test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

I was so hoping to mix and match the Janeway Class and other Voyager ship bits.

kayajaykayajay Member Posts: 1,990 Arc User
Since the Intrepid, Pathfinder, Cochrane, Discovery, Bellerophon and even the Warship Voyager parts are interchangeable...I knew this was a longshot, but I was so hoping to be able to mix and match different parts of the ships with the Janeway.

I was really disappointed that the ship didn't come with a unique bridge and even the Enterprise-J or another 31st Century one would have been nice.

It is also such a shame that the greatest fun of a Voyager-esque ship is to see the nacelles lifting when entering warp, but no matter how I position the camera, the screen always cuts off the animation.

Comments

  • artan42artan42 Member Posts: 10,450 Bug Hunter
    Despite the shows fudging ship sizes all the time whenever they want for whatever reason, STO refuses to do so meaning you have to buy separate ships rather than them just rescaling the models.

    The Intrepid refit class is about 450m long, making it larger than the Intrepid class, so, rather than scaling the original bits up for it, or those bits down for the original, you have to buy two ships.
    22762792376_ac7c992b7c_o.png
    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!
  • keepcalmchiveonkeepcalmchiveon Member Posts: 4,172 Arc User
    being that this is a totally diff design, i dont see why or how you would have thought or been able to mix and match.
    bridges are red-headed step kids for the dev team. they hate them. they also wont code it so we can use any bridge on any ship even if we have bought them from the C store.
    that said, they did mention recently on a forum post from another player from an alternate source (twit, FB, reddit, etc) that they were talking about a bridge for an upcoming mission, and may put that in the store. (or something similar to that statement)

    meh

  • artan42artan42 Member Posts: 10,450 Bug Hunter
    being that this is a totally diff design, i dont see why or how you would have thought or been able to mix and match.

    I'm guessing they thought that because it's the exact same ship like the TOS and TMP Conni. Though the DSC Conni is also the exact same ship and Cryptic sold it separately.
    22762792376_ac7c992b7c_o.png
    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!
  • evilmark444evilmark444 Member Posts: 6,814 Arc User
    artan42 wrote: »
    Though the DSC Conni is also the exact same ship and Cryptic sold it separately.

    The Disco connie is actually larger than the TOS connie, probably just a simple retcon but for some reason either Cryptic or CBS decided not to upsize the TOS version to match.
    Lifetime Subscriber since Beta
    eaY7Xxu.png
  • stark2kstark2k Member Posts: 1,455 Arc User
    It's an UGLY frak'n ship, and it caters only to torp builds
    StarTrekIronMan.jpg
  • artan42artan42 Member Posts: 10,450 Bug Hunter
    artan42 wrote: »
    Though the DSC Conni is also the exact same ship and Cryptic sold it separately.

    The Disco connie is actually larger than the TOS connie, probably just a simple retcon but for some reason either Cryptic or CBS decided not to upsize the TOS version to match.

    The TOS Conni has been the same size as the DSC one since the MSD was shown in ENT. But I already said the show changes the sizes of ships whenever they want, Cryptic just chose not to do the same.

    All they need is to make all the part scalable and in the ship contamination just have a size option drop down for small or medium. It's possible which is why the Dreadnought bugged out and created the supership because the parts can dynamically scale.
    22762792376_ac7c992b7c_o.png
    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!
  • gaevsmangaevsman Member Posts: 3,183 Arc User
    artan42 wrote: »
    artan42 wrote: »
    Though the DSC Conni is also the exact same ship and Cryptic sold it separately.

    The Disco connie is actually larger than the TOS connie, probably just a simple retcon but for some reason either Cryptic or CBS decided not to upsize the TOS version to match.

    The TOS Conni has been the same size as the DSC one since the MSD was shown in ENT. But I already said the show changes the sizes of ships whenever they want, Cryptic just chose not to do the same.

    All they need is to make all the part scalable and in the ship contamination just have a size option drop down for small or medium. It's possible which is why the Dreadnought bugged out and created the supership because the parts can dynamically scale.

