test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Fleet Tactical Escort Retrofit ? ?Canon? Console Layout

covoccovoc Member Posts: 16 Arc User
edited February 2014 in Federation Discussion
Recently decided to go back and watch DS9 front-to-back. Just finished watching season 3 episode 1. Been quite some time since I saw it last and I found Sisko's initial description of the Defiant extremely interesting, and more specific than I remember. Explicitly when he details the Defiant as follows:

"Officially it's classified as an escort vessel. Unofficially the Defiant's a warship; nothing more, nothing less...

...this ship would have no families, no science labs, no luxuries of any kind. It was designed for one purpose only; to fight and defeat the Borg."


No real revelations there, but it did get the rusty iron mental gears grinding. With the exception of the additional TAC console, the FTER ENG3/SCI2/TAC5 is fairly standard fare for STO escort ships in the game. The canon description (at least, in this DS9 episode instance) seems to specifically allude to a scarcity of equipment not directly related to combat. It would stand to reason the onboard equipment would be heavily, almost exclusively, weighted in the engineering and tactical categories; however as a Federation vessel I sincerely doubt it would be completely devoid of science-specific capabilities.

That in mind, it seems to stand to reason that an ENG4/SCI1/TAC5 console layout would align closer to the 'canon' description as posed in the series. Such a layout would certainly make the FTER unique among equals. Specific-to-task, a dedicated no-frills warship as described. I'd personally enjoy such a layout as I only utilize the FTER SCI console slots for universals.

Don't get me wrong; not trying to fix that which is not broken. Nor am I complaining about the current FTER layout. She's a solid ship and the one I am always drawn back to each time after the shine of new/different wears off. This is theorycraft only. Bouncing the concept off other wanna'be starship designers. If there are any potential pratfalls to such a design, I am positive the bright folk herein will point it out in short order. I'd be keenly interested to hear the input of others... favorable or otherwise.

Thanks for your time.

-Covoc
Post edited by covoc on

Comments

  • marc8219marc8219 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    I doubt anyone wants that change and they hardly ever change ships as drastic as console layouts after they have been out so long so won't likely happen.
    Tala -KDF Tac- House of Beautiful Orions
  • gofasternowgofasternow Member Posts: 1,390 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    To be frank, I think it's kinda silly to base a console lineup on the basis of a speech that was saying "This isn't a Galaxy-class." Despite what people here say, that's what the Galaxy-class, especially the Enterprise-D, was about - it was built for exploration and science, could house families and had all of these amazing things set up on it.

    Plus, I think Sisko is still biased against Picard because of Wolf 359.

    However, because it's so small, it's also not going to have the out-and-out toughness of cruisers. Like he said, it's a warship designed to fight the Borg. And boy, does it.

    Thus, I find the 3-2-5 setting much more reasonable. It's not going to neuter itself scientifically like that nor be ultra durable (Remember First Contact? Yes, it was salvageable, but it was taking a massive beating.)
  • covoccovoc Member Posts: 16 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    Thus, I find the 3-2-5 setting much more reasonable. It's not going to neuter itself scientifically like that nor be ultra durable (Remember First Contact? Yes, it was salvageable, but it was taking a massive beating.)

    This point about cruiser-comparative durability is certainly salient. I don't personally tend to look at ENG console slots as strictly homes for resistance or armor mods, though I imagine that they are most often utilized for such.

    Power redistribution and enhanced maneuverability are more aligned with my (perhaps flawed) thought process in this exercise. Especially considering turn rate is affected by precious few other non-ENG consoles. In addition: they (DS9 denizens) were forever bemoaning the power imbalances in the design, and the need for meticulous management of same.

    Just spitballin'
  • johnnymo1johnnymo1 Member Posts: 697 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    I play a fleet defiant on my tactical toons, I'm having a lot of success with 5 tactical vunnerability mk 12 consoles, 2 field generators in the sci slots, zero point energy conduit, borg assimilated moduel, bionural infusion. I do use the quad cannons, a fleet level quantum torp, 2 DH cannons along with a borg beam in the back, a mk12 phaser turret and the anti proton 360 degree beam.

    I have played around with a number of set ups on the ship. The steamrunner special console, the wide angle torpedo, just about everything. I normally play the maco adapted set on the ship, but have been playing around with the new tuvok warp core to boost the aux power to boost hazard emmitters in a pinch. I'd be more than willing to hear what people are using for science consoles and engi consoles.

    The defiant was used on occation for science missions, there is the episode where the chief and doctor get shrunk as the defiant is on a science mission. I always felt the science positions on the ship was fine as a Lt. spot. I always have wanted the fleet defiant to either have the ens. level tac slot made into an engi or universal slot. I agree that the ship should be a little more engi heavy to make it a little more survivability into the ship.
Sign In or Register to comment.