Go Back   Star Trek Online > Feedback > Federation Shipyards
Login

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Survivor of Romulus
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 4,593
# 101
12-15-2012, 03:39 PM
The terms "battle cruiser" and "pocket battleship" are interchangable

My favourite World war two ship was a pocket battle ship
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,692
# 102
12-15-2012, 03:40 PM
I respect your comment. Here's my response:

Fact:
Cruisers and Battlecruisers have more Engineering Consoles than any other ship class and any other console type on their ships. If not higher then at least equal.

Fact:
Every Tier 5 or higher Cruiser and Battlecruiser has a Commander Engineering BOff station.

Fact:
Every Tier 5 or higher Cruiser and Battlecruiser has a 1.0 or higher shield modifier.

Fact:
Every cruiser/battlecruiser has more health than most of the other equal tier ship classes, only surpassed by carriers.

You wanted facts, you got em. Now let's take the Chel'gret Warship.

Fact:
This ship has 4 Tactical consoles, 3 Engineering Consoles, and 3 Science Consoles. Not in line with ANY of the other cruiser or battlecruiser class ships in this game.

Fact:
It's Commander BOff station is a Tactical. Not in line with ANY of the other cruisers or battlecruisers in this game.

Fact:
This ship has a 1.0 shield modifier. In line with cruisers and battlecruisers.

Fact:
This ship has more hull than all other tier 5 escorts and science ships. In line with cruisers and battlecruisers.

So you're 2 for 4. Take what you will from it. But as I said, you wanted facts, you got facts. It should also be noted that every federation cruiser has cruiser as part of it's name. Also a fact.

Hence why I said the Chel'gret is a warship, not a cruiser.
It is said the best weapon is one that is never fired. I disagree. The best weapon is one you only have to fire... once.
Why the Devs can't make PvE content harder. <--- DR proved me wrong!
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,845
# 103
12-15-2012, 03:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by neo1nx View Post
first i am not the kind of guy you described, and so are many like me, i don't want the galaxy x to be as nimble as the negvar, far from it,i don't known where you see me asking for that.
what i asked however is that the gap should be reduced, that sound more realistic to me,and asking a cruiser of 6 degree to gain 0.5 degre turn rate is far from feeling the gap with the negvar and make it as nimble as him, far from it.
so let me remind you galaxy x 6 base degree turn rate.....negvar 8base degree turn rate.

i don't want the galaxy x to be the best ( beside best is a personal and subjective idea ) i want him to have a realistic and efficient setup according to it design purpose ( make wars )
if i have to loose something for it, by all mean, if cryptic said we are buffing the turn rate of the galaxy but we also reducing it hull, no problem with me. having 50000 hull point will not save your life forever against good player.

and althrought the breen is an exellent warship and i am in love with it design, i would prefer to stay with my galaxy x, and i don't want the setup of the breen on my galaxy x nor it turn rate.
i have made a thread where i clearly expose the change i would like to do with this ship and if you get to see it you will see that i don't ask for unrealistic changes, or a IWIN ship.
the change i propose won't do anything to a bad pilot with a bad build, the galaxy x would still be a hard ship to master, and will for sure be less resilient, but that the only compromise that i found ( that engage only me ) to be acceptable and coherent.
here is the tread
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/sh...d.php?t=394971
I was most angry and stressed on that day and apoligise for the outburst.

I do support a 1 to 2 turnrate buff for Fed cruisers and a 1 point turnrate buff for KDF battlecruisers.
Heavy beams Arrays and other ideas displayed so many times before to help the game and the Cruiser player.
Leonard Nimoy, Spock.....

R.I.P
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 245
# 104
12-15-2012, 03:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sollvax View Post
The terms "battle cruiser" and "pocket battleship" are interchangable

My favourite World war two ship was a pocket battle ship
"Pocket Battleship" wasn't even an official designation. Their official designation was "Panzerschiffe". They were essentially light cruisers with big guns. There is no "official" designation for a ship of that classification because nobody else has been dumb enough to do it..

Quote:
Fact:
This ship has 4 Tactical consoles, 3 Engineering Consoles, and 3 Science Consoles. Not in line with ANY of the other cruiser or battlecruiser class ships in this game.

