Peregrines are modified courtier ships, they didn't start out as fighters, so they probably are as fast as any other fighters/shuttles, except Orion Interceptors.
please keep in mind here people there's a difference between 'fighters' and small warp capable starships. fighters are sub-light ships only.
Well, I would dispute that on the grounds that the Peregrine fighter is warp capable. There would need to be something else more definable that only a shuttle has that a fighter doesn't, such as, perhaps, scientific instrumentation, and a crew compartment?
I don't doubt that, a Galaxy class carried around 15-20 shuttlecraft. I see they could cram a few in those but I still don't get why someone would want to do that aside from using them as a distraction as "Sacrifice..." showed us. It was basically sending guerilla units in open field battles - I still can't see them becoming the new backbone of Starfleet.
Several things.
1) Peregrines were shown in SoA to be extremely cost effective even when taking enemy ships of the line head on. See earlier in this thread for a breakdown of what both sides lost in Sisko's diversionary attack.
(Summary: Peregrines are shown to have a 1:1 to 2:1 kills/significant damage to losses ratio depending on one's interpretation of Operation Return. That's against ships easily 10-15 times their size, and without any meaningful friendly cover.)
2) I don't think anyone is considering, or advocating, replacing the entirety of Starfleet with carrier-based craft. Rather, that carrier-based forces can play a significant role when deployed correctly.
I don't get though why the Akira is still referred to as a quasi-carrier ship. Yes I know the original concept was meant to be just that, though once again this idea didn't make it "in canon" and was rather changed to be a medium sized cruiser, possibly carrying more torpedoes than other ships.
The Akira is considered a carrier because that is explicitly what her creators, both in-universe and out, designed her to be. There's an excellent series of quotes to that effect from Alex Jaeger here.
Gene Roddenberry didn't see Starships like this thread mostly implies. There are many, many false comparisons related to Navy warships. This is well documented, but I saw him talk about it at a convention in the early 90s.
Gene Roddenberry saw Starships more like submarines, not cruisers, destroyers, etc. This is a critical point that explains much of how Star Trek evolved.
And Starfleet was not a primarily military organization either, so there was never a focus to build military centric warships when policy was driven by diplomacy supported by science rather than firepower.
I am curious if anyone knows of any links to very well done fan fiction or novels that discuss carriers in Star Trek. I would be interested to read if you have a link.
And Starfleet was not a primarily military organization either, so there was never a focus to build military centric warships when policy was driven by diplomacy supported by science rather than firepower.
:rolleyes: The "exploration" Cruiser's was as powerful as the warships of other governments. Their Frigates from the 23rd century were still capable even during the late 24th century. Most starfleet ships had enough firepower to blow away a planet without trying.
And Starfleet was not a primarily military organization either, so there was never a focus to build military centric warships when policy was driven by diplomacy supported by science rather than firepower.
Up until the first wave of designs came out of the Advanced Starship Design Bureau (more commonly known by some folks as the Anti-Borg Task Force) you would be correct. After that event and the subsequent Borg and Dominion conflicts, Starfleet made no qualms about building ships bred for war.
I am curious if anyone knows of any links to very well done fan fiction or novels that discuss carriers in Star Trek. I would be interested to read if you have a link.
Despite the Akira's emergence in the latter third of DS9, carriers never really entered the expanded universe of Trek whole hog until STO came along. The Memory Alpha/Beta entries for the Akira are pretty good, albeit somewhat concise. Give those a glance over if you're so inclined.
:rolleyes: The "exploration" Cruiser's was as powerful as the warships of other governments. Their Frigates from the 23rd century were still capable even during the late 24th century. Most starfleet ships had enough firepower to blow away a planet without trying.
As powerful as many Federation ships were in the latter half of the 24th century, most were exclusively multi-role ships that packed a punch, but were not explicitly designed for firefights.
What you see in the on screen shows and movies isn't necessarily what a fighter could be effective at, after all even with the fancy targeting systems aboard ships they still miss something as huge as a cruiser, so a fighter would be a really hard target to hit.
I take it you believe SW stormtroopers to be terrible shots then?
I suppose you also dismiss the Galaxy Class just one shotting an entire races defense force of fighters.
After all they still implement mines, turret and torpedo drones as planetary defense systems, why not a fighter squadron?
Everything you list here is an expendable device that's unmanned. A fighter is manned (otherwise it's a drone), and that crew isn't expendable in a ship so highly outgunned.
Every fighter pilot knows they are probably going to get killed, but they still do their job and it can be effective.
I'm sorry, but that's terrible justification. Just because they're willing to die, or even suicidal, doesn't justify enabling them to do so. Letting people just die is an inefficient use of resources and personnel.
As for the game it emphasizes on pve enemies with uber shield and hull strength making it seem like fighter squadron's are not as effective as they could be, or should be.
They wouldn't be. These are tin cans in comparison to the ships you're setting them against. Unlike naval ships, the armor on some of these ships is measure in meters not millimeters. Battlecruisers (or fast battleships) like the Sovereign shake off photon torpedoes. Such a ship, in canon, is capable of dozens of simultaneous shots per second.
Not to mention the Scimitar that shook off a few Quantum torpedoes.
Torpedoes are also ordnance based, meaning that the amount of material used in the explosion matters. So far as I know, fighters and shuttles carry micro-torpedoes. Not nearly as powerful as a full torpedo.
Fighters are not a viable ordinance delivery platform without significant loss of life and resources. A carrier means nothing when it's pilots are dead, regardless of its ability to replicate the ships, if that's even possible. This is not WW2. These are not modern warships, and these are not environments even remotely like any battlefield that could be found on earth for an analog.
The reason fighters are used in militaries around the world is their benefit as compared to their cost. They cost significantly less when compared to a battleship, have 1-3 man crews, and carry weapons capable of penetrating modern armors on warships. They also can out run the ship.
In space, they don't have a speed advantage, in fact many have already said here that any ship would probably outrun these fighters.
Oo, look, fighters. A few dozen? Ok, wipe them up in a few seconds of phaser fire and move on. A few hundred? Even still, a minute or so of phaser fire. A few thousand? Well, turn around and outrun them. You can't fire on what you can't get into range of.
_____________________________________________
"Second star on the right, and straight on till morning."
:rolleyes: The "exploration" Cruiser's was as powerful as the warships of other governments. Their Frigates from the 23rd century were still capable even during the late 24th century. Most starfleet ships had enough firepower to blow away a planet without trying.
I don't think we are saying two different things.
I am just providing context anyway. That is what Gene Roddenberry said in Las Vegas at one of the conventions I attended. This is a topic he discussed because it was a question that came up, in particular the issue came up in the early 90s when George Lucas announced he was making more Star Wars movies.
:rolleyes: The "exploration" Cruiser's was as powerful as the warships of other governments. Their Frigates from the 23rd century were still capable even during the late 24th century. Most starfleet ships had enough firepower to blow away a planet without trying.
That still doesn't mean they are ships for war.hy do people think that "peaceful in spirit" equals "weak and foolish" and if your ships are able to stand their ground or even superior to others you're a "badas warfighter"?
