So, I've been playing around with the idea of a new TYPE of ships for both Feds and KDF. I already posted these suggestions to general discussion but in hindsight, this is where they really belonged. I did get some feedback on them and modified them accordingly. First, since this is the fed shipyards, here is the suggestion for feds:
Destroyers: I.e a sort of a middle-road-jack-of-all-trades ship with hull and shields bigger than escorts and smaller than cruisers, with inertia, turnrate and impulse modifiers bigger than cruisers but smaller than escorts. Other features being Universal Cmdr and universal Ens with one Lt. Cmdr and two Ltn slots 3 fore 3 aft weapons, 3 device slots. And a destroyer-specific weapon, the Omni-directional Beam array (360 degree arc, slightly smaller damage per shot than beam array) and 3/3/3 console layout. (as a sidenote: Turning Akira into a destroyer would make the ships classification less confusing, an escort shouldn't be almost as big as a cruiser.)
On T5/Fleet level the layout of the Lt.Cmdr/Lt/Lt slots would be the main difference between the ships, and the fleet version would get an additional console with the type matching the lt.cmdr boffslot.
That's essentially the role Miranda/Constellation class ships should have (Mirandas did the same as the Defiant class in combat). Make those T5 refits and I'm all for it. I'd like to see more diverse fleets in endgame content.
I've always looked at destroyers in this game as escorts with added flexibility, able to fill engineer and science roles in a pinch. This interesting sub-class deserves a closer look.
I will disagree with the OP on one thing, however. The so-called heavy escorts should have been classified as medium cruisers, rather than destroyers. They "feel" like glorified cruisers as far as handling goes.
WHY: More hull than an escort but slightly less than a cruiser, lower turn rate than an escort but not as low as a cruiser, armament of a cruiser, Tac heavy BOff layout, but not full tac, balanced console layout, not as specialized, but fails at nothing.
WHY: Very versatile BOff layout, lower turn rate than most escorts, but slightly higher hull (not 100% sure on this one), excels at nothing, fails at nothing.
Mogai (and fleet versions)
WHY: Quite a bit more hull than your average escort, but still less than a cruiser, lower turn rate than an escort, but not as low as a cruiser, eng heavy BOff and console layout, doesn't excel at damage as much as an escort, but tanks somewhat better due to it's LtCmdr eng.
That's just 3 examples off the top of my head. Now I wouldn't mind seeing more of these kinds of ships, but they are currently in game. I like the hybrid style that these three ships bring to the table, and hope to see more in the future.
I love my Chel Grett and feel a K'Vort with the same type of stats would be perfect.
Maybe this is a way for Cryptic to introduce some classes of ships which we currently don't need to fill a Cruiser/Escort role...
The Merian Class, for example, was intended to be an updated Miranda class (looks a beauty too). We could always add the Allegiance Class too (look it up, it's another good looking ship).
The Destroyer line of ships would add a hell of a lot of variety to the game in terms of what "type" of ship a captain chooses regardless of class.