Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 11
07-15-2011, 06:33 AM
T3 sounds fine, so long as it has a T5 variant. I don't see the point in adding a new Klingon ship, especially such a fan favourite, without allowing it to be used at the level cap.

The reasoning for the K'Vort's off-screen introduction doesn't really matter. Its the role it fills canonicaly that is important.

Personaly, I've always looked at as the K'Vort filling a gap between the K't'inga and the Vor'Cha. The K't'inga is too old, the Vor'Cha too expensive, and so the K'Vort becomes the backbone battlecruiser of the fleet - which explains why its just a big Bird of Prey since its far more cost effective to super-size an existing design, especialy one that has proven to be as successful as the B'Rel, compared to designing an entirely new ship.

I can see it being a very easy modification for the Klingon shipyards to start churning out a big B'Rel as aposed to having to develope an entirely new production run for the Vor'Cha and Negh'var.

That is, afterall, a tried and tested practice in ship building here on Earth. There is a very good reason why the HMS Victory, the largest of Britain's ships of the line, follows identical but super-sized plans to the 6th rate ships that were being built 100 years prior.

As for the T5 variant being a clone of the Excelsior - can someone remind me what that difference is? Is that not the boff layout that I mention in the initial post?

For weapon layout - A 4/3 weapon layout will not work in a cruiser.

If the K'vort is to be a cruiser, there are a couple of cruiser-specific things it has to have:

1. A focus on engineering boffs
2. A slower turn rate compared to escorts/raiders
3. 8 weapon slots

T5 battlecruisers have 8 weapon slots because its the only way to balance the DPS compared to a T5 raptor with a commander and lieutenant tactical boff.

So in short, if the K'vort is going to be a cruiser, then it must have (at T5) a Commander engineering boff and 8 weapon slots.

Messing with turn rate will not justify losing that 8'th weapon, neither will messing with hull, neither will giving it any kind of special torpedo ability. The Galaxy-X proved that.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 12
07-15-2011, 10:05 AM
I think a hybrid of eng and tac would be cool. Something like

Com. Tac, LtC Eng, Lt Eng, Lt Sci, Ensign Tac.

With no battle cloak so you get the extra console, either tac or eng, more shields/hull than the BoP we have now also since no battle cloak. Weapon slots, ehh I don't care to much.

Although I wouldn't mind seeing it as a battle cruiser. Healing out of a K'vort would be fun.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 13
07-15-2011, 11:19 AM
Messing too much with the boff layout is not a particularly good road to go down.

If the K'Vort is going to be a Cruiser, and I think we are all in agreement that it should be a cruiser, then we have to accept that it needs to be comparable to other cruisers of the same tier.

That means there a few fundamental basics that it must have;

1) It must have a Commander Engineer boff slot. Its also likely that Cryptic would require it to have a Lt. Commander boff slot as well.
2) It must have a slower turn rate than an escort.
3) It must have 8 weapon slots in order to maintain a DPS balance due to the focus on engineering boffs.

Those are quite clearly the 3 rules of any T5 Klingon cruiser.

So for the question on boff layouts, that only really leaves the decision on what that ensign boff should be - and it seems the popular decision there is for it to be universal, which works well with the Negh'Var and Vor'Cha.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 14
07-15-2011, 08:40 PM
the tier 5 is a slippery slope, i don't think anyone is going to believe that a (tier 5) K'vort is going to have as many aft as it has fore weapons slots, or that it has a turn rate as bad as 8-10, or that its mainly an engineering ship. at tier 3 the exact ktinga stats are a perfect match for the ship though, the 11 turn rate, the 2 eng and 2 tac consoles, the 4/2 weapon slots, its perfect. hiding it away at tier 3 is best, the kvort seems to me a cheap capital ship killer (they sent 3 after a big target like a galaxy class in yesterdays enterprise, and against romulan warbirds to backup the enterprise in the defector) in a time of recovery for the klingons before they could build newer designs like the vorcha and negvar. it shouldn't be top tier in 2409.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 15
07-16-2011, 04:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by vampiric_hoshi View Post
Messing too much with the boff layout is not a particularly good road to go down.

If the K'Vort is going to be a Cruiser, and I think we are all in agreement that it should be a cruiser, then we have to accept that it needs to be comparable to other cruisers of the same tier.

