feds bad guy targets. No thanks.

    Canon. Heh, this is a game. Balance. Heh, one persons balance is another's whine.

    A tier 5 BoP purchased from the z store has the same weapon layout as a commander level ship. No way this ship shouldn't be 4 and 3.

    This game is based on a 4 shield need more pew pew design. Gotta beat down the shield face to do the hurting. 5 front? Ok. Decreasing rear guns. NO.

    Player and forumite formerly known as FEELTHETHUNDER

    Expatriot Might Characters in EXILE
Sign In or Register to comment.