Commander
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 426
# 61
04-02-2013, 12:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stirling191 View Post
Then kindly stop trying to apply earth-bound ship designs, concepts and restrictions to what is a fundamentally different thing.
Okay. Technologically, fighters make no sense in Star Trek. Delete all fighter craft and hangars, because it's just a waste of time. You'd be better off filling that hangar bay with spare torpedo casings.

That is what applying space-bound ship designs, concepts, and restrictions gets you, always have. The fighter paradigm works well for sea ships because of the relative trade-offs of kinetic energy, speed, fuel, and transportation medium. Fighters are fast and have a larger sight horizon because they fly, and lifting wings are more efficient than pure rockets for long-distance travel. Ships are slower, have much greater endurance, and don't fall out of the sky if their engines run out of fuel but they have commensurately shorter horizons and kinematic disadvantages as a result.

Neither of these elements is relevant in space. In space, a missile is more efficient than a fighter because a missile only has to go one way and return whereas a fighter must go out and come back. It requires twice the fuel and has commensurate kinematic disadvantages. Plus, it must keep the pilot alive. You're much better off just building a bigger photon torpedo.


Star Trek, however, has generally adopted a modified wet-navy philosophy in these things. The stand-off advantage of carrier strike operations are nullified if you start merging carriers with ships of the line. For this reason, Russian carrier operations are quite different from American carrier operations. American carriers carry very limited self-defense armament on the idea that those carriers will utilize their fighters as their primary strike contingent and that the carrier itself will never engage in combat. Russian carriers carry heavy direct ordinance and significantly improved self-defense armament. In exchange, however, their fighters are primarily tasked for fleet air defense / air superiority.

The entire strike carrier paradigm presupposes that your carrier is not going to close to battle. It would be a waste of an extremely valuable (and expensive) piece of hardware.

So let us examine the paradigm in the context of STO. Some carrier fighters seem obviously tasked for strike roles, such as the Elite Scorpions. They are heavily designed around the anti-structure and anti-hull role with heavy torpedoes. Others are support based, such as the shield repair units. Still others seem to fulfill the idea of a 'battlegroup' concept- frigates, mostly.

Many, however, seem to have no useful purpose. The true 'fighters'- peregrines, stalkers, shuttles, to'duj, Jem'hadar fighters- seem to have no useful purpose in the game. They can't provide an effective fighter screen against hostile capital ships. They have limited efficacy in the long range strike role. They might arguably be effective in providing a fleet screen against enemy fighters and heavy missiles, but I've never seen anyone actually use them this way primarily; probably because of the way ranges are structured, and heavy enemy torpedoes and fighters seem to lack the kind of significance that makes this kind of operation viable.

Don't get me wrong, the 'escort' carriers- the Jem'Hadar Escort Carrier, the KDF Flight Deck Carriers, and the Armitage class- seem primarily to follow the Russian carrier doctrine. This would be fine, except that the fighters aren't capable of holding up their end of the bargain. Ideally, their fighter compliments would be for self-defense against enemy fighters and torpedoes. That's rarely the case, probably because there is not much call for this kind of role.

The heavy carriers, though, are in a much more paradigmatically tricky spot. An Atrox or a Vu'qov is not a true carrier; it has lots of guns and is expected to close to battle. But it's not ideally equipped for that role, either. Its fighters still don't perform suppression and defensive roles. It's basically a jumbo escort carrier, but it makes a lot of tradeoffs to get there. For one thing, the heavy carriers turn abysmally and give up at least one weapons slot for their fighters compared to other ships of their relative size and capability.

It just seems like a poor fit. Those true carriers are mediocre cruisers with fighter hangars bolted on for extra DPS, but that's all they are. Part of this has to do with the poor way fighters are designed in this game and much of it has to do with the poor fighter AI, but it has nothing to do with the fundamental paradigm of carrier fighters either in space or on the sea.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 203
# 62
04-02-2013, 12:17 PM
I am happy with my current number of "fighters" (technically I can keep launching more just can't have more than X in space at any given time)

BUT I would LOVE to have better AI or "auto-replace" fighters that was lost.
***
Growing old is inevitable. Growing up is optional.
Survivor of Remus
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 340
# 63
04-02-2013, 12:18 PM
http://i.imgur.com/QvEjuyH.jpg

Now those where good times.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 108
# 64
04-02-2013, 12:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by squishkin View Post
Okay. Technologically, fighters make no sense in Star Trek. Delete all fighter craft and hangars, because it's just a waste of time. You'd be better off filling that hangar bay with spare torpedo casings.

