Go Back   Star Trek Online > Feedback > Klingon Gameplay
Login

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 31
01-06-2011, 06:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrincessKatrina View Post
I'm sorry, but I have to start this out by stating simply that you don't know wtf you're talking about.

Now, to explain why you don't know what you're talking about.

First off, not canon? -Not- canon? Excuse me, but how do you think those fighters -got- to the front lines of the war between the Dominion and the Federation? What do you think the Scimitar was? And don't go saying "Nemesis was a horrible movie and shouldn't count as canon." It's as much canon as any of the other movies and TV serieses, whether or not you liked it.

As for fighters and carriers not making sense in Star Trek, that's flatly absurd. Even if they hadn't ever appeared on the series, that wouldn't make them "not make sense." They've already got shuttlecraft, which are armed, though not -heavily.- They've also got the Runabouts, which are far more heavily armed, and much more durable, as well as being capable of higher speeds. Then there's the prototype Delta Flyer design from Voyager, which would definitely be a precursor to an effective Fighter design. As for the ships packing a punch, let's take a look at the Defiant. Tiny little ship, but packs a massive punch. This shows that Federation technology has advanced to allow for far heavier firepower on much smaller ships.

And, that's just the information that shows why it's entirely reasonable for the -Federation- to have Carriers.
Have you actually watched the episodes where we see the Federation operate fighters?
We see the fighters alongside larger ships when the fleet gets underway in "Favor the Bold"

http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__...arbase_375.jpg

We see them among the ships before they detect the 1254 Dominion ships at the end of that episode.
So we now have two possibilites: Either Starfleet is lead by morons who launch their fighters right before the fleet gets underway so it looks 'cool', then recover them before going to warp, then launch them again out of boredom halfway to their target before they detect the enemy...or your entire line of argumentation collapses right here and now and it becomes clear the Federation does not have carriers...does not need carriers.
I have no idea wtf you've been watching but it was clearly not the DS9 episodes the rest of us watched.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 32
01-06-2011, 07:28 AM
Actually you normally have "CAP" and recon birds up whenever you are out and about so having fighters up before making contact with the enemy is normal.

As far as carriers being canon... since canon changes seemingly with every TV series and movie released i guess no one remembers back in SFB (the only real canon combat sim ever published and even had pics of Gene playing it) that the Federation did have carriers, as did most the other major races.

In Nemesis they didn't launch fighters as a plot device.
Overall think they've done a pretty good job with the Klingon carrier and fighters.
As to what would I do if they took away carriers... swap back to my gorn sci or bird and watch people scream NERF about hose ships until all the klinks have left are Tauron Shuttles.....
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 33
01-06-2011, 07:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Droidarr View Post
Actually you normally have "CAP" and recon birds up whenever you are out and about so having fighters up before making contact with the enemy is normal.

All of them?

Besides, either fighters need carriers to get somewhere because carriers have more range and are faster, which would mean they could not operate as a CAP while the fleet is in transit or they are as fast and have as much range as the larger ships which would defeat the point of carriers and the CAP because then the fighters would be 'out' the entire time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Droidarr View Post
As far as carriers being canon... since canon changes seemingly with every TV series and movie released i guess no one remembers back in SFB (the only real canon combat sim ever published and even had pics of Gene playing it) that the Federation did have carriers, as did most the other major races.

In Nemesis they didn't launch fighters as a plot device.
Overall think they've done a pretty good job with the Klingon carrier and fighters.
As to what would I do if they took away carriers... swap back to my gorn sci or bird and watch people scream NERF about hose ships until all the klinks have left are Tauron Shuttles.....
SFB canon?
Good joke, really.
SFB operates under a very strange license.
They cannot use the name Star Trek (which clealy shows how canon it is) they cannot mention persons from the Original series (Spock is referred to as a prominent science officer, Kirk is referenced by a Klingon captain as a tin-plated dictator) and their entire storyline diverged in 1978 with the first movie.
They are not allowed to use any material outside the Original Series and some aspescts of the Animated series and vice versa material from the "Star Fleet Universe" cannot be used by canon Trek.
They even state as much in their various publications and also explicitly discourage anyone from submitting material that is in any way connected to Trek outside the Original Series because they could not use it anyway.
So how canon can it be?
The only reason Interplay could use material from SFB for SFC was because they got both licenses otherwise even that would not have been possible.
So canon?
You're joking right?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 34
01-06-2011, 09:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by amidoinitright View Post
How about Huge fricking missile bays instead of hanger bays? let us launch waves of nuclear tipped death at our opponents.


