Okay lets...where is KDF's infinite diversity in infinite combinations? Every single KDF ship that would be considered escort like is almost identical, only thing that sets them apart are a few stats and ensign slot...all of them have a Cmdr Tac/Lt Cmdr Tac/Lt Sci and Eng.
The only thing unique the KDF has is Raiders...
So if you want more IDIC then you're asking for more KDF ships in this thread right?
Well, I hate to say it, but sure, why not. Might as well give the KDF a bunch more ships. Honestly, I'm not sure why Cryptic isn't doing that. AFAIK, there are plenty of preexisting models...so...
I'd like to think that it's because the Klingon playerbase is so annoying that the devs don't want to do anything for them, but I really need to tone down the Klingon Defense Flaming, so. And that's probably not likely anyway, as I think a few of the devs have expressed a desire for more KDF ships anyway.
Where was the carrier vessel in DS9's Sacrifice of Angels episode? How do we know where the Strike Fighters came from?
For all we know is they could have been shipped in by simple heavy haul cargo ships no military value or capability and dropped off in the area before the fight.
The feds dont need another carrier.
If you understand the purpose of a carrier then you would know that it would not be in close proximity to a ship vs ship engagement (see WW2, Pacific Naval Campaigns). Sci-fi programs cannot properly show this since the goal is to make the carrier the star (e.g., BSG) and usually have a ship playing a dual role of carrier and battleship.
We gone over this pre-Atrox, fact is the Federation had fighters and we can draw conclusions from it as well as other evidence like dialogue, warp speeds and such.
Plus its really not in your favor to attempt to play this game because if you say "Feds have no Carriers" then we have to assumed they were carried by the starships we seen in that battle and that means many Federation cruisers will now get a hangar.
Plus going with that argument you cannot really be "forgotten" and not mention klingons never even had fighters and thus all your carrier line should be removed because we havent seen a carrier vessel in Star Trek outside the Scimitar, certainly NOT a Klingon one were you would be even hard pressed to find a Klingon shuttle.
This type of double standards always been particularly annoying me, this is not about canon now is it? Its about the KDF kid not wanting to share their toys, in fact is the KDF kit crying about the Fed kid having a similar toy ...
Heck, if we apply the same standard some people are going off on to the Scimitar-that the Constellation & Galaxy shouldn't have hangers because they never used them to launch shuttles in combat-then we come to the conclusion that the Scimitar shouldn't have a hanger slot either, because it never launched its scorpions in the whole movie.
At any rate, this isn't some sort of zero-sum game going on here. Wanting the Fed ships to have their large hangers to be better represented in-game does not mean that Klingons should have their hangers taken away. I'm all for more KDF carriers-particularly for the GOrn, Orion, and Nausicaans.
No. I dislike Carriers and would rather remove them all, then add a new one. But that's not gonna happen. I figure eventually, Cryptic will add another Carrier to the Feds, because all the calls for it - if they can get it by CBS, there is money to be made here.
I am not totally opposed to a "pet ship" class (even though I hate the clutter they cause in PvP), but I would prefer if carriers in STO would launch combat drones, rather than flying coffins.
Where was the carrier vessel in DS9's Sacrifice of Angels episode? How do we know where the Strike Fighters came from?
For all we know is they could have been shipped in by simple heavy haul cargo ships no military value or capability and dropped off in the area before the fight.
The feds dont need another carrier.
Or they could have just been flying at warp with the fleet. We don't know exactly how far the starbase was away from DS9, but we can assume it must have been close to the frontlines to make a logical meeting point for the fleet and to launch assaults against the Dominion. So they wouldn't have to fly too long, ultimately.
And we know that small craft can get rather fast, and the fleet consisted of ships of different ages, and I doubt a Miranda class craft (even after upgrades) could keep up with a Galaxy Class ship, so the fleet couldn't fly too fast anyway.
Oh, and if visual inspection of a ship reveals 7 of a dozen hangar bay slots, it still doesn't mean that it was a carrier. It could just mean that it had a lot of hangar bays. Maybe there were so many because shuttles were part of the evacuation plans for these ships.
