The discussion goes in circles, really. Every two pages people will bing up the same arguments again and again. Yet again we have "there are fighters" (aside from the federation fighters which are more shuttle/corvette class and the sub-warp scorpions we don't have them) We have "we have carriers" (the Akira is no friggin' carrier. The guy who invented it wanted it to be a carrier, but the vessel that made it on screen was smaller than his design and most probably not a carrier. Even though DS9 wanted to appeal to Star Wars fans they didn't make carriers).
I think we should just accept that Starfighters and Carriers are the most advanced weapon system you can possibly invent and we all can be Tom Cruise flying to the dangerzone now :cool:
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
the Akira is no friggin' carrier. The guy who invented it wanted it to be a carrier, but the vessel that made it on screen was smaller than his design and most probably not a carrier. Even though DS9 wanted to appeal to Star Wars fans they didn't make carriers.
That is decidedly false. Alex Jaeger was directly involved in the creation of both CGI models used for the Akira (one for First Contact, and another for Sacrifice of Angels). Both models were built explicitly from blueprints he drew up, and the scale for both corresponded to the blueprints he made for the 3d modelers on both occasions.
Simply put, what showed up on-screen in regards to the size and scale of the Akira is exactly what Jaeger wanted.
I personally think hat everyone is crazy about carriers because it makes you feel like a real Admiral. Whenever you think of an admiral (int he real world) they are leading an armada of ships. Since STO doesn't allow us to lead all of our ships (that's collecting dust somewhere) into battle, the carrier would have to do as a substitute.
That is all.
One day Cryptic will be free from their Perfect World overlord. Until that day comes, they will continue to pamper the whales of this game, and ignore everyone that isn't a whale.
That is decidedly false. Alex Jaeger was directly involved in the creation of both CGI models used for the Akira (one for First Contact, and another for Sacrifice of Angels). Both models were built explicitly from blueprints he drew up, and the scale for both corresponded to the blueprints he made for the 3d modelers on both occasions.
Simply put, what showed up on-screen in regards to the size and scale of the Akira is exactly what Jaeger wanted.
The scale of the CGI mesh, according to a January 20, 1998 post in the newsgroup alt.tv.star-trek.ds9, by DS9 Visual Effects Supervisor David Stipes, was 860 feet or 262.13 meters, the length used when he blocked shots in DS9. [1] However, the measurement used by Visual Effects Supervisor Gary Hutzel, according to an in-house chart dated 5/15/98, was 840 feet.[2]
According to a size chart of Alex Jaeger, the Akira-class would be roughly 500 meters in length.[3]
Further, the technical manual states her to be an "heavy cruiser" type of vessel which features 15 torpedo tubes, suggesting they went with the "heavy destroyer" type of combat role. Whatever the size is (the technical manual states something in between) it's definitely not a carrier - the CGI model was not much larger than the Miranda Class (which is something around 240 meters I believe).
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
I personally think hat everyone is crazy about carriers because it makes you feel like a real Admiral. Whenever you think of an admiral (int he real world) they are leading an armada of ships. Since STO doesn't allow us to lead all of our ships (that's collecting dust somewhere) into battle, the carrier would have to do as a substitute.
That is all.
Except that Star Trek was always about the Captain and his crew, the Admirals just showed up on the monitors in the Captain's quarters once in a blue moon.
Further, the technical manual states her to be an "heavy cruiser" type of vessel which features 15 torpedo tubes, suggesting they went with the "heavy destroyer" type of combat role. Whatever the size is (the technical manual states something in between) it's definitely not a carrier - the CGI model was not much larger than the Miranda Class (which is something around 240 meters I believe).
Congratulations on not only completely misunderstanding terms, but getting your facts wrong.
Blocking a shot is a term for walking through or planning out a scene by looking at who and what moves in that given scene, and predicting camera placements accordingly. It isn't shooting a scene.
Secondly, the Akira model was scaled to come out around 400-500m meters based on it's relationship to the Sovereign model (which clocks in at over 700 meters if memory serves). Multiple on-screen comparison shots have been very carefully dissected and they consistently come in at 450 meters. Toss in the spatial math involved with how many decks the ship has, and all accounts point to a ship measuring in at roundabout 450 meters in length. Look at the Ex-Astris breakdown if you want the full workup.
Not to mention the stated length of 464 meters from the DS9:TM.
Thirdly, since we're quoting from Memory Alpha now...
Alex Jaeger stated that he created the Akira as a sort of "carrier/gunship," elaborating, "This was my gunship/battlecruiser/aircraft carrier. It has 15 torpedo launchers and two shuttlebays ? one in front, with three doors, and one in the back. I really got into it with this one, with the whole idea that the front bay would be the launching bay, and then to return they'd come into the back, because they'd be protected by the rest of the ship.". Visual inspection of the hull and design drawings show all fifteen, plus two more: twelve on the ship's weapons pod, one forward torpedo launcher under the deflector dish and four flanking torpedo launchers on the saucer, two on each side
I could understand the complaints if we never saw a fighter in Star Trek...but we did.
That being said canon is not some religion to be worshipped. They were flexible rules that were bent and broken when the writers of the various shows thought it would be cool. Klingons' look changed and didn't get explain (in canon) until 30 years later. Do we even have an explanation for why the Romulans look different?
Everything about the Next Generation changed canon. Bigger ships, new uniforms, new weaponry, new foes.
DS9 continued the changes. Based on a space station.
So why is this game not allowed to make changes? 30 years after Star Trek Nemesis and everything is supposed to be just as Jean Luc Picard left it.
Think about the changes Star Fleet and the Enterprise went through from the end of Kirk's five year mission to The Motion Picture.
Think about the changes from TMP to WOK (which was only a few years later). This wasn't a series held fast to canon.
and as for the whole it's dangerous being a pilot idea....58 crew members died on Kirk's five years mission. Also If I remember correctly Enterprise was the only ship to return from it's five year mission...that's why Starfleet adopted it's arrow head insignia.