Awesome. I now picture these missile cruisers from SFC. What was the race that used them again? The Kzinti?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mister_dee
Besides, either fighters need carriers to get somewhere because carriers have more range and are faster, which would mean they could not operate as a CAP while the fleet is in transit or they are as fast and have as much range as the larger ships which would defeat the point of carriers and the CAP because then the fighters would be 'out' the entire time.
Not to mention that we know the Peregrine wasn't even a fighter design. It used to be a civilian courier, which is how the Maquis got their hands on them in the first place. It's even described as a "lightly armed shuttlecraft" by a Starfleet officer on-screen and slower than a Runabout.

Why would the Federation bother to build carriers for "fighters" they do not have, seeing that they had to repurpose training shuttles to do the job?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 35
01-06-2011, 11:10 AM
Quote:
Uh-oh... Someone out to get your crutch?

Cant have that!

ERage!!!
Actually, my mains are a Fed Tac in a Defiant-R and a Fed Eng in a Galaxy. The character listed in my sig is actually my roommate's character. My roommate plays on my account and I allow my roommate the use my account for posting on the forum as well. Since I haven't bothered joining a fleet, I let my roommate use my sig to advertise the T'mt fleet.

Don't get me wrong, I do have a sci-carrier that I play on occasionally, but I've got far more wins under my belt as my Fed Tac than I do as my Sci-Carrier, and I use it largely because it was the pretty much the only real Science-oriented ship the KDF had, and I'm -considering- switching over to the new one, but haven't decided yet.

That said, Carriers really haven't felt overpowered to me. They're not really any harder to kill than a Cruiser, and their pets are pretty easy to take out with Cannon: Scatter Volley. :p So anyone who considers Cruiser a crutch, well, probably doesn't actually know how to play against them. Just like any ship/officer combination, they all take different strats to take'em down. Maybe not always -massively- different strats, but there are differences.

Quote:
Warp Engines. We saw them flying around the Starbase, we saw them flying at warp, we saw them engaging in combat. At no point where they launched from the ship. The Maquis used them to fight the Cardassians. They didn't seem to use any Carriers at all for them.

It would also be a stark reversal from the real world - in the real world, the carrier is slower then the planes it is carrying. That alone would create a very odd dynamic.
Could you perhaps link to a clip of them flying at warp? Though, the info I've looked up shows that they were actually Civilian Courier ships before being used by the Federation for the Dominion War.

However, the crew compliment is also listed as 1-2 for the fighters used in the Dominion War. This would run quite contrary to them being the exact same ships as those used by the Maquis, considering that Chakotay's had a significantly larger crew (at least 20-30 maquis, if I recall correctly).

Further research on the Maquis fighters yeilds the information that these ships came in varying sizes, ranging from the 1-2 crew cockpit style to the size of the Val Jean (Chakotay's ship). The key difference I can find is internal with the 1-2 crew cockpit style having a larger cargo area, likely for the photon/quantum torpedos that it was armed with.

I would also note that the ships having warp capability is not at all unreasonable for Fighters in Star Trek, as we see Federation shuttles also having Warp capability. However, most shuttles were limited to around Warp 2, and were not intended to utilize warp flight very often, usually only when being used for an individual officer to go on vacation or return to a starbase while the main ship continued its mission.

The Fighters would, reasonably, have low level Warp engines to facilitate escape in certain situations as well as preventing them from being quite as likely to end up completely stranded with only impulse engines to help them return to a Federation colony or starbase.

And as I suspected, the Federation Attack Fighter is -not- simply the same ship as the Maquis-Raider, though they are somewhat similar. The Maquis Raider and Federation Atack Fighter are two separate designs, though the Maquis are listed as having made use of the FAFs at some point as well.