The fight between that Ferengi ship and the Stargazer didn't seem to involve any fighter craft.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
0
rattler2Member, Star Trek Online ModeratorPosts: 58,675Community Moderator
edited May 2014
I think the Curry or one of the other Excelsior kitbashes from DS9 was supposed to be some kind of carrier...
I can't take it anymore! Could everyone just chill out for two seconds before something CRAZY happens again?!
The nut who actually ground out many packs. The resident forum voice of reason (I HAZ FORUM REP! YAY!)
normal text = me speaking as fellow formite colored text = mod mode
I believe the concept of large ships carrying a number of smaller warships to silly to begin with. It's like some TRIBBLE out of an anime OAV.
"Frigates" are not fighters. They are warships in their own right.
But whatever floats one's boat, I guess.
We call them Tenders/Sub Tenders......It isnt sillly its pratical and deadly its basically a mobile repair/resupply base
For short range ships that are now foward long range ships
In star trek a tender could keep 6 to 12 defiants in a remote sector of space for a extended period allowing a short range heavy hitting squadren of ships to control a sector they normally could not stay in due to lack of a nearby base
Jellico....Engineer ground.....Da'val Romulan space Sci
Saphire.. Science ground......Ko'el Romulan space Tac
Leva........Tactical ground.....Koj Romulan space Eng
JJ-Verse will never be Canon or considered Lore...It will always be JJ-Verse
I think the Curry or one of the other Excelsior kitbashes from DS9 was supposed to be some kind of carrier...
Neither them nor the Akira was a carrier. There are no fighter-carriers in Starfleet.
If you look at the Technical Manuals (and don't cop out via "it's not canon", it's the closest we have cosnidering that on-screen we never ever see a single hint or mention of a carrier ever) none of those kitbashes did have any specific purpose. The manual states that due to the imminent threat most of those ships were scrambled from the individual shipyards, made of whatever was accessible. Many of those hulls were at least tactically very inefficient (The Yeager-Type, for example, is equipped with type-8 phasers, which were shuttlecraft weapons) - the same is true for the attack fighters. Those were civilian vessels refitted to have something at hand (the class isn't even mentioned in the manual, but the introductionary text of the chapter mentions the scrambling and hasty assembling of ships which were scrapped/rebuild to be their original class after the conflict was over in case they survived).
The term "fighter" in star Trek doesn't mean "Starfighter" in the star Wars sense. A attack/strike fighter is a fully operational starship (including the federation attack fighters, which are based on civilian couriers which CAN travel far distances) that does not need to be carried. They are not shuttles. And shuttles, which are far superior to sub-warp craft, are not a match for Starships in combat and thus not used under nromal circumstances.
There was Akira-class ships in Sisko's ragtag fleet.
The Akira wasn't a carrier on-screen or in the manual. It's a heavy cruiser.
In fact, the only vessel that is labeled a "carrier" in the manual is the Klingon Negh'Var - and we don't know what the term is supposed to mean in the first place. Maybe it just means that the ship is capable of carrying (ground) troops.
Star Trek terminology is not the same as 21st century terran terminology. See the "Antares Class Carrier" which is a transport vessel.
^ 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
Neither them nor the Akira was a carrier. There are no fighter-carriers in Starfleet.
If you look at the Technical Manuals (and don't cop out via "it's not canon", it's the closest we have cosnidering that on-screen we never ever see a single hint or mention of a carrier ever) none of those kitbashes did have any specific purpose. The manual states that due to the imminent threat most of those ships were scrambled from the individual shipyards, made of whatever was accessible. Many of those hulls were at least tactically very inefficient (The Yeager-Type, for example, is equipped with type-8 phasers, which were shuttlecraft weapons) - the same is true for the attack fighters. Those were civilian vessels refitted to have something at hand (the class isn't even mentioned in the manual, but the introductionary text of the chapter mentions the scrambling and hasty assembling of ships which were scrapped/rebuild to be their original class after the conflict was over in case they survived).
The term "fighter" in star Trek doesn't mean "Starfighter" in the star Wars sense. A attack/strike fighter is a fully operational starship (including the federation attack fighters, which are based on civilian couriers which CAN travel far distances) that does not need to be carried. They are not shuttles. And shuttles, which are far superior to sub-warp craft, are not a match for Starships in combat and thus not used under nromal circumstances.