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
Except that Star Trek was always about the Captain and his crew, the Admirals just showed up on the monitors in the Captain's quarters once in a blue moon.
yup Admiral Kirk only showed up once in a blue moon
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
Congratulations on not only completely misunderstanding terms, but getting your facts wrong.
Blocking a shot is a term for walking through or planning out a scene by looking at who and what moves in that given scene, and predicting camera placements accordingly. It isn't shooting a scene.
Secondly, the Akira model was scaled to come out around 400-500m meters based on it's relationship to the Sovereign model (which clocks in at over 700 meters if memory serves). Multiple on-screen comparison shots have been very carefully dissected and they consistently come in at 450 meters. Toss in the spatial math involved with how many decks the ship has, and all accounts point to a ship measuring in at roundabout 450 meters in length. Look at the Ex-Astris breakdown if you want the full workup.
Not to mention the stated length of 464 meters from the DS9:TM.
Okay, I didn't know that Sarcasm aside, thank you for pointing that out.
Thirdly, since we're quoting from Memory Alpha now...
Like I said, I know what the guy wanted it to be - but that incarnation never made it on screen, instead the vessel was directly involved in the action and got shot - if it was a carrier, wouldn't it try to stay out of the fight? And if you have a "gunship carrier" - doesn't that completely neglect the purpose of fighter craft to begin with?
Questions and more questions, though fact is that we never saw a single attak fighter launched from any ship and even if they were there is no indication that they couldn't be carried in regular shuttlebays precisley for that one instance where we see them in action (which were still referred to as "lightly armed shuttles" on-screen and really didn't fulfill their purpose in that particular battle).
But then again, I don't care, really. If the rule of cool applies so shall it be :cool:
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
Like I said, I know what the guy wanted it to be - but that incarnation never made it on screen, instead the vessel was directly involved in the action and got shot - if it was a carrier, wouldn't it try to stay out of the fight?
Not in the least. A ship equipped with frankly overwhelming torpedo systems would potentially engage in a slightly different manner than say a Defiant or a Galaxy, but the simple fact that said ship carried smaller combat craft in no way precludes it from getting into the thick of things.
Don't let "antiquated" notions of what a sea-borne carrier is limit you.
Questions and more questions, though fact is that we never saw a single attak fighter launched from any ship and even if they were there is no indication that they couldn't be carried in regular shuttlebays precisley for that one instance where we see them in action (which were still referred to as "lightly armed shuttles" on-screen and really didn't fulfill their purpose in that particular battle).
I'll again refer you back to this post in regards to what Peregrines managed to do during Operation Return. I'll also refer you to this post in regards to why a carrier launch sequence was never shown.
Hm. I think the real question is: Does the carrier playstyle in any way hinder other playstyles?
As some seem to believe that... how, do you think, does it do so?
For me when I purchased my Multimission Recon Explorer, it took some time to get used to fighting with my peregrine fighters (then later upgraded to Scorpion fighters). When they released the carrier commands 2.0 I loved it because I could now know the status of my fighters. Being in a science ship (and having an Engineering Vulcan character), I would heal them during the fight so that they can get to 5 stars.
Last week I purchased the Atrox. Now I have more work to do during fights (managing the health/ shields of 10 fighters plus whom I'm attacking and whom is attacking me), but seeing my Roundabout and Scorpions level up, they really beat down anything I can throw at them. Once they reach 5 stars, I focus on the fight and less on their status. Sadly, by that time the fight is over (Unless it's a STF).
Short Answer: It's not bad, it took some getting used. If I didn't fly a Multi-Mission Recon Explorer for 3 months it would have been impossible for me to adjust to the Atrox.
One day Cryptic will be free from their Perfect World overlord. Until that day comes, they will continue to pamper the whales of this game, and ignore everyone that isn't a whale.
Hm. I think the real question is: Does the carrier playstyle in any way hinder other playstyles?
As some seem to believe that... how, do you think, does it do so?
Because making Carriers into Tanks with Firepower + Fighters is the same a Cruiser should have (without the frelling fighters of course).
Just one question:
IF Carriers are such a great Ship type, why wasn't even ONE Enterprise (which is supposed to be the strongest ship) a carrier?
Tell me 2 or 3 names of a dedicated Starfleet Carrier + Shipclass.
Talking About the Akira.
Someone who designs a ship to be a Torpedo Boat, Cruiser and Carrier is either a 5 year old, completely incompetent or has completely failed to understand what Star Trek is about.
It's just another example of Star Trek being produced by people no knowing what it is about.
Rule of cool doesn't apply here, because if that where the case we would have Jedi being captains of Starfleet ships.
Again, tell me whats so cool about Carriers in the first place. Because no one could explain that point to me even remotely.
The bottom line is, discussing this topic is just tiresome, because your arguments are always the same, either you appoint exceptions or you just say carriers are cool.
To be honest Carriers or not, i couldn't care less. The only thing that annoys me is that Cryptic intorduced a new shipclass which hasn't ANYTHING to do with Star Trek instead of cleaning up the mess they did with Cruisers (=tanks: Wrong) in the first place.
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
First off i know this will reignite a whole war on this.
BUT.... Most ships in Star Trek have support craft. Even the tiny Defiant has shuttles. Little bitty ones but they are there.
IF you want to Rant about canon you might as well ask for your glaxy to have only the two forward phasers, limited torpedoes, and limited rear weapons.
THIS is a game, and can be whatever the designers want it to be. STOP comparing it to the U.S. Navy. Look at other Science fiction shows and movies. BSG didnt have an over abundance of fighters, It had a few dozen that where always in need of repair. AND limited supply of people to fly them, yet they still put them out.
Star Wars, some of those ships carry FULL WINGS of fighter craft. (dozen dozen for those who dont know) and groups of those could take down ships many times their size.
Wing Commander. Those carriers got straight up in Kilrathi faces and broadsided the hell out of them.
Just because your personal belief is one thing it doesnt mean it isnt there. Just because you cant see a thing doesn't eman it doesn't exist.