I can't find any specific information on the actual engines used by FAFs or MRs, aside from an example of Chakotay's ship having rebuilt engines from the 2330s and others having rebuilt 39-year-old engines.

However, here's another reason for the existance of Fighters. Atmospheric combat. The larger ships utilized by the Federation, for example, were not good for use in atmospheric combat. Even the Intrepid class, which was capable of landing on a planet, couldn't be a particularly effective combatant in a planet's atmosphere.

Quote:
The Nemesis did not use their fighters in combat at all. Why was that? It seems they didn't see them as valuable.
Actually, it was the Scimitar. And, they did not send out their fighters because they weren't needed at the time that they were fighting the Enterprise-E because of their "perfect" cloak and ability to fire while cloaked. They were also only facing three ships in total.

If they did not consider the fighters to be valuable at all, then they wouldn't have had the fighters to begin with. Having them and using them in -every single situation- do not equate to the same thing. By the time the Scimitar was damaged severely enough to have reasonable need of the fighters in order to win against the Enterprise-E, it was too late to use them as their Fighter bay had been utterly demolished by the collision between the Enterprise and the Scimitar.

Quote:
Of course they got shuttle craft. But they don't start them in combat for extra firepower. They serve for transportation and of course they have some self-defense capabilities. After all, their are threats small enough to be dealt with for Runabouts. For example, fighters like they were employed by the Maquis.
Again, the Maquis didn't simply employ Fighters. They had a few, but their primary crafts were larger and not -fighters-. They were Escorts from the early 24th century.

They don't send shuttlecraft out into combat for extra firepower because -shuttlecrafts- are not designed for it. However, the fact that they can and do have shuttlecrafts and we have seen those shuttlecraft progress into more offensively and defensively capable crafts, such as the Runabouts and Delta Flyer, it is far from unreasonable that very potent -Fighters- would be designed in the 40s years between Star Trek: Voyager and Star Trek Online.

Quote:
And the Defiant is as small as they got it. The Defiant was not one of those all-purpose Cruisers. It didn't have the vast shield arrays, crew quarters, cargo bays, plain empty internal space, laboratories, aboretums and holodecks. It didn't even have a real sickbay. And yet, it wasn't a fighter and it was significantly larger then any fighter we see in Startrek Online.
And the Fighters that the Vo'quv has don't pack even remotely as much punch as a Defiant, even the Captain-rank Defiant. Hell, even the BoPs launched by the Vo'quv don't pack that much punch, nor are they anywhere near as defensive.

Additionallly, the Defiant lacked in crew quarters, laboratories, and various recreational facilities, yes. However, it did not lack in shield arrays or defenses. In particular, it had added defense in the form of ablative armor on the hull. Also, the Defiant, while tiny, did still maintain a crew of about 50, which is more than a Bird of Prey accomodated. The smaller Birds of Prey (which would be the type launched by the Vo'quv) only had a crew of about 12. About 1/5th of what the Defiant held.

The point is not that the Defiant was a Fighter or that it would be a ship launched from another ship or that Fighters would be as powerful as the Defiant. The point was that the Federation was getting more and more capable of fitting larger amounts of firepower into smaller, more compact designs, which is -exemplified- by the Defiant, the Runabouts, and the Delta Flyer.

Quote:
A single fighter in Startrek is _no_ threat at all to a Cruiser. A typical engagement between a shuttle and a larger ship consists of the shuttle ducking and weaving and hoping to ge to a safe spot (or at least its crew). There is no hope of breaking the larger ships defenses.
If you look at the typical Startrek weapon, for example a torpedo, you will notice that most ships can survive multiple hits of them - even without shields, but the standard case is that we do have shields. So even if we arm our Startrek fighter as good as we can (carrying a few photon torpedoes or quantum torpedoes), it still can't really hope to survive them.
Fighters are not -intended- to take on cruisers single-handedly. Hell, take a look at one of those other serieses you referenced earlier. In Babylon 5 and Battlestar Galactica, the fighters were never intended to singlehandedly take down a cap ship. They work in groups, assaulting the target's defenses from multiple angles and forcing them to divide their attention and fire at smaller, more maneuverable targets that are harder to hit.

