Starfleet battlecruisers?

imadude3 · June 2014

so here's the battlecruisers i know starfleet has:
Typhoon
Avenger
Vanguard (starcruiser variant)
all of the assault cruiser variants

im curious if there are other starfleet battlecruisers?

orangeitis · June 2014

The Avenger is the only one.

The rest are just Cruisers.

artan42 · June 2014

They Typhoon is a Battleship not a Battlecruiser.

aloishammer · June 2014

imadude3 wrote: »

im curious if there are other starfleet battlecruisers?

Nope, Battlecruisers are a KDF thing. That's why Starfleet only has one.

imadude3 · June 2014

artan42 wrote: »

They Typhoon is a Battleship not a Battlecruiser.

is there a difference?

artan42 · June 2014

imadude3 wrote: »

is there a difference?

A Battlecruiser is a tactically orientated cruiser, a Battleship is a very large ship, one step smaller than a Dreadnaught.

orangeitis · June 2014

imadude3 wrote: »

is there a difference?

Yes. Battleships are called "Battleships". Battlecruisers are called "Battlecruisers" or "Battle Cruisers".

ursusmorologus · June 2014

In STO, a KDF battlecruiser has the following features:

* commander engineering
* relatively fast turn-rate (~9)
* can mount DHCs

AFAIK the only Fed ship that meets all of the criteria is the Avenger

riccardo171 · June 2014

Vanguard lol, it's a bad cruiser for tacs. No damage potential.

Typhoon is NPC only.

Assault Cruiser (and I mean refit/fleet) are tac oriented, but still not fast enough and can't mount duals.

Avenger is The Battle Cruiser.

warmaker001b · June 2014

artan42 wrote: »

They Typhoon is a Battleship not a Battlecruiser.

Ship titles like Battleship don't mean **** in this game.

I mean, they gave the term "Dreadnought" to the Galaxy-X and it's anything but that.

They gave the term "Battleship" to the Monbosh, but really, it's a cut & paste of the KDF Fleet Vor'Cha, lazily done to the extent that Cryptic forgot to remove the Vor'Cha's cloak off the Monbosh hackjob when the ship was released for LOR (and had to be patched out).

The only ship that deserves its exotic title is the Scimitar as a "Dreadnought."

Any other application of the terms "Battleship" and "Dreadnought" are Cryptic's way to try to sucker some fool into buying the ship under the wrong impression the ship truly deserves the title.

ursusmorologus wrote: »

In STO, a KDF battlecruiser has the following features:

* commander engineering
* relatively fast turn-rate (~9)
* can mount DHCs

AFAIK the only Fed ship that meets all of the criteria is the Avenger

Quite correct on this. Even LtCdr TAC station is not a requirement. The K'T'Inga, Vor'Cha Retrofit, Negh'Var for example do not have LtCdr TAC stations but are still Battlecruisers.

kimmym · June 2014

Another difference is only 3 comm array commands. They lack the threat control aura.

And battle cruisers come in a variety of sizes and turn rates, clear up to the Bortasqu' at 5.5 IIRC.

rattler2 · June 2014

Starfleet only has one actual battlecruise, the Avenger class.
Although with the threat posed by the Iconians and Undine... might see another one developed at some point.

vetteguy904 · June 2014

going on the very loose "tac oriented" criteria, the Excelsior, Regent, Oddy and avenger are your "battle-cruisers" based on the lcdr tac slot

jaguarskx · June 2014

imadude3 wrote: »

is there a difference?

From a real world / history standpoint battleships carries big guns, have thick armor and slower and less maneuverable than cruisers; also pretty expensive to build.

Battlecruisers bridges the gap between battleships and heavy cruisers. They have big guns similar to battleships, however, they have lightly armored compared to a battleship, this makes them faster, more maneuverable and less expensive to manufacture. Unfortunately, this also means battlecruisers can be nothing more than glass cannons in comparison to battleships.

Probably the most famous (infamous) battlecruiser in history is the H.M.S. Hood which was commissions by the British Royal Navy in 1920. She was supposed to have a major retrofit / rebuild in 1941, however something called World War II scrapped that original plan in 1939. The Hood and and the battleship Prince of Wales were operating in the Norwegian Sea to patrol for German commerce raiders that were attacking convoy ships.