The Akira wasn't a carrier on-screen or in the manual. It's a heavy cruiser.
In fact, the only vessel that is labeled a "carrier" in the manual is the Klingon Negh'Var - and we don't know what the term is supposed to mean in the first place. Maybe it just means that the ship is capable of carrying (ground) troops.
Star Trek terminology is not the same as 21st century terran terminology. See the "Antares Class Carrier" which is a transport vessel.
Yes, Yes, and in the Starship Spotter book, the Akira can hold 40 fighters, 10 work bees, 10 shuttlecraft, and five shuttlepods. That is a lot of auxiliary vessels for a heavy cruiser and in fact, the class carries more than even a Galaxy and a Sovereign.
Besides, the DS9 Tech Manual only claims there are two torpedo launchers on the Akira, though the CGI model clearly shows 15.
Though, technically, every starship that carries a large number of shuttlecraft (which are at times armed) can be called a carrier. Then again, this is a video game, and the Negh'Var is an assault cruiser not a heavy carrier and the Akira is a heavy escort with a skin of itself as a escort carrier, so basically what is said/not said on screen is a moot point.
Yes, Yes, and in the Starship Spotter book, the Akira can hold 40 fighters, 10 work bees, 10 shuttlecraft, and five shuttlepods. That is a lot of auxiliary vessels for a heavy cruiser and in fact, the class carries more than even a Galaxy and a Sovereign.
Besides, the DS9 Tech Manual only claims there are two torpedo launchers on the Akira, though the CGI model clearly shows 15.
Though, technically, every starship that carries a large number of shuttlecraft (which are at times armed) can be called a carrier. Then again, this is a video game, and the Negh'Var is an assault cruiser not a heavy carrier and the Akira is a heavy escort with a skin of itself as a escort carrier, so basically what is said/not said on screen is a moot point.
The starship spotter, however, is a completely unaffiliated piece of work while the technical manuals originated by the internal design documents that were meant to explain how the stuff we see works to the writers and are written by Sternbach and Okuda themselves. They have later been refurbished and published. They aren't canon by the definition that Startrek.com gave because the wording was "everything on-screen" and a manual cannot be seen on screen (although some content made it on-screen in form of okudagrams) but it is still the closest we got and unless something that is on-screen contradicts what is given in the manuals it is as official as it gets.
The Akira-Class is a strange case indeed, since the designer basically designed a 8-year-olds wet dream mary sue ship that was a super carrier gumship pew pew. The on-screen incarnation never fired torpedoes nor launched shuttles and always died when it was on-screen XD Technically the CGI model trups the technical manual since it was seen, yet since it was never shown we can only speculate. We don't know how many aux craft the ship carried.
I do agree with you that you could call every ship in star Trek at least a shuttle carrier since they all carry shuttles and yes, those are armed as well, but they were never shown to be a threat to a real starship. Armament appropriate for it's size and task is something completely different to being combat-worthy. And I also agree that anything canon has no meaning in or for STO, they can make up whatever they want, but I wanted to response to "this and that ship was supposed to be a carrier on-screen".
^ 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
Given that the Starship Spotter was done in collaboration with production team members, I would say that Spotter is in the same level of as the DS9 Tech Manual (which was the Trek non-fiction book that killed the "officialish" tech manuals due to the book's cost and relative low-sales) Personally, though I love DS9, the tech manual was very underwhelming and had a large amount of stupid errors such as ship pictures not accurate (the Centaur, the Curry, and the Elkins).
Admittedly, the only thing we actually see the Akira do is fire phasers, fire torpedoes, fly in formation, and explode.
Given that the Starship Spotter was done in collaboration with production team members, I would say that Spotter is in the same level of as the DS9 Tech Manual (which was the Trek non-fiction book that killed the "officialish" tech manuals due to the book's cost and relative low-sales) Personally, though I love DS9, the tech manual was very underwhelming and had a large amount of stupid errors such as ship pictures not accurate (the Centaur, the Curry, and the Elkins).
Admittedly, the only thing we actually see the Akira do is fire phasers, fire torpedoes, fly in formation, and explode.
