There tends to be a woeful misunderstanding as to what a carrier actually is. It is curious to see so many people referencing carriers in the manner in which they are. This fundamental lack of comprehension renders the discussion rather moot, as people are arguing against something without knowing what they are discussing.
Carriers make sense for Starfleet. They do not make sense for players, however. Consider Battle Group Omega...one would expect Starfleet to field a carrier as the capital ship for that endeavor. Instead, we have a dreadnought? How some people are making their arguments against carriers - arguments that would also be against dreadnoughts - while dreadnoughts exist, is kind of curious...and...well, funny.
Consider a dreadnought. Consider a carrier. Given an actual understanding of the two types of ships, which one actually should be in Starfleet and which one should not? It's that simple, really.
But again, these would be extremely rare ships - NPC ships - commanding such forces as BGO or other battle groups. They would be involved in defensive measures on volatile fronts, etc. They would not be player ships...
See this i like...if only it were able to convince some people who refuse to acknowledge what STO is in terms of lore, See the Dreadnought is Lore, and in that possible future there is WAR of which the federation is fighting in,
but lets get to the real part everyone is in denial about, Star Trek Lore in STO, well we know CBS has the final heresay in terms of what Cryptic tries to sell and in some cases do, with that in mind, from the announcment of the new 2800 Fetured Episode, it has been said (sorry i cant find where it was announced)
that the new fetured episodes are the closest thing we have to a new series in the star trek universe, by that statement alone you should realize...this isnt the old Star Trek and it is certainly not the new one ie 2009 (lets all agree the only thing that would be considered a great improvment on Star Trek lore/general trek would be the bridge of the enterprise).....but it is in many ways Cryptics Star Trek.
Katic, I know it may not seem like it but I do respect your opinion and even though it goes against what i am trying to do I still do respect where you are coming from and encourage you to please please continue, with that being said, you are trying to fight for a Star Trek world which although is still there behind the veil of dust it is Cryptic's Star Trek is not the old Star Trek, the old star trek no longer exists in our time....mainly because of Gene Roddenberry's death. change must occur or all else falls.
btw people keep forgeting Im not talking about a carrier in the form for Perigreins or anything manned but drones...
I want this ship to be for Fleet Admirals that way through its multi role capabilities it can cover all the basis.
I'd consider playing PVP if the factions were more balanced. Since I don't have a KDF character, I see no point in playing against an opponent who has a dark colored ship, has universal slots, carriers, and can be (and most often are) freaking invisible.
That's why you don't see me in PVP. That's probably also why more fed players don't play PVP.
It's not just about having a shower and a bunk. Having a pilot live alone, in a tin can, for weeks at a time, is terrible for combat effectiveness. If nothing else they need the rec facilities of a larger craft just to maintain readiness.
The best analogy is the Midget Submarine. Go read about them.
Or what if the pilot gets sick or wounded? What if he needs other resources etc only available aboard a large craft?
1:1 is a moot point. Three K'vorts are, combined, way, way cheaper and have lower crew requirement than a Fed cruiser.
This is the post where I believe your grasping at straws.
Also, the Akira is not a carrier because the final design of the Akira wasn't the one created by this vaunted designer. His Akira was 2-3 times larger than the final product, he designed it to be superior to the Sovereign class, and he wanted a ship full of badassery. Sorry, but the final product doesn't bare out this dream of his. There is no through carrier deck, the doors are too small fo carry anything larger than some of the smaller shuttles.
The much lauded peregrine (which were destroyed by the hundreds in one battle) is larger than a runabout, which would be on par with a contemporary corvette class of ship. The federation was desperate in "Sacrifice of Angels", they dragged every available ship into one battle to retake DS9 and got lucky. It was a fleet action, but not any sort of combat doctrine. Acts of desperation are not doctrines, that battle was a fluke, and not an exercise of the rule.
I'm sorry, but there is no valid arguement for fighters. This arguement has been going in circles.
A. The Peregrine fighter is too large for most ships shuttle bays and was used in one canon battle to little effect. Gul Dukat feigned falling for the purpose the fighters were sent to do.
B. The fighters have warp drives. Why would they have warp drives if they're ment to be toted around by a carrier?
C. Carriers project force, the federation is not the invading type, but rather a defensive type. They don't start wars, they finish them.
D. The fighters have facilities for living for prolonged, though short, periods of time.
The speed of the ship can be increased to fleet speed too, or they can rust ride along a larger, faster ship.
Personally even tho ppl want a carrier i hope one doesnt get made for feds. They do not need it i think. Let the klingons have it as the feds have far more overall still. They need some perks to be klingons and if ppl want a carrier let them get one by being a klingon.
Fed ships arent meant to be carriers - cant think of many exploration missions a fleet of small warp 2 Peregrine Fighters can do, that a Warp 9 cruiser couldnt...
If there's going to be a Fed carrier, it should be only one ship, the T5 Akira. Even then, I have my doubts as to whether it could/would/should work.
It's not "grasping at straws", it's reality, for the reasons Bluegeek pointed out.
Fed fighters were seen in DS9. This is beyond dispute. Anyone who says otherwise is willfully ignorant. The question is no longer whether Feds use fighters but how.
And even that is a moot point. STO has taken dramatic liberties, with uniform customization, for example, or custom mounting of weapons, that the mechanics of an MMO are very much the driving factor of the design process.
