Cryptic has no clue what the term "Battleship" or "Dreadnought" means and what it implies. They throw the term "Dreadnought" around to supposedly mean the real life implications and make it sell. But the stats in the game are anything but.
The Galaxy-X "Dreadnought" is nothing more than a Fleet version of the Lv40 Assault Cruiser.
The Monbosh "Battleship" is essentially nothing more than a reskinned Fleet Vor'Cha. So much so that Cryptic forgot to remove the Vor'Cha's standard cloak when they released the ship when LOR went live, and had to patch it out.
They throw the term "Dreadnought" around to hopefully make it sell better.
"OHHHH, a Dreadnought! This has to be big and bad! Because it's called DREADNOUGHT!"
But anyone that can look at the stats and see the true picture knows better.
The only big ship in STO that has any right to be called "Dreadnought" is the Scimitar.
None of Cryptics ship designatiuons makes any sense and there is no consistency to it on either side.
Take a look at Starfleet, they got so many terms for cruisers but that line-up doesn't make the least bit of sense. Cruisers are escorts, frigates are science vessels and science vessels are supposed to be cruisers and don't even start to take NPC ship classes into consideration.
The terminology in this game needs a complete revamp.
^ 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'm in the state of mind that everything released 3 months or more before Legacy of Romulas needs to be looked at and most need major overhauled to ships and consoles. Personally alot of ships both for the Klingons and the Federation could use some help making them worthy to have Captains flying them again. It's sad the other day that my nephew was playing and commented that he hadn't seen the Vulcan ship before actually out being flown by anyone.
Granted he didn't really start playing til just before Romulans were added but still.
Fed dreadnaught they really either need to make more towards the design they gave the Romulan's Scimitar since its also called a dreadnaught or give it other two cruiser commands and just call it the Galaxy-X and stop advertising it as a Dreadnaught.
As far as this thread I agree its a battlecruiser and should get a boost to its turn and inertia as well as having an overhaul of its consoles. Either that or give it more hull and shields the fourth cruiser command and call it a Klingon cruiser.
Personally if it can load Dual cannons I stick them on it and make it work the best I can. Did it with the Galaxy-X and do it with my Klink and his Bortasqu'. Will say I rarely do pvp and usually if I am in one its in a Bop or my Defiant but for Pve and most the Queued instances you can Pve with dual cannons on it.
I don't want to troll here, but if the Bortasqu' should get a rework then the Odyssey would need one too.
(I'm not saying it wouldn't be neccessary)
I think Angrytarg is right, Cryptic has a very confusing policy about naming ships "Battleship" or "Dreadnought". I think a ship should require a certain amount of high Tactical stations / consoles to be called like that. If it doesn't fulfill these requirements it should be rather called "flying brick" or something like that.;)
On the other hand i think the Bortasqu' is just a Odyssey with a different ship model (with one or two adjustments). So it doesn't support the traditional KDF Battlecruiser playstyle.
But hey, at least the Bortasqu' is a ship that doesn't make me cringe when i look at it (unlike the Odyssey, lol).:)
"...'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
I don't want to troll here, but if the Bortasqu' should get a rework then the Odyssey would need one too.
(I'm not saying it wouldn't be neccessary)
I think Angrytarg is right, Cryptic has a very confusing policy about naming ships "Battleship" or "Dreadnought". I think a ship should require a certain amount of high Tactical stations / consoles to be called like that. If it doesn't fulfill these requirements it should be rather called "flying brick" or something like that.;)
On the other hand i think the Bortasqu' is just a Odyssey with a different ship model (with one or two adjustments). So it doesn't support the traditional KDF Battlecruiser playstyle.
But hey, at least the Bortasqu' is a ship that doesn't make me cringe when i look at it (unlike the Odyssey, lol).:)
Personally there are many ships that need to be redsignated and those designations mean something.
Mogh and Avenger are termed as battle cruisers. Cruiser style hulls, but with heavier armament than a standard cruiser, much like REAL life battle cruisers were built back in WWI and WWII.
This is where I'd make the change. Next would be the Battleship. She basically trades more armor for less speed than the Battle cruiser.
Then you get to the dreadnought in this game. Gigantic leviathans of armor and weapons, slower than molasses on a warm summer's day, but they can take poundings like no other ship can.
So here's where I'd start re-designating ships.
Battlecruiser: Mogh, Avenger
Battleships: Gal-X, Odyssey, Bortasqu, Typhoon.
Dreadnoughts: Scimitar, Jupiter.
