test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
The case for the use of older ship
leighandrew12
Member Posts: 86 Arc User
I know there have been multiple threads out there arguing against the use of refit versions of older ships etc, but non of them seem to put up much of a logical argument. Instead they compare the NX-class to an old paper plan like the Wright Brothers plan, which in my opinion is just comparing a shopping trolley to a F1 racecar. (Also bearing in mind that the NX class shown in the game is actually a modern replica, using up to date tech) Now there is a vast difference between a shopping trolley and a racecar, while they both have wheels, you can't win a Grande Prix in a shopping cart. Just as you can't explore space in a paper plane.
Now let's make a more logical comparison:
First warp launch was 2063 (a mere 50 years from now)
The NX- 01 was launched in 2151 (138 years from now)
Between those two dates it's been 88 years right?
Another comparison
The Wright brothers plane (1903)
Current year is 2013 (that's 110 year right?)
110 years - 88 = 22
Now if you want to make a more logical comparisons using aeronautical technology of today the NX-class would be more accurately compared to say a F-18 (!1983 introduction), which I know is more than 22 years old but is a slightly better comparisons to a paper plane in my opinion.
On a side note the B-52 has been in service since 1955 and will carry on well into 2040!. That's 85 years! Now I think it is entirely possible to have older ships in game... after all we do have Dinosaurs with lasers beams.... surely having old ships in game makes way more sense then Dino's with lasers right?
Now let's make a more logical comparison:
First warp launch was 2063 (a mere 50 years from now)
The NX- 01 was launched in 2151 (138 years from now)
Between those two dates it's been 88 years right?
Another comparison
The Wright brothers plane (1903)
Current year is 2013 (that's 110 year right?)
110 years - 88 = 22
Now if you want to make a more logical comparisons using aeronautical technology of today the NX-class would be more accurately compared to say a F-18 (!1983 introduction), which I know is more than 22 years old but is a slightly better comparisons to a paper plane in my opinion.
On a side note the B-52 has been in service since 1955 and will carry on well into 2040!. That's 85 years! Now I think it is entirely possible to have older ships in game... after all we do have Dinosaurs with lasers beams.... surely having old ships in game makes way more sense then Dino's with lasers right?
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Exposing fakes since 2374
Exposing fakes since 2374
Post edited by leighandrew12 on
0
Comments
It's just no on the front lines. And that's what T5 is meant to be. The best most powerful ships available.
Let's compare the job of the F 18 with the job of a B 52.
The F 18 was (They are in the process of being replaced) an Air Superiority Fighter, it was designed to control than patrol the skies.
The B 52 once the skies where clear is designed to bomb targets.
That means it would be fine for 250 year old design to serve as supply ship or in this case a replica of said ship but it's for training Ensign level crews not taking on the Borg.
In the Navy your first command wouldn't be the pride of the fleet it would be a small patrol boat, once you've done well with that they promote you to a better type of ship.
Let's just throw the other one out there. CBS do not want the Constitution available at T5 we all know this, that means they don't want the NX there either.
If I ask you a question it is not an insult but a genuine attempt to understand why.
When I insult you I won't be discreet about it, I will be precise and to the point stupid.
Exposing fakes since 2374
I call it, the Stoutes paradox.
This is a pretty good stance to have. A lot of people hate on tier 5 Connie threads because they don't think a Connie should be comparable to an Odyssey. Well, many of us are not asking for an odyssey, we're looking for a competitive experience with the Star Trek look we love. Give the connie less health than most fleet cruisers and a unique boff setup and boom, you have a unique experience that fits into the games balance system.
https://youtube.com/channel/UCJZ5FBJ9bFaZ6yAFiNpZiRQ/featured?view_as=subscriber
Twitter:
https://twitter.com/CaptainCidStorm
Exposing fakes since 2374
Le sigh.
I call it, the Stoutes paradox.
The F-18 series of fighter jets are actually multi-role fighters that do well in both mission types. That's why you see them being used by other countries and heavily in our own Navy. The F-22 which will be fully replacing it isn't even finished. Fun fact though the design still has legs and Boing will be putting out a new version of the F-18 in a while.
Sounds like you could use some freedom fries.
https://youtube.com/channel/UCJZ5FBJ9bFaZ6yAFiNpZiRQ/featured?view_as=subscriber
Twitter:
https://twitter.com/CaptainCidStorm
BUT
It breaks continuity and immersion to let players fly around in a ENT/TOS/TMP/TWOK ship that has a reasonable spec (for End Game)!