Starfleet's credo is non-military. Even after the DW. That never changed, at least it was never stated. Their design philosophy says that Starfleet's ships are and have always been multi-mission craft, capable of doing whatever is necessary. Exploration, transportation, colonisation, whatever as well as peacekeeping and fighting. The only exceptions from this rule we know of are the Defiant class which was a warship and the Oberth class which is a pure "science vessel". It would be foolish to do all that with ships that wouldn't scare off more aggressive people or that could defend themselves when need arose.
I know most people on the internet want to play super-badass warfighters, sitting in their ultra-cool starfighters on the hiiiiiighwaaaay to the danger zone but in this case Star Trek is the wrong place to go. Even Klingons don't do that.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
Space Carriers are in the same medium as it's fighters. This is a fundamental difference compared to a earth bound Carrier ship, which fighters use the athmosphere as medium.
A space fighter is more like a WWII torpedo boat, very fast but yet sill using the same medium as it's mothership. Since targeting systems and Weapon strenghts are Way stronger than today the relation between fighter and ship are much blatant than today.
Compared to its size a space fighter in Star Trek cannot load enough devestating weapons to seriously damage a enemy ship at all, quite the contrary the enemy ships weapon systems are much deadlier then comparable systems today.
So the balance shifted towards big ships and made fighters almost flying coffins. A starfleet carrier is a paradox in itself, since Starfleet would never send its officers into certain death on a regular basis.
Even shuttles (without plot armor) do not stand a chance when fighting a starship. They are just smaller short range transports, except a runabout, which is more like a sized down starship but still way too weak to pose a threat to a starship, because it's weapons just cannot penetrate a statships shield system and armor.
I can understand that many just want a Carrier because they think they are "cool", but it's almost like wanting to play a jedi knight, Carriers just don't belong to Star Trek. Ok ther was ONE or two mentioned, but did they make any big difference?
The Star Trek universe works just different to the standart Sci Fi universe, in my opinion aligning it too much on other sci fi universes removes it's uniqueness.
To be honest i have missed that day carriers became that popular in STO, can anyone explain me why almost everyone wants one?
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
Regarding fighters not carrying weaponry above their size class. In canon, at least 2 examples of shuttle craft (Class 2 shuttlecraft (VOY: Dark Frontier) and the Romulan Shuttle (DS9: In the Pale Moonlight, DS9 Technical Manual)) are armed with photon torpedoes, as well as energy weapons. The Peregrine is, in cannon, armed with 3 or more photon launchers, as well as energy weapons. In the case of just 1 fighter, no, that is not terribly powerful weaponry, but when you are talking about a squad or full squadron, that is an impressive amount of firepower. This becomes especially apparent when compared to the Enterprise-D, which, in canon, carried 12 phaser arrays and 2 torpedo launchers. When looking at the damage potential here, look at the end of the Enterprise-D, at the hands of the Duras sisters. Granted, the torpedoes were impacting bare hull, but that is the objective anyways.
My take on that is that, while the shields are still up, fighters would only be moderately effecive by themselves, but, while the carrier ship is engaged, they could potentially do damage FAR beyond their size.
As for it not taking years to train fighter pilots, I would disagree here. While the process may be more condensed than our modern jet fighter aircraft, again in canon, Starfleet Academy maintains at least one training wing that specializes in small fighter-like craft. (TNG: The First Duty, VOY: Non Sequitor) Nova and Red Squadrons are both examples of this, as is Falcon Squadron. The program Red Squadron was a part of (kind of an internship, if you will, on board an active vessel) was a new idea in the early 2370's.
This speaks to a few points. Why would Starfleet be expanding their fighter-craft training programs if fighter craft were no longer a viable option? Why would the Federation still be using Peregrines (and, presumably, modernizing and refitting or retrofitting, as well as introducing new designs), if they were not still viable?
And while the Federation may not use the swarm and ramming tactics of other factions, and would not carelessly and willingly throw away lives, they are the defense force of the Federation, and, as such, would risk lives in CALCULATED engagements, as they saw it to be necessary.
We have to remember that the Federation, in 2409, has been combatting the Borg, along with the Klingongs, and possibly Dominion (though I believe they have been quiet since the fleet got "misplaced" in the wormhole) for 30 years since the end of the TV shows. Tactics have likely evolved, as well as the weapons.
I can understand that many just want a Carrier because they think they are "cool", but it's almost like wanting to play a jedi knight, Carriers just don't belong to Star Trek. Ok ther was ONE or two mentioned, but did they make any big difference?
The Star Trek universe works just different to the standart Sci Fi universe, in my opinion aligning it too much on other sci fi universes removes it's uniqueness.
The only carrier that was explicity named as such was the Kazon ship - which was in the DELTA QUADRANT and belonged to a species which was even ignored by the Borg because they weren't considered a threat at all. This is not due to their carriers, but it's not a good example of effective carrier/fighter combos in Star Trek
I'd even buy (as in believe) some kind of shuttle carrier for starfleet but that wouldn't be a vessel geared for combat. But this debate is running circles. Star Trek just doesn't work with carriers and fighters and it's pretty much irrelevant how "cool" they are. Even the Akira class that was explicitly designed as a carrier by it's creator didn't make it as a carrier in-canon. It became a medium escort (as in function not class) cruiser that pretty much died every time it was on screen (might be mistaken or overexaggerating here ).
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
So the Hideki class (DS9: Tribunal, Call to Arms), Vulcan fighters (ENT: Awakening, Kir'Shara), Vaadwaur fighters (VOY: Dragon's Teeth, The Void), Talaxian Fighters (VOY: Basics, Pt. II), Scorpion class (Nemesis), Rakosan fighters (VOY: Dreadnought), Maquis fighters (TNG: Preemptive Strike), Kyrian fighter (VOY: Living Witness), and Peregrine (DS9: Sacrifice of Angels, TNG: Preemptive Strike, VOY: Drone, The Voyager Conspiracy, Life Line) aren't canon?
What, precisely, is the issue people have here? Small craft, or the carriers? I think it is established without any doubt that fighters served a role in multiple space-going navies.
There is only one on-screen example of a carrier that I am aware of, being the Kazon carrier. However, it would be silly to expect a fighter to be present in a fleet with the pilot being stuck in the craft for WEEKS on end to get to front line destinations, when any shuttle bay on any starship could serve as a hangar, and keep the pilot fresh for combat when needed.
The game is an evolution of what we see on screen, one in which the Federation is in a state of full blown war. Why wouldn't the tactics and ships change to reflect that? We cannot rely on everything in canon to be the ONLY evidence of a ship's existence, or a ship type. Otherwise, we get bored with the ships we see. This gameplay offers a different style, and, in my opinion, is something we need to embrace, much like different playstyles in game.
What, precisely, is the issue people have here? Small craft, or the carriers? I think it is established without any doubt that fighters served a role in multiple space-going navies.
I'll try.
For a Star trek fan the hero ship of a series is almost a character of its own. Sometimes it's got more character than some of the crew(Voy ), but that's another issue.
Some are more likeable and others are not.
It's the place where the heros live, the main crew and the ship are almost one entity, similar to a sailing ship and it's crew.