In May 1941 the Hood and Prince of Wales were ordered to intercept the German battleship Bismarck and the heavy cruiser Prinz Eugen. A relatively short battle ensured. The Bismarck and Prinz Eugen emerged relatively unscathed. The Prince of Wales survived the encounter but was severely damaged. The Hood was not so lucky. After taking a few / several direct hits the Hood exploded and sank. One of the shells fired by the Bismarck or Prinz Eugen managed to penetrate the Hoods are and caused aft ammo magazine to explode, thus sinking the ship.

ursusmorologus · June 2014

vetteguy904 wrote: »

going on the very loose "tac oriented" criteria, the Excelsior, Regent, Oddy and avenger are your "battle-cruisers" based on the lcdr tac slot

...which is why its invalid...

a) Not all battlecruisers are tac oriented. Kamarag and K't'inga have weak tactical seating.

b) Most of the ships you mentioned can't even mount DHCs so they fail the most basic test

kimmym wrote: »

And battle cruisers come in a variety of sizes and turn rates, clear up to the Bortasqu' at 5.5 IIRC.

I'll call that the exception to the rule instead of definitive

Otherwise the Galaxy is a battlecruiser, since it meets the rest of the criteria

kimmym · June 2014

The galaxy can't use dual cannons and has 4 comm commands as a retrofit and the Dreadnought is in a class of its own along with the Voth Dreadnought, with DHC, a hanagar bay, and only weapons/threat comm powers.

Yeah, its pretty much a battle cruiser, but different enough that they designed the class Dreadnought Cruiser to encompass them.

carl103 · June 2014

From a real world / history standpoint battleships carries big guns, have thick armor and slower and less maneuverable than cruisers; also pretty expensive to build.

Battlecruisers bridges the gap between battleships and heavy cruisers. They have big guns similar to battleships, however, they have lightly armored compared to a battleship, this makes them faster, more maneuverable and less expensive to manufacture. Unfortunately, this also means battlecruisers can be nothing more than glass cannons in comparison to battleships.

Probably the most famous (infamous) battlecruiser in history is the H.M.S. Hood which was commissions by the British Royal Navy in 1920. She was supposed to have a major retrofit / rebuild in 1941, however something called World War II scrapped that original plan in 1939. The Hood and and the battleship Prince of Wales were operating in the Norwegian Sea to patrol for German commerce raiders that were attacking convoy ships.

In May 1941 the Hood and Prince of Wales were ordered to intercept the German battleship Bismarck and the heavy cruiser Prinz Eugen. A relatively short battle ensured. The Bismarck and Prinz Eugen emerged relatively unscathed. The Prince of Wales survived the encounter but was severely damaged. The Hood was not so lucky. After taking a few / several direct hits the Hood exploded and sank. One of the shells fired by the Bismarck or Prinz Eugen managed to penetrate the Hoods are and caused aft ammo magazine to explode, thus sinking the ship.

Bear in Mind that Hood was by the standards of her day a Battleship in armament and protection. She was merely a Battlecruiser in comparison to what they'd planned to build as battleships at the time they laid her down, but the Washington Naval treaty put paid to the plans because the ships would be over the 45,000 ton cap on individual ship tonnage.

That said the general description is accurate. The key point about a battlecruiser was that it's greater hull mass and similar armor and speed to a cruiser made it moderately more durable whilst it's guns where more than nasty enough to obliterate any cruiser ever built. It was designed to outgun anything it couldn't outrun and outrun anything it couldn't outgun.

Though if where being technically a Battlecruiser and a Battleship weren't comparable. Battleship, (unless termed a "Dreadnought Battleship"), refers to pre-dreadnought designs that where actually more lightly armed than even Battlecruisers, (Battleship doctrine originally had a few big gun and a whole hell of a lot of lighter one's, this changed with the introduction of HMS Dreadnought, they then changed to a heavy armament of big guns and a smaller secondary battery for defense against light combatants). Generally "Dreadnought" woould be the proper description of the latter type, though due to public association "Dreadnought Battleship" is quite commonly used.

nickodaemus · June 2014

Picard once referred to the Enterprise-E as a "battleship", doubtless adding to people's confusion. In this game, feds have only one true BC available thus far - the Avenger class.

Unknown · June 2014

This content has been removed.

shar487a · June 2014

I dunno how anyone else feels, but the Avenger gets my vote for the least aesthetically appealing ship design of all Fed ships. It looks like the ship designers went well out of their make to make the Avenger a royal eye-sore. Given the above, I will GLADLY pay money for a C-Store Avenger skin that features thinner/sleeker pylons + saucer + primary hull. The current Avenger just looks much too Art-Deco for my tastes.

adverbero · June 2014

shar487a wrote: »

I dunno how anyone else feels, but the Avenger gets my vote for the least aesthetically appealing ship design of all Fed ships. It looks like the ship designers went well out of their make to make the Avenger a royal eye-sore. Given the above, I will GLADLY pay money for a C-Store Avenger skin that features thinner/sleeker pylons + saucer + primary hull. The current Avenger just looks much too Art-Deco for my tastes.