It's completely obvious that however this issue plays out, game designers, not lore masters, will call the shots.
It's not "grasping at straws", it's reality, for the reasons Bluegeek pointed out.
Fed fighters were seen in DS9. This is beyond dispute. Anyone who says otherwise is willfully ignorant. The question is no longer whether Feds use fighters but how.
And even that is a moot point. STO has taken dramatic liberties, with uniform customization, for example, or custom mounting of weapons, that the mechanics of an MMO are very much the driving factor of the design process.
It's completely obvious that however this issue plays out, game designers, not lore masters, will call the shots.
No, you have a comfort standpoint if the Carrier carries Fighters. Bluegeek pointed out one reason for a Carrier, but he/she (and you) fail to consider that the canon basic training Tom Paris and B'Lanna discuss in Voyager has Starfleet personnel being shoved into a Type 9 shuttle (without showers or bunks) for weeks at a time, the argument from comfort is not a persuasive argument for wartime personnel doing wartime duties considering Cadets get worse.
People in the military often undergo uncomfortable and unpleasant duties for the sake of serving. The comfort argument holds no water and does not support Carriers. Doubly so if we go with the Drone-Carrier initially proposed by the OP.
And let me state this clearly, so you don't misunderstand: The Peregrine Fighters seen in DS9 which we have playable versions of in-game are Warp-Capable independent craft, and do not require, or lend support to your desire for, Fed Carriers.
And while I agree that the Devs have final say, the Devs at Cryptic have long shown that they listen to the feedback they get from the players. And at this point, more than two years into the game, the desire of a small subsection of the players for a Fed Carrier has come up, again, and again, and again.
It's a regular subject on these forums. And two years in, not one Fed Carrier proponent has put forth a coherent Lore reason, a coherent Game Balance reason, or a coherent RP reason for a Fed Carrier. It always boils down to "I want a Fed Carrier and I'm going to whine until I get one."
Usually using half-truths, soft canon, and arguments from real-life military uses of naval Carriers, which, in case it's not clear by now, do not apply to space-going Carriers seeing as how fuel and resupply aren't short-term concerns of craft in Trek.
Do you know why I can shoot down any pro-fed Carrier argument? Do you know why people come in calling me their hero and why I get mails telling me to keep up the good fight?
Because I've been here since the beginning, and I've seen it all, heard it all, and shot it all down before. So feel free to bring out your ad-hominems and your Masked Man fallacies and your inexhaustible arguments from repetition. I'll keep debunking them. :cool:
It's not "grasping at straws", it's reality, for the reasons Bluegeek pointed out.
Fed fighters were seen in DS9. This is beyond dispute. Anyone who says otherwise is willfully ignorant. The question is no longer whether Feds use fighters but how.
And even that is a moot point. STO has taken dramatic liberties, with uniform customization, for example, or custom mounting of weapons, that the mechanics of an MMO are very much the driving factor of the design process.
It's completely obvious that however this issue plays out, game designers, not lore masters, will call the shots.
So um.... Reading for meaning, you should work on that
Well, I believe it was Al rivera himself who said he's designing a Catian Carrier which sidesteps the whole "Starfleet doesn't make carriers" argument. So, it looks like Fed carriers are at least getting serious consideration. And again, i could care less if something in-game goes against canon, after all, aren't romulans using fed tricorders in game?
A good faction appropriate counter would be a Dreadnought. :rolleyes:
Which the Feds already have.
Buy the Galaxy Dreadnought, buy the Point-Defense console from the Thunderchild and put it in an Engineering Console Slot, Two Diburnioum Hull plating Consoles and the Cloaking Device in the other Engineering Console Slots, two Phaser Relays in the Tactical Slots, and two Field Generators in the Science slots, load it up with 4 Phaser Turrets and 4 Phaser Beam Arrays, go play "The Vault" and grab the Scorpion Fighter Device, and put it on there too, turn her broadside, launch the Scorpions, and spam Cannon Scatter Volley and Beam Fire at Will, and you've got your anti-Carrier ship.
Oh, and it has a giant Spinal Phaser Lance you can use to open up on the Carrier with an Alpha Strike from Cloak.
And before anybody says that having to buy all that is unreasonable, I agree, but you'd have to buy the Fed Carrier if they put it in too. I'm saving you the wait.
Buy the Galaxy Dreadnought, buy the Point-Defense console from the Thunderchild and put it in an Engineering Console Slot, Two Diburnioum Hull plating Consoles and the Cloaking Device in the other Engineering Console Slots, two Phaser Relays in the Tactical Slots, and two Field Generators in the Science slots, load it up with 4 Phaser Turrets and 4 Phaser Beam Arrays, go play "The Vault" and grab the Scorpion Fighter Device, and put it on there too, turn her broadside, launch the Scorpions, and spam Cannon Scatter Volley and Beam Fire at Will, and you've got your anti-Carrier ship.
Oh, and it has a giant Spinal Phaser Lance you can use to open up on the Carrier with an Alpha Strike from Cloak.
And before anybody says that having to buy all that is unreasonable, I agree, but you'd have to buy the Fed Carrier if they put it in too. I'm saving you the wait.
People in the military often undergo uncomfortable and unpleasant duties for the sake of serving.