Ofcourse there are other designations that can be used.
Light cruiser
Heavy cruiser
Destroyer
Frigates
Corvettes
Honestly I should do a post on how I'd list ship classes in this game.
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
Personally there are many ships that need to be redsignated and those designations mean something.
(...).
I agree, but don't make the mistake and try to use WW2 or other real-world designations on Star Trek starships. It's not the same, this is something A LOT of people don't really get.
While Starfleet uses terms that are somewhat related to Earth history (not a surprise, really), the terms don't mean the same thing. Starfleet for example uses designations that reflect the primary mission profile of a ship more than anything else. In TNG times you find Frigates, Light/Heavy Cruisers with a few sub-classes, and Explorers/Star Cruisers. There are no battle, war or any other military term ships in Starfleet, the heaviest and most well armed ships would be Explorers or Cruisers. Frigates on the other hand are small to medium sized ships which' primary mission profile is defense, aka New Orleans, possibly Norway and Sabre and so on. Other people have designated Starfleet ships in more military terms, yet that is because the ships would fit THEIR designation pattern this way and the concept of Starfleet is rather different from what other people's space force is.
Klingons used Scouts/Raiders and Battlecruisers/Warships on-screen. Their heaviest in-canon vessel, the Negh'Var, is officially classed as a heavy carrier even, though it never specified what it carries. I suspect the term is used for a combined troop transport which is supported by the huge cargo bays and a possible planetary landing capability, but that's just me.
ryptic really had to be creative and actually use and play with those canonical designations, rather than make up big and bad terms.
^ 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 agree, but don't make the mistake and try to use WW2 or other real-world designations on Star Trek starships. It's not the same, this is something A LOT of people don't really get.
While Starfleet uses terms that are somewhat related to Earth history (not a surprise, really), the terms don't mean the same thing. Starfleet for example uses designations that reflect the primary mission profile of a ship more than anything else. In TNG times you find Frigates, Light/Heavy Cruisers with a few sub-classes, and Explorers/Star Cruisers. There are no battle, war or any other military term ships in Starfleet, the heaviest and most well armed ships would be Explorers or Cruisers. Frigates on the other hand are small to medium sized ships which' primary mission profile is defense, aka New Orleans, possibly Norway and Sabre and so on. Other people have designated Starfleet ships in more military terms, yet that is because the ships would fit THEIR designation pattern this way and the concept of Starfleet is rather different from what other people's space force is.
Klingons used Scouts/Raiders and Battlecruisers/Warships on-screen. Their heaviest in-canon vessel, the Negh'Var, is officially classed as a heavy carrier even, though it never specified what it carries. I suspect the term is used for a combined troop transport which is supported by the huge cargo bays and a possible planetary landing capability, but that's just me.
ryptic really had to be creative and actually use and play with those canonical designations, rather than make up big and bad terms.
Well yes and no. But it's also a matter of perception. Most people see Battleship or Dreadnought, they think big strong powerful ships. They see battlecruiser, they think fast hard hitting ships that are not as tough.
Well least I do.
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
with the SA buff, a sci bortas is pretty much the king of single target beam array damage, as long as it can tank it out long enough to eventually melt the target. its got that going for it.
i think we are to the point that the flagships need a review. they were the first OP ships, now they are also rans at best. it, and a lot of other ships need a review. i think the whole dreadnought cruiser subclass has potential, maybe that should be explored. heres how dreadnoughts classification work as far as i can tell
dreadnought- no pure dread exists yet, but the scimitar dread wairbird is the closest thing to one. 8 weapons, COM tac, cruiser hitpoints and turn rate, 1 hanger
dreadnaught cruiser- COM eng and 2 cruiser commands, 8 weapons, 1 hanger, cruiser hitpoints and turn rate
dreadnaught carrier- COM tac, 7 weapons, 2 hangers, cruiser hitpoints and turn rate
of all the cruiser, i think any larger then vorcha or sovereign sized should be considered dreadnaughts. that would include things like the flagships, negvar, and even the galaxy R.
odyssey and galaxy R should be dreadnought cruisers, galaxy X, bortas and negvar pure dreadnoughts. i think maybe dreadnaughts and dreadnaught cruisers should all have 5/3 weapons as well. wont make much difference to beam builds, but only helps cannon builds.
Cryptic does two things...with the same terms...that don't necessarily match up between NPC ships and player ships. Mainly because player ships don't follow the same pattern.