That is what applying space-bound ship designs, concepts, and restrictions gets you, always have. The fighter paradigm works well for sea ships because of the relative trade-offs of kinetic energy, speed, fuel, and transportation medium. Fighters are fast and have a larger sight horizon because they fly, and lifting wings are more efficient than pure rockets for long-distance travel. Ships are slower, have much greater endurance, and don't fall out of the sky if their engines run out of fuel but they have commensurately shorter horizons and kinematic disadvantages as a result.

Neither of these elements is relevant in space. In space, a missile is more efficient than a fighter because a missile only has to go one way and return whereas a fighter must go out and come back. It requires twice the fuel and has commensurate kinematic disadvantages. Plus, it must keep the pilot alive. You're much better off just building a bigger photon torpedo.


Star Trek, however, has generally adopted a modified wet-navy philosophy in these things. The stand-off advantage of carrier strike operations are nullified if you start merging carriers with ships of the line. For this reason, Russian carrier operations are quite different from American carrier operations. American carriers carry very limited self-defense armament on the idea that those carriers will utilize their fighters as their primary strike contingent and that the carrier itself will never engage in combat. Russian carriers carry heavy direct ordinance and significantly improved self-defense armament. In exchange, however, their fighters are primarily tasked for fleet air defense / air superiority.

The entire strike carrier paradigm presupposes that your carrier is not going to close to battle. It would be a waste of an extremely valuable (and expensive) piece of hardware.

So let us examine the paradigm in the context of STO. Some carrier fighters seem obviously tasked for strike roles, such as the Elite Scorpions. They are heavily designed around the anti-structure and anti-hull role with heavy torpedoes. Others are support based, such as the shield repair units. Still others seem to fulfill the idea of a 'battlegroup' concept- frigates, mostly.

Many, however, seem to have no useful purpose. The true 'fighters'- peregrines, stalkers, shuttles, to'duj, Jem'hadar fighters- seem to have no useful purpose in the game. They can't provide an effective fighter screen against hostile capital ships. They have limited efficacy in the long range strike role. They might arguably be effective in providing a fleet screen against enemy fighters and heavy missiles, but I've never seen anyone actually use them this way primarily; probably because of the way ranges are structured, and heavy enemy torpedoes and fighters seem to lack the kind of significance that makes this kind of operation viable.

Don't get me wrong, the 'escort' carriers- the Jem'Hadar Escort Carrier, the KDF Flight Deck Carriers, and the Armitage class- seem primarily to follow the Russian carrier doctrine. This would be fine, except that the fighters aren't capable of holding up their end of the bargain. Ideally, their fighter compliments would be for self-defense against enemy fighters and torpedoes. That's rarely the case, probably because there is not much call for this kind of role.

The heavy carriers, though, are in a much more paradigmatically tricky spot. An Atrox or a Vu'qov is not a true carrier; it has lots of guns and is expected to close to battle. But it's not ideally equipped for that role, either. Its fighters still don't perform suppression and defensive roles. It's basically a jumbo escort carrier, but it makes a lot of tradeoffs to get there. For one thing, the heavy carriers turn abysmally and give up at least one weapons slot for their fighters compared to other ships of their relative size and capability.

It just seems like a poor fit. Those true carriers are mediocre cruisers with fighter hangars bolted on for extra DPS, but that's all they are. Part of this has to do with the poor way fighters are designed in this game and much of it has to do with the poor fighter AI, but it has nothing to do with the fundamental paradigm of carrier fighters either in space or on the sea.
Or the could delete the fighters but keep for example the B rolth hangar
What i mean replace fighters with small craft like how the Fekhiri carries ferjais.
or a vo quv does with the BoP.
Commander
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 426
# 65
04-02-2013, 12:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by glados122 View Post
Or the could delete the fighters but keep for example the B rolth hangar
What i mean replace fighters with small craft like how the Fekhiri carries ferjais.
or a vo quv does with the BoP.
What role are the frigate pets supposed to meet, though? It's at least (somewhat) more clear what you get with the Bortas pet, or the Odyssey pet, or the MVAM. What's the primary purpose of a carrier that launches frigates?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 108
# 66
04-02-2013, 12:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by squishkin View Post
What role are the frigate pets supposed to meet, though? It's at least (somewhat) more clear what you get with the Bortas pet, or the Odyssey pet, or the MVAM. What's the primary purpose of a carrier that launches frigates?
Maybe that's what carriers do?
Carrying (if large enough) frigates to protect themselves or others?
Captain
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,466
# 67
04-02-2013, 12:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by squishkin View Post
<snip>
You don't like STOs implementation of carriers. We get it. That dislike in no way invalidates a space faring carrier concept.