Starfighters with capable crews and support can be devastating to enemy ships.
So as far as this game is concerned Carriers have their place.
I am proud to fly all the FED ships in this game, Science ships, Escorts, Cruisers and Carriers. I have no problem annihilating pets in ANY ship.
ALL arguments are invalid. In this game fighters are not your main source of damage they are SUPPORT ships. And many of them have different roles.
TRY looking at this objectively in stead of a bull headed need for everything in this game to be CANON.
IF you insist on things beign the way they are in the show, then i hope you never picked up any of the unique Boffs, like the breen or jem'hadar. Seriously get a grip its a GAME for FUN.
Inertia just means you can do Powerslides in you carrier!
I am Il Shadow and i approve these Shennanigans!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
To be honest Carriers or not, i couldn't care less. The only thing that annoys me is that Cryptic intorduced a new shipclass which hasn't ANYTHING to do with Star Trek instead of cleaning up the mess they did with Cruisers (=tanks: Wrong) in the first place.
Considering you just spent an entire page (and continue in the very same sentence where you claim not to) railing against carriers, it's fairly obvious you do care. You also make it fairly obvious that you don't give a damn about established fact when it contradicts your demands.
So by all means, keep telling people that you don't like carriers. That's fine, its your opinion. But don't for a moment pretend that carriers don't exist in Trek lore. They do, no matter how much you want them not to.
Wing Commander. Those carriers got straight up in Kilrathi faces and broadsided the hell out of them.
I just have to point out that this is entirely false. The only time a Terran Confederation carrier delivered a broadside was in the live action film.
In every game the carrier was a vulnerable target against enemy fighters and capital ships. Yes, both the Concordia and Midway carried weapons capable of engaging capital ships. Only once to my knowledge were said weapons fired in that role, and they consisted solely of the Concordia's main phase transit cannon (and slagging I believe it was a Frathlra. Might have been a Fralthi II). Which is actually the keel of the Confederation-class Dreadnought, not a broadside mounted turret.
The Midway did eventually scavenge a doomsday gun from a Nephilim ship, but it wasn't fired (it tries to if the player dies, and the entire ship explodes as a result).
That concludes this edition of completely obscure nerd trivia, now back to your regularly scheduled argument.
Admiral Kirk? Tell me, for how long was he Admiral again, hum?
he was promoted in 2270...2286 was the events of Voyage Home so...16 years
he commanded ENT for 5 years as Captain... perhaps he was a captain 1-2 years before he took command....7 years
and he commanded ENT-A for 7 years after his demotion...so he was a captain for 14 years and an Admiral for 16 years
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
Just one question:
IF Carriers are such a great Ship type, why wasn't even ONE Enterprise (which is supposed to be the strongest ship) a carrier?
Tell me 2 or 3 names of a dedicated Starfleet Carrier + Shipclass.
No one is saying its a great ship and as was pointed out before tradition is why the name Enterprise was kept on the same type of Starship.
Talking About the Akira.
Someone who designs a ship to be a Torpedo Boat, Cruiser and Carrier is either a 5 year old, completely incompetent or has completely failed to understand what Star Trek is about.
It's just another example of Star Trek being produced by people no knowing what it is about.
[B]So canon only applies when you agree with it?[/B]
Rule of cool doesn't apply here, because if that where the case we would have Jedi being captains of Starfleet ships.
doesn't apply because there were never Jedi in Star Trek.
Again, tell me whats so cool about Carriers in the first place. Because no one could explain that point to me even remotely. we all don't have to fly the same type ship. People like variety.
The bottom line is, discussing this topic is just tiresome, because your arguments are always the same, either you appoint exceptions or you just say carriers are cool. And your whole argument is "i don't like it"...i'm not a fan of TNG maybe the ENT D should not be in this game.
To be honest Carriers or not, i couldn't care less. The only thing that annoys me is that Cryptic intorduced a new shipclass which hasn't ANYTHING to do with Star Trek instead of cleaning up the mess they did with Cruisers (=tanks: Wrong) in the first place.
open your mind.
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
Being someone that wanted carriers long before the Feds got any in STO, and someone that has been around about as long as the Star Trek Franchise has and grew up with it, including being familiar with some of the extended fiction, there is VERY much a place for carriers and carrier variants in Star Trek, as well as Battle Tugs (which I'd like to see them add) and moble battle stations what are slow, sub warp and need tugs to pull them into a battlefield.
There are periods in the timeline, between the old series and the next generation where conflicts between the federation and the Gorn as well as the Federation and the Klingons almost depended on Carriers as their primary offensive force, because compared to big ships, fighters are cheap, quick to produce and, keyword here, expendable... And yes, as a general rule they would be piloted but with the pilot having several layers of extra protection and life support to help keep them alive even if the fighter was destroyed, just like ejection seats and the like today, only with Trek tech levels.
And as far as people leaving the safety of their big ship argument?... What is so safe about sitting about a mobile battle fortress which is coming apart around with torps and cannon blasts firing through decks of the ship like the interior was made of carboard with casualty lists and damage reports piling up that dwarf the reports that would come out of losing entire wings of fighter craft... It's space out there. You are on a traveling life support system and there is very little between you and the death outside, no matter what size ship you are on.
I personally see the current rise in Carrier production on STO as a reaction to the sudden and as of yet unexplained tholian rise in activity.. Unexplained in that Tholians in the official setting timeline are always xenophobic and reclusive and claimed their corner of space already. But the Tholians in STO are probably from the Mirror Universe and not the native Tholians. But the sudden showing up of webcasting technology all over the place would immediately make the carrier much much more important on the battlefield again, as the fighters are small enough to slip through the webs.
So... since when did people become replicatable? O.o It's like you purposely glossed over that key point.
Since the Odysessy and numerous other massive Cruisers are blown to bits throughout the shows and movies and the main cast seem to do no more then pause for a second to make the fact known and suddenly move on to another topic.
