Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 1 Why "Flight Deck" Cruisers?
10-20-2011, 10:15 PM
I hope someone from the Dev Team could answer this, but why name these new Orion ships "Flight Deck" Cruisers?

Why not:
  • Escort Carrier
  • Light Carrier
  • Fleet Carrier
  • Assault Carrier


If you have your heart set on "Cruiser" why not "Support Cruiser"?

But why use an ancient turn-of-the-century term for aircraft carrier?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 2
10-21-2011, 05:12 AM
Not a Dev, but my guess is that the "flight deck cruisers" have more weaponry than a carrier while the "true carrier" so to speak has relatively few weapons but two hangars.

Look at the T4 Orion ship:
It has 4/3 weapons but only one hangar.
The T5 Klingon Carrier has only 3/3 but 2 hangars.
So My guess is they want to keep "carrier" reserved for ships that follow the Klingon carrier pattern, but at lower levels.

Support cruiser is probably reserved for Gorn-style ships because both the Draguas and Varanus have the "support"-prefix in their name.

The Orion ships are more like the Japanses Mogami fighter-carrying cruiser variant than a true carrier.

http://images.suite101.com/977684_com_carriercon.jpg

http://media.hannants.co.uk/pics/TA78021.jpg
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 3
10-21-2011, 04:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mister_dee
Not a Dev, but my guess is that the "flight deck cruisers" have more weaponry than a carrier while the "true carrier" so to speak has relatively few weapons but two hangars.

Look at the T4 Orion ship:
It has 4/3 weapons but only one hangar.
The T5 Klingon Carrier has only 3/3 but 2 hangars.
So My guess is they want to keep "carrier" reserved for ships that follow the Klingon carrier pattern, but at lower levels.

Support cruiser is probably reserved for Gorn-style ships because both the Draguas and Varanus have the "support"-prefix in their name.

The Orion ships are more like the Japanses Mogami fighter-carrying cruiser variant than a true carrier.

http://images.suite101.com/977684_com_carriercon.jpg

http://media.hannants.co.uk/pics/TA78021.jpg
oh? Interesting
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 4
10-21-2011, 04:10 PM
IIRC it is a historical reference. Many of the first aircraft carriers were converted cruisers, or built hastily on cruiser hulls and known as flight deck carriers, light carriers, or escort carriers. Purpose built carriers- like the US Navy's Nimitz class- are called "Fleet Carriers." (Technically "supercarriers" since they are all over 70k tons.)
So we get a small (lower tier) flight deck cruiser and a larger (higher tier) Fleet Carrier.


edit: okay I didn't read the OP all the way through. I agree with mister_dee. I think the layout is the difference. But that still dovetails with the historical reference in that the lower tier is more of a cruiser and the higher tier is more carrier.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 5
10-22-2011, 02:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mister_dee
Not a Dev, but my guess is that the "flight deck cruisers" have more weaponry than a carrier while the "true carrier" so to speak has relatively few weapons but two hangars.

Look at the T4 Orion ship:
It has 4/3 weapons but only one hangar.
The T5 Klingon Carrier has only 3/3 but 2 hangars.
So My guess is they want to keep "carrier" reserved for ships that follow the Klingon carrier pattern, but at lower levels.

Support cruiser is probably reserved for Gorn-style ships because both the Draguas and Varanus have the "support"-prefix in their name.

The Orion ships are more like the Japanses Mogami fighter-carrying cruiser variant than a true carrier.

http://images.suite101.com/977684_com_carriercon.jpg

http://media.hannants.co.uk/pics/TA78021.jpg
Exaclty my point, the first Carriers like the USS Langley were converted cruisers. But the term itself is obsolete. It's like calling a car a horseless carriage.


And lets not forget in Star Trek, technically all ships are Flight Deck Cruisers. The Akira, the Galaxy, and the Sovereign-classes have very large shuttlebays that are termed as "flight decks" but yet the ship's themselves aren't referred to as "flight deck carriers".

