Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 31
12-03-2010, 02:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Serpieri View Post
It's a canon ship Oh and for the record klingon cruisers can cloak during battle which is also canon.

Battle Cloak is a Cryptic invention.
and since it's a cryptic invention i'm sure they understand that giving a cruiser type ship battle cloak is akin to handing out an i win button - or at the least an "no way i can lose" button.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 32
12-03-2010, 02:46 AM
Everyone has their own opinions and you both are entitled to yours. As well as cite whatever other fictional sources (and it's all fiction. all of it. yes it is) you cling dearly to as trek gospel.

However having fond memories of the pen and paper starfleet battles and other games the K'Vort and B'rel I know are not one in the same. As I know it the K'Vort is significantly larger and was considered a cruiser class ship.

Quote:
Do we really need two exact same looking ships in T5, just one looking slightly larger?
Well that would be silly wouldn't it? Personally I'd like to see the K'Vort a larger ship equipped with battlecloak and stats brought closer to the raptor class. A sort of BoP / Raptor lovechild if you will. Considered both a less hard-hitting raptor with battlecloak, or a BoP with a gland problem.

Quote:
Stop trying to compensate - your disruptor is big enough, really!
Everyone knows that members of the fairer persuasion never tell the truth about this subject. Bigger I say. BIGGER!!
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 33
12-03-2010, 05:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cris_Carter View Post
K'Vort & B'Rel are the same bloody ship. They even look the same on the show!

The only difference is that thed BoP is shown with wings down and the K'Vort with wings up. And it isnt a cruiser!

Just rename your B'rel to K'vort and you are fine.
Well in "Yesterday's Enterprise" it was called "K'vort Class Battlecruiser".
The actual irony is that the B'rel is actually also a cruiser-type BoP since the only instance where it
appeared under that name was in "Rascals" and there it was reused stock-footage from "Yesterday's Enterprise".

We don't actually know what class the small BoPs are aside from the odd D-12 designation from "Generations".
The way the B'rel is implemented in this game (as a "small" BoP) is based on the definiton of the B'rel as a scout given in the Encyclopedia, which is technically not correct.
However if we follow that same encyclopedia (and it seems CBS and Cryptic do) the K'vort would be a cruiser...
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 34
12-03-2010, 06:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cris_Carter View Post
K'Vort & B'Rel are the same bloody ship. They even look the same on the show!
The only difference is that thed BoP is shown with wings down and the K'Vort with wings up.
Not even that. For the two times these two ships have been identified on-screen ... they recycled the very same footage. Budget ftl.

[edit]
Damn, dee was faster.

Anyhow, I stick with the B'rel-Refit -> K'vort idea. It's the most elegant way to apply this name, and would explain a lot better why the new one differs so much from the T1 vessel.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 35
12-03-2010, 06:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by claydermunch View Post
and since it's a cryptic invention i'm sure they understand that giving a cruiser type ship battle cloak is akin to handing out an i win button - or at the least an "no way i can lose" button.
Cloak was separated in two groups because they learned the majority of the fed players would just sit there waiting for the klingon to decloak. They wouldn't even bother using their own abilities to repair themselves, change position, or try to locate the klingon vessel etc...


Deer in Headlight syndrome -- Feds have it


edit - The K'Vort needs to be added with the same BO layout as the Excelsior - with stats that befit a cruiser not a BoP.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 36
12-04-2010, 06:42 PM
I hate to repeat my self, especially if persons are includet in a discussion who simply are not able to understand simple facts.

It is true that the K'Vort and the B'rel have the exact same size on screen, but both where LARGE scaled ships.
The small one the ingame-B'rel is supposed to mirror never got a named type.... may be the duras sistas D12 was a smaler one. So actually the ship ingame is wrong, but as far as i remember a lot of games and novels refered to the 2 ships that way, B'rel for the small one and K'Vort for the large.