The Federation is made up of over 100 worlds. BILLIONS UPON BILLIONS of people. People are most definitely replaceable as they are even now in our time. People are expendable during war...Stop trying to apply things like rationalizing the significance of a human life to war because youre going to fail here. War is the complete opposite of that concept. Its where horrible atrocities are committed. And even for Starfleet. Their officers are expendable if it means saving the REST of their population.
Facts you cant refute.
1.) Peregrine is utilized by Starfleet during Dominion War as a Fighter.
2.) A vessel being a Fighter does not define its engine system. If Trek wants its Fighters to have warp capacity..guess what. Then it is what it is. You as an individual with NO influence over canon are limited to your opinion and thats it.
3.) Carriers do not suddenly detract anything from Trek being Trek. A Cruiser acting as a Carrier does not take away from it being a Starfleet Vessel. Nothing is being lost here.
You dont like Carriers? Dont fly them. But if Cryptic and more importantly CBS think Carriers are worthy of being in Star Trek Online and apart of the Star Trek IP. Then you have nothing you can say or do to change that.
Talking About the Akira.
Someone who designs a ship to be a Torpedo Boat, Cruiser and Carrier is either a 5 year old, completely incompetent or has completely failed to understand what Star Trek is about.
It's just another example of Star Trek being produced by people no knowing what it is about.
So canon only applies when you agree with it?
It's not about if it is canon or not. (which it isn't btw.)
The point is that a Carrier/Escort/Crusier doesn't make any sense and is a childish concept by the designer to be honest.
A ship that can do anything, well that's beliveable. :rolleyes:
Btw. in canon we saw the Akira only fire torpedoes and fire phasers, just as a common Excelsior or Nebula did.
No one ever mentioned any fighters that where launched by a Akira Class ship.
doesn't apply because there were never Jedi in Star Trek.
Just as it is with Carriers. There where some fighter craft mentioned and showed at two or three episodes at most.
But people having supernatural power (which are comparable with jedi) are much more common.
we all don't have to fly the same type ship. People like variety.
Yeah, that's helpful...
But what's so special about Carriers suddenly so everyone wants to have one, especially in a Star Trek game?
To be honest i just don't see any connection between Carriers and Star Trek at all. I mean it's like someone would ask to have Knights on Horses, Tanks or Super Star Destroyers in Star Trek.
I wouldn't discuss Carriers here in the first place, if i hadn't.
All this proof of Carriers in Star trek looks just far fetched to me.
Just tell me 2 or 3 names of dedicated Starfleet Carriers and their Shipclass. Besides the Akira which isn't a Carrier at all, show me only ONE single Starfleet carrier in canon trek.
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
To me, in my own opinion, and to my own preference, I never liked the idea of carriers in a Star Trek game. It's not iconic and it interferes with ship to ship combat. I spend more time, fighting AI pets than other players, and they cloud up the zone with myriads of targets...especially when pvp'ing Klingons.
This new updates, however, makes it even more frustrating. Now the pets are stronger, have more defenses and shorter CD's. Fighting a group of Sci or Eng carriers is problematic enough for the more traditional ST ship. If they want to make stronger pets, then they should compensate by given carrier ships weaker shields and hulls. Like real life, the carrier is fairly weak in and of itself, both its attack and defense potential should rest in its air wing.
At the very least they should give players something that makes pets less likely to be targeted than a player ship. Right now a group of carriers is in effect having a constant ability to cloud sensors of the opposing faction.
Of all the game buffs, nerfs, enhancements and tweaks, making carrier ships stronger was the least needed addition to the game.
Being someone that wanted carriers long before the Feds got any in STO, and someone that has been around about as long as the Star Trek Franchise has and grew up with it, including being familiar with some of the extended fiction, there is VERY much a place for carriers and carrier variants in Star Trek, as well as Battle Tugs (which I'd like to see them add) and moble battle stations what are slow, sub warp and need tugs to pull them into a battlefield.
There are periods in the timeline, between the old series and the next generation where conflicts between the federation and the Gorn as well as the Federation and the Klingons almost depended on Carriers as their primary offensive force, because compared to big ships, fighters are cheap, quick to produce and, keyword here, expendable... And yes, as a general rule they would be piloted but with the pilot having several layers of extra protection and life support to help keep them alive even if the fighter was destroyed, just like ejection seats and the like today, only with Trek tech levels.
And as far as people leaving the safety of their big ship argument?... What is so safe about sitting about a mobile battle fortress which is coming apart around with torps and cannon blasts firing through decks of the ship like the interior was made of carboard with casualty lists and damage reports piling up that dwarf the reports that would come out of losing entire wings of fighter craft... It's space out there. You are on a traveling life support system and there is very little between you and the death outside, no matter what size ship you are on.
I personally see the current rise in Carrier production on STO as a reaction to the sudden and as of yet unexplained tholian rise in activity.. Unexplained in that Tholians in the official setting timeline are always xenophobic and reclusive and claimed their corner of space already. But the Tholians in STO are probably from the Mirror Universe and not the native Tholians. But the sudden showing up of webcasting technology all over the place would immediately make the carrier much much more important on the battlefield again, as the fighters are small enough to slip through the webs.
It's not about if it is canon or not. (which it isn't btw.)
The point is that a Carrier/Escort/Crusier doesn't make any sense and is a childish concept by the designer to be honest.
A ship that can do anything, well that's beliveable. :rolleyes:
Btw. in canon we saw the Akira only fire torpedoes and fire phasers, just as a common Excelsior or Nebula did.
No one ever mentioned any fighters that where launched by a Akira Class ship.
Just as it is with Carriers. There where some fighter craft mentioned and showed at two or three episodes at most.
But people having supernatural power (which are comparable with jedi) are much more common.
Yeah, that's helpful...
But what's so special about Carriers suddenly so everyone wants to have one, especially in a Star Trek game?
To be honest i just don't see any connection between Carriers and Star Trek at all. I mean it's like someone would ask to have Knights on Horses, Tanks or Super Star Destroyers in Star Trek.
