test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
carriers anyone feel the same way
tiranis47
Member Posts: 3 Arc User
Iv been using carriers for awhile now and they seem to launch to few fighters for their size in my opinion id like to see the atrox and vo'quv have 4 or 5 hanger bays since they are meant to carry for offensive and defence purposes,
the max peregrine fighters you can have out at once is 12 with 2 hanger bays and with delta flyers/runabout you can have 8 out at one time so with two more hanger bay they start to seem like carriers 24 fighters would be more then enough ships to carry for a carrier and i know that starfleet is not a military faction, military factions would have 50 if not a 100 fighters
This is my first time posting on forums and does anyone else feel the same way?
the max peregrine fighters you can have out at once is 12 with 2 hanger bays and with delta flyers/runabout you can have 8 out at one time so with two more hanger bay they start to seem like carriers 24 fighters would be more then enough ships to carry for a carrier and i know that starfleet is not a military faction, military factions would have 50 if not a 100 fighters
This is my first time posting on forums and does anyone else feel the same way?
people are real unbalancement in games
Post edited by tiranis47 on
0
Comments
more so than it already is lol
3 * 4 = 12
Fleet Admiral Space Orphidian Possiblities Wizard
That way you'd have 36 fighters out there, while still only having 12 targetable objects.
Similar to Civ 4, where you can decide if your unit gets represented by a single or multiple little guys, while not having any effect on it's performance.
But if you're arguing with realism, I always wonder where my Vesta keeps those 50 runabouts that get launched and destroyed in each battle. Perhaps hangars should become consumables, which you have to restock at ESD after each battle...
/thread
This is vaguely akin to someone retrofitting an Iowa-class battleship by taking off the last turret and slapping on some F-35s in a hangar (a la the Moskva class).
That's not a carrier, it's a TAVKR- Heavy Aviation-Carrying Cruiser, in Russian parlance.
Let us assume that each fighter 'hangar' bay has a 1500-2500 dps capability, and let us assume that a carrier has between six and seven weapons slots, each of which is probably capable of 500-1500 dps before skill bonuses.
A true carrier, therefore, should have no weapons slots, but should have (3000-10,500)/(1500-2500)= ~2-6 hangars beyond the the standard two, or four to eight hangars depending on a variety of factors.
With four hangars each launching two flights of three fighters, you get a carrier wing of 24 fighters.
However, basically anyone could tell you that this ship would be a terrible failure. The fighter AI is insufficient for this task. Fighters are too slow, too stupid, and too poorly armed to be particularly lethal against player ships and player ships have very poor point-defense against fighters, for the most part.
The easiest fix for this, as far as I can tell, is to give the carrier ship a variety of built-in skills that compliment its fighters. Scrap sensor analysis and subsystem targeting on a carrier; after all, it has none of its own weapons, and does not need them. Similarly, most offensive skills are useless on a carrier with no weapons.
So. What skills would be optimal for fighters?
Built In Ship Skills:
1. Fighter Direction (built in passive)- sensor analysis-like stacking buff to your fighters energy weapons damage when you maintain a target lock on a hostile target.
2. Emergency Scramble (built in active)- all fighters launch at once. 180 second cooldown, doubles time to launch next hangars.
Tactical boff skill:
1. Attack Pattern Epsilon I- all fighters gain an instantaneous recharge to their torpedo cooldowns and conduct a bombing run on your selected target.
2. Attack Pattern Lambda I- all fighters gain a 30% buff to energy damage for 15 seconds.
Eng boff skill:
1. Evasive Maneuvers Beta- All fighters gain an "evasive maneuvers" skill and scramble back toward their carrier, attacking a random target currently firing on their carrier.
2. Hangar Repair Protocol- all fighters regain 50% of their health over 10 seconds and immunity to warp core breaches around them.
Sci boff skill:
1. Fighter Shield Hardening- all fighters gain a 25% boost to shield resistance and 50% recharge of their shields over 10 seconds.
2. Shield Bombardment- fighters gain a 75% boost to DPS but do not damage hull for 10 seconds.
...the Nimitz doesn't have Tomahawks. The largest weapon a Nimitz-class mounts is the RIM-162 ESSM, with a 39kg warhead.
For that matter, a Tomahawk is not an anti-ship weapon anyway, the RGM-109B was removed from service in the 1990s and the current versions are designed for land-attack. The TLAM-IV could potentially be used against large fleet targets, but that was not its design intent. It mounts a ~450kg warhead.
Finally, anyone who is stupid enough to get his huge, expensive Nimitz-class carrier into direct attack range of a hostile target deserves exactly what he gets.
so if we do this whole unarmed thing do the carries also get the rest of the carrier group? a couple frigates? a cruiser? an escort or two?
because naval carries have more then just the fighters to fall back on
Good thing that all endgame content is done in teams of 5 or more, then!
You have your carrier, and some escorts, cruisers, and science ships to form your battlegroup.
I must have missed the part where all STFs were fought on a two dimensional watery plane by 20th and 21st century seafaring naval ships.
Nobody said that they do. So what?
Then kindly stop trying to apply earth-bound ship designs, concepts and restrictions to what is a fundamentally different thing.
i don't think star trek is about fighter warfare
Our carriers are carriers in every sense of the word and unlike real carriers are not weakly armed targets rendered impotent with the loss of it's flight group, which, unlike what we have, would not be infinitely renewable. Players who would wish to field dozens of fighters would not like the nerfs and limitations imposed to balance that ability.
