Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 1 Comparison of Naval Tactics.
12-24-2011, 12:10 AM
First, this is not a rant about how one Faction is stronger then the other. This thread is simply to provide feedback for my PVP experience.

To start, i am compairing the tactics of Star Trek Online's PVP to that of Pre WW1, WW1 and WW2 naval tactics. I get these comparisons from a number of books that outline the larger ships in heavyer detail. I find the best comparison is to the Dreadnoughts of the early 1900s, due to the fact that these ships are designed to house large crews and take a lot of punishment during a battle.

Now, the federation has a wide variety of ships, from escorts to scientific (reconnaissance) ships, and cruisers (both small and large). During most battles the escorts show very strong firepower in a smaller more nimble frame. The would be the destroyers, and in some cases the submarines (made possible by the cloak). Thier best use from an historical standpoint would be in the infamous "wolf packs" of WW2. They do maintain a sizable advantage in those "hit and run" style attacks against uncloaked opponents. They do however lack any ability to find another ship capable of cloaking unless it has begun an attack on another ship. Science ships show characteristics of a destroyer also, by thier limited ability to detect cloaked ships.(similar to sonar) Yet they have a very limited detection range, which almost always is too late, and too infrequent. The Science ship is limited in other ways, a lack of firepower leaves the ship vulnerable to even a poorly equiped cruiser. The abilities that the officer give the ship do help increase survivability by a small amount, but mostly delay her destruction against a more heavily armed opponent. Cruisers, now they are very similar to the battleships of the WW1 era. They are best at "broadsides", and have a large hull designed to keep them in a fight much longer. They are however laughable, since they lack the ability to turn and face an opponent, or hold thier own against a single well timed attack from an escort. Grated that large ships have always had great difficulties in manuverability, but they made up for this with heavy armour belts and long range weaponry. Lastly for the federation I will discuss the Dreadnought Cruiser, a large well armed vessel with a powerfull forward phaser lance. Unfortunately she suffers from the same flaws as other cruisers, a lack in manuverability and durability. Her forward phaser cannon is at best a sick joke, as the ship will never face an opponent to fire it. Her use of a cloak is also interesting as it allows her to surprise an opponent, activly allowing her captain to choose when and where to fight. (historicaly the ability to elude and pick ones battles has been a major factor in success of ones navy) Her firepower is somewhat impressive during broadsides, and even her aft firepower can do significant harm to an unfortunate opponent. Her survivability makes me question why they gave here the name Dreadnought, as the ship simply lasts only as long as a less combat designed exploration cruiser.
Federation tactics are closer to that of a WW2 convoy, finding strength in numbers and attempting to force the battle to occur on thier terms.

Now for the Klingon ships, most klingon ships fall into 3 categories. Escort (Bird of Prey), Cruiser (Raptors and Warships), and Carriers. The escorts of the klingons are very heavily armed in the front, very similar to a submarine. They play as smoothly as intended with true surprise attacks that are devestating to an opponent and sent fear down the spine of any person unfortunate enough to cross thier path. The Klingon cruisers act very much as the federation cruisers do, although some of the klingon cruisers share traits with an escort due to thier cloak. The carriers are the cream of the crop, they act very similar to a WW2 carrier. They are best suited in a support role with the carrier themselves far fromt he battle. They take an unimaginable amount of damage, as a carrier should. And thier primary asset is the ability to lauch fighters, also perfectly accurate. The prevailing Klingon strategies are all very similar to that of historical naval tactics also. They hunt in packs, they hide until a decisive strike can be made, and they fall back to regroup after a successful battle.

Balance: The Klingon ships and tactics are very accurate and most importantly suited for thier ships. Hunting packs are often formed without any real coordination required. The cloak also suits the desired strategies and accuracy of the Klingon playing style. Federation gameplay is a bit more chaotic, a large lack of organization is typicaly to blame for most defeats. Some Federation fleets often group up in well organized "Fed Balls" which provides them with protection against any would be hunting pack.

Technology and Balance: Both the Federation and Klingon cruisers should have more of a damage resistance, to better emulate the amount of armour that a large warship has. The armour that can be equiped optionaly should be only an addition to this type of ships already strong hull. The Klingon carrier should also have more damage resistance, as the carriers fall prey to even a single cruiser with relative ease. The Federation Dreadnought should employ a similar armour type to that of a carrier, perhaps slightly less. Due to the Dreadnought being designed as a large battleship, not an exploration cruiser. The science ships should be more capable of detecting cloaked ships. Since they have less firepower to defend themselves, they should have perhaps a more rapid sensor scan. As the current sensor scan is laughable at best. The tachyon detection field and grid are both useless due to thier cooldown times. To still maintain a balance between factions, I would make it so that any ship that is scanning is clearly identified and is detectable at greater ranges. Currently science ships lack purpose since, by the time a ship is within range of passive detection it is already decloaking and attacking. The B'rel Retrofit is also in need of a better (more rapid Enhanced Battle Cloak) stealth system. In my personal opinion the B'rel Retrofit should play as an actual submarine, revealing herself for only a second while she deploys a torpedo. The B'rel seems to favor that type of gameplay already but still stays vulnerable for some measure of time.

