test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
TVtropes, STO, and the standard Sci-Fi Fleet
sophlogimo
Member Posts: 6,507 Arc User
TVtropes.org is a great site. Not only does it explain all the neat concepts from all types of fiction, it also allows you to look at your own subconscious expectations about fictional and even real-world concepts. (A word of warning, though: Clicking on any tvtropes-Link might lead to excessive reading of a cascade of linked pages, resulting in the loss of lots of time. )
When it comes to STO, the article about the Standard Sci-Fi Fleet is particularily interesting, because... most new folks who come to the game will assume the ships in STO to follow that logic - because that's how we see starships on TV all the time.
But that's a problem. According to TVTropes, a standard Sci-Fi fleet consists of
I think many people will, when first starting to play STO, believe that apart from the small craft, they see some kind of trinity in these categories, which they will expect to map to the trinity in the game. They will quite likely, even if subconsciously, expect
But that is not true. In fact, STO does it more like this:
All of them are capital ships? Well, makes sense. After all, player ships are heroes, heroes get the shiny hero ships. Now, if everything is a capital ship, how do they differ from each other?
TV tropes (and thus, quite likely, our subconscious expectations) divides the capital ships along the following categories:
And again, most people will, probably subconsciously, fit the STO ship types into those categories:
But that is incorrect. In fact, only one of the above is what the ship class does.
The "escort", "warship" or "destroyer" in STO is the Battlecruiser. Fast, agile, not as heavily armored as it could be, but maneuverable and with really big guns. Makes sense. But that is where it ends:
The cruiser in STO is not the Dreadnought. It does not have an armament that will, in effect, be as powerful as the "battlecruiser's", but the TV Tropes Dreadnought is defined as having at least the same offensive as a battlecruiser, possibly even more so. So, what is it? Well, big defensive capabilities, not so much offense... it is right there: The cruisers are the "Banner Ships". Command ships. They don't do much damage, they direct others and stay just operational in the middle of it all.
So that is the first fallacy that a new player will possibly fall for. Cruisers are not the Dreadnoughts. But then, where is the Dreadnought in STO? Simply put: It does not exist. There are no Dreadnoughts. There are only Battlecruisers and banner ships.
And, just on top of it:
Carriers in STO are not carriers in the TV Tropes sense. They have some fighter hangars, but the bulk of their offensive power still comes from their own weapons and special abilities. So what are they? That's right, the Atrox, the Vo'Quv, the Kar'fi... they are Battlestars, just like the Armitage and the Vesta (well, the latter also a battlecruiser and a science vessel). All of them have slightly different foci, but they are all Battlestars, not Carriers. Where is the Carrier proper? Same answer as for the Dreadnought: There is no Carrier.
So, what are science ships? They are not in the Capital Ship list of TVtropes, right? Right! Science Ships in STO are something sort of unique to STO, a hybrid between a battlecruisers (fast and big guns) and an "other ship", the "Science Vessel" of TV Tropes. A bit more powerful in using its weapons, and obviously looses the plot-protection-level wizardry of some fictional hero-ship science vessels in exchange for those weapons.
Ah, now that the misunderstanding is cleared up, everything is fine, right? You want to command a Dreadnought, but there is no Dreadnought... so you take the one thing that is closest to it: A Battlecruiser. Problem solved. You want to command a Carrier, but there is no carrier, just a Battlestar. So you take that one. Problem solved.
Just throw away all the years of being conditioned by fiction for certain expectations. No problem, no worries.
Right?
When it comes to STO, the article about the Standard Sci-Fi Fleet is particularily interesting, because... most new folks who come to the game will assume the ships in STO to follow that logic - because that's how we see starships on TV all the time.
But that's a problem. According to TVTropes, a standard Sci-Fi fleet consists of
- Small craft: Escape pods, fighters and shuttles (and, where available, Mecha)
- Space Ships: Patrol boats, corvettes, frigates, destroyers, tenders, smaller carriers, repair ships, couriers.
- Capital Ships: Battlecruisers, Battleships, Carriers, Battlestars, "Banner Ships"
- "others": Torpedo boats, Science vessels, Space Guns
I think many people will, when first starting to play STO, believe that apart from the small craft, they see some kind of trinity in these categories, which they will expect to map to the trinity in the game. They will quite likely, even if subconsciously, expect
- Escorts of STO to be the "Space Ships"
- Cruisers of STO to be the "Capital Ships"
- Science Ships of STO to be the "Other Ships"
But that is not true. In fact, STO does it more like this:
- lower tier ships of STO are the "Space Ships", with a few of them instead being "other ships"
- Cruisers, Escorts, Science Ships and carriers of Tier 4+ in STO are the "Capital Ships"... except maybe for the science vessels.
