test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Tor'kaht vs Mogh
hereticknight085
Member Posts: 3,783 Arc User
Title says it all peeps. I was bored in one of my classes (yes, those education things do exist... apparently colleges do exist too... the world is not just STO... NOOOOOOOOO!!!!) and I started thinking about a build I was going to try later on my Tor'kaht. Then as I was thinking that, a loading screen with the advertisement for the Mogh arbitrarily hopped into my head, and I started wondering... is this ship really that much better than previous battlecruisers? So I then started going over stats, BOff layout, console layout, etc.
And now I feel I must ask. Is it really better than my epically amazing Fleet Tor'kaht? Or is it merely different?
So my analysis went as follows:
Fleet Tor'kaht.
Strengths: Cloak, High hull, strong shields, very damage and tanking oriented console and BOff layout, good power diversion, very maneuverable with decent inertia.
Weaknesses: Possibly the Ens Engineering, but short of that, none.
With it's console layout, you had good damage, great armor and turn bonus potential, and two slots for dumping universal consoles, or two slots for field generators. Overall, very good. With it's BOff layout, you had wonderful tanking potential due to it's Cmdr Engineering, with decent utility if you put the Lt Uni to sci, and wonderful damage capability through it's LtCmdr and Lt tactical, AND you can run beams or cannons easily, again do to it's tactical BOff slots. You could tank a huge amount of bleed damage due to it's high hull and armor potential, and it's shields are quite strong (for the record, in the entire time I've had my Tor'kaht, I have only died once, and that was because I was under attack by a gateway, a tac cube, and a half dozen spheres, but barring that, my Tor'kaht, and almost every other one I've encountered... never dies. Ever.). Also with it's high turn-rate, you could move around very well. The cruiser commands it's given are just pure gravy, since I know most KDF players agree that she was a monster before getting them, and with them, is just that much more powerful.
My overall rating (should be noted I am somewhat biased due to owning one and loving it): 9.5/10
Fleet Mogh
Strengths: Cloak, High hull, strong shields, damage and tanking oriented console and BOff layout, good power diversion, 5 forward weapons, and decent maneuverability with an excellent inertia rating.
Weaknesses: Slightly clunky with it's tactical portion of it's BOff layout. Other than that, none.
I will start out with I do not own this ship. I have seen a few in combat, and it was a distinct pleasure to watch, but I do not own one personally, so everything I say following this is based off of a purely theoretical analysis. So to start out with, this ship looks great. She's stout, fierce, and tough to look at. Her console layout gives her great damage output and mitigation ability, with lots of room for armor and/or RCS consoles. Her two science slots gives her acceptable utility/universal dumping grounds. Her hull is very resilient, with a base of 41k plus change, and her shields are also very strong, which allows her to take one hell of a beating period. Add on the relatively high turn-rate and great inertia, and this ship can really move around and take the heat.
Her BOff layout is really my only issue with this ship. She has that wonderful LtCmdr tactical, which gives her great damage output, but then she has an Ens Tactical. That's my second TT. And with her BOff layout, you can either 1) put her Lt Uni to tactical and have that damage ability, but be forced to run either a beam or torpedo (provided you aren't already running a beamboat/torpedo bomber) or 2) run an aux2bat build. I have seen both. And since I really am not an aux2bat fan, I find myself in a conundrum over that.
But barring that... quirk, she's still an incredibly solid ship. And even without cruiser commands she'd still hit like a freakin freight train that you never kill (and for the record, I have NEVER seen a Mogh destroyed by NPCs. Ever. Yet.).
My overall rating: 9/10.
Now as you can see, I gave the Tor'kaht a higher rating, but tbh it's because I am more comfortable with that ship, and I am biased due to actually owning her. And since these ships are almost identical (look at their stats, their console and BOff layouts, etc, you'll see exactly what I mean) I really am having trouble deciding which one is better. They have the problem that ALL Klingon Battlecruisers have... which is just being that bloody epic. Like most KDF battlecruisers, they NEVER die, they refuse to deal anything less than great damage, and they move around VERY well. And since both of these are DPS tanks, and well designed ones at that... I really just can't decide which is superior.
Help?
And now I feel I must ask. Is it really better than my epically amazing Fleet Tor'kaht? Or is it merely different?
So my analysis went as follows:
Fleet Tor'kaht.
Strengths: Cloak, High hull, strong shields, very damage and tanking oriented console and BOff layout, good power diversion, very maneuverable with decent inertia.
Weaknesses: Possibly the Ens Engineering, but short of that, none.
