Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
Ok, I do not know much about star trek history, so there might be some star trek logic answer, but it just seems odd that the feds don't have a carrier. Our Flagship is the Enterprise, I ship that got its name from the legendary CV 5 Enterprise aka the Big E or Lucky E. Yes there were other enterprise ships and the World war 2 enterprise was the first to be an aircraft carrier but everyone thinks ethier ww2 CV5 or star trek when they here enterprise.

Now, just so we are clear I am not asking that the Enterprise G that we hopefully won't see for a while should be a carrier, but why can't we have a Hornet or a Yorktown? For gods sake we even have the fighters for the carriers allready ingame, the little 2 seater P(won't even try to spell it) Fighters. Maybe have they launch a small fleet of those fighters.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 2
02-06-2012, 09:52 PM
I think it is stupid that the UFP doesn't have carriers of their own. It's a poor strategist that does not make sure you can at least EQUAL your enemy in battle.

The KDF has 4 ship types.
The UFP has 3.

However, the UFP does have 4x the amount of content, so I guess that's where the balance equals out.

Oh, an just so you know, OP, Threads about the UFP getting a carrier often go up in flames.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 3
02-06-2012, 10:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainQuirk View Post

Oh, an just so you know, OP, Threads about the UFP getting a carrier often go up in flames.
*Hides the matches behind his back*

I have no idea what you're talking about...

On topic, I beleive the point is to give the KDF something different and unique because story content sure isn't a reason to play them. Also, do the Feds really need a carrier? Though I may think that because I dont liek carriers and think NPC spam is a cheap and lazy way to play PvP...

Also, drawing on WW2 to justify the necessity of STARSHIP carriers in the 24th century is a bit like clutching at straws without the straws...
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 4
02-06-2012, 10:16 PM
In my own opinion I think it is due to sensitivity to losses and fighter pilots on their first combat op having a life expectancy measured in 10's of seconds.

18 years to give birth to and raise a child from infant to adulthood and then 2+ years at the academy.. All for maybe 30 seconds of pew pew prior to being popped.

I think you would have better odds of surviving a round of Russian roulette over surviving a single combat op in a fighter in STO. At least you have a 1 in 6 chance of death with only a gun to your head.. Where a single fighter op is almost a sure thing in my opinion.

With all that said a kitty carrier would still be spiffy.

Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 5
02-07-2012, 10:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asakara
In my own opinion I think it is due to sensitivity to losses and fighter pilots on their first combat op having a life expectancy measured in 10's of seconds.

18 years to give birth to and raise a child from infant to adulthood and then 2+ years at the academy.. All for maybe 30 seconds of pew pew prior to being popped.

I think you would have better odds of surviving a round of Russian roulette over surviving a single combat op in a fighter in STO. At least you have a 1 in 6 chance of death with only a gun to your head.. Where a single fighter op is almost a sure thing in my opinion.

With all that said a kitty carrier would still be spiffy.

That just might sum up the philosophical difference as to why UFP does not have carriers and KDF does.

For KDF "Its a good day to die" ... in battle so not only would it but culturally ok but each warrior would be personally ok with the concept (more or less).

On the UFP side it would most likely be different "OMG you sent my son out to die in that little tin can with no chance at all ?!?!?! *swoon* "

So yeah, MMO-wise it may suck that kdf has carriers and not UFP but it does make sense Star Trek universe -wise
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 6
02-06-2012, 10:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainQuirk View Post
The KDF has 4 ship types.
The UFP has 3.
Actually, the KDF has five:

1. Cruiser
2. Science
3. Escort
4. Carrier
5. Raider (BoP)
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 7
02-06-2012, 10:59 PM
The Feds are getting a Caitian Carrier it's just a matter of time for it to get here.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 8
02-07-2012, 12:05 AM
Oh here I go, what are you going to carry with your carrier that a starship cant accomplish with its multitude of various torpdoes, beams, mines and other weapons of mass destruction? The power of single small craft to deliver crippling blows to heavily shielded warships is no greater than mines or torpedos and the might of beam weapons is beyond such small vessels as well. So small ships could be suicide runners I suppose splatting like bugs on the windshield. If they overload their small engines before impact I suppose they could inflict some damage.

Battlestar Galactica or its counterpart Cylon base stars are not the same precedent as they never had this kind of shielding capability. Star Wars has deflectors but still not the same defense as Star Trek shields.:p
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 9
02-07-2012, 12:05 AM
LolFedCarrier
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 10
02-07-2012, 02:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GameSpock View Post
Actually, the KDF has five:

1. Cruiser
2. Science
3. Escort
4. Carrier
5. Raider (BoP)
I don't believe KDF have science vessels, at least not ones that can be purchased w/o the cstore.


I don't think that the UFP should get carriers but maybe something similar but different. Since the UFP doesn't really use fighters much in its tactics, maybe instead have some sort of large fleet support battleship.

For all those people that throw out that Starfleet doesn't have warships because that does not mesh with their doctrine, they are a military organization that has been in almost a constant state of war for decades, if that doesn't change their attitude toward the employment of full on battleships in this new erra, than their leaders are asinine. Even the UFP civilian leaders should understand that waging a wars with ships that aren't specifically suited for war is just getting people killed for no reason other than they don't want to appear too aggressive. I've always hated that argument.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:15 PM.