A carrier type of ship is something completely different, first and foremost it's more a "thing" than a character. It is more like a moveable Airfield.
The ship itself stays away from the enemy and let's the fighters do the fighting, instead of being face to face to the enemy.
Which is somehow cowardly, compared with directly exchanging broadsides.
Could you imagine Picard or Kirk standing in a CIC and directing fighter ships towards the Klingons or Romulans? It just wouldn't be right. This is not BSG.
Trek is more like a ship in Napoleonic times or a WWI Battleship but not about a moving airfield.
Maybe one Captain sitting in his chair is a antiqued picture for some, but i think it's still a grand picture.
That's not the only issue, the mentality of a Battlestar crew is (has to be) a completely different thing than the Crew of a Starfleet ship (which is supposed to be a evolution of NASA, not the US Navy).
Maybe some "fans" want the crew to go for each others throat all the time. But that's not Star Trek for me.
I know MANY "fans" want a much more militarized Star Trek but there is a line somewhere, where Trek wouldn't be Star Trek anymore. We already have laughably OP Escorts (there was only ONE type of escort in canon starfleet at all) completely dominating the game, and now everyone seems to want carriers and fighters... whats next Jedi? (Because seomeone showed telekinetic powers on one point, blah blah)
Everytime i read something like "we want carriers" i tend to think, have those people ever seen one single episode Star Trek?
Where comes that urge to have Carriers in a Star Trek game suddenly?
Am i the only one thinking that carriers are completely out of place in Star Trek?
Talking about playstyles in STO, realisticly there is only one Playstyle: Damage Damage Damage...
and Escorts are the kings. Crusiers and Science ships have become 3rd and 2nd rate ships, since their destructive powers have been made rediculus compared to Escorts.
In my opinion Cryptic should develop playing a Cruiser much more than introducing Carriers.
There could be so much to improve, like Weapons modulations or Warp Core adjustments.
Heck even old Games like "the final unity" was a better Ship simulation and it's from 1995(!). I know STO is a MMO and not a simulation, but who says it can't be a bit of both?
Instead of introducing ships/weapon systems that alienates Star Trek, Cryptic should improve already existing ships and expand gameplay.
If introducing carriers is the only way a Star trek game can evolve, what's next?
What comes after carriers?
Flyable Starbases? (hey DS9 moved some Kilomters, i want a Starbase on my own. )
Cars in space? (Voyager encountered a old truck in space at one point)
Playable Space fighters? Of course able to fight against those target practices some call Cruisers, lol. (For those wanting even faster ships than escorts. Of course Spacefighters have to be "balanced" because it's a MMO)
Flyable Dyson Spheres?
Transpormers tm?
The USMC?
Tell me, where is it still Star Trek and where begins the generic military Sci Fi series?
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
Tell me, where is it still Star Trek and where begins the generic military Sci Fi series?
That's the real question here. We can end the discussion wether sub-warp fighters and carriers make sense in-universe (they don't :P and most things titled "fighters" are corvettes or small frigates even, don't get hung up on the terminology) but we should discuss the point WHY we want to play a Star Trek game that's bascially nothing like Star Trek anymore? If people don't like the style that has been established through the shows (and they tried to change that drastically with the movies, I give you that) why would they want to play Star Trek Online to begin with and not choose one of the many other games that portray your generic terran navy theme much much better than this game?
Why do you have to make something that's not what you want into something you want while there are tons of games already that offer EXACTLY what you want?
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
There are other missions, though. Hive Onslaught is a mission specifically designed for dedicated tanks that can use s a good deal of science ship support.
That's really not the best example you could have used, Hive Obslaught is easier and quicker if you're careful and burst fire everything in order, and kill it quickly so it doesn't kill you. Most tanks are running BFAW these days, which makes them more of a liability than anything else in Hive (unless they're piloted by very good players)
However regardless of how people feel there were fighters in Star Trek. We've only seen one war in Star Trek and that was during DS9. Fighters were used.
No one can deny that.
So why is there a problem with something from the shows being in the game?
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
Phase 1 can be done by cannon-bearing escorts. Phase 2, fighting the Unimatrix ships... not so much. Or at all.
Yes it can, just hit it hard and get them down quickly. With everyone on the same side you can get it down in <90 seconds, move to the other one and repeat
Hm. Last time you did this? You are aware they changed the mission difficulty with LOR?
Yeah since LoR launched. A few weeks ago I would guess!
They changed the mission difficulty before LoR - LoR just broke it with crippling lances in the 2nd phase. It was a problem that had occured before, been patched out, and then LoR reintroduced it.
That could be true if we were talking about modern day style carriers. But we are not. STO's carriers are not carriers in that sense, they dive deep into the middle of the fighting themselves. They are big, slow, powerful science vessels, tactical ships or (sadly, rather rarely, we could use a few more of that type) engineering tank vessels. They happen to also have a few fighter craft aboard, but that is nothing new for Trek, they have always been there.
So they are technically Battlestars, but they lack much of the needed firepower.
Seemingly they are what Cryptic planned Cruisers to be, Tanks without having sufficient firepower on their own.
But in contrast to Cruisers the have their fighters.
Crusiers on the other hand moving out of focus and Cryptic don't want to give them enough firepower to become a heavy and slower equivalent of the Games "Escorts"*
My biggest problem with Carriers is the complete incompatibility with the technics and ethis of Star Trek.
As i have already said, a Fighter CANNOT withstand a phaser discharge of a Starship, Starfleet would deliberately send its officers into certain death by a reular basis. Everyone assigned as Fighter Pilot would be a walking Dead. (Btw. Similar as if someone gets transferred to Kirks ship as Security officer, lol.
But i think TOS is just a comedy show in TNGs Holonovels, lol.)
Unlike Cryptic wants to sell us Starfleet doesn't consist of Spartas, starfleet officers are highly educated and trained professionals (unlike Kirk btw.).
This would be in blatant contrast to the ethics of the federation, unlike for some people today, in the Federation life is valuable.
Fighter craft have not always been there in Star Trek at all or do you think any of starfleets Enterprises had Fighters in their shuttlebay?
What you are talking about are Shuttles, which where used mostly in special missions, like distraction or to transport people. And even then, they barely survived by plot armor and sometimes got destroyed anyway.
But they where never used in masses and as main attack force, Star trek isn't Star Wars or Battlestar Galactica, things work different (thankfully). 100 Shuttles would get destroyed before they had even the chance to do any serious damage on a Sovereign class. They just cannot be armed with weapons heavy enough and on the other hand they can be destroyed much too easy due the lack of generating shield Strgon enough to withstand a (comparably) highpowered phaser beam discharge by a Starship.
Other ships like the Jem hadar Atack fighters for instance where just named fighters, they actually where corvettes or even destroyers, so they where incomparable stronger armed and shielded than any fighter could have been.
Don't missunderstand me i like BSG and i partially like Star Wars sometimes, but Star Trek must not become like them.
What i always liked about Star Trek was that it was more like a seafaring expedition of the 17-18 century, just in space, which is today more unique then ever. Combining two great concepts for adventure (not just warfare).