Fact:
It's Commander BOff station is a Tactical. Not in line with ANY of the other cruisers or battlecruisers in this game.

Fact:
This ship has a 1.0 shield modifier. In line with cruisers and battlecruisers.

Fact:
This ship has more hull than all other tier 5 escorts and science ships. In line with cruisers and battlecruisers.
By this list, the Steamrunner is more a cruiser then the Breen rig. And it's still far more maneuverable then any cruiser, battlecruiser or heavy escort.

And yet it's not prompting "BUFF CRUISER" threads?

Last edited by wunjee; 12-15-2012 at 03:53 PM.
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,845
# 105
12-15-2012, 03:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wunjee View Post
"Pocket Battleship" wasn't even an official designation. Their official designation was "Panzerschiffe". They were essentially light cruisers with big guns. There is no "official" designation for a ship of that classification because nobody else has been dumb enough to do it..
Precursor to the modern Destroyer?
Leonard Nimoy, Spock.....

R.I.P
Survivor of Romulus
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 4,593
# 106
12-15-2012, 03:51 PM
Try heavy Cruisers with big guns and heavy armour plate

And the Kreigs marine and the royal navy differ on designations
I have a rather good Airfix model of one I have had for thirty years (only other surviving kit being my Hms Hood)
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 245
# 107
12-15-2012, 03:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sollvax View Post
Try heavy Cruisers with big guns and heavy armour plate
Uh, have you looked at the armor schemes of the Panzershiffes?

Compare the armor schemes of these 3 ships.

Emden (Light Cruiser)
Graf Spee (Panzerschiffe)
Prinz Eugen (Heavy Cruiser)

I guarantee you Graf Spee's armor scheme is MUCH more similar to Emden's then Prinz Eugen's..


Quote:
And the Kreigs marine and the royal navy differ on designations
I have a rather good Airfix model of one I have had for thirty years (only other surviving kit being my Hms Hood)
No they didn't. The Germans and the British shared naval designations since well before WWI. A British Battlecruiser as comparable to a German battlecruiser, a Destroyer was a Destroyer, Cruiser was a Cruiser, etc.

US, Britain, Germany, Japan, Russia, France and Italy all shared a pretty similar designation system for their navies.

Last edited by wunjee; 12-15-2012 at 04:00 PM.
Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 271
# 108
12-15-2012, 04:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wunjee View Post
Uh, have you looked at the armor schemes of the Panzershiffes?

Compare the armor schemes of these 3 ships.

Emden (Light Cruiser)
Graf Spee (Panzerschiffe)
Prinz Eugen (Heavy Cruiser)

I guarantee you Graf Spee's armor scheme is MUCH more similar to Emden's then Prinz Eugen's..




No they didn't. The Germans and the British shared naval designations since well before WWI. A British Battlecruiser as comparable to a German battlecruiser, a Destroyer was a Destroyer, Cruiser was a Cruiser, etc.

US, Britain, Germany, Japan, Russia, France and Italy all shared a pretty similar designation system for their navies.
I think they need to do what they think is best.
Survivor of Romulus
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 4,593
# 109
12-15-2012, 04:02 PM
Sadly you are mistaken

but its not worth the argument

So ill let this go (you might like to visit the Royal naval museum at portsmouth some time)
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 245
# 110
12-15-2012, 04:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sollvax View Post
Sadly you are mistaken

but its not worth the argument

So ill let this go (you might like to visit the Royal naval museum at portsmouth some time)
Emden:

2" belt, 1.6" deck.

Graf Spee:

3.1" belt, 1.8" deck.

Prinz Eugen:

3.1" belt, 3.1" secondary belt, 4.3" total deck.

Graf Spee had no secondary or tertiary deck, had no secondary belt, had no turtleback plating, had no decapping plate and it's belt was ridiculously low on the hull. Prinz Eugen was a much, much better armored ship then the Panzerschiffes, which had armor schemes based on WWI-era light cruisers..

Their entire design principal was "Out-gun anything that can catch you, out-run anything that out-guns you."

They were not designed to combat other major warships..

Last edited by wunjee; 12-15-2012 at 04:26 PM.
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 10:16 AM.