Dreadnought
Battleship
Cruiser
Frigate
Fighter
They actually (generally) mean something when looking at NPC vessels. Not so much for players. Cryptic went with the Galaxy = Defiant = Intrepid thing...fudging things so folks could play the ships. If they were NPC vessels, they'd be at different levels.
Which led to issues of NPC Dreadnoughts not being player Dreadnoughts...and Dreadnought not really meaning anything - not even carrying the weight of Heavy, Light, Star, Assault, and the rest for the most part. We don't have a Dreadnought-class, so to speak - we've got NPC Dreadnoughts...but for players, where Frigate = Cruiser = Battleship = Dreadnought...oh well.
edit: Folks would have a cow if player ships followed NPC ships...and Cryptic would have a cow trying to create all the content for all those different levels.
Kind of nitpicking, but there is a slight difference between Dreadnoughts & Battleships.
"Dreadnought" is simply a term used for early "Battleships." In function, "Battleships" were large, most heavily armed and armored ships a nation could field. Some could actually go quite fast, like the US Navy's Iowa-class Battleships, yet still retain the heaviest armor, armaments, etc. Pretty much, "Dreadnought" annotated the ones fielded until the end of WWI.
If anything, "Dreadnought" should be the weaker compared to "Battleship" even though they fulfill the same criteria.
1. NPC designations only exist to denote the general difficulty of said NPC, and they fittingly went with Naval terms instead of using "Swarm, Normal, Signature, Elite, Elite Master" or whatever
2. In most space setting Sci-Fi, a Dreadnought will be the biggest, largest, toughest, most powerful ship belonging to a race or faction. Often, the devs will cast "Summon Bigger Fish" and bring out something like a Titan-class or Eldritch Abomination or Mobile Space Fortress to dwarf even the Dreadnought-class ships.
3. In some games, the Battleship and Dreadnought are generally of the same level, but with the Dreadnought more focused on firepower and the Battleship being more well rounded.
I remain empathetic to the concerns of my community, but do me a favor and lay off the god damn name calling and petty remarks. It will get you nowhere.
I must admit, respect points to Trendy for laying down the law like that.
Kind of nitpicking, but there is a slight difference between Dreadnoughts & Battleships.
"Dreadnought" is simply a term used for early "Battleships." In function, "Battleships" were large, most heavily armed and armored ships a nation could field. Some could actually go quite fast, like the US Navy's Iowa-class Battleships, yet still retain the heaviest armor, armaments, etc. Pretty much, "Dreadnought" annotated the ones fielded until the end of WWI.
If anything, "Dreadnought" should be the weaker compared to "Battleship" even though they fulfill the same criteria.
"Battleship" is just the mainstay ships of a fleet. (also sometimes called "battlewagons" earlier on "Ship of the Line")
Dreadnought as a "class" was introduced after the HMS Dreadnought was launched, which was a uge step forward. For a while ships build with these new improvements (generally speaking, heavier and more consistent armamanets, eg. all same-caliber guns mounted in turrets rather than a variety of different-caliber guns) were called "Dreadnoughts" (after the british ship) and earlier ships either just "battleships" or "Pre-dreadnoughts".
Since the Dreadnought design and similar who followed it pretty much rendered all pre-dreadnought ships obsolete, all new battleships were built "Dreadnought style" so that by WWII the term was obsolete again. (except when discussing "Dreadnought" vs. "Pre-Dreadnought" battleships)
It would be lovely to not have every thread in these forums derailed by selfish posters so frequently. Mods should be on that. Do people realize how tedious and lame it is to constantly bicker back and forth about what is a dreadnought and what is a destroyer blah blah blah...
Besides that, I'm sure your intention was good Mr. Mimey but I can all but promise any thread titled "What's your beef with" will do more harm than good and all but assure the Bort will receive no love.
People should learn their lesson from the galaxy thread and understand that these types of threads do not result in what you want. The whole Galaxy-R being ignored in the whole Galaxy class revamp thing...remember that?
With that said, I've heard several people say that the tac variant of the Bort can pump massive dps with aux2bat faw that all those crazy kids love and with the cruiser commands and comm arrays on the horizon....
"Battleship" is just the mainstay ships of a fleet. (also sometimes called "battlewagons" earlier on "Ship of the Line")
Dreadnought as a "class" was introduced after the HMS Dreadnought was launched, which was a uge step forward. For a while ships build with these new improvements (generally speaking, heavier and more consistent armamanets, eg. all same-caliber guns mounted in turrets rather than a variety of different-caliber guns) were called "Dreadnoughts" (after the british ship) and earlier ships either just "battleships" or "Pre-dreadnoughts".