    You mean the starbase sku-din?
    The forces of darkness are upon us!
  • evilmark444evilmark444 Member Posts: 6,814 Arc User
    artan42 wrote: »
    All they need is to make all the part scalable and in the ship contamination just have a size option drop down for small or medium. It's possible which is why the Dreadnought bugged out and created the supership because the parts can dynamically scale.
    I know all that is possible, and I've wanted that for a long time (would love to do things like JJPrise with TMP connie neck, Disco connie with JJPrise nacelles, etc). For some reason Cryptic doesn't want to do that though.
    Lifetime Subscriber since Beta
    eaY7Xxu.png
  • artan42artan42 Member Posts: 10,450 Bug Hunter
    gaevsman wrote: »
    artan42 wrote: »
    artan42 wrote: »
    Though the DSC Conni is also the exact same ship and Cryptic sold it separately.

    The Disco connie is actually larger than the TOS connie, probably just a simple retcon but for some reason either Cryptic or CBS decided not to upsize the TOS version to match.

    The TOS Conni has been the same size as the DSC one since the MSD was shown in ENT. But I already said the show changes the sizes of ships whenever they want, Cryptic just chose not to do the same.

    All they need is to make all the part scalable and in the ship contamination just have a size option drop down for small or medium. It's possible which is why the Dreadnought bugged out and created the supership because the parts can dynamically scale.

    You mean the starbase sku-din?

    I forgot about that one. I was actually thinking of the KT Intel dreadnought.
    22762792376_ac7c992b7c_o.png
    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!
  • phoenixc#0738 phoenixc Member Posts: 4,388 Arc User
    edited March 2021
    artan42 wrote: »
    artan42 wrote: »
    Though the DSC Conni is also the exact same ship and Cryptic sold it separately.

    The Disco connie is actually larger than the TOS connie, probably just a simple retcon but for some reason either Cryptic or CBS decided not to upsize the TOS version to match.

    The TOS Conni has been the same size as the DSC one since the MSD was shown in ENT. But I already said the show changes the sizes of ships whenever they want, Cryptic just chose not to do the same.

    All they need is to make all the part scalable and in the ship contamination just have a size option drop down for small or medium. It's possible which is why the Dreadnought bugged out and created the supership because the parts can dynamically scale.

    In behind the scenes stuff Kurtzman and several others mention they had to scale the Enterprise up since it would look ridiculously tiny for a battlecruiser next to the DSC ships.

    Technically it is not even the same category of ship, the TOS ship was designed with WWII fast battleships (like the Iowa class) in mind with their two floatplanes on catapult rails while the DSC Enterprise is apparently a fighter carrier that normally carries several squadrons and has enough space available to pack in enough extra utility small craft to form several more.

    Just as a guess based on screen evidence it looks like the "Discoprise" sacrifices the heavy armor (and some of the power of the ship's track phasers) of the TOS ship for a much bigger hanger/flight deck arrangement that probably takes up most of the secondary hull, along with being bigger overall.
  • artan42artan42 Member Posts: 10,450 Bug Hunter
    artan42 wrote: »
    artan42 wrote: »
    Though the DSC Conni is also the exact same ship and Cryptic sold it separately.

    The Disco connie is actually larger than the TOS connie, probably just a simple retcon but for some reason either Cryptic or CBS decided not to upsize the TOS version to match.

    The TOS Conni has been the same size as the DSC one since the MSD was shown in ENT. But I already said the show changes the sizes of ships whenever they want, Cryptic just chose not to do the same.

    All they need is to make all the part scalable and in the ship contamination just have a size option drop down for small or medium. It's possible which is why the Dreadnought bugged out and created the supership because the parts can dynamically scale.

    In behind the scenes stuff Kurtzman and several others mention they had to scale the Enterprise up since it would look ridiculously tiny for a battlecruiser next to the DSC ships.