Not really. The military takes morale seriously and goes out of their way to ameliorate unpleasant conditions. This includes frequent rotation out of isolated or uncomfortable conditions. Sailors who serve on subs get all kinds of special perks.
And let me state this clearly, so you don't misunderstand: The Peregrine Fighters seen in DS9 which we have playable versions of in-game are Warp-Capable independent craft, and do not require, or lend support to your desire for, Fed Carriers.
They're not independent because you say they are. On DS9 we see them clearly disembarking from Excelsiors. There is no evidence they are warp-capable; we never see them go to warp.
It's a regular subject on these forums. And two years in, not one Fed Carrier proponent has put forth a coherent Lore reason, a coherent Game Balance reason, or a coherent RP reason for a Fed Carrier. It always boils down to "I want a Fed Carrier and I'm going to whine until I get one."
You got your reasons. You're just speaking your own inventions as fact.
Because I've been here since the beginning, and I've seen it all, heard it all, and shot it all down before. So feel free to bring out your ad-hominems and your Masked Man fallacies and your inexhaustible arguments from repetition. I'll keep debunking them. :cool:
You can rebut any argument if you're not interested in facts or logic and pretend whatever you say is automatically true. Like I said, works in campus seminars, other settings, not so much.
Refusing to admit you are wrong is not the same as being right.
It also states, as Katic already pointed out, throwing them at the Dominion was an act of desperation, these civilian vessels were fitted with whatever weaponry was available and they were sacrificed (*wink wink*) to provoke the enemy forces to do something stupid. They were never a threat and are shown to be picked off rather quickly. I can believe they adapted the craft as a fast response interceptor craft for stationary targets or for policing duty, but not as a starfighter.
And when do we ever see one being launched by a EXCELSIOR ? I can understand that people still believe the Akira class is a carrier, since the designer wanted it to be but the final incarnation of the ship was a much smaller variant, being a gunship at best. But a excelsior? Only because the sretched-out body resembles a flight deck? I admit, I once imagined the Excelsior launching attack craft myself, but it's an outdated and rather small cruiser. I don't think this would work.
You don't need carriers. You can just convert a cruiser into a semi-carrier like vessel that houses a wing (or two?) of peregrine fighter craft. Cruisers would certainly be large enough to house them would they? I would love to see peregrine fighters akin to the scorpion summons, but that's about it.
the federation needs a new form of ship, one which can defend a planet or assist a fleet while at the same time not wasting lives in the process. people have thrown the idea of "holographic pilots" out there but lets be realistic, why waste time making a cockpit which could take up space for weaponry and computer processing when they can make a drone fighter, or a drone gunship.
StarEVE Online. No thanks.
The new flagship, and allowing people to command ships WAY before they have any business doing so seems pretty sufficient to me.
Watch some TNG episodes. Riker had to work long and hard to even be considered for Command. It's not something they were just tossing at anyone. Now it is. Freakin' Lieutenants are commanding ships!
In the real-world U.S. Navy alone, there's approx. 250 Lieutenants for every 100 Commanders. Chew on that for a second. That's ONE country of ONE planet. Now, scale that WAY UP for the United Federation of Planets' "Naval" force, Starfleet. At a 2.5:1 ratio Lieutenant to Commander, where now any Liuetenant with that "spark" and drive for Command gets his own ship, how much do you think Starfleet has expanded?
I mean, seriously. Carriers? Why? There's about 200% MORE ships out there than there were during the Dominion War, probably. Why send a Carrier with drones when you can just send a bunch of Starry-eyed Liuetenants off to die in outdated junker ships?
They're not independent because you say they are. On DS9 we see them clearly disembarking from Excelsiors. There is no evidence they are warp-capable; we never see them go to warp.
Blatant falsehoods get you no where. That's my favorite ST episode, I've watched it tons, and no where in the episode does it show the peregrines leaving an Excelsior. :mad:
Not really. The military takes morale seriously and goes out of their way to ameliorate unpleasant conditions. This includes frequent rotation out of isolated or uncomfortable conditions. Sailors who serve on subs get all kinds of special perks.
I never said the military doesn't take morale seriously, I said military personnel are often put in uncomfortable positions for their duty. In Wartime, this is especially true. Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen & Marines doing combat duty don't get breaks just because their duties are hard. Look at WWII, men in the trenches for months, Naval Pilots flying sorties twice a day, submariners staying out as long as they're supplies last in leaky greasy stinky Diesel-Electric Submarines..
Wartime is an entirely different situation duty-wise than a military at peace drilling to stay skilled.
They're not independent because you say they are. On DS9 we see them clearly disembarking from Excelsiors. There is no evidence they are warp-capable; we never see them go to warp.
Really? Because this video, which is unedited and commercial free, shows the Federation fleet departing a Federation Space-station (1:59), and the Peregrines are already out, they're not launched from anything. Then they (over the commercial break) warp to the battle location, and the peregrines are still out, they're never launched or recovered on-screen from anything, not a Galaxy, not an Excelsior..
The claim (Peregrines from Excelsior) has come up before, and yet, nobody has ever been able to find a video, or a screen-cap, of Peregrines being launched and recovered. I've gone back and watched the entire DS9 War arc, just to be sure, I've scoured memory Alpha and Memory Beta.. Nothing. Not a whisper or hint of Peregrine launch or recovery operations in a single episode of any Star Trek Series nor in any Star Trek movie.
