Thank you Mister_dee that was the point I was trying to make...the one addition that I might make is that a giant tube, which is what a carrier is (water or space borne, otherwise it can not function in its primary roll) can not have the structural integrity that say a Neg Var has (forgive the spelling, my Klingon is a little rusty). As to your earlier comment Sir I understand, but then maybe its time to introduce another type of ship...say a Sectoor Control Vessel that would be mutli-task capable.
Drop Marines, launch small craft (but fewer than a carrier) and slug it out in its own right...
The thing would fly like a cement truck, but killing it could make you remenise fondly about the Borg
Schulz189, don't worry about your English...or your Klingon.
It takes time to get used to wrinting long stuff in the forums.
Took me a while to get the hang of it especially since English is not my first language either.
So my pleasure if I could help a bit with my excessive ranting.
You use capital lettere where the English language uses none, very much like I do sometime so my guess is we're not that distant as far as our native language is concerned.
Well if we use the Klingon Battlecruiser as an counterpart to the old Battleships
and the Klingon Vo'quv as a counterpart to the Supercarriers of the real world
then the analogy is not quite right.
The reason is that while the carriers of the real world were about twice as heavy as a battleship
(Iowa class 58,000 tons vs supercarrier roughly 100,000 tons)
the Klingon carriers are actually much bigger than that.
given that the Vo'quv is a little less than twice as long as a Negh'var and twice as wide and twice to thrice as high, the result would be a ship about 8 times as heavy.
Just some numbers for comparison:
4,500,000 tons Galaxy
4,310,000 tons Negh'var
4,320,000 tons Warbird (yes it's 1041 mters long bit it's as hollow as the souls of its crew)
So the Vo'quv would be somewhere round 34,000,000.
It wold be like comparing a carrier to a regular cruiser, and in that case there is precedence of those being as heavily armored as cruisers.
In addition, the central section does not seem to actually house any kind of small craft, only the modules under the wings do.
There might be a "tunnel" or "corridor" that goes through the central section to connect one hangar to the other but otherwise it's not the same as a real-wold carrier.
Those are arranged quite differently:
And there is something else you might want to keep in mind:
The fundamental changes in weapons technology after World War 2 (the shift from guns to missiles) resulted in the removal of armor as I mentioned.
It applied to everything from destroyers to cruisers to supercarriers.
Older ships were not stripped of their armor because that would have cost more than it was worth.
However in the Star Trek universe such a fundamental change never took place.
Technology and tactics had remained very much the same for...well ever.
So in case of the Klingon carriers, it probably means those things have almost the same amor as a battlecruiser but also have more power for structural reinforcement fields to keep the hull in one piece.
And a hit on a comparatively small ship would mean you'd blow a large chunk of its hull off.
On a carrier a hit of the same size would mean you blow a hole into a comparatively small area.
Such a hit is also less likely to damage too many key systems on such a big ship at once because they'd be spread all over the ship and there'd be more backups than on a small ship.
This increased ability to cope with damage must be represented in some fashion in an MMO.
Since we don't have any serious damage model (would love to see that, would allow the ships to be much more different) in this game there's only one thing they can use and those are of course the hitpoints.
And there's another reason why a hit on a Vo'quv could not have the same devastating effect a Russian Torpedo would have on a USN Super Carrier:
In space noone can sink you.
1.) you need a way to launch your ships without loosing atmosphere - covered that with force fields.
2.) The Facilities to repair and do maintenance - thanks to replicators and transporter buffering, we got that shiite covered too.
3.) Storage space for the things you want to launch. - err... hammer space. yeah.... I mean they stuffed impossibly large quantities of stuff intoo the delta flyer so....
So basically your carrier could be a BOX with life support, a huge hatch secured by forcefields and a decent replicator system.
Said box could be towed or tucked onto hulls for transport, then ditched at a safe location to start launch operations.....
So, the Vo'quv, massive vessel that she is would not actually have to spend that much internal volume on actual flight operations. Unlike a wet navy carrier, space carriers have less trouble with Lady Gravity pulling down everything. No complex systems that dictate construction are needed to bring birds into the fight and retrieve them.
And as such the ship can be build sturdy as heck, because the wet water navy carrier design rules simply do not apply to a spaceborn carrier.
In fact, as far as Star Trek is concerned: EVERY ship with a shuttle hangar can also serve as carrier for fighters.... Remember the Galaxy's main shuttle bay in the saucer section? That thing could hold at least 20 peregrines... and even more scorpions because those things are space go karts.