Since the Dreadnought design and similar who followed it pretty much rendered all pre-dreadnought ships obsolete, all new battleships were built "Dreadnought style" so that by WWII the term was obsolete again. (except when discussing "Dreadnought" vs. "Pre-Dreadnought" battleships)
Thank Kahless someone actually knows the difference.
if you think the bortas if beef thread worthy, jump in the sci version with 8 arrays, activate SA and watch your target melt. fully stacked SA, that DPS cant be tanked without outside support. the galaxy R is the only ship beef thread worthy, it cant be minmaxed into anything like this can.
thus it shouldn't be too surprising to see this thread go off topic. probably should be a dreadnaught cruiser though, in 2409 sto hangers are a common ship feature, it doesn't make much sense for a ship like the bortas not to have any. in the post patrol refit world, i say make its LT tac a LTC station, and the ody's LT sci an LTC station. and make them both dread cruisers with 1 hanger in exchange for 1 cruiser command
Well, I'd have to say that I basically disagree with this, but then again - I'm quite bias on this topic. I always loved the Bortasqu', since the moment it came to the C-Store and it has been my favourite ship ever since.:)
I'd say that even in today's STO for my, probably weird:D, playstyle it's one of the best ships in STO if not the best.
Personally I wouldn't want them to mess with it, it's perfect for me - and I wouldn't want for her to end with a lousy hangar as well. :rolleyes:
I'm going to second this. The Bortasqu' is an excellent choice for a KDF player at endgame.
I am a bit partial toward the Command variant for it's console set up.
SA, can use cannons, 1 hanger, 2 cruiser commands
4/2/4 consoles
fleet odessey dread-cruiser
COM eng LT tac LTC uni LTC sci ENS uni
SA, 1 hanger, 2 cruiser commands
4/4/2 consoles
the flagships are probably due an overhaul, OR just a fleet version of the best one of 3. hell, throw in the Ha'apax as well. this should be the romulan flagship, not a scimitar
fleet Ha'apax draednaught-warbird-lol-cruiser
COM eng LTC tac LTC sci LT uni
ENS uni
SA, can use cannons, 1 hanger, singularity powers
4/3/3 consoles
yes the Ha'apax would be plain beter then the d'deridex with that station setup, but its probably supposed to be...
Don't give them more bad ideas that they probably already have in their heads, ddis.
its a great idea! shouldn't flagships be just really big and strong jacks of all trade? don't let bloated stations fool you, something minmaxed and optimized is just as, if not more dangerous. as for giving them ideas, to late, gecko already talked of a fleet vesta or at least a buff. plus something like this would give them more room underneath to buff something like the galaxy R, and that's always my hidden agenda lol
its a great idea! shouldn't flagships be just really big and strong jacks of all trade? don't let bloated stations fool you, something minmaxed and optimized is just as, if not more dangerous. as for giving them ideas, to late, gecko already talked of a fleet vesta or at least a buff. plus something like this would give them more room underneath to buff something like the galaxy R, and that's always my hidden agenda lol
I was talking about.......the word I don't want to say........ah to hell with it! :mad: The hangar bay.
I'm becomming sick of every ship getting a friggin' hangar and of all the people that would slap hangar of everything (not pointing a finger at you, this is the first time I've seen you do it, just a general impression) including Defiants and BoPs.
P.S. Knowing certain "Captain" that happens to be a LD, I'm pretty sure your hidden agenda won't work because by the time he buffs the Galaxy-R, he'll have every other ship buffed already - thus ensuring the Gal will still scrape the bottom of the barrel. *sadface*
A) I hate hangar bays. I hate the idea that any ship gets 13 Boff slot abilities, sorry DDIS.
However applying a layout with 2 LtComms isn't out of the question now that even non-sci and non-carrier ships get it.
But as I said, I'd be fine with making it either a battlecruiser (thus some more turn, definitely more than it's FED cruiser counterpart, and somme shields) or a FEDlike cruiser, thus giving it the last cruiser command, more shields and probably stripping it of DCs/DHCs capability.
TOIVA, Toi Vaxx, Toia Vix, Toveg, T'vritha, To Vrax: Bring in the Allegiance class. Toi'Va, Ti'vath, Toivia, Ty'Vris, Tia Vex, Toi'Virth: Add Tier 6 KDF Carrier and Raider. Tae'Va, T'Vaya, To'Var, Tevra, T'Vira, To'Vrak: Give us Asylums for Romulans.