That means there a few fundamental basics that it must have;

1) It must have a Commander Engineer boff slot. Its also likely that Cryptic would require it to have a Lt. Commander boff slot as well.
2) It must have a slower turn rate than an escort.
3) It must have 8 weapon slots in order to maintain a DPS balance due to the focus on engineering boffs.

Those are quite clearly the 3 rules of any T5 Klingon cruiser.

So for the question on boff layouts, that only really leaves the decision on what that ensign boff should be - and it seems the popular decision there is for it to be universal, which works well with the Negh'Var and Vor'Cha.
I see what you're saying, but it must also be more manouverable than a Vor'cha, and I'm not sure there's much room between Vor'cha and the less manouverable escorts as it is, although this could be the inertia thing kicking in here rather than just turn rate. It'd be a tough thing to get right but I think it could be done.

Considering it is a BoP, and that at T3 the K'tinga having four forward weapons slots when nothing else at T3 does causes no problems, what about a 5/3 arrangement for the weapons? It wouldn't need extra tactical bias from BO powers compared to other cruisers, because that bias would come from it's emphasis on forward weaponry. And as a bird of prey, it should be focused forwards. I think a straight cut n' paste of the Excelsior with the exception of science and tactical being swapped (I'll explain in a moment), with the more klingon inertia rating, and a 5/3 weapons slot arrangement would be cool. A Lt Com science station (as opposed to the Excelsior's tactical) would also give the KDF a ship which would have some utility for science captains, as they don't exactly have oodles of choice as things stand currently.

Now, back to my crazy 5/3 idea. While 5 forward mounted DHCs does sound really bad initially, it's worth considering the disparity between this and a Qin heavy raptor is less than the disparity between the K'tinga and the raptor from T3 (20% vs 25%), and that a Raptor is more manouverable (thus granting DHCs more utility) and can have things like CRF3 and Attack Pattern Omega3 which increases damage a lot (to say nothing of boosting manouverability, defense and granting tractor immunity), and with tactical initiative that can be rolled around again quite quickly. By only having a Lt tactical slot on this ship, we'd mitigate the potential havoc of 5 fore weapons by having it not combinable with the higher tactical buffs like Attack Pattern Omega which boosts a ships firepower albeit temporarily. So with more firepower unbuffed, but less firepower than a similarly buffed raptor, I think balance would be maintained, and we'd have something that fits in with "enormous bird of prey". Also, if it's tactical consoles were also more in line with a cruiser, I beleive this would help as well. I think this would fit opposite the T5 Excelsior in the same way the K'tinga does the T3 one.

I'm just thinking "out loud", or whatever the keyboard equivilent is though, so do tell me if I'm being mental here. I'd just rather see something different and unique rather than yet another ship with a minor difference. Save minor differences for when there's 5 cruisers like Starfleet has.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 16
07-16-2011, 05:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dontdrunkimshoot View Post
a good place for a K'vort to fit in the klingon ship lineup is tier 3 in place of the ktinga. the ktinga should then be moved down to tier 1 in addition to the tier 1 BOP or in place of it. maybe a tier 5 Kvort that is an excelsior clone after that, but it would certainly have a better turn rate, dual cannon mounting, and a cloak. ya that would be to overpowered, just tier 3 would be best.
*scratches head* *looks at dontdrunkimshoot's posts in the T5 K't'inga thread* *scratches head again*

Hmm, okay now I'm confused by your positiotn in this matter my friend.

