Then it would be fair if the KDF got:
- a 5 tac console raptor
- the equivalent of the Vesta
- a c-store flight-deck escort
- 3-4 science fleet ships
As soon as the KDF gets this then it's fair for the Fed to get a new carrier.
Couldn't have said it better myself. We also need:-
- 4 more Battle Cruisers/Fight-Deck Cruisers
- 2 more Escorts (preferably ones up to par with Fed ones)
- 10 Klingon-based Science Vessels (that aren't Carriers or crappy Gorn ships)
Once we have everything diogene and I said, with some 1-50 KDF-exclusive content and items, then we can start talking. Until then, the answer is no.
Play my missions on Holodeck! Return of Ja'Dok Series (6 Part Series) Enemy of the Exile Series (4 Part Series) Task Force Ja'Dok Series (3 Part Series)
Has anyone ever taken a look at the carrier from the game Star Fleet Command from back in the day. The only true official fed carrier I have ever see. Google it for a screen shot.
Has anyone ever taken a look at the carrier from the game Star Fleet Command from back in the day. The only true official fed carrier I have ever see. Google it for a screen shot.
Its the picture I linked above. :P
Can't have a honest conversation because of a white knight with power
It is... in canon. Apparently it is 1500m long in DS9 (source).
And the Atrox is around 1300 metres long.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Has anyone ever taken a look at the carrier from the game Star Fleet Command from back in the day. The only true official fed carrier I have ever see. Google it for a screen shot.
"official"...good one
It's from the 1970's tabletop "Star Fleet Battles", which is not even set in the Star Trek universe.
The entire game universe with all the ships and the backstory was licensed by Interplay for Starfleet Command.
They were only allowed to put the "Star Trek" label on it because they also held the license for TOS and the first 6 movies at the time.
That's why there's the "General War" going on in that game that doesn't exist in canon Trek and why there are so many species we never seen in canon either.
The only real difference between Star Fleet Battles and Starfleet Command is that the ships look a bit different.
Hmm Im not sure about this but I don't think star fleet has ever created a "True Carrier" In fact all it's vessels have been a deterrent to war. Huge ships,huge hulls, and their powerful weapons weren't designed to be powerful in fact all the great weapons of the day were either in experimental ships or devised by crews and captains who either had no choice but to make new innovations that went against the prime directive or bent it or from crew members who have no alliance to fleet command only to their ship and to their own lives. Such as Seven, she created just about every advance we take for granted in this game. Not for star fleet, but for her ship and captain.
A Carrier is basically a slap in the face to this code of peace they "Pretend" to uphold. Since a Carrier is basically saying "I am a ship built for nothing but war! Where my counterparts are knives, tools that can be used for both peace and war, I am an AK47 with no other use other then to demand respect and keep peace through fear." Not very Fed to me.
Anywho the argument could be made that this is not star trek so it shouldn't matter then the flip side of it would be then "Why are you asking for star trek things in a non star trek game?"
As far as I know, this is all fan fiction and money grabbing while trying to pretend to be star trek that's why all the carriers belonged to either a warring ally or a long gone or inert race that conveniently does not respond to the so called hailing of the Fed and Klink side to come pick up their superior weapons and ships that is lightyears ahead of their counterparts. And now all of a sudden the JHEC and the JDread fell off the back of a truck and we are supposed to be led to believe that we are doing everything in our power to return these uber vessels to their creators.
That's interesting, I've never seen a carrier built for defense, ever.
It's a statement that says I will bring the pain to you. Your air space is mine, your country is mine. I have a military and a air force on board and will make your life a living hell. Have a nice day.
These things just aren't built for defense.
Just because you use a battleship to defend does not mean that's the purpose it was built. A weapon is a weapon it's not firing nerf darts I'll tell you that much. Though technically we can't compare a game to real life, if in a game a carrier is useless and just a toy, in real life it is a dangerous statement of sovereignty
I've always supported making the old Jupiter class a carrier. The boxy shape of the primary part of the ship can be refitted with a TON of shuttle bays or launch hangers. Also, it's bloody massive, and has an awful turn rate. Pretty sure it's a carrier.
