Removing Carriers - What would you do instead?
View Single Post
Join Date: Dec 2007
01-05-2011, 06:54 PM
Originally Posted by
I hate Carriers. Not because theyare OP. Or UP. Or perfectly balanced. Or because they are are ugly and fat. Or because they cause targeting spam. Or because they cause lag. All that isn't really my issue.
I just don't like them because this is Startrek, not Star Wars or Battlestar Galactica (TOS or TNS) or Space Above And Beyond or Babylon 5. All perfeclty fine franchises I dearly love (well, Space Above and Beyond didn't really become a franchise) and enjoyed and are
Startrek. They don't fit into the Startrek "aesthetics" of space combat, and all canon evidence suggests that Fighters pack neither considerable punch nor survivability and are only used as last ressort when you want to throw everything in you got. They just aren't effective.
This is a purely theoretical idea. I don't think this will
happen. Don't worry about that. No one listens to me anyway.
But let's pretend for a moment that Cryptic and CBS suddenly realize that fighters and Carriers don't really make much sense in Startrek, do not fit established canon, and they got a cease and desist letter from George Lucas and Glen A. Larson reminding us that they share an exclusive patent on WW2 style warfare in space.
I'm sorry, but I have to start this out by stating simply that you don't know wtf you're talking about.
Now, to explain why you don't know what you're talking about.
First off, not canon? -Not- canon? Excuse me, but how do you think those fighters -got- to the front lines of the war between the Dominion and the Federation? What do you think the Scimitar was? And don't go saying "Nemesis was a horrible movie and shouldn't count as canon." It's as much canon as any of the other movies and TV serieses, whether or not you liked it.
As for fighters and carriers not making sense in Star Trek, that's flatly absurd. Even if they hadn't ever appeared on the series, that wouldn't make them "not make sense." They've already got shuttlecraft, which are armed, though not -heavily.- They've also got the Runabouts, which are far more heavily armed, and much more durable, as well as being capable of higher speeds. Then there's the prototype Delta Flyer design from Voyager, which would definitely be a precursor to an effective Fighter design. As for the ships packing a punch, let's take a look at the Defiant. Tiny little ship, but packs a massive punch. This shows that Federation technology has advanced to allow for far heavier firepower on much smaller ships.
And, that's just the information that shows why it's entirely reasonable for the -Federation- to have Carriers.
As for the KDF, well, here's where there's a significance that applies to pretty much all of the major factions (Fed, KDF, Romulans). Ship sizes have been steadily growing, at least since the 22nd century. In ENT and TOS, yeah, Carriers don't make as much sense. The main factions, in particular, didn't have ships large enough to carry fighters, though too large to be fighters themselves. By TNG, however, ship sizes have grown significantly. Granted, not -all- ships are as large as the Galaxy class (such as the aforementioned Defiant class as well as the Intrepid and Prometheus classes).
However, like I said, you can look at the changes in Klingon and Romulan ships and see the same progression. The D-7 from TOS is smaller than the Vor'cha and Negh'var of the late 24th century. The D'deridex class Romulan Warbird is by far larger than the Birds of Prey seen in the 23rd Century. The Galaxy class is 42 decks with a length of ~650 meters, while the D'deridex has 45+ decks and is over 1,000 meters long.
In fact, if they'd chosen to go with a "solid" form rather than having the large empty area in the middle of the D'deridex class, they could have easily served as a carrier.
It's really just that they don't fit in
See, now there's one of the problems. This isn't
Star Trek. Unless you decide to spend the money necessary to buy the rights and put out your own game/books/movies/etc., it will -never- be
And on that note, I'm quite thankful this
your Star Trek. As the vulcans would say, your reasoning is quite illogical.