YET
Once again it's fine for players to fly around in Ferengi, Risian, Elachi, Cardassian or Tholian ships! Other than Kirk acquiring the Klingon BOP HMS Bounty (which wasn't an official Starfleet mission!) and when Sisko used the Jem'Hadar BUG ship to go behind the lines there is no history of Starfleet using or giving command of alien ships to it's officers!
With regards to the CBS said no to Tier 5, that's an easy problem to get around, just make the ship Tier 4 it would still be usable at End Game and it doesn't break the ban!
Come on cryptic give us a Tier 4 or 5 Exeter Class! :cool:
I call it, the Stoutes paradox.
Pretty much this. For all those that want a classic TOS/TMP/ENT ship to be "end game capable", I suggest you take a look at all the game has to offer you in terms of equipment and their buffs, take a look at the game mechanics, and build your ship to survive. With all the rep buffs and console changes since launch, you can take these ships ALOT farther than you think IF you build it right. Heck, a lot of these changes may have been made at least partially to make lower tier ships viable, especially the Connie Refit. Look at all the defensive rep abilities, +HP consoles, etc. The Exeter with its two LT Eng BOFFs, an ENG captain and all the defensive rep powers (OMG, those defensive powers actually have a purpose!) and the right consoles and other equipment with SURVIVE just fine. It will take longer to chew through stuff, but it will get it done.
There is no content that is not doable in this game in a T1 ship, and it has been proven. It just cannot be done as easily or as mindlessly as in a T5. You can take a T5 ship into any ESTF with just white equipment and even a non-optimized BOFF set up and do just fine with spacebar spamming. About the only thing you are not going to do in an optimized T1/T2 ship is a PUG queue, and thats just out of politeness.
Also, if your are looking for the "true Trek" feeling that those T1/T2 ships represent, you probably do not WANT to do STFs anyway. In old Trek, they flew alone, and defeated the big baddie without phasers, torps or treknology shooting out of their deflector. Difficult to simulate in this game, but the content is out there if you want it. The only thing you cannot obtain would be XII Omega stuff, but the XI is just fine. All other rep powers you can grind out on the ground (remember the ground? where most of TOS happened?)
Awoken Dead
Now shaddup about the queues, it's a BUG
But the B-52 is no longer being used in the role it was originally designed for. The former nuclear strike bomber, designed to penetrate enemy air defense at high altitude, is now used as a simple 'bomb truck' to provide long endurance close air support using precision guided munitions for troops in regions with no enemy air defense. Its original role of nuclear strike is now filled by the B-1 and B-2 bombers.
So this would mean that the older ships would be used to ferry supplies and escort civilian convoys, and possible close support for ground troops in regions where space is controlled by allied forces...
I think that if you can stuff all that firepower into a Defiant, you can do the same with a Connie or NX.
And usually uttered by someone sitting over ESD in a Jem'Hadar battleship.
Its actually an F/A-18, (fighter/attack) it's a multirole fighter, meaning is role was designed to be able to do ground support (surface for the Navy) and air to air combat. It's more of a jack-of-all-trades than an actual air superiority specialized aircraft like the F-14 was. The Hornet is actually too slow to be a true air superiority/CAP fighter, but the military decided that its not as likely for carrier groups to be engaging in air-to-air engagements against its enemies anytime soon, so it's using Hornets as a stop gap until the next generation air superiority planes come about.
Honestly, I really don't think we need T5 Connie's, NX's and sorts. We already have plenty of ships in those tiers that cover a myriad of roles.
The Fleet system hasn't made the Tier System Obsolete, it bolted on another Tier. Fleet is +1 Console, not truly Tier 6 but better than Tier 5.
Yes the B'Rel and the Excelsior are old designs that are available in Fleet Format the Excelsior is even competitive. (BoPs took a nose dive after the Romulans arrived)
People have been begging for a T5 Connie since the game launched. They could make it a 5000 Zen skin for the Galaxy R and you'd still see them all over the place it would be a license to print money, Let alone making it a viable end game cruiser at a normal price. Cryptic just aren't allowed to make them more than what they are currently. CBS has said no to that, your options are to petition CBS or purchase the License from them.