I was talking about.......the word I don't want to say........ah to hell with it! :mad: The hangar bay.
I'm becomming sick of every ship getting a friggin' hangar and of all the people that would slap hangar of everything (not pointing a finger at you, this is the first time I've seen you do it, just a general impression) including Defiants and BoPs.
P.S. Knowing certain "Captain" that happens to be a LD, I'm pretty sure your hidden agenda won't work because by the time he buffs the Galaxy-R, he'll have every other ship buffed already - thus ensuring the Gal will still scrape the bottom of the barrel. *sadface*
I want my B'Rel to have a hangar bay so it can launch more B'Rels.
I was talking about.......the word I don't want to say........ah to hell with it! :mad: The hangar bay.
I'm becomming sick of every ship getting a friggin' hangar and of all the people that would slap hangar of everything (not pointing a finger at you, this is the first time I've seen you do it, just a general impression) including Defiants and BoPs.
P.S. Knowing certain "Captain" that happens to be a LD, I'm pretty sure your hidden agenda won't work because by the time he buffs the Galaxy-R, he'll have every other ship buffed already - thus ensuring the Gal will still scrape the bottom of the barrel. *sadface*
hanger bays, and pvp, have an abundance of irrational hatred directed at them. they are more or less a harmless placebo feature a ship can have, that implies they really got something valuable. some can have an annoying impact, but not much more then that.
these days, dreadnaught = at least 1 hanger bay, and a sort of status of this ship is a big deal. i was more interested in them being dreadnaughts, they just get a hanger out of the deal
hanger bays, and pvp, have an abundance of irrational hatred directed at them. they are more or less a harmless placebo feature a ship can have, that implies they really got something valuable. some can have an annoying impact, but not much more then that.
these days, dreadnaught = at least 1 hanger bay, and a sort of status of this ship is a big deal. i was more interested in them being dreadnaughts, they just get a hanger out of the deal
Cryptic: Slap a hangar on it! Let's call it a "Dreadnought"! $$$$$
It would be lovely to not have every thread in these forums derailed by selfish posters so frequently. Mods should be on that. Do people realize how tedious and lame it is to constantly bicker back and forth about what is a dreadnought and what is a destroyer blah blah blah...
Besides that, I'm sure your intention was good Mr. Mimey but I can all but promise any thread titled "What's your beef with" will do more harm than good and all but assure the Bort will receive no love.
People should learn their lesson from the galaxy thread and understand that these types of threads do not result in what you want. The whole Galaxy-R being ignored in the whole Galaxy class revamp thing...remember that?
With that said, I've heard several people say that the tac variant of the Bort can pump massive dps with aux2bat faw that all those crazy kids love and with the cruiser commands and comm arrays on the horizon....
Well, honestly, I really only posted this to vent, and maybe had the tiniest, vaguest hope that maybe, MAYBE Cryptic would look at the Bortasqu' and adjust it. Hopefully without adding a hanger.
I don't mind the discussion about what ships are what, I just want this thread to focus on the Bortasqu'.
Anyways, it's really the sci Bortas that is king of that trio. Though tac does get the silver medal. The new SA topples any mere extra tac console. That said, the Bortasqu' doesn't need A2B, same for the Odyssey. Their BOFF layouts allow you to have some good options, you aren't forced into it by your base layout.
I mean, if you do A2B an Ody or Bortas, that's fine, but at the cost of tying yourself down to a very basic BOFF layout of Cmdr/Lt. Cmdr eng, or only a Cmdr Eng, but losing up to two slots of it to A2B. Same thing applies for A2D build, though that is quite good on either ship, if you choose to run even a single A2D (plus DOFF of course).
I'm just a stubborn mule who uses lots of DHCs, turrets, CSV, and tries to point my tac Bortasqu' at things to try and make them die.
I remain empathetic to the concerns of my community, but do me a favor and lay off the god damn name calling and petty remarks. It will get you nowhere.
I must admit, respect points to Trendy for laying down the law like that.
The bortasqu is basically a fleet negh'var with an extra device slot... it's quite slower yes, but harder hitting. I've done both in PVP and the outcome was roughly equal.
half the time having a scimitar on your team is a handycap too, most commonly poorly flown ship there is. the bortas tends to have similarly bad users, and the most poor mobility, but load up the sci version with arrays and turn on cheat codes, AKA sensor analysis, and the target is screwed, or at least driven away from the fight. you don't need a LTC tac to do it ether, or even FAW. just a star cruiser AtB build set up for tanking to go along with your DPS works best.