    Technically it is not even the same category of ship, the TOS ship was designed with WWII fast battleships (like the Iowa class) in mind with their two floatplanes on catapult rails while the DSC Enterprise is apparently a fighter carrier that normally carries several squadrons and has enough space available to pack in enough extra utility small craft to form several more.

    Just as a guess based on screen evidence it looks like the "Discoprise" sacrifices the heavy armor (and some of the power of the ship's track phasers) of the TOS ship for a much bigger hanger/flight deck arrangement that probably takes up most of the secondary hull, along with being bigger overall.

    It is exactly the same size =+/- the pylons as it's the exact same ship with some cosmetic alterations.

    Both configurations of the ship are explorers not battleships of any sort and built for long term research missions in the borders of Federation space.
    22762792376_ac7c992b7c_o.png
    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!
  • phoenixc#0738 phoenixc Member Posts: 4,388 Arc User
    edited March 2021
    artan42 wrote: »
    artan42 wrote: »
    artan42 wrote: »
    Though the DSC Conni is also the exact same ship and Cryptic sold it separately.

    The Disco connie is actually larger than the TOS connie, probably just a simple retcon but for some reason either Cryptic or CBS decided not to upsize the TOS version to match.

    The TOS Conni has been the same size as the DSC one since the MSD was shown in ENT. But I already said the show changes the sizes of ships whenever they want, Cryptic just chose not to do the same.

    All they need is to make all the part scalable and in the ship contamination just have a size option drop down for small or medium. It's possible which is why the Dreadnought bugged out and created the supership because the parts can dynamically scale.

    In behind the scenes stuff Kurtzman and several others mention they had to scale the Enterprise up since it would look ridiculously tiny for a battlecruiser next to the DSC ships.

    Technically it is not even the same category of ship, the TOS ship was designed with WWII fast battleships (like the Iowa class) in mind with their two floatplanes on catapult rails while the DSC Enterprise is apparently a fighter carrier that normally carries several squadrons and has enough space available to pack in enough extra utility small craft to form several more.

    Just as a guess based on screen evidence it looks like the "Discoprise" sacrifices the heavy armor (and some of the power of the ship's track phasers) of the TOS ship for a much bigger hanger/flight deck arrangement that probably takes up most of the secondary hull, along with being bigger overall.

    It is exactly the same size =+/- the pylons as it's the exact same ship with some cosmetic alterations.

    Both configurations of the ship are explorers not battleships of any sort and built for long term research missions in the borders of Federation space.

    So the DSC Enterprise is 947 feet long? Not according to the figure given to Eaglemoss, which is 442m. 442m is 1450 feet, not the 947 feet that the original prop blueprints for TOS say (by way of the scale factor (1/85th) specified between the prop length and the fictional "real" ship). And I am using feet here because the original design was done using feet and inches, not meters.

    Even if you ignore the oddball scale factor specified by Jefferies and go to a more standard 1/96th scale, that would make the TOS Enterprise only 1072 feet long, 372 feet shorter than the official length for the Discoprise, which is too much for just a rounding error.

    That weird scale factor was probably because the ship was actually designed to be 540 feet in length (about the size of a real-world Minotaur class cruiser) which comes out to a standard 1:48 scale but it was decided to enlarge it after the original drawings were made but before the final approval to build the model and start on designing the interior sets, and being meticulous Jefferies recalculated the scale notation to reflect the larger size of the "real" fictional ship on the original blueprints.

    As for it being "an explorer", Roddenberry based the show on Victorian sailing ship novels (he mentions Hornblower quite a bit in fact, and the Wagon Train reference was simply a selling point he switched to because Hollywood was tired of swashbuckling), and exploring completely unknown and possibly hostile territory was usually done with warships to help justify the cost of keeping them active between wars back then.

    And Roddenberry often called the Enterprise a "battleship", which the first series bible supports since (in order for writers to be on the same page without a lot of written background) the recent history of the show was an approximation of 20th century real-world history, and the stated 20 year age of the ship placed it right in the final years of their WWII equivalent. It was also bigger than Klingon battlecruisers according to a scale display onscreen in TOS.

