Carryer? tactics

[Drake24]

i have a thought on a post here..(using small ships to attack larger ones was asked) so with that said can you as a captain launch your shuttles or some kind of fighters from your ship..... and have them to attack.... thus your like a battle carryer... kicking butt with both ship and fighters (I am vary new to this forum stuff so... hope i have asked this right)

[PetRaccoon]

Klingons get Carriers, Starfleet/Federation does not.

[Tumek]

Id love to roll a carrier class but im not sure how it will be implymented in game. I think id like to have the main ship kite along or discract the target while the fighters do the real damage. carriers are big and bulky with alot of there own wepeonry if i remember correctly so they could fill the "disctration" roll well

[Drake24]

if you think of it all star fleet ships have shuttles... also data used a scott ship for fast attacks and a captains yot all of whom came off the enterprise or star fleet.... so the uses of beffed up shuttles could be our fighters... i think it was a note i read about the akira class that it has those larger hanger bays on the back made for that kind of use... and even s.t.voy. used its shuttles for a lot of mission when they first came out....

as for control - i guess they would be some kind of A.I. perhaps? not hopeing for some war strat but to jump bewteen control of ship and fighter could be kool.

[SirReginaldo]

Id love to roll a carrier class but im not sure how it will be implymented in game. I think id like to have the main ship kite along or discract the target while the fighters do the real damage. carriers are big and bulky with alot of there own wepeonry if i remember correctly so they could fill the "disctration" roll well

A carrier by class was a largely unarmored, and unarmed. The carriers used during world war 2 only had 50 cal machine guns as a primary defense. Basically, they were intended to stay as far away from real combat, and act as a mobile landing pad for the Air Force. Being full of ammo and aviation fuel, they were actually quite volatile, and thus easily destroyed by a single torpedoe, or blast from a 5mm Cannon...:(

[SirReginaldo]

if you think of it all star fleet ships have shuttles... also data used a scott ship for fast attacks and a captains yot all of whom came off the enterprise or star fleet.... so the uses of beffed up shuttles could be our fighters... i think it was a note i read about the akira class that it has those larger hanger bays on the back made for that kind of use... and even s.t.voy. used its shuttles for a lot of mission when they first came out....

as for control - i guess they would be some kind of A.I. perhaps? not hopeing for some war strat but to jump bewteen control of ship and fighter could be kool.

Not all star fleet ships have shuttles. I believe the Apollo Class, and the Defiant Class do not support/have shuttle bays. Shuttles are not intended for prolonged combat because of the power drain. They cannot support the strength of phasers and shields needed to combat an enemy vessel larger than themselves (eg. Anything other than a shuttle). I could imagine them doing damage, of the sorts, however, they could not take alot. Taking out their shields and hitting them with even one torpedo (does not matter what kind), would probably deliver a killing blow. I dont know about the use of shuttles, but so far it appears that at any point, like an away mission, we will teleport (unless the mission involves a shuttle, and I am not sure at all about that statement).

We cannot truly make any asumptions until the open beta, at best. Even then they said that they would be adding alot to the game. A big discussion I believe was ship interiors (other than the bridge, like the engineering bay for example). I would say that it is