But you know what? I have a pretty good idea where that misconception comes from. Star Trek: Shattered Universe, a (soft canon) video game, in which the USS Excelsior is shown to have Fighters.
If you can haul out a sequence from an episode or movie showing Fighters launching from or being recovered by anything, I'll gladly admit I'm wrong, and heck, since at that point there would be Starfleet Carrier Ops in the hard canon, I'll even start arguing your side!
But nobody before you has ever managed to do that. Ever.
You got your reasons. You're just speaking your own inventions as fact.
I'm not the one that just made up something about DS9. Every thing I reference or use as support can be researched and confirmed. The assertion that there was ever a Fed Carrier in canon, however, has never been confirmed, and Fed-Carrier-Fans like yourself have been trying since day one.
Not really. The military takes morale seriously and goes out of their way to ameliorate unpleasant conditions. This includes frequent rotation out of isolated or uncomfortable conditions. Sailors who serve on subs get all kinds of special perks.
*SPLORT* BWAHAHAHAHA! Damn, almost needed a new keyboard there.
Sorry; I laugh at that as an ex-serviceman. There's a reason why so many jobs besides combat arms are done by people in uniform; it's so that they have someone who can be worked to the bone and can't (legally) up and quit. And the fun doesn't stop at discharge. Oh, if only you know the joys of he Veterans Administration....
Now... I'd be willing to allow that Starfleet takes better care of its people. Which would mean an altogether different view of Starfleet than as a military service. Is that an argument you want to follow to its logical conclusion? Oh, what the heck, I will: An organization that cares about its people where it would not think of not putting basic amenities on a fighter would not be shoving people into those fighters and sending them against capital ships where they have a life expectancy of seconds unless there was something akin to TOTAL desperation going on. And a service that did not routinely use fighters in a suicidal way against capital ships would not routinely have fighter carriers. (Tenders, maybe, since fighters could be used for patrols, but not flatbed carriers.)
They're not independent because you say they are. On DS9 we see them clearly disembarking from Excelsiors. There is no evidence they are warp-capable; we never see them go to warp.
Wait what? Okay, I'm calling [citation needed] on this. WHEN do we see this? Episode and Act, at least. Bonus points if it's on YouTube. Because I do not recall seeing such a scene at *all* and that's the sort of thing that would have been brought up, like, a decade ago. The only time I ever recall an Excelsior class carrying fighters is the Shattered Universe video game and the fan-made Ingram- class SCS. Not saying an Excelsior couldn't, that ventral secondary hull void space could be useful after all. But it has never been seen to be a fighter carrier of any stripe.
So answer this: Why was a carrier never mentioned in the series, but fighters were? Considering it's now been about twenty-five years since Tom Cruise threw on a G-Suit and committed the cardinal sin of taking off without a backseat driver, you'd think a Fed carrier would be even mentioned, especially with the "Pacific War" tone of the Dominion War. Even just a throwaway line, or an Okudagram talking about a carrier group.
Look, again... I GET the desire to have a carrier. I've wanted one too. I've really wanted to see the Akira as a battlecarrier. But it doesn't fit the setting; we've never seen a carrier or heard mention of one. It doesn't fit even the squishy physics of Trek: space fighters just do not enjoy the advantages over space warships that air fighters (actually air bombers) enjoy over naval warships. Here's an excellent discussion of it.* It does not fit the technology of the setting: Part of what made air bombers so devastating was the inaccuracy of Ack-Ack, and the destructive power of bombs delivered by simple gravity to not-nearly-armored-enough decks, things that do not apply to Trek starships. Any weapon a fighter can mount that is damaging enough to a capital ship can be carried by a larger ship and deliver more damage. And a capital ship can target its main phaser arrays on shuttles and fighters and destroy them with ease.I will not speak on the doctrinal issues surrounding fighter carriers or shuttlecarriers, but they've not been my baliwick anyway.
Edited to finish a thought that I hadn't properly finished. Sorry about that.
* - Seriously, though, no matter wether you agree with the no-to-carriers crowd, that's an awesome site to go through. I highly recommend it regardless of your stance on the carrier debate. Winchell Chung and Ken Burnside even got a shoutout from the guys who wrote Mass Effect 2 in fact. Sir Issac Newton is the deadliest SOB in space!
But you know what? I have a pretty good idea where that misconception comes from. Star Trek: Shattered Universe, a (soft canon) video game, in which the USS Excelsior is shown to have Fighters.
For even more fun, consider that it was the Mirror Universe version of the Excelsior....
You really aren't missing much, unless you want to see Evil Chekhov chew the scenery.
At this point I have to acknowledge a couple of things: First, I've probably been a bit more acerbic than I should have been, for which I apologize. Secondly, I forgot the MST3K Mantra, and Burnside's Zeroth Law. So it's probably unfair of me to harp on the real logistical issues surrounding carriers of any sort; we're talking about ships that use visible particle beams, travel at FTL speeds, and can transport people from point A to point B without need of a shuttle. I think there are issues with carriers in a Trek setting -- to wit, I don't see them being used, and I think Starfleet would prefer to use Defiant-type ships and their predecessor escorts rather than armed runabouts or fighters -- and I can very easilly see carriers not being considered a worthwhile use of spatial tonnage by Starfleet. But realistic discussions of logistics, physics, and tactics are probably best not addressed.
