Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
Note: For the TLDR crowd, skip past the first two paragraphs to the images and explanations of the ship stats.

The idea keeps evolving as more and more people post about it and add suggestions or tweaks, but the fact remains that we've been asking for a revisit to the Akira/Oslo/Zephyr shipline for a long time now with no word from cryptic on whether or not it will be done. Considering that the models already exist and work in-game, and that the only real work needed to implement the ship is the development of its special ability, I cant help but ask why we're still waiting.

After quite some debate on the discussion forum regarding the suggestion to make the Heavy Escort Retrofit a federation carrier, I've fallen back on giving it some kind of torpedo ability instead, and making it a viable cross between the firepower of escorts and the survivability of cruisers. At current, we have 6 retrofit ships available to federation players at the rank of Vice Admiral - 3 of them cruisers, 2 of them science ships, and only a single escort. Adding this ship will help even the numbers, and I have no doubts at all that it would be an instant high-seller on the c-store, what with how many posters on the forums have asked for a T5 version of the Akira class and its hull variants (the oslo and zephyr respectively).



I've mocked up two images to display the Heavy Escort Retrofit and its stats, the way I would like them to be implemented. There is still a lot of debate on how the special ability should work - with no less than half a dozen ideas floating around out there at the moment, but I've settled on my preferred version.

Image 1:
http://i53.tinypic.com/29gdf2w.jpg

This image was created based on a small portion of Suricata's layout displaying all usable federation vessels, I modified it to show the updated stats and special ability that the Heavy Escort Retrofit might have.

To lay out the stats in text form for those who cant or wont view the image:

Stats
Hull Strength: 35,000 (5,000 more than other T5 escorts)
Crew: 200 (Same as fleet escort, 50 more than advanced escort, 150 more than defiant retrofit)
Impulse Modifier: 0.20 (same as other T5 escorts)
Turn Rate: 12 deg/sec (3 deg/sec lower than the fleet/advanced escorts, 5 deg/sec lower than the defiant retrofit)
Inertia: 50 (10 less than the fleet escort, 20 less than the advanced escort)
Device Slots: 3 (1 more than other T5 escorts)
Forward Weapon Slots: 4 (Same as other T5 escorts)
Aft Weapon Slots: 3 (Same as other T5 escorts)

Console Slots
3 Engineering (Same as fleet escort, 1 more than advanced escort or defiant retrofit)
2 Science Consoles (1 less than advanced escort, same as fleet escort or defiant retrofit)
3 Tactical Consoles (1 less than other T5 escorts)

Bridge Officers
2 Lieutenant Commander Tactical (Other T5 escorts have 1 commander tactical + 1 lieutenant commander tactical)
1 Commander Engineering (Other T5 escorts have a max of Lieutenant Engineering)
1 Lieutenant Science (Same max as other T5 escorts)

Cost
1,200-1,600 Cryptic Points
Free at Vice Admiral
500 Emblems

Special Ability
Torpedo Array: +2 Torpedo-Only Hardpoints
-These extra hardpoints do not share cooldown with each other, or with torpedoes equipped on standard hardpoints
-These extra hardpoints cannot equip Tricobalt Torpedoes or any mines
-These torpedoes are not effected by torpedo boff abilities such as spread or high yield
-Port Torpedo Array can fire in an arc ranging from directly forward to 90 degrees port side
-Starboard Torpedo Array can fire in an arc ranging from directly forward to 90 degrees starboard side
(In practice, this means that if you had one torpedo launcher on a standard forward hardpoint and these two torpedo array launchers, you could fire 3 torpedoes forward simultaneously, with a special ability such as torpedo spread or high yield effecting the standard torpedo launcher only. The actual firing arcs of these torpedo arrays would need to extend 15~ degrees past directly forward, so that both could be fired at a target roughly in front of the ship.)



Image 2:
http://i56.tinypic.com/30hu0xe.png

This is a modified screenshot showing the window used to equip consoles, weapons, devices, and equipment to your ship. As shown in the image, the two additional torpedo array hardpoints are located below the tactical console slots - in the same position as hangar bay slots on KDF carrier ships.



Ultimately what you end up with is a T5 escort that has lower manuverability and speed than the fleet, advanced, or tactical retrofit escorts. Additionally, the ship has fewer tactical consoles and tactical bridge officer abilities available than other T5 escorts. To counterbalance these factors, the ship has additional engineering bridge officer abilities, an additional engineering console, slightly higher hull strength, and the extra firepower provided by two additional, non-linked torpedo launchers that provide a wider overall firing arc than standard forward-mounted torpedo launchers.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 3
01-29-2011, 10:13 PM
/signed


But not expecting this to ever come to fruition.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 4
01-29-2011, 10:25 PM
I'm a little iffy on the weapon layout considering the Torpedo Arrays. I think a 3 fore 3 aft setup would work better since the ship effectively has two extra fore slots. This gives it an effective five fore slots with the sole limitation that two are torpedo-only.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 5
01-30-2011, 12:15 AM
Hm... perhaps you're right. Still, details can be worked out, any comments on the general suggestion?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 6
01-30-2011, 12:36 AM
This I could most certainly get behind, with a few minor tweaks.