When there was fighting, the ship is directly involved, instead of just sending fighters into Battle. So the Ship doesn't act like a stationalry basis like even a Battlestar does, but it is acting more on itself and fighting for survival.
Just as i already said it was the main character of the show.
While the new BSG showed that a Battlestar can be a Character too (sometimes, especially in the last few episodes), it still is very different from being a ship of Exploration that can defend itself (or attack if necessary), or if the ship was particularly build for warfare. I don't know how i can make this point any more clear, but this difference is crucial IMO.
To put it the other way around (i don't know if you are well versed in fantasy literature, so please forgive if it doesn't make sense to you.)
Seeing Cariirers and Escorts in Star Trek is like if instead of Frodo, Conan the Barbarian would do the journey. Of course it would be some awesome action to see Conan fight masses of Orcs, but that wouldn't be the point of the journey. (btw he would never finish the job. but thats another topic.)
*I could even live with that, Star Trek Online is already so far away from being a Star Trek game. BUT many people playing it and introducing Carriers will change the perception many people have of Star Trek.
Would you want the next Star Trek series to be like BSG?
[There could be made a compromise, if Cryptic would give Cruisers more (i really mean MORE) firepower to make them equivalent to Escorts. So Escorts would be fast, agile and hard hitting, Crusiers slow and also hard hitting. Carriers on the other hand could serve as Tanks, while having their fighters to operate with.
But Cryptic doesn't show ANY sign whatsoever of wanting to improve Crusier at all. So we have Carriers surpassing cruisers in any way, leaving the main shipclass in Star Trek being rendered completely useless in Cryptics little sci fi fantasy.]
If Cryptic continues on this course they should rather give up their Star Trek license and create a own sci Fi universe. At least Star trek fans could play it without getting bellyarches.
They would be Battlecruisers, if they where slower and more sturdy by design.
But they are fast, agile and super heavy armed (i mean, heavier than ships 5 times the size). This makes them to Super Oversized Spacefighters, nothing else IMHO.
They, just like Carriers don't really have a place in Star Trek, they don't even make much sense at all. They are like X-Wings armed with Star Destroyer like Lasers (if you know Star Wars better).
There are other missions, though. Hive Onslaught is a mission specifically designed for dedicated tanks that can use s a good deal of science ship support.
Without enough Firepower that mission cannot be won also. I am not saying that Star trek ships shouldn't have Firepower, quite the contrary, but i am against firepower being monopolized by ONE SHIPCLASS ONLY.
Star Trek has its share of "generic military SF" episodes. Trek is, however, unique in that it still emphasizes exploration and peaceful solutions "wherever possible". I believe that is indeed what is missing from STO: Real exploration and peaceful conflict resolution, and even when fighting, not shooting ships into dust clouds when the captain chooses to just disable them - for making way for talks.
Surely Star Trek had some more Military focused Episodes, but military never ever had such a high emphasis like STO which looks and feels more like BSG in my opinion.
Even Yesterdays Enterprise, a episode i really appreciate and would like to see more of, was far away from being so "hard" militaristic than STO.
STO feels more like "Peacekeeper Online" if you know "Farscape".
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
They certainly do not. It is just that their firepower is done in a way fitting to their subtype of carrier. The Atrox, for example, has a lot of firepower in its sci boff slots. Depending on the configuration, sometimes even literally.
That makes them even more OP. They can tank, have fighters AND have firepower on their own.
That was a game design decision. Tactical ships are the damage dealers, engineering ships are the tanks, sci ships are the debuffers. I for one am very happy with the BortasQ' and the Jem'Hadar Dreadnought as tactically viable ships that have a decent amount of tanking capability and are big and slow.
That leaves Crusier where?
Unlike Carriers, Cryptic didn't give Crusiers enough offensive power to have a place in STO. Can't you see the bizarreness in this?
Well, this is Star Trek technology. Every fighter that actually requires a pilot will have emergency transporters. Death in a fighter will be no more likely or lasting than death in a cruiser.
And we all know how relilable transporter systems are....
Seriously, Starfleet and Fighters a just NO. Why is that so hard to understand?
If you are such a big Carrier and Fighter fan, why do you bother to play a Star Trek game in the first place?
Why do you want to change Star Trek into something it isn't?
One personal Question:
WHY IS EVERYONE SUDDENLY SO CRAZY ABOUT CARRIERS?
(sorry the caps)
DS9 had exactly that being described by main characters.
There was exactly ONE ocasion where a sqadron of fighters was supposed to "annoy" some galor Classes to lurem to break formation, and they didn't even got that job done.
You are talking as if Fighters where very common and everyone not wanting them in Star Trek would just deny their existence.
I disagree with that. Cruisers have become better, and heavy-but-slow-ships even more over the past months.
Of course, if you want a tactical role, you need to get a tactical ship. But not all of them are "escorts".
Cruisers are FAR away from being able to deal considerable more damage to justify a place besides escorts.
In what sense have Cruisers become "better"?
Surely Cryptic has introduced some new Cruiser like ships for the Romulans. Klingons always had more offensive Cruisers. But Starfleets Cruisers have (as always) draw the short straw.
You still haven't answered my Question:
If introducing carriers is the only way a Star trek game can evolve, what's next?
What comes after carriers?
Flyable Starbases? (hey DS9 moved some Kilomters, i want a Starbase on my own. )
Cars in space? (Voyager encountered a old truck in space at one point)
Playable Space fighters? Of course able to fight against those target practices some call Cruisers, lol. (For those wanting even faster ships than escorts. Of course Spacefighters have to be "balanced" because it's a MMO)
Flyable Dyson Spheres?
Transformers tm?
The USMC?
Tell me, where is it still Star Trek and where begins the generic military Sci Fi series?
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
And we all know how relilable transporter systems are....
Seriously, Starfleet and Fighters a just NO. Why is that so hard to understand?
If you are such a big Carrier and Fighter fan, why do you bother to play a Star Trek game in the first place?
Why do you want to change Star Trek into something it isn't?
Considering a lot of people have shown a lot of time were fighters were used, by Starfleet amongst others, during main engagement against bigger foes (Borg, Cardassian...), may I say that you are wrong on this point ?
You obviously don't like Carriers for another reason than lore, and get your judgement clouded by that.
Fighters in ST are canon. Fighters used by Starfleet is canon. Fighter having the same weapons than a ship of the line (IE firepower) is canon. Fighters being powerful enough to swarm a ship of the line and bring it down is canon (Ex : Maquis vs Galor). Fighters capable of surviving one or more hit, and able to avoid most shot is canon.
The only real argument I've read so far was the lack of carriers shown in the fed/KDF ranks. We only see 2 of them, one if the Scimitar, the other one being the Khazon carrier.
Why is that so hard to understand ?
And BTW, about sending people to their death, when a peregrine is destroyed 1 person die. When a Galaxy goes down, 1000people die. Yet, Starfleet send Galaxy to the front line in a daily basis.
And I know IRL is not ST etc, but IRL fighters can be shot by AA, doesn't mean we don't use fighters. For any weapon, there is a counter to it. In any war, there are loss of life. Such is the way of things since the dawn of time, and it will likely continue in the future. "War never changes" and this kind of thing.