Conclusion: I myself am a Science officer on the Federation, and a Tactical officer on the Klingon faction. I find some imbalances which force players to look outside thier normal carrers to be effective. These imbalances are minimal and sometimes compensated for by clever tactics. But currently the most effective ships in the game for the purpose of PVP, is escorts equiped with cloaking devices. If anybody has feedback or another point of view i would love to hear it.

Please don't critique the grammer or spelling. I am terrible at both.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 2
12-24-2011, 03:08 AM
You mean the Bops with their nasty toy consoles, come on, admit it!
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 3
12-26-2011, 03:47 PM
I have to agree that the UFP plays like they are pre WW2 ships while the KDF play PostWW2. To much work is being put into the wrong things like PTW consoles and ships and bad end game mechanics. More thought need. to be put into PVP as it is a horrendous joke and i have been on both sides of the line. the whole team death match has always been a bad gimmic as there is simply no reason for multiple maps. The cap and hold map i found was relitivly enjoyable at times but lack of intellegence from mostly the fed side of puggers constantly cost them a victory(and some various bugs due to lack of actuall PVP tech support). The EBC of the Brel is a really crappy gimmic that cost the ship most of its survivability as torpedo DPS is broken which also causes the Intrepid R armor the same issues and that is also another broken gimmic, to many ways to prevent its deployment, to many ways to disable the armor, and the armor doesn't last long enough to make it worthy of having it on board the ship. Cloak detection is nothing but a joke and all you gotta do to detect a cloak ship is listen to the sound of someone chain stacking buffs then spam out all your AOE abilities to attempt to decloak the guy. Now the KDF have a way to engage the other team before the enter combat range and a new hoard of powers that practically stack the balance of power to there favor while the fed just gain defensive powers. To really bring balance back is to give the UFP the abillity to also fight in the 10-15KM range as there KDF counterpart can easily do to try and soften the enemy up(not saying all UFP ships, just the Gal X phaser lance target and engage up to 15km or some sort of gimmic is needed like fighter controlls for the scorpians) and better cloak detection. Especially since its theorized that the romulans will all have battle cloak on all of there ships and more ways to screw over there enemy before they hit decloak and fire there first shot. In DS9 durring the dominion war fleet VS fleet combat was slightly better explained visually but in STO where every one is at war with one another and great numbers of ships in fleets go at each other its nothing but a disgusting slugfest where no tactics are being used no communication between any one and the whole "im supposed to be some one awesome" mentality take presidence with a forgiving death penalty is there with a mild slap on the wrist is simply killing PVP.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 4
12-26-2011, 08:39 PM
err.
no.

Naval tactics have revolved around this:

bring your guns to bear while keeping the opponents chances to shoot you effectively to a minimum. Also to get into a firing position that inherently put your target at a disadvantage. (like.. you know, shooting the rudder).

If you look back: everything revolved around that and the main factor in that was WEAPONS. Maneuvers and tactics developed to make the most out of pretty sucky weapons (sucky by comparison to particle beams and enormous range guides weapons).
Also: engineering demands.



Star trek shares nothing with ww naval tactics or technology.

No attrition (aside boff power cooldowns) We do not have artillery weapons that rely on target prediction. Heck we do not have artillery period.
We also do not have much in guides missiles (basically our modern navy warfare schtick). We do not have long range combat. which is sad.
The bio neural torpedo, as much as some may hate it, is the first genuinely new weapon we get in 2 years. More of that. why not ships dedicated to deploy such long range ordnance? Why not have heavy weapons ship, someone remember the steam runner as an artillery platform in ARMADA?



STO currently has only the base tactics that apply to just about all eras of warfare:

- shoot em in the back!
- gang up!
- Throw dirt in their eyes!
- cheat where ever you can!
- talk to your mates, you might be able to coordinate better for your gang up!

...


so no revolutionary insights in this thread.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 5
12-27-2011, 03:04 AM
Well, sorry for not responding in such a long time, but I had a 48 hour work shift over the weekend.