All of them are capital ships? Well, makes sense. After all, player ships are heroes, heroes get the shiny hero ships. Now, if everything is a capital ship, how do they differ from each other?
TV tropes (and thus, quite likely, our subconscious expectations) divides the capital ships along the following categories:
- Battlecruisers: Fast and agile, big guns
- Dreadnoughts: Slow and fat, sturdy, mighty guns
- Carriers: Not many guns, but lots of fighter wings to launch
- Battlestars: Big guns and some fighter wings to support it
- Banner Ships: Not much offensive potential, but good for hosting the command party and collecting information.
And again, most people will, probably subconsciously, fit the STO ship types into those categories:
- Escorts in STO as Battlecruisers.
- Cruisers in STO as Dreadnoughts
- Carriers in STO as Carriers
- Science Ships in STO as... uh... what are they?
- And, huh, what is the banner ship?
But that is incorrect. In fact, only one of the above is what the ship class does.
The "escort", "warship" or "destroyer" in STO is the Battlecruiser. Fast, agile, not as heavily armored as it could be, but maneuverable and with really big guns. Makes sense. But that is where it ends:
The cruiser in STO is not the Dreadnought. It does not have an armament that will, in effect, be as powerful as the "battlecruiser's", but the TV Tropes Dreadnought is defined as having at least the same offensive as a battlecruiser, possibly even more so. So, what is it? Well, big defensive capabilities, not so much offense... it is right there: The cruisers are the "Banner Ships". Command ships. They don't do much damage, they direct others and stay just operational in the middle of it all.
So that is the first fallacy that a new player will possibly fall for. Cruisers are not the Dreadnoughts. But then, where is the Dreadnought in STO? Simply put: It does not exist. There are no Dreadnoughts. There are only Battlecruisers and banner ships.
And, just on top of it:
Carriers in STO are not carriers in the TV Tropes sense. They have some fighter hangars, but the bulk of their offensive power still comes from their own weapons and special abilities. So what are they? That's right, the Atrox, the Vo'Quv, the Kar'fi... they are Battlestars, just like the Armitage and the Vesta (well, the latter also a battlecruiser and a science vessel). All of them have slightly different foci, but they are all Battlestars, not Carriers. Where is the Carrier proper? Same answer as for the Dreadnought: There is no Carrier.
So, what are science ships? They are not in the Capital Ship list of TVtropes, right? Right! Science Ships in STO are something sort of unique to STO, a hybrid between a battlecruisers (fast and big guns) and an "other ship", the "Science Vessel" of TV Tropes. A bit more powerful in using its weapons, and obviously looses the plot-protection-level wizardry of some fictional hero-ship science vessels in exchange for those weapons.
Ah, now that the misunderstanding is cleared up, everything is fine, right? You want to command a Dreadnought, but there is no Dreadnought... so you take the one thing that is closest to it: A Battlecruiser. Problem solved. You want to command a Carrier, but there is no carrier, just a Battlestar. So you take that one. Problem solved.
Just throw away all the years of being conditioned by fiction for certain expectations. No problem, no worries.
Right?
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
The latter term came from the 1906 Battleship, HMS Dreadnought, which was considered so revolutionary in her "All Big Gun" design compared to her contemporaries that all ships that followed her principle were named "Dreadnoughts", and all the ships made obsolete as a result of her creation were aptly named "Pre-Dreadnoughts". As WW1 loomed, further developments created "Super Dreadnoughts", which exhibited the concepts of the all mainline armament . The point is that all these ships were still officially classed as Battleships by their respective nations. The world then went on to see the creation of the so called Treaty Battleships, and then the more modern Battleships of the WW2 era.
Battlecruisers are another misunderstood term. They are not simply intermediate ships between Cruisers and Battleships. They are a uniquer concept whereby, as Jacky Fisher envisioned: "What they cannot outgun, they can outrun, and what they cannot outrun, they can outgun". These ships had the main armament of a Battleship of the same era, but sacrificed protection for superior speed. Smart in concept, they were actually used poorly during the Wars, and a number were lost particularly when put up against true Battleships (Invincible, Indefatigable, Queen Mary, Hood, Lutzow).