With it's console layout, you had good damage, great armor and turn bonus potential, and two slots for dumping universal consoles, or two slots for field generators. Overall, very good. With it's BOff layout, you had wonderful tanking potential due to it's Cmdr Engineering, with decent utility if you put the Lt Uni to sci, and wonderful damage capability through it's LtCmdr and Lt tactical, AND you can run beams or cannons easily, again do to it's tactical BOff slots. You could tank a huge amount of bleed damage due to it's high hull and armor potential, and it's shields are quite strong (for the record, in the entire time I've had my Tor'kaht, I have only died once, and that was because I was under attack by a gateway, a tac cube, and a half dozen spheres, but barring that, my Tor'kaht, and almost every other one I've encountered... never dies. Ever.). Also with it's high turn-rate, you could move around very well. The cruiser commands it's given are just pure gravy, since I know most KDF players agree that she was a monster before getting them, and with them, is just that much more powerful.
My overall rating (should be noted I am somewhat biased due to owning one and loving it): 9.5/10
Fleet Mogh
Strengths: Cloak, High hull, strong shields, damage and tanking oriented console and BOff layout, good power diversion, 5 forward weapons, and decent maneuverability with an excellent inertia rating.
Weaknesses: Slightly clunky with it's tactical portion of it's BOff layout. Other than that, none.
I will start out with I do not own this ship. I have seen a few in combat, and it was a distinct pleasure to watch, but I do not own one personally, so everything I say following this is based off of a purely theoretical analysis. So to start out with, this ship looks great. She's stout, fierce, and tough to look at. Her console layout gives her great damage output and mitigation ability, with lots of room for armor and/or RCS consoles. Her two science slots gives her acceptable utility/universal dumping grounds. Her hull is very resilient, with a base of 41k plus change, and her shields are also very strong, which allows her to take one hell of a beating period. Add on the relatively high turn-rate and great inertia, and this ship can really move around and take the heat.
Her BOff layout is really my only issue with this ship. She has that wonderful LtCmdr tactical, which gives her great damage output, but then she has an Ens Tactical. That's my second TT. And with her BOff layout, you can either 1) put her Lt Uni to tactical and have that damage ability, but be forced to run either a beam or torpedo (provided you aren't already running a beamboat/torpedo bomber) or 2) run an aux2bat build. I have seen both. And since I really am not an aux2bat fan, I find myself in a conundrum over that.
But barring that... quirk, she's still an incredibly solid ship. And even without cruiser commands she'd still hit like a freakin freight train that you never kill (and for the record, I have NEVER seen a Mogh destroyed by NPCs. Ever. Yet.).
My overall rating: 9/10.
Now as you can see, I gave the Tor'kaht a higher rating, but tbh it's because I am more comfortable with that ship, and I am biased due to actually owning her. And since these ships are almost identical (look at their stats, their console and BOff layouts, etc, you'll see exactly what I mean) I really am having trouble deciding which one is better. They have the problem that ALL Klingon Battlecruisers have... which is just being that bloody epic. Like most KDF battlecruisers, they NEVER die, they refuse to deal anything less than great damage, and they move around VERY well. And since both of these are DPS tanks, and well designed ones at that... I really just can't decide which is superior.
Help?
It is said the best weapon is one that is never fired. I disagree. The best weapon is one you only have to fire... once. 
Post edited by hereticknight085 on
0
Comments
You are right, it's not necessarily better IMO, but it is different.
In fact I think the boff setup for the Tork is probably better for cannons builds. That extra LT-level tac is pretty important for running another copy of CSV or APB, whereas there's only so much you can do with the ENS-level skills.
I'd say it's a really close toss-up. It's going to boil down to what is best for any individual, rather than making a blanket statement (like, say, "the Oddy is better than the assault cruiser")
Just to clarify, I was saying Fleet Versions of both. Also, if you look, the Mogh can run it's Lt Uni as tac, removing that advantage the Tor has. Hence why I am doing so much head-scratching here since they are almost identical in play-style, capability, and the differences are miniscule. They almost aren't there lol... I'm getting a nagging feeling this is one of those that's going to boil down to looks XD.
Mogh is a little slower and a little tankier, with fewer tactical stations, but it can use the Lt. Engi to run dual Aux-to-Bat or Aux-to-Damp which can be used to overcome the limitations. Specifically, dual-AtB can double up the tactical abilities (2x TT1, BFaW2, APB2) while leaving it a little clumsy, or dual-AtD can improve the turn-rate significantly (and add tremendous resists with the right DOFF) but will leave it liimited on tactical ability uptime. Simply put, its much more flexible and able to run a much wider variety of builds (and excel at them all), but it is not as good at the one thing that Tor'Kaht does slightly better.