I don't own the spotter, I can only say that Memor Alpha outright states that there is no claim for the book to be canon while the manuals do originate from internal documents. To me personally that is a difference but that isn't the topic at hand. I do however agree with you on the DS9 manual, I don't say it is the holy grail. I just say that it is the best secondary information on trek tech of the DS9 era. If the book would say we had carriers I would be totally fine with it although I personally dont like the concept of space-fighter-carriers, I'm not trying to wage a crusade here. I only say that we have not a single halfway viable information that would make fighter-carriers in Star Trek a viable option given how stuff is supposed to work.
We do see a Akira fire torpedoes? I guess I have to rewatch DS9 (which I personally like very much for the character moments and of course I also like the action scenes as well, even if some things DO really hurt XD). I only remembered the Akira to fire phasers, fly and die
^ 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 don't own the spotter, I can only say that Memor Alpha outright states that there is no claim for the book to be canon while the manuals do originate from internal documents. To me personally that is a difference but that isn't the topic at hand. I do however agree with you on the DS9 manual, I don't say it is the holy grail. I just say that it is the best secondary information on trek tech of the DS9 era. If the book would say we had carriers I would be totally fine with it although I personally dont like the concept of space-fighter-carriers, I'm not trying to wage a crusade here. I only say that we have not a single halfway viable information that would make fighter-carriers in Star Trek a viable option given how stuff is supposed to work.
We do see a Akira fire torpedoes? I guess I have to rewatch DS9 (which I personally like very much for the character moments and of course I also like the action scenes as well, even if some things DO really hurt XD). I only remembered the Akira to fire phasers, fly and die
I just checked on youtube. Three torpedoes from the "pod" and four from the ventral saucer mounted launcher. 7 torpedoes from two launchers, that's pretty much what all the other ships do as well.
I personally think it's a bit odd to justify the "15 torpedo launchers" with on-screen reference. It's like "Lieutenant, ready torpedo launchers 1 to 15, full spread!" - "Aye sir, torpedoes ready!" - "Fire... number 4 - only number 4!"
So taking that into account, the technical manual is accurate, we see two launchers in action. The kind of salvo they fire we see other ships fire as well, including Sovereign, Galaxy and Nebulas, maybe even other smaller vessels.
^ 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 just checked on youtube. Three torpedoes from the "pod" and four from the ventral saucer mounted launcher. 7 torpedoes from two launchers, that's pretty much what all the other ships do as well.
I personally think it's a bit odd to justify the "15 torpedo launchers" with on-screen reference. It's like "Lieutenant, ready torpedo launchers 1 to 15, full spread!" - "Aye sir, torpedoes ready!" - "Fire... number 4 - only number 4!"
So taking that into account, the technical manual is accurate, we see two launchers in action. The kind of salvo they fire we see other ships fire as well, including Sovereign, Galaxy and Nebulas, maybe even other smaller vessels.
But, if you look at the CGI model from the movie, it has all of the fifteen launchers. That would be like ignoring over nearly all of the Galaxy's 12 phaser strips because the major if the time, the Enterprise and her sister ships only was shown firing from the two big saucer ones.
But, if you look at the CGI model from the movie, it has all of the fifteen launchers. That would be like ignoring over nearly all of the Galaxy's 12 phaser strips because the major if the time, the Enterprise and her sister ships only was shown firing from the two big saucer ones.
I get that, but it's a tough one. The phaser arrays are clearly distinguishable and facing the Husnok illusion we see the Ent-D make use of almost all of these arrays, plus the primary two arrays are supposed to feed so much power that the others are really only "auxilliary arrays" that cover blind spots. With the Akira's launchers, can you tell that a bump on the model is a torpedo launcher as opposed to some kind of sensor and if the ship is packed with over a dozen of launchers, why doesn't it use those? With phasers I can see power levels being an issue.
Again, I'm not trying to make a point, I simply say that the information we have can work with what we see on-screen. On-screen we see two launchers in action and I could imagine that the "pod" counts as one launcher, facing fore and aft. But I don't know, we can only specualte.
^ 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
Not using just their large size (and the constellation isn't exactly large) The Constellation has seven hangers/shuttlebays-that's a lot of internal space devoted to shuttles, esp for such a small craft. It wouldn't be a stretch at all for it to be a ship like the Akira.