Now, nearly 500 years separate these ships, and the ones of STO, and in the case of other sci fis, vast amounts of time and space. But since we are using quite clearly an early 20th century classification system for our sci fi fleets, we might as well get it right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_ship#Naval_ship_classification
- KDF Ambassador Syon vocalizing her objection to the discussions of possible peace talks with the UFP due to recent Borg and Undine activities. Hegh'bat, Stardate 66588.8
Still though, STO is a game, and if they made things completely realistic, it probably wouldn't be very fun for many people. There has to be some sort of middle ground where they can make fun gameplay for every type of playstyle and be reasonable enough to have some amount of credibility so we don't pass out from "suspension of disbelief" exhaustion.
Raptr profile
ditto.
+1
- KDF Ambassador Syon vocalizing her objection to the discussions of possible peace talks with the UFP due to recent Borg and Undine activities. Hegh'bat, Stardate 66588.8
That article has a few problems. It is mixing formal and informal terminology.
The US Navy does not distinguish between "Carriers" and "Supercarriers". The hull designations are CV (no longer used after JFK was decom'd) for conventionally powered carriers, including the Fleet Carriers of WW2, and CVN (formerly CVA(N) for nuclear powered carriers. In the past, other terms such as CVL (Light Carrier), CVE (Escort Carrier), CVB (Lage Carrier) where used for the variety of types that emerged.
I think the best option for carrier designation is with the following categories:
Fleet Carrier (CV) - A fully fledged large carrier, devoted entirely to that role.
Assault Carrier (CVA) - A smaller and more adaptable carrier designed for the rapid strike role.
Light Carrier (CVL) - Limited in use and generally an auxiliary ship.
Escort Carrier (CVE) - Fast carrier designed for local defence of a flotilla or convoy.
___________________
Next we see they use the term Battlecruiser. This is clearly an article on the modern navies, and, according to the definition I outlined in my earlier post, Battlecruisers no longer exist. People often classify the Russian Kirov class as Battlecruisers, though they are strictly speaking, abnormally large guided missile cruisers. Certainly the role of the traditional Battlecruiser has been entirely phased out with the introduction of the very long range missile weaponry of fast Destroyer type vessels, and of the Carrier group.
___________________
Finally, Pocket Battleship. Oh dear. This is an entirely informal term, and was only ever assigned to the Graf Spee class of ships in WW2. The Germans themselves referred to these ships as Panzerschiffe (Armoured Ships). They were simply large Commerce Raiders designed to operate independently, and bore no resemblance to Battleships whatsoever.
At the end of my life, I wonder if my "game over" statistics will tell me how many hours I spent there and how many open browser tabs it generated.
Of course, open source information is always found to be wanting and for good reason.
Was not trying to get all real life up in here.
Just dropped that wiki link as it was way much closer to the mark than Tvtropes.
Graf Spee was no Bismark but we all know it was just the Germans contravening the limitations set out by the Treaty of Versailles. Much like how panzer training was done by crews in mock-up tanks made from wood placed over cars.
- KDF Ambassador Syon vocalizing her objection to the discussions of possible peace talks with the UFP due to recent Borg and Undine activities. Hegh'bat, Stardate 66588.8
I believe the Banner Ships in Star Trek fall into the category of the Diplomatic Vessels such as the Ambassador Class. Heck, even the U.S.S. Enterprise - D could qualify by virtue of being a ship more designed as a luxury cruise liner for all intents and purposes and not a ship strictly designed for War Efforts. In fact I think the intent of the NCC-1701-D being a Diplomatic/Exploration Vessel was expounded upon in great depth the very first season of the Next Generation if I remember correctly. It wasn't outfitted for war until much much later in the series.
Granted it could hold its own in space battles even back in the very first season, but space warfare wasn't its chief purpose. After all it did play host to countless dignitaries over the course of seven seasons.
Eh... debatable, I would argue the Escort would be closer in kin to the Destroyer type ship than it is the Battlecruiser. The Battlecruiser is what I would classify the Sovereign, Excelsior and Star Cruiser as. The Destroyer is most similar to the Fleet Defiant in terms of survivability.
Whereas the Dreadnaught in Star Trek Online terms is relegated to the roles of the Galaxy-X and Odyssey. Both are massive ships, both have staggering armaments (Galaxy-X especially) and both have the survivability of a behemoth.
