Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 61
11-21-2010, 03:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lariat
Not accusing. Just using common sense. Who turns down a ship option for their race, really?
Again, would you take a Star Destroyer or a Whitestar for the Federation? It is really quite simple - I find the notion of Carriers bad for two reason:
1) They don't fit in the way Startrek displays ships in the first place. Having a carrier would imply that it would be effectice to project your force with fighter craft. But it's not in Startrek. Fighter craft are a last resort, not a primary combat platform. This would not even allow the Klingons to have any Carriers, but it's too late for that now.

2) Carriers for the Federation specifically don't fit since they are purely built for war - and projecting your force. Escorts already break this a little -but Escorts, as their name implies, can be used to escort and protect something. A Carrier is far better suited to strike into enemy territory. They are ideally suited for a war of agression. It is entirely unsuited for exploration, since Fighters don't really help you explore the Galaxy. Their entire nature violates the Federation ideals and Starfleet's ship design ethos. Their Cruisers might be powerful combat platforms in war, but they are also equally powerful, if not even more so, exploration vehicles, able to conduct experiments and research. They aren't mere combat vessels.
You might see that Gene Roddenberry's Startrek ideals are wrong and will fail in face of adversery, but if you decide that, you fail to understand what Startrek is about - Doing the right thing rather then doing the easy thing. Starfleet doesn't build weapons meant to lead an attack war.

Quote:
Fighters are canon. Ergo, Carriers are too.
No, there is no "Ergo". Why do you need carriers for ships that can fully support its crew (Every basic shuttle comes with a Replicator and a Life Support) that can fly at fast warp speeds? We never see the Peregrines aboard carriers. We see them flying in formation at warp with other ships. We see them even flying around while a full fleet is gathered around a station. What role remains for the carrier? When are they ever aboard a carrier?

We have never seen a carrier on the screen. You mention - like so many before you - the Akira and what the original ship designer, Jaeger intended for it. Nothing of that made it to the screen. Jaeger intended the ship to be about 500m, but the CGI model was designed for about 260m. The Peregrine class ships don't even fit through the shuttle bay doors, how is such a small ship supposed to fill a carrier role?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 62
11-21-2010, 04:30 AM
logic, the cold blooded killer of fed carrier wet dreamers.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 63
11-21-2010, 06:36 AM
NO !

/thread
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 64
11-21-2010, 07:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Conrad
Can we get around to getting a Federation Carrier? I'm getting tired of the unbalanced combat. If you design one, can we get one that ends up looking like a Battlestar with a Federation style? That would not only be awesome, but would potentially bring Battlestar fans into the game. Just a suggestion. Hope it happens soon cause I would like to add some new type of ship to my fleet.
no no and no
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 65
11-21-2010, 10:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MustrumRidcully View Post
Again, would you take a Star Destroyer or a Whitestar for the Federation?
I'd totally fly a Star Destroyer around the Star Trek Universe just for the pure reason of laughing my arse off at the people raging over canon, but thats not the subject onto a serious note.

I really hope the Feds dont get a carrier, My favorate line in FvK to Feds these days is "Awh boo hoo, maybe help each other and you wont have one carrier turn you into space dust?"

Myself im more of a Fed then a Klink but i agree Feds not having a carrier.. In all honesty i dont find FvK to be unbalanced since the reason feds get there arses handed to them is mainly due to the fact theres only 1-3 people on the entire team working together and the rest just "Full impulse - Die - Repeat"

My view on it is the Federation Dreadnaught aka the Galaxy X should be somewhat... "NEALLY" (Yeah im going to get mass flamed for this) equel but not entirely on the same levels just to avoid whining. Unfortinuely the Galaxy X is no better then a plain Galaxy atm..
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 66
11-21-2010, 11:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KhansWrath
logic, the cold blooded killer of fed carrier wet dreamers.

That is what is amazing to me. You say that logic dictates that Federation Carriers don't exist. Which ignores the fact that fighters are depicted in several episodes, operating away from starbases. How did they get there do you think? Ahem..... Carriers. Its amazing that you guys all ignore that one fact. After all, its logical.

