Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 111
10-21-2010, 09:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintAdalberto
I'll say this: Your commitment to roleplay environment is admirable, even if we don't agree on every direction. I bet you're a fun person to team with, and create a cracking atmosphere in game.
Aw thanks, I'm trying. Maybe we will team someday.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraitholme View Post
TNG: Jumpsuits, stylish two-toned shoulders, slick and smooth equipment, oh my. Not to mention the shift of blocky squareness to streamlined sexay in the lines of the ship itself. A facelift worthy of a Beverly Hills Image Consultant.
Whilst I don't doubt a certain shift of story elements, TNG had its fair share of conflicts and outright wars as well, as had TOS. And we shouldn't forget that the entire Federation would not suddenly change over such a short span of time when it worked for decades before.

The Federation didn't change in DS9 - it's just that the show focused on more martial characters that were willing to get their hands dirty. The show does point out several times of how these characters' actions conflict with the Federation way of doing things. And it has always been like this, just not in the center of attention (of a series). Yes, Section 31 existed long before DS9, too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraitholme View Post
More relevantly, the UN has a defined military force of 'Peacekeepers'. These are trained soldiers with advanced firearms, armored vehicles, etc etc. They have rather natty blue berets. Are you telling me that everyone, including the UN, are out looking for war?
Ah, what an interesting comparison! Good that you bring it up. Let me ask you, then, do the UN have battleships? Bombers?
No. Because their role is peacekeeping, not conquest. Just like Starfleet. Hence no battleships and bombers either.

As for real nations - yes, I do believe that a country's armament gives a good impression on how the respective government intends to use it. And in a way this goes for Star Trek, too. Why do you think the Federation didn't have something like the Defiant before the Borg, for example? Because only the Borg warrant this kind of response. Because the Borg are the one and only force in the galaxy you cannot make treaties with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraitholme View Post
Besides, think of the peacetime applications. Huge support supply delivery, or emergency evacuation. Search and rescue. Massive research platforms.
Dedicated battleships and carriers are not suitable for peacetime operations - at least not as suitable as normal Starfleet ships. That's the entire point. Starfleet believes in multi-role ships. Their vessels are armed explorers, meant for research but at the same time more than capable of fighting.

How will you deliver supplies with a carrier? Just drop of all the "fighters" at the starbase? If so, why not just send one of the many freighters the Federation has? And evacuation? With two-seater Peregrines? I also fail to see how a battleship focusing on carrying as much phaser banks and torpedo launchers as physically possible should perform better at search&rescue or research than a proper Galaxy or an Intrepid, sorry. If it truly does, it's obviously not a pure battleship, but yet another multi-role vessel.
You cannot focus entirely on combat and then expect the ship to behave the same in civilian roles. It's either or. Just like the Defiant-class is utterly unsuitable for peacetime Starfleet operations (and hence probably not built in a large number).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraitholme View Post
Firstly, this is a game, not a movie or a television series. Compromises need to be made.
Compromises only need to be made if they are deemed necessary, though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraitholme View Post
Secondly, it's not an excuse, it's a plausible concept. Address it directly if you must, rather than 'I just don't like the sound of it'.
I would like to remind you that it was yourself that labelled your "plausible concept" an excuse. I merely agreed with you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraitholme View Post
The game would be a huge mess if balance mechanics were completely disregarded in favour of flavour.
There we agree, but that is not the issue here. Unless you want to argue on the basis that the Federation is currently at a massive disadvantage in terms of balancing? Even if that were the case, I'm sure there are better solutions than just making each faction a copy of the other.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraitholme View Post
The serial-built cloaking device is a meaningless element... with the Defiant as precedent there is absolutely no reason why it wouldn't be a component added to more Starfleet combat vessels. Yes, I know it was a gift, not Federation built... Starfleet had already been working on such devices for 40 years, and it would be silly to assume they havn't managed to reverse-engineer one by now.
It's not that they couldn't. They do not want. The Federation tends to honor the treaties it made in good faith with other stellar empires. Which is why the Pegasus-project and its working Starfleet-developed cloak was shut down after its exposure to the Federation Council and the Romulans.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraitholme View Post
I agree, STO could be more Trek in a lot of ways. It could also be a lot more fun to play as a game in a lot of ways. There's a fine balance, which is eased by looking for ways to fit the awesome factor into the flavour, not by simply disregarding one for the other.
Agreed on the general idea behind your reasoning. It's just that, naturally, each of us has his or her own idea of how this balance should look like. In my opinion, we're already too far in the "theme park" zone. But that's the basis of why we have discussions such as these, right?

I'm just saying that it is very much possible to create a fun game AND stick to a given setting. I didn't feel SFC would be boring just because I couldn't spray funny paintjobs on the hull of my cruiser, for example. Perhaps I'm just placing too much emphasis on the setting - I play STO mainly because I wanted to play Trek, not "some game". But that's just how I fly. I'm well aware of being in the minority in that.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 112
10-21-2010, 11:38 AM
this topic is getting caotic. perhaps it needs to close.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 113
10-21-2010, 11:57 AM
Okay to start out. I don't want tot see an exact copy of the Klingon carrier over on the fed side, instead I would love to see a pet class ship, maybe using drones, and some other cool concepts that could lay off of that.

now time to get to the nit picking (and I hope I don't offend anyone, just pointing out a few flawed arguments to set the record straight.)

first off to the guy who said that star fleet has never made, nor will make a battle ship. I give you prime example a: The Excelsior. the Excelsior was classified as a Star Fleets battle ship during the TMP era. It brought the heavy fire power that Star fleet needed to fight wars to the battle front and was able to move around and defend federation territory from any threat that it would see. While the only carrier we have seen on screen is the Akira, I like it's role as a torpedo destroyer.