So why don't Cryptic use more modern terms that actually fit the genre than choosing quick names from Google and Wikipedia?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 6
10-22-2011, 03:07 AM
There is a big diiference between the converted cruisers and the ship I mentioned as an example:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...%28CV-1%29.jpg

the Langley, while a converted cruiser, is nontheless a "flat top" so the term carrier for her is fitting.
While the Mogami was an actual hybrid and not totally converted like the Langley hence calling her a carrier is not quite right.
It seems Cryptic used that logic when they decided on the terminology for the Orion ships, they're hybrids not "pure" carriers.

As for the Federation versions, well they never actually carried small craft dedicated for an space combat (unless we take the intended "Akira is a torpedo boat/ carrier/ battlecruiser" stuff that was completely dropped into account) even though they were not shown to be useless in one.
So they were more akin to "ships with a lot aux craft" than "flight deck cruisers".
I can also honestly not remember when their shuttle bays were every called flight deck in any episode.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 7
10-22-2011, 11:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azurian View Post
I hope someone from the Dev Team could answer this, but why name these new Orion ships "Flight Deck" Cruisers?

Why not:
  • Escort Carrier
  • Light Carrier
  • Fleet Carrier
  • Assault Carrier


If you have your heart set on "Cruiser" why not "Support Cruiser"?

But why use an ancient turn-of-the-century term for aircraft carrier?
Oh I agree Azurian (wow....didn't think I'd say that :p) but when was the last time that Cryptic did something that made everybody happy?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 8
10-22-2011, 04:54 PM
We're never going to see "real" trek type carriers in STO.. Writing the AI, and control routines for the wing of small craft would simply be more then most game engines can handle..

The reality of space carriers is to work they have to carry ALOT of fighters, replacemt fighters, extra pilots, maintainece crews etc.

SO Guys relax.. As for the fed complaining about KDF carriers.. do be aware it could be much much MUCH worse.

Imagine this.. The big KDF carrir not launching a mere 8 fighters or 4 BOP, bup 4 BOP AND more like a wing of 32 to 64 fighters! Now THATS a carrier. Everything is scaled down in effectivness to provide a playable game. And carriers one player can handle. To simulate a real carrier in this game would require 2-4 players operating the ship. One JUST operating the ship, and the rest operating the wing of pets that would be seperated into various attack or defence elements. Fighters for point defence Space superiority, and anti ship attack. ANd lets not forget sci/eng shuttles to provide support to the attack craft well away from the carriers! In a propper sim you would never get close nuff to the carrier to shoot at it even assuming you can find it in the first place!

Carriers as decepted in STO have only the wing of small "jeep" and escort carriers. There are no true light or fleet carriers in the game. and be thankfull. It would take an entire group of ships to take them on.. Fighters in STO other them player operated fighters are rather fragile beasts.

Now, I wouldn't mind seeing a Federation ond KDF super-carrier where player operated fighters are operated off of. Thing of going into a fight with 15 of your buddies beside you!
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 9
10-22-2011, 05:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khemaraa_Iron_Hand_KBF View Post
We're never going to see "real" trek type carriers in STO.. Writing the AI, and control routines for the wing of small craft would simply be more then most game engines can handle..
that reminds me of a very old Playstation game where you as the player built robots from components and gave then simple commands (4 types each i think) designned and built by you using Tiles of software that acclomplished certain tasks like " Search for enemy" or " go to (click or location) then" or " circle enemy left ". etc.

How about something like that?

kinda big and slow though, might work as a time consumer for the player if one had to slow programm him to be a better NPC captain.
Lower levels lower range of simplier abilites to program - seek, fire, escort, attackj
at Higher levels more complex and intrincate. A seasoned officer onbaord a seasoned carrier.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 10
10-22-2011, 05:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azurian View Post
I hope someone from the Dev Team could answer this, but why name these new Orion ships "Flight Deck" Cruisers?

If you have your heart set on "Cruiser" why not "Support Cruiser"?

But why use an ancient turn-of-the-century term for aircraft carrier?
Actually wer not the first aircraft carriers basically cruier with a flight deck built on them?

Otherwise I agree they need to be better defined and possibly tweaked further before release.
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 11:17 PM.