Thats kind of the point though, its boxy, but its supposed to look durable, The polar opposite to ships like the Regent for example

Best real world example I can think of is the Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II
Its not pretty by conventional standards, but its looks are paired by its impressive durable nature

conundrumnsa · June 2014

jaguarskx wrote: »

From a real world / history standpoint battleships carries big guns, have thick armor and slower and less maneuverable than cruisers; also pretty expensive to build.

Battlecruisers bridges the gap between battleships and heavy cruisers. They have big guns similar to battleships, however, they have lightly armored compared to a battleship, this makes them faster, more maneuverable and less expensive to manufacture. Unfortunately, this also means battlecruisers can be nothing more than glass cannons in comparison to battleships.

Probably the most famous (infamous) battlecruiser in history is the H.M.S. Hood which was commissions by the British Royal Navy in 1920. She was supposed to have a major retrofit / rebuild in 1941, however something called World War II scrapped that original plan in 1939. The Hood and and the battleship Prince of Wales were operating in the Norwegian Sea to patrol for German commerce raiders that were attacking convoy ships.

In May 1941 the Hood and Prince of Wales were ordered to intercept the German battleship Bismarck and the heavy cruiser Prinz Eugen. A relatively short battle ensured. The Bismarck and Prinz Eugen emerged relatively unscathed. The Prince of Wales survived the encounter but was severely damaged. The Hood was not so lucky. After taking a few / several direct hits the Hood exploded and sank. One of the shells fired by the Bismarck or Prinz Eugen managed to penetrate the Hoods are and caused aft ammo magazine to explode, thus sinking the ship.

Sink the Bismark

jaguarskx · June 2014

carl103 wrote: »

Bear in Mind that Hood was by the standards of her day a Battleship in armament and protection. She was merely a Battlecruiser in comparison to what they'd planned to build as battleships at the time they laid her down, but the Washington Naval treaty put paid to the plans because the ships would be over the 45,000 ton cap on individual ship tonnage.

The Hood was referred to as battle cruiser back in 1920. Sir Eustace Tennyson-d'Eyncourt (Director of Naval Construction) was directed to design a "fast battleship". That design was later changed at the behest of Admiral Jellicoe so that the ship would be a battle cruiser and not a battleship. As for tonnage the Hood came in at about 41,200 to 42,000 depending on the source material.

The resourceful Germans developed pocket battleships as a result of the Treaty of Versailles which limited the German navy to ships no larger than cruisers. But this is a different topic by itself.

Unknown · June 2014

This content has been removed.

warmaker001b · June 2014

adverbero wrote: »

Thats kind of the point though, its boxy, but its supposed to look durable, The polar opposite to ships like the Regent for example

Best real world example I can think of is the Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II
Its not pretty by conventional standards, but its looks are paired by its impressive durable nature

It doesn't matter. Something can look aesthetically pleasing yet still be a performer. Or it can look ungainly yet still perform.

The German Leopard2A6 Main Battle Tank looks great among tanks yet is one of the most advanced in any army out there. Germans and their Panzers

The Russian Su-27 series of aircraft (and later) look big, powerful, yet elegant at the same time, and they're considered quite good aircraft.

And modern Submarines... the least detailed, most featureless machines of war I can think of, are the unseen predators of the seas.

The Avenger just looks horrible. No going around it. It looks like the product of an Intrepid that was gangraped by LEGOs.

shar487a · June 2014

adverbero wrote: »

Thats kind of the point though, its boxy, but its supposed to look durable, The polar opposite to ships like the Regent for example

Best real world example I can think of is the Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II
Its not pretty by conventional standards, but its looks are paired by its impressive durable nature

I actually like the looks of the A10 Warthog

Form follows function, including the off-center front landing gear to make room for the GAU-8 Avenger gattling gun.

The USS Zumwalt, the newest ship in the US Navy, would have been a better ship style to follow: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Zumwalt_%28DDG-1000%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zumwalt-class_destroyer

Some of the design elements that seem very primitive on the Avenger include:

1) The pylon edges' exposed layers -- why are the layers even showing? The pylon curve, combined with the exposed layers make the set-up look like a old style wooden composite bow.

