Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,289
# 21
08-01-2012, 06:12 PM
I would pay for a cruiser that had this layout but I doubt it would happen.

Cmdr Tac
Ensign Tac

Lt Cmdr Eng
Lt Eng

Lt Sci

I find the cmdr station on cruisers to not be all that useful, with that layout i could still tank pretty good and make much better use of having 8 weapons.
Tala -KDF Tac- House of Beautiful Orions
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,416
# 22
08-01-2012, 06:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by daedalus304 View Post
Battleships are not supposed to be engineering ships, battleships are not cruisers, they are big hulking gun platforms....hence the console ayout...it is mainly symbolic but holds much more to it.
I'm sorry, but Battleships are basically heavily armed and armored cruisers, where Battleships are just the firepower without the armor (well in the real world). And in Trek, the only ship canonically regarded as a Battleship was the Galaxy-X, which itself is a Cruiser that had more weaponry.

But in STO, that doesn't equate to having a Commander Tactical slot.

Last edited by azurianstar; 08-01-2012 at 06:23 PM.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 178
# 23
08-01-2012, 06:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by azurianstar View Post
Battleships are basically heavily armed and armored cruisers, where Battleships are just the firepower without the armor (well in the real world).
Battleships had a ton of armor, compared to everything else out there back when they were being used. However Destoryers and Cruisers are more effective today due to Ship to Ship Missiles being the primary way of attacking another ship instead of guns (which are almost ceremonial use only today).

A real battle ship, has little advantage in today's world, heavy, slow to turn and fire, good for defence on the hull, especially against torpedo attack, but a vertically vectored weapon will cause massive damage. Which is what most ship to ship missiles are designed to do today, as most of the armor is still in the sea hull to protect from torpedoes etc.

Jim
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,416
# 24
08-01-2012, 06:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jim940 View Post
Battleships had a ton of armor, compared to everything else out there back when they were being used. However Destoryers and Cruisers are more effective today due to Ship to Ship Missiles being the primary way of attacking another ship instead of guns (which are almost ceremonial use only today).

A real battle ship, has little advantage in today's world, heavy, slow to turn and fire, good for defence on the hull, especially against torpedo attack, but a vertically vectored weapon will cause massive damage. Which is what most ship to ship missiles are designed to do today, as most of the armor is still in the sea hull to protect from torpedoes etc.

Jim
Please don't compare modern ships to ships in World War 2. Different times, different capabilities.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 900
# 25
08-01-2012, 06:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by azurianstar View Post
I'm sorry, but that's just crazy.

You are assuming Battleships would be Tactically Heavy, but that's STO. In the real world, Battleships are above Cruisers in the ship heirarchy due to them having greater firepower and armor. And in Star Trek, the only thing we ever truly came closest to a real battleship was the Galaxy-X.

Which means, yes a Battleship in STO would be a Cruiser.
again you think that everything must follow the same guideline, Cruiser, Science Vessel, Escort, but the additon of Carriers and Raiders broke that routine, if a battleship were to be made it would be a new class, bent solely on raw unrefined Firepower, not buffs to hell, and not beam spam, yes Battleships had great armor but then again they had supreme firepower.

the purpous to a battleship's size was mainly due to the fact that the main guns had such massive recoil that if they were on any kind of smaller ship then the formentioned ship would sink or roll over. and yes to be intimidating and to be strong.

and yes its a little naive to believe in STO the battleships, a class of ship defined primarily on its emphasis on FIREPOWER in history, would be about Hull Healing and aiding other ships....hell Cryptic even defined Dreadnought wrong for the Gal-X....the Vo'quo no but the galaxy-x yea, the only thing that made the Galaxy X anything close to a dreadnought was the limited and very weak use of the Spinal Phaser Lance.

A battleship in STO must be by definition a true blue Battleship, meaning no fancy workaround to specificly Engineering class, or Science class, but pure FIREPOWER class...

Admiral Chester W.Nimitz stated

"A Battleship is an intimidating weapon, It can turn an enemy away before they engage, and it can lay waste to an entire fleet, but when you get down to it, a battleship is nothing more than a Hulking Gun platform with a dedicated and brave crew"

If cryptic tries to make a Battleship class, then it has to be purely a hulking gun platform...not a fleet support ship, not a command center, those are what carriers are for, battleships are there to decimate ships and only that.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,416
# 26
08-01-2012, 07:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by daedalus304 View Post
"If cryptic tries to make a Battleship class, then it has to be purely a hulking gun platform...not a fleet support ship, not a command center, those are what carriers are for, battleships are there to decimate ships and only that.
Please, indulge us what you define as a "hulking gun platform". I'm guessing the Bortas isn't good enough. So what do you propose for that "Firepower? 10 Tactical Consoles? Or is your idea more like giving this ship 3 Spinal Lances with 10 Torpedo Tubes?