I've always supported making the old Jupiter class a carrier. The boxy shape of the primary part of the ship can be refitted with a TON of shuttle bays or launch hangers. Also, it's bloody massive, and has an awful turn rate. Pretty sure it's a carrier.
As much as I might like a full carrier, I would rather have none than that ugly box of a ship.
Can't have a honest conversation because of a white knight with power
All that post who cares the federation aren't meant to have carriers
Plus whatever comes out of those starfleet docks will never match the mighty voquv
----=====This is my opinion you don't have to listen and no one else has to read them these "OPINIONS" are based on my exploits and my learning other people will have their opinions and that's fine just don't knock my way of doing things thanks=====---- :cool:
I said a carrier have minimum defenses, it relies on its attached craft for self defense.
How your carriers are working in Afghanistan? Oh right ...
Serious, stop the chest pounding USA! USA! USA! ... carriers can project force as I mentioned but so can submarines these days, we are not in 1943 any more.
In Trek ANY starship can level a planent, carriers are not needed because they carry far less destructive power that any ship of the fleet.
You want me start pointing the history of carriers? way back to balloon tenders and the USS George Washington Parke Custis in the American civil war?
For the last 60 years now, battleships been used for a role they were not build for, heavy fire support.
You could not picked a worst example because the Iowa-class battleships have long stop doing what they were designed to do, that was to escort Fast Carrier Task Forces.
Do you really want for me to start to go about carriers that started as merchant ships before they were converted into carriers.
A carrier is useless by itself, unless you think the Phalanx CIWS and Sea Sparrows are very dangerous.
What is on-board MIGHT be dangerous but look what India did when the USS Enterprise was send to the Indian back in 1971, do we still have the East Pakistan?
Yes, its useless depending on circumstances, the show of force did not worked because the Enterprise was not going to use its nukes.
Also going back to Trek do explain were Carriers are frighting?
Ability to level a planet? any starship can do that and smaller craft are less likely to be able to carry that kind of destruction.
So whats next ... I suppose they can increase the patrol range but that just means they are very good SCOUT and PATROL ships.
Besides that I can only see then ferry personal, meaning they would be good to invade a planet but heck that is hardly new and troops take space, they might as well convert some cargo ships for that.
In Trek I cannot see then as anything as supporting craft because, simply put, the smaller craft simply lack the destructive abilities of larger craft, its not WW II were a single TBF Avenger could sink a ship, things as "airspace" dont exist because of the vastness of space makes it impossible to attempt to control it (planetary lanes are a different matter but orbital defense platforms are cheap).
You've been misinformed. Battleships were formerly designed as a naval superiority weapon, not as carrier escorts/pickets. Sometimes they were attached to carrier strike forces as flagships, but for the most part, their mission was to seek out, and destroy other battleships, and provide long range fire support during amphibious operations. Their role has since been supplanted by the guided missle cruiser/destroyer.
The reason you never saw any fighter craft in any canon trek, is that fighters are far to small, and possess no warp core, which would allow the power levels necessary to A) provide adequate shielding from starship weaponry, and provide effective weaponry against starship shielding. A Miranda class starship's targeting, and fire control systems, even at low power levels, would be more than sufficient, to toast multiple wings of fighter craft, simultaneously. This is ignored in the silly, views, expressed by Cryptic in STO. So even though some glorious, Klingons wouldn't be adverse to flying kamikaze missions in small craft, the Federation is not in the business of sending young pilots to their death.
Another reason the "Aircraft Analogy" doesn't hold water, is... water. Dive bombers, and torpedo planes had the advantage of being able to move in three dimensional space, over ships, which could only move two dimensionally, over a flat plane. This allowed pilots on attack vectors, "dead spots", where defensive fire could not target them. Starship combat, by way of comparisson, takes place in three dimensional space, with weapons that have 360 degree firing arcs, negating any such advantage.
This is why any type of offensive, carrier vessel in STO, is sillier than an electric blanket mobile.