And BTW, about sending people to their death, when a peregrine is destroyed 1 person die. When a Galaxy goes down, 1000people die.
Actually when the warp core goes up in smoke after the galaxy has been hit a few times, nobody dies. At that point most crew has been killed two or three times by torpedos hitting the shield already and its only a ghost ship going up in flames. :P
If people want carriers, give them carriers. At the end of the day it doesn't matter if its canon, makes sense or whatever - its about fun.
I for one would like to see some engineering heavy behemoth with hangar bays, but i don't mind if it doesn't come around.
to me, fighters in star trek are a terrible idea. firstly, the only fighter we ever saw in action was a perigrine fighter, which had warp capabiities, which made a carrier not needed. yes, we saw picard and data fly a scorpian, but we never saw if that was a space fighter, or meant for inner atmosphere assaults like its design seems to point towards.. also, something small like that would last all of about three seconds against a targeted phaser attack. (i just cant see something that small having weapons, propulsion, lifesupport systems, and then being able to not only have a large enough shield grid, but be able to power it as well.. fighters in this game, while providing a cool gameplay for those who like it, was simply a slap in the face to the star trek fan, and makes no sense in the star trek world. this isnt star wars..
The only reason I will agree with you about fighters being a bad idea is because of the lack of effort it takes to field them, utilize them, and conduct combat with them. But the rest of what you said I cant disagree with more.
1.) Peregrine fighters were apart of a Canon show which makes them Canon. Same with Scorpions. This also means that any additions like the Klingon Fighter is very likely. You might not like that its Canon. But it is. So if Cryptic wanted to add it. They had every right too.
2.) Warp drives does not instantly equate to 'you dont need a carrier'. Fighters are small craft. Only big enough to fit a pilot and co pilot. There are no cargo bays and there are no extra replacement gear laying around. If a peregrine was to become heavily damaged it would need to return to a Cruiser/Carrier to be repaired or safely land. A Cruiser/Carrier would still be essential to fielding these craft. And thanks to the Akira Class. We know that the Federation DOES have Carriers of some sort or at least larger Cruisers like the Galaxy are capable of carrying a wing of fighters.
3.) As seen in the shows the 'advanced targeting systems' werent THAT advanced. They missed just as much as they hit things. And compared to fighter craft of today. They dont seem to be of much difference in threat level. At least with Peregrines they have a hull designed to sustain energy weapon hits. And I dont recall there being shields in the shows for them but if a small shuttle like the Class 8 is about the same size its not unreasonable to believe the Peregrine is capable of sustaining a shield. The shows and movies are full of spectacular technology that are beyond our understanding. A shield for small craft isnt THAT crazy of an idea. Todays Fighter craft face heat seeking missiles, laser and computer guided missiles. How is that any different then energy weapons or torpedoes? The risk will always be there. But the risk of dying in combat is all in a days work. Just because theres a risk doesnt mean the Federation/Starfleet is not willing to put their men and women in the pilot seat to accomplish the mission or succeed at getting an advantage.
4.) I dont know what youre talking about as far as a slap in the face. There has been a steady progression in Space Combat from the day Star Trek appeared on TV screens. And Fighters were on their way one way or another. Not sure how its an attempt to insult anyone. Besides your ridged outlook on how Star Trek combat SHOULD be compared to whats smart and obvious to others. Fighters may not be able to sustain the same type of attack a Cruiser would. But they are much more faster and maneuverable than Cruisers. They can slip through the hail of energy weapons fire, target key areas of an enemy ship and disable/destroy it quicker and easier then a Cruiser could and then get out of there. Sure theres risk. Sure the chances of a fighter pilots death is much higher then a Tactical Officer on the bridge of a Galaxy Class. But in space, even 400 years from now, its still a dangerous place to be and during combat. Regardless of where youre standing/sitting you should be prepared to die. As for the Star Wars comment. Star Wars didnt invent fighters in space. It doesnt have a monopoly on that style of space sci fi and I dont see how Star Wars has anything to do with this topic.
Comments
Well, I would dispute that on the grounds that the Peregrine fighter is warp capable. There would need to be something else more definable that only a shuttle has that a fighter doesn't, such as, perhaps, scientific instrumentation, and a crew compartment?
Several things.
1) Peregrines were shown in SoA to be extremely cost effective even when taking enemy ships of the line head on. See earlier in this thread for a breakdown of what both sides lost in Sisko's diversionary attack.
(Summary: Peregrines are shown to have a 1:1 to 2:1 kills/significant damage to losses ratio depending on one's interpretation of Operation Return. That's against ships easily 10-15 times their size, and without any meaningful friendly cover.)
2) I don't think anyone is considering, or advocating, replacing the entirety of Starfleet with carrier-based craft. Rather, that carrier-based forces can play a significant role when deployed correctly.
The Akira is considered a carrier because that is explicitly what her creators, both in-universe and out, designed her to be. There's an excellent series of quotes to that effect from Alex Jaeger here.
On that we agree. Given the facts of Trek's FTL and geography, warp is pretty much a must have for any carrier-based ship.
Gene Roddenberry didn't see Starships like this thread mostly implies. There are many, many false comparisons related to Navy warships. This is well documented, but I saw him talk about it at a convention in the early 90s.
Gene Roddenberry saw Starships more like submarines, not cruisers, destroyers, etc. This is a critical point that explains much of how Star Trek evolved.
And Starfleet was not a primarily military organization either, so there was never a focus to build military centric warships when policy was driven by diplomacy supported by science rather than firepower.
I am curious if anyone knows of any links to very well done fan fiction or novels that discuss carriers in Star Trek. I would be interested to read if you have a link.
Rules of Acquisition at Priority One
:rolleyes: The "exploration" Cruiser's was as powerful as the warships of other governments. Their Frigates from the 23rd century were still capable even during the late 24th century. Most starfleet ships had enough firepower to blow away a planet without trying.
Up until the first wave of designs came out of the Advanced Starship Design Bureau (more commonly known by some folks as the Anti-Borg Task Force) you would be correct. After that event and the subsequent Borg and Dominion conflicts, Starfleet made no qualms about building ships bred for war.
Despite the Akira's emergence in the latter third of DS9, carriers never really entered the expanded universe of Trek whole hog until STO came along. The Memory Alpha/Beta entries for the Akira are pretty good, albeit somewhat concise. Give those a glance over if you're so inclined.
As powerful as many Federation ships were in the latter half of the 24th century, most were exclusively multi-role ships that packed a punch, but were not explicitly designed for firefights.
I take it you believe SW stormtroopers to be terrible shots then?
I suppose you also dismiss the Galaxy Class just one shotting an entire races defense force of fighters.
Everything you list here is an expendable device that's unmanned. A fighter is manned (otherwise it's a drone), and that crew isn't expendable in a ship so highly outgunned.
I'm sorry, but that's terrible justification. Just because they're willing to die, or even suicidal, doesn't justify enabling them to do so. Letting people just die is an inefficient use of resources and personnel.