At this point it becomes a doctrinal issue. That is, why doesn't Starfleet use carriers? If they use carriers, why have we never seen them mentioned?
Because Carriers do not have any peace-time uses not already better accomplished by the ships Starfleet does build.
Because the fighter Craft utilized by Starfleet are long-range Warp-capable independent craft that do not need a Carrier.
Because the attrition rate of Fighter Craft Pilots is unjustifiably high.
Because any non-piloted craft could just as easily be independently capable of Warp travel eliminating the need for a Carrier Vessel.
Because the sheer raw materiel necessary to build a Carrier and the personnel to man it could be better used fielding 4-5 Escorts capable of operating independently or as a group to far better affect than a single Carrier and it's fighters.
Because Carriers do not have any peace-time uses not already better accomplished by the ships Starfleet does build.
Because the fighter Craft utilized by Starfleet are long-range Warp-capable independent craft that do not need a Carrier.
Because the attrition rate of Fighter Craft Pilots is unjustifiably high.
Because any non-piloted craft could just as easily be independently capable of Warp travel eliminating the need for a Carrier Vessel.
Because the sheer raw materiel necessary to build a Carrier and the personnel to man it could be better used fielding 4-5 Escorts capable of operating independently or as a group to far better affect than a single Carrier and it's fighters.
Yet at the end of the day, Starfleet is getting a Flight Deck Cruiser from the Caitians. /thread.
Honestly, we have more important TRIBBLE to contend with in the game than to sit here and have the same argument over and over and over and over.
Because Carriers do not have any peace-time uses not already better accomplished by the ships Starfleet does build.
Because the fighter Craft utilized by Starfleet are long-range Warp-capable independent craft that do not need a Carrier.
Because the attrition rate of Fighter Craft Pilots is unjustifiably high.
Because any non-piloted craft could just as easily be independently capable of Warp travel eliminating the need for a Carrier Vessel.
Because the sheer raw materiel necessary to build a Carrier and the personnel to man it could be better used fielding 4-5 Escorts capable of operating independently or as a group to far better affect than a single Carrier and it's fighters.
Whoops; I apologize for indirectly making you type all that in again! I was posing that to those who are for carriers in Trek. ^_^;; I am in general agreement at this time with all of those points.
Whoops; I apologize for indirectly making you type all that in again! I was posing that to those who are for carriers in Trek. ^_^;; I am in general agreement at this time with all of those points.
Oh, I know. I just felt a summation post was overdue, and you gave me a good oppurtunity for it.
As to Sprint01s comment:
They're thinking of making a Caitan Carrier, they haven't made it yet, and there's still time for CBS to step in and put their foot down, or for the reaction to the Fed Carrier idea to dissuade Cryptic from following through.
Until we see a work-in-progress from a Dev, there's still time.
We're still missing out on Cryptic generated content
The KDF is still a sub-faction
PvP & RP Communities have gotten zero attention are or recognition.
And you guys want to continually fight over whether or not it's cannon for Starfleet to field an Aircraft carrier? :rolleyes:
Multitasking. It really works. It's why anyone who comes onto these boards saying "Why are you complaining about a f'in GAME when <$real_and_serious_problem_existing_in_the_world_today> is going on, you're all just a bunch of selfish NERDS!" gets justly ignored.
I have continued to argue those other issues. They have their own threads. This is a topic I enjoy debating, rather than bashing my head against a wall that not only barely acknowledges I exist but considers me a whining baby for expressing certain concerns. So thank you for your concern, but not to worry, I throw my support in for that as the opportunity arises and as far as it goes. You can safely ignore this thread now.
Besides, I've got to get SOME enjoyment out of Trek. Pondering and debating the doctrines and technologies of the military capabilities of the Alpha and Beta Quadrant powers is one of those things I enjoy. Great Bird knows, the business decisions of late have sucked out a good chunk of enjoyment from much of the rest of Trek for me. =P
Oh, I know. I just felt a summation post was overdue, and you gave me a good oppurtunity for it.
As to Sprint01s comment:
They're thinking of making a Caitan Carrier, they haven't made it yet, and there's still time for CBS to step in and put their foot down, or for the reaction to the Fed Carrier idea to dissuade Cryptic from following through.
Until we see a work-in-progress from a Dev, there's still time.
C'mon, Katic. We both know that Cryptic is going to put into the game anything that will make them a buck. Look at all the people having a fit over the Lock boxes and the message spam and what have we gotten? Silence from the community managers and flamed by a Terry, with a rah-rah, from Al.
Do you really think they care one way or another anymore?
Comments
See this i like...if only it were able to convince some people who refuse to acknowledge what STO is in terms of lore, See the Dreadnought is Lore, and in that possible future there is WAR of which the federation is fighting in,
but lets get to the real part everyone is in denial about, Star Trek Lore in STO, well we know CBS has the final heresay in terms of what Cryptic tries to sell and in some cases do, with that in mind, from the announcment of the new 2800 Fetured Episode, it has been said (sorry i cant find where it was announced)
that the new fetured episodes are the closest thing we have to a new series in the star trek universe, by that statement alone you should realize...this isnt the old Star Trek and it is certainly not the new one ie 2009 (lets all agree the only thing that would be considered a great improvment on Star Trek lore/general trek would be the bridge of the enterprise).....but it is in many ways Cryptics Star Trek.