First, it's "Good news everyone!". Second, will you KDF whiners stop complaining. Go back and watch every battle ever containing Klingons. You will see over a dozen different types of Federation vessels ranging from the small Defiant class to the massive Galaxy class. You will see three types of Klingon ships: Bird of Preys, Vor'chas and K't'ingas. Four if you count Negvars but only one of those was in service during the entire Dominion War and the others appeared in alternate timelines. Klingon starships are like Russian tanks, they pick a few designs (e.g. T34, Stalin II) and build as many of them as possible hoping to overwhelm their foes with superior numbers. If you want multiple ship classes, join the Federation. Klingons prefer quantity over variety. Watch DS9. You'll see what I am talking about.
he does have a point, but in the b'rel owners workshop manual it says there is a large variaton between individual ships depending on the house that owns it so we should have dif versions of existing ships with diff stats and layouts plus there are ships that we dont have like the k'vort and gowrons Nig'var(take a close look at the one in the show its not the same as the one ingame)
The Iowa-class design started in 1938, at that time it was more that known that the Carriers would be replacing battleships as the center of the battle groups.
The Iowa was designed to be fast enough to keep up with carriers and to engage any ships that could come close to the battle group.
I have not been misinformed, those ships were further modified by the realities of the Pacific theater, the first Iowa class to be commissioned was the USS Iowa, it was laid down in 1940, launched in 1941 and commissioned in 1942.
I am quite aware of what battleships were originally meant to do, however anything like the Battle of Jutland never happened in WW II; what DID happened was Pearl Harbor and Prince of Wales, I could add other examples as the Yamato and even the Bismarck.
Realities change the role of ships, the Iowa was a battleship because of its armament and tonnage but its intended role was to escort Carriers and defend then from cruisers and battleships.
Oh dear Lord ...
I do not have the time to go over the entire naval history of World War II, I can only say you are so wrong.
Except the Federation Attack Fighter in DS9:Sacrifice of Angels ...
Ok so ... let me get this.
We "never say any fighter craft in any canon trek" BUT apparently we seen the "Miranda targeting and control system" "toasting multiple wings of fighter craft."
Of course the above is false, we HAVE seen them as I mentioned and yes, we have been told the Cardassian/Dominion Fleet were destroying them ... of course considering how that battle gone it does not tell us much as we seen Mirandas being destroyed as well as the Federation Attack Fighters wings were send alone to lure ships away from the main forces, they simply did not bite the bait.
This tired old comment again.
Also no, the Klingons are NOT suicidal, they are NOT Imperial Japan of the 1944's as they were original based on the Mongols.
I made no attempt at such a analogy, I only said conditions change as we gone from Jutland to Pearl Harbor with the role of the Battleship being altered over the years.
I made my comments in relation to Carriers being " OMG! aggressive warship meant only for war and killing kittens" that a rather ignorant view, a carrier does what it says ... it carries, question is WHAT it carriers.
You people are always with the same TRIBBLE, on one hand the very mention carrier strikes so much fear into the hearts of the people they faint yet at the same time they are utter worthless.
Pick one argument and stick with it but now you mention Battleships is a horrible word YET we have the Typhoon Class Battleship, yet we have the Dreadnought Cruiser.
So carrier is BAD WORD! BAD WORD! yet Dreadnought is perfectly fine.
I have no desire to go back to this tired old argument since THAT ship have sailed (Atrox, Heavy Escort Carrier) and further discussion is POINTLESS, however I do say this.
Right now the Federation True Carrier force is almost exclusive made from the Recluse and now the Jem'hadar Dreadnought ... you DONT have a problem with that? the fact non-Federation ships are taking the place of proper Federation ships because ... well the Heavy Escort Carrier is the 2nd most common escort but still a escort and the Atrox is a rather disappointing ship (even it made so many rage/quit back on its release) since its a Cruiser/Science ship with the worst of both of those ships.
Not quite sure if your sources are fouled or you're just making this stuff up to troll. Here's the deal:
After the battle of Taranto (look it up) and Pearl Harbor (look it up) the U.S. Naval doctrine was that carriers, along with cruiser/submarine screens, were more than capable of defending themselves. The major threat to carriers weren't battleships. It was aircraft, and submarines.