They wouldn't be. These are tin cans in comparison to the ships you're setting them against. Unlike naval ships, the armor on some of these ships is measure in meters not millimeters. Battlecruisers (or fast battleships) like the Sovereign shake off photon torpedoes. Such a ship, in canon, is capable of dozens of simultaneous shots per second.
Not to mention the Scimitar that shook off a few Quantum torpedoes.
Torpedoes are also ordnance based, meaning that the amount of material used in the explosion matters. So far as I know, fighters and shuttles carry micro-torpedoes. Not nearly as powerful as a full torpedo.
Fighters are not a viable ordinance delivery platform without significant loss of life and resources. A carrier means nothing when it's pilots are dead, regardless of its ability to replicate the ships, if that's even possible. This is not WW2. These are not modern warships, and these are not environments even remotely like any battlefield that could be found on earth for an analog.
The reason fighters are used in militaries around the world is their benefit as compared to their cost. They cost significantly less when compared to a battleship, have 1-3 man crews, and carry weapons capable of penetrating modern armors on warships. They also can out run the ship.
In space, they don't have a speed advantage, in fact many have already said here that any ship would probably outrun these fighters.
Oo, look, fighters. A few dozen? Ok, wipe them up in a few seconds of phaser fire and move on. A few hundred? Even still, a minute or so of phaser fire. A few thousand? Well, turn around and outrun them. You can't fire on what you can't get into range of.
"Second star on the right, and straight on till morning."
U.S.S. Weatherlight
I don't think we are saying two different things.
I am just providing context anyway. That is what Gene Roddenberry said in Las Vegas at one of the conventions I attended. This is a topic he discussed because it was a question that came up, in particular the issue came up in the early 90s when George Lucas announced he was making more Star Wars movies.
Rules of Acquisition at Priority One
That still doesn't mean they are ships for war.hy do people think that "peaceful in spirit" equals "weak and foolish" and if your ships are able to stand their ground or even superior to others you're a "badas warfighter"?
Starfleet's credo is non-military. Even after the DW. That never changed, at least it was never stated. Their design philosophy says that Starfleet's ships are and have always been multi-mission craft, capable of doing whatever is necessary. Exploration, transportation, colonisation, whatever as well as peacekeeping and fighting. The only exceptions from this rule we know of are the Defiant class which was a warship and the Oberth class which is a pure "science vessel". It would be foolish to do all that with ships that wouldn't scare off more aggressive people or that could defend themselves when need arose.
I know most people on the internet want to play super-badass warfighters, sitting in their ultra-cool starfighters on the hiiiiiighwaaaay to the danger zone but in this case Star Trek is the wrong place to go. Even Klingons don't do that.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
A space fighter is more like a WWII torpedo boat, very fast but yet sill using the same medium as it's mothership. Since targeting systems and Weapon strenghts are Way stronger than today the relation between fighter and ship are much blatant than today.
Compared to its size a space fighter in Star Trek cannot load enough devestating weapons to seriously damage a enemy ship at all, quite the contrary the enemy ships weapon systems are much deadlier then comparable systems today.
So the balance shifted towards big ships and made fighters almost flying coffins. A starfleet carrier is a paradox in itself, since Starfleet would never send its officers into certain death on a regular basis.
Even shuttles (without plot armor) do not stand a chance when fighting a starship. They are just smaller short range transports, except a runabout, which is more like a sized down starship but still way too weak to pose a threat to a starship, because it's weapons just cannot penetrate a statships shield system and armor.
I can understand that many just want a Carrier because they think they are "cool", but it's almost like wanting to play a jedi knight, Carriers just don't belong to Star Trek. Ok ther was ONE or two mentioned, but did they make any big difference?
The Star Trek universe works just different to the standart Sci Fi universe, in my opinion aligning it too much on other sci fi universes removes it's uniqueness.
To be honest i have missed that day carriers became that popular in STO, can anyone explain me why almost everyone wants one?
My take on that is that, while the shields are still up, fighters would only be moderately effecive by themselves, but, while the carrier ship is engaged, they could potentially do damage FAR beyond their size.
As for it not taking years to train fighter pilots, I would disagree here. While the process may be more condensed than our modern jet fighter aircraft, again in canon, Starfleet Academy maintains at least one training wing that specializes in small fighter-like craft. (TNG: The First Duty, VOY: Non Sequitor) Nova and Red Squadrons are both examples of this, as is Falcon Squadron. The program Red Squadron was a part of (kind of an internship, if you will, on board an active vessel) was a new idea in the early 2370's.
This speaks to a few points. Why would Starfleet be expanding their fighter-craft training programs if fighter craft were no longer a viable option? Why would the Federation still be using Peregrines (and, presumably, modernizing and refitting or retrofitting, as well as introducing new designs), if they were not still viable?
And while the Federation may not use the swarm and ramming tactics of other factions, and would not carelessly and willingly throw away lives, they are the defense force of the Federation, and, as such, would risk lives in CALCULATED engagements, as they saw it to be necessary.
We have to remember that the Federation, in 2409, has been combatting the Borg, along with the Klingongs, and possibly Dominion (though I believe they have been quiet since the fleet got "misplaced" in the wormhole) for 30 years since the end of the TV shows. Tactics have likely evolved, as well as the weapons.
The only carrier that was explicity named as such was the Kazon ship - which was in the DELTA QUADRANT and belonged to a species which was even ignored by the Borg because they weren't considered a threat at all. This is not due to their carriers, but it's not a good example of effective carrier/fighter combos in Star Trek
I'd even buy (as in believe) some kind of shuttle carrier for starfleet but that wouldn't be a vessel geared for combat. But this debate is running circles. Star Trek just doesn't work with carriers and fighters and it's pretty much irrelevant how "cool" they are. Even the Akira class that was explicitly designed as a carrier by it's creator didn't make it as a carrier in-canon. It became a medium escort (as in function not class) cruiser that pretty much died every time it was on screen (might be mistaken or overexaggerating here
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
What, precisely, is the issue people have here? Small craft, or the carriers? I think it is established without any doubt that fighters served a role in multiple space-going navies.
There is only one on-screen example of a carrier that I am aware of, being the Kazon carrier. However, it would be silly to expect a fighter to be present in a fleet with the pilot being stuck in the craft for WEEKS on end to get to front line destinations, when any shuttle bay on any starship could serve as a hangar, and keep the pilot fresh for combat when needed.
The game is an evolution of what we see on screen, one in which the Federation is in a state of full blown war. Why wouldn't the tactics and ships change to reflect that? We cannot rely on everything in canon to be the ONLY evidence of a ship's existence, or a ship type. Otherwise, we get bored with the ships we see. This gameplay offers a different style, and, in my opinion, is something we need to embrace, much like different playstyles in game.
I'll try.
For a Star trek fan the hero ship of a series is almost a character of its own. Sometimes it's got more character than some of the crew(Voy
Some are more likeable and others are not.
It's the place where the heros live, the main crew and the ship are almost one entity, similar to a sailing ship and it's crew.
A carrier type of ship is something completely different, first and foremost it's more a "thing" than a character. It is more like a moveable Airfield.
The ship itself stays away from the enemy and let's the fighters do the fighting, instead of being face to face to the enemy.
Which is somehow cowardly, compared with directly exchanging broadsides.
