Wouldn't now be the perfect time for Battleships?

crazyned1066

It seems to me that if we're ever going to see battleships released into the game, now is the right time.

I could picture a 65K hull, 2 fore, 2 aft, 4 port, 4 starboard weapons with the ability to mount dual beam banks all around. 4 deg sec turn rate. 5 tac, 5 eng, 1 sci. Balance of Tac and Eng BOFF seating. Basically a big honking gun platform bringing 4 DBB and 4 BA to bear on a broadside target.

I know it will never happen, but that would be fun.

greyhame3

Other than the layout, most of the current cruisers fit that.

thecosmic1

Because 40,000+ DPS is not enough in the current game?

caelrassto

The energy broadside-oriented playstyle is pretty much the dominant one in the game today. I don't see a need to emphasize that more.

What I could get on board with are torpedo launchers which have a 90 degree arc in the port and starboard, with the blind spot fore and aft. I could also get on board with a single cannon in the same arc.

midwayace

Ironsides Class has already been submitted....

4 port 4 starboard one front one aft weapons that do double damage but only have a range of 5KM.

seaofsorrows

I don't think you'll see a ship that broadsides with Dual Beam Banks, especially with 5 Tac Consoles. That would just push damage way over the top.

I agree with most people, the broadside Fire At Will section is more then adequately catered to right now, a ship like this simply isn't necessary. There are plenty of Cruisers that can already take advantage of Dual Beam Banks either through superior turn rates with RCS consoles, or even slower cruisers with Gravity Wells (Geneva, Guardian.)

The things truly lacking on the Fed Side are Escorts (There is only 1 at Tier 6) and a more 'in between' ship like a Destroyer. The closest we have to that is probably the Avenger or with the right build, the Fleet Patrol Escort Refit. A smaller ship that's more durable then an Escort, but not as tough as a full cruiser. A ship that is lighter and faster, but can still bring heavier guns like Dual Beam Banks and Cannons to bear.

I would really like to see a T6 ship with stats closer to the Breen Chel Grett, something 'in between.' I think that would be a fun ship to fly.

angrytarg

What do you expect of a "battleship"? I mean, really, what would qualify something as a "battleship" next to the big and heavy ships that are already in the game? Do you really just want that bit of text to be displayed anywhere on the screen?

reynoldsxd

Soo... you want to counter an enemy that has already built up a massive force of cruisers and up sized ships.... by STARTING to build even bigger cruisers now.

Instead of building more glass cannons... which will assist your current, quite large and capable cruiser force....

uh huh.



I think right now is the time for new(or old) escorts. We have a ton of awesome cruisers by now.

Do a t6 ody/sovy sure.... but bring in ze escrots, raptors and super mogais...

thissler

Because....YAMATO!


and....

Instead of building more glass cannons... which will assist your current, quite large and capable cruiser force....

uh huh.

Pilot ships incoming. Please stand by.

warmaker001b

thecosmic1 wrote: »

Because 40,000+ DPS is not enough in the current game?

Apparently it's not. Maybe if Cryptic renamed some of those ships with random words of "Dreadnought" or "Battleship" in the name then it would be enough. Or better yet, if they made a super-duper ship called "_______ class Dreadnought Battleship"

See what I did there? I put both hot terms in the same class name. It could have 2 TAC Consoles and only an Ensign TAC station. But it will SELL like hotcakes. Because a ship being named Dreadnought and/or Battleship is powerful.

Obviously!

emacsheadroom

These rubbish wet navy ideas need to stop. The term "battleship" describes a warship that's fit to stand in a "line of battle". The line of battle was a tactic developed in the Napoleonic era of sail and was meant to allow maximum coverage of guns focused on target by lining up all your warships, because ancient muzzle loading guns firing solid iron balls were inaccurate and useless at sinking ships. Because of the effectiveness of this tactic, warships were purposefully designed along these lines. By the advent of steam power, turrets and explosive shells, the line of battle was obsolete. The name 'battleship' remained, probably because it sounded impressive. Modern Battleships were still built to be impressive and project power, but they were a $50 solution to the $10 problem of sinking enemy shipping, and losing one was like a kick in the national TRIBBLE. There are no battleships serving in wet navies now. Carriers and cruisers replaced them.