Now that that's established, the U.S.S. Iowa, Wisconsin, Missouri, and New Jersey were designed from the keel up, as battleships. They were NOT designed as some super destroyer escort, that people then decided to call battleships, as you purport. Their inception, was a direct counter to the new, faster, bigger, super, battleships that Japan was laying down, Yamato, Musashi, and an unnamed third, later to become the Shinano.
Actually, to properly understand the battleship's role, you'd have to go back farther than the entire, naval, history of WWII. Enough said.
The fighters you speak of in DS9 were never, actually, portrayed as carrier, launched, fighters. Nor were any carrier operations ever portrayed in DS9, or otherwise. Those fighters were planetary defense craft, similar to those that got wasted by the Borg cube in TNG. The Federation's "fighter", the Peregrine's actual designation is "courier" vessel, not "fighter".
No, I never said the Miranda was portrayed targeting multiple wings of fighter craft, in any Trek. This is conjecture based on A) The U.S.S. Reliant's phasers tore a gash in the side U.S.S. Enterprise, that was at least 3 decks high. What do you think would happen to a small, unshielded, one man craft? Like I said, toast. And The fire control computer in a primitive 21st century tank like the M1 abrams can aquire, and target 3 different targets, simultaneosly. How many can the positronic computers of the 25th aquire, and destroy?
And yes anyone attacking a starship in a small, unshielded, fighter, Klingon, or otherwise, IS suicidal. Notice how, even in STO, few, if any fighters survive an engagement? This is because they're not truly, an offensive weapon. Carriers launch them, to keep the targets busy, while either the carrier, or his friends, whale on the target. This, from the standpoint of someone who would pilot these "fighters", IS a suicide mission. Not sure why you thought I said the Klinks were modelled on the Japanese, either. I never said that.
Lastly, I'm not sure what point you were trying to make concerning battleships, and dreadnaughts, being BAD WORDS. So there will be no rebuttal.
Um... guys, as much as I enjoyed the history lesson/debate here, can we get back on topic of discussing a fed carrier/derailing this fed carrier thread?
It is said the best weapon is one that is never fired. I disagree. The best weapon is one you only have to fire... once.
We have enough carriers as it is now. To be honest the heavy escort carrier is better then what a flight deck carrier would be, shame the fleet version is T5 shipyard.
We have enough carriers as it is now. To be honest the heavy escort carrier is better then what a flight deck carrier would be, shame the fleet version is T5 shipyard.
I don't want a flight deck carrier...I want a true carrier.
Can't have a honest conversation because of a white knight with power
I'd like to see a Starfleet design as a carrier ship, purely down to being able to customize the hull and materials. Having the Atrox since release it does get stale in the looks department.
I'd be happy to have a nebula refit with a 2 hangar mission pod.
`my reasons? the B'Rel BoP is a true glass cannon, exactly what ALL escorts should be, it should have +5 tac console.
most escorts have hugs hulls and MASSIVE damage and the ability to tank and defend itself better than almost every other ship, The B'Rel has low hull and should have massive damage exactly what people who want to DPS everything should be flying! ... Period.
to the OP, the Atrox is fine, to be a carrier you depend on your fighters, as for the Vesta its a horrid ship, its the most vile statement of a ship.
I played from Open Beta and I still continue to play, during the first and second year of STO Tactical Captains where able to use Science Powers better than Science Captains who had spec'd their skills to that power.
in turn cryptic down toned every skill that the Tactical Captains used... the Vesta just gives Tactical Captains the edge over true Science/Science Captains.
as for the Armitage Escort Carrier, its a vile statement against the KDF, who continue to this day to recieve nothing. maybe a mirror ship in this box and mirror ship in that box.
RachelJ88
Nevermind that the KDF-only BoP that is completely customizable, what with it having nothing but Universal boff slots.
As for the HEC and the KDF getting nothing?
* All of the LG rank ships, with the exceptions of the Bortas and Guramba are 500 zen cheaper than the fed VA ships.
* KDF gets a #FREE# carrier at rank up.
* While not VA, KDF gets a cruiser-carrier combo.
*The Kar'fi is more than a match for the equivalent Atrox, in terms of capability, is the same rank, and yet, again, is 500 zen cheaper.