First, the ships retain in my opinion a retro pre-WW1 to WW2 combat style. Please let me elaborate. The ships have all had thier ranges equalized, most likely due to a required game mechanic. But the ships still require that most of thier weapons be brought to face the opponent. As the Klingon birds of prey have primarily fore weapons similar to a submarine. And cruisers are able to throw most of thier weapon in to a fight from either side. Unfortunately the only lacking is ship specialization, IE one ship being better at a specific role. Currently any ship can become a "tank", thus shifting players to favor escorts due to thier 1-2 hit kill capability. And you will find that outside of PVE cruisers are rarely seen. Most players (close to 60%) use escorts of one type or another. I find that to be unfortunate due to the fact I like to captain cruisers, especialy any Galaxy derived cruiser (Galaxy, or Galaxy-X). I really do wish it was a more effective ship in PVP, but it is much more effective in instances of PVE. Primarily due to a PVE opponent being poorly armed.

I do appreciate any feedback, since if we do not provide feedback of what we would like. Cryptic will not change anything.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 6
12-27-2011, 07:49 AM
No, they are not like (planetary) surface naval units.

Carry on.

Yours in Naval War College Plasma,
Star*Dagger
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 7
12-27-2011, 10:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegetable0 View Post
Well, sorry for not responding in such a long time, but I had a 48 hour work shift over the weekend.

First, the ships retain in my opinion a retro pre-WW1 to WW2 combat style. Please let me elaborate. The ships have all had thier ranges equalized, most likely due to a required game mechanic. But the ships still require that most of thier weapons be brought to face the opponent. As the Klingon birds of prey have primarily fore weapons similar to a submarine. And cruisers are able to throw most of thier weapon in to a fight from either side. Unfortunately the only lacking is ship specialization, IE one ship being better at a specific role. Currently any ship can become a "tank", thus shifting players to favor escorts due to thier 1-2 hit kill capability. And you will find that outside of PVE cruisers are rarely seen. Most players (close to 60%) use escorts of one type or another. I find that to be unfortunate due to the fact I like to captain cruisers, especialy any Galaxy derived cruiser (Galaxy, or Galaxy-X). I really do wish it was a more effective ship in PVP, but it is much more effective in instances of PVE. Primarily due to a PVE opponent being poorly armed.

I do appreciate any feedback, since if we do not provide feedback of what we would like. Cryptic will not change anything.

First:
Weapons brought to face the opponent.

yeah. you know thats a basic requirement for most weapons EVER made? How does this relate specifically to ww naval tactics?! An infantry men sure as heck should aim his gun at an opponent, so should a tank. Or an airplane. Or basically every gun made ever.



As for STO:

STO suffers from a severe design flaw that is hereby named "copying every mmo made EVER in that the devs tried to get the uholy trinity into STO"

Healer. DPS. Debuffer/buffer.

What.
the
fck.

THAT is the crux on this game ever since release.
Escorts get over inflated firepower. Ship durabilities rely on boff magic powersexclusively, The base stats are meaningless.

Cruisers got their damage nerfed and never restored despite all ships getting more hp and the game having totally redone the tanking mechanics that the prior damage nerf was balanced for. So all ships got more tank, but only escorts got a raise in firepower by not having their guns suck through cycle timing hell. Beam weapons still remain nerfed to this day. Which leads us to funny situation where cruisers cannot kill each other. Where escorts have supreme survivability simply because they can outrun any cruiser. Where cruisers durability means nothing because they lack the agility to present undamaged shields (you know, non tac team internal shield transfer has also never been adjusted to the raised dps curves and the overall increase in durability. so cruisers again got the stick by having to rely on tac team almost enitrely.
Science ship have become the playing ball in a weird game of "let the pendulum swing". having their powers changed often and drastically with extreme results. either opness or upness but never something truly usefully balanced.

Thats also why escorts rule pve: there absurdly overinflated firepower makes every npc a total victim.
In pvp their overinflated firepower makes stats like hull and shield cap redundant and pointless. They will burn through 50k hull in mere seconds, and shields go down after 2 volley. unless you have magic boff powers ready of course....
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 8
12-27-2011, 10:58 AM
Lets first not jump on the I am right you are wrong train. I would argue that you do not alway need to face an opponent to fight. Hence modern missiles hardly need to face an opponent to adjust thier course to attack thier intended target.

Now as far as starships do not share any tactics to surface naval vessels, I disagree. As the tactics that apply to one field do not become useless as new weapons are added. If the arguement is that it is different that they are in space, this is true but not really that different from naval warfare. Since both used ships, carried weapons, and had multiple dimensions of travel.

Please also try not to make this about how the game its self is broken. Or more importantly that one faction is stronger then the other, ect. Please take the time to show some evidence about your point. Its difficult to make a point without some sort of support to said point.

Thank you for the posts though.
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 09:08 AM.