One of the specific advantages seen with Fighters is manueverability, largely due to significantly lower mass. A great example of this actually includes both the Defiant and a Maquis-style Raider, when they're fighting Regent Worf's oversized Negh'var in the Mirror Universe. They do not match the firepower of the vastly larger ship, true. But due to their size and maneuverability, they're able to stay extremely close to its hull and fly circles around the ship, making it far more difficult for the larger ship to target them and actually hit them with their disruptor beams, and also makes the use of torpedos by the larger ship nigh impossible, due to the combination of the blasts hitting themselves due to the proximity as well as the torpedos having a smaller targeting arc. This would also apply with very small 1-man fighters versus the more "average" sized "cap ships" we typically see. You can also see an example of this when the Defiant is being chased around Deep Space 9 by Klingon BoPs.

As for the armaments of the Federation Attack Fighters. They are listed as having "At least 3 torpedo launchers and 2 phaser emitters." That's directly off of memory alpha and determined through viewing them in combat during the Dominion War. Presumably, their individual phasers are not as powerful as that of say a Galaxy class as they do not have the power generation capabilities (though they can devote more of the power they do generate to weapons in general), but the torpedos would not suffer much at all. The only issue would be potentially carrying fewer torpedos than the cap ships can, but much of the body of the ship was cargo area for that very purpose. Their torpedos -might- have a lower yeild than that of a cap ship, but not likely by much. And they could most certainly carry more photon/quantum torpedos than a modern day Fighter plane can carry missiles and bombs. Additionally, they have little worry about running out of fuel, nor do they have to worry about running out of bullets. Even after they run out of torpedos, they'll still be capable of firing their phasers.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 36
01-06-2011, 11:10 AM
Quote:
A real world plane can be armed with weapons that pose a significant threat to a single naval vessel. It might not sink the ship, but it might be enough to need considerable repairs and possible some time in a friendly airport. A single hit can be all that it takes to deal this kind of damage.
You wil notice the type of damage these weapons inflict is very different. Real world planes have considerably more firepower compared to a real world ships defenses then we see it in Startrek.
While there is truth to this, that really has little to do with the actual purpose of the Fighters and Carriers. On Earth, we primarily use Carriers as a mobile airbase in order to make air strikes against land targets on the other side of an ocean, thus creating less concern about fuel. However, when it comes to actual naval combat, go take a look at an Aircraft Carrier's fleet. They'll have 1-3 aircraft carriers and 2-4 times as many Naval Destroyers, heavily armed ships. Those ships are there to defend the carrier at sea and are a primary naval combat force. In such combat, the carrier would very likely scramble fighters, but the Fighters would not be their most effective anti-ship weaponry.

Now, where the truth in your statement comes in is the simple fact that while similar to naval combat, space combat is -not- naval combat. Fighters in space are a supplemental force. Sending out fighters adds additional firepower. Albeit, each individual Fighter does not by any means equate to a cap ship. However, each cap ship that acts as a carrier brings with it far more than simply -one- fighter. And while one fighter does not equal a cap ship, a dozen fighters very well -could- equate to a cap ship, at least in offensive capability. As for defensive, they have a specific advantage over the cap ships, which I've mentioned several times before. Maneuverability. Also, you have 12 targets to hit instead of just one. The fact that they can swarm and surround also makes it harder to keep any potential weak spots of your own ship out of the line of fire. Whereas the larger capships might have a hard time keeping their firing focused on your aft shields as you rotate, the Fighters are more capable of staying on your tail and bombarding your aft shields until they're down, then shoving a torpedo or 12 up your arse. And, while they may have the aforementioned lower yeild torpedos, 12 of them can easily make up for that. After all, what does more damage? 12 ordinary Quantum Torpedos or one tricobalt torpedo?

So while they do not serve the -exact- same purpose as our current Carrier/Aircrafts on EArth do, that in no way invalidates their existance. It's called adapting and modifying effective tactics and systems to new environments.