* Some, not all, of the KDF carriers can launch frigates. There is, to date, not a SINGLE Fed ship that can claim the same ability. While this only includes 2 ships, that's 2 more than the Federation can claim.
I do not dispute that the KDF needs more ships. Far from it. I would, however, also argue that there should be some parity, which goes both ways, especially on the subject of carriers.
Nevermind that the KDF-only BoP that is completely customizable, what with it having nothing but Universal boff slots.
As for the HEC and the KDF getting nothing?
* All of the LG rank ships, with the exceptions of the Bortas and Guramba are 500 zen cheaper than the fed VA ships.
* KDF gets a #FREE# carrier at rank up.
* While not VA, KDF gets a cruiser-carrier combo.
*The Kar'fi is more than a match for the equivalent Atrox, in terms of capability, is the same rank, and yet, again, is 500 zen cheaper.
* Some, not all, of the KDF carriers can launch frigates. There is, to date, not a SINGLE Fed ship that can claim the same ability. While this only includes 2 ships, that's 2 more than the Federation can claim.
I do not dispute that the KDF needs more ships. Far from it. I would, however, also argue that there should be some parity, which goes both ways, especially on the subject of carriers.
Why does the Federation need carriers?
And why does everyone want everything to be homogenized every which way?
A complete overhaul on the cruisers, if I want to fly carriers, I'll play my Klingon character and jump in the mirror Vo'quv. What is really needed is more cruisers with Lt Cmd tac slots, flying escorts all the time gets stale over time and it's getting boring.
I seem to have more fun in my Sovereign Refit than I do in my collection of escorts, and yes I would love a Typhoon Class battleship but another fed carrier not really.
"The meaning of victory is not to merely defeat your enemy but to destroy him, to completely eradicate him from living memory, to leave no remnant of his endeavours, to crush utterly his achievement and remove from all record his every trace of existence. From that defeat no enemy can ever recover. That is the meaning of victory."
-Lord Commander Solar Macharius
A complete overhaul on the cruisers, if I want to fly carriers, I'll play my Klingon character and jump in the mirror Vo'quv. What is really needed is more cruisers with Lt Cmd tac slots, flying escorts all the time gets stale over time and it's getting boring.
I seem to have more fun in my Sovereign Refit than I do in my collection of escorts, and yes I would love a Typhoon Class battleship but another fed carrier not really.
More Cruisers with Lt.Cmd Tac slots? 3 aren't enough? Advanced Heavy, Assault R and Odyssey. (Admittedly that's a Uni Lt.Com but still).
I was once DKnight1000, apparently I had taken my own name so now I'm DKnight0001. If I ask you a question it is not an insult but a genuine attempt to understand why. When I insult you I won't be discreet about it, I will be precise and to the point stupid.
IMO i feel that STO is losing some of that faction individuality. while i do agree with play balance , each faction shouldn't be a carbon copy . one faction should do one thing better than the others , with each having a suitable counter towards those.
as for fed carriers to be honest cruisers like the GALAXY have HUGE auxiliary craft bays ( as seen in the Enterprise -D blue prints ) there is a reason for them mostly showing shuttle bay 2 and 3 in TNG . shuttle bay one is really a major flight deck with part of the saucer on either side of it for maintenance and launch prep. thats prob too big of a expense at the time to show on camera .
so the other big fed cruisers are prob similar. i really feel that dedicated carriers are really unnecessary in star fleet . with a simple restock , any big cruiser can be come a true fighter carrier . or use what it has in shuttles to fill the role .
You mean like Star Wars? Nobody could possibly want to play an Imperial or Sith, right?
Mmmmm, no, not at all like that even a little bit. To watch and enjoy star trek is to be a fan of the federation and starfleet. Not a side/enemy race (one of many) that appears in a fraction of the episodes and a few of the movies.
Star wars is, in many ways, ABOUT the Sith.
____________________________________________________
Pay no attention to the dates and titles under my name at the left! I am a Career Officer, Lifetime Sub since launch, was in the Beta. Having problems with my forum account.
