Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,941
# 21
04-02-2013, 09:12 AM
Terrestrial carriers never operate alone, they are always part of a carrier group. We do not have a game mechanic that would allow carriers to operate as they should, launching fighter wings to distant locations while staying removed from the battle field. And having too many fighters operational would be a catastrophic overload of the games AI and rendering engines. That said carriers come in all shapes and sizes.
Our carriers are carriers in every sense of the word and unlike real carriers are not weakly armed targets rendered impotent with the loss of it's flight group, which, unlike what we have, would not be infinitely renewable. Players who would wish to field dozens of fighters would not like the nerfs and limitations imposed to balance that ability.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 155
# 22
04-02-2013, 09:19 AM
Starships is more limited to how many shuttlecraft that can be carried inside its hull. The game mechanics doesn't factor in consumable stores for these fighters or spare parts to keep them operational. A fighter that has the ability to fire a photon torpedo is actual equipped with a compartment that a loaded and an armed photon torpedo is carried in. I play a game called Star Fleet Battles that the Federation operates a carrier that is equipped with 12 torpedo armed shuttle (the A-10) and 12 fighters (the F-14). The A-10 only has the capability of carrying only a single photon torpedo, requiring the A-10 to return to the carrier to be rearmed.
Cryptic has removed that factor in this game, unless you want to have to keep track of consumable stores for each fighter.
You also have to figure that your 2 hanger starship that launches 3 fighters each and relaunches another 3 fighters each for a total of 12 fighters. Once those 12 fighters is destroyed in combat, you are able to continually launch up to 12 fighters. Adjust this for the type of hanger pet you've equipped on your starship (4, 6 or 8 for some hanger pets). Basically what is going on is that your carrier is constructing those fighter when you need them. Meaning you have an unlimited number of fighters you can launch.
What I do. Every time the cool-down time is meet, I launch more "fresh" fighters. So over a 15 minute mission I actually launch approximately around 90 fighters. So I'm not complaining about how many hangers I have.

So be happy with what you've been given, how do you know; the starships that will come out when the level cap is raised to level 60 might be equipped with 3 hanger slots.
Captain
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,466
# 23
04-02-2013, 09:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by trwarbuck View Post
Starships is more limited to how many shuttlecraft that can be carried inside its hull. The game mechanics doesn't factor in consumable stores for these fighters or spare parts to keep them operational. A fighter that has the ability to fire a photon torpedo is actual equipped with a compartment that a loaded and an armed photon torpedo is carried in. I play a game called Star Fleet Battles that the Federation operates a carrier that is equipped with 12 torpedo armed shuttle (the A-10) and 12 fighters (the F-14). The A-10 only has the capability of carrying only a single photon torpedo, requiring the A-10 to return to the carrier to be rearmed.
Cryptic has removed that factor in this game, unless you want to have to keep track of consumable stores for each fighter.
You also have to figure that your 2 hanger starship that launches 3 fighters each and relaunches another 3 fighters each for a total of 12 fighters. Once those 12 fighters is destroyed in combat, you are able to continually launch up to 12 fighters. Adjust this for the type of hanger pet you've equipped on your starship (4, 6 or 8 for some hanger pets). Basically what is going on is that your carrier is constructing those fighter when you need them. Meaning you have an unlimited number of fighters you can launch.
What I do. Every time the cool-down time is meet, I launch more "fresh" fighters. So over a 15 minute mission I actually launch approximately around 90 fighters. So I'm not complaining about how many hangers I have.

So be happy with what you've been given, how do you know; the starships that will come out when the level cap is raised to level 60 might be equipped with 3 hanger slots.
You're rather hilariously discounting things like replication, and the massive volume of some of the carrier craft ingame.

A Nimitz class carrier (just for some reference and context) is roughly 300 x 70 meters, and can carry (depending on mission specifications) up to 80 or 90 different aircraft.

How exactly do you get from that to a ship like the Atrox or Vo'Quv which is almost an order of magnitude larger, yet magically has to hold ten percent of the squadron capacity?

Note: not saying carriers need to launch dozens of fighters. Carrier balance as it stands right now is fairly decent, and the "gameplay trumps realism" card works for me in this situation. But arguing that ingame characters can't actually hold more than a dozen ships is quite absurd.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 179
# 24
04-02-2013, 09:36 AM
Disagree. Carriers in Star Trek are like most Carriers in Space game settings (outside Wing Commander which is pretty much Modern Naval Warfare in Space) in that their Fighters/shuttles etc. are not their primary armament. They're more for support and being in multiple places at once than for actually wrecking face.

A modern day equivalent would be a Battleship that can launch fighters. A battleship who's main guns can also reliably hit other fighters. When you have weapons that can negate the fighter's advantage of speed, destroy enemy capital-class vessels and most importantly, your enemies have this same level of weapons technology fighters become less about delivering ordinance and more about delivering ordinance to several targets at once.

