test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Assault Cruiser Cannons

SystemSystem Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
Any way we could get to mount DHC's on the "Assault" Cruiser?

I ask because my Neg'var and Vorcha both have that capability.
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited January 2011
    nop you cannot only single cannons, only fed cruiser that can in the galaxy-X with a turn radious of forever means you are lucky if you get two salvos off in a match :)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited January 2011
    Let's leave some differences between the opposing forces., Leave the cannons to the Klingons.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited January 2011
    That's actually working as intended.

    As for the Galaxy-X, I hear that RCS Accelerators work wonders - although it is of course true that you'll likely never achieve the level of agility that a real Escort has. Which is, again, working as intended.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited January 2011
    Valias wrote:
    That's actually working as intended.

    As for the Galaxy-X, I hear that RCS Accelerators work wonders - although it is of course true that you'll likely never achieve the level of agility that a real Escort has. Which is, again, working as intended.

    not to mention your hull will have the same resist as a pancake :)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited January 2011
    I was having a good time with the Glaxaxy X, but it is so ugly.

    The Assault Cruiser is cool looking IMO.

    I didn't realize the balance between the factions is so unfair? The Klingons get to have Cannons on everything and the Feds can't have any but on the Galaxy X and Escorts?

    I was hoping they could make at least the ASSAULT Cruiser be more... assaulty!
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited January 2011
    Thlaylie wrote: »
    I was having a good time with the Glaxaxy X, but it is so ugly.

    The Assault Cruiser is cool looking IMO.

    I didn't realize the balance between the factions is so unfair? The Klingons get to have Cannons on everything and the Feds can't have any but on the Galaxy X and Escorts?

    I was hoping they could make at least the ASSAULT Cruiser be more... assaulty!

    How is the balance unfair? I think you just want a "cool" looking ship and just throw whatever gear you want on it and totally disregard the fact its a cruiser and not an escort. Crytpic needs to leave something to the Escorts that will drive people to fly them. If they can throw the DPS guns on a cruiser and utilize the cruisers thickerskin. No one would fly Escorts.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited January 2011
    Just run fleet escort with 2xEPtS, Hull resist consoles and a Eng captain. Very survivable and great dps. Also the fleet escorts look kick@ss IMO :)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited January 2011
    Crytpic needs to leave something to the Escorts that will drive people to fly them.
    Also let's not forget that Cryptic is likely trying to keep a little bit of resemblance to how things looked on TV.

    Geez, people should be lucky that Starfleet gets cannons at all, considering the Defiant was the one and only ship using them. :rolleyes:
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited January 2011
    There should be differences left alone.

    A) KDF should have full use of Cannons as it is now
    B) Feds should limit the Cannon to regular cannons except for Gal-X and escorts
    C) you want Heavier cannons roll an escort

    Other glaring inconsistencies is:
    1) that the Excelsior is, at least feels, more assault by BO layout and innate ship stats than the Assault cruiser....yet the AC has no "special" abilities or warp systems....but yet is built newer than 100+year excelsior. Pakleds isnt an excuse for Engineers either.

    2) With the Borg-aegis sets there is no counter to the increased defenses it gives. Focus firing is being forced/applied but still makes some matches more drawn out. Compared to Pre-set battles, the post-set has drawn out more fights and has made the escort less fulfilling in the role it is supposed to do. yes, even escorts have some slight increase in defense as well, but it does not outweigh the big benefactors of cruisers and science vessels able to take more advantage of the post-set battle scenarios.
    A) are set weapons going to be introduced?
    B) are escorts going to get a slight increase in the dps formula to help achieve the role?
    C) is status quo met and not going to change?

    3) Escorts should have the 4th weapon slot from the start, it is about time to have all changed KDF and Fed alike for the sake of hard cannon not being met in game.

    4) Escorts utilizing less crew and 'spartan' living has more space vs a cruiser to have more hull material protecting all the vital areas of the ship. So the ship is more dense in terms of bulkheads and hull plating versus the bigger cruisers due to size and accomadations. Am i wrong on this?? IS not the Defiant, by cannon, the one that had ablative hull attachments for increased protection? did it not serve them well? Would it then make sense to duplicate and become S.O.P for future escorts defense practices?
    So then shouldn't there be a slot for an armor console for free on all Escorts or have all escort Hulls receive a higher innate resist?

    Really?!!! Inquiring minds wanna know............and then see it happen.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited January 2011
    Valias wrote:
    That's actually working as intended.

    As for the Galaxy-X, I hear that RCS Accelerators work wonders - although it is of course true that you'll likely never achieve the level of agility that a real Escort has. Which is, again, working as intended.