Secondly, as to the cloak. The real reason star fleet never got a cloak is becasue the creator, Gene Roddenberry said "Good guys don't sneak around." which while true from a dramatic point of view, lets take a look at how this has really cemented the federation into an all or nothing sort of scenario. While the Klingon use cloaks to sneak attack the enemy, the federation could have used it to sneak into contested territory, investigate claims of, lets say illegal weapon research, and get out of there. Instead, (in the the shows) they have to negotiate to get access to investigate, and if they did something wrong it would come down to a fight. IN a game it basically translates into this. You are given the mission to investigate a facility rumored to be a weapons testing facility. You show up, upset the inhabitants, fight your way through countless ships just to get to the facility and investigate. Best case scenario, you were right, and those people you just obliterated were in the wrong, worst case scenario, you were wrong, just attacked an innocent civilization and maybe provoked a war.

Of course any peace loving organization would instead spend all it's time trying to negotiate with their enemy to have them release the data of the facility and take no action if they refused, just like our U.N.

Which brings me to my next point. The federation isn't like the U.N. It's more like what the U.N. should have been. An organization design to organize the many governments under their umbrella and give a unified set of rules to live by. They also have their Star Fleet which is a military/exploratory branch of their organization, which has the authority to act as they see fit under the guidelines of the Prime Directive.

Our U.N. can hardly get any of the governments to agree to anything, and any time they send in troops, it's with the explicit orders to never open fire, unless you wanted to tried for treason. Sadly, this also includes when the enemy is shooting at them. watch hotel Rwanda, which is based off a true story. Look at how the U.N. handled the claims the Iraq had nuclear arms. Despite the fact that Iraq was required under treaty to submit to an investigation on their nuclear plants every so often, Iraq actually denied the U.N. for over six months to even allow investigators in, much less surrender any information. More to the point any time a major conflict erupts around the world, it's not the U.N. forces that intervene, it the U.S. forces that are required to step in, becasue unlike the U.N., the U.S. at least has the balls to get the job done. The U.S. has been on many occasions been chastise for not intervening in massacres becasue we wanted to stay out of them as a matter of public approval by the U.N.

So if the Federation acts like the U.N., then ther eis no way that the Klingons would have had to sign the Kitomer Accords in the first place, and the Romulans would be walking all over Federtaion space, becasue Kirk And Picard would be under orders to not do anything as all the nations sit around and argue about what to do for years on end. In fact, not only would the founding planets be part of the Talks but the Klngons, Romulans, Cardassians, Dominion, and any other Race would have equal say in the affairs of the Federation, and dead lock any executive decisions the Federation ever came up with.

Luckily for us, the Federation is run as a peace loving Galactic Government that does carry a big stick around. They do get things done, with only a few set backs. And when they do go to war, which is often, their military is capable, fleshed out, and after all the blood shed, the Federtaion goes above and beyond and starts to help their enemies rebuild into a better, more peaceful empire, that can coexist with the Federation.

So, while Star Fleet would certainly have carriers (assuming fighters are really that effective) they Have, and Probably still do have Battleships. But with almost all federation ships, they serve a secondary purpose of exploration and patrol. While cloaks would make tactical sense for all races, I think only the war like races should have battle cloaks. The Federation use their for recon and special operations, but would decloak and stay decloaked during a fire fight and engagement.

As much as they are a "righteous" peace loving society. They must also be militarily viable an entity. After all, they want to be around after the fight does occur, and while they would try to avoid conflict, they are by no means afraid of it. And unlike our lovely U.N. who is at this moment trying to disarm not only citizens across the world, but also military powers, becasue they feel that a peaceful society is one where they don't allow conflicts (A.K.A. people will die in senseless blood sheds all around the world, but becasue the U.N. refuse to acknowledge it, as there would be no way such crimes would happen with out guns in innocent peoples hands. (and yes I am being condescending to the U.N. becasue this is there personal view on violence through to world.))

As far as Feds getting carrier in STO, we don't need the same ones the Klingons do. Let them have the "Carrier", and give the Federation a drone frigate, or something in which we can summon our own pets that can do different things. Just make them comparable.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 114
10-21-2010, 12:31 PM
honestly, I'm upset with STO's way of why The federation stuck with not developing cloaks. Simply becasue both the Klingons and Romulans threw a fit once they foud out that Star fleet had made another ship with one and with drew their ambassadors. Considering the fact that the Federation is literally supporting the Romulans and their rebuilding, and the Klingons have started to act aggressive towards the Federation, It amazes me how stereotyped the Federation has become. "We are peace loving and will do nothing to provoke an attack, even while we are being attacked by those very people who we are trying to get approval from."

Heck, at this point, When the Romulans do become a playable faction and are at war with us, they'll be usingfederation funded warships to do so. What happened to the idea of Federation being an organization concerned with it's own survival and realizing that you can't please everybody. They have been made out to be too weak to field this kind of strength they have now, Becasue as they stand know, they might as well honor a treaty they signed saying they will dis-arm all of their vessels just so they won't get attacked.

I'm all for peaceful resolutions to fighting and making a more friendly universe, but the powers that be need to also be strong and resolved enough to watch out for it's own welfare as well as that of it's populace. One that has a back bone to finish a fight not cower away form it at all possible turns. Frankly their is a sort of identity crises that a lot of the factions have, as most of their notable features tend to be skin deep.
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 03:58 AM.