Sure its warlike, but look at the chronology. War is here. The Federation had to respond.

To reiterate my basic statement, if you don't like Carriers, don't play one. Stop shouting down people who want one. Stop trying to dictate how others experience the game.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 67
11-21-2010, 01:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lariat
That is what is amazing to me. You say that logic dictates that Federation Carriers don't exist. Which ignores the fact that fighters are depicted in several episodes, operating away from starbases. How did they get there do you think? Ahem..... Carriers. Its amazing that you guys all ignore that one fact. After all, its logical.
Warp Engines. That's what they are for. We know they are warp capable. The Maquis used Peregrine raiders and other ships, and they didn't have any carriers.

The canon description for Peregrine "fighters" indicate they are courier ships. A courier ship needs a warp drive, you don't send a carrier to transport a courier to its destination.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 68
11-21-2010, 01:50 PM
just thought of the how about instead of a Federation Carrier how about a Federation Battleship equal to the Klingon Carrier.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 69
11-21-2010, 02:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lariat
That is what is amazing to me. You say that logic dictates that Federation Carriers don't exist. Which ignores the fact that fighters are depicted in several episodes, operating away from starbases. How did they get there do you think? Ahem..... Carriers. Its amazing that you guys all ignore that one fact. After all, its logical.

Sure its warlike, but look at the chronology. War is here. The Federation had to respond.

To reiterate my basic statement, if you don't like Carriers, don't play one. Stop shouting down people who want one. Stop trying to dictate how others experience the game.
Warp Engines, Shuttles have them, so why not fighters? That's what they are, souped of Shuttles. In fact, you see Peregrine fighters warping out with other Fed ships in DS9. The Federation has to adapt, yes, but it still has to make their designs able for both war and peace. Carriers are just for War, Cruisers can be used for both. Peregrine fighters where used as Cadet Training vessels, and where modified for combat when the Dominion War began. So while Fighters are canon, Carriers are not, logic dictates that they can get there themselves, so why waste resources in Carriers?

Also, the fact Carriers are in Star Trek Online is kinda weird too, why do you need Carriers when your shuttles can get there themselves. So, instead of giving us a Carrier, why not give us another ship type, like Destroyers, or Frigates, or even Dreadnaughts! But not Carriers.

Also, the Klingons need their own unique stuff, which they where seriously lacking, and are kinda lacking now. The Carrier, even though not logical (well, since when have the Klingons been logical) still fits them. They are warlike, everything is about fighting, the next battle, and winning. So the Carrier definately fits their personality. Feds, just no.

Also, Cryptic has said they WILL NOT make a Federation Carrier, and knowing DStahl, they are going to keep that promise.

(P.S. I am a Fed Player)
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 70
11-21-2010, 02:47 PM
Hey, i have another argument against fed carriers. One that is born from STO's itself.




WE CAN
CREATE
SMALL FLEETS
OF FREAKING
PHASER PHIRING
TORPEDOSHOOTING
HOLOSHIPS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!




Why the HECK would ANYONE capable of doing that work to create a vessel that essentially has a similar focus but INFERIOR METHOD!!!!!
If ANYTHING, isay give feds a HOLOFLEET ship.
"Send in all your klingon mook pilots if you want, klingons WE SHALL COUNTER WITH FLEETS OF STARCRUISERs PULLED OUT OF OUR TECHNOBABBLING BEHINDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"




See the point?
We have the tech to deploy holo ships in limited numbers of captains specialized on doing the rear-pull modus operandi (sci *cough*).
SO LETS FURTHER PURSUE THAT TECH!
Holo shipos have rights too, you know. THE RIGHT TO KICK KLINGON ASS!



Seriously: holo fleet is superior to a fighter fleet. Summon a few fighters or a ****** Battleship?
Battleship it is....


Its amazing how this very powerful field of tech is dominated BY THE CARDASSIANS! They even deploy holo ground troops!

Screw Federation carriers, those are ideas from yesteryesteryesteryesteryestermillenium!


go with the times, pals, go with the times...
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 06:52 AM.