Katic, I know it may not seem like it but I do respect your opinion and even though it goes against what i am trying to do I still do respect where you are coming from and encourage you to please please continue, with that being said, you are trying to fight for a Star Trek world which although is still there behind the veil of dust it is Cryptic's Star Trek is not the old Star Trek, the old star trek no longer exists in our time....mainly because of Gene Roddenberry's death. change must occur or all else falls.
btw people keep forgeting Im not talking about a carrier in the form for Perigreins or anything manned but drones...
I want this ship to be for Fleet Admirals that way through its multi role capabilities it can cover all the basis.
That's why you don't see me in PVP. That's probably also why more fed players don't play PVP.
This is the post where I believe your grasping at straws.
Also, the Akira is not a carrier because the final design of the Akira wasn't the one created by this vaunted designer. His Akira was 2-3 times larger than the final product, he designed it to be superior to the Sovereign class, and he wanted a ship full of badassery. Sorry, but the final product doesn't bare out this dream of his. There is no through carrier deck, the doors are too small fo carry anything larger than some of the smaller shuttles.
The much lauded peregrine (which were destroyed by the hundreds in one battle) is larger than a runabout, which would be on par with a contemporary corvette class of ship. The federation was desperate in "Sacrifice of Angels", they dragged every available ship into one battle to retake DS9 and got lucky. It was a fleet action, but not any sort of combat doctrine. Acts of desperation are not doctrines, that battle was a fluke, and not an exercise of the rule.
I'm sorry, but there is no valid arguement for fighters. This arguement has been going in circles.
A. The Peregrine fighter is too large for most ships shuttle bays and was used in one canon battle to little effect. Gul Dukat feigned falling for the purpose the fighters were sent to do.
B. The fighters have warp drives. Why would they have warp drives if they're ment to be toted around by a carrier?
C. Carriers project force, the federation is not the invading type, but rather a defensive type. They don't start wars, they finish them.
D. The fighters have facilities for living for prolonged, though short, periods of time.
The speed of the ship can be increased to fleet speed too, or they can rust ride along a larger, faster ship.
If there's going to be a Fed carrier, it should be only one ship, the T5 Akira. Even then, I have my doubts as to whether it could/would/should work.
Fed fighters were seen in DS9. This is beyond dispute. Anyone who says otherwise is willfully ignorant. The question is no longer whether Feds use fighters but how.
And even that is a moot point. STO has taken dramatic liberties, with uniform customization, for example, or custom mounting of weapons, that the mechanics of an MMO are very much the driving factor of the design process.
It's completely obvious that however this issue plays out, game designers, not lore masters, will call the shots.
No, you have a comfort standpoint if the Carrier carries Fighters. Bluegeek pointed out one reason for a Carrier, but he/she (and you) fail to consider that the canon basic training Tom Paris and B'Lanna discuss in Voyager has Starfleet personnel being shoved into a Type 9 shuttle (without showers or bunks) for weeks at a time, the argument from comfort is not a persuasive argument for wartime personnel doing wartime duties considering Cadets get worse.
People in the military often undergo uncomfortable and unpleasant duties for the sake of serving. The comfort argument holds no water and does not support Carriers. Doubly so if we go with the Drone-Carrier initially proposed by the OP.
And let me state this clearly, so you don't misunderstand: The Peregrine Fighters seen in DS9 which we have playable versions of in-game are Warp-Capable independent craft, and do not require, or lend support to your desire for, Fed Carriers.
And while I agree that the Devs have final say, the Devs at Cryptic have long shown that they listen to the feedback they get from the players. And at this point, more than two years into the game, the desire of a small subsection of the players for a Fed Carrier has come up, again, and again, and again.
It's a regular subject on these forums. And two years in, not one Fed Carrier proponent has put forth a coherent Lore reason, a coherent Game Balance reason, or a coherent RP reason for a Fed Carrier. It always boils down to "I want a Fed Carrier and I'm going to whine until I get one."
Usually using half-truths, soft canon, and arguments from real-life military uses of naval Carriers, which, in case it's not clear by now, do not apply to space-going Carriers seeing as how fuel and resupply aren't short-term concerns of craft in Trek.
Do you know why I can shoot down any pro-fed Carrier argument? Do you know why people come in calling me their hero and why I get mails telling me to keep up the good fight?
Because I've been here since the beginning, and I've seen it all, heard it all, and shot it all down before. So feel free to bring out your ad-hominems and your Masked Man fallacies and your inexhaustible arguments from repetition. I'll keep debunking them. :cool:
So um.... Reading for meaning, you should work on that
Well, I believe it was Al rivera himself who said he's designing a Catian Carrier which sidesteps the whole "Starfleet doesn't make carriers" argument. So, it looks like Fed carriers are at least getting serious consideration. And again, i could care less if something in-game goes against canon, after all, aren't romulans using fed tricorders in game?
A good faction appropriate counter would be a Dreadnought. :rolleyes:
The Misconception of a Starfighter <---- Click on this cool and informative piece.
Which the Feds already have.