I wouldn't discuss Carriers here in the first place, if i hadn't.
All this proof of Carriers in Star trek looks just far fetched to me.
Just tell me 2 or 3 names of dedicated Starfleet Carriers and their Shipclass. Besides the Akira which isn't a Carrier at all, show me only ONE single Starfleet carrier in canon trek.
So in all the advances in technology we shouldn't have multi-purpose ships, really? :rolleyes:
As for carriers if you really want to be picky all Starfleet vessels had an array of shuttles so I guess they could all be used as carriers should the need arise, but in cannon it never really did, the captain either chose against it due to the chances of its crews survival or the ship was able to cope with the situation itself.
As for reasons why Starfleet carriers are around vizhonia's post is a very good argument for this.
"If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe." - Carl Sagan
So you believe the two are not balanced vs one another?
My experience is that cruisers will do more damage than carriers in environments where both are common, because the enemy's FAW removes the fighters most of the time. Otherwise, they seem about on even if on the same level of ship and equipment quality.
Most Crusiers don't have the luxury to use FAW and BO (for example).
On the other hand Science or Tactical focussed ships are always advantaged in STO. Engineering focussed ships can only one thing good, sit there and watch the clock to see how log they can survive.
Not enough, a carrier has much more tactical (i mean Strategic means) to adapt to a different enemy, especially a Science heavy carrier. Cruisers just have their mostly passive Engineering powers which don't offer much room for strategical action.
In my opinion Carriers do the same thing as Cruisers are supposed to do in STO, which isn't such a bad thing, since Cruisers never where tanks/Healer in Star Trek anyway.
So in a sense, i think it's a good idea to make carriers as they are (tanks with strategical offensive means). Since i always hated Star Trek "cruisers" (meaning starships) being treated as healer for those little annoying Escorts in STO.
My problem is that Cruisers on the other hand don't get a substitute (either more Science or Tactical powers, more firepower or Cryptic should finally revise Engineering powers) to be at least as active as Carriers in STO.
Ideally Crusiers should become similar as ecorts, having a big amount of firepower but unlike fast and agile Escorts, being slower but more heavy shielded/armored.
The only problem for Cryptic would be to balance Escorts Defensive bonus/armor and Crusiers heavy armor and shields, which i don't think would be very hard.
Do i like carriers?
No, surely not. Heck no one seems to be able to explain me what's so great about them suddenly.
But STO is already so far from being canon, it doesn't matter much.
You guys want to fly Carriers? fine.
But please stop pretending carriers would be common in Star Trek, that's just not true and pretending it anyway is just tiresome.
Cryptic will continue and release Carriers, Escort-Carriers, Science-Escort-Carriers and whatever. To be honest i don't care at all, but Cryptic should make Cruisers more like they are supposed to be at the same time.
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
he was promoted in 2270...2286 was the events of Voyage Home so...16 years
he commanded ENT for 5 years as Captain... perhaps he was a captain 1-2 years before he took command....7 years
and he commanded ENT-A for 7 years after his demotion...so he was a captain for 14 years and an Admiral for 16 years
Perhaps I failed to make my point more clear, I was not talking about that.
I was talking about how long was Krik an Admiral seen on screen. Because by that logic, Janeway is probably an Admiarl longer than she was a Captain, but what we saw on screen was Captain Janeway. Since she become Admiral she had only 1 appearance in Star Trek and yes, that was a short pop-up on Captain Picard's monitor. If you count the amount of time Kirk was Admiral seen on screen, you come to the sum of odd couple of movies. As oposed to:
- All other TOS era movies besides those where Kirk is Captain.
- Captain Kirk for 4 seasons of TOS.
- Captain Picard for 7 seasons of TNG.
- Captain Picard in all TNG era movies.
- Captain Sisko for 7 seasons of DS9. (Heck, Sisko was even a Commander rank in the first seasons)
- Captain Janeway for 7 seasons of Voyager.
- Captain Archer for 4 seasons of Enterprise.
So the point stands, and the point is that Star Trek always was about the journey of a Captain and his crew, wheather it was a journey into the great unknown, a journey home or a journey into the human condition. Star Trek never was about Admirals commanding huge fleets of ships on a battlefront.
...All Fed Ships are Carriers, in that all Fed ships carry shuttles. Usually they're support craft for specific tasks or just people carriers. But there's no reason they can't fight.
Klingons took it to the next level and made the Vo'Quv, which I honestly believe(Given the firepower of Birds-of-Prey, and that's just in-game, let alone in 'canon') could take entire systems 'alone'.
The Romulans were rarely seen to use it, but the Scimitar had it's Scorpion support craft.
Launchable support craft have been a thing in Trek a long while. What really needs to happen is the older craft(D'Kyr', Bortasqu, etc) switch to the new system somehow.
Nobody said small vessel cannot fight. It is just highly questionable if it makes sense to let them. Remember the advantage Starfighters have in other sci-fi universes is because they are more agile to evade ballistic projectiles - Star Trek however does not use ballistic weaponry. Phaser emitters are meant to be spot-on over hundreds of thousands of kilometers and when those weapons hit there is no way a shuttlecraft even a Runabout would take such a hit well. For the same reason, their weapon systems wouldn't be sufficient to hurt a larger ship significantly. IF they would, meaning if you can cram the exact same weapons and shields etc. in a peregrine fighter than into a Galaxy Class there would actually be no friggin reason to produce anything other than those shuttles but this would just be impossible. Even if we would see a shuttle one-shotting a battleship on-screen it wouldn't make any sense at all. I mean, canon showed us that the 74 year old picard can single handedly shoot an entire crew of murlocks... er remans uncontested while wielding two phaser rifles. Is it canon? Yes. Does it make ANY sense? No
If we take a look at a one-on-one encounter sure, launch small vessels to distract and support their main vessel, I see no problems there. But in a fleet action where their targets are not only protected by powerful defense systems but even cover each other I don't think that'd be of much help. Not even the Defiant (the HERO defiant let alone other vessels) ever engaged anything bigger than herself. Why should a peregrine shuttle suddenly be able to do that? Look at Klingon B'rels. Take away their cloak and they are pretty much cannon fodder. Reduce their weapons and armament even further, what do you get? And even if sending them in the thick of it would be a viable tactic, we wouldn't need carriers since every ship could carry some.