In space, the idea of the line of battle is even more stupid as a tactic. The term "battleship" is pointless and isn't fit to describe star trek ships. And a trek ship that only has weapons firing out the sides of the ship is monumentally dumb. Right now we have ships that can fire weapons with total 360 degree coverage. Side mounted weapons are a step backwards, not forwards.

So no matter how big our ships are, they're usually called cruisers or battlecruisers (because Klingons) because their job is to cruise independently on long missions. What about the dreadnoughts we have? That's a fine title. It means 'fear nothing' after all. The captain of one should fear nothing.

greyhame3

Battleships were generally replaced my missile cruisers/destroyers, which may in turn get replaced by rail gun equipped ships if the US Navy trials work out. If you're looking for things that replace roles more directly.

Carriers are just a way to project air power into the sea, and air power is very effective at taking out ships.

/end off topic thoughts

oldravenman3025

crazyned1066 wrote: »

It seems to me that if we're ever going to see battleships released into the game, now is the right time.

I could picture a 65K hull, 2 fore, 2 aft, 4 port, 4 starboard weapons with the ability to mount dual beam banks all around. 4 deg sec turn rate. 5 tac, 5 eng, 1 sci. Balance of Tac and Eng BOFF seating. Basically a big honking gun platform bringing 4 DBB and 4 BA to bear on a broadside target.

I know it will never happen, but that would be fun.

Most of your big cruisers currently in the game would qualify as battleships.


And while your idea sounds fun, beam arrays are already pretty good at broadsiding.

sovereign47

Here is the idea I have about the battleships:

- available to acquire at lvl 50
- besides standard weapon slots battleships have additional port and starboard slots (only turrets, beam arrays, omni-beams or single cannons can be equiped in those slots)
- lvl 50 battleships have 1 port and 1 starboard slot, while lvl 60 battleships have 2 port and 2 starboard slots
- lvl 50 battleships come out with 10 console slots (4 tac, 4 eng, 2 sci) and one slot for universal consoles, while lvl 60 battleships come with additional 2nd universal console slot
- lvl 60 battleships have sixth boff setting
- battleships have higher hull points from all other classes, but also the lowest turn rate
- they have also primary and secondary shields
- to get lvl 50 battleship player needs to have 5 mil dilithium, while for lvl 60 battleships player needs to have 10 mil dilithium

And that's all

thunderfoot

We already have these in the game.

"Scimitar" is Romulan for "battleship". All three Factions(Oops! Two and a half!) can P2W with it.

maobe

there are the t6 commandcruisers. battleship as hell imho.

papesh1

T6 Sov or Ody might be exactly what we need. I got the Andromeda and she is capable, but I would rather have an Ody that was made T6. It has way more crew and hull just based on her sheer size. She is what the Federation could call a dreadnought. She is almost twice as long as the Galaxy. It has the same turn rate as the Galaxy so no real gain in having the "smaller" Galaxy.

I am surprised we dont have a T6 Ody. It is the flagship after all. Maybe they will do it after season 10 is released. I am hoping they give us some costume options.

whamhammer1

Make battleships by having cruisers that can carry rear firing single cannons and DBB's

proteus22

instead of a battle ship or cruiser why not a new heavy destroyer. more hull more crewthan an escort but slightly less turn rate and speed five forward weapons 2 aft plus a built in quantum mine layer for third rear slot.
consoles 5 tac , 3 eng , 2 science
special console powers 360 antiproton lance

bridge officers one tac cmd 1 lt cmd universal 1 lt science slash pilot hybrid seat , 1 ensign intel

spock1190

seaofsorrows wrote: »

turn rates with RCS consoles, or even slower cruisers with Gravity Wells (Geneva, Guardian.)

