Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 11
01-30-2011, 08:36 AM
I could get behind this, maybe a few modifications but the overall idea I like.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 12
01-30-2011, 09:58 AM
Okay, I didn't realize the Vo'quv had that kind of BOF setup, making it (as far as I know) the only ship with bof slots that powerful. Of course, it also turns like an ant in molasses, stops like one on grease, and has 3/3 weapon slots, not to mention its lack of a cloak entirely. An Akira refit just feels too powerful on its own, too maneuverable, to justify more Lt. Commander skills than any Fed ship in existence.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 13
01-30-2011, 12:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blakinik
Personally if you are looking at the 'anti-carrier', I'd make the ship turn like a carrier.... Nice n annoying very slow.
Nah, an "anti-carrier" ship should have SCI turn rate, CRS shields, SCI hull, and 10 weapon slots, of which the majority [or all] MUST be turrets. Oh, and it should have access to a "flak-turret" type weapons with bonuses against fighters and maluses against other ships.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 14
01-30-2011, 01:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walshicus
Nah, an "anti-carrier" ship should have SCI turn rate, CRS shields, SCI hull, and 10 weapon slots, of which the majority [or all] MUST be turrets. Oh, and it should have access to a "flak-turret" type weapons with bonuses against fighters and maluses against other ships.
Actually, any ship with 2 beam arrays and Fire at Will can be effective against a carrier. More beam arrays just makes it easier. Heck, any ship with 3 beam arrays fore and 3 aft can sweep a fighter swarm with one Fire at Will. I've done it with my sov.


As to the OP;
Good idea, could use some tweakage for balance purposes but otherwise looks good. Though when I think of extra torpedoes on an Akira I think of the lateral launchers on the saucer which would fire in line with a cruiser style broadside. They would probably be much easier to use, and certainly much easier to aim than two forward launchers with a 15 degree overlap. They'd have a pretty small combined cone of fire.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 15
01-30-2011, 09:04 PM
Well, I gave the torp launchers the ability to fire directly left or right - I just think it'd make more sense and look better to use the torpedo launcher pods that are displayed on the model (on top of each nacelle for the zephyr/oslo, or the akira's centerline pod between the nacelles).
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 16
01-30-2011, 09:46 PM
I could see this a functionality on a cruiser as it can't always get around to bring the torps to bare. I don't see this as practical for an escort. Even so I would argue that this vessel should only have 2 aft weapons not 3 since the 2 torpedo arrays would offer this ship more weapons then any other ship and since you say the torp arrays are independent of the launchers it would be a vertual torpedo gunboat. With its manuverabilty I feel it would be too much.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 17
01-30-2011, 10:30 PM
Enough damn refits. If we get a new escort I'll be happy with it for what it is. And not a damn refit.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 18
01-31-2011, 01:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DecadeComplete
Enough damn refits. If we get a new escort I'll be happy with it for what it is. And not a damn refit.
Tell me, what "new" ships would you have added? What can be added from the shows that is not already represented at some tier in game? Further, what escorts from the shows can be added that are not represented in game - it is widely known that we already have more than enough cruisers and nearly as many science vessels at T5. Of those ships that fit the former two categories, how many of them are modern vessels that would even stand a chance in hell against the other ships at T5, barring the excelsior (which shouldnt have been put at T5 to begin with, IMO)?

The fact that many ships which -should- be T5 in terms of stats and capability were used and left to rot at lower ranks is the reason so many refit versions of htem are being requested. The Akira, the Saber, the Nova, and their variants, are all modern vessels which - in most cases - see maybe a week of use before they are abandoned by a player as they gain their next rank.

The Akira, Norway (oslo), Steamrunner (zephyr), Saber, these ships are some of the most popular with Star Trek fans, both in the shows and in the various games or noncanonical works which include them. That is why players want to use them again - most of us feel cheated that our favorite ships are sitting at T2, or T3, collecting dust because we can no longer effectively utilize them past those ranks. All of those ships were used heavily during the Dominion war - which I'll remind you was not that long ago from the current date in STO - they should still be in service, especially at the higher tiers. The Saber, Steamrunner, and Akira in particular were -all- developed as counters to the Borg threat, and there is no feasible reason why they should not be seen at endgame.

New ships which were never seen in canon references will not appease the majority of players, they do not appeal to the sense of nostalgia that drives so many people to prefer TOS or TNG series ships and equipment over that fancy 25th century tech. New ships have no foundation in the shows, and they do not belong.

Just look at the Fleet Escort - it is a completely custom design, never seen in any of the episodes (as far as I am aware). Look at how many people prefer the advanced escort or the defiant retrofit instead, even though the Fleet Escort is arguably better in terms of stats and combat capability. People want ships they recognize, not something new - and the retrofit vessels allow them to use those ships at endgame and beyond.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 19
01-31-2011, 02:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunder Child
Actually, any ship with 2 beam arrays and Fire at Will can be effective against a carrier. More beam arrays just makes it easier. Heck, any ship with 3 beam arrays fore and 3 aft can sweep a fighter swarm with one Fire at Will. I've done it with my sov.
True, however I'm a big fan of rock-paper-scissors ship roles. I like that Klingons get effective carriers. A Klingon team with a carrier should be a BIG threat to a regular DPS built Federation team... however to counter that I think Federation players should get an effective anti-carrier "flak" type ship, which is relatively weak on its own, but a vital component when facing off against carriers.

I'd get rid of Fire At Will entirely and reconcile it within the weapon *type* and auto-fire schema.

But hey, that's just me!
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 20
01-31-2011, 03:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walshicus
True, however I'm a big fan of rock-paper-scissors ship roles. I like that Klingons get effective carriers. A Klingon team with a carrier should be a BIG threat to a regular DPS built Federation team... however to counter that I think Federation players should get an effective anti-carrier "flak" type ship, which is relatively weak on its own, but a vital component when facing off against carriers.

I'd get rid of Fire At Will entirely and reconcile it within the weapon *type* and auto-fire schema.

But hey, that's just me!
I'd disagree with getting rid of fire at will. I fly a fleet escort with 3 forward dual beam banks, and fire at will is a huge part of my own damage output with those weapons.




If we want to add an anti-carrier to the Federation side, my suggestion - and one that has been posted by a few other people on the forums before - is a "battleship" class - just as large and slow as a KDF carrier, with 5 forward / 5 aft weapon slots and a point defense system special ability that will only target fighter craft, mines, and targetable torpedoes.
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 05:53 AM.