    In fact, it is a allegorical dead ringer for the Iowa-class fast battleships that were in the news in the early '60s quite a bit as Congress and the Joint Chiefs argued over whether to take a few out of mothballs for the Vietnam conflict. The Federation is not all fluffy unicorns and rainbows, they do have wars and for that they need warships despite the weird idea some people got from TNG that they did not. And just like the real-world tall ship era, putting those warships to use exploring between wars is a very practical idea.
  • foxrockssocksfoxrockssocks Member Posts: 2,482 Arc User
    It isn't a great allegory as real world battleships became more and more irrelevant with the advancement of carriers. That doesn't work well in Star Trek because of beam weapons and the power generation needed to power weapons and shields, not to mention the lack of difficulty in maneuvering and detection.

    The ST "battleship" was never obsolete, it was just replaced with a bigger one. Carriers lack all practical reason to exist in Star Trek, except maybe for low tech civilizations.
  • keepcalmchiveonkeepcalmchiveon Member Posts: 4,172 Arc User
    edited March 2021
    It isn't a great allegory as real world battleships became more and more irrelevant with the advancement of carriers. That doesn't work well in Star Trek because of beam weapons and the power generation needed to power weapons and shields, not to mention the lack of difficulty in maneuvering and detection.

    The ST "battleship" was never obsolete, it was just replaced with a bigger one. Carriers lack all practical reason to exist in Star Trek, except maybe for low tech civilizations.

    i fail to see how carriers are not practical in trek...please enlighten us
    meh

  • evilmark444evilmark444 Member Posts: 6,814 Arc User
    It isn't a great allegory as real world battleships became more and more irrelevant with the advancement of carriers. That doesn't work well in Star Trek because of beam weapons and the power generation needed to power weapons and shields, not to mention the lack of difficulty in maneuvering and detection.

    The ST "battleship" was never obsolete, it was just replaced with a bigger one. Carriers lack all practical reason to exist in Star Trek, except maybe for low tech civilizations.

    i fail to see how carriers are not practical in trek...please enlighten us

    Trek targeting systems always seem far better than those in other franchises, and combined with speed of beam weapons flying a fighter seems like suicide in Trek. Fighters only work in sci-fi if they can reliably evade weapons fire throughout a battle.
    Lifetime Subscriber since Beta
    eaY7Xxu.png
  • rattler2rattler2 Member Posts: 55,808 Community Moderator
    Trek targeting systems always seem far better than those in other franchises, and combined with speed of beam weapons flying a fighter seems like suicide in Trek. Fighters only work in sci-fi if they can reliably evade weapons fire throughout a battle.

    We saw fighters during the Dominion War, and we've seen groups use small craft against larger ships effectively. Its likely that we don't see fighters in use because the majority of combat encounters we see are between two ships on their own, in which case yes, flying a fighter would probably be suicide. However in large fleet actions like we see in the Dominion War you'd probably see more and more fighters because you need as much firepower as possible, and fighter squadrons wouldn't exactly be a priority target, unlike say a Galaxy Class Starship.

    As for beam accuracy... we also have to consider that can acutally be used against a ship too. IMO beams aren't as effective against a massed attack from small craft because you'd only be able to pick off one per firing cycle if you could hit. You can't just throw up a "wall of lead" like scatter volley in the general area. And sweeping a beam around won't be effective because it can be evaded.

    So IMO from a technological standpoint, fighters in Star Trek are far more situational than the traditional portrayal in Sci-Fi.
    66998372863950ee98cf7da9786e2ea9-db80k0m.png
    I can't take it anymore! Could everyone just chill out for two seconds before something CRAZY happens again?!
    The nut who actually ground out a Delta Pack, Temporal Pack, and Gamma Pack
    The resident forum voice of reason (I HAZ FORUM REP! YAY!)
  • artan42artan42 Member Posts: 10,450 Bug Hunter
    So the DSC Enterprise is 947 feet long? Not according to the figure given to Eaglemoss, which is 442m. 442m is 1450 feet, not the 947 feet that the original prop blueprints for TOS say (by way of the scale factor (1/85th) specified between the prop length and the fictional "real" ship). And I am using feet here because the original design was done using feet and inches, not meters.