Now, as for the Carrier themselves, one of the ways to be able to have more powerful armaments on the tiny Fighters is to reduce their long-range traveling capabilities. With fairly slow, or possibly even non-existant, warp engines, less space is devoted to the engines overall, thus allowing for more of the ship to be devoted to firepower. However, this also makes getting them to the battlefield significantly more difficult. This is where you enlist cap ships to carry them (i.e., be Carriers). This also leaves them more protected on the way to combat and gives them a refuge to flee to if too badly damaged to continue fighting, but not destroyed.

Quote:
Another aspect about planes and carriers is that a carrier serves as its operation base. The carrier cannot itself attack targets on land. But it can send out its planes to achieve this. And they can move considerably quicker then any other naval vessel.
In Startrek, there is no distinctinction between "land" and "water" for fighters vs carriers. Both fly through space. The fighter might be able to enter the atmosphere, but Startrek cruisers are quite capable of attacking ground targets within the atmosphere on their own. The only purpose of smaller vessels can be to send troops to the ground when transporters aren't working.
A fighter craft is definitely not faster then a typical Cruiser, in fact it is typically more the opposite.
While the top-speed of the fighter would not be higher, the ability to maintain fairly high velocities in the short-term with a very high degree of maneuverability makes it far more effective at avoiding attacks.

Also, there is a distinction between "land" and "water" when it comes to space combat, including in Star Trek. It is not quite as -clearly- defined as on Earth, but it is there. A cap ship bombarding a ground target from space is essentially the same as a destroyer bombarding a land target from sea. This is not only possible, but was the only way in which they could attack land targets before fighter planes and aircraft carriers were created.

Yes, a cap ship in Star Trek is quite capable of bombarding a planet. However, this does not carry the same precision and localized effectiveness as it would if you sent in fighters. If you wish to completely decimate the surface of a planet, then orbital bombardment works quite well. Just look at Iconia. However, if you wish to strike a very specific target, a fighter will be more effective. For example, when Janeway and the Trabe gathered the First Majes of all the Kazon sects for a "peace conference," the Trabe used one of their small fighter crafts to do a very precise strike straight into the room that held the Kazon leaders. Now, it is true that they could have just hit the building from orbit, but that would have destroyed the entire building and areas around it, which would have also caused far more casualties. It also would have killed the Trabe leader and Janeway since the Trabe didn't have transporter technology to beam out before it happened.

Quote:
Planes also serve as a defense against others. Aircraft carriers are typically found within a fleet, and part of their planes provide a combat air patrol that's sole purpose is to be the first line of defense against hostile planes that could send their weapons against the carrier or its fleet.
We have seen nothing like that in Startrek. The instances where we saw fighters in real battles at all, we saw them in the middle of the fleet. There are no combat air patrols provided by shuttlecraft when the Enterprise flies through unknown space. It didn't happen in peace times, nor did it happen in war times (like in the "Yesterday's Enterprise" episode). A small reason might be that any sufficiently sized threat (e.g. not a fighter) could possible outrun any type of fighter screen (see abocve.)
This is mostly true, though that in no way discounts the existence of and use of Fighters and Carriers in general as this is but one use of them. In fact, that particular use you describe only exists because there is the potential of enemy fighter planes coming in to harass/attack a naval fleet. Well, that and the fact that we still have fairly limited long-range sensor technology. Radar only extends so far and only gives so much information. Fighters are useful for making visual identifications in these cases as well.

This is something that is not particularly necessary in Star Trek because of highly advanced long-range sensor technology. This simply allows Fighters, when utilized, to be reserved for offensive purposes, however, and limits the likelihood of them being destroyed while on patrol.

However, another purpose of keeping some already out and in flight is to reduce the time required to scramble fighters, which is something that we can see by the fact that the fighters are already deployed before combat starts in DS9.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 37
01-06-2011, 11:11 AM
Quote:
Within Startrek Online, you will notice one thing - fighters from Carriers can be spawned endlessly. That is a game mechanic, just like our own ships can spawn endlessly and not permanently lost. If we remove the respawns for a moment (To some extent we can create such a scenario - there are fighter only NPC groups in PvE), you will notice how quickly all those fighters are destroyed.
NPC groups are a poor example. To maintain the "heroic" feel of being the "hero ship" in an episode of Star Trek. The Enterprise and Voyager, for example, often succeeded against seemingly overwhelming odds, while other, oft times unnamed, ships failed against underwhelming odds.

