Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 11
11-02-2010, 07:19 PM
Silly idea, its just a super hyped up Escort. This is what the game does not need.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 12
11-02-2010, 07:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azurian View Post
Silly idea, its just a super hyped up Escort. This is what the game does not need.
Um, with lower hull value, slower turn rate, fewer weapons, fewer consoles and no access to cannons, by what metric do you see them as "super hyped up Escorts"? The only thing thing they share directly with Escorts is inertia, and they typically have about 50% more crew at the same tier. They have the same number of Boff abilites as ALL Fed ships have at each tier, just distributed slightly differently.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 13
11-02-2010, 07:44 PM
the problem i see is these ships would be zero threat to kdf carriers, they are small enough for a carrier or its fighters to easily destroy, combined firepower along with the carrier being the most heavily armored and shielded ship in the game, well theres no way these fed psuedo carriers are going to help. the best counter to the carrier is using science one 2 punches like charge burst and shockwave, along with cruisers carrying fire at will to keep the skys fairly clear of fighters.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 14
11-02-2010, 07:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NikeOnline View Post
I'm not familiar with those. Could you explain?

No warp drive. Stationed as system defense and "interceptor" classes. There is no "canon" to support them. They were part of a universe that expanded before most current posters here even watched a episode. Doesn't count though.



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.

We see fighters in DS9. The problem is no carriers. The idea for them has been in trek "soft cannon" long before most posters. They grew up on a single series and view all others based on the single one the saw.



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.


There is no reason not to have a carrier idea in ST, except, we haven't seen one in someones series.

I say your idea is ok. Though it's just one type of a scenario for carriers. Most think it won't work for feds because it's a tactically bad idea. Lol, stupid Klingons. I mean really, why are they a threat if such a bad idea won't work?

Not a federation style? BS. Who the heck will overlook a strategic element? Works for Klingons, works for Feds.

Let me add, this is a multi front war, Your peace loving, immersion, cannon crap doesn't work. One or two encounters with Klingon carriers and......

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hudson
Maybe you haven't been keeping up on current events; but we just got our asses kicked, pal!
You don't think the FED adapts or learns?

One More Edit. To the OP. Only the red in your quote is directed at you. The rest is a general rant against the others.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 15
11-02-2010, 08:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KhansWrath
the problem i see is these ships would be zero threat to kdf carriers, they are small enough for a carrier or its fighters to easily destroy, combined firepower along with the carrier being the most heavily armored and shielded ship in the game, well theres no way these fed psuedo carriers are going to help.
My thinking was the interceptors are still at least as tough as a Science ship and with their Engine power bonus, naturally high inertia value, and quick-charging Evasive Manuevers they should be harder to score hits on than any Science ship. They also have fewer but better Engineering skills available which should add to survivability (at the cost of Science's many devastating tricks). Better/deeper Tactical seating would also help them leverage their weapon slots compared to a Science ship. Are Science ships getting creamed that badly in match-ups with carriers?

Quote:
the best counter to the carrier is using science one 2 punches like charge burst and shockwave, along with cruisers carrying fire at will to keep the skys fairly clear of fighters.
Actually I thought the gunboats would be directly analagous to having two "Fire at Will" effects running since once you drop them they're going to start hunting fighters to extinction before turning on the carrier (at least until mama carrier decides to blow them up ). I think it would be possible to set gunboat hull/shields/weaponry to a level where you could see an interesting match against a Klingon Carrier given similar operator experience and gear.