    Even if you ignore the oddball scale factor specified by Jefferies and go to a more standard 1/96th scale, that would make the TOS Enterprise only 1072 feet long, 372 feet shorter than the official length for the Discoprise, which is too much for just a rounding error.

    That weird scale factor was probably because the ship was actually designed to be 540 feet in length (about the size of a real-world Minotaur class cruiser) which comes out to a standard 1:48 scale but it was decided to enlarge it after the original drawings were made but before the final approval to build the model and start on designing the interior sets, and being meticulous Jefferies recalculated the scale notation to reflect the larger size of the "real" fictional ship on the original blueprints.

    Yeah , we've been through this before. I don't care what the behind the scenes stuff shows, the MSD on screen shows it to be around 450 metres long, this is the same as the DSC Conni scaled from the bridge window. They're the exact same ship therefore they're the same size.
    As for it being "an explorer", Roddenberry based the show on Victorian sailing ship novels (he mentions Hornblower quite a bit in fact, and the Wagon Train reference was simply a selling point he switched to because Hollywood was tired of swashbuckling), and exploring completely unknown and possibly hostile territory was usually done with warships to help justify the cost of keeping them active between wars back then.

    And Roddenberry often called the Enterprise a "battleship", which the first series bible supports since (in order for writers to be on the same page without a lot of written background) the recent history of the show was an approximation of 20th century real-world history, and the stated 20 year age of the ship placed it right in the final years of their WWII equivalent. It was also bigger than Klingon battlecruisers according to a scale display onscreen in TOS.

    In fact, it is a allegorical dead ringer for the Iowa-class fast battleships that were in the news in the early '60s quite a bit as Congress and the Joint Chiefs argued over whether to take a few out of mothballs for the Vietnam conflict. The Federation is not all fluffy unicorns and rainbows, they do have wars and for that they need warships despite the weird idea some people got from TNG that they did not. And just like the real-world tall ship era, putting those warships to use exploring between wars is a very practical idea.

    Again, nobody cares what Roddenberry called it. It's a long range explorer. The only warships Starfleet have produced have been the various S31 ships in the prime and Kelvin timeline, the Defiant, and the Galaxy in the Narendra Timeline.

    Like with most of the nonsense you post it would help if you realised that the franchise is over 50 years old and has undergone massive changes since Jefferies and Roddenberry first planned it. It would also help if you realise that not even Roddenberry gave a damn about what he'd said for TOS by the time it came to making TMP and early TNG.
    22762792376_ac7c992b7c_o.png
    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!
  • salazarrazesalazarraze Member Posts: 3,789 Arc User
    artan42 wrote: »
    All they need is to make all the part scalable and in the ship contamination just have a size option drop down for small or medium. It's possible which is why the Dreadnought bugged out and created the supership because the parts can dynamically scale.

    Probably easier said than done, though I'd support this. It would be nice to use the TMP Constitution visuals on the Mirror Warship, for example.
    When you see "TRIBBLE" in my posts, it's because I manually typed "TRIBBLE" and censored myself.
  • roguetrooperzroguetrooperz Member Posts: 142 Arc User
    kayajay wrote: »
    Since the Intrepid, Pathfinder, Cochrane, Discovery, Bellerophon and even the Warship Voyager parts are interchangeable...I knew this was a longshot, but I was so hoping to be able to mix and match different parts of the ships with the Janeway.

    I was really disappointed that the ship didn't come with a unique bridge and even the Enterprise-J or another 31st Century one would have been nice.

    It is also such a shame that the greatest fun of a Voyager-esque ship is to see the nacelles lifting when entering warp, but no matter how I position the camera, the screen always cuts off the animation.

