Caitan Carrier can Equip Dual Cannons!
View Single Post
Join Date: Dec 2007
05-13-2012, 02:21 PM
Originally Posted by
You want a more detailed reasoning?
A Science Ship usually have higher turn rate that a Cruiser and can attack rather well, even with less weapons and lower tactical stations that a Escort they can be used offensive with just their weapons.
This carrier however lacks such turn rate, by itself it cannot be used in the same matter as a Science Ship because its handling is closer to a cruiser but it also lacks a cruiser weapons capabilities, so it handles like a cruiser and have the firepower of a science ship.
Its a support ship
on its own
, however it have hangars and can launch fighters, this its main means of attack ... if you are using one without launching fighters then what you get? a support ship.
Look at all the Science abilities, what they are? Support but the difference is as a Intrepid-class uses those abilities to support itself, the Atrox cannot really do that because it simply CANNOT outmaneuver its opposition, this is were fighters come in.
Unless you are going to tell me you can
the Atrox the same as you can with the Intrepid and I dont think I am being unfair about this because stations wise the Atrox is better (higher Eng station and a higher science station in exchange of the ensign station) but in flight performance the Intrepid is better (higher turn) and of course, the Intrepid have SA, the Atrox lacks it.
Unless you own one and have mastered the use of it, how on earth can you say one way or another? You're painting it with too broad a stroke, I'm afraid. You're implying here that without the hangers it does not do enough damage on its own - and I'm here to tell you that you're wrong.
The Atrox in the hands of a tac captain makes a pretty nice beam boat just on its own, the science boff abilities give it some great crowd control (this is what I use it for) and the fact that I can field hangers of fighters/shuttles/w.h.y. makes an excellent KDF carrier-killer.
I'm saying this simply because that's what I use it for; I'm not basing it on conjecture I've gathered from the forums or wiki or other peoples opinions on the matter.