I know it doesn't break the Lore any more than fielding Alien vessels, my Crews Uniforms or equiping a wide array of Weapons never before seen. But at the end of the day Cryptic are simply not allowed to do it, and I honestly believe the entire T5 Connie fanbase of this game can do nothing to change it. But next week there will be a new thread for this ship or the Miranda or the T2 cruiser. But it ain't going to happen.
P.S. I really should have Googled the F/A 18 instead of going off the top of my head.
If I ask you a question it is not an insult but a genuine attempt to understand why.
When I insult you I won't be discreet about it, I will be precise and to the point stupid.
You are quite right you do have to maintain context. In the case of bombers before and after the B-52 for example you have that they were specialized and could not perform very well when a new condition arrived. The arguement that the B-52 can only operate in areas cleared of hostile fighters is distracting as bombers in general do not operate in contested space if possible. The craft has been used as a weapons platform, constantly altered to fit a new role somehow supporting the vehicles and combat situations around it. There are air to air weapons, ecm systems, as well as numerous ground attack weapons for this bird. It uses what the commanders want it doing today. Meanwhile many fighters are being retired for a different context. New fighters spend money better than old ones. Is the F-22 significantly better than an F-18? The F-18 over an F-16? Now look at pricing for them.
The real world battleship was actually obsolete before WW2 but the governments of the world did not see it that way. To them they were the ultimate deterrent. . . That was really to expensive to risk. Isn't hindsight grand?
What makes Naval vessels and birds like the B-52 have potential long lives are the ability to modify/upgrade them and need.
Why would there be Connies used? Because the fleet is stretched thin with constant pressure from the borg, the KDF, the romulans, and every would be power out there. It is easier for them to reactivate two or three mothballed ships than build a new hull from scratch. Thus in game, it is a numbers situation. Could they be improved further, I think yes. I like the idea of bumping the Connie to T4 or even T3. Even if you made me buy her again I would. She should not be an Oddessy. She should be an old warship that still has a bit of fight left in her.
Anyone sets up a petition to CBS for the Connie let me know. I'll sign.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
The next-gen air superiority fighter has come and gone already. Remember they axed the F-22 because it was so expensive and the F-35 is also a multi-role aircraft that will probably match the F-22 in price, but half the capability in the A2A role.
We should scrap the F-35 and buy navalized flankers from the russkies, or Rafales.
Awoken Dead
Now shaddup about the queues, it's a BUG
Pretty close to an ongoing arguement on real world military but I will bite.
F35 was supposed to be joint strike fighter. Meaning it was mostly for ground attack. To use by all three branches of the service. And be cheaper than the F-22.
Cost over runs and need to rework the construction are pushing the unit price over that of the 'overly expensive' F-22.
F-22 = $150million
F-35 = $200-230million
Now to put it in Star Trek thoughts. I would say the F-22 compares to the Excelsior. Someone liked it but no, not good enough. They made Constellation classes, the Ambassador class. But what do we see more of in use through TNG? Miranda and Excel variants. Ships that sound good on paper, but once they hit the 'real' world they did not live up to the needs.
(Oh and since it is all about generating money in various states for the contracts expect them to shelve the F-35 and make and F-37 or 40 instead.)
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
The reason for that is that Humans are inherently emotional and illogical (note the purpose of the Spock character in Star Trek to contrast).
The discussion over "old" ships being at endgame is purely emotive. Even if people claim to be arguing with "facts" or "reasons".
Ultimately you could put the Reliant skin on the Avenger ship identifier and the ship would not do any less damage or die any faster.
The inconsistencies and non-canon ships, uniforms and everything else rule out any rational argument over what is and is not "Star Trek".
People against a "T5 Constitution" are almost all irrational - they usually can't even define what "Constitution" refers to, whether it's the 1966 TOS Constitution or the Enterprise A/Refit. The fact that they can't clearly define their position reflects this.
Their arguing and name calling is equivalent to insisting that you throw away your Jordan/23/Bulls jersey and only wear a James/23/Heat jersey because "Jordan doesn't play anymore, Lebron is the best player now"
Here's something else the French came up with:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_Man_and_of_the_Citizen
The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law.
The real question in all of this is why it matters to you what other people say, especially here. Fly what you want.
http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=20535
The Secretary of Defense at the time, **** Cheney, mandated the retirement the F-14 and chose the the F/A-18E/F to fill the role of fleet defense formerly carried out by the F-14.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/695515/posts
Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney, planned to phase out of the F-14 program and, apparently to ensure there would be no second thoughts, ordered the destruction of all F-14 tooling. Incredible!