Comments
None of Cryptics ship designatiuons makes any sense and there is no consistency to it on either side.
Take a look at Starfleet, they got so many terms for cruisers but that line-up doesn't make the least bit of sense. Cruisers are escorts, frigates are science vessels and science vessels are supposed to be cruisers and don't even start to take NPC ship classes into consideration.
The terminology in this game needs a complete revamp.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Granted he didn't really start playing til just before Romulans were added but still.
Fed dreadnaught they really either need to make more towards the design they gave the Romulan's Scimitar since its also called a dreadnaught or give it other two cruiser commands and just call it the Galaxy-X and stop advertising it as a Dreadnaught.
As far as this thread I agree its a battlecruiser and should get a boost to its turn and inertia as well as having an overhaul of its consoles. Either that or give it more hull and shields the fourth cruiser command and call it a Klingon cruiser.
Personally if it can load Dual cannons I stick them on it and make it work the best I can. Did it with the Galaxy-X and do it with my Klink and his Bortasqu'. Will say I rarely do pvp and usually if I am in one its in a Bop or my Defiant but for Pve and most the Queued instances you can Pve with dual cannons on it.
(I'm not saying it wouldn't be neccessary)
I think Angrytarg is right, Cryptic has a very confusing policy about naming ships "Battleship" or "Dreadnought". I think a ship should require a certain amount of high Tactical stations / consoles to be called like that. If it doesn't fulfill these requirements it should be rather called "flying brick" or something like that.;)
On the other hand i think the Bortasqu' is just a Odyssey with a different ship model (with one or two adjustments). So it doesn't support the traditional KDF Battlecruiser playstyle.
But hey, at least the Bortasqu' is a ship that doesn't make me cringe when i look at it (unlike the Odyssey, lol).:)
Personally there are many ships that need to be redsignated and those designations mean something.
Mogh and Avenger are termed as battle cruisers. Cruiser style hulls, but with heavier armament than a standard cruiser, much like REAL life battle cruisers were built back in WWI and WWII.
This is where I'd make the change. Next would be the Battleship. She basically trades more armor for less speed than the Battle cruiser.
Then you get to the dreadnought in this game. Gigantic leviathans of armor and weapons, slower than molasses on a warm summer's day, but they can take poundings like no other ship can.
So here's where I'd start re-designating ships.
Battlecruiser: Mogh, Avenger
Battleships: Gal-X, Odyssey, Bortasqu, Typhoon.
Dreadnoughts: Scimitar, Jupiter.
Ofcourse there are other designations that can be used.
Light cruiser
Heavy cruiser
Destroyer
Frigates
Corvettes
Honestly I should do a post on how I'd list ship classes in this game.
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1145998/star-trek-battles-channel-got-canon/p1
I agree, but don't make the mistake and try to use WW2 or other real-world designations on Star Trek starships. It's not the same, this is something A LOT of people don't really get.
While Starfleet uses terms that are somewhat related to Earth history (not a surprise, really), the terms don't mean the same thing. Starfleet for example uses designations that reflect the primary mission profile of a ship more than anything else. In TNG times you find Frigates, Light/Heavy Cruisers with a few sub-classes, and Explorers/Star Cruisers. There are no battle, war or any other military term ships in Starfleet, the heaviest and most well armed ships would be Explorers or Cruisers. Frigates on the other hand are small to medium sized ships which' primary mission profile is defense, aka New Orleans, possibly Norway and Sabre and so on. Other people have designated Starfleet ships in more military terms, yet that is because the ships would fit THEIR designation pattern this way and the concept of Starfleet is rather different from what other people's space force is.
Klingons used Scouts/Raiders and Battlecruisers/Warships on-screen. Their heaviest in-canon vessel, the Negh'Var, is officially classed as a heavy carrier even, though it never specified what it carries. I suspect the term is used for a combined troop transport which is supported by the huge cargo bays and a possible planetary landing capability, but that's just me.
ryptic really had to be creative and actually use and play with those canonical designations, rather than make up big and bad terms.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Well yes and no. But it's also a matter of perception. Most people see Battleship or Dreadnought, they think big strong powerful ships. They see battlecruiser, they think fast hard hitting ships that are not as tough.
Well least I do.