Ideally the balance point should be interesting match-ups, rather than dominating or getting facerolled .
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 16
11-02-2010, 08:13 PM
Actually, to make sure Interceptors are also distinct from Science vessels, I've made two small adjustments - reduced the number of device slots to 2 and shifted the power distribution bonus to +15 to Engines.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 17
11-02-2010, 08:27 PM
From: Adirmal Jonathon Stipe
CC: Starfleet Corp of Engineers

As the lead designer on Project MADAM I have insight into the desing process as well as the needs of the Federation. Having reviewd the enclosed schematics at some length I feel I can comment here. The ship idea itself is of value and of interest. While i whole heartedly believed that Federation Dreadnaugth or Carrier was not the answer to the "Klingon Problem" I do value the need for small, highly mobile attack craft to combat the fighters we so commonly face. However, the expected loss of life in such fighters is in contradiction to normal Starfleet standards. Until now. MADAM has the capabilites to repair these ships on the fly keeping them up and thier pilots alive. Even without MADAM this ship has merit. However, some design changes are needed.

First she is not an escort. She lack "guns" but makes up for that with speed and her "gunboats". This ship needs to run along standard science vessel lines. She is smaller which is why she is faster. However, to make room for the Gunboats someting has to compromised. I noted that rear mounted mine and torpedo tubes. Those take up way to much room and such a small ship. I would propose instead phaser beam turrets be monted on the top and bottom of the primary sacuer. Give her true 360 degree combat effectivness. The front mounted weapons banks are fine. By making this move you can do two things. Increase the structural integrity of the ship by 20% and allow for another birth for a gunboat.

Having recieved your desings my Engineers set to work on some modifications to the gunships. These are extremely vulnerable and few in numbers. In a large fire fight they may be picked off easily. However, my engineers have found a way to minaturize the emitters needed to mask the ion trails of these ships. Making them much harder to track and taget (read they have mask energy signature 1 built in as well as jam sensors) In addition each can be equipped with dual phaser beam banks as well as a rear mounted turet on the back. These ships will be able to put a halt on Orion pirates as well as hold thier own in a major firefight. With a carrier fighters neutralized by these hit and run gunboats they will quickly find themsleves dealing with a warp core breach.

I hope you find these design modificatinos usefull.

Sincrely Vice Admiral jonathon Stipe
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 18
11-03-2010, 04:10 AM
At the moment I am reluctant to give them weapons/slots with 360 degree firing arcs, A) because it will again make them overly simliar to standard Escort layouts and B) because I do not with to introduce a third unique ability to a single ship line. The variables for achieving good balance vs. existing options get way out of hand. Most of these numbers are closely derived from existing ship values and too many new widgets actually dilutes the appeal of their core shtick - fast pocket carrier. What I would really like is to see some folks explore how they would equip such ships and train their bridge crews to fly inteceptors as they stand now if they were part of the available choices...

Since the Gunboats are envisioned as an alterntive to a single standard weapon slot, and are expected to work somewhat like the Fire at Wlll skill or even be compared with the pre-order point defense turret, I don't neccessarily want to give them firepower substantially greater than a single on-level weapon (likely comparing to a dual beam bank). Howerver, they are vulnerable to direct attack so making them somewhat resistent to casual destruction is fair both mechanically and for in-setting reasons. I like the addition of sensor masking to their independent skills.

Once the gunboats are tweaked, I can see a modest (+5% to +10%) increase to hull strength to improve differentiation from Science vessels, but the core of their survivability should be coming from their speed. Used skillfully, I don't know that they should need much more hull to hold their own in PvE and contribute to PvP. And in the intrests of balance any advantage not needed should be pared down to the minimum to focus attention on what they do well.

I have updated the original post both in flavor text and in the general profile to incorperate your suggestion and to better explain my expectations for the Launch Gunship ability.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 19
11-03-2010, 05:19 AM
Sounds like a T5 Excelsior with a weaker hull and a launchable pet. Why not just fly an Excelsior in that case?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 20
11-03-2010, 06:07 AM
Ideally a federation 'carrier/interceptor' should use the same materials already in the game, IE the fighters. I suggested back when this was biggish in the beta that they create a light carrier. Essentially a nerfed science ship with 2 pets. The science ship would loose some a console and some crew in exchange for the pets.
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 04:04 PM.