The things truly lacking on the Fed Side are Escorts (There is only 1 at Tier 6) and a more 'in between' ship like a Destroyer. The closest we have to that is probably the Avenger or with the right build, the Fleet Patrol Escort Refit. A smaller ship that's more durable then an Escort, but not as tough as a full cruiser. A ship that is lighter and faster, but can still bring heavier guns like Dual Beam Banks and Cannons to bear.

Put an Engineer in an Escort. Or a Tac in a battle cruiser. You have your "In-between."

fyrwinde13109

Frankly I'd like to see a Tier 6 Dreadnought version of the Monarch, a Tier 6 "USS Vengeance"/Intel version of the Excelsior, or a Tier 6 Constitution "fast cruiser" based (somewhat) on the AOS "JJ Abrams" Enterprise.

Now before y'all blast me for mentioning the "Abrams-verse" here, has anyone else here taken out their old Connie-class refit out to battle against the Borg (AFTER outfitting it with some high-tier weapons, shields, deflector and engines?) I did that the other day and joined up with some other upper-level, low-ship-tier pilots in Sirius/Regulus SB Borg Encounter, and actually had a blast.

My point is, the Constitution is a fun ship class for a low tier cruiser! It's THE classic Star Trek ship. I honestly think that at some point the developers should bring out a better version of the Constitution at high levels, with some serious ability to dish out the punishment.

Also, a fast cruiser would come in handy against the Iconians, especially if it had multiple Pilot-specialty BOff consoles and/or a special console mod.

And does anybody else want a Dreadnought with better BOff Tactical slots, FOR ONCE?

fyrwinde13109

To add to the Connie "fast cruiser" idea, I was thinking a slightly larger version of the Constitution, with basic specs something like this: 2 Pilot-spec BOff slots, at least 3 forward weapons arrays and 3 aft, a durable amount of hull/shield hitpoints, and a console that would add a "Fire Everything!" ability, which would double the fire rate and exotic damage of ALL weapons for...about 10 seconds. Yes, I'm thinking Beam arrays, Cannons AND Torps. It wouldn't target randomly like Fire at will, either, but would require some time to recharge and maybe draw power from the shields while in use.

orion0029

While I do agree (to some extant at least) that most T5-6 cruisers can qualify as battleships, I can also see the appeal of mounting dual beams/cannons on port/starboard points, as it stands these weapons can only be placed on forward points and make for some rather uninspired builds (they pretty much restrict you to turrets/omni beams aft).

Adding port/starboard weapon mounts to ships would add some variety to ship builds, which I have to agree with having seen so many of effectively the same builds flying around.

I do, however, doubt this will happen since it would require a LOT of work to properly implement in-game, there would be even more balance issues to hammer out, and not to mention that there are currently no ships with port/starboard mounts on them, so either new ships will have to be designed or current ones reworked to handle them...

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a big huge battleship broadsiding a Borg cube with DHC's, I'm just not going to hold my breath for it.:(

sovereign47

I must admit that I never really liked weapon slots settings in STO. First and foremost, beacause that projectile and energy weapon slots are not separated at all. That's pretty unrealistic. On the other hand, Starfleet Command 3 (SFC3 in the rest of the text) have one of the best weapon slots settings and STO should have followed that style instead of this one which is kinda ridiculous. You can't possibly mount torpedo launcher on a beam array, or otherwise.
In SFC 3 there is whole together separation of a energy and projectile weapons and each have their number of slots. Bigger ships usually have more slots and thus are more powerful which is perfectly logical concept. There are also strictly defined classes like scouts, frigates, destroyers, cruisers, battlecruisers, battleships and dreadnoughts. The best possible classification of starships.

Here's the example of SFC 3 weapons layouts:

http://static4.gamespot.com/uploads/original/mig/9/5/0/3/459503-star_005.jpg
http://archive.kontek.net/sfc.strategyplanet.gamespy.com/images/sfc3/starfleet_screen035.jpg

Notice the primary and heavy weapons tabs. Now that's exactly what I'm talking about.