The F14 Tomcat was discontinued because of politics, not because of capability.
Aaand no. The B-52 was used to kill tanks in Desert Storm. Not by dropping a carpet of bombs but with precision ordinance.
Not all air to air weapons are sidewinders.
The tail gun was an odd idea when they built the plane to begin with.
The B-52 was originally intended to fly high to get over territory. Newer faster bombers were to replace her, then SAMs came and the high flying fast bomber died. So they went with low altitude fly ins. B-52 could do it. B-1 was rejected by President Reagan and relabeled B-1b to get it out. Still did not replace the Buff. B-2, love the flying wing, looks mean. Does not have the payload of a 52.
So which design by history had staying power?
Modification does not mean bolt yet another item to the hull. It means replace existing items with new ones.
I will not comment on the Arleigh Burke. I do not know her history or issues.
Battleships were a historically bad idea going into WW2. Aircraft were able to sink warships further away and cheaper than getting two big ships to pound away at each other with guns. There were proponents and opponents to putting planes at sea. And a lot of resistance from the admirals that wanted battleships. As I said, hindsight is great. As in they believed they were right.
Am I seriously comparing an F-18, F-16, and F-22? Yes I am. And yes I am aware of where the F-18 came from, many considered it superior to the 16 so I leave it on the list.
Are the 16 and 18 obsolete compared to the craft operated by their rivals in the sky? Or are they still capable? So if they are capable, why replace them with a very expensive replacement? My answer to the last is not the capabilities. It is new defense contracts earn money better old ones.
As for the justification of re-launching old ships. What exactly is the point of a mothball yard? To keep hulls around incase you need to bring more ships online in a hurry. look at Wolf 359. If many of those ships managed to abandon ship before they were destroyed. (Using Sisko as a frame of reference.) you have numerous capable crews. But no ships to put them in. In peace time, maybe you wait for the new ships to be built. In a war you want to keep your fleet numbers up. Otherwise attrition will overcome your shipyard.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
What's my position?
That people should know what they're screaming about!
(paraphrased from "The Newsroom)
T'Varo.
No. Your fun makes everyone else's fun wrong by default.
Another thing about bre3aking immersion, the ship's we're assigned, they're treated as our own personal ships. In reality, if you assumed command of one ship, your previous command would go to another. Yet we get to keep these older or other ships in our own personal shipyard. Just another fun factoid......
And I'm ALL for having the t1 Connie/T2 Enterprise classes being made into T4 & T5 fleet refits. And as well, would be fun if they could get permission to use the ships from FASA's old RPG, and throw them in the game. Would have a huge variety available then, for ALL tiers.
butcher suspect, "What'd you hit me with?"
Temperance Brennan, "A building"
Well i think that hits the nail on the head doesn't it
To those saying that you bring old stuff out of mothball, Yes that does make sense, And it already happened , they were given to Lieutenant Commanders to do the Milkrun assignments that better ships with more experienced crews just don't have the time for, its only logical after all to send your more capable ships to the front lines where they are most needed , while your mothballed vessels come out to do the mundane Milkrun assignments that aren't going to require a heavy armaments or advanced navigational systems
They probably aren't going to build any more of previously decommissioned Lineage of Ships, and most of the canon examples i could find in Memory Alpha were destroyed or missing in action anyway, where exactly do people think they are going to get them from anyways?
There was a damn good reason that these ships were retired and used as Academy training ships like the USS Republic or just outright decommissioned like USS Enterprise/Yorktown , new ships are better at doing their job, so they got replaced, some like the Republic found new roles, others were scrapped/mothballed
I mean picture yourself as an Aspiring Lieutenant Commander, getting your very own ship, it might be a 150 year old ship, but shes yours and thats great
Now picture yourself as a Vice Admiral of Starfleet, maybe even a qualified Federation Ambassador and they say have your own ship, its a 150 year old Constitution we found in a mothball yard/museum , I'd be looking that Fleet Admiral in the eye and asking him if this was a joke
This is actually a better point.
The only debatable area to it is considering the missions after the first two milk runs.
Yes the look for a missing ship and play cruise ship for an ambassador are milk runs.
Everything after that is war related though.
I shall have to think further. Back after I mull.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.