Launching starfighers in a Star Trek battle is just as if the HMS victory would load lifeboats with marines, maybe even a bomb and send them off to fight the french armada.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
Comments
I think we should just accept that Starfighters and Carriers are the most advanced weapon system you can possibly invent and we all can be Tom Cruise flying to the dangerzone now :cool:
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
That is decidedly false. Alex Jaeger was directly involved in the creation of both CGI models used for the Akira (one for First Contact, and another for Sacrifice of Angels). Both models were built explicitly from blueprints he drew up, and the scale for both corresponded to the blueprints he made for the 3d modelers on both occasions.
Simply put, what showed up on-screen in regards to the size and scale of the Akira is exactly what Jaeger wanted.
That is all.
I can only relate to what's stated on MA:
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Akira_class
Further, the technical manual states her to be an "heavy cruiser" type of vessel which features 15 torpedo tubes, suggesting they went with the "heavy destroyer" type of combat role. Whatever the size is (the technical manual states something in between) it's definitely not a carrier - the CGI model was not much larger than the Miranda Class (which is something around 240 meters I believe).
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Except that Star Trek was always about the Captain and his crew, the Admirals just showed up on the monitors in the Captain's quarters once in a blue moon.
Congratulations on not only completely misunderstanding terms, but getting your facts wrong.
Blocking a shot is a term for walking through or planning out a scene by looking at who and what moves in that given scene, and predicting camera placements accordingly. It isn't shooting a scene.
Secondly, the Akira model was scaled to come out around 400-500m meters based on it's relationship to the Sovereign model (which clocks in at over 700 meters if memory serves). Multiple on-screen comparison shots have been very carefully dissected and they consistently come in at 450 meters. Toss in the spatial math involved with how many decks the ship has, and all accounts point to a ship measuring in at roundabout 450 meters in length. Look at the Ex-Astris breakdown if you want the full workup.
Not to mention the stated length of 464 meters from the DS9:TM.
Thirdly, since we're quoting from Memory Alpha now...
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Akira_class_model
Or my personal favorite, from the very page you're referencing...
That being said canon is not some religion to be worshipped. They were flexible rules that were bent and broken when the writers of the various shows thought it would be cool. Klingons' look changed and didn't get explain (in canon) until 30 years later. Do we even have an explanation for why the Romulans look different?
Everything about the Next Generation changed canon. Bigger ships, new uniforms, new weaponry, new foes.
DS9 continued the changes. Based on a space station.
So why is this game not allowed to make changes? 30 years after Star Trek Nemesis and everything is supposed to be just as Jean Luc Picard left it.
Think about the changes Star Fleet and the Enterprise went through from the end of Kirk's five year mission to The Motion Picture.
Think about the changes from TMP to WOK (which was only a few years later). This wasn't a series held fast to canon.
and as for the whole it's dangerous being a pilot idea....58 crew members died on Kirk's five years mission. Also If I remember correctly Enterprise was the only ship to return from it's five year mission...that's why Starfleet adopted it's arrow head insignia.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
yup Admiral Kirk only showed up once in a blue moon
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
Okay, I didn't know that
Like I said, I know what the guy wanted it to be - but that incarnation never made it on screen, instead the vessel was directly involved in the action and got shot - if it was a carrier, wouldn't it try to stay out of the fight? And if you have a "gunship carrier" - doesn't that completely neglect the purpose of fighter craft to begin with?
Questions and more questions, though fact is that we never saw a single attak fighter launched from any ship and even if they were there is no indication that they couldn't be carried in regular shuttlebays precisley for that one instance where we see them in action (which were still referred to as "lightly armed shuttles" on-screen and really didn't fulfill their purpose in that particular battle).
But then again, I don't care, really. If the rule of cool applies so shall it be :cool:
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Admiral Kirk? Tell me, for how long was he Admiral again, hum?
You're sincerely welcome. I know I can get a little snippy, but if I can pass on some knowledge I'm more than happy to have done so.
Not in the least. A ship equipped with frankly overwhelming torpedo systems would potentially engage in a slightly different manner than say a Defiant or a Galaxy, but the simple fact that said ship carried smaller combat craft in no way precludes it from getting into the thick of things.
Don't let "antiquated" notions of what a sea-borne carrier is limit you.
I'll again refer you back to this post in regards to what Peregrines managed to do during Operation Return. I'll also refer you to this post in regards to why a carrier launch sequence was never shown.
For me when I purchased my Multimission Recon Explorer, it took some time to get used to fighting with my peregrine fighters (then later upgraded to Scorpion fighters). When they released the carrier commands 2.0 I loved it because I could now know the status of my fighters. Being in a science ship (and having an Engineering Vulcan character), I would heal them during the fight so that they can get to 5 stars.
Last week I purchased the Atrox. Now I have more work to do during fights (managing the health/ shields of 10 fighters plus whom I'm attacking and whom is attacking me), but seeing my Roundabout and Scorpions level up, they really beat down anything I can throw at them. Once they reach 5 stars, I focus on the fight and less on their status. Sadly, by that time the fight is over (Unless it's a STF).
Short Answer: It's not bad, it took some getting used. If I didn't fly a Multi-Mission Recon Explorer for 3 months it would have been impossible for me to adjust to the Atrox.
Just one question:
IF Carriers are such a great Ship type, why wasn't even ONE Enterprise (which is supposed to be the strongest ship) a carrier?
Tell me 2 or 3 names of a dedicated Starfleet Carrier + Shipclass.
Talking About the Akira.
Someone who designs a ship to be a Torpedo Boat, Cruiser and Carrier is either a 5 year old, completely incompetent or has completely failed to understand what Star Trek is about.
