Star Trek Online

Star Trek Online (http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/index.php)
-   Klingon Fleetyards (http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/forumdisplay.php?f=217)
-   -   Proposed changes to Klingon ships (http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=344551)

jgp1975 08-07-2012 11:44 AM

Proposed changes to Klingon ships
 
This is a topic that I have grumbled about for a long time, and with changes to ships slots I feel that the topic may now have merits worth discussing.

Klingon ships (B'rel, Raptor, K'tinga, Vor'cha, Negh'Var) were all designed using the Klingon tactic of heavy forward attack. Heavy forward weapons coverage, heavy forward shields, and small craft being fast and agile. Small craft strafe, larger craft keep the enemy with in the forward half of the ship. STO has never honored this idea. Most other Trek games have tried to stick to the canon lore.

So what I am suggesting is a modification to the Klingon ships. The Bortas Disruptor Autocannon console has started the offer the idea of heavy forward weapons. I suggest they make the fore weapons count 1 slot higher, and remove one aft weapon slot on all ships. The B'rel never had aft weapons, so 3 fore slots for dual cannons/torps. The Raptor config works with my suggestions. K'tinga was limited light weapons on the aft, so 3 fore 1 aft. The Vor'Cha and Negh'Var had some aft coverage mostly torp/mine/missle coverage, so a 5 fore 3 aft coverage would make sense. The cruiser/battleships would benefit from a point defense console, or maybe one fighter/frigate bay.

Klingon ship shields should be a 40% fore, 20% port/starboard, 20% aft configuration. Some suggestions show fast ships having 45% fore, 15% aft alternate set up. Federation ships were noted for their strong even facing shields, but Klingons opted to put more energy usage in to weapons/engines. Also Klingons used more hull armor then Federation ships since Klingons were feudal rather then explorers.

Now I have not forgotten that Gorn, Orion, and Nausicaans ships will not follow these designs. I honestly would not want them to use them. Klingons are well known to capture enemy ships, and use them. Covert Ops, reverse engineering, or ransom. The Klingons use any advantage allowed. Cloaking Tech was offered by the Romulans in exchange for ships, though the Romulan gave older versions of cloaking devices for premium Klingon ships (Bird of Prey/K'Tinga Cruisers mostly). Klingons are crafty, resourceful, and will sacrifice for victory. Gorn Shield Tech, along with advanced Hull Designs, would explain why the shields and weapons are more equalized. Orions use of fighters/shuttles/platforms would also remove heavy forward weapons, and lack of missile usage. The Nausicaans use simular tactics to the Klingons, and so they would have simular designs.

In the end I would like to see a move to heavier frontal weapons/shields for Klingon ships to better define the Klingons ships. It would a unique feature, and would change the tactics used. In PVP the head on attack would be pointless against Klingon ships, as it should be. You do not run head on toward an angered beast. You find a way to flank it, and attack it on the weak side.

I do not expect others to agree, and I do accept that this might be something the game engine can not support. I still want to suggest it. If I say nothing it will never change. Even if this just gets the community,or the Devs, thinking of new ways to augment the game play I will be happy.

Thanks for reading.

lordmalak1 08-07-2012 12:03 PM

Out of the box ST:O got the shield config wrong- they use a 4 sided 'box', where canon and many other trek games are hexagonal (6 sides). Strike 1.

ST:O configures the weapons into the 4 sided box with fore/aft only arcs, where most other trek space games use the hexagonal model where there are left/right firing arcs. Strike 2.

ST:O forced the Federation sci-cruiser doctrine onto the KDF cruisers, making them primarily science/exploration cruisers instead of 'Battle' cruisers that warlike species use to conquer enemies with. Strike 3.

ST:O took a stupid B&B theme and ran with it- they took a small/lightly armed patrol ship (BoP) and turned into the heart of the fleet, with powers beyond absurd. Side retired.

misterde3 08-07-2012 12:17 PM

The reason other games (in other words all SFC games except the last one) used the hexagonal approach is because they were a direct copy of Star Fleet Battles to the PC with the only change being that the ships used different models.
Guess what: SFB is played on a hex map.:)

lordmalak1 08-07-2012 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by misterde3 (Post 5168511)
The reason other games (in other words all SFC games except the last one) used the hexagonal approach is because they were a direct copy of Star Fleet Battles to the PC with the only change being that the ships used different models.
Guess what: SFB is played on a hex map.:)

Yup- the king of ALL trek games, been playing it since '82. The hexagonal model has been in ST films as well, so it's actually canon.

misterde3 08-07-2012 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lordmalak1 (Post 5168801)
Yup- the king of ALL trek games, been playing it since '82. The hexagonal model has been in ST films as well, so it's actually canon.

