Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
FEDERATION INTERCEPTOR CLASS
In the face of pandemic levels of piracy in the wake of the Long War, the need for moderately armed “fast responders” has never been greater. Able to protect vital shipping interests and react to sudden shifts along the Federation’s multiple combat frontlines, the Interceptor is a valuable addition to the Federation’s peacekeeping doctrine. A skilled pirate hunter, the Interceptor is able to safeguard several nearby locations simultaneously without requiring Starfleet to commit multiple vessels to the threatened region.

The Interceptor class features hanger space for armed shuttles (“gunships”) providing it with greater combat parity against both pirate factions and Klingon forces utilizing fighters. While not as numerous or as agile as enemy small craft, the more robust gunship can be seen as an effort to close the “carrier gap” while upholding the Federation principles of minimizing risk to our brave pilots and shuttle crews. With the Interceptor’s high speed and relatively small size, this ship class should not be seen as a direct challenge Klingon dominance in this field, but rather provides an unique counterpart to the empire’s fighter tactics. The inclusion of these gunship hangers does come at the cost of a stripped down weapons load aboard the interceptor itself – captains seeking assignment to ships of this class should not wade into battle with foolhardy abandon.

When deployed, each gunships draws a small portion of the ship’s crew and begins aggressively patrolling the area surrounding their launch rather than following their parent vessel. Gunship doctrine prioritizes targets smallest-to-largest, attacking mines and torpedoes first, fighters second, and progressively larger vessels in ascending order after smaller hazards are cleared. Carrying firepower comperable to a single torpedo tube and dual beam bank and sporting sensory masking 1, they threaten a roughly 6km-radius sphere around their deployment point. After a 1 minute sorte, the gunship then returns to the Interceptor at high speed to be recovered, repaired, and readied for redeployment. Higher ranked captains can look forward to progressivly larger gunships and eventually fielding 2 gunships simultaneously. Combined with the Interceptor’s considerable speed, this makes the total package excel at area denial while also being able to saturate critical locations with numerous low-grade threats. Combining gunship tactics with mines and/or warp plasma emissions, the Interceptor class should be able to drive off raiders of all sorts while protecting Federation assets and allies.

While favoring aggressive tactics, the Interceptor class should not be mistaken for (or flown as) an Escort vessel. Interceptors lack the Escort’s massive forward punch. The lack of cannon-based weaponry makes Interceptor “jousting” a very different proposition requiring a unique mix of skills and tactics. This diversity should attract captains who are looking for a different role in larger fleet operations and present new challenges to the Federation’s enemies.

-General Performance Profile-
Hull Strength – Directly comparable to Science vessels of equal tier (lowest values in the Federation arsenal).
Turn Rate – Roughly splits the difference between Escort and Science vessels. High inertia values support 'fast attack' passes and sprinting to place fixed-position weapons (gunships/mines/plasma).
Crew – Roughly splits the difference between Escort and Science vessels, but must also be used to “pay” for launching gunships.
Officers – Strong Engineering component, but greater secondary emphasis on diverse Tactical skill use.
Weapons Types (front) – Beams and Torpedoes only (no cannons)
Weapons Types (rear) – Beams, Mines, and Torpedoes only (no turrets)
Power Distribution Bonus – Engine +15
Device Slots – 2
Special Active Ability – Launch Gunship. The gunship is an armored and shielded pet with the sensor masking 1 ability and a rank-appropriate forward facing torpedo tube and dual beam bank, each with a maximum range of 5 km. Their hull and shield values make them many times tougher than comperable fighters, scaling up as rank and number of crew required to launch increases (10 crew = x4, 15 crew = x6, 20 crew = x8). The gunship will patrol a space roughly 3km across centered on where it was deployed. However, the Interceptor class has fewer standard weapon slots than any other Federation ship at each tier. If gunships are counted as 1 weapon slot each, then the total number of slots is comparable to the Escort class.
Special Passive Ability – +33% recharge rate for Evasive Maneuvers skill. However, the interceptor class has 1 less console than normal for Federation ships at each tier.

