Go Back   Star Trek Online > Information and Discussion > Ten Forward
Login

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 168
# 11
01-16-2013, 05:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sophlogimo View Post
  • Banner Ships: Not much offensive potential, but good for hosting the command party and collecting information.
I believe the Banner Ships in Star Trek fall into the category of the Diplomatic Vessels such as the Ambassador Class. Heck, even the U.S.S. Enterprise - D could qualify by virtue of being a ship more designed as a luxury cruise liner for all intents and purposes and not a ship strictly designed for War Efforts. In fact I think the intent of the NCC-1701-D being a Diplomatic/Exploration Vessel was expounded upon in great depth the very first season of the Next Generation if I remember correctly. It wasn't outfitted for war until much much later in the series.

Granted it could hold its own in space battles even back in the very first season, but space warfare wasn't its chief purpose. After all it did play host to countless dignitaries over the course of seven seasons.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sophlogimo View Post
The "escort", "warship" or "destroyer" in STO is the Battlecruiser. Fast, agile, not as heavily armored as it could be, but maneuverable and with really big guns. Makes sense. But that is where it ends:
Eh... debatable, I would argue the Escort would be closer in kin to the Destroyer type ship than it is the Battlecruiser. The Battlecruiser is what I would classify the Sovereign, Excelsior and Star Cruiser as. The Destroyer is most similar to the Fleet Defiant in terms of survivability.

Whereas the Dreadnaught in Star Trek Online terms is relegated to the roles of the Galaxy-X and Odyssey. Both are massive ships, both have staggering armaments (Galaxy-X especially) and both have the survivability of a behemoth.

As for the Science Vessels they would fit the role of well... reconnaissance vessels. Not the vital role of a hero that everyone wants, but in naval terms they fill a vital role that cannot be underestimated. Oh and just to be certain, the science ships (and various Klingon Vessels along with them) do have a TV Tropes page in the form of Stealth in Space, granted it takes a little bit of effort to apply it to Fed Side Science vessels, but it can be done. (though the trope fits the Defiant class and Galaxy-X better due to their Cloaking devices, but cloaking is a dues ex machina tactic and not true stealth, just ask the Caitian Stealth Fighter what it thinks of Cloaking devices).

Quote:
Originally Posted by user839020189287 View Post
By reasons of logic, if space is the ocean then space fleets would better mirror wet navies, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_s...classification

except don't all spaceborn vehicles kind of qualify as submarines if we are using naval terms properly?
______________________________

Last edited by helixsunbringer; 01-16-2013 at 05:56 AM.
Ensign
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 8
# 12
01-16-2013, 05:59 AM
Much as I'd love to see some actual correlation between STO and actual "naval space strategy" if there is such a thing, I think the designers' thought process is much more down to Earth, if you'll pardon the pun.

STO has much more obvious roots to D&D than to Harpoon.

Glass Cannons - Escorts
Tanks - Cruisers
Healers - Science

And of course the level progression from LT to ADM ensures that eventually everybody will fly the uber-class ships. That's unfortunate I think, because some "Tin Can Navy" action or the possibility of a half dozen destroyers seriously banging up a battlewagon would be a hoot.

Fun as it is to speculate though, I think it's fruitless to try to assign some naval logic to this game, which is itself based on a franchise that was (probably intentionally) fairly scant on strategic explanations in the first place.

Deacon
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 168
# 13
01-16-2013, 06:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deaconltc View Post
Fun as it is to speculate though, I think it's fruitless to try to assign some naval logic to this game, which is itself based on a franchise that was (probably intentionally) fairly scant on strategic explanations in the first place.

Deacon
The original series and perhaps the next generation were both scant on strategic explanations I agree. But such strategic explanations did happen from time to time, especially in the movies. For example, in the Wrath of Khan they go in depth into explaining why combat in space is different from combat in an atmosphere.

The reason for the difference of course being that in space you have to think in all possible vectors, not just three-dimensions. Therefore attacks can come from any direction. The easiest similarity is Submarine or Aircraft Warfare but even those don't come close because in space you don't have the orientation of the planet itself to keep you from turning upside down constantly. The fact that Star Trek Online doesn't involve us flipping upside down constantly, is simply a courtesy that the designers gave us so that we don't barf on our computers I imagine.
______________________________
Rihannsu
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,213
# 14
01-16-2013, 07:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deaconltc View Post
Much as I'd love to see some actual correlation between STO and actual "naval space strategy" if there is such a thing, I think the designers' thought process is much more down to Earth, if you'll pardon the pun.
[...]
Of course it was. But still, coming to such a game, you will have expectations about starship combat, and they will at least partially be defined by your TV show "experience" - which for many people, I would assume the TV tropes site summarizes quite well, even if the names are unknown to a given person or the classes are labelled differently in their minds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Promote what you love, instead of bashing what you hate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...lM_skuv4#t=584
Rihannsu
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,213
# 15
01-16-2013, 07:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by helixsunbringer View Post
I believe the Banner Ships in Star Trek fall into the category of the Diplomatic Vessels such as the Ambassador Class. Heck, even the U.S.S. Enterprise - D could qualify by virtue of being a ship more designed as a luxury cruise liner for all intents and purposes and not a ship strictly designed for War Efforts. In fact I think the intent of the NCC-1701-D being a Diplomatic/Exploration Vessel was expounded upon in great depth the very first season of the Next Generation if I remember correctly. It wasn't outfitted for war until much much later in the series.

