Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 18
This is a topic that I have grumbled about for a long time, and with changes to ships slots I feel that the topic may now have merits worth discussing.

Klingon ships (B'rel, Raptor, K'tinga, Vor'cha, Negh'Var) were all designed using the Klingon tactic of heavy forward attack. Heavy forward weapons coverage, heavy forward shields, and small craft being fast and agile. Small craft strafe, larger craft keep the enemy with in the forward half of the ship. STO has never honored this idea. Most other Trek games have tried to stick to the canon lore.

So what I am suggesting is a modification to the Klingon ships. The Bortas Disruptor Autocannon console has started the offer the idea of heavy forward weapons. I suggest they make the fore weapons count 1 slot higher, and remove one aft weapon slot on all ships. The B'rel never had aft weapons, so 3 fore slots for dual cannons/torps. The Raptor config works with my suggestions. K'tinga was limited light weapons on the aft, so 3 fore 1 aft. The Vor'Cha and Negh'Var had some aft coverage mostly torp/mine/missle coverage, so a 5 fore 3 aft coverage would make sense. The cruiser/battleships would benefit from a point defense console, or maybe one fighter/frigate bay.

Klingon ship shields should be a 40% fore, 20% port/starboard, 20% aft configuration. Some suggestions show fast ships having 45% fore, 15% aft alternate set up. Federation ships were noted for their strong even facing shields, but Klingons opted to put more energy usage in to weapons/engines. Also Klingons used more hull armor then Federation ships since Klingons were feudal rather then explorers.

Now I have not forgotten that Gorn, Orion, and Nausicaans ships will not follow these designs. I honestly would not want them to use them. Klingons are well known to capture enemy ships, and use them. Covert Ops, reverse engineering, or ransom. The Klingons use any advantage allowed. Cloaking Tech was offered by the Romulans in exchange for ships, though the Romulan gave older versions of cloaking devices for premium Klingon ships (Bird of Prey/K'Tinga Cruisers mostly). Klingons are crafty, resourceful, and will sacrifice for victory. Gorn Shield Tech, along with advanced Hull Designs, would explain why the shields and weapons are more equalized. Orions use of fighters/shuttles/platforms would also remove heavy forward weapons, and lack of missile usage. The Nausicaans use simular tactics to the Klingons, and so they would have simular designs.

In the end I would like to see a move to heavier frontal weapons/shields for Klingon ships to better define the Klingons ships. It would a unique feature, and would change the tactics used. In PVP the head on attack would be pointless against Klingon ships, as it should be. You do not run head on toward an angered beast. You find a way to flank it, and attack it on the weak side.

I do not expect others to agree, and I do accept that this might be something the game engine can not support. I still want to suggest it. If I say nothing it will never change. Even if this just gets the community,or the Devs, thinking of new ways to augment the game play I will be happy.

Thanks for reading.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 4,136
# 2
08-07-2012, 01:03 PM
Out of the box ST:O got the shield config wrong- they use a 4 sided 'box', where canon and many other trek games are hexagonal (6 sides). Strike 1.

ST:O configures the weapons into the 4 sided box with fore/aft only arcs, where most other trek space games use the hexagonal model where there are left/right firing arcs. Strike 2.

ST:O forced the Federation sci-cruiser doctrine onto the KDF cruisers, making them primarily science/exploration cruisers instead of 'Battle' cruisers that warlike species use to conquer enemies with. Strike 3.

ST:O took a stupid B&B theme and ran with it- they took a small/lightly armed patrol ship (BoP) and turned into the heart of the fleet, with powers beyond absurd. Side retired.
KBF Lord MalaK
Awoken Dead

Now shaddup about the queues, it's a BUG
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 4,051
# 3
08-07-2012, 01:17 PM
The reason other games (in other words all SFC games except the last one) used the hexagonal approach is because they were a direct copy of Star Fleet Battles to the PC with the only change being that the ships used different models.
Guess what: SFB is played on a hex map.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 4,136
# 4
08-07-2012, 01:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by misterde3 View Post
The reason other games (in other words all SFC games except the last one) used the hexagonal approach is because they were a direct copy of Star Fleet Battles to the PC with the only change being that the ships used different models.
Guess what: SFB is played on a hex map.
Yup- the king of ALL trek games, been playing it since '82. The hexagonal model has been in ST films as well, so it's actually canon.
KBF Lord MalaK
Awoken Dead

Now shaddup about the queues, it's a BUG
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 4,051
# 5
08-07-2012, 02:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordmalak1 View Post
Yup- the king of ALL trek games, been playing it since '82. The hexagonal model has been in ST films as well, so it's actually canon.
SFB is not Star Trek actually.
In fact its an entirely different universe.
The Prime Directive RPG specifically adresses this and states "This is not Star Trek".