A true carrier (to me, in my opinion) would be a cruiser on steroids. I just retired my Multi-Mission Reconnaissance Explorer (after 3 months of faithful service) with my Fed Character. Now my new baby, is the Atrox (I've flown it for 3 whole days now). Managing 6 Scorpion's with my Multi-Mission Reconnaissance Explorer was easy (because I've flown it for 3 whole months). But 12 fighters (6 Scorpions & 6 Stalker Fighters ) is a handful with the Atrox. Trying to keep them alive and repair their shields so that they can all reach 5 starts requires a lot more concentration. I don't know about the players with other Carriers, but for me I don't want another carrier.
Instead allow every cruiser or science ship to launch Roundabouts and have the carrier commands. Those of us with the current carriers can continue to manage our fighters. And if you really want more "carrier feel" allow the current carriers to have a 3rd or 4th hangar slot. That way they can launch 48 fighters at once or a combination of fighters, worker bees and repair drones.
That's my compromise. I think everyone (except the Escort players) would like to have those options on the table.
One day Cryptic will be free from their Perfect World overlord. Until that day comes, they will continue to pamper the whales of this game, and ignore everyone that isn't a whale.
hey there, YES!!!!! it is time. how about making the galaxy-x, a dreadnought carrier?? with more tactical consoles, boff's, 2 hangers, more engineering consoles.
or, maybe, take an odyssey and make her a carrier??
There's really no need for a new Federation Carrier...though I certainly wouldn't complain if there was (minus those damn money sink lockbox ships)
They just need to update the game's existing "true carriers" you know the ones with 2 hanger bays...
To compete with "fleet" variant ships atrox could prolly use
-above everything else, this is most important honestly(especially given the ranking system)...an atrox specific frigate class pet...I honestly don't care if its a redesigned aquarius, defiant, or "caitan" frigate, as long as we get one.
the Atrox is just getting outclassed by the other carriers that CAN field frigates...its a bit depressing...since I'm using one...
-a 5th boff would be nice
a tweak to the ranking system or defenses of those "fighters" in general would be nice too...to account for their lack of ability to survive long enough to rank up to balance out fighters vs frigates.
Comments
It is... in canon. Apparently it is 1500m long in DS9 (source).
Couldn't have said it better myself. We also need:-
- 4 more Battle Cruisers/Fight-Deck Cruisers
- 2 more Escorts (preferably ones up to par with Fed ones)
- 10 Klingon-based Science Vessels (that aren't Carriers or crappy Gorn ships)
Once we have everything diogene and I said, with some 1-50 KDF-exclusive content and items, then we can start talking. Until then, the answer is no.
Return of Ja'Dok Series (6 Part Series)
Enemy of the Exile Series (4 Part Series)
Task Force Ja'Dok Series (3 Part Series)
Its the picture I linked above. :P
And the Atrox is around 1300 metres long.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
"official"...good one
It's from the 1970's tabletop "Star Fleet Battles", which is not even set in the Star Trek universe.
The entire game universe with all the ships and the backstory was licensed by Interplay for Starfleet Command.
They were only allowed to put the "Star Trek" label on it because they also held the license for TOS and the first 6 movies at the time.
That's why there's the "General War" going on in that game that doesn't exist in canon Trek and why there are so many species we never seen in canon either.
The only real difference between Star Fleet Battles and Starfleet Command is that the ships look a bit different.
http://store.starfleetstore.com/merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=S&Product_Code=0299&Category_Code=FM
look familiar?;)
A Carrier is basically a slap in the face to this code of peace they "Pretend" to uphold. Since a Carrier is basically saying "I am a ship built for nothing but war! Where my counterparts are knives, tools that can be used for both peace and war, I am an AK47 with no other use other then to demand respect and keep peace through fear." Not very Fed to me.
Anywho the argument could be made that this is not star trek so it shouldn't matter then the flip side of it would be then "Why are you asking for star trek things in a non star trek game?"
As far as I know, this is all fan fiction and money grabbing while trying to pretend to be star trek that's why all the carriers belonged to either a warring ally or a long gone or inert race that conveniently does not respond to the so called hailing of the Fed and Klink side to come pick up their superior weapons and ships that is lightyears ahead of their counterparts. And now all of a sudden the JHEC and the JDread fell off the back of a truck and we are supposed to be led to believe that we are doing everything in our power to return these uber vessels to their creators.
free jkname
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
It's a statement that says I will bring the pain to you. Your air space is mine, your country is mine. I have a military and a air force on board and will make your life a living hell. Have a nice day.