In that case, open up that Breen cruiser package you got for free either last or this winter, and it'll feel like an upgrade. Same tac bos, plus more maneuverable and a high enough science bo for a gravity well.
- Judge Aaron Satie
Long story short - very similar ships with only slight differences. With all the ways to enhance turn rate on cruisers these days, the +1 turn rate of the Tor'kaht is completely negligible, as mostly is the + 1600 hull the Mogh has as well.
Boils down to playstyle and visual preference I guess - The Mogh has an advantage if you go for full frontal attacks because you switch a turret with a DHC. It also fills the latest fashion trend in cruisers, the famous Aux2Bat. However, that is not necesarily the only build one has to use, especially not for battlecruisers. With another setup the Tor'kaht is just as well. It's also more suitable for beams at least IMHO, because if you go with beams selecting a Mogh for that role would feel like a missed opportunity to use the frontal power of her 5/3 setup.
So yeah....very similar indeed. Quite frankly, I go with the Mogh because I just love the way it looks. A big fan of that design.
Of course, the fact the Tor'kaht is (with the Vor'cha skin) one of the few major canon ships to have excellent endgame performance sort of shifts the balance in its favour, for me at least. But I'm weird like that.
Fleet Admiral Rylana - Fed Tac - U.S.S Wild Card - Tactical Miracle Worker Cruiser
Lifetime Subscriber since 2012 == 17,200 Accolades = RIP PvP and Vice Squad
Chief of Starfleet Intelligence Service == Praise Cheesus
Kamarag fails to fullfill the reason why people get Tor'kaht to begin with - the dps potential and handling like an escort in a cruiser hull. Kamarag is just another normal cruiser. It's a significant downgrade.
The Breen cruiser gives the same tacs bo/consoles plus gravity well. You get higher turn rate as bonus.
I use the Chel Grett on my Ferasan and it's a great and solid ship as far as destroyers go, and this also may boil down to playstyle but I consider the Mogh, Tor'kaht and the K'maj to be vastly superior.
edit: also throwing this out here since somebody was mentioning kamarag.. kamarag is better than torkath aswell. torkath is worst cruiser in the kdf arsenal, simply because it cannot a2b and any other ships can do it's role better
CUUCUUMBEER! "-With slight partigen with it."
Proud member or DPS-800 "-We kill dem mines with our scitter turrets."
It's written right there, Cryptic calls it a cruiser. Take it up with them.
Someone who opt for a tac cruiser like Tor'kaht isn't going for tank to begin with. They want a heavier version of the dht escort/destroyer, with the same tac bos, same number of tac consoles, high turn rate, and more guns. The Breen cruiser is another step in that direction, while Kamarag is several steps back from that direction.
The whole reason people get the Tor'kaht is because it's not like a cruiser. They want escort characteristics out of a cruiser hull. They fly it with max power to weapons and dhcs, not beam broadsides.
It's not about how you think a real eng cruiser is better than a tac psuedo-cruiser like Tor'kaht or Breen cruiser. It's about how what OP wants out of it. Had he wanted a real cruiser, there are plenty of tankier ones than kamarag to choose from.
Written where?
Cryptic calls it a warship, not a cruiser. My packed one in a box says warship. My unpacked one says warship, too. The STO Wiki calls it a warship as well.
Without any of the cruiser commands and without Cmdr.Engineering, it's clearly not a cruiser.
True, at least in pvp (yeha i used all the fleet battlecruisers).
And imo the kamarag is very interesting because it can use doffed repulsors on gcd (only 20s) and the dmg are only boosted by particle generators, not aux. I had great success with that ship.
As for the tor'kaht, it doesnt fly like an escort at all : 10 turn and 30 inertia are way too low for maneuvering. It probably works in pve or with aux2damp but it will never beat the fleet somraw for the tanky escort role.
And if you really want epic DHCs dmg with very high tanking on a battlecruiser an a2b mogh is the better choice.
The event project for it calls it a cruiser, even though it's not called a cruiser anywhere else in the game, and the only things it shares with cruisers in general are the 39k hull, 1.0 shields, and 4/4 weapon layout... which compared to other Fleet-grade ships, still makes it more similar to the Tal Shiar Adapted Destroyer instead.