Could you imagine Picard or Kirk standing in a CIC and directing fighter ships towards the Klingons or Romulans? It just wouldn't be right. This is not BSG.
Trek is more like a ship in Napoleonic times or a WWI Battleship but not about a moving airfield.
Maybe one Captain sitting in his chair is a antiqued picture for some, but i think it's still a grand picture.
That's not the only issue, the mentality of a Battlestar crew is (has to be) a completely different thing than the Crew of a Starfleet ship (which is supposed to be a evolution of NASA, not the US Navy).
Maybe some "fans" want the crew to go for each others throat all the time. But that's not Star Trek for me.
I know MANY "fans" want a much more militarized Star Trek but there is a line somewhere, where Trek wouldn't be Star Trek anymore. We already have laughably OP Escorts (there was only ONE type of escort in canon starfleet at all) completely dominating the game, and now everyone seems to want carriers and fighters... whats next Jedi?
(Because seomeone showed telekinetic powers on one point, blah blah)
Everytime i read something like "we want carriers" i tend to think, have those people ever seen one single episode Star Trek?
Where comes that urge to have Carriers in a Star Trek game suddenly?
Am i the only one thinking that carriers are completely out of place in Star Trek?
Talking about playstyles in STO, realisticly there is only one Playstyle: Damage Damage Damage...
and Escorts are the kings. Crusiers and Science ships have become 3rd and 2nd rate ships, since their destructive powers have been made rediculus compared to Escorts.
In my opinion Cryptic should develop playing a Cruiser much more than introducing Carriers.
There could be so much to improve, like Weapons modulations or Warp Core adjustments.
Heck even old Games like "the final unity" was a better Ship simulation and it's from 1995(!). I know STO is a MMO and not a simulation, but who says it can't be a bit of both?
Instead of introducing ships/weapon systems that alienates Star Trek, Cryptic should improve already existing ships and expand gameplay.
If introducing carriers is the only way a Star trek game can evolve, what's next?
What comes after carriers?
Flyable Starbases? (hey DS9 moved some Kilomters, i want a Starbase on my own.
Cars in space? (Voyager encountered a old truck in space at one point)
Playable Space fighters? Of course able to fight against those target practices some call Cruisers, lol. (For those wanting even faster ships than escorts. Of course Spacefighters have to be "balanced" because it's a MMO)
Flyable Dyson Spheres?
Transpormers tm?
The USMC?
Tell me, where is it still Star Trek and where begins the generic military Sci Fi series?
That's the real question here. We can end the discussion wether sub-warp fighters and carriers make sense in-universe (they don't :P and most things titled "fighters" are corvettes or small frigates even, don't get hung up on the terminology) but we should discuss the point WHY we want to play a Star Trek game that's bascially nothing like Star Trek anymore? If people don't like the style that has been established through the shows (and they tried to change that drastically with the movies, I give you that) why would they want to play Star Trek Online to begin with and not choose one of the many other games that portray your generic terran navy theme much much better than this game?
Why do you have to make something that's not what you want into something you want while there are tons of games already that offer EXACTLY what you want?
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
You sir, are a champion of Trek. That was a good explanation indeed, with some very valid points. Coulnd't have said it better myself.
That's really not the best example you could have used, Hive Obslaught is easier and quicker if you're careful and burst fire everything in order, and kill it quickly so it doesn't kill you. Most tanks are running BFAW these days, which makes them more of a liability than anything else in Hive (unless they're piloted by very good players)
Kirk's Protege.
No one can deny that.
So why is there a problem with something from the shows being in the game?
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
Yes it can, just hit it hard and get them down quickly. With everyone on the same side you can get it down in <90 seconds, move to the other one and repeat
Kirk's Protege.
Yeah since LoR launched. A few weeks ago I would guess!
They changed the mission difficulty before LoR - LoR just broke it with crippling lances in the 2nd phase. It was a problem that had occured before, been patched out, and then LoR reintroduced it.
Kirk's Protege.
Seemingly they are what Cryptic planned Cruisers to be, Tanks without having sufficient firepower on their own.
But in contrast to Cruisers the have their fighters.
Crusiers on the other hand moving out of focus and Cryptic don't want to give them enough firepower to become a heavy and slower equivalent of the Games "Escorts"*
My biggest problem with Carriers is the complete incompatibility with the technics and ethis of Star Trek.
As i have already said, a Fighter CANNOT withstand a phaser discharge of a Starship, Starfleet would deliberately send its officers into certain death by a reular basis. Everyone assigned as Fighter Pilot would be a walking Dead.
(Btw. Similar as if someone gets transferred to Kirks ship as Security officer, lol.
But i think TOS is just a comedy show in TNGs Holonovels, lol.)
Unlike Cryptic wants to sell us Starfleet doesn't consist of Spartas, starfleet officers are highly educated and trained professionals (unlike Kirk btw.).
This would be in blatant contrast to the ethics of the federation, unlike for some people today, in the Federation life is valuable.
Fighter craft have not always been there in Star Trek at all or do you think any of starfleets Enterprises had Fighters in their shuttlebay?
What you are talking about are Shuttles, which where used mostly in special missions, like distraction or to transport people. And even then, they barely survived by plot armor and sometimes got destroyed anyway.
But they where never used in masses and as main attack force, Star trek isn't Star Wars or Battlestar Galactica, things work different (thankfully). 100 Shuttles would get destroyed before they had even the chance to do any serious damage on a Sovereign class. They just cannot be armed with weapons heavy enough and on the other hand they can be destroyed much too easy due the lack of generating shield Strgon enough to withstand a (comparably) highpowered phaser beam discharge by a Starship.
Other ships like the Jem hadar Atack fighters for instance where just named fighters, they actually where corvettes or even destroyers, so they where incomparable stronger armed and shielded than any fighter could have been.
Don't missunderstand me i like BSG and i partially like Star Wars sometimes, but Star Trek must not become like them.
What i always liked about Star Trek was that it was more like a seafaring expedition of the 17-18 century, just in space, which is today more unique then ever. Combining two great concepts for adventure (not just warfare).
When there was fighting, the ship is directly involved, instead of just sending fighters into Battle. So the Ship doesn't act like a stationalry basis like even a Battlestar does, but it is acting more on itself and fighting for survival.
Just as i already said it was the main character of the show.
While the new BSG showed that a Battlestar can be a Character too (sometimes, especially in the last few episodes), it still is very different from being a ship of Exploration that can defend itself (or attack if necessary), or if the ship was particularly build for warfare. I don't know how i can make this point any more clear, but this difference is crucial IMO.
To put it the other way around (i don't know if you are well versed in fantasy literature, so please forgive if it doesn't make sense to you.)
Seeing Cariirers and Escorts in Star Trek is like if instead of Frodo, Conan the Barbarian would do the journey. Of course it would be some awesome action to see Conan fight masses of Orcs, but that wouldn't be the point of the journey. (btw he would never finish the job. but thats another topic.)
*I could even live with that, Star Trek Online is already so far away from being a Star Trek game. BUT many people playing it and introducing Carriers will change the perception many people have of Star Trek.