    You will never achieve the turn of a kdf cruiser even if you could mount 10 RCS forget the escort who you trying to kid.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited January 2011
    While we're at it, can we get Universal BO stations on the Assault Cruiser as well? :rolleyes:

    Seriously. The differences exist there for a reason. And it's not like you'd even be able to make use of DCs/DHCs on an Assault Cruiser anyways.

    The only point I'll give you is that the Excelsior and the Assault Cruiser's BO loadouts should be switched.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited January 2011
    Matunus wrote:
    You will never achieve the turn of a kdf cruiser even if you could mount 10 RCS forget the escort who you trying to kid.
    Actually... with an MkX RCS Accelerator you can get +35% turn rate, which bumps the Gal-X just above an unpimped Negh'var. Not that Fed cruisers should actually need this turn rate, considering they're meant for a different kind of combat. It should also be kept in mind that the difference in turn rate is balanced by the Assault Cruiser having +1 device slot in comparison - just pointing this out to counter the "omg OP! unbalanced!" posts that I see coming up here once again.

    That said, I actually agree that the NV's higher turn rate is a bit weird in that this ship was never supposed to be this agile. It's a concession to game mechanic, in that it needs this turn rate to make cannons viable.

    I would have much preferred the Klingon Negh'var to be an LtG-level "command ship" that is friggin slow and cumbersome but has the highest hull, best shields and heaviest weapons (probably an integrated cannon like the Gal-X's phaser lance) in the game so that it really hurts when you get into its frontal arc, but at the same time it should be easy to avoid.
    Kind of like the big bad end boss in some platform game whose massive damage spikes you have to avoid by jumping all over the screen whilst shooting him with your small gun until he finally explodes. :D

    Instead of a damage dealer, the intended role for this ship would be fleet support, with abilities for buffing nearby allies ("aura" style) as long as the ship is there. It should be capable of "anchoring" a battle in the same way that a Vo'quv can, making the enemy team ponder over the question of whether they should concentrate on the lesser ships or focus on taking out the bigger command vessel, thus depriving the KDF of the aforementioned buff.

    This would basically mean that it would actually be a bad thing to have multiple Negh'vars in a team (as in that case the group would lack "mobile DPS"), but a cool thing to have just one to provide this support buff.

    Oh well ... just a thought. It's much too late for changes like this by now.
    mvs5191 wrote: »
    The only point I'll give you is that the Excelsior and the Assault Cruiser's BO loadouts should be switched.
    I actually agree there. Although it should be noted that the Excelsior was likely built with more combat in mind (Cold War with Klingon Empire) than the Sovereign which is more about independence and survivability (First Contact designation "Explorer type-2"). Which kinda fits the BO slots they received. And I keep hearing about very successful Assault Cruiser builds - it all depends on what you intend to do with the ship.

    That said, it is of course weird to see a ship as old as the Excelsior (even with the Lakota-refit) being more combat-efficient than the ultramodern Sovereign, so ... yeah, switch them.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited January 2011
    I agree with the sentiment...

    Leave the differences the way they are.

    My SF Tact/Assault Cruiser can deal just as much damage as my KDF Tact/Battle Cruiser Retrofit

    Both have the same console/bridge officer layout and therefore can be roughly compared as the same ship.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited January 2011
    How is the balance unfair? I think you just want a "cool" looking ship and just throw whatever gear you want on it and totally disregard the fact its a cruiser and not an escort. Crytpic needs to leave something to the Escorts that will drive people to fly them. If they can throw the DPS guns on a cruiser and utilize the cruisers thickerskin. No one would fly Escorts.

    Um how is the Klingons being able to do that very thing where the Feds can't balanced?

    Not really an issue for me as I have both sides, but it seems unfair.

    Oh well My Assault Cruiser looks nice anyway especially with my Tron lights:
    screenshot_2011-01-05-01-13-37.jpg
    screenshot_2011-01-05-01-13-02.jpg
    screenshot_2011-01-05-01-12-52.jpg
    screenshot_2011-01-05-01-12-46.jpg
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited January 2011
    No DHCs on the Sovereign and Excelsior. Bad enough we have cannons on these ships so people can have their 2009 Enterprise. :rolleyes:
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited January 2011
    Enh, dual-heavy cannons is a bit much. It's not a battleship.
    But it is an assault cruiser. It'd be nice if it could at least mount regular dual cannons.
    Meh. I run with a beam array, two cannons, and a torp launcher on the fore of my assault cruiser anyways, and it's a pretty rad layout.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited January 2011
    Single Cannons don't DPS as much as Dual Beam Banks do.

