Go Back   Star Trek Online > Feedback > Federation Gameplay
Login

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 91
03-29-2010, 09:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by strikefalcon View Post
I was going to post this, but you did a better job of it. The battleship Yamato in WWII was one such example where she was not even in sight of an enemy vessel, but was fully and completely destroyed by wave after wave of enemy aircraft attacks.

Of course for STO to allow players to take full advantage of fighter capabilities, they'd have to amend the 10 km limitation on weapons for fighters, but even in the early 25th century, fighters or small ships can easily overwhelm another. Just take the USS Odyssey as an in Trek example.
comparing WW2 naval comabat to futuristic space combat don't mix at all. In WW2 ainiming of weapons was manual. Even today our ships are more accurate then WW2 ships as they use computers for most of the work.

In WW2 they didn't have guided missile weapons, they had AA guns.

In WW2 the range of the fighter was longer than the range of a battelships weapons. Today this is not the case.

In space with weapons that move at the speed of light (hence you see them when they hit you) a fighter pilot would have nothing to dodge, just a prayer to hope that they're within the computers margin of error.

Carriers offer few advantages in modern warfare. Land based jets can reach almost anywhere on the planet now.


To be honest, this comparing carrier combat in WW2 to fighter combat in space is getting rather tiring. I really don't believe some people think beyond the thought of "a carrier would be soooooo coool *drool*".
In reality this idea wouldn't work at all. In-game a carrier would offer no benefits.

Also, the comment the dev answers was mispoken as the Typhoon isn't a carrier in game, its a battleship/cruiser. The dev didn't say carrier in the response. To my knowledge he was responding to the class of ship mentioned.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 92
03-29-2010, 02:52 PM
The reason why WW2 naval warfare is used as a model for space combat is because realistic space combat would be incredibly boring. It would probaply be fought at huge distances, with opposing ships being thousands of kilometers apart, so if you'd put that in a movie or a game you'd never even see your enemy.

I mean in Star Trek you sometimes see ships bombarding a planets surface from a synchronous orbit, that's like 36000 kilometers up on an earth sized planet, yet whenever they get into a fight with another ship they are basicly hitting each other from a few hundred meters away - that's of course completely inconsistent, but if they had space battles at 30000km you wouldn't even see the enemy ship. (And 30000km is not a large distance in space)

I think that Star Wars is the franchise that makes a big point out of WW2 style space combat, but Star Trek is not particularly realistic either and takes a lot of creative freedoms to make the space battles look more interesting.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 93
03-29-2010, 04:21 PM
yes, but the arguement keeps being brought up that since the tactic worked in WW2 it must work in space. Which isn't true at all. Its not even true in naval combat today.

Also, probably the max distance a space battle would be fought would be 1 light second away or closer. Also, theres energy loss over greater distances and accuracy falls with distance. one light second is about 300,000 Km or 186,000 miles.

I would argue that battles would more likely be fought even closer together though seeing as projectile type weapons would be handicapped at large distances.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 94
03-29-2010, 04:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steelspawn18 View Post
Theres only one reason why, ITS A KLINGON SPECIAL SHIP CLASS!



Jesus, let them just come up with something diffrent for Federation.
I completely agree.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 95
03-30-2010, 12:51 PM
Space combat in Trek is already completely unrealistic to actual space physics. Photon torpedoes are supposed to be like a nuclear warhead on steroids but we've never actually seen that effect on screen, unless the shields and defensive fields in Trek have been made so strong as to completely nullify the full destructive force of matter-antimatter explosions.

To be truly realistic, all explosions in Trek should be at least 3 times as big as they are on the TV shows...
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 96
03-30-2010, 01:08 PM
I want a carrier. No point in a dreadnaught at this point or other battleship.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 97
03-30-2010, 02:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by strikefalcon View Post
Space combat in Trek is already completely unrealistic to actual space physics. Photon torpedoes are supposed to be like a nuclear warhead on steroids but we've never actually seen that effect on screen, unless the shields and defensive fields in Trek have been made so strong as to completely nullify the full destructive force of matter-antimatter explosions.

To be truly realistic, all explosions in Trek should be at least 3 times as big as they are on the TV shows...
lets see.... torpedo hits shields which disperses the energy. Quantum torpedoes focus the entire blast into the direction of motion (hence why they're better than photon.)

Then when the torpedoes through the shield theres the structural integrity field that strengthens the hull.

Then theres the actual strength of the materials used to make the ship. We don't actually know the properties of Duranium (durable uranium )so for all we know the material can stay bonded together in much higher energies than steel/titanium/tungsten. Also, the windows are supposed to be transparent aluminum, so they're about 1 ft (at least) of solid aluminum.

I don't know, i think those ships could take a beating from a nuclear warhead and keep ticking.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 98
03-30-2010, 02:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leonwulf
I want a carrier. No point in a dreadnaught at this point or other battleship.
What a well thought out post. The beauty in it makes me think that my side of the arguement is totally over and its futile to stand against your overwhelming superiority and logic on the issue.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 99
03-31-2010, 06:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cavilier210 View Post
What a well thought out post. The beauty in it makes me think that my side of the arguement is totally over and its futile to stand against your overwhelming superiority and logic on the issue.
Nice retort. I didn't realize I had to do other then state my opinion. Since you decided to be an ass......There is ZERO need for a battleship that would be even slower then the galaxy. People complain now about how slow that thing is even with the extra 1 point of turn they gave us. The Sov is aready considered the "battleship".

How would you balance a "battleship" against the klingons for PVP? There is already precedent for a carrier so that could be easily brought in line and balanced.

You basically want a big slow ship with lots of weapon slots which will force the dev team to come up with not just the fed version but also the klingon version there by hosing balance in PVP all over again and forcing them to spend even more time away from adding content.


oh yeah great idea.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 100
03-31-2010, 06:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by claydermunch View Post
Not a cruiser of any sort.

A Battleship.
i could imagine the turn rate is 1.0 on this thing... lol

the star cruiser turn rate is bad enough already.
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 08:53 PM.