SFB is not Star Trek actually.
In fact its an entirely different universe.
The Prime Directive RPG specifically adresses this and states "This is not Star Trek".

And where is the hexagonal thing mentioned if I may ask?

lordmalak1 08-07-2012 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by misterde3 (Post 5169501)
SFB is not Star Trek actually.
In fact its an entirely different universe.
The Prime Directive RPG specifically adresses this and states "This is not Star Trek".

And where is the hexagonal thing mentioned if I may ask?

??
StarFleet battles isn't 'star trek' ? -News to me. Unless this is some new disclaimer since the old ADB days trying to distance themselves from the B&B 're-imagining' of Star Trek. SFB was never 'canon' trek as most of the material was taken from the TOS tech manuals and never made it to television or the big screen.


Also, look at the tac displays in the movie ships: The klingon attack in the opening of the first movie, theres another one in the BoP in the undiscovered country. I remember a few more scattered throughout the series' but the movie ones are easiest to find.

lostusthorn 08-07-2012 07:08 PM

Frankly with the way the rest of the game is structured, it would make kdf cruisers into big big targets. Get a escort on your butt is already trouble for a cruiser of any kind. Having your aft shields reduced so much spells pretty much instant death in pvp.

kamenskshax 08-08-2012 01:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lordmalak1 (Post 5168061)
Out of the box ST:O got the shield config wrong- they use a 4 sided 'box', where canon and many other trek games are hexagonal (6 sides). Strike 1.

ST:O configures the weapons into the 4 sided box with fore/aft only arcs, where most other trek space games use the hexagonal model where there are left/right firing arcs. Strike 2.

ST:O forced the Federation sci-cruiser doctrine onto the KDF cruisers, making them primarily science/exploration cruisers instead of 'Battle' cruisers that warlike species use to conquer enemies with. Strike 3.

ST:O took a stupid B&B theme and ran with it- they took a small/lightly armed patrol ship (BoP) and turned into the heart of the fleet, with powers beyond absurd. Side retired.

To me all the games appear to have got stuck on the board game concept - space is 3D - so why no "upper" and "lower" shields/weapons?

misterde3 08-08-2012 03:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lordmalak1 (Post 5170181)
??
StarFleet battles isn't 'star trek' ? -News to me. Unless this is some new disclaimer since the old ADB days trying to distance themselves from the B&B 're-imagining' of Star Trek. SFB was never 'canon' trek as most of the material was taken from the TOS tech manuals and never made it to television or the big screen.


I kid you not.
That's the reason there's that "Star Fleet Universe" icon on every product.
Because that's what it is.
Not the Star Trek universe but the Star Fleet universe.
I don't know when they started it but it's the official stance by the people who make the game.
Doesn't make it any less great than it is though.
However it does have an entirely different history in "both directions" from the perspective of the Original Series.
You can read a bit more about it on their own page:

http://starfleetgames.com/aboutsfu.shtml

http://starfleetgames.com/documents/Timeline.pdf

Quote:

Originally Posted by lordmalak1 (Post 5170181)
Also, look at the tac displays in the movie ships: The klingon attack in the opening of the first movie, theres another one in the BoP in the undiscovered country. I remember a few more scattered throughout the series' but the movie ones are easiest to find.

Yes and no.
The Klingon coordinate system is not based on sqares like ours, it's based on triagles.
And of course you can use triangles to build a hex out of them.
I think this is what you mean:

http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/1...0510h29m15.png

This is from DS9 and should show it a bit more clearly:

http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/376...mapcloseup.png

lordmalak1 08-08-2012 08:44 AM

Still, triangles can make squares but I don't see a hint of a square on any KDF chart or display, and the first pic you posted clearly outlines a hexagon.

I will concede the weakness in the design of this game, and the complete lack of side bearing weapons as a 'gift' to those players uninterested in complex mechanix- this isn't a simulator. Simplicity was designed in to attract a 'pew-pew' crowd with short attention spans.
:D


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:49 PM.