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1145998/star-trek-battles-channel-got-canon/p1
i think we are to the point that the flagships need a review. they were the first OP ships, now they are also rans at best. it, and a lot of other ships need a review. i think the whole dreadnought cruiser subclass has potential, maybe that should be explored. heres how dreadnoughts classification work as far as i can tell
dreadnought- no pure dread exists yet, but the scimitar dread wairbird is the closest thing to one. 8 weapons, COM tac, cruiser hitpoints and turn rate, 1 hanger
dreadnaught cruiser- COM eng and 2 cruiser commands, 8 weapons, 1 hanger, cruiser hitpoints and turn rate
dreadnaught carrier- COM tac, 7 weapons, 2 hangers, cruiser hitpoints and turn rate
of all the cruiser, i think any larger then vorcha or sovereign sized should be considered dreadnaughts. that would include things like the flagships, negvar, and even the galaxy R.
odyssey and galaxy R should be dreadnought cruisers, galaxy X, bortas and negvar pure dreadnoughts. i think maybe dreadnaughts and dreadnaught cruisers should all have 5/3 weapons as well. wont make much difference to beam builds, but only helps cannon builds.
Cryptic does two things...with the same terms...that don't necessarily match up between NPC ships and player ships. Mainly because player ships don't follow the same pattern.
Dreadnought
Battleship
Cruiser
Frigate
Fighter
They actually (generally) mean something when looking at NPC vessels. Not so much for players. Cryptic went with the Galaxy = Defiant = Intrepid thing...fudging things so folks could play the ships. If they were NPC vessels, they'd be at different levels.
Which led to issues of NPC Dreadnoughts not being player Dreadnoughts...and Dreadnought not really meaning anything - not even carrying the weight of Heavy, Light, Star, Assault, and the rest for the most part. We don't have a Dreadnought-class, so to speak - we've got NPC Dreadnoughts...but for players, where Frigate = Cruiser = Battleship = Dreadnought...oh well.
edit: Folks would have a cow if player ships followed NPC ships...and Cryptic would have a cow trying to create all the content for all those different levels.
"Dreadnought" is simply a term used for early "Battleships." In function, "Battleships" were large, most heavily armed and armored ships a nation could field. Some could actually go quite fast, like the US Navy's Iowa-class Battleships, yet still retain the heaviest armor, armaments, etc. Pretty much, "Dreadnought" annotated the ones fielded until the end of WWI.
If anything, "Dreadnought" should be the weaker compared to "Battleship" even though they fulfill the same criteria.
2. In most space setting Sci-Fi, a Dreadnought will be the biggest, largest, toughest, most powerful ship belonging to a race or faction. Often, the devs will cast "Summon Bigger Fish" and bring out something like a Titan-class or Eldritch Abomination or Mobile Space Fortress to dwarf even the Dreadnought-class ships.
3. In some games, the Battleship and Dreadnought are generally of the same level, but with the Dreadnought more focused on firepower and the Battleship being more well rounded.
If ya'll wanna start a new thread about the whole 'ship classification' thing, I certainly wouldn't mind adding to that topic.
"Battleship" is just the mainstay ships of a fleet. (also sometimes called "battlewagons" earlier on "Ship of the Line")
Dreadnought as a "class" was introduced after the HMS Dreadnought was launched, which was a uge step forward. For a while ships build with these new improvements (generally speaking, heavier and more consistent armamanets, eg. all same-caliber guns mounted in turrets rather than a variety of different-caliber guns) were called "Dreadnoughts" (after the british ship) and earlier ships either just "battleships" or "Pre-dreadnoughts".
Since the Dreadnought design and similar who followed it pretty much rendered all pre-dreadnought ships obsolete, all new battleships were built "Dreadnought style" so that by WWII the term was obsolete again. (except when discussing "Dreadnought" vs. "Pre-Dreadnought" battleships)
Besides that, I'm sure your intention was good Mr. Mimey but I can all but promise any thread titled "What's your beef with" will do more harm than good and all but assure the Bort will receive no love.
People should learn their lesson from the galaxy thread and understand that these types of threads do not result in what you want. The whole Galaxy-R being ignored in the whole Galaxy class revamp thing...remember that?
With that said, I've heard several people say that the tac variant of the Bort can pump massive dps with aux2bat faw that all those crazy kids love and with the cruiser commands and comm arrays on the horizon....