So long as weapons that can destroy larger ships can be mounted on smaller ships, there will always be a place for those smaller ships.
Commander
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 426
# 68
04-02-2013, 12:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by glados122 View Post
Maybe that's what carriers do?
Carrying (if large enough) frigates to protect themselves or others?
It's possible, but the frigate AI here is badly done, and so it doesn't really accomplish that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stirling191 View Post
You don't like STOs implementation of carriers. We get it.
I don't, because it doesn't make any paradigmatic sense. I'm not suggesting that you can't do fighters well in STO, I'm saying that STO doesn't do fighters well. The two things are not the same.

Quote:
That dislike in no way invalidates a space faring carrier concept.

So long as weapons that can destroy larger ships can be mounted on smaller ships, there will always be a place for those smaller ships.
Yes. Those smaller ships are called missiles. They don't need pilots and they don't need to come back. They're smaller, they're cheaper, they're more cost-effective, they're longer ranged, and they're faster.

The carrier paradigm makes sense on the sea because 'air' and 'water' have different properties which are compatible and work well together. In space, everything is in the same environment.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 179
# 69
04-02-2013, 12:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stirling191 View Post
If you honestly think that any sane commander is going to put Sergeant Schultz the brig guard into a fighter when he has trained pilots at his disposal, you're deluding yourself.
Remember, this is Star Trek. Sergeant Schultz would come back a little worse for wear, but his entire flight of nameless ace pilots would have been shot down to a man for dramatic emphasis.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stirling191 View Post
Cite your source on any of that.

Carrier-launched craft carrying weapons capable of taking out a much larger warship redefined naval combat on Earth. Carrier-launched craft in STO are capable of carrying weapons that can depopulate worlds, let alone take out damaged/unshielded enemy craft.

An antimatter warhead is an antimatter warhead, regardless of what fires it.
I only know The Next Generation and if my memory serves correctly the main things small craft did in those episodes were: Crash, Blow Up, Be Scanned for Evidence, Malfunction and help out by being really small and maneuverable. Might have blown up something with a Torpedo too.

The key difference is that STO Carrier-launched craft are not as capable as Modern Carrier-launched craft in carrying those out due to weapons and defense technology out-stripping the benefits from the small craft. An Antimatter warhead isn't a big deal when your shields can take two or three and your weapons can destroy the ship that delivered it in as many shots. Also you have several of these weapons when it just has the one launcher.
Captain
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,466
# 70
04-02-2013, 01:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by squishkin View Post
Yes. Those smaller ships are called missiles. They don't need pilots and they don't need to come back. They're smaller, they're cheaper, they're more cost-effective, they're longer ranged, and they're faster.

The carrier paradigm makes sense on the sea because 'air' and 'water' have different properties which are compatible and work well together. In space, everything is in the same environment.
Show me a missile that can execute an escort or reconnaissance mission. Show me a missile that can carry the same level of firepower that a manned strike craft can, and deploy said firepower intelligently.

You know, I think I know how pilots arguing against designers not putting guns on Vietnam era fighters felt, or against those who lobbied against air to air combat training.


Quote:
Originally Posted by yargomesh View Post
I only know The Next Generation and if my memory serves correctly the main things small craft did in those episodes were: Crash, Blow Up, Be Scanned for Evidence, Malfunction and help out by being really small and maneuverable. Might have blown up something with a Torpedo too.

The key difference is that STO Carrier-launched craft are not as capable as Modern Carrier-launched craft in carrying those out due to weapons and defense technology out-stripping the benefits from the small craft. An Antimatter warhead isn't a big deal when your shields can take two or three and your weapons can destroy the ship that delivered it in as many shots. Also you have several of these weapons when it just has the one launcher.

A single fighter, or even a fighter wing by itself isn't going to take down an enemy fleet. But a fighter wing wolf-pack hunting for damaged ships in support of a friendly force can absolutely do a monstrous amount of harm if deployed correctly.

Last edited by stirling191; 04-02-2013 at 01:05 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 03:14 AM.