And where is the hexagonal thing mentioned if I may ask?
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 4,136
# 6
08-07-2012, 02:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by misterde3 View Post
SFB is not Star Trek actually.
In fact its an entirely different universe.
The Prime Directive RPG specifically adresses this and states "This is not Star Trek".

And where is the hexagonal thing mentioned if I may ask?
??
StarFleet battles isn't 'star trek' ? -News to me. Unless this is some new disclaimer since the old ADB days trying to distance themselves from the B&B 're-imagining' of Star Trek. SFB was never 'canon' trek as most of the material was taken from the TOS tech manuals and never made it to television or the big screen.


Also, look at the tac displays in the movie ships: The klingon attack in the opening of the first movie, theres another one in the BoP in the undiscovered country. I remember a few more scattered throughout the series' but the movie ones are easiest to find.
KBF Lord MalaK
Awoken Dead

Now shaddup about the queues, it's a BUG

Last edited by lordmalak1; 08-07-2012 at 02:34 PM.
Ensign
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 20
# 7
08-08-2012, 02:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordmalak1 View Post
Out of the box ST:O got the shield config wrong- they use a 4 sided 'box', where canon and many other trek games are hexagonal (6 sides). Strike 1.

ST:O configures the weapons into the 4 sided box with fore/aft only arcs, where most other trek space games use the hexagonal model where there are left/right firing arcs. Strike 2.

ST:O forced the Federation sci-cruiser doctrine onto the KDF cruisers, making them primarily science/exploration cruisers instead of 'Battle' cruisers that warlike species use to conquer enemies with. Strike 3.

ST:O took a stupid B&B theme and ran with it- they took a small/lightly armed patrol ship (BoP) and turned into the heart of the fleet, with powers beyond absurd. Side retired.
To me all the games appear to have got stuck on the board game concept - space is 3D - so why no "upper" and "lower" shields/weapons?
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 855
# 8
08-08-2012, 02:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kamenskshax View Post
To me all the games appear to have got stuck on the board game concept - space is 3D - so why no "upper" and "lower" shields/weapons?
Check out Bridge Commander (released in 2002). It has forward, aft, left, right, top and bottom shields. It has full 360-degree ship movement and firing arcs, with "left" weapons capable of firing 90 degrees up, down, left, right and forward from it's mounting (depending on the ships configuration/hardpoint).
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 574
# 9
08-08-2012, 02:27 PM
Yup, roach is right, the game mechanics won't allow more than 4 shield facings. And since changing the shield mechanics probably needs many changes, it won't happen. On the top of that, we're talking about the kdf, the poor and abused kid of sto, lol. But it's an interesting concept though and I would like it being implemented. what they could do is to allow a weapon from back to be moved to the front, especially for higher turn rate ships. But then some other faction may consider it op...

And yea, bridge commander was the closest game to the cannon star trek.
Hear! Sons of Kahless
Hear! Daughters too.
The blood of battle washes clean.
The Warrior brave and true.
We fight, we love, and then we kill...
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,766
# 10
08-08-2012, 02:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by trueprom3theus View Post
Yup, roach is right, the game mechanics won't allow more than 4 shield facings. And since changing the shield mechanics probably needs many changes, it won't happen. On the top of that, we're talking about the kdf, the poor and abused kid of sto, lol. But it's an interesting concept though and I would like it being implemented. what they could do is to allow a weapon from back to be moved to the front, especially for higher turn rate ships. But then some other faction may consider it op...

And yea, bridge commander was the closest game to the cannon star trek.
Unless you ran all beams on a battle Cruiser it shouldn't be OP, and even then it would not be OP as a 4/4 Cruiser can still Broadside all beams like a 5/3 Battle cruiser would be able to.

The 5 forward weapons would not be OP becuase even with a burst shot, once your target gets out of the limited cannon firing arc the only weapons you have on them would be your rear Turrets or at most two beams.
Frankly it would make the BCs more vulnerable to those rear arc creeping escorts and make the BC player ahve to think more about his/her attacking posture.

Plus I think it fits the IP for Klingons very well.
Richard Hamilton (1975-2014)
goodbye good friend. We will see you in the DMZ in the sky oneday, save a shot for us.
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 10:22 AM.