Thank Kahless someone actually knows the difference.
thus it shouldn't be too surprising to see this thread go off topic. probably should be a dreadnaught cruiser though, in 2409 sto hangers are a common ship feature, it doesn't make much sense for a ship like the bortas not to have any. in the post patrol refit world, i say make its LT tac a LTC station, and the ody's LT sci an LTC station. and make them both dread cruisers with 1 hanger in exchange for 1 cruiser command
I'm going to second this. The Bortasqu' is an excellent choice for a KDF player at endgame.
I am a bit partial toward the Command variant for it's console set up.
COM eng
LTC tac
LTC uni
LT sci
ENS uni
SA, can use cannons, 1 hanger, 2 cruiser commands
4/2/4 consoles
fleet odessey dread-cruiser
COM eng
LT tac
LTC uni
LTC sci
ENS uni
SA, 1 hanger, 2 cruiser commands
4/4/2 consoles
the flagships are probably due an overhaul, OR just a fleet version of the best one of 3. hell, throw in the Ha'apax as well. this should be the romulan flagship, not a scimitar
fleet Ha'apax draednaught-warbird-lol-cruiser
COM eng
LTC tac
LTC sci
LT uni
ENS uni
SA, can use cannons, 1 hanger, singularity powers
4/3/3 consoles
yes the Ha'apax would be plain beter then the d'deridex with that station setup, but its probably supposed to be...
its a great idea! shouldn't flagships be just really big and strong jacks of all trade? don't let bloated stations fool you, something minmaxed and optimized is just as, if not more dangerous. as for giving them ideas, to late, gecko already talked of a fleet vesta or at least a buff. plus something like this would give them more room underneath to buff something like the galaxy R, and that's always my hidden agenda lol
I was talking about.......the word I don't want to say........ah to hell with it! :mad: The hangar bay.
I'm becomming sick of every ship getting a friggin' hangar and of all the people that would slap hangar of everything (not pointing a finger at you, this is the first time I've seen you do it, just a general impression) including Defiants and BoPs.
P.S. Knowing certain "Captain" that happens to be a LD, I'm pretty sure your hidden agenda won't work because by the time he buffs the Galaxy-R, he'll have every other ship buffed already - thus ensuring the Gal will still scrape the bottom of the barrel. *sadface*
However applying a layout with 2 LtComms isn't out of the question now that even non-sci and non-carrier ships get it.
But as I said, I'd be fine with making it either a battlecruiser (thus some more turn, definitely more than it's FED cruiser counterpart, and somme shields) or a FEDlike cruiser, thus giving it the last cruiser command, more shields and probably stripping it of DCs/DHCs capability.
Toi'Va, Ti'vath, Toivia, Ty'Vris, Tia Vex, Toi'Virth: Add Tier 6 KDF Carrier and Raider.
Tae'Va, T'Vaya, To'Var, Tevra, T'Vira, To'Vrak: Give us Asylums for Romulans.
Don't make ARC mandatory! Keep it optional only!
I want my B'Rel to have a hangar bay so it can launch more B'Rels.
While cloaked.
hanger bays, and pvp, have an abundance of irrational hatred directed at them. they are more or less a harmless placebo feature a ship can have, that implies they really got something valuable. some can have an annoying impact, but not much more then that.
these days, dreadnaught = at least 1 hanger bay, and a sort of status of this ship is a big deal. i was more interested in them being dreadnaughts, they just get a hanger out of the deal
Cryptic: Slap a hangar on it! Let's call it a "Dreadnought"! $$$$$
Well, honestly, I really only posted this to vent, and maybe had the tiniest, vaguest hope that maybe, MAYBE Cryptic would look at the Bortasqu' and adjust it. Hopefully without adding a hanger.
I don't mind the discussion about what ships are what, I just want this thread to focus on the Bortasqu'.
Anyways, it's really the sci Bortas that is king of that trio. Though tac does get the silver medal. The new SA topples any mere extra tac console. That said, the Bortasqu' doesn't need A2B, same for the Odyssey. Their BOFF layouts allow you to have some good options, you aren't forced into it by your base layout.
I mean, if you do A2B an Ody or Bortas, that's fine, but at the cost of tying yourself down to a very basic BOFF layout of Cmdr/Lt. Cmdr eng, or only a Cmdr Eng, but losing up to two slots of it to A2B. Same thing applies for A2D build, though that is quite good on either ship, if you choose to run even a single A2D (plus DOFF of course).
I'm just a stubborn mule who uses lots of DHCs, turrets, CSV, and tries to point my tac Bortasqu' at things to try and make them die.
What we hate the negh'var too now?