    Im lucky i have a 34" curved so i can see the warp out animation 60% of the time and yeah no original bridge or bits you can kit bash

  • foxrockssocksfoxrockssocks Member Posts: 2,482 Arc User
    It isn't a great allegory as real world battleships became more and more irrelevant with the advancement of carriers. That doesn't work well in Star Trek because of beam weapons and the power generation needed to power weapons and shields, not to mention the lack of difficulty in maneuvering and detection.

    The ST "battleship" was never obsolete, it was just replaced with a bigger one. Carriers lack all practical reason to exist in Star Trek, except maybe for low tech civilizations.

    i fail to see how carriers are not practical in trek...please enlighten us

    Star Trek offenses and defenses are based on power generation and capacity. A big ship has a lot more power generation capacity, redundancies, and so forth which can go to weapons and shields and engines. Beams offer speed of light "projectiles" that can track and adjust aim with precision in ways that should be near impossible to dodge. Big ships don't have strategic maneuvering issues either, so there is no real need for scout craft in most cases, nor problems with power projection.

    Consider if we say it takes a gigawatt beam to get through a gigawatt shield, plus whatever you need for engines, that kind of power generation has to go somewhere. If you can't fit that kind of power generation on a fighter, then you are defenseless against the beam and can't hope to penetrate shields with your own. And whatever you can put on 50 fighters could instead go to the ship's power capacity.

    Where small craft can be more useful is as torpedo bombers, if you can do enough maneuver or ECM to survive long enough to get them on target. They also have better tactical maneuverability, so if they survive, they could reach around to attack the other side of a ship while the big boat focuses on the other. However the survivability of such craft should be terrible which would go against Starfleet's valuing of life. Drones can work there, of course, but it doesn't handle any of the other problems.

    DS9 really didn't do battles well, for as showy as they were, they were often not very believable with fighters or dodgy Defiant.
  • keepcalmchiveonkeepcalmchiveon Member Posts: 4,172 Arc User
    It isn't a great allegory as real world battleships became more and more irrelevant with the advancement of carriers. That doesn't work well in Star Trek because of beam weapons and the power generation needed to power weapons and shields, not to mention the lack of difficulty in maneuvering and detection.

    The ST "battleship" was never obsolete, it was just replaced with a bigger one. Carriers lack all practical reason to exist in Star Trek, except maybe for low tech civilizations.

    i fail to see how carriers are not practical in trek...please enlighten us

    Trek targeting systems always seem far better than those in other franchises, and combined with speed of beam weapons flying a fighter seems like suicide in Trek. Fighters only work in sci-fi if they can reliably evade weapons fire throughout a battle.

    you mention all offense and no defense. would it not be factored in that such craft would have defenses enough to take part?

    It isn't a great allegory as real world battleships became more and more irrelevant with the advancement of carriers. That doesn't work well in Star Trek because of beam weapons and the power generation needed to power weapons and shields, not to mention the lack of difficulty in maneuvering and detection.

    The ST "battleship" was never obsolete, it was just replaced with a bigger one. Carriers lack all practical reason to exist in Star Trek, except maybe for low tech civilizations.

    i fail to see how carriers are not practical in trek...please enlighten us

    Star Trek offenses and defenses are based on power generation and capacity. A big ship has a lot more power generation capacity, redundancies, and so forth which can go to weapons and shields and engines. Beams offer speed of light "projectiles" that can track and adjust aim with precision in ways that should be near impossible to dodge. Big ships don't have strategic maneuvering issues either, so there is no real need for scout craft in most cases, nor problems with power projection.

    Consider if we say it takes a gigawatt beam to get through a gigawatt shield, plus whatever you need for engines, that kind of power generation has to go somewhere. If you can't fit that kind of power generation on a fighter, then you are defenseless against the beam and can't hope to penetrate shields with your own. And whatever you can put on 50 fighters could instead go to the ship's power capacity.

    Where small craft can be more useful is as torpedo bombers, if you can do enough maneuver or ECM to survive long enough to get them on target. They also have better tactical maneuverability, so if they survive, they could reach around to attack the other side of a ship while the big boat focuses on the other. However the survivability of such craft should be terrible which would go against Starfleet's valuing of life. Drones can work there, of course, but it doesn't handle any of the other problems.