Granted it could hold its own in space battles even back in the very first season, but space warfare wasn't its chief purpose. After all it did play host to countless dignitaries over the course of seven seasons.
I agree. The Galaxy class is a "banner ship" par excellence.

Of course, there is this slight problem that in STO there is no command structure to be carried by the banner ship, which sort of takes away their purpose. But that was solved by giving them healer abilities and "threat attraction" if wanted.

Quote:
Eh... debatable, I would argue the Escort would be closer in kin to the Destroyer type ship than it is the Battlecruiser. The Battlecruiser is what I would classify the Sovereign, Excelsior and Star Cruiser as. The Destroyer is most similar to the Fleet Defiant in terms of survivability.

Whereas the Dreadnaught in Star Trek Online terms is relegated to the roles of the Galaxy-X and Odyssey. Both are massive ships, both have staggering armaments (Galaxy-X especially) and both have the survivability of a behemoth.
I think that this is exactly the error I was referring to. The escorts/destroyer/warships are named misleadingly, and so one is tempted to believe they were some kind of non-capital ships. But they are battlecruisers in function: Biggest guns in the game, and fast and agile.

Of course, there are hybrids, such as the Regent or the T5 Excelsior on the cruiser side or the Chel grett and 1000 day Veteran ships on the escort side, which is a good thing. But the basic roles, in TVtropes terms, are not destroyer vs battlecruiser (or dreadnought), but battlecruiser vs banner ship.

Quote:
[...]
except don't all spaceborn vehicles kind of qualify as submarines if we are using naval terms properly?
In STO space combat? I would not say so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Promote what you love, instead of bashing what you hate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...lM_skuv4#t=584

Last edited by sophlogimo; 01-16-2013 at 07:48 AM.
Ensign
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 8
# 16
01-16-2013, 07:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by helixsunbringer View Post
The original series and perhaps the next generation were both scant on strategic explanations I agree. But such strategic explanations did happen from time to time, especially in the movies. For example, in the Wrath of Khan they go in depth into explaining why combat in space is different from combat in an atmosphere.

The reason for the difference of course being that in space you have to think in all possible vectors, not just three-dimensions. Therefore attacks can come from any direction. The easiest similarity is Submarine or Aircraft Warfare but even those don't come close because in space you don't have the orientation of the planet itself to keep you from turning upside down constantly. The fact that Star Trek Online doesn't involve us flipping upside down constantly, is simply a courtesy that the designers gave us so that we don't barf on our computers I imagine.

Well, how space combat is different from naval combat as explained by the shows is really a tactical discussion. What we are speaking of here is more of a strategic one, though tactics contribute to strategy.

What we don't really know from Star Trek is what the composition of, for instance, Starfleet is or why is it that way. Our modern navies are different from our former battleship centric navies because of the rise of the carrier and the guided missile.

What are the rules of the ST universe that would drive the makeup of their fleets? What do we really know about the makeup of SF in the first place? Very little in the way of numbers or ship types or ship capabilities.

Of course, this is all how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, because the "reality" of ST was driven by the fiction. If it made sense for there to be a dozen kit bashed ships at the Battle of Wolf 359, then it was so. Explanations weren't needed for it to be cool, and none were given.

By the same token, STO is driven by fitting gaming model restrictions very loosely within the show's fiction. Enterprises were cruisers, and so they are here. That even in the movies they seem to fill the traditional role of Battleships is overlooked as is the fact that historically destroyer/escorts were not only more lightly armored but ARMED because that wouldn't fit within the constraints of the traditional MMO triad model.

I guess this constitutes a lament (though it wasn't intended as one) that STO couldn't have found a more encouraging method of preventing endgame content from being a battlewagon slugfest. Maybe there could have been point balances so that you could have occasionally seen five Mirandas up against a single Negh Var (sp?) or leveled ship arenas to give destroyer or light cruiser captains a real role.

Cryptic made some great ships. It's unfortunate that they get so little play time for all the work that was put into them.

Deacon
Ensign
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 8
# 17
01-16-2013, 08:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sophlogimo View Post
Of course it was. But still, coming to such a game, you will have expectations about starship combat, and they will at least partially be defined by your TV show "experience" - which for many people, I would assume the TV tropes site summarizes quite well, even if the names are unknown to a given person or the classes are labelled differently in their minds.

No, no, I agree entirely. I was actually commenting more on the notion that somehow the ships as they are presented in STO will somehow "make sense" from some sort of space geo-political strategy standpoint. They literally can't because the writers of ST have never made a space geo-political strategy for the series.

That doesn't prevent it from being fun to do so...as evidenced by those of us who do it so often!
Commander
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 289
# 18
01-16-2013, 04:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by helixsunbringer View Post
except don't all spaceborn vehicles kind of qualify as submarines if we are using naval terms properly?

Submarines are submersible.

No water in space so no theorycraft soup for you on that.

Can agree with the rest of your post though.

P.S.

Some great points brought up in this thread btw. Sorry for not addressing each one of them but I can agree with a lot of what others are saying here. Time is not my friend atm.

"Banner" ships look to be word play on Flag ships.

To me, TVtropes just reaffirms my belief that most civilian writers have no real working knowledge and understanding of things military.

Just throwing out some thoughts from the years of conditioning I experienced in the service.

Nothing shuts down my support for military themed entertainment faster than weaksauce writing by those who know not.

Good convo.

Last edited by user839020189287; 01-16-2013 at 04:27 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 06:37 PM.