Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 81
04-30-2012, 02:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveyNY View Post
Uhmmm... ,

Not to be a smart-arse or anything (I'm already a Troll), but...,

Where exactly, does one find any of this, in Hard Canon??

Are we having an 'I Want My Cake and Eat It Too'... moment here?

Well, as I've said before, hard canon is that which is seen or mentioned in the live action shows and movies..

So, the picket ships the Borg cube destroyed as it moved past Saturn in "Best of Both Worlds (part II)", were seen (admittedly, they were destroyed in seconds.. But that was vs the Borg, when the Borg were still really scary), and when the Breen attacked Earth in "The Changing Face of Evil", they were mentioned as having caused significant damage to the Breen attack force..

So... Yeah, Planetary Defense ships are canon..

And they're that they're right in that middle ground where I picture them in STO, tough defensive ships vs a "normal" force (Breen), but can't slug it out vs an overwhelming force (Borg).

Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 82
04-30-2012, 02:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katic View Post
Not necessarily, a disabled ship is a prime resource for intelligence gathering, prisoners of war, and other wartime concerns..

Personally, if I'm ever in a RL situation where I have a choice of rendering an attacker helpless or rendering them dead, I'm leaving them helpless, it's better ethically, as well as leads to information about my attacker(s).

Dead men give no useful operative intelligence.
....

"Captured" is usually better than destroyed, not worse, and can still be scuttled or otherwise destroyed.

You are making my point, not refuting it. Disabled is better than destroyed.

So if the capacity to disable exists to any real degree, why would it be limited to planetary defense ships?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 83
04-30-2012, 02:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kimmera
....

"Captured" is usually better than destroyed, not worse, and can still be scuttled or otherwise destroyed.

You are making my point, not refuting it. Disabled is better than destroyed.

So if the capacity to disable exists to any real degree, why would it be limited to planetary defense ships?
I think we've got crossed meanings here. You said:

"Disabling does equal destroying. A disabled ship is a sitting duck."

Which I (mis)understood as you saying that disabling is a useless tactic when destroying is an option.

I understand now that was not your intent, so let me respond to what you did mean..

In a Wartime scenario, disabling a ship has certain advantages, but, it's not always the best option. You disable a ship when you have the luxury, after the battle, to extract information, process prisoners, or dismantle the disabled ships for their technology. That's not always a luxury you have.

if you're losing the battle, if retreat is eminent, or if your objective is something other than taking and holding territory, you want to destroy the enemy ships, not disable them. A disabled ship can be repaired, it's crew healed, and both put back into a service, a destroyed ship is both a loss of material and manpower for the enemy.

A defensive ship, like the planetary defense ships I'm envisioning, are only used to defend a Federation world or colony from attack for a short period of time as reinforcements from Starfleet are dispatched.

The intent is for them to hold the line until Starfleet arrives on the scene to truly drive the enemy off. Since the Planet is (hopefully) held, the planetary defense ships have every reason to seek to disable, rather than destroy, the attackers, since then, after the planet/colony has been defended, they can take and interrogate prisoners and dismantle the enemy vessels for intel.

Mainline ships, however, do not have the luxury of assuming a victory and the time to process prisoners and tow disabled enemy ships back to Starbase. They operate at range from Starfleet facilities and on the front lines of the War (or in the case of Science Vessels, far from Federation borders exploring).

For the mainline ships, destruction is often the safer, and easier, course of action.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 84
04-30-2012, 02:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aries2507 View Post
There seems to be one significant class omission within the game namely the Scout/Destroyer.


History of the Scout / Destroyer class:

Known Scout / Destroyer Class ships:


The Hermes Class (Scout) Saladin Class (destroyer) (constitution class component variable)
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f3...68/23910_2.jpg

The Siva class (Destroyer class refit)
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f3...royerrefit.jpg

The Behemoth class Super Destroyer (Shiva class upgrade)
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f3...-destroyer.png

The Predator class (Destroyer class Academy retrofit)
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f3...sdestroyer.jpg

.........

The Freedom class (Galaxy/Nebula component scout variant)
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f3...sdestroyer.jpg
.........

The Freedom class Destroyer retrofit
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f3...nalvariant.jpg



The potential rebirth:

As we are at war and with the development of much more efficient warp core's and effective weapon systems the now mothballed scout / Destroyers could easily be pressed into service once more with little to no effort offering one more ship class that requires a minimal crew complement in a fleet that desperately needs the support.
Oh god no, those vessels are just plain horrible looking, waaay to PUGLY for my taste and rightfully to be ignored.

If Cryptic must find a place for them, they should have been training ships for when a player starts a new character, otherwise; wouldn't touch them with a ten foot poll.

They look like flying tadpoles :p
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 85
04-30-2012, 08:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katic View Post
I think we've got crossed meanings here. You said:

"Disabling does equal destroying. A disabled ship is a sitting duck."

Which I (mis)understood as you saying that disabling is a useless tactic when destroying is an option.

I understand now that was not your intent, so let me respond to what you did mean..

In a Wartime scenario, disabling a ship has certain advantages, but, it's not always the best option. You disable a ship when you have the luxury, after the battle, to extract information, process prisoners, or dismantle the disabled ships for their technology. That's not always a luxury you have.

if you're losing the battle, if retreat is eminent, or if your objective is something other than taking and holding territory, you want to destroy the enemy ships, not disable them. A disabled ship can be repaired, it's crew healed, and both put back into a service, a destroyed ship is both a loss of material and manpower for the enemy.