Would you want the next Star Trek series to be like BSG?
[There could be made a compromise, if Cryptic would give Cruisers more (i really mean MORE) firepower to make them equivalent to Escorts. So Escorts would be fast, agile and hard hitting, Crusiers slow and also hard hitting. Carriers on the other hand could serve as Tanks, while having their fighters to operate with.
But Cryptic doesn't show ANY sign whatsoever of wanting to improve Crusier at all. So we have Carriers surpassing cruisers in any way, leaving the main shipclass in Star Trek being rendered completely useless in Cryptics little sci fi fantasy.]
If Cryptic continues on this course they should rather give up their Star Trek license and create a own sci Fi universe. At least Star trek fans could play it without getting bellyarches.
They would be Battlecruisers, if they where slower and more sturdy by design.
But they are fast, agile and super heavy armed (i mean, heavier than ships 5 times the size). This makes them to Super Oversized Spacefighters, nothing else IMHO.
They, just like Carriers don't really have a place in Star Trek, they don't even make much sense at all. They are like X-Wings armed with Star Destroyer like Lasers (if you know Star Wars better).
Without enough Firepower that mission cannot be won also. I am not saying that Star trek ships shouldn't have Firepower, quite the contrary, but i am against firepower being monopolized by ONE SHIPCLASS ONLY.
Surely Star Trek had some more Military focused Episodes, but military never ever had such a high emphasis like STO which looks and feels more like BSG in my opinion.
Even Yesterdays Enterprise, a episode i really appreciate and would like to see more of, was far away from being so "hard" militaristic than STO.
STO feels more like "Peacekeeper Online" if you know "Farscape".
That leaves Crusier where?
Unlike Carriers, Cryptic didn't give Crusiers enough offensive power to have a place in STO. Can't you see the bizarreness in this?
And we all know how relilable transporter systems are....
Seriously, Starfleet and Fighters a just NO. Why is that so hard to understand?
If you are such a big Carrier and Fighter fan, why do you bother to play a Star Trek game in the first place?
Why do you want to change Star Trek into something it isn't?
One personal Question:
WHY IS EVERYONE SUDDENLY SO CRAZY ABOUT CARRIERS?
(sorry the caps)
But that's not a basis to build a whole weapon system on.
Escpesially since a normal Fighter/Shuttle isn't equipped with plot armor.
There was exactly ONE ocasion where a sqadron of fighters was supposed to "annoy" some galor Classes to lurem to break formation, and they didn't even got that job done.
You are talking as if Fighters where very common and everyone not wanting them in Star Trek would just deny their existence.
...
Obviously i'm unable to put it into the right words.
Cruisers are FAR away from being able to deal considerable more damage to justify a place besides escorts.
In what sense have Cruisers become "better"?
Surely Cryptic has introduced some new Cruiser like ships for the Romulans. Klingons always had more offensive Cruisers. But Starfleets Cruisers have (as always) draw the short straw.
You still haven't answered my Question:
You obviously don't like Carriers for another reason than lore, and get your judgement clouded by that.
Fighters in ST are canon. Fighters used by Starfleet is canon. Fighter having the same weapons than a ship of the line (IE firepower) is canon. Fighters being powerful enough to swarm a ship of the line and bring it down is canon (Ex : Maquis vs Galor). Fighters capable of surviving one or more hit, and able to avoid most shot is canon.
The only real argument I've read so far was the lack of carriers shown in the fed/KDF ranks. We only see 2 of them, one if the Scimitar, the other one being the Khazon carrier.
Why is that so hard to understand ?
And BTW, about sending people to their death, when a peregrine is destroyed 1 person die. When a Galaxy goes down, 1000people die. Yet, Starfleet send Galaxy to the front line in a daily basis.
And I know IRL is not ST etc, but IRL fighters can be shot by AA, doesn't mean we don't use fighters. For any weapon, there is a counter to it. In any war, there are loss of life. Such is the way of things since the dawn of time, and it will likely continue in the future. "War never changes" and this kind of thing.
Actually when the warp core goes up in smoke after the galaxy has been hit a few times, nobody dies. At that point most crew has been killed two or three times by torpedos hitting the shield already and its only a ghost ship going up in flames. :P
If people want carriers, give them carriers. At the end of the day it doesn't matter if its canon, makes sense or whatever - its about fun.
I for one would like to see some engineering heavy behemoth with hangar bays, but i don't mind if it doesn't come around.
The only reason I will agree with you about fighters being a bad idea is because of the lack of effort it takes to field them, utilize them, and conduct combat with them. But the rest of what you said I cant disagree with more.
1.) Peregrine fighters were apart of a Canon show which makes them Canon. Same with Scorpions. This also means that any additions like the Klingon Fighter is very likely. You might not like that its Canon. But it is. So if Cryptic wanted to add it. They had every right too.
2.) Warp drives does not instantly equate to 'you dont need a carrier'. Fighters are small craft. Only big enough to fit a pilot and co pilot. There are no cargo bays and there are no extra replacement gear laying around. If a peregrine was to become heavily damaged it would need to return to a Cruiser/Carrier to be repaired or safely land. A Cruiser/Carrier would still be essential to fielding these craft. And thanks to the Akira Class. We know that the Federation DOES have Carriers of some sort or at least larger Cruisers like the Galaxy are capable of carrying a wing of fighters.
3.) As seen in the shows the 'advanced targeting systems' werent THAT advanced. They missed just as much as they hit things. And compared to fighter craft of today. They dont seem to be of much difference in threat level. At least with Peregrines they have a hull designed to sustain energy weapon hits. And I dont recall there being shields in the shows for them but if a small shuttle like the Class 8 is about the same size its not unreasonable to believe the Peregrine is capable of sustaining a shield. The shows and movies are full of spectacular technology that are beyond our understanding. A shield for small craft isnt THAT crazy of an idea. Todays Fighter craft face heat seeking missiles, laser and computer guided missiles. How is that any different then energy weapons or torpedoes? The risk will always be there. But the risk of dying in combat is all in a days work. Just because theres a risk doesnt mean the Federation/Starfleet is not willing to put their men and women in the pilot seat to accomplish the mission or succeed at getting an advantage.
4.) I dont know what youre talking about as far as a slap in the face. There has been a steady progression in Space Combat from the day Star Trek appeared on TV screens. And Fighters were on their way one way or another. Not sure how its an attempt to insult anyone. Besides your ridged outlook on how Star Trek combat SHOULD be compared to whats smart and obvious to others. Fighters may not be able to sustain the same type of attack a Cruiser would. But they are much more faster and maneuverable than Cruisers. They can slip through the hail of energy weapons fire, target key areas of an enemy ship and disable/destroy it quicker and easier then a Cruiser could and then get out of there. Sure theres risk. Sure the chances of a fighter pilots death is much higher then a Tactical Officer on the bridge of a Galaxy Class. But in space, even 400 years from now, its still a dangerous place to be and during combat. Regardless of where youre standing/sitting you should be prepared to die. As for the Star Wars comment. Star Wars didnt invent fighters in space. It doesnt have a monopoly on that style of space sci fi and I dont see how Star Wars has anything to do with this topic.