View Single Post
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 19
07-06-2011, 12:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 19Delta30
Personally, I do support the Federation having a carrier class, but only one. I don't think it's a good idea right now, but in the future once the Klingons have been given everything they have wanted, I think it's only fair that the Federation gets a carrier. It would make sense that one nation would develop a weapon to match or counter the threat of an opposing nation, especially when they are at war with each other, and the Vo'Quv is no exception. The Klingons complained about being neglected and that the Federation got all of the good stuff. The Garumba was created to match the Galaxy X for example. The Klingons got their own fighters when the fighter package was released, and lets not forget about the other ships the Klingons recieved in recent months. As far as capabilities go, the Klingons can match the Federation. On the other hand, the Klingons have two types of carriers, and the Federation has none. The Scorpion fighters are all fine and great, but that isn't the same as having a carrier (the carrier can launch support craft as well as fighters), and I don't care what anyone says, any PVP matchup where the Klingon side showed up with two or more carriers has seen the most lopsided victories in favor of the Klingons, and that is with several MVAM ships like mine on the Fed side. If we are not going to get a carrier, then we should at least have something to counter the threat.
I'd have to disagree with you there. I play both sides, KDF & Fed, and on the KDF side, I fly a Carrier, on the Fed side, my science alt flies a Nebula, and hunts Carriers.

I have lost, many times, as my KDF Carrier-jocky, even when there's another, or even two other Carriers on my team. Simply put, Carriers are not OP, in any way, a dedicated Fed team that knows what they're doing can rip me and any other Carrier to shreds. I've seen it happen, I've done it.

The number one reason Carriers seem OP is because they aren't a traditional combatant, people are used to wearing down Tanks, of harassing DPSers, of locking down Buff/Defbuffers, but Carriers break the mold, they have pets, and lots of them, and the abilities to buff them. They can tank, but if they do, it's at the expense of buffing their pets, they can buff/debuff, but if they do, it's at the expense of their own survivability and that of their pets.

As a Fed, the trick to Carriers is teamwork, if you have two escorts, have one focus on clearing the pet spam, or drawing them off, have the other pound the Carrier Proper, if you have one, have the Tanks on your team aggro the pets, if you have a Sci, have them use as many AoE affects as they can, debilitating the pets and the Carrier.

Basically, don't expect Carriers to tip over and die with normal PvP tactics, they're a unique threat, and they take unique tactics to control and defeat.

And, to the "equality" argument: Carriers are one of the few things the KDF still has mostly to themselves, a combat-useful science-leaning ship, and they're only usable or attainable at end-game, Feds have useful Science ships from start to finish, at every tier, at every level.

And no, not every power needs to adopt similar strategies to counteract their enemies.

To use a real-world example, America has Submarines of two basic types, Fast Attack Subs, and Boomers (Nuclear-launch platforms), Fast Attack subs are designed for long-range independent search and destroy missions, to take out enemy boomers, Boomers are designed for stealthy movement to advantageous launch locations. This makes sense for America, because America is separated from all it's enemies by wide Oceans.

Great Briton, on the other hand, has a very different situation, as an island, they are vulnerable to blockade, as an Island off the coast of Europe, they are vulnerable to amphibious invasion. The UK does not employ long-range Subs like the American do, they utilize shorter-range, quieter Diesel-Electric Submarines, which are far superior at operations just offshore in the shallows.

If the US were to invest in Diesel-Electric Submarines, it would be foolhardy, expensive, and do nothing for American military effectiveness, if the UK were to start buying up Fast Attack Subs and Boomers, it would be expensive, and compromise their military preparedness.

if the Federation gets Carriers, it won't do anything but compromise their effectiveness, you can barely PvE with them (remember I speak from experience here) and the KDF is well adept (from KvK PvP) at handling Carriers. What the Feds should do is concentrate on developing tactics, not technology, to better deal with Carriers.

I recommend the following team make-up (at VA):
  • One Tac in a Defiant Retrofit, with C:RFIII, APB & T:HYIII.
  • One Tac in a MVAM Prometheus with C:SVIII
  • One Sci in a Nebula Retrofit, with TRII, GWIII, EWP, and PSW.
  • One Engineer in an Excelsior Retrofit with BFaW, T:S, & EWP.
  • One Engineer in a Galaxy Dreadnaught, with EPtW, BA:O, & Tachyon Beam.

Have the Galaxy and Defiant cloak immediately, have them stay together, about 15 km away from the rest of the team.

Have the MVAM Prometheus and the Excelsior stick with the Neb like glue, find the Carriers (they will likely be together).

Open up with the MVAM Prommy doing an attack run, in the middle of it, with the alpha group spread out slightly, the Neb should hit their TDG & Scan, expose the cloaked Klingons, at this point the Prommy and the excelsior should fire off their AOE attacks, to trigger damage in the pets the Carrier(s) are spewing out, as well as the wnow-uncloaked Klingons.

Wait five seconds.

After the KDF Carriers fire off their wipes and buffs, the Defiant and Dreadnaught should decloak, pulling an alpha strike on the Carrier (pick one, concentrate fire), have all the ships concentrate fire on that Carrier as it happens.

Mop up the Bops (two well-piloted Escorts shouldn't have any problems, especially escorted by two cruisers and a sci), as the KDF regroups, have the Defiant & Dreadnaught regroup and recloak.

Repeat.