Yeah, I wouldn't put much credit into Cryptic's in-game descriptions, especially the project ones. In Cryptic's project descriptions, the Ferasan were turned into Ferocians. :P and Bortasqu' pack description is the shipyard are still messed up and have been since...forever. :eek:
The hull is not 39k, but 36k which puts it in the range of beefed up destroyer. The shield mod is also between a standard destroyer and a lockbox one like the Krenn and it also gains an aditional aft weapon slot.
So, like I said a beefed up destroyer would fit the description and like you said - it has more in common with the Tal'Shiar destroyer.
I really wouldn't go deep into Cryptic's descriptions in game. The amount of fail they let through on holodeck is astonishing. Didn't they have a wrong description on the Chel Grett box last winter event (winter12/13), saying it's not character bound? lol
pretty sure there was nothing wrong with the description, people just asumed it was sellable...and they were wrong and cried about it endlessly on the forum.
I think after that cryptic added some MORE indicators that it was bound to character.
I'm actually fairly certain that they had an issue with the description, I think that the box that had the Chel Grett in it had what was in essence copy-pasted description from the lockbox ships that led people to believe it could be traded. If I remember correctly they edited this and changed the description after a week or two.
It's a battlecruiser. Obviously. There is no doubt about that. Whatever you want to call it, it's in the same class as the Vorcha retrofit and the Karamag retrofit. It's got a different boff setup, but it's still a battlecruiser.
The hull and shield mod are at the low end of the Battlecruiser spectrum (particularly for Fleet grade, where the only one below 38k is the K't'inga) but comparable to other Destroyer-type ships (JHHEC: 37.5k/1, Fleet Chimera: 37950/0.99, TSAD: 39k/1.1, Fleet Mogai: 36300/1.1), the 8th weapon is an aft gun (which makes it only roughly comparable to the TSAD's Sensor Analysis unless you're going for a beam build), gives +15 power rather than the +20 for Cruisers (JHHEC and TSAD also give +20, but are rarely called cruisers, either), and is not counted as part of the battlecruiser class by the game (as it has no Cruiser Commands, but isn't a Warbird, either).
With the higher hull, power bonuses, and Engineer seating/console slots, I'd call the Jem'Hadar Heavy Escort Carrier a Cruiser before considering the Chel Grett one.
the chel is actualy considered a 'warship', basically a destroyer with a bit lower turn and an 8th weapon. it works well when used like a battlecruiser, and its the 3rd best beam boat in the game, only the scimitar and jem dread beam it out. thanks to the COM tac station, turns out that what the top 3 beam boats all have in common, not being cruisers.
Sorry but I'm going to have to disagree with anyone and everyone who is saying the Tork cannot A2B. I ran it for over a year with my engineer A2Bing all the way. While that does not leave you with either DEM or RSP it works fine without it. Engi team and hazards for hull heals, EPshields and TSS for shields (I used TBR instead and rotate polarity for my other shield heal). With APO, CSV1, Torp spread, tac team and beam overload it had plenty of firepower.
While I do fly the Mogh now I loved the variety of looks you had available with the tork.
finally I chose the Fleet Mogh.
Let me say you that i you want a cannon build (like me), the mogh is way better.
The Tor'Kath is a very good ship, one of the best, but the Mogh is better.
A2B Cannon Mogh with Borg set is quite invicible.
But if you DON'T WANT and A2B build, then go for the Tor'Kath.
personally, I don't like A2B builds, too hard to use, and the lack of hull healing abilities doesn't help at all.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
It's not a battlecruiser, nor any type of a cruiser. It lacks the 2 elementary requirements that make cruisers - Comm.Engineering Boff station and access to any of the cruiser commands.
On the topic at hand:
Yeah, the Mogh handles somewhat differently than your run of the mill cruiser/battlecruiser but I have not had any problems adapting so far and I find it very convenient to use with DHC/Turret setup. But than again, I have been using a Bortasqu' with the same setup for almost 2 years now, so I'm weird that way. :P
Some destroyers seem to get an extra bonus to damage to make up for having less maneuverability than Escorts while still having less survivability than a proper battlecruiser: the JHHEC has a hangar bay, the TSAD has Sensor Analysis, the Veteran destroyers get the lotus console, and the Chel Grett gets a fourth aft weapon.
Sci ships have a perception bonus (and better crew regen but i'm not sure it's still the case), cruisers a +10% hull regen and escorts +10% defense.
So imo a chel'grett falls in the escort category while a jem'hadar escort carrier is more of a cruiser. But there are so many hybrids now the differences between classes may be minimal.