Cryptic has removed that factor in this game, unless you want to have to keep track of consumable stores for each fighter.
You also have to figure that your 2 hanger starship that launches 3 fighters each and relaunches another 3 fighters each for a total of 12 fighters. Once those 12 fighters is destroyed in combat, you are able to continually launch up to 12 fighters. Adjust this for the type of hanger pet you've equipped on your starship (4, 6 or 8 for some hanger pets). Basically what is going on is that your carrier is constructing those fighter when you need them. Meaning you have an unlimited number of fighters you can launch.
What I do. Every time the cool-down time is meet, I launch more "fresh" fighters. So over a 15 minute mission I actually launch approximately around 90 fighters. So I'm not complaining about how many hangers I have.
So be happy with what you've been given, how do you know; the starships that will come out when the level cap is raised to level 60 might be equipped with 3 hanger slots.
You're rather hilariously discounting things like replication, and the massive volume of some of the carrier craft ingame.
A Nimitz class carrier (just for some reference and context) is roughly 300 x 70 meters, and can carry (depending on mission specifications) up to 80 or 90 different aircraft.
How exactly do you get from that to a ship like the Atrox or Vo'Quv which is almost an order of magnitude larger, yet magically has to hold ten percent of the squadron capacity?
Note: not saying carriers need to launch dozens of fighters. Carrier balance as it stands right now is fairly decent, and the "gameplay trumps realism" card works for me in this situation. But arguing that ingame characters can't actually hold more than a dozen ships is quite absurd.
A modern day equivalent would be a Battleship that can launch fighters. A battleship who's main guns can also reliably hit other fighters. When you have weapons that can negate the fighter's advantage of speed, destroy enemy capital-class vessels and most importantly, your enemies have this same level of weapons technology fighters become less about delivering ordinance and more about delivering ordinance to several targets at once.
To bring up the matter of cost, say the Nimitz costs about 6 billion, and it carries 64 fighters that each cost about 60 million. Against an enemy that can reliably destroy it's entire compliment without those fighters completing their mission, that comes to about 3.8 billion gone to waste. Better to spend that money elsewhere.
Carriers are just fine as they are now in the game.
Because they're using that space for other things that contribute more to the Carrier's success than the ability to carry and launch more fighters.
Look at the flight pods on an Atrox. Combine them and you get roughly the volume of a present day sea-based carrier.
Unless of course you're arguing that the parts of the ship specifically designed for launch, recovery and upkeep of strike craft are used for something else entirely.
That would be because it's a silly factor in a universe with industrial-scale replicators, at which point the primary limitations are crew, power and carried raw materiel. Even the former is hardly a limiting factor, given the prevalence of photonics in STO, and so is the latter since practically any matter can be harvested and repurposed for replication. Lost small craft complements could be replaced in a matter of minutes to hours, depending on the size and complexity of the replicators, energy requirements, and relevant craft.
In that regard, it makes sense "carriers" in STO have small complements: most of the "hangar bay" is likely taken by industrial-scale replicators, fabrication equipment to rapidly build craft out of replicated parts (if necessary, since I'm sure an industrial-scale replicator cannot crank out an entire ready-for-flight strike craft in one piece), batteries, and matter holding tanks. Each ship probably only has the bay size to hold a handful of craft at once, to be scrambled if needed.
Spock's Brain.
Nope, what I'm getting at is a matter of how much of the ship is dedicated to its fighters. Those two pods are the entirety of their flight operations and make up only about 30-40% of the entire ship.
Where a modern day Carrier is closer to 70-80% dedicated to it's fighter craft.
The Atrox is several times larger but it doesn't have the same amount of ship dedicated to it's fighters.
So it has just as much (if not more) hangar capacity, but because the ship itself is bigger it has to by definition support less strike craft?
That makes zero sense.
As I mentioned in my previous post, you're making the assumption that space is used for storing strike craft, parts, and munitions. This is why the comparison to 20th Century seaborne carriers falls short; contemporary carriers have to store enough pre-built craft and munitions (and a greater variety, to meet a variance in mission profile) to sustain combat readiness despite losses, replacement parts and tools, fuel, and munitions. In the Star Trek universe, industrial-scale replicators would obviate the need to store surplus craft and replacement parts, not to mention fuel and munitions. On the other hand, carriers would need to carry industrial-scale replicators, that have themselves relevant power and materiel needs to be met by the craft.
Hence my supposition the "hangar bays" of STO aren't actually small craft storage and maintenance facilities, but rather on-site manufactories of small craft and necessary components, that operate as needs dictate. Hence, less space for storing small craft, but in exchange for the ability to sustain smaller complements of craft for longer periods of time.
Spock's Brain.
The fact that STO's strike craft are as dumb as a sack of hammers does not in the least make carriers into floating drone factories.
I said nothing about unmanned craft. Even considering that, the only space requirement is that of pilots, which even yet would be considerable as part of the "hangar bay" space, since even at 0/X crew a starship can launch and operate small craft.
What, precisely, does the AI of STO strike craft have to do with my point?
Spock's Brain.