Also, STO doesn't really make use of maneuverability for the purpose of dodging attacks, beyond simply staying outside of someone's firing arc. They have the "Defense" stat for "hit or miss," but that really seems to have very little to do with actual maneuverability, which has as much to do with turn rate as with speed.

This fact actually significantly weakens Fighters in STO. If they had a more "FPS" style targeting, like in Airplane Combat Sims or Freespace, instead of "virtually gauranteed to hit your target" style firing, then you would find Escorts, for example, very difficult to hit. Fighters would be even harder to hit, especially if controlled directly by a player.

Quote:
Every time you destroy a fighter, you remove some of the fighter wing's firepower, too. If you had bothered to put all that firepower into a single ship, it would have taken a lot longer for that ship to be destroyed and any firepower to be lost. So instead of slapping all that firepower on 12 fighters, you should have put it on one single ship. Even in the worst case, complete loss of the fighters and complete loss of the ship, you would have inflicted more damage with the ship. And there is a higher chance that maybe you dealt enough damage with that ship to avoid a loss, or at least were able to retreat without losing half of your wing.
There is -some- truth to this. However, you're being very limited in your view. Let's say one of those fighters gets hit, unshielded, by a Tricobalt Device. That fighter is -gone.- However, most ships would be -gone- due to that event as well. In that case, where you would've lost an entire cap-ship, you lose only 1/12th of your overall fighting power with the Fighter, thus allowing you to do more damage.

Additionally, if we look at this particular situation from a purely Star Trek setting standpoint and not STO mechanics, there's the fact that as a cap ship gets damaged in combat, different systems can end up going offline, usually permanently. If you take out a cap ship's shields, you're probably going to be annihilating the entire ship very soon. If you take out a fighter's shields, you've still got 11 more fighters to deal with after that one fighter is gone. If you take out a cap ship's weapons (which can be done without disabling their shields, as we've seen on Star Trek), they are unable to continue attacking at all. However, with the Fighters, you'd have only taken out one, maybe two fighter's weapons in that time, leaving 10-11 still attacking.

Additionally, if one facing of your shields goes down on a cap ship versus another cap ship, you can turn your ship so that a different facing is toward's them, or divert power from other facings to the damaged facing. If you're fighting against a dozen fighters, however, their -maneuverability- lets them either focus on that damaged facing you're trying to turn away from them, or when you divert power, switch their targeting to one of the facings you've thus weakened. They're also able to target multiple subsystems much more easily than a cap ship could, and are able to be more precise to make up for the lower individual firepower, as well as have an easier time targeting any particular weak spots in your shields.

As for casualties and "repair costs," that won't necessarily be any different. In fact, since each Fighter would presumably have only 1-2 people in it, that's 12-24 people if you lose the entire wing. Even losing simply the Defiant could easily account for 50 deaths. Also, even if the Defiant manages to win the fight and not be destroyed, you could still lose 30 or more people depending on where the damage to the Defiant occurred. If you lose half your wing, but still win, you'd have lost around 6-12 people, not 30+. And that's just using the Defiant as an example. The Intrepid class had a crew of 160, which could mean far more lives lost in battle than the Fighter wing example. The Galaxy class had a crew and passenger compliment of over 1000.

Quote:
In the real world, we don't have shields and the type of armor used in Startrek. In the real world, all this scales very badly. You can probably use the exact same type of missiles or guns to bring down a small airplane then you can use to destroy a large one. It can be more useful to scale up your numbers then to scale up your size under these circumstances, e.g. it is actually more effective to send a wing of 6 planes armed with 6 missiles each then it is to send a larger plane with 36 missiles. Beause those 6 wings need 6 hits to be destroyed, while that large plane probably still needs only one.
Of course, in the real world, the larger plane would have other disadantages, too - it would probably be less maneuverable and easier to detect, too.
Part of your problem is thinking that only current 'real world' situations apply to the use of Fighters and Carriers, which is an illogical assumption.