All in all I'm hoping that in the future of STO we will be able to get at least something similar to that energy and projectile slots separation like it is in SFC 3. It would be more realistic and gameplay beneficial as well. That way ships could also carry more weapons (including broadside DBBs, cannons and maybe even torpedoes). What do you think of it?

orion0029

I would actually support a weapon system like you suggest sovereign. I scratch my head whenever I drop 4 DHC's on my Armitage and watch it in combat... its arrays never fire a shot.

It would make sense if ships had actual weapon points for beams, cannons, torpedoes/mines(aft?).

Alas, I doubt this will happen, it would upset a lot of players, would require significant effort to implement, and would make Cryptic next to no money.:(

Edit: Although, if Cryptic did decide to implement weapon mounts like this, it wouldn't take much effort to make the port/starboard weapon points for a battleship/broadside cruiser type class...

rikersdad

Normally I don't like un-manouvearable ships but if the NPC has a Typhoon Battleship why can't players.

The hull strength would be way above carrier to make up for manouverability


broadsiding with DBB would be their gimmick. Same weapon power as assault cruiser,

We don't have a specific ship to fight Iconian dreads with.

feiqa

Is now the 'perfect time' for battleships?
I do not think so, and for the following reasons.

The joint forces of the alliance are standing before the heralds of the Iconians and holding the line. They have faced off against surprise attacks against the elachi, and the undine and driven them back. They have engaged the Voth and pushed them back despite what some would say is a technological advantage. So the current battles need to be addressed to see what has been lacking. In a recent assault by the Undine on Qo'nos the three super heavy ships of the line faced the fleets. But it was an escort craft that won the day.
And finally, do we know that such a large and expensive vessel would actually turn a battle versus the Iconians when they rear their heads? I know you will question my choice of expense. But consider this. How many yard bays will be needed to swiftly build such a heavy vessel? If we do not spread the construction, how long would it take for a single yard to make such a ship? We might lay a keel for a super weapon and then have the war end before it is even finished. And it may not even have any value if it were finished in time. Or the numerous yards we have can create an armada of lighter vessels capable of patrolling our combined space and the replacement parts to keep those lighter ships in the field for extended periods. All we will need are crews to operate them.

Recruitment is already underway. . .

potasssium

Using Vaadwaur arrays will give the appearance of side mounted turrets, at least to an extent.

sentinel64

crazyned1066 wrote: »

It seems to me that if we're ever going to see battleships released into the game, now is the right time.

I could picture a 65K hull, 2 fore, 2 aft, 4 port, 4 starboard weapons with the ability to mount dual beam banks all around. 4 deg sec turn rate. 5 tac, 5 eng, 1 sci. Balance of Tac and Eng BOFF seating. Basically a big honking gun platform bringing 4 DBB and 4 BA to bear on a broadside target.

I know it will never happen, but that would be fun.

A Dreadnought is a battleship; in fact, it led to the form of battleships in WW2. We already have Dreadnoughts in game, so we already have battleships.

p.s. Battle cruisers are also a result of Dreadnoughts (The name actually comes from the revoultionary heavy gun ship made by the British, HMS Dreadnought.)

Unknown

This content has been removed.

gilion

feiqa wrote: »

Is now the 'perfect time' for battleships?
I do not think so, and for the following reasons.

The joint forces of the alliance are standing before the heralds of the Iconians and holding the line. They have faced off against surprise attacks against the elachi, and the undine and driven them back. They have engaged the Voth and pushed them back despite what some would say is a technological advantage. So the current battles need to be addressed to see what has been lacking.

Holding the line? I just replayed the new missions and we were getting our TRIBBLE' handed to us. Only reason it seems like its a draw is because their were only two missions and everything just stopped after that. Same with the Voth, Cryptic never said what happened with them in the Sphere, I always assumed that we just kept them busy long enough for Undine and then Vaadwuar to take over the offensive.

Anyway back on topic, I have to agree with everyone saying that we dont need another FAW beam boat. However: I do want something that LOOKS like a battleship. So far, out of all the ships in the game only the new Kobali ship looks good broadsiding. None of the other ships look like thats something they should be doing, especially not Fed ships with there sleek design.