    DS9 really didn't do battles well, for as showy as they were, they were often not very believable with fighters or dodgy Defiant.

    and as above, you limit defenses given to any ship, or ways to offset the enemies offenses. if theses beams as you and the other poster mention are so "on target" and high power, then it should in theory based on your points, be a one shot kill no matter the ship it hits, and yet its not.

    this is why when talking about POVs and some sense of reality, it grinds me at times. not you or the other poster, but the situation as a whole.

    the idea of carriers is to facilitate the use of smaller craft (manned or not) to poke holes in the enemy while providing a sense of "swarms" against the enemy and also providing defenses for the carrier.

    the carriers in STO are not given the aspect of a true carrier and basically it causes such discussions with varied views. would it not then be put into practice that with the advances in tech and such that a carrier would and could support fighters that could and should be able to fight at a certain level? yes.

    so in current STO reality, a carrier is really a bigger cruiser with some neat things that you send towards a target. you still get into battle just as a cruiser would, which by any realistic military application, they would by far stay as far out of range as possible and provide support. but given the dynamics in the game, they cant do that for carriers, thus we have what we have.

    i understand both replies, however, i still dont see any great arguments of how unpractical carriers are. i guess i see it different for the use and ability to have them as compared to both of you.
    meh

  • foxrockssocksfoxrockssocks Member Posts: 2,482 Arc User
    It isn't a great allegory as real world battleships became more and more irrelevant with the advancement of carriers. That doesn't work well in Star Trek because of beam weapons and the power generation needed to power weapons and shields, not to mention the lack of difficulty in maneuvering and detection.

    The ST "battleship" was never obsolete, it was just replaced with a bigger one. Carriers lack all practical reason to exist in Star Trek, except maybe for low tech civilizations.

    i fail to see how carriers are not practical in trek...please enlighten us

    Trek targeting systems always seem far better than those in other franchises, and combined with speed of beam weapons flying a fighter seems like suicide in Trek. Fighters only work in sci-fi if they can reliably evade weapons fire throughout a battle.

    you mention all offense and no defense. would it not be factored in that such craft would have defenses enough to take part?

    It isn't a great allegory as real world battleships became more and more irrelevant with the advancement of carriers. That doesn't work well in Star Trek because of beam weapons and the power generation needed to power weapons and shields, not to mention the lack of difficulty in maneuvering and detection.

    The ST "battleship" was never obsolete, it was just replaced with a bigger one. Carriers lack all practical reason to exist in Star Trek, except maybe for low tech civilizations.

    i fail to see how carriers are not practical in trek...please enlighten us

    Star Trek offenses and defenses are based on power generation and capacity. A big ship has a lot more power generation capacity, redundancies, and so forth which can go to weapons and shields and engines. Beams offer speed of light "projectiles" that can track and adjust aim with precision in ways that should be near impossible to dodge. Big ships don't have strategic maneuvering issues either, so there is no real need for scout craft in most cases, nor problems with power projection.

    Consider if we say it takes a gigawatt beam to get through a gigawatt shield, plus whatever you need for engines, that kind of power generation has to go somewhere. If you can't fit that kind of power generation on a fighter, then you are defenseless against the beam and can't hope to penetrate shields with your own. And whatever you can put on 50 fighters could instead go to the ship's power capacity.

    Where small craft can be more useful is as torpedo bombers, if you can do enough maneuver or ECM to survive long enough to get them on target. They also have better tactical maneuverability, so if they survive, they could reach around to attack the other side of a ship while the big boat focuses on the other. However the survivability of such craft should be terrible which would go against Starfleet's valuing of life. Drones can work there, of course, but it doesn't handle any of the other problems.