“Interceptor”
Hull/Crew: 13,000/75
Turn Rate: 13 d/s (inertia 70)
Weapons: 2 Front, 1 Rear. May deploy 1 gunship (draws 10 crew).
Officers: Engineering Lieutenant, Science Ensign, Tactical Ensign, Tactical Ensign
Consoles: 1 Engineering, 1 Science, 1 Tactical (4th slot is given up for Evasion recharge bonus)

“Patrol Interceptor”
Hull/Crew: 18,000/225
Turn Rate: 12 d/s (inertia 60)
Weapons: 3 Front, 1 Rear. May deploy 1 gunship (draws 15 crew).
Officers: Engineering Lt Commander, Science Lieutenant, Tactical Lieutenant, Tactical Ensign
Consoles: 2 Engineering, 1 Science, 1 Tactical (5th slot is given up for Evasion recharge bonus)

“Pursuit Interceptor”
Hull/Crew: 23,000/150
Turn Rate: 12 d/s (inertia 65)
Weapons: 3 Front, 1 Rear. May deploy 2 gunships (draws 15 crew each).
Officers: Engineering Commander, Science Lieutenant, Tactical Lieutenant, Tactical Lieutenant
Consoles: 2 Engineering, 2 Science, 2 Tactical (7th slot is given up for Evasion recharge bonus)

“Strike Interceptor”
Hull/Crew: 27,000/240
Turn Rate: 11 d/s (inertia 70)
Weapons: 3 Front, 2 Rear. May deploy 2 gunships (draws 20 crew each).
Officers: Engineering Commander, Engineering Ensign, Science Lieutenant, Tactical Lt. Commander, Tactical Lieutenant
Consoles: 3 Engineering, 2 Science, 3 Tactical (9th slot is given up for Evasion recharge bonus)
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 2
11-02-2010, 02:36 PM
the weak will perish
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 3
11-02-2010, 02:48 PM
To be honest when I saw Interceptor in the title I though it would be more of a counterpart to the BoP. Also since the klingon carrier is only available at tier 5 why would the fed counterpart get a ship at each tier?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 4
11-02-2010, 02:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatness View Post
To be honest when I saw Interceptor in the title I though it would be more of a counterpart to the BoP. Also since the klingon carrier is only available at tier 5 why would the fed counterpart get a ship at each tier?
I would have no objection to the Interceptor only comming available at tier 5 or the Klingon Carrier being iterated to create lower-tier versions. Personally I think the Klingons should get carriers at all tiers so that players may develope their skills using them in a more gradual fashion.

I just did the math for Interceptors at all the tiers to see if the concept would rank up in a smooth/sensible fasion .

In some ways it is a counterpart to the BoP, as its a fast and fragile ship. It just has a carrier-like shtick. I was inspired by some discussion in another thread of the extreme speed values some ships can generate to zip out of weapons range after their firing pass. Couple that with a ship good at dropping mines and such in its wake and you could have a very fun playstyle seperate from the current escort line. It seemed fun to create "pocket-carriers" instead of stealing the Klingon's "super-carrier" thunder.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 5
11-02-2010, 03:26 PM
Its an interesting Idea to be sure hough I'm honestly not sure why the weapons should be limited. I mean sure cut cannons (duals at any rate) but preventing players from putting anything but mines and torps in the rear slots just seems a little limiting, plus with the low(er than escort or Bop) turn rate it would mean they have a very obvious and very exploitable weak point in pvp since any Bop or escort could keep up with the interceptor long enough to kill them if they have a half decent pilot. It may certainly make for an interesting play style but since so much of this game is about customisation limiting the players in something as basic a weapon choice just seems like a bad idea imo.

as for multiple tIers, I've said it before with the klingon carrier, I wouldn't start it any lower than tier 3 personally, all the ships before that seem to small to work for a carrier type ship. Also I can't really see a carrier type being given to anyone below commander rank. It still gives players time to develop skills for the type without the command of such a ship seeming implausible.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 6
11-02-2010, 03:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatness View Post
Its an interesting Idea to be sure hough I'm honestly not sure why the weapons should be limited.
One of my goals was to create strong differentiation from escorts. Since escorts are almost entirely defined by their ability to mount cannons, making an alternative fast attack ship class cannon-free seemed a good approach.

Quote:
I mean sure cut cannons (duals at any rate) but preventing players from putting anything but mines and torps in the rear slots just seems a little limiting, plus with the low(er than escort or Bop) turn rate it would mean they have a very obvious and very exploitable weak point in pvp since any Bop or escort could keep up with the interceptor long enough to kill them if they have a half decent pilot. It may certainly make for an interesting play style but since so much of this game is about customisation limiting the players in something as basic a weapon choice just seems like a bad idea imo.
Fair point. I'm more concerned with people mounting turrets in the rear slots to maximize frontal firepower, than I am with people having some rear-guard options. Allowing beams in the rear arc, but still prohibting turrets (a form of cannon weapon) is probably a more uniform implementation that still meets my primary goal. Changes made to initial post . The weapon restrictions can now be summarized as "no cannons, period."