The Galaxy has a cavernous main hanger large enough to hold several runabouts. Outside of the scimitar it's probably the trek ship with the most space devoted to hangers.
I don't specifically recall anywhere in Trek where it is stated that shields have to be dropped to launch shuttles, or that shuttles can't be launched in combat, but shuttles are repeatedly used in combat throughout trek, particularly in DS9, but also in TNG and VOY, so there's definitely a precedent for that. Many fed ships certainly have the capability to act as at least flight-decks, since deploying six shuttles at a time isn't something that a galaxy or Constellation is incapable of. Whether or not 'carriers' should be forced to drop shields to deploy shuttles or not is an argument for another time-I think that would make for an interesting mechanic, myself.
I think you're still missing my point. Let me try to explain it a bit further:
If you came into this thread with the standard (not for you, but these type of threads in general) - "I wana' Fed carrier waaah waaah waaah!!!" you wouldn't even get a reply from me on your post.
But what you did is said that Cryptic dropped the ball by not giving the Galaxy-R a hangar bay. That is tremendously wrong. The Galaxy Class is the most documented ship in the history of the franchise and never was it shown to act in the role of a carrier or support small combat craft.
In fact, TNG before DS9 established that small craft are a joke in tall ship combat, in Star Trek shields are evrything and computers calibrate the phasers so they almost never miss. What happened in DS9 was desperation and in such situation I wouldn't be suprised if the Feds opened the arilocks and had crewmen in EV suits threw wrenches at the Dominion armada as a last resort.
Yes, I'll admit that in fact I kinda' hate that sometimes this game is trying to copy stuff that are trademark of other franchises, as if someone at helm is thinking that Star Trek isn't cool enough. I sometimes find that insulting.
However, that has nothing to do with my replies to you and what I'm trying to say here. And my point is the following:
Star Trek is a science fiction franchise based several hundred years in the future in a fictional universe. If we are to debate anything Star Trek related, we need to adhere to the provisional rules established within that fictional universe.
You can't say - Well Galaxy is big and has a big shuttlebay, so it must be a carrier. Because it's fictional - the ones creating it clearly didn't portray it as a carrier. You can't go and apply your real world logic to a fictional universe of evolved humans in an alliance with a huge number of alien species.
I'm saying that if you want to bug Cryptic about making a Fed. carrier, bug them to make one or use one of their old abominations in the form of the Jupiter for ex. Don't try to apply your logic that has no relevance in a fictional universe to justify slapping a hangar bay on ships that are well documented in canon and were never shown to function in that role.
Show me in canon where anyone from Kirk's era forward ever had to go to the bathroom. Since we never saw it, or heard it mentioned, going to the bathroom is not canon. See how silly and how far we can take the 'we didn't explicitly see it on screen' argument?
Yeah, sure, if you want to be stupid about it. :rolleyes:
At any rate, this isn't some sort of zero-sum game going on here.
You might be surprised. I've seen people make that claim in other MMOs I play (or used to).
One person back in City of Heroes even had a surprisingly deep argument that MMO's are a Zero Sum Game, using how people feel when losing in PVP or seeing someone use powers that you'll never have access to (Veteran Reward).
He was all kinds of wrong, but I had to give the guy props for going into it with more thought than basic internet arguing.
Oh here we go.. KDF players jumping on another Federation ship thread.. well Lore wise you KDF should never had Carriers.. they are not YOUR lore. In fact there is more lore pointing to the Federation having carriers then KDF, be if from the show, board games... even Human history's.. Star Fleet is a human based space navy.. and carriers were a interrogate part of human sea navies that Star Fleet was based on.
Given current tech trends Star Fleet should have Drone ship carriers. Most likely this is how a Star Fleet (human based) carrier would look like in the future. Having a large mother ship that would replicate Drones to swarm a target. Having crewed fighters in fact is pretty good way just to kill your people in Star Trek given the accuracy and fire power of ships. Drones would make more sense. When Star Trek came into being Drone tech was not something that was really in there minds.. they did not see a future of un-manned attack aircraft that we are seeing today.
Hard to see why feds need another ship.... Look at the existing selection.. huge.. same with bridges, toons, gear, etc.. but still they want more:eek:
What does the existing selection have to do with want? My wife has over 200 pairs of shoes. See where I am going with this?