A defensive ship, like the planetary defense ships I'm envisioning, are only used to defend a Federation world or colony from attack for a short period of time as reinforcements from Starfleet are dispatched.

The intent is for them to hold the line until Starfleet arrives on the scene to truly drive the enemy off. Since the Planet is (hopefully) held, the planetary defense ships have every reason to seek to disable, rather than destroy, the attackers, since then, after the planet/colony has been defended, they can take and interrogate prisoners and dismantle the enemy vessels for intel.

Mainline ships, however, do not have the luxury of assuming a victory and the time to process prisoners and tow disabled enemy ships back to Starbase. They operate at range from Starfleet facilities and on the front lines of the War (or in the case of Science Vessels, far from Federation borders exploring).

For the mainline ships, destruction is often the safer, and easier, course of action.
If you disable a ship, and it stays disabled long enough that you'd have even a chance at interrogation/capture/etc, then it is a sitting duck and likely little to no effort to finish the job if need be.

Amd before you say 'Starfleet doesn't do that', the KDF aren't morally limited in that regard, nor is anyone loyal to Section 31.

You missed my point... disabling when possible is usually easier than destroying, especially in the context of smaller ships with less than top firepower being able to use such tactics. We are discussing a hypothetical class of ships here. Either this tactic would be useful (i.e. reliable), or it wouldn't be (in which case, why bother?).

Why would target subsystems be so relatively ineffective if you can do essentially the same for (effectively) permanent damage?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 86
04-30-2012, 08:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackV7
Oh god no, those vessels are just plain horrible looking, waaay to PUGLY for my taste and rightfully to be ignored.

If Cryptic must find a place for them, they should have been training ships for when a player starts a new character, otherwise; wouldn't touch them with a ten foot poll.

They look like flying tadpoles :p
Why is there such a resistance to TOS era hulls? I love the Franz Joseph hulls for their simplicity of design.

Eye of the beholder, I guess, though...
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 87
04-30-2012, 08:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kimmera
Either this tactic would be useful (i.e. reliable), or it wouldn't be (in which case, why bother?).
This is very shortsighted. A parachute is almost useless if you're adrift on an ocean, but an absolute necessity if you're falling out of a plane. It's the same parachute, but other factors determine it's usefulness.

The same goes for disabling weapons, in some situations, it may be preferential, even essential to leave an enemy ship mostly intact (think of the American effort to capture an Enigma Machine in WWII), in others, it may be vitally important to destroy an enemy vessel.

The situation determines if the tactic or weapon is useful, not the weapon or tactic itself.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 88
04-30-2012, 08:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katic View Post
This is very shortsighted. A parachute is almost useless if you're adrift on an ocean, but an absolute necessity if you're falling out of a plane. It's the same parachute, but other factors determine it's usefulness.

The same goes for disabling weapons, in some situations, it may be preferential, even essential to leave an enemy ship mostly intact (think of the American effort to capture an Enigma Machine in WWII), in others, it may be vitally important to destroy an enemy vessel.

The situation determines if the tactic or weapon is useful, not the weapon or tactic itself.
Argh... When is disabling the enemy's weapons not useful?? If it is weaponless, you can shoot it while it can't shoot back. If it is powerless (you disable their engines), you shoot it while it is a sitting duck (and quite possibly has no weapon power too!)

When I said 'useless vs useful' I was talking about whether it works at all, i.e. whether it successfully disables at all. In battle, if it is successful, disabling is pretty much always useful.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 89
04-30-2012, 08:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kimmera
Argh... When is disabling the enemy's weapons not useful?? If it is weaponless, you can shoot it while it can't shoot back. If it is powerless (you disable their engines), you shoot it while it is a sitting duck (and quite possibly has no weapon power too!)

When I said 'useless vs useful' I was talking about whether it works at all, i.e. whether it successfully disables at all. In battle, if it is successful, disabling is pretty much always useful.
Destroying an enemy vessel may be preferable in some cases, but not all, while disabling a ship may be preferential in some cases, but not all. it's not a black and white issue, it's conditional upon the details of the battle and the war at large.

A ship you disable in the middle of battle that you have no intention of capturing is just a ship that the enemy will repair later on and put back into service. It is a temporary victory.

A ship that you disable and capture is taken out of service and will likely yield valuable intel. it is a permanent victory.

A ship that you destroy in the middle of battle will (obviously) not be put back into service. It may be a permanant victory. A ship that you destroy in the middle of battle can never yield you intel. Which may mean the ship you just destroyed actually held the key to your eventual victory, destroying it was probably not the best move.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 90
04-30-2012, 08:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katic View Post
Destroying an enemy vessel may be preferable in some cases, but not all, while disabling a ship may be preferential in some cases, but not all. it's not a black and white issue, it's conditional upon the details of the battle and the war at large.

A ship you disable in the middle of battle that you have no intention of capturing is just a ship that the enemy will repair later on and put back into service. It is a temporary victory.

A ship that you disable and capture is taken out of service and will likely yield valuable intel. it is a permanent victory.

A ship that you destroy in the middle of battle will (obviously) not be put back into service. It may be a permanant victory. A ship that you destroy in the middle of battle can never yield you intel. Which may mean the ship you just destroyed actually held the key to your eventual victory, destroying it was probably not the best move.
...

If you disable the vessel, it is easier to destroy. This isn't a tough concept. Why do you think 'target subsystems' is so limited in effectiveness?
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 07:41 PM.