These things just aren't built for defense.
Just because you use a battleship to defend does not mean that's the purpose it was built. A weapon is a weapon it's not firing nerf darts I'll tell you that much. Though technically we can't compare a game to real life, if in a game a carrier is useless and just a toy, in real life it is a dangerous statement of sovereignty
As much as I might like a full carrier, I would rather have none than that ugly box of a ship.
I agree in that it's ugly, but I DO want a proper Starfleet carrier design, and that's the only thing the Jupiter seems designed to be.
Also, it looks a TON better than the Vo'quv's variant.
Plus whatever comes out of those starfleet docks will never match the mighty voquv
You've been misinformed. Battleships were formerly designed as a naval superiority weapon, not as carrier escorts/pickets. Sometimes they were attached to carrier strike forces as flagships, but for the most part, their mission was to seek out, and destroy other battleships, and provide long range fire support during amphibious operations. Their role has since been supplanted by the guided missle cruiser/destroyer.
The reason you never saw any fighter craft in any canon trek, is that fighters are far to small, and possess no warp core, which would allow the power levels necessary to A) provide adequate shielding from starship weaponry, and
Another reason the "Aircraft Analogy" doesn't hold water, is... water. Dive bombers, and torpedo planes had the advantage of being able to move in three dimensional space, over ships, which could only move two dimensionally, over a flat plane. This allowed pilots on attack vectors, "dead spots", where defensive fire could not target them. Starship combat, by way of comparisson, takes place in three dimensional space, with weapons that have 360 degree firing arcs, negating any such advantage.
This is why any type of offensive, carrier vessel in STO, is sillier than an electric blanket mobile.
he does have a point, but in the b'rel owners workshop manual it says there is a large variaton between individual ships depending on the house that owns it so we should have dif versions of existing ships with diff stats and layouts plus there are ships that we dont have like the k'vort and gowrons Nig'var(take a close look at the one in the show its not the same as the one ingame)
Not quite sure if your sources are fouled or you're just making this stuff up to troll. Here's the deal:
After the battle of Taranto (look it up) and Pearl Harbor (look it up) the U.S. Naval doctrine was that carriers, along with cruiser/submarine screens, were more than capable of defending themselves. The major threat to carriers weren't battleships. It was aircraft, and submarines.
Now that that's established, the U.S.S. Iowa, Wisconsin, Missouri, and New Jersey were designed from the keel up, as battleships. They were NOT designed as some super destroyer escort, that people then decided to call battleships, as you purport. Their inception, was a direct counter to the new, faster, bigger, super, battleships that Japan was laying down, Yamato, Musashi, and an unnamed third, later to become the Shinano.
Actually, to properly understand the battleship's role, you'd have to go back farther than the entire, naval, history of WWII. Enough said.
The fighters you speak of in DS9 were never, actually, portrayed as carrier, launched, fighters. Nor were any carrier operations ever portrayed in DS9, or otherwise. Those fighters were planetary defense craft, similar to those that got wasted by the Borg cube in TNG. The Federation's "fighter", the Peregrine's actual designation is "courier" vessel, not "fighter".
No, I never said the Miranda was portrayed targeting multiple wings of fighter craft, in any Trek. This is conjecture based on A) The U.S.S. Reliant's phasers tore a gash in the side U.S.S. Enterprise, that was at least 3 decks high. What do you think would happen to a small, unshielded, one man craft? Like I said, toast. And
And yes anyone attacking a starship in a small, unshielded, fighter, Klingon, or otherwise, IS suicidal. Notice how, even in STO, few, if any fighters survive an engagement? This is because they're not truly, an offensive weapon. Carriers launch them, to keep the targets busy, while either the carrier, or his friends, whale on the target. This, from the standpoint of someone who would pilot these "fighters", IS a suicide mission. Not sure why you thought I said the Klinks were modelled on the Japanese, either. I never said that.
