View Single Post
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 26
07-07-2011, 11:19 AM
Originally Posted by Katic View Post
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....

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 will admit, my Klingon is still sitting at Captain 4, so I don't have personal experience controlling a carrier, yet. You're second point is also true, I have trouble dealing with carriers due to this fact. I like your tactics, and I will make sure to keep that in mind the next time I come up against three carriers.

That last part is quite innacurate though. The US Navy operated a large fleet of diesel electric submarines during and after WW2 without difficulties. The Soviet Navy operated their own fleet of diesel electric subs without any problems in the years following WW2. We have since moved on to nuclear power. As far as the Royal navy is concerned, they have their own fleet of ballistic missile nuclear powered submarines, and while their fleet isn't as large as the US Navy for example, they do have concerns outside of their island nation. Keep in mind, the Falkland Islands are still a part of the United Kingdom and that isn't likely to change. This means the Royal Navy has to keep a capability that allows them to defend a part of their empire that is clear on the other end of the Atlantic Ocean, and since they have already fought Argentina over it once, and a British nuclear submarine torpedoed an Argentine heavy cruiser, this negates that part of your argument, but that is neither here nor there.

If you want to use the modern world's navies as an example, I will cite the example of the capital ship. The battleship was widely regarded as the most powerful vessel afloat in the first half of the 20th century, and evey major player wanted to have at least several in their arsenal. Once the carrier officially took over the role of most powerful vessel afloat, every major player wanted a least a few in their navies. The US operates 11 nuclear powered carriers, and more are scheduled to start construction in 2014. The Russians, British, and French all operate carriers. There was even a South American nation that operated a carrier before they retired it. The British are soon going to start building the Queen Elizabeth II class carriers which will give them a carrier that approaches the Nimitz in size and capabilities. The Chinese and even the South Koreans have all expressed a desire to build their own carriers.

I will agree with above posts, if the Federation is ever to get a carrier, then the Klingons need to get some dedicated science ships at all levels and some more skins for their own ships, but I really just don't see how the Federation having a vessel that can launch fighters that carry ordnance to their targets, and support vessels to assist the fleet would be detrimental to Starfleet.

The system as it is works fine for now. A Fed carrier would just be a nice addition Starfleet and offer some new options for game play, just the same as Klingon science ships would be a nice addition for the KDF. I've seen countless arguments for and against a Fed carrier, which leads me to the conclusion that we might as well agree to disagree on this one.