It's just another example of Star Trek being produced by people no knowing what it is about.
Rule of cool doesn't apply here, because if that where the case we would have Jedi being captains of Starfleet ships.
Again, tell me whats so cool about Carriers in the first place. Because no one could explain that point to me even remotely.
The bottom line is, discussing this topic is just tiresome, because your arguments are always the same, either you appoint exceptions or you just say carriers are cool.
To be honest Carriers or not, i couldn't care less. The only thing that annoys me is that Cryptic intorduced a new shipclass which hasn't ANYTHING to do with Star Trek instead of cleaning up the mess they did with Cruisers (=tanks: Wrong) in the first place.
BUT.... Most ships in Star Trek have support craft. Even the tiny Defiant has shuttles. Little bitty ones but they are there.
IF you want to Rant about canon you might as well ask for your glaxy to have only the two forward phasers, limited torpedoes, and limited rear weapons.
THIS is a game, and can be whatever the designers want it to be. STOP comparing it to the U.S. Navy. Look at other Science fiction shows and movies. BSG didnt have an over abundance of fighters, It had a few dozen that where always in need of repair. AND limited supply of people to fly them, yet they still put them out.
Star Wars, some of those ships carry FULL WINGS of fighter craft. (dozen dozen for those who dont know) and groups of those could take down ships many times their size.
Wing Commander. Those carriers got straight up in Kilrathi faces and broadsided the hell out of them.
Just because your personal belief is one thing it doesnt mean it isnt there. Just because you cant see a thing doesn't eman it doesn't exist.
Starfighters with capable crews and support can be devastating to enemy ships.
So as far as this game is concerned Carriers have their place.
I am proud to fly all the FED ships in this game, Science ships, Escorts, Cruisers and Carriers. I have no problem annihilating pets in ANY ship.
ALL arguments are invalid. In this game fighters are not your main source of damage they are SUPPORT ships. And many of them have different roles.
TRY looking at this objectively in stead of a bull headed need for everything in this game to be CANON.
IF you insist on things beign the way they are in the show, then i hope you never picked up any of the unique Boffs, like the breen or jem'hadar. Seriously get a grip its a GAME for FUN.
I am Il Shadow and i approve these Shennanigans!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
For the exact same reason there will never be an HMS Hood or Victory or Exeter, or a USS Arizona or Missouri that is an aircraft carrier: tradition.
Considering you just spent an entire page (and continue in the very same sentence where you claim not to) railing against carriers, it's fairly obvious you do care. You also make it fairly obvious that you don't give a damn about established fact when it contradicts your demands.
So by all means, keep telling people that you don't like carriers. That's fine, its your opinion. But don't for a moment pretend that carriers don't exist in Trek lore. They do, no matter how much you want them not to.
I just have to point out that this is entirely false. The only time a Terran Confederation carrier delivered a broadside was in the live action film.
In every game the carrier was a vulnerable target against enemy fighters and capital ships. Yes, both the Concordia and Midway carried weapons capable of engaging capital ships. Only once to my knowledge were said weapons fired in that role, and they consisted solely of the Concordia's main phase transit cannon (and slagging I believe it was a Frathlra. Might have been a Fralthi II). Which is actually the keel of the Confederation-class Dreadnought, not a broadside mounted turret.
The Midway did eventually scavenge a doomsday gun from a Nephilim ship, but it wasn't fired (it tries to if the player dies, and the entire ship explodes as a result).
That concludes this edition of completely obscure nerd trivia, now back to your regularly scheduled argument.
he was promoted in 2270...2286 was the events of Voyage Home so...16 years
he commanded ENT for 5 years as Captain... perhaps he was a captain 1-2 years before he took command....7 years
and he commanded ENT-A for 7 years after his demotion...so he was a captain for 14 years and an Admiral for 16 years
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/James_T._Kirk
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
open your mind.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
There are periods in the timeline, between the old series and the next generation where conflicts between the federation and the Gorn as well as the Federation and the Klingons almost depended on Carriers as their primary offensive force, because compared to big ships, fighters are cheap, quick to produce and, keyword here, expendable... And yes, as a general rule they would be piloted but with the pilot having several layers of extra protection and life support to help keep them alive even if the fighter was destroyed, just like ejection seats and the like today, only with Trek tech levels.
And as far as people leaving the safety of their big ship argument?... What is so safe about sitting about a mobile battle fortress which is coming apart around with torps and cannon blasts firing through decks of the ship like the interior was made of carboard with casualty lists and damage reports piling up that dwarf the reports that would come out of losing entire wings of fighter craft... It's space out there. You are on a traveling life support system and there is very little between you and the death outside, no matter what size ship you are on.
I personally see the current rise in Carrier production on STO as a reaction to the sudden and as of yet unexplained tholian rise in activity.. Unexplained in that Tholians in the official setting timeline are always xenophobic and reclusive and claimed their corner of space already. But the Tholians in STO are probably from the Mirror Universe and not the native Tholians. But the sudden showing up of webcasting technology all over the place would immediately make the carrier much much more important on the battlefield again, as the fighters are small enough to slip through the webs.
Since the Odysessy and numerous other massive Cruisers are blown to bits throughout the shows and movies and the main cast seem to do no more then pause for a second to make the fact known and suddenly move on to another topic.
The Federation is made up of over 100 worlds. BILLIONS UPON BILLIONS of people. People are most definitely replaceable as they are even now in our time. People are expendable during war...Stop trying to apply things like rationalizing the significance of a human life to war because youre going to fail here. War is the complete opposite of that concept. Its where horrible atrocities are committed. And even for Starfleet. Their officers are expendable if it means saving the REST of their population.
Facts you cant refute.
1.) Peregrine is utilized by Starfleet during Dominion War as a Fighter.
2.) A vessel being a Fighter does not define its engine system. If Trek wants its Fighters to have warp capacity..guess what. Then it is what it is. You as an individual with NO influence over canon are limited to your opinion and thats it.