2) Bulky triangular saucer section has no spatial continuity with the main hull -- it looks like two mismatched pieces welded together

3) The ship's nacelles are very front-heavy, and the fins just do not belong. Thank goodness they can be hidden.

Based on its design elements, the Avenger looks more like a Warp 5 warship of the old Enterprise era as opposed to a modern 25th century battle cruiser.

warmaker001b · June 2014

shar487a wrote: »

I actually like the looks of the A10 Warthog Form follows function, including the off-center front landing gear to make room for the GAU-8 Avenger gattling gun.

The USS Zumwald, the newest ship in the US Navy, would have been a better ship style to follow: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Zumwalt_%28DDG-1000%29

A bit of old news, but you want to guess who the captain is of the USS Zumwalt? And the captain and crew got a letter from this guy.

annemarie30 · June 2014

shar487a wrote: »

I dunno how anyone else feels, but the Avenger gets my vote for the least aesthetically appealing ship design of all Fed ships. It looks like the ship designers went well out of their make to make the Avenger a royal eye-sore. Given the above, I will GLADLY pay money for a C-Store Avenger skin that features thinner/sleeker pylons + saucer + primary hull. The current Avenger just looks much too Art-Deco for my tastes.

for STARFLEET designs yes. the flying male genetalia is the worst design IMHO

theraven2378 · June 2014

jaguarskx wrote: »

From a real world / history standpoint battleships carries big guns, have thick armor and slower and less maneuverable than cruisers; also pretty expensive to build.

Battlecruisers bridges the gap between battleships and heavy cruisers. They have big guns similar to battleships, however, they have lightly armored compared to a battleship, this makes them faster, more maneuverable and less expensive to manufacture. Unfortunately, this also means battlecruisers can be nothing more than glass cannons in comparison to battleships.

Probably the most famous (infamous) battlecruiser in history is the H.M.S. Hood which was commissions by the British Royal Navy in 1920. She was supposed to have a major retrofit / rebuild in 1941, however something called World War II scrapped that original plan in 1939. The Hood and and the battleship Prince of Wales were operating in the Norwegian Sea to patrol for German commerce raiders that were attacking convoy ships.

In May 1941 the Hood and Prince of Wales were ordered to intercept the German battleship Bismarck and the heavy cruiser Prinz Eugen. A relatively short battle ensured. The Bismarck and Prinz Eugen emerged relatively unscathed. The Prince of Wales survived the encounter but was severely damaged. The Hood was not so lucky. After taking a few / several direct hits the Hood exploded and sank. One of the shells fired by the Bismarck or Prinz Eugen managed to penetrate the Hoods are and caused aft ammo magazine to explode, thus sinking the ship.

Maybe the best historical example would be Beatty's battlecruisers at Jutland, he tried using them as battleships and 3 of them, HMS Invincible, HMS Queen Mary and HMS Indefatigable blew up with extreme loss of life

talonxv · June 2014

shar487a wrote: »

I dunno how anyone else feels, but the Avenger gets my vote for the least aesthetically appealing ship design of all Fed ships. It looks like the ship designers went well out of their make to make the Avenger a royal eye-sore. Given the above, I will GLADLY pay money for a C-Store Avenger skin that features thinner/sleeker pylons + saucer + primary hull. The current Avenger just looks much too Art-Deco for my tastes.

They are not supposed to be pretty. They are the A-10 of the fleet. There for utility and getting the job done.

Want pretty, go get a Vesta or Regent. Avenger DGAF. It's there to blow stuff up as fast as possible.

adverbero · June 2014

warmaker001b wrote: »

It doesn't matter. Something can look aesthetically pleasing yet still be a performer. Or it can look ungainly yet still perform.

The German Leopard2A6 Main Battle Tank looks great among tanks yet is one of the most advanced in any army out there. Germans and their Panzers

The Russian Su-27 series of aircraft (and later) look big, powerful, yet elegant at the same time, and they're considered quite good aircraft.

And modern Submarines... the least detailed, most featureless machines of war I can think of, are the unseen predators of the seas.

The Avenger just looks horrible. No going around it. It looks like the product of an Intrepid that was gangraped by LEGOs.

SU-27 may look nice, but its form follows its function, Its not beholden to the rule of cool, same with modern Naval Submarines and the Leopard.

Without trying to sound like a Borg Drone, Appearances are irrelevant. The most efficient and powerful designs of the Star trek Verse ( until Voyager Neutered them) were the Borg Vessels, now that is Lego designing

Starfleet battlecruisers?

Comments