To bring up the matter of cost, say the Nimitz costs about 6 billion, and it carries 64 fighters that each cost about 60 million. Against an enemy that can reliably destroy it's entire compliment without those fighters completing their mission, that comes to about 3.8 billion gone to waste. Better to spend that money elsewhere.

Carriers are just fine as they are now in the game.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stirling191 View Post
How exactly do you get from that to a ship like the Atrox or Vo'Quv which is almost an order of magnitude larger, yet magically has to hold ten percent of the squadron capacity?
Because they're using that space for other things that contribute more to the Carrier's success than the ability to carry and launch more fighters.

Last edited by yargomesh; 04-02-2013 at 09:40 AM. Reason: Added quote & response
Captain
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,466
# 25
04-02-2013, 09:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yargomesh View Post
Because they're using that space for other things that contribute more to the Carrier's success than the ability to carry and launch more fighters.
Look at the flight pods on an Atrox. Combine them and you get roughly the volume of a present day sea-based carrier.

Unless of course you're arguing that the parts of the ship specifically designed for launch, recovery and upkeep of strike craft are used for something else entirely.
Commander
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 354
# 26
04-02-2013, 09:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by trwarbuck View Post
Cryptic has removed that factor in this game, unless you want to have to keep track of consumable stores for each fighter.
That would be because it's a silly factor in a universe with industrial-scale replicators, at which point the primary limitations are crew, power and carried raw materiel. Even the former is hardly a limiting factor, given the prevalence of photonics in STO, and so is the latter since practically any matter can be harvested and repurposed for replication. Lost small craft complements could be replaced in a matter of minutes to hours, depending on the size and complexity of the replicators, energy requirements, and relevant craft.

In that regard, it makes sense "carriers" in STO have small complements: most of the "hangar bay" is likely taken by industrial-scale replicators, fabrication equipment to rapidly build craft out of replicated parts (if necessary, since I'm sure an industrial-scale replicator cannot crank out an entire ready-for-flight strike craft in one piece), batteries, and matter holding tanks. Each ship probably only has the bay size to hold a handful of craft at once, to be scrambled if needed.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 179
# 27
04-02-2013, 10:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stirling191 View Post
Look at the flight pods on an Atrox. Combine them and you get roughly the volume of a present day sea-based carrier.

Unless of course you're arguing that the parts of the ship specifically designed for launch, recovery and upkeep of strike craft are used for something else entirely.
Nope, what I'm getting at is a matter of how much of the ship is dedicated to its fighters. Those two pods are the entirety of their flight operations and make up only about 30-40% of the entire ship.
Where a modern day Carrier is closer to 70-80% dedicated to it's fighter craft.

The Atrox is several times larger but it doesn't have the same amount of ship dedicated to it's fighters.
Captain
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,466
# 28
04-02-2013, 10:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yargomesh View Post
Nope, what I'm getting at is a matter of how much of the ship is dedicated to its fighters. Those two pods are the entirety of their flight operations and make up only about 30-40% of the entire ship.
Where a modern day Carrier is closer to 70-80% dedicated to it's fighter craft.

The Atrox is several times larger but it doesn't have the same amount of ship dedicated to it's fighters.
So it has just as much (if not more) hangar capacity, but because the ship itself is bigger it has to by definition support less strike craft?

That makes zero sense.
Commander
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 354
# 29
04-02-2013, 10:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stirling191 View Post
So it has just as much (if not more) hangar capacity, but because the ship itself is bigger it has to by definition support less strike craft?
As I mentioned in my previous post, you're making the assumption that space is used for storing strike craft, parts, and munitions. This is why the comparison to 20th Century seaborne carriers falls short; contemporary carriers have to store enough pre-built craft and munitions (and a greater variety, to meet a variance in mission profile) to sustain combat readiness despite losses, replacement parts and tools, fuel, and munitions. In the Star Trek universe, industrial-scale replicators would obviate the need to store surplus craft and replacement parts, not to mention fuel and munitions. On the other hand, carriers would need to carry industrial-scale replicators, that have themselves relevant power and materiel needs to be met by the craft.

Hence my supposition the "hangar bays" of STO aren't actually small craft storage and maintenance facilities, but rather on-site manufactories of small craft and necessary components, that operate as needs dictate. Hence, less space for storing small craft, but in exchange for the ability to sustain smaller complements of craft for longer periods of time.
Captain
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,466
# 30
04-02-2013, 10:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by theodrim View Post
As I mentioned in my previous post, you're making the assumption that space is used for storing strike craft, parts, and munitions. This is why the comparison to 20th Century seaborne carriers falls short; contemporary carriers have to store enough pre-built craft and munitions (and a greater variety, to meet a variance in mission profile) to sustain combat readiness despite losses, replacement parts and tools, fuel, and munitions. In the Star Trek universe, industrial-scale replicators would obviate the need to store surplus craft and replacement parts, not to mention fuel and munitions. On the other hand, carriers would need to carry industrial-scale replicators, that have themselves relevant power and materiel needs to be met by the craft.
The fact that STO's strike craft are as dumb as a sack of hammers does not in the least make carriers into floating drone factories.
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 01:22 AM.