STO is about my Liberated Borg Federation Captain with his Breen 1st Officer, Jem'Hadar Tactical Officer, Liberated Borg Engineering Officer, Android Ops Officer, Photonic Science Officer, Gorn Science Officer, and Reman Medical Officer jumping into their Jem'Hadar Carrier and flying off to do missions for the new Romulan Empire. But for some players allowing a T5 Connie to be used breaks the canon in the game.
Comments
Well, I hate to say it, but sure, why not. Might as well give the KDF a bunch more ships. Honestly, I'm not sure why Cryptic isn't doing that. AFAIK, there are plenty of preexisting models...so...
I'd like to think that it's because the Klingon playerbase is so annoying that the devs don't want to do anything for them, but I really need to tone down the Klingon Defense Flaming, so. And that's probably not likely anyway, as I think a few of the devs have expressed a desire for more KDF ships anyway.
This was when Science skills were worth a damn. :rolleyes:
I can't really say I was here back in science's "heyday" but based on my science toons I have I think Science still got some bite left.
Eheh. No. The skills we have now are neutered toothless puppies compared to the old skills. Gravity Well III was to be feared.
If you understand the purpose of a carrier then you would know that it would not be in close proximity to a ship vs ship engagement (see WW2, Pacific Naval Campaigns). Sci-fi programs cannot properly show this since the goal is to make the carrier the star (e.g., BSG) and usually have a ship playing a dual role of carrier and battleship.
At any rate, this isn't some sort of zero-sum game going on here. Wanting the Fed ships to have their large hangers to be better represented in-game does not mean that Klingons should have their hangers taken away. I'm all for more KDF carriers-particularly for the GOrn, Orion, and Nausicaans.
I am not totally opposed to a "pet ship" class (even though I hate the clutter they cause in PvP), but I would prefer if carriers in STO would launch combat drones, rather than flying coffins.
Or they could have just been flying at warp with the fleet. We don't know exactly how far the starbase was away from DS9, but we can assume it must have been close to the frontlines to make a logical meeting point for the fleet and to launch assaults against the Dominion. So they wouldn't have to fly too long, ultimately.
And we know that small craft can get rather fast, and the fleet consisted of ships of different ages, and I doubt a Miranda class craft (even after upgrades) could keep up with a Galaxy Class ship, so the fleet couldn't fly too fast anyway.
Oh, and if visual inspection of a ship reveals 7 of a dozen hangar bay slots, it still doesn't mean that it was a carrier. It could just mean that it had a lot of hangar bays. Maybe there were so many because shuttles were part of the evacuation plans for these ships.
The fight between that Ferengi ship and the Stargazer didn't seem to involve any fighter craft.
normal text = me speaking as fellow formite
colored text = mod mode
you can paint it with starfleet colors, and off you go to the worlds where no man has gone before except Klingons
Ain't Nobody Got Time for That
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
We call them Tenders/Sub Tenders......It isnt sillly its pratical and deadly its basically a mobile repair/resupply base
For short range ships that are now foward long range ships
In star trek a tender could keep 6 to 12 defiants in a remote sector of space for a extended period allowing a short range heavy hitting squadren of ships to control a sector they normally could not stay in due to lack of a nearby base
Saphire.. Science ground......Ko'el Romulan space Tac
Leva........Tactical ground.....Koj Romulan space Eng
JJ-Verse will never be Canon or considered Lore...It will always be JJ-Verse
Neither them nor the Akira was a carrier. There are no fighter-carriers in Starfleet.
If you look at the Technical Manuals (and don't cop out via "it's not canon", it's the closest we have cosnidering that on-screen we never ever see a single hint or mention of a carrier ever) none of those kitbashes did have any specific purpose. The manual states that due to the imminent threat most of those ships were scrambled from the individual shipyards, made of whatever was accessible. Many of those hulls were at least tactically very inefficient (The Yeager-Type, for example, is equipped with type-8 phasers, which were shuttlecraft weapons) - the same is true for the attack fighters. Those were civilian vessels refitted to have something at hand (the class isn't even mentioned in the manual, but the introductionary text of the chapter mentions the scrambling and hasty assembling of ships which were scrapped/rebuild to be their original class after the conflict was over in case they survived).