As for the Science Vessels they would fit the role of well... reconnaissance vessels. Not the vital role of a hero that everyone wants, but in naval terms they fill a vital role that cannot be underestimated. Oh and just to be certain, the science ships (and various Klingon Vessels along with them) do have a TV Tropes page in the form of Stealth in Space, granted it takes a little bit of effort to apply it to Fed Side Science vessels, but it can be done. (though the trope fits the Defiant class and Galaxy-X better due to their Cloaking devices, but cloaking is a dues ex machina tactic and not true stealth, just ask the Caitian Stealth Fighter what it thinks of Cloaking devices).
except don't all spaceborn vehicles kind of qualify as submarines if we are using naval terms properly?
STO has much more obvious roots to D&D than to Harpoon.
Glass Cannons - Escorts
Tanks - Cruisers
Healers - Science
And of course the level progression from LT to ADM ensures that eventually everybody will fly the uber-class ships. That's unfortunate I think, because some "Tin Can Navy" action or the possibility of a half dozen destroyers seriously banging up a battlewagon would be a hoot.
Fun as it is to speculate though, I think it's fruitless to try to assign some naval logic to this game, which is itself based on a franchise that was (probably intentionally) fairly scant on strategic explanations in the first place.
Deacon
The original series and perhaps the next generation were both scant on strategic explanations I agree. But such strategic explanations did happen from time to time, especially in the movies. For example, in the Wrath of Khan they go in depth into explaining why combat in space is different from combat in an atmosphere.
The reason for the difference of course being that in space you have to think in all possible vectors, not just three-dimensions. Therefore attacks can come from any direction. The easiest similarity is Submarine or Aircraft Warfare but even those don't come close because in space you don't have the orientation of the planet itself to keep you from turning upside down constantly. The fact that Star Trek Online doesn't involve us flipping upside down constantly, is simply a courtesy that the designers gave us so that we don't barf on our computers I imagine.
Well, how space combat is different from naval combat as explained by the shows is really a tactical discussion. What we are speaking of here is more of a strategic one, though tactics contribute to strategy.
What we don't really know from Star Trek is what the composition of, for instance, Starfleet is or why is it that way. Our modern navies are different from our former battleship centric navies because of the rise of the carrier and the guided missile.
What are the rules of the ST universe that would drive the makeup of their fleets? What do we really know about the makeup of SF in the first place? Very little in the way of numbers or ship types or ship capabilities.
Of course, this is all how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, because the "reality" of ST was driven by the fiction. If it made sense for there to be a dozen kit bashed ships at the Battle of Wolf 359, then it was so. Explanations weren't needed for it to be cool, and none were given.
By the same token, STO is driven by fitting gaming model restrictions very loosely within the show's fiction. Enterprises were cruisers, and so they are here. That even in the movies they seem to fill the traditional role of Battleships is overlooked as is the fact that historically destroyer/escorts were not only more lightly armored but ARMED because that wouldn't fit within the constraints of the traditional MMO triad model.
I guess this constitutes a lament (though it wasn't intended as one) that STO couldn't have found a more encouraging method of preventing endgame content from being a battlewagon slugfest. Maybe there could have been point balances so that you could have occasionally seen five Mirandas up against a single Negh Var (sp?) or leveled ship arenas to give destroyer or light cruiser captains a real role.
Cryptic made some great ships. It's unfortunate that they get so little play time for all the work that was put into them.
Deacon
No, no, I agree entirely. I was actually commenting more on the notion that somehow the ships as they are presented in STO will somehow "make sense" from some sort of space geo-political strategy standpoint. They literally can't because the writers of ST have never made a space geo-political strategy for the series.
That doesn't prevent it from being fun to do so...as evidenced by those of us who do it so often!
Submarines are submersible.
No water in space so no theorycraft soup for you on that.
Can agree with the rest of your post though.
P.S.
Some great points brought up in this thread btw. Sorry for not addressing each one of them but I can agree with a lot of what others are saying here. Time is not my friend atm.
"Banner" ships look to be word play on Flag ships.
To me, TVtropes just reaffirms my belief that most civilian writers have no real working knowledge and understanding of things military.
Just throwing out some thoughts from the years of conditioning I experienced in the service.
Nothing shuts down my support for military themed entertainment faster than weaksauce writing by those who know not.
Good convo.
- KDF Ambassador Syon vocalizing her objection to the discussions of possible peace talks with the UFP due to recent Borg and Undine activities. Hegh'bat, Stardate 66588.8