Putting the K't'inga at tier 1 would put it below the Connie refit.
And I thought you conssidered the K't'inga to be superior to her.
Anyway, I agree to some degree with you:
putting the K'Vort where the K't'inga is now would be okay, even using the same stas would be okay especially since the K'vort is so...well it's got a pair of giant forwad guns and probably little else.
But why would you want to put the K't'inga at tier 1?
Would tier 2, opposite its old nemesis be enough?
Cryptic could probably disconnect the D7 skin from the K't'inga and put that one at tier 1.
Since we don't have mix and match anyway the K'tanco could stay where it is right now as well as the third skin for the K't'inga.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dontdrunkimshoot View Post
the tier 5 is a slippery slope, i don't think anyone is going to believe that a (tier 5) K'vort is going to have as many aft as it has fore weapons slots, or that it has a turn rate as bad as 8-10, or that its mainly an engineering ship. at tier 3 the exact ktinga stats are a perfect match for the ship though, the 11 turn rate, the 2 eng and 2 tac consoles, the 4/2 weapon slots, its perfect. hiding it away at tier 3 is best, the kvort seems to me a cheap capital ship killer (they sent 3 after a big target like a galaxy class in yesterdays enterprise, and against romulan warbirds to backup the enterprise in the defector) in a time of recovery for the klingons before they could build newer designs like the vorcha and negvar. it shouldn't be top tier in 2409.
Again I agree to some degree:
The K'vort is somewhat smallish for a cruiser and it probably has a lot more firpower forward than allround.
But regarding it sperformance in Yesterday's Enterprise there are a few things to consider:
1.
It was an alternate timeline where the Federation had been at war with the Klignons for 20 years, meaning that the Galaxy class was built to incorporate several changes compared to the Galaxy we know.
It was also referred to as "battleship" in that episode.
Also Yar mentioned that as a result of the war military technology had advanced considerably.
Assuming that was the case on both sides there is however the detail that when a ship is updated with new tech, it is not going ot be asa effective asa ship build with those advacnes alerady in ind.
Which is what the Klignons probably had to do to their K'vorts in that timeline, because those ships probably predated the Galaxy and the entire conflict.
Even though the special effects in that episode were the same as those in other episodes in the regular timeline I'd assume that the "Yesterday's Enterprise" could have wiped the floor with the Galaxy from the regular timeline.
2.
Tranlating stuff from Star Trek into a computer games is a complicated and rather fuzzy business.
But I assume the K'vorts we saw in the shows would be roughly comparable to the tier 3 version we would see in this game, without a T5 version in existence at the time.
Just like the Galaxy from season 3 would be roughly comparable to the T4 model in STO and also without a T5 version anywhere to be found.
So the fact that the K'vort was obviously not comparable to the Galaxy in Star Trek is not exactly a perfect example to refute the idea that such a ship would ever be built.
As for being some kind of Starship killer, probably.
That is what I tried to convey in my first post in this thread, but "cheap"?
I'm not entirely sure what that means.
I seriously doubt the Klingons simply built those gums from spare-parts lying around unless they were spares from a starbase armament:

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/2...ktingacomp.jpg

I'd say those would qualify to be properly translated into 3 Dual Heavy Cannons forward in STO.
And given the fact they were still around during the Dominion War like the K't'inga that you also agreed was a candidate as a decent T5 ship given the proper specs why not the K'vort?
Also depending on the size of the available shipyards it's probably still easier to build and upgrade those ships that build the gigantic Negh'var.
And as a dedicated killer for bigger ships they'd still be perfect.
One of the concepts from World War two was that of the Tank Hunter/Tank Destroyer: a vehicle that mounted a heavy gun much larger than that a regular tank carried in its turret.
The U.S. version also carried its gun in a turret but the whole vecicle was comparatively lightly armored and in several cases the turret didn't even have a roof because it would have required too much space.
The versions used for example by the Germans, the Russians the also the British instead had the weapon fixed in the chassis, which allowed the vehicle to be properly armored and also gave them a lower silhouette.
The Germans whose army had a rather "diverse" list of vehicles can be used as a good example:

The last models of the Panzer IV used a 75 mm Gun with a barrel-length of 48 in its turret
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...J_Parola_1.jpg

The late versions tank hunter model Jadgdpanzer IV used the 75mm Gun with a barrel-length of 48 of 70
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...r_IV_CWM_2.jpg

The Panzer V "Panther" used the gun employed by the Jadtpanzer IV in its turret
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Panther%22.jpg

The "Jadgpanther" used an 88mm gun with a Barrel Length of 71
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...her_Thun_1.jpg

The "Tiger II" used the same gun as the Jagdpanther in its turret
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...II_mg_7800.jpg

The Jagdtiger however used a 128mm (5inch) gun that was comparable to those used by naval vessels
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...agdtiger_1.jpg

I think you get the idea.

I'd say the K'vort with its gigantic forward guns is pretty much the Klingon "Jagdtiger":
It's big yet not as big as the Vor'cha and unlike ships of similar size without a large number of omnidirectional guns but instead with lots of firpower directed forward enabling it to take on ships biggern thanitself just like the tank hunters that could defeat conventional tanks biggern than themselves assuning they got them in their sights.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 17
07-16-2011, 06:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mister_dee
*scratches head* *looks at dontdrunkimshoot's posts in the T5 K't'inga thread* *scratches head again*

Hmm, okay now I'm confused by your positiotn in this matter my friend.