3.) Carriers do not suddenly detract anything from Trek being Trek. A Cruiser acting as a Carrier does not take away from it being a Starfleet Vessel. Nothing is being lost here.
You dont like Carriers? Dont fly them. But if Cryptic and more importantly CBS think Carriers are worthy of being in Star Trek Online and apart of the Star Trek IP. Then you have nothing you can say or do to change that.
The point is that a Carrier/Escort/Crusier doesn't make any sense and is a childish concept by the designer to be honest.
A ship that can do anything, well that's beliveable. :rolleyes:
Btw. in canon we saw the Akira only fire torpedoes and fire phasers, just as a common Excelsior or Nebula did.
No one ever mentioned any fighters that where launched by a Akira Class ship.
Just as it is with Carriers. There where some fighter craft mentioned and showed at two or three episodes at most.
But people having supernatural power (which are comparable with jedi) are much more common.
Yeah, that's helpful...
But what's so special about Carriers suddenly so everyone wants to have one, especially in a Star Trek game?
To be honest i just don't see any connection between Carriers and Star Trek at all. I mean it's like someone would ask to have Knights on Horses, Tanks or Super Star Destroyers in Star Trek.
I wouldn't discuss Carriers here in the first place, if i hadn't.
All this proof of Carriers in Star trek looks just far fetched to me.
Just tell me 2 or 3 names of dedicated Starfleet Carriers and their Shipclass. Besides the Akira which isn't a Carrier at all, show me only ONE single Starfleet carrier in canon trek.
Options > Controls > Never Auto Target Pets - On
THIS! Great post.
So in all the advances in technology we shouldn't have multi-purpose ships, really? :rolleyes:
As for carriers if you really want to be picky all Starfleet vessels had an array of shuttles so I guess they could all be used as carriers should the need arise, but in cannon it never really did, the captain either chose against it due to the chances of its crews survival or the ship was able to cope with the situation itself.
As for reasons why Starfleet carriers are around vizhonia's post is a very good argument for this.
"If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe." - Carl Sagan
On the other hand Science or Tactical focussed ships are always advantaged in STO. Engineering focussed ships can only one thing good, sit there and watch the clock to see how log they can survive.
Not enough, a carrier has much more tactical (i mean Strategic means) to adapt to a different enemy, especially a Science heavy carrier. Cruisers just have their mostly passive Engineering powers which don't offer much room for strategical action.
In my opinion Carriers do the same thing as Cruisers are supposed to do in STO, which isn't such a bad thing, since Cruisers never where tanks/Healer in Star Trek anyway.
So in a sense, i think it's a good idea to make carriers as they are (tanks with strategical offensive means). Since i always hated Star Trek "cruisers" (meaning starships) being treated as healer for those little annoying Escorts in STO.
My problem is that Cruisers on the other hand don't get a substitute (either more Science or Tactical powers, more firepower or Cryptic should finally revise Engineering powers) to be at least as active as Carriers in STO.
Ideally Crusiers should become similar as ecorts, having a big amount of firepower but unlike fast and agile Escorts, being slower but more heavy shielded/armored.
The only problem for Cryptic would be to balance Escorts Defensive bonus/armor and Crusiers heavy armor and shields, which i don't think would be very hard.
Do i like carriers?
No, surely not. Heck no one seems to be able to explain me what's so great about them suddenly.
But STO is already so far from being canon, it doesn't matter much.
You guys want to fly Carriers? fine.
But please stop pretending carriers would be common in Star Trek, that's just not true and pretending it anyway is just tiresome.
Cryptic will continue and release Carriers, Escort-Carriers, Science-Escort-Carriers and whatever. To be honest i don't care at all, but Cryptic should make Cruisers more like they are supposed to be at the same time.
I'll pretend whatever the hell I want, Emmmkay?
Perhaps I failed to make my point more clear, I was not talking about that.
I was talking about how long was Krik an Admiral seen on screen. Because by that logic, Janeway is probably an Admiarl longer than she was a Captain, but what we saw on screen was Captain Janeway. Since she become Admiral she had only 1 appearance in Star Trek and yes, that was a short pop-up on Captain Picard's monitor. If you count the amount of time Kirk was Admiral seen on screen, you come to the sum of odd couple of movies. As oposed to:
- All other TOS era movies besides those where Kirk is Captain.
- Captain Kirk for 4 seasons of TOS.
- Captain Picard for 7 seasons of TNG.
- Captain Picard in all TNG era movies.
- Captain Sisko for 7 seasons of DS9. (Heck, Sisko was even a Commander rank in the first seasons)
- Captain Janeway for 7 seasons of Voyager.
- Captain Archer for 4 seasons of Enterprise.
So the point stands, and the point is that Star Trek always was about the journey of a Captain and his crew, wheather it was a journey into the great unknown, a journey home or a journey into the human condition. Star Trek never was about Admirals commanding huge fleets of ships on a battlefront.
Klingons took it to the next level and made the Vo'Quv, which I honestly believe(Given the firepower of Birds-of-Prey, and that's just in-game, let alone in 'canon') could take entire systems 'alone'.
The Romulans were rarely seen to use it, but the Scimitar had it's Scorpion support craft.
Launchable support craft have been a thing in Trek a long while. What really needs to happen is the older craft(D'Kyr', Bortasqu, etc) switch to the new system somehow.
If we take a look at a one-on-one encounter sure, launch small vessels to distract and support their main vessel, I see no problems there. But in a fleet action where their targets are not only protected by powerful defense systems but even cover each other I don't think that'd be of much help. Not even the Defiant (the HERO defiant let alone other vessels) ever engaged anything bigger than herself. Why should a peregrine shuttle suddenly be able to do that? Look at Klingon B'rels. Take away their cloak and they are pretty much cannon fodder. Reduce their weapons and armament even further, what do you get? And even if sending them in the thick of it would be a viable tactic, we wouldn't need carriers since every ship could carry some.
Launching starfighers in a Star Trek battle is just as if the HMS victory would load lifeboats with marines, maybe even a bomb and send them off to fight the french armada.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!