    DS9 really didn't do battles well, for as showy as they were, they were often not very believable with fighters or dodgy Defiant.

    and as above, you limit defenses given to any ship, or ways to offset the enemies offenses. if theses beams as you and the other poster mention are so "on target" and high power, then it should in theory based on your points, be a one shot kill no matter the ship it hits, and yet its not.

    this is why when talking about POVs and some sense of reality, it grinds me at times. not you or the other poster, but the situation as a whole.

    the idea of carriers is to facilitate the use of smaller craft (manned or not) to poke holes in the enemy while providing a sense of "swarms" against the enemy and also providing defenses for the carrier.

    the carriers in STO are not given the aspect of a true carrier and basically it causes such discussions with varied views. would it not then be put into practice that with the advances in tech and such that a carrier would and could support fighters that could and should be able to fight at a certain level? yes.

    so in current STO reality, a carrier is really a bigger cruiser with some neat things that you send towards a target. you still get into battle just as a cruiser would, which by any realistic military application, they would by far stay as far out of range as possible and provide support. but given the dynamics in the game, they cant do that for carriers, thus we have what we have.

    i understand both replies, however, i still dont see any great arguments of how unpractical carriers are. i guess i see it different for the use and ability to have them as compared to both of you.


    The problem is the power and the lack of efficiency to fighters. How much power can you fit into a little fighter? If a carrier has say 50 fighters, then you can fit 50 little power units into it. But for all the space used to house fighters, their weapons, their shields, their propulsion, their power units, their pilots/navigation, etc. you could just mount that on the main ship instead.

    So if we can make say, 50 power units that each generate a gigawatt and stuff them into fighters, what are we stuffing into the main ship? 500 gigawatts? A terrawatt? Or lets ask another way, could those gigawatt powered fighters actually punch through a 200 gigawatt shield? Probably not. What has the better chance, 1 gigawatt beams even 50 of them or a 200 gigawatt beam? So why not just use all that wasted space for fighters and put their power into the main ship for a 250 gigawatt beam and shields? You're also going to need a lot of factory space dedicated to replacing those fighter losses.

    IRL carriers are great because they project power over long distances, much faster and further than a comparable amount of battleships, and can carry similarly destructive ordinance because it isn't energy based ordinance. You can have a carrier positioned to protect Taiwan and maybe the entirety of the Philippines at the same time, whereas a battleship just can't do that.

    Star Trek doesn't have that problem with its ships. Your 'battleship' and 'fighter' can go the same speeds and be at the same places at the same times. And because battles are fought with energy weapons and protected against with energy shields, the fighter needs comparable energy output to the main battleship to even hope to harm it. That is basically impossible without a huge tech disparity.

    The shows can be very inconsistent on this, but the whole principle of energy based weapons and defenses does itself make fighters a bad idea, as does the mobility of the 'battleships' in Trek. The game does its own thing, but that has rarely made a lot of sense.
  • artan42artan42 Member Posts: 10,450 Bug Hunter
    artan42 wrote: »
    All they need is to make all the part scalable and in the ship contamination just have a size option drop down for small or medium. It's possible which is why the Dreadnought bugged out and created the supership because the parts can dynamically scale.

    Probably easier said than done, though I'd support this. It would be nice to use the TMP Constitution visuals on the Mirror Warship, for example.

    The basics would be simple. Most parts do scale up or down quite easily so fitting the DSC Conni parts on the Prime version would be simple. The difficult part then would be making sure all the textures wrap correctly and the bones interact properly without clipping.

    It's unlikely they'll go back and look at it considering it'd be a massive amount of work and they'd have been better off doing it when revamping all the models and hull materials fro the first lot of Legendary Ships.
    22762792376_ac7c992b7c_o.png
    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!
  • foppotee#4552 foppotee Member Posts: 1,704 Arc User
    Cryptic did state prior to the release of the gamble Janeway ship it wouldn't be kitbash compatible with the other Intrepid line of ships. I just don't think Cryptic heavily emphasized or advertised that detail maybe in hope to sell more.

    The nacelles do indeed articulate up & down but I understand your frustration in dealing with the camera trying to catch such movements on ships that have those cool effects.
Sign In or Register to comment.