Buy the Galaxy Dreadnought, buy the Point-Defense console from the Thunderchild and put it in an Engineering Console Slot, Two Diburnioum Hull plating Consoles and the Cloaking Device in the other Engineering Console Slots, two Phaser Relays in the Tactical Slots, and two Field Generators in the Science slots, load it up with 4 Phaser Turrets and 4 Phaser Beam Arrays, go play "The Vault" and grab the Scorpion Fighter Device, and put it on there too, turn her broadside, launch the Scorpions, and spam Cannon Scatter Volley and Beam Fire at Will, and you've got your anti-Carrier ship.
Oh, and it has a giant Spinal Phaser Lance you can use to open up on the Carrier with an Alpha Strike from Cloak.
And before anybody says that having to buy all that is unreasonable, I agree, but you'd have to buy the Fed Carrier if they put it in too. I'm saving you the wait.
But... that makes too much sense :eek:
Not really. The military takes morale seriously and goes out of their way to ameliorate unpleasant conditions. This includes frequent rotation out of isolated or uncomfortable conditions. Sailors who serve on subs get all kinds of special perks.
They're not independent because you say they are. On DS9 we see them clearly disembarking from Excelsiors. There is no evidence they are warp-capable; we never see them go to warp.
You got your reasons. You're just speaking your own inventions as fact.
You can rebut any argument if you're not interested in facts or logic and pretend whatever you say is automatically true. Like I said, works in campus seminars, other settings, not so much.
Refusing to admit you are wrong is not the same as being right.
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Federation_attack_fighter (in this article it's mentioned that they have)
It also states, as Katic already pointed out, throwing them at the Dominion was an act of desperation, these civilian vessels were fitted with whatever weaponry was available and they were sacrificed (*wink wink*) to provoke the enemy forces to do something stupid. They were never a threat and are shown to be picked off rather quickly. I can believe they adapted the craft as a fast response interceptor craft for stationary targets or for policing duty, but not as a starfighter.
And when do we ever see one being launched by a EXCELSIOR ?
StarEVE Online. No thanks.
The new flagship, and allowing people to command ships WAY before they have any business doing so seems pretty sufficient to me.
Watch some TNG episodes. Riker had to work long and hard to even be considered for Command. It's not something they were just tossing at anyone. Now it is. Freakin' Lieutenants are commanding ships!
In the real-world U.S. Navy alone, there's approx. 250 Lieutenants for every 100 Commanders. Chew on that for a second. That's ONE country of ONE planet. Now, scale that WAY UP for the United Federation of Planets' "Naval" force, Starfleet. At a 2.5:1 ratio Lieutenant to Commander, where now any Liuetenant with that "spark" and drive for Command gets his own ship, how much do you think Starfleet has expanded?
I mean, seriously. Carriers? Why? There's about 200% MORE ships out there than there were during the Dominion War, probably. Why send a Carrier with drones when you can just send a bunch of Starry-eyed Liuetenants off to die in outdated junker ships?
Great vid ^.^
Blatant falsehoods get you no where. That's my favorite ST episode, I've watched it tons, and no where in the episode does it show the peregrines leaving an Excelsior. :mad:
I never said the military doesn't take morale seriously, I said military personnel are often put in uncomfortable positions for their duty. In Wartime, this is especially true. Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen & Marines doing combat duty don't get breaks just because their duties are hard. Look at WWII, men in the trenches for months, Naval Pilots flying sorties twice a day, submariners staying out as long as they're supplies last in leaky greasy stinky Diesel-Electric Submarines..
Wartime is an entirely different situation duty-wise than a military at peace drilling to stay skilled.
Really? Because this video, which is unedited and commercial free, shows the Federation fleet departing a Federation Space-station (1:59), and the Peregrines are already out, they're not launched from anything. Then they (over the commercial break) warp to the battle location, and the peregrines are still out, they're never launched or recovered on-screen from anything, not a Galaxy, not an Excelsior..
The claim (Peregrines from Excelsior) has come up before, and yet, nobody has ever been able to find a video, or a screen-cap, of Peregrines being launched and recovered. I've gone back and watched the entire DS9 War arc, just to be sure, I've scoured memory Alpha and Memory Beta.. Nothing. Not a whisper or hint of Peregrine launch or recovery operations in a single episode of any Star Trek Series nor in any Star Trek movie.
But you know what? I have a pretty good idea where that misconception comes from. Star Trek: Shattered Universe, a (soft canon) video game, in which the USS Excelsior is shown to have Fighters.
If you can haul out a sequence from an episode or movie showing Fighters launching from or being recovered by anything, I'll gladly admit I'm wrong, and heck, since at that point there would be Starfleet Carrier Ops in the hard canon, I'll even start arguing your side!
But nobody before you has ever managed to do that. Ever.
I'm not the one that just made up something about DS9. Every thing I reference or use as support can be researched and confirmed. The assertion that there was ever a Fed Carrier in canon, however, has never been confirmed, and Fed-Carrier-Fans like yourself have been trying since day one.
Sorry; I laugh at that as an ex-serviceman. There's a reason why so many jobs besides combat arms are done by people in uniform; it's so that they have someone who can be worked to the bone and can't (legally) up and quit. And the fun doesn't stop at discharge. Oh, if only you know the joys of he Veterans Administration....
Now... I'd be willing to allow that Starfleet takes better care of its people. Which would mean an altogether different view of Starfleet than as a military service. Is that an argument you want to follow to its logical conclusion? Oh, what the heck, I will: An organization that cares about its people where it would not think of not putting basic amenities on a fighter would not be shoving people into those fighters and sending them against capital ships where they have a life expectancy of seconds unless there was something akin to TOTAL desperation going on. And a service that did not routinely use fighters in a suicidal way against capital ships would not routinely have fighter carriers. (Tenders, maybe, since fighters could be used for patrols, but not flatbed carriers.)
