Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 21
02-07-2012, 01:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resz
More ship types, yes. However, the Federation has more individual ship classes, with 37 total between all ranks and 15 at tier 5. The KDF, meanwhile, has 33 between all ranks, 11 of which are T5. This, of course, excludes the Jem'Hadar attack ship, as it isn't exclusive to either faction, as well as shuttles and fighters, though the Federation still has the numbers advantage there with 7 to the KDF's 3.

The grass is still very much greener on the Federation's side.
T5 ships are all that really matters the way the game is atm, each time you reach a new tier it makes the previous tier obsolete, I'd be OK with having fewer total ships but more or at least equal top tier ships.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 22
02-07-2012, 01:23 AM
  • The Federation has an entirely different Shipbuilding ethos than the Empire, Carriers are not faction-appropriate. Starfleet builds Cruisers for Exploration, Science Vessels for research, and Escorts for defense. Carriers are strictly weapons of aggression, they have no scientific, diplomatic, or exploratory value. Starfleet builds all it's vessels with peacetime uses in mind. Carriers don't have any that aren't better filled by other ships already anyway.
  • Federation fighters are all warp-capable, long-range craft, with heads, bunks, and replicators, Carriers aren't necessary for them to operate effectively.
  • The Empire has an entirely different view of death than the Federation does. Klingons desire death in battle it's one of the few ways to earn an honored place in Sto'Vo'Kor. Starfleet seeks to avoid it if at all possible. And without the plot armor that was always available to the main casts of the series (last minute beam-outs, ejections, etc..), the attrition rate of Starfleet Fighter Pilots would be unacceptable.
  • Considering the shields and firepower of mainline vessels, Fighters are rarely the best option. Sending Fighters against a BoP is like sending speedboats with crews armed with handguns against a modern Submarine with a Titanium Hull. The Speedboats won't do any damage, the Sub can destroy them all easily, or evade them entirely, either way, the speedboats aren't going to win. There's a reason why very few KDF Carrier Jockeys use Fighters, and a great many use BoPs.
  • Shipwise, parity matters very little. What matters is how the ships are used. I, for example, use a a Science Officer in a Nebula to hunt down and destroy Carriers. In spite of their pets, in spite of their hulls and shields, the U.S.S. Eisenhower tends to wipe the floor with them, especially if I have a good wingman in an Escort.
  • As far as playstyles go, that's not really an argument. Carriers are freely available if you get a Klingon to the cap, or for C-Points if you're impatient. You could roll Joined Trill and pretend to be a spy for the Federation if you like, there's nothing wrong with rolling a Klingon if you want to play a Carrier, hundreds of people have done just that.

This is the most reasonable I have ever been on the subject of a Federation Carrier. I don't want to bring out the big guns, but I will if you make me.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 23
02-07-2012, 01:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pondara
T5 ships are all that really matters the way the game is atm, all previous each time you reach a new tier it makes the previous tier obsolete, I'd be OK with having fewer total ships but more top tier ships.
Well, given that the Federation currently has both more total ships and T5 ships, this isn't really an issue anyway.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 24
02-07-2012, 01:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katic View Post
[list][*]The Federation has an entirely different Shipbuilding ethos than the Empire, Carriers are not faction-appropriate. Starfleet builds Cruisers for Exploration, Science Vessels for research, and Escorts for defense. Carriers are strictly weapons of aggression, they have no scientific, diplomatic, or exploratory value. Starfleet builds all it's vessels with peacetime uses in mind. Carriers don't have any that aren't better filled by other ships already anyway.[/i]
Like I said, this makes no sense since they have been at war for decades, that may have been the design philosophy at one time yes but if that hasn't changed by the time the game takes place, where peacetime hasn't been the norm for decades, than the UFP deserved to get conquered.

Take WWII for instance, the allied nations weren't necessarily aggressive nations with the most advanced military, but from the start in 1939 to the end in 1945 those nations quickly learned that they need to make advancements in their armaments to compete and win and during those 6 years, military technology and just tech in general advanced in leaps and bounds.

Now you can't tell me that in the decades of war that the Federation has been in, they haven't realized that "hey, if we built warships and trained soldiers for war, than we could end this war(s) sooner and put an end to the killing."
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 25
02-07-2012, 01:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pondara
Like I said, this makes no sense since they have been at war for decades, that may have been the design philosophy at one time yes but if that hasn't changed by the time the game takes place, where peacetime hasn't been the norm for decades, than the UFP deserved to get conquered.

Take WWII for instance, the allied nations weren't necessarily aggressive nations with the most advanced military, but from the start in 1939 to the end in 1945 those nations quickly learned that they need to make advancements in their armaments to compete and win and during those 6 years, military technology and just tech in general advanced in leaps and bounds.

Now you can't tell me that in the decades of war that the Federation has been in, they haven't realized that "hey, if we built warships and trained soldiers for war, than we could end this war(s) sooner and put an end to the killing."
Considering that sticking by their principles and maintaining a ship design philosophy around exploration and diplomacy over military might has won them every war they've been in, it's not hard to believe that the Federation would do any differently now.

Also I don't want the devs to anger Roddenberry's ghost any more than they probably already have.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 26
02-07-2012, 02:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pondara
Like I said, this makes no sense since they have been at war for decades, that may have been the design philosophy at one time yes but if that hasn't changed by the time the game takes place, where peacetime hasn't been the norm for decades, than the UFP deserved to get conquered.

Take WWII for instance, the allied nations weren't necessarily aggressive nations with the most advanced military, but from the start in 1939 to the end in 1945 those nations quickly learned that they need to make advancements in their armaments to compete and win and during those 6 years, military technology and just tech in general advanced in leaps and bounds.

Now you can't tell me that in the decades of war that the Federation has been in, they haven't realized that "hey, if we built warships and trained soldiers for war, than we could end this war(s) sooner and put an end to the killing."
The WWII analogy only works to an extent. The Wehrmacht surprised the Allies with new technologies and tactics, but the Allies still had a fairly strong military tradition to fall back on to help them catch up. There was a relatively short gap between the two world wars. In Star Trek, the Federation enjoyed nearly a century of peace, prior to the Dominion, that allowed their complacency and disfavourable attitude towards war and aggression to become a near-universal ethos amongst their worlds. Remember how much Picard and Riker scoffed at the uncivilised and barbaric exercise that was a Federation wargame?

The Federation and Starfleet took a completely defensive and reactionary stance when it came to warfare and aggression. Yes, their ships had weapons, but they also had families living on board their flagship. Sure, a Starfleet officer could pick up a phaser and defend himself if necessary, but the organisation as a whole had no concept of true ground combat tactics as graphically displayed in "the Siege of AR-588" (lucky for them, neither did the Jem'Hadar). So yes, between the end of Nemesis and the current timeline of STO, the Federation has been in a near constant state of both cold and hot war, but I don't feel that it has been quite long enough for the entirety of its peoples to have shaken off their century-old "high and mighty" (for lack of a better term) attitude towards war. Hence we do have some purely aggressive ship designs (most Escorts, some Cruisers), but I doubt a carrier is something they've given much thought to. And if they have, it's still only a blueprint.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 27
02-07-2012, 02:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colonel_Taev View Post
The WWII analogy only works to an extent. The Wehrmacht surprised the Allies with new technologies and tactics, but the Allies still had a fairly strong military tradition to fall back on to help them catch up. There was a relatively short gap between the two world wars. In Star Trek, the Federation enjoyed nearly a century of peace, prior to the Dominion, that allowed their complacency and disfavourable attitude towards war and aggression to become a near-universal ethos amongst their worlds. Remember how much Picard and Riker scoffed at the uncivilised and barbaric exercise that was a Federation wargame?

The Federation and Starfleet took a completely defensive and reactionary stance when it came to warfare and aggression. Yes, their ships had weapons, but they also had families living on board their flagship. Sure, a Starfleet officer could pick up a phaser and defend himself if necessary, but the organisation as a whole had no concept of true ground combat tactics as graphically displayed in "the Siege of AR-588" (lucky for them, neither did the Jem'Hadar). So yes, between the end of Nemesis and the current timeline of STO, the Federation has been in a near constant state of both cold and hot war, but I don't feel that it has been quite long enough for the entirety of its peoples to have shaken off their century-old "high and mighty" (for lack of a better term) attitude towards war. Hence we do have some purely aggressive ship designs (most Escorts, some Cruisers), but I doubt a carrier is something they've given much thought to. And if they have, it's still only a blueprint.
That makes sense, a lot more than just saying Starfleet doesn't do warships.

What I'm saying is that the longer these wars go, the more Starfleet should realize that they don't have the luxury of just writing off the idea of warships. I would argue that they owe it to their men & women in uniform to give them whatever edge they can. With enemies like the Borg, you don't get to say "We don't do warships".
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 28
02-07-2012, 02:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pondara
That makes sense, a lot more than just saying Starfleet doesn't do warships.

What I'm saying is that the longer these wars go, the more Starfleet should realize that they don't have the luxury of just writing off the idea of warships. I would argue that they owe it to their men & women in uniform to give them whatever edge they can. With enemies like the Borg, you don't get to say "We don't do warships".
Precisely. The Federation is slowly waking up to this fact. Assuming the game lasts long enough, it'd be kind of interesting to see future Episodes tell a story of a Federation that starts to degrade into something more strongly resembling the Terran Empire.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 29
02-07-2012, 02:35 AM
It is more likely that starfleet engineer corps will look at the KDF carrier and produce a ship to deal with it. This would probably be armed with heavy shielding and armour and point defence phaser banks/ turrets.

I doubt starfleet would enjoy sending pilots to their deaths so easily, however, fighters do tend to carry heavy, disposable, weaponry for their size. This would be a definate candidate for Starfleet to look into dealing with.

Can we have an aegis destroyers please?

Lion.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 30
02-07-2012, 02:35 AM
This is the most reasonable I have ever been on the subject of a Federation Carrier. I don't want to bring out the big guns, but I will if you make me.[/quote]

I beg of you. Please do.
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 02:26 AM.