Anyway, I do not thing that the K'Vort has to end up in the cruiser-area. The K'Tinga might make a better Excelsior-replacement.
Because fact is: The ship I refer to as K'Vort for simplicity was a quiet small cruiser. That "1500 crew" value was an invention of the Fact-files magazine and for sure wrong; the K'Vort had about the size of the Galaxys saucer section, and since the major part of a BoPs size comes through the wings i wouldnt count the crew over 200.
So, it may have been called "Cruiser" onscreen (yesterdays enterprise) but i would guess a similar description would have gone for the Akira or the Prometheus, they are not Cruisers in STO too.
So what should be the K'Vort? A BoP with more hull and less agility, thats it.
And as I said: Thats basicly what the Hegh'ta is. All we nee is a f**** K'Vort skin for the Hegh'ta.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 37
12-05-2010, 05:20 AM
Please, there is no need to insult other people's intelligence in a question that revolves primarily around idividual opinion - doing so does not strengthen your position. The soft canon difference between the two ships' sizes is directly contradicted by their hard canon appearance, making the argument moot.

If the B'rel in STO is a small ship, then so can the K'vort. I maintain that the ridiculously scaled up version of the BoP from TNG is (A) not making any sense and (B) was done purely to let it appear more threatening to the Galaxy-class.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 38
12-05-2010, 06:22 AM
I agree with Valias, there is no need ot become agitated about this.
No matter whether one agrees or disagrees on this matter there is no need for such behavior.
And Valias and I do disagree quite a lot about this.
Anyway just a few thoughts on the matter:
The 1500 crew stat also appears in the DS9 Manual, where the ship is also listed at over 600
meters, which is totally unreasonable.
Assuming it were somethere in the 350 meter range, with I think is more reasonable than some other figures, the crew complement would probably be aroun 600 or so.
Kang's D7 in "Day of the Dove" had a crew of a little over 400 (Kang said 400 of his crew were dead and
the Enterprise still rescued about a dozen) and a large 350 meter BoP (I'll just stick to that general term) would
have a larger internal volume despite the different shape.

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/2...ktingacomp.jpg

While I'd personally like the ship in the cruiser category and feel as a reskin of the T5 BoP it would be strange particularly since the large BoPs in TNG always maneuvered like cruisers and not even remotely like Kruge's BoP did in ST3 when it swung around to nuke the freighter, I can certainly appreciate that some people feel it would be misplaced as a cruiser too despite the fact it would be larer than other cruisers like the K't'inga.

I do hower think there is now (since a recent patch) another alternative that could be used in the future:
The "Destroyer" tree that will sometime in the future harbor the Nausicaan Raider could be used to place the K'vort.
It would probably be somewhat heavier than either the regular BoPs we have now, or the Raptor line but lighter than the current T5 Battlecruisers.

I'd also like to add that since the T5 Raptors are in fact a bit larger than the K't'inga, I wouldn't want a possible T5 K't'inga as a proper Battlecruiser (it's about the size of a Vor'cha's nacelle) but as a Raptor/criuser hybrid. This would also make it different from the K'vort without the whole matter becoming ridiculous, I mean like the idea that the K't'inga could be armored more heavily than the K'vort, a ship with about twice the internal volume.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 39
12-05-2010, 02:05 PM
Given how Cryptic is having Klingon ships being a mirror image of Federation ships, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Cryptic decides to make the K'Vort the Klingon Excelsior.

Where the K'Vort would loses the Universal Slots and Battlecloak, but it would be a Cruiser with a high turning rate (11?) with a LT Commander Tactical slot.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 40
12-06-2010, 03:59 AM
A little thing Suricata did on the scaling of the K'Vort. Perspective shots in space are notorious for making size judgements extremely hard. Most of the data on crew size and weapons has been left to speculation, with some wildly fanciful results (the 1500 crew being a classic example). If Suricata's work is anything to go by then 350m is the closest we get to a confirmed length for the K'Vort.

The OP's post is a good starting point however:
I would replace the Battle Cloak with a regular one (I suspect only the Romulans should be capable of Battle Cloaking a ship that size).
Fix the crew assignments to match those of the Excelsior Refit the Feds have
Raise the turn rate to 15, otherwise the frontloaded weapons arrangement will be a liability rather than an asset.

It can sit in the Cruiser list as a "Strike Cruiser".
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 05:40 PM.