Wait what? Okay, I'm calling [citation needed] on this. WHEN do we see this? Episode and Act, at least. Bonus points if it's on YouTube. Because I do not recall seeing such a scene at *all* and that's the sort of thing that would have been brought up, like, a decade ago. The only time I ever recall an Excelsior class carrying fighters is the Shattered Universe video game and the fan-made Ingram- class SCS. Not saying an Excelsior couldn't, that ventral secondary hull void space could be useful after all. But it has never been seen to be a fighter carrier of any stripe.
So answer this: Why was a carrier never mentioned in the series, but fighters were? Considering it's now been about twenty-five years since Tom Cruise threw on a G-Suit and committed the cardinal sin of taking off without a backseat driver, you'd think a Fed carrier would be even mentioned, especially with the "Pacific War" tone of the Dominion War. Even just a throwaway line, or an Okudagram talking about a carrier group.
Look, again... I GET the desire to have a carrier. I've wanted one too. I've really wanted to see the Akira as a battlecarrier. But it doesn't fit the setting; we've never seen a carrier or heard mention of one. It doesn't fit even the squishy physics of Trek: space fighters just do not enjoy the advantages over space warships that air fighters (actually air bombers) enjoy over naval warships. Here's an excellent discussion of it.* It does not fit the technology of the setting: Part of what made air bombers so devastating was the inaccuracy of Ack-Ack, and the destructive power of bombs delivered by simple gravity to not-nearly-armored-enough decks, things that do not apply to Trek starships. Any weapon a fighter can mount that is damaging enough to a capital ship can be carried by a larger ship and deliver more damage. And a capital ship can target its main phaser arrays on shuttles and fighters and destroy them with ease.I will not speak on the doctrinal issues surrounding fighter carriers or shuttlecarriers, but they've not been my baliwick anyway.
Edited to finish a thought that I hadn't properly finished. Sorry about that.
* - Seriously, though, no matter wether you agree with the no-to-carriers crowd, that's an awesome site to go through. I highly recommend it regardless of your stance on the carrier debate. Winchell Chung and Ken Burnside even got a shoutout from the guys who wrote Mass Effect 2 in fact. Sir Issac Newton is the deadliest SOB in space!
For even more fun, consider that it was the Mirror Universe version of the Excelsior....
I'd never played it, so the specifics aren't my forte, I was going from my own research and (specifically) the Memory Alpha article.
At this point I have to acknowledge a couple of things: First, I've probably been a bit more acerbic than I should have been, for which I apologize. Secondly, I forgot the MST3K Mantra, and Burnside's Zeroth Law. So it's probably unfair of me to harp on the real logistical issues surrounding carriers of any sort; we're talking about ships that use visible particle beams, travel at FTL speeds, and can transport people from point A to point B without need of a shuttle. I think there are issues with carriers in a Trek setting -- to wit, I don't see them being used, and I think Starfleet would prefer to use Defiant-type ships and their predecessor escorts rather than armed runabouts or fighters -- and I can very easilly see carriers not being considered a worthwhile use of spatial tonnage by Starfleet. But realistic discussions of logistics, physics, and tactics are probably best not addressed.
At this point it becomes a doctrinal issue. That is, why doesn't Starfleet use carriers? If they use carriers, why have we never seen them mentioned?
Yet at the end of the day, Starfleet is getting a Flight Deck Cruiser from the Caitians. /thread.
Honestly, we have more important TRIBBLE to contend with in the game than to sit here and have the same argument over and over and over and over.
And you guys want to continually fight over whether or not it's cannon for Starfleet to field an Aircraft carrier? :rolleyes:
Whoops; I apologize for indirectly making you type all that in again! I was posing that to those who are for carriers in Trek. ^_^;; I am in general agreement at this time with all of those points.
Oh, I know. I just felt a summation post was overdue, and you gave me a good oppurtunity for it.
As to Sprint01s comment:
They're thinking of making a Caitan Carrier, they haven't made it yet, and there's still time for CBS to step in and put their foot down, or for the reaction to the Fed Carrier idea to dissuade Cryptic from following through.
Until we see a work-in-progress from a Dev, there's still time.
Multitasking. It really works.
I have continued to argue those other issues. They have their own threads. This is a topic I enjoy debating, rather than bashing my head against a wall that not only barely acknowledges I exist but considers me a whining baby for expressing certain concerns. So thank you for your concern, but not to worry, I throw my support in for that as the opportunity arises and as far as it goes. You can safely ignore this thread now.
Besides, I've got to get SOME enjoyment out of Trek. Pondering and debating the doctrines and technologies of the military capabilities of the Alpha and Beta Quadrant powers is one of those things I enjoy. Great Bird knows, the business decisions of late have sucked out a good chunk of enjoyment from much of the rest of Trek for me. =P
C'mon, Katic. We both know that Cryptic is going to put into the game anything that will make them a buck. Look at all the people having a fit over the Lock boxes and the message spam and what have we gotten? Silence from the community managers and flamed by a Terry, with a rah-rah, from Al.
Do you really think they care one way or another anymore?