As said above, forward weapons should be reduced to 3 to counter the added firepower of the 2 torp slots - which still gives it a bit more overall.

The BOF slots are also overpowered. To compare

Excelsior: Lt.C Tac, Com Eng, Lt. Eng, Lt. Sci, Ens Eng
Galaxy R: Com Eng, Lt. Com Eng, Lt. Sci, Lt. Tac, Ens Eng
Akira-R: Lt.C Tac, Lt.C Tac, Com Eng, Lt. Sci

while each has 12 bofs, its a big difference to have 1 Comm, 3 Lt.C, 4 Lt, 4 Ens
as compared to ----------------------------------------------- 1 Comm, 2 Lt.C, 4 Lt, 5 Ens

Swapping an Ens for a Lt Comm is overpowered, no matter what kind of slot it is.

Personally I'd have given it more Sci than Eng, especially with the torp emphasis (Charged Particle Burst anyone?) but that's not as relevant. The fact it needs to be brought down to something more like

Akira Refit: Com Tac, Lt. Com Eng, Lt. Tac, Lt. Sci, Ens Tac

As for the special ability, having both tubes completely unlinked also feels a bit too powerful. Perhaps they should be on a different cool down from the main 6 slots, but not from each other. That still doubles the instant torp possibilities and lets you fire a lot more frequently, but isn't as OP. This is especially true given the other special powers of the ships - E has transwarp, no combat ability, D has a cloak, which is great and usable often - but not during combat, the I has the kick-butt armor ability, with a four minute CD, and the Galaxy has the saucer sep which gives it 1 more phaser array, better turn rate, but lower survivability.



To sum up - 3/3 wep, Lt.C Eng not Comm, 1 Tac Comm, Lt, and Ens, and the 2 torps share a CD
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 7
01-30-2011, 01:46 AM
Like the idea, not sure on the ship. Seems a little bit unbalanced.

Would like to see ships more follow a 'template' style of build. Like an escort is particularly high in maneuverability and firepower, but weak on HP and shields. Same ot be said here, if you are going to uber the weapon payload, what 'disadvantage' would their be to the ship?

Personally if you are looking at the 'anti-carrier', I'd make the ship turn like a carrier.... Nice n annoying very slow.

Blak
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 8
01-30-2011, 04:12 AM
[quiote]
The BOF slots are also overpowered. To compare[/quote]

The suggested bridge officer setup is, more or less, the same as that used by the Vo'Quv Carrier on the KDF side. To compare:

Heavy Escort Retrofit | Vo'Quv Carrier
-----------------------------------------------
1 Lt Com Tactical | 1 Lt Com Tactical
1 Lt Com Tactical | 1 Lt Com Engineer
1 Commander Engineer | 1 Commander Science
1 Lieutenant Science | 1 Lieutenant Science

The only real difference is that the Heavy Escort Retrofit proposal here focuses more on engineer and tactical powers, and less on science powers.

Quote:
Personally I'd have given it more Sci than Eng,
The ship is meant to be a cross between a cruiser and an escort, science doesnt fit into that anywhere.

Quote:
As for the special ability, having both tubes completely unlinked also feels a bit too powerful. Perhaps they should be on a different cool down from the main 6 slots, but not from each other. That still doubles the instant torp possibilities and lets you fire a lot more frequently, but isn't as OP. This is especially true given the other special powers of the ships - E has transwarp, no combat ability, D has a cloak, which is great and usable often - but not during combat, the I has the kick-butt armor ability, with a four minute CD, and the Galaxy has the saucer sep which gives it 1 more phaser array, better turn rate, but lower survivability.
Perhaps, but if we're reducing the ship to 3 forward hardpoints instead of 4 and not allowing the two arrays to fire seperately from one another, then torpedo abilities like spread and high yield should effect the array launchers as well.

Quote:
Personally if you are looking at the 'anti-carrier', I'd make the ship turn like a carrier.... Nice n annoying very slow.
It's still a heavy escort, nowhere close to the size or sluggishness of a cruiser.

The ship already has fewer tactical consoles, tactical bridge officer abilities, and lower manuverability/speed than T5 escorts. The extra burst firepower of the torpedo arrays counteracts the fact that, with lower manuverability, the target will not be in your forward firing arc as often. The extra hull strength makes up for the reduced survivability by not being able to keep a strong shield to the enemy as often - another side effect of the lowered manuverability.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 9
01-30-2011, 07:53 AM
I miss the Akira, this would be sweet. But also I would like to point out that the Steamrunner class would be great for this also!


http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Steamrunner_class
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 10
01-30-2011, 08:30 AM
first, implement the station overhaul i proposed here- http://forums.startrekonline.com/sho...d.php?t=197337 that brings the proposed station set up in line with all other ships, reduce the normal weapon slots to 3/2, give it the same 33000 hull and lower turn rate the klingon rapter has, and restrict dual cannon use and i'd call it relatively balanced.
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 05:49 AM.