Quote:
as for multiple tIers, I've said it before with the klingon carrier, I wouldn't start it any lower than tier 3 personally, all the ships before that seem to small to work for a carrier type ship. Also I can't really see a carrier type being given to anyone below commander rank. It still gives players time to develop skills for the type without the command of such a ship seeming implausible.
That seems an equitable compromise.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 7
11-02-2010, 03:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NikeOnline View Post
FEDERATION INTERCEPTOR CLASS
“Strike Interceptor”
Hull/Crew: 27,000/240
Turn Rate: 11 d/s (inertia 70)
Weapons: 3 Front, 2 Rear. May deploy 2 gunships (draws 20 crew each).
Officers: Engineering Commander, Engineering Ensign, Science Lieutenant, Tactical Lt. Commander, Tactical Lieutenant
Consoles: 3 Engineering, 2 Science, 3 Tactical (9th slot is given up for Evasion recharge bonus)
I would say create two versions of the T5 one. This one and one that has 6 weapons slots (3 for 3 aft) and give it supportive abilities/bonuses. Cut its turn to 6, up its hull/shields a bit, give it bonuses (sizable ones) to utilizing mines (IE when deploying mines, they have damage incresed to 50% and one extra deployment and CD reduced by half, not doable for tricobalt)

The game desperatly needs a reason for mines and having to actually deal with them, instead of just plowing though them.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 8
11-02-2010, 04:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paneth
I would say create two versions of the T5 one. This one and one that has 6 weapons slots (3 for 3 aft) and give it supportive abilities/bonuses. Cut its turn to 6, up its hull/shields a bit, give it bonuses (sizable ones) to utilizing mines (IE when deploying mines, they have damage incresed to 50% and one extra deployment and CD reduced by half, not doable for tricobalt)

The game desperatly needs a reason for mines and having to actually deal with them, instead of just plowing though them.
I'm a big fan of mine use, so I feel ya. I had originally considered making the Interceptor line's passive ability an increased recharge rate on mine laying skills, but that seemed to lock in the weapons choices a little too tightly given the other themes being served by this ship line. As it stands the extra low-ranked Tactical slots should work well for mixing both energy and kinetic skills- you could have your beam punch AND mine laying patterns on your skill bar.

I'll script up a dedicated tier 5 mine-layer using the patterns underlying existing Federation ships and see if a Federation "interdictor" tickles your fancy. Its a play style I enjoy too. While a mine-damage buff is attractive, I think a buff to mine weapon recharge rates (and possibly a dispersal pattern skill built-in) would better represent a dedicated mine layer - fill more space more often. Mine-layer designs would also benefits from strong secondary Science skills to perform shield drains on ships trying to navigate the obstacle course you've laid out for them .
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 9
11-02-2010, 06:02 PM
Not bad, but old SFB ideas of "police" cruisers work better. A thinly veiled attempt at fed carriers. Don't get me wrong, I support them. I wonder though if the old Traveller RPG "battle tender" idea wouldn't work better. (I'm also thinking of mobile dry-docks being the combat result of such design).

I'd support your idea if I could pilot the "Last of the V-8 Interceptors".

Also just wiki that phrase.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 10
11-02-2010, 07:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maina View Post
Not bad, but old SFB ideas of "police" cruisers work better.
I'm not familiar with those. Could you explain?

Quote:
A thinly veiled attempt at fed carriers.
Not veiled at all . Just an attempt to create carriers that are A) strongly distinct from the Klingon's 'Hulking Brute' style of carrier and B) by focuing on a small number of tougher "pets" making them more in keeping with Federation mentality/doctrine. We don't see much of Federation single-seater fighters in the canon sources (outside of training exercises) but we DO see runabouts and other beefed-up shuttles occasionally screening for capital ships. The "gunship" is a nod to that behavior.

Quote:
Don't get me wrong, I support them. I wonder though if the old Traveller RPG "battle tender" idea wouldn't work better. (I'm also thinking of mobile dry-docks being the combat result of such design).
Mulling over fleet tenders I keep comming back to one basic idea: a LONG cooldown ability to drop a "triage/repair platform" that acts as a new spawn point for that side. Once placed, any time a ship on that side is destroyed it gets the choice of respawning at the map spawn point, or at the nearest friendly platform. It basically lets you secure progress as you advance across a map and creates new objectives for the enemy to destroy.
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 02:27 AM.