The term "fighter" in star Trek doesn't mean "Starfighter" in the star Wars sense. A attack/strike fighter is a fully operational starship (including the federation attack fighters, which are based on civilian couriers which CAN travel far distances) that does not need to be carried. They are not shuttles. And shuttles, which are far superior to sub-warp craft, are not a match for Starships in combat and thus not used under nromal circumstances.
The Akira wasn't a carrier on-screen or in the manual. It's a heavy cruiser.
In fact, the only vessel that is labeled a "carrier" in the manual is the Klingon Negh'Var - and we don't know what the term is supposed to mean in the first place. Maybe it just means that the ship is capable of carrying (ground) troops.
Star Trek terminology is not the same as 21st century terran terminology. See the "Antares Class Carrier" which is a transport vessel.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Actually Chinese are working on this concept for a while. An aircraft carrier that can launch aircrafts as well as...submarines. :eek:
It is unofficially called as Zheng Yu-class strategic nuclear submarine motherships program.
Pic1
Pic2
Pic3
Ain't Nobody Got Time for That
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Yes, Yes, and in the Starship Spotter book, the Akira can hold 40 fighters, 10 work bees, 10 shuttlecraft, and five shuttlepods. That is a lot of auxiliary vessels for a heavy cruiser and in fact, the class carries more than even a Galaxy and a Sovereign.
Besides, the DS9 Tech Manual only claims there are two torpedo launchers on the Akira, though the CGI model clearly shows 15.
Though, technically, every starship that carries a large number of shuttlecraft (which are at times armed) can be called a carrier. Then again, this is a video game, and the Negh'Var is an assault cruiser not a heavy carrier and the Akira is a heavy escort with a skin of itself as a escort carrier, so basically what is said/not said on screen is a moot point.
The starship spotter, however, is a completely unaffiliated piece of work while the technical manuals originated by the internal design documents that were meant to explain how the stuff we see works to the writers and are written by Sternbach and Okuda themselves. They have later been refurbished and published. They aren't canon by the definition that Startrek.com gave because the wording was "everything on-screen" and a manual cannot be seen on screen (although some content made it on-screen in form of okudagrams) but it is still the closest we got and unless something that is on-screen contradicts what is given in the manuals it is as official as it gets.
The Akira-Class is a strange case indeed, since the designer basically designed a 8-year-olds wet dream mary sue ship that was a super carrier gumship pew pew. The on-screen incarnation never fired torpedoes nor launched shuttles and always died when it was on-screen XD Technically the CGI model trups the technical manual since it was seen, yet since it was never shown we can only speculate. We don't know how many aux craft the ship carried.
I do agree with you that you could call every ship in star Trek at least a shuttle carrier since they all carry shuttles and yes, those are armed as well, but they were never shown to be a threat to a real starship. Armament appropriate for it's size and task is something completely different to being combat-worthy. And I also agree that anything canon has no meaning in or for STO, they can make up whatever they want, but I wanted to response to "this and that ship was supposed to be a carrier on-screen".
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Admittedly, the only thing we actually see the Akira do is fire phasers, fire torpedoes, fly in formation, and explode.
I don't own the spotter, I can only say that Memor Alpha outright states that there is no claim for the book to be canon while the manuals do originate from internal documents. To me personally that is a difference but that isn't the topic at hand. I do however agree with you on the DS9 manual, I don't say it is the holy grail. I just say that it is the best secondary information on trek tech of the DS9 era. If the book would say we had carriers I would be totally fine with it although I personally dont like the concept of space-fighter-carriers, I'm not trying to wage a crusade here. I only say that we have not a single halfway viable information that would make fighter-carriers in Star Trek a viable option given how stuff is supposed to work.
We do see a Akira fire torpedoes?
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
At least if there were a Starfleet carrier, something as simple as hull and window choices would make a big difference.
In FC, the Akira fires photon torpedoes.
The question is: how many?^^
I just checked on youtube. Three torpedoes from the "pod" and four from the ventral saucer mounted launcher. 7 torpedoes from two launchers, that's pretty much what all the other ships do as well.