Lastly, I'm not sure what point you were trying to make concerning battleships, and dreadnaughts, being BAD WORDS. So there will be no rebuttal.
Daizen - Lvl 60 Tactical - Eclipse
Selia - Lvl 60 Tactical - Eclipse
I don't want a flight deck carrier...I want a true carrier.
I'd be happy to have a nebula refit with a 2 hangar mission pod.
Nevermind that the KDF-only BoP that is completely customizable, what with it having nothing but Universal boff slots.
As for the HEC and the KDF getting nothing?
* All of the LG rank ships, with the exceptions of the Bortas and Guramba are 500 zen cheaper than the fed VA ships.
* KDF gets a #FREE# carrier at rank up.
* While not VA, KDF gets a cruiser-carrier combo.
*The Kar'fi is more than a match for the equivalent Atrox, in terms of capability, is the same rank, and yet, again, is 500 zen cheaper.
* Some, not all, of the KDF carriers can launch frigates. There is, to date, not a SINGLE Fed ship that can claim the same ability. While this only includes 2 ships, that's 2 more than the Federation can claim.
I do not dispute that the KDF needs more ships. Far from it. I would, however, also argue that there should be some parity, which goes both ways, especially on the subject of carriers.
Why does the Federation need carriers?
And why does everyone want everything to be homogenized every which way?
The ones that want to kill uniqueness of faction play in the game.
I seem to have more fun in my Sovereign Refit than I do in my collection of escorts, and yes I would love a Typhoon Class battleship but another fed carrier not really.
-Lord Commander Solar Macharius
More Cruisers with Lt.Cmd Tac slots? 3 aren't enough? Advanced Heavy, Assault R and Odyssey. (Admittedly that's a Uni Lt.Com but still).
If I ask you a question it is not an insult but a genuine attempt to understand why.
When I insult you I won't be discreet about it, I will be precise and to the point stupid.
as for fed carriers to be honest cruisers like the GALAXY have HUGE auxiliary craft bays ( as seen in the Enterprise -D blue prints ) there is a reason for them mostly showing shuttle bay 2 and 3 in TNG . shuttle bay one is really a major flight deck with part of the saucer on either side of it for maintenance and launch prep. thats prob too big of a expense at the time to show on camera .
so the other big fed cruisers are prob similar. i really feel that dedicated carriers are really unnecessary in star fleet . with a simple restock , any big cruiser can be come a true fighter carrier . or use what it has in shuttles to fill the role .
give em whatever they want.
Charge $100 per ship.
Win / Win
Your Javelin deals 125417 (89066) Disruptor Damage(Critical) to Tholian Recluse. > lol
Mmmmm, no, not at all like that even a little bit. To watch and enjoy star trek is to be a fan of the federation and starfleet. Not a side/enemy race (one of many) that appears in a fraction of the episodes and a few of the movies.
Star wars is, in many ways, ABOUT the Sith.
Pay no attention to the dates and titles under my name at the left! I am a Career Officer, Lifetime Sub since launch, was in the Beta. Having problems with my forum account.
Instead allow every cruiser or science ship to launch Roundabouts and have the carrier commands. Those of us with the current carriers can continue to manage our fighters. And if you really want more "carrier feel" allow the current carriers to have a 3rd or 4th hangar slot. That way they can launch 48 fighters at once or a combination of fighters, worker bees and repair drones.
That's my compromise. I think everyone (except the Escort players) would like to have those options on the table.
or, maybe, take an odyssey and make her a carrier??
again, please be kind!!!
They just need to update the game's existing "true carriers" you know the ones with 2 hanger bays...
To compete with "fleet" variant ships atrox could prolly use
-above everything else, this is most important honestly(especially given the ranking system)...an atrox specific frigate class pet...I honestly don't care if its a redesigned aquarius, defiant, or "caitan" frigate, as long as we get one.
the Atrox is just getting outclassed by the other carriers that CAN field frigates...its a bit depressing...since I'm using one...
-a 5th boff would be nice
a tweak to the ranking system or defenses of those "fighters" in general would be nice too...to account for their lack of ability to survive long enough to rank up to balance out fighters vs frigates.