Putting the K't'inga at tier 1 would put it below the Connie refit.
And I thought you conssidered the K't'inga to be superior to her.
Anyway, I agree to some degree with you:
putting the K'Vort where the K't'inga is now would be okay, even using the same stas would be okay especially since the K'vort is so...well it's got a pair of giant forwad guns and probably little else.
But why would you want to put the K't'inga at tier 1?
Would tier 2, opposite its old nemesis be enough?
Cryptic could probably disconnect the D7 skin from the K't'inga and put that one at tier 1.
Since we don't have mix and match anyway the K'tanco could stay where it is right now as well as the third skin for the K't'inga.
i'll just add to that comment, there's more changes then that i would make, i just dont feel like typing them at the time. i would also remove the miranda and constitution from the game, or make them some non default optional ships to avoid the crying. also move the excelsior down to the tier 2 fed cruiser, and leave the normal tier 3 cruiser were it is. the saber, the tier 2 escort ships, i would make the default federation tier 1 ship, and i would make the steamrunner and norway the tier 2 escort. also i would make the defiant tier 3, the fleet escort tier 4, and the akira would take its place at tier 5 as the engineering counterpart to the science Prometheus. so ya in my dreams right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mister_dee
Again I agree to some degree:
That is what I tried to convey in my first post in this thread, but "cheap"?
I'm not entirely sure what that means.
I seriously doubt the Klingons simply built those gums from spare-parts lying around unless they were spares from a starbase armament:

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/2...ktingacomp.jpg
well cheap as in with out its big old wings it looks kinda small but brings ENORMOUS firepower into play, far more firepower then a ship its size and class would normally have, for much cheaper then a full sized battleship like the negvar. i doubt the vorcha has 2 guns that match it, but more firepower overall. i bet it wasn't till the negvar that guns that large were mounted on another klingon ship.

though those 2 even bigger under slung guns on the negvar are probably the most powerful weapons on any starship in the alpha and beta quadrants, and in the league only occupied by a d'derdrex's main gun and a galaxy classes main array.


i still think a tier 5 is a bad idea, without breaking some serious weapon slot issues and cruiser/escort boundaries. theirs already great big bops at tier 5 already anyway, a kvort too is just to much.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 18
07-16-2011, 07:49 AM
The size of the ship is irrelevant in terms of its firepower and use as a cruiser.

Frankly the Intrepid Class should have been a Cruiser and not a Science Ship, and it should probably have had exactly the stats that the T5 Excelsior has. There is absolutely no issues with the Intrepid fitting into that kind of range of firepower, even despite its size.

The same is true of the K'Vort since its pretty much identical in size to the Intrepid.

it is also not necessarily true that the K'Vort "only has 2 big guns". There are plenty of places where disruptor banks, and disruptor strips, could be placed on the hull, giving it more than enough room for the T5 cruiser 8-weapon slot.

I also do not see there being much problems with the K'Vort turn rate being slightly faster than a Vor'Cha. It prompts you to use a turn rate console which imo is a good tool in order to maintain tanking balance vs battlecruiser DPS.

Whether or not its 5 front and 3 rear, or 4 front and 4 rear, is obviously open to debate. Though I'm not entirely convinced that having 5 forward guns wont make it a little too over-powered.

As for looks? This is the kind of visual I have in my head for a K'Vort:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6029/...bb33d114_b.jpg

Visually its almost identical to the B'Rel, but the biggest differences are (beside its size):

4 running lights on each rather than 2
2 disruptor banks beneath running lights on each wing
2 heavy disruptor cannons on each wing (as a posed to just 1 on the B'Rel)
Dual torpedo launcher on the front of the head (as a posed to 1 launcher on the B'Rel)
Shuttlebay above the engine manifold at the rear
2 disruptor strips on the back of each wing
3 disruptor strips on the "beak" of the head

And as far as that engine manifold, it should be:

Red Bussard Ramscoop on top
Yellow warp plasma vents in the middle
Red Impulse Engine beneath
Torpedo Launcher on either side

I'll draw up a rear view later to demonstrate the above.

Remember that the K'Vort is the size of the Intrepid, and the Intrepid has phaser strips all over it with both fore and rear torpedo launchers, so its more than plausible that the K'Vort sports the same sort of weapons array. Also, if we assume that the K'Vort was built in the period between Star Trek VI and TNG (I call it Enterprise C/Ambassador Class era) then its quite plausible for the K'Vort to have been the first Klingon ship to sport disruptor strips as the first signs of joint Fed/Kling technology.
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 05:37 PM.