I personally think it's a bit odd to justify the "15 torpedo launchers" with on-screen reference. It's like "Lieutenant, ready torpedo launchers 1 to 15, full spread!" - "Aye sir, torpedoes ready!" - "Fire... number 4 - only number 4!"
So taking that into account, the technical manual is accurate, we see two launchers in action. The kind of salvo they fire we see other ships fire as well, including Sovereign, Galaxy and Nebulas, maybe even other smaller vessels.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
But, if you look at the CGI model from the movie, it has all of the fifteen launchers. That would be like ignoring over nearly all of the Galaxy's 12 phaser strips because the major if the time, the Enterprise and her sister ships only was shown firing from the two big saucer ones.
I get that, but it's a tough one. The phaser arrays are clearly distinguishable and facing the Husnok illusion we see the Ent-D make use of almost all of these arrays, plus the primary two arrays are supposed to feed so much power that the others are really only "auxilliary arrays" that cover blind spots. With the Akira's launchers, can you tell that a bump on the model is a torpedo launcher as opposed to some kind of sensor and if the ship is packed with over a dozen of launchers, why doesn't it use those? With phasers I can see power levels being an issue.
Again, I'm not trying to make a point, I simply say that the information we have can work with what we see on-screen. On-screen we see two launchers in action and I could imagine that the "pod" counts as one launcher, facing fore and aft. But I don't know, we can only specualte.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
the Akira is actually a torp boat a cheaper sovereign and can fire a massive valley of quantoms.
I think you're still missing my point. Let me try to explain it a bit further:
If you came into this thread with the standard (not for you, but these type of threads in general) - "I wana' Fed carrier waaah waaah waaah!!!" you wouldn't even get a reply from me on your post.
But what you did is said that Cryptic dropped the ball by not giving the Galaxy-R a hangar bay. That is tremendously wrong. The Galaxy Class is the most documented ship in the history of the franchise and never was it shown to act in the role of a carrier or support small combat craft.
In fact, TNG before DS9 established that small craft are a joke in tall ship combat, in Star Trek shields are evrything and computers calibrate the phasers so they almost never miss. What happened in DS9 was desperation and in such situation I wouldn't be suprised if the Feds opened the arilocks and had crewmen in EV suits threw wrenches at the Dominion armada as a last resort.
Yes, I'll admit that in fact I kinda' hate that sometimes this game is trying to copy stuff that are trademark of other franchises, as if someone at helm is thinking that Star Trek isn't cool enough. I sometimes find that insulting.
However, that has nothing to do with my replies to you and what I'm trying to say here. And my point is the following:
Star Trek is a science fiction franchise based several hundred years in the future in a fictional universe. If we are to debate anything Star Trek related, we need to adhere to the provisional rules established within that fictional universe.
You can't say - Well Galaxy is big and has a big shuttlebay, so it must be a carrier. Because it's fictional - the ones creating it clearly didn't portray it as a carrier. You can't go and apply your real world logic to a fictional universe of evolved humans in an alliance with a huge number of alien species.
I'm saying that if you want to bug Cryptic about making a Fed. carrier, bug them to make one or use one of their old abominations in the form of the Jupiter for ex. Don't try to apply your logic that has no relevance in a fictional universe to justify slapping a hangar bay on ships that are well documented in canon and were never shown to function in that role.
Yeah, sure, if you want to be stupid about it. :rolleyes:
And even then:
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Bathroom
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Toilet
You were saying?
You might be surprised. I've seen people make that claim in other MMOs I play (or used to).
One person back in City of Heroes even had a surprisingly deep argument that MMO's are a Zero Sum Game, using how people feel when losing in PVP or seeing someone use powers that you'll never have access to (Veteran Reward).
He was all kinds of wrong, but I had to give the guy props for going into it with more thought than basic internet arguing.
Given current tech trends Star Fleet should have Drone ship carriers. Most likely this is how a Star Fleet (human based) carrier would look like in the future. Having a large mother ship that would replicate Drones to swarm a target. Having crewed fighters in fact is pretty good way just to kill your people in Star Trek given the accuracy and fire power of ships. Drones would make more sense. When Star Trek came into being Drone tech was not something that was really in there minds.. they did not see a future of un-manned attack aircraft that we are seeing today.