Maneuverability is very much an issue in Star Trek combat. This is shown very significantly with the Defiant, and is a significant reason for its small size. They could have easily fit all that firepower onto a ship the size of a Galaxy-class. Hell, they could've probably fit -more- power onto it, but they wanted maneuverability.

Yes, they have shields and stronger hulls, but they also have far stronger weapons than our modern day planes and ships have. Photon torpedoes are at least as powerful as modern day tactical nukes and Quantum Torpedos are even more powerful than that.

The fact that cap ship defenses are scaled up so much higher than anything we have in the real world is something that also applies to the fighters themselves. While they are individually far less physically defensive than the cap ships (which is the same with modern designs as well, where larger military vehicles are typically more heavily armored than smaller military vehicles, such as a Tank compared to the Bradly Fighting Vehicle), they still have far far higher defensive capabilities than a modern day fighter plane. They have sheilds. They can be equipped with ablative armor. And they make up for lower physical defense with higher maneuverability and higher evasive capabilities.

Quote:
I think a Vulcan would hesitate from such conclusions without sufficient data, and with sufficient data, he would come to the same conclusion I did.
Actually, I can say with 99.9% certainty that a Vulcan would come to the same conclusion I've come to. http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Vulcan_fighter

Quote:
I can also put a short version of all the above.
Startrek Combat doesn't feature fighters. Startrek flagships have never been carriers. If this is to feel like Startrek, Carriers have no place in it.
Wrong, right, wrong.

Star Trek Combat has featured fighters, both involving the Maquis and the Dominion War, as well as Vulcan vs the Andorians, the Kazon, and several other instances.

The flagships of the federation that have been presented in Star Trek have never been Carriers, true. Those flagships have all been named Enterprise as well, except maybe for the Excelsior after the decomissioning of the Enterprise-A.

As for the "hero ships" of Star Trek series, the Enterprise, Enterprise-A, Enterprise-D, Enterprise-E, Enterprise NX-01, USS Defiant, and USS Voyager were not Carriers. This is true. However, there are far -far- more ships in Star Trek than that and most of the "hero ships" faced off against Fighters and, in some cases, Carriers, at one point or another.

For this to feel like Star Trek, it doesn't matter whether or not there are Carriers. If STO had no carriers, it would still feel like Star Trek. STO having Carriers still feels like Star Trek. The only way it could end up -not- feeling like Star Trek is if every single ship in the game was a Carrier, except maybe Escorts. Hell, even if they made it so that every CRUISER in the game was also a Carrier, that would not feel like Star Trek.

However, adding a few ships that are also Carriers does very much fit the setting and canon of Star Trek, especially since STO takes place in 2409 and there was at least -one- known Carrier starship in the form of the Scimitar as of 2379.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 38
01-06-2011, 11:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mister_dee
All of them?

Besides, either fighters need carriers to get somewhere because carriers have more range and are faster, which would mean they could not operate as a CAP while the fleet is in transit or they are as fast and have as much range as the larger ships which would defeat the point of carriers and the CAP because then the fighters would be 'out' the entire time.
First off, we don't know that the fighters seen in those scenes are all of them. I'm fairly certain they aren't. Especially in the pic that was linked, which only shows THREE fighters.

Also, even if the Fighters themselves are capable of traveling at Warp 6+ (the average cruise speed of a federation vessel, though presumably a fleet on its way to battle would be traveling faster than that), how long a trip was it from that starbase to the field of battle? How are the pilots of 1-2 man fighters supposed to take care of things like sleep, using the restroom, eating meals, etc.?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 39
01-06-2011, 11:26 AM
We've got carriers, the devs have invested time (which to them is money) into them. They are not going away canon or not.

Now could we possibly have more variation on the theme or even more complex and intricate ship design other than the Rochambeau of Cruiser, Escort, Science and Carrier? Yes, but you're still going to see these designs in there some where. The devs have invested too much into this to see it change or any of them simply removed.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 40
01-06-2011, 11:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrincessKatrina View Post
How are the pilots of 1-2 man fighters supposed to take care of things like sleep, using the restroom, eating meals, etc.?
Flight suits.
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 12:58 PM.