    Although that's a nice idea for the 2009 Enterprise effect.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited January 2011
    I do find it a bit backwards that the Sovereign handles worse than a Negh'var.

    Negh'vars were known for being absolute boats, while Sovereigns were as nimble as a ship a 1/3 their size.

    Ah, the sacrifices made for game balance sometimes are hilarious.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited January 2011
    Azurian wrote: »
    No DHCs on the Sovereign and Excelsior. Bad enough we have cannons on these ships so people can have their 2009 Enterprise. :rolleyes:

    Cannons on the 2009 Enterprise were pretty neat looking. I am all style, no substance, I suppose, and generally a traitor to trekdom.

    Just make one thing clear - the Assault Cruiser doesn't dual cannons. It might not be unbalanced if it had them, but only because the broad-siding beam style will probably yield better overall results, maintaining high damage output with better survivability then when you stck a lot of Aux2Dampeners (2 chain well) and RCS consoles at the expense of resists and heals on it.

    I suppose the only ship for which it could be unbalanced to add dual cannons would be science vessels like the LRSV and the RSV, since they have decent maneuverabilty. But then... Science Vessels aren't really focused on weapon damage usually and this would probably just open up an entirely new build instead of making existing ones stronger.

    What I do think, though, is that the Assault Cruiser should have the same turn rate as the Excelsior. The Star Cruiser (my favorite ship as Engineer) can stay as is, it doesn't have the offensive role of the AC and needs the maneuverability not quite as much.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited January 2011
    Thlaylie wrote: »
    Um how is the Klingons being able to do that very thing where the Feds can't balanced?
    A lack of balance does not exist just because something is different. A lack of balance would exist only if this would be an advantage over the opponent.
    GT01 wrote: »
    But it is an assault cruiser.
    Misleading term, imo, given that the First Contact designation was "type-2 explorer". Of course it is possible that the ship was repurposed in STO - this game's Starfleet is a far cry from what it used to be in the show, after all.
    Pliskin wrote: »
    I do find it a bit backwards that the Sovereign handles worse than a Negh'var.
    Negh'vars were known for being absolute boats, while Sovereigns were as nimble as a ship a 1/3 their size.
    Ah, the sacrifices made for game balance sometimes are hilarious.
    Agreed. :(
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited January 2011
    Valias wrote:
    Misleading term, imo, given that the First Contact designation was "type-2 explorer". Of course it is possible that the ship was repurposed in STO - this game's Starfleet is a far cry from what it used to be in the show, after all.

    The Path to 2409: 2385

    http://www.startrekonline.com/node/183/long

    “The flagship of Starfleet is not a warship,”

    So despite the designation "Assault Cruiser" (they could also have used "Advanced Derrence Explorer" or "Armored Space Thingy" ;) ) it's not a warship.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited January 2011
    mister_dee wrote:
    The Path to 2409: 2385
    http://www.startrekonline.com/node/183/long
    “The flagship of Starfleet is not a warship,”
    Nice find! Never noticed this amongst the entries.

    I was slightly irritated by the "Assault Cruiser" designation when I first spotted it, knowing that this was how (too) many people wanted to see the ship despite what both Starfleet and the Enterprise always stood for. Same issue as with the Akira, in a way.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited January 2011
    I think the KDF cruisers should not have been given cannons either. I do think it's unbalanced when you can have a huge ship like the Negh'var running DHCs and the Fed cruisers make do with beams. Unfortunately it's too late to take away the KDF cannons so I do think perhaps a new ship for the Feds should also get cannons like the Negh'var.

    Different isn't always unbalanced, but in this case I think they are.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited January 2011
    No one's really debating the ideology of Star Trek and what "Starfleet and the Enterprise" stands for, Valias. We're talking about whether the supposed Assault Cruiser should, y'know, have a teensy bit more "assault" power.
    But you also seem to be glossing over the realities of Starfleet's functions. While it's true that they always concern themselves with peacefull relations and exploration first and foremost, Starfleet is also the military arm of the Federation, and at the forefront of any hostile situations that arise.
    They didn't stop building explortation and science cruisers when they started building ships with actual combat bents in mind, you know. So it's not like Starfleet just started churning out combat ship after combat ship after combat ship.
    Anyways, even when the Soveriegn first debuted, despite Starfleet's designation of it, they weren't fooling anyone: the Sovereign was built for fighting, and boy could it fight. Cryptic's in-game definition drops the pretenses that already existed, I think. So let's try and stay a bit more on-topic and keep the personal lamentations out of the thread, huh?
Sign In or Register to comment.