That is why there is a balance in STO. More Firepower, less survivability. More Speed vs Tanking. So if you give up survivability for this firepower, like said above, it's just a slow turning escort.

Last edited by azurianstar; 08-01-2012 at 07:12 PM.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,427
# 27
08-01-2012, 07:10 PM
Commander Tac on a thing with a seven degree turn rate is a complete waste, I'd honestly prefer a Com. Sci as you'll end up doing more damage through AoE control. A more Tactical layout is not a magic Kirk button, as I've been trying to repeat over and over to those people who want a more pew-pewy Sovereign.

This isn't to mention that I'd love for Cryptic to add a hulking great mammoth that has a glorious Lt./Ens. Engineering setup. That thing would go down faster than Tom Paris to the surface of his Janeway-bonking planet, hell the Patrol Escort would be tankier.

I've also told you before that ships like the Excel already exist which can deal high damage and take immense amounts of punishment with a little bit of creative thinking, Soph. It's your choice to go on ignoring that.
Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 297
# 28
08-01-2012, 07:22 PM
I vote not.

kkthxpew
Arawn & Ihasa
OP *is* the new balance, whether you know it or not! Gecko says so.
Season 7 - Exodus, available online. U buy nao!
http://seekingalpha.com/article/7382...-latest-update
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 900
# 29
08-01-2012, 07:23 PM
Look all I can say is this, the game does not have a "Hulking Gun Platform" it has cruisers designed to hold out, it has science vessels designed to heal, and it has escorts designed to hit hard and fast, a hulking gun platform is what I stated for the first time on page 1, a ship designed to deliver a massive payload of firepower and kill ships.

I can tell you right now, looking at a cruiser and just slapping the name "tactical" to its description does not make a battleship, at the very least it needs to be a ship with tremendous emphasis on dishing out Damage, not Dishing out some damage and tanking while doing it.

Battleships are designed solely to crush fleets, The Bortas does not do that, it is designed to hold out and be intimidating all the while being able to equip hard hitting weapons. Yes the Bortas can take its own, But I've seen it in battle many many times both by complete noobs and by pro's none of them could dish out enough damage to truly be called a battleship.

ok let me make it a bit more clear on my intentions, I do not want to see a "Refit" or "Retrofit" of any class of ship turned into a heavy hitter, I want to see a new ship, or at least the Typhoon with a new form of game play not like the previous but still balanced,

I don't care if it has cannons or not, as long as it is heavy on Weapons and not just a bunch of support abilities, hell I wouldn't mind seeing 5 Tri-Beam Banks on the broadsides and deal tremendous damage at the cost of power and if not delt properly the lash-back it gives which could damage your ship enough to need components.

having a Cruiser With Tactical bells and whistles would not be anything close to a battleship, A cruiser in this game is more like a flak ship with a battleship hull. though it has some decent weapons, it is mostly there to survive long enough and outlast its enemy.

Science vessels heal, and the escorts hit hard and fast.

having a battleship would dish out a significant amount of firepower one way. all the while still being combat worthy for ship to ship engagement.


*EDIT* I just thought of it, the Yorktown class....it really needs to be in game.

Last edited by daedalus304; 08-01-2012 at 07:26 PM.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 573
# 30
08-01-2012, 07:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by azurianstar View Post
Please, indulge us what you define as a "hulking gun platform". I'm guessing the Bortas isn't good enough. So what do you propose for that "Firepower? 10 Tactical Consoles? Or is your idea more like giving this ship 3 Spinal Lances with 10 Torpedo Tubes?

That is why there is a balance in STO. More Firepower, less survivability. More Speed vs Tanking. So if you give up survivability for this firepower, like said above, it's just a slow turning escort.
I repeats: How much more survivability does a Commander Eng provide over a Commander Tac?

Quote:
Originally Posted by shimmerless View Post
Commander Tac on a thing with a seven degree turn rate is a complete waste, I'd honestly prefer a Com. Sci as you'll end up doing more damage through AoE control. A more Tactical layout is not a magic Kirk button, as I've been trying to repeat over and over to those people who want a more pew-pewy Sovereign.

This isn't to mention that I'd love for Cryptic to add a hulking great mammoth that has a glorious Lt./Ens. Engineering setup. That thing would go down faster than Tom Paris to the surface of his Janeway-bonking planet, hell the Patrol Escort would be tankier.

I've also told you before that ships like the Excel already exist which can deal high damage and take immense amounts of punishment with a little bit of creative thinking, Soph. It's your choice to go on ignoring that.
Same question to you.

If absolutely nothing else, why can't a cruiser be a good mine layer? Isn't the top mine dispersal ability commander tac?

In what way would Attack Pattern: Omega be a waste on a beam boat? or Beta or Delta?

And why do people think this is about some sort of 'magic kirk button' or 'search for uber' rather than just liking the concept of a different configuration ship?

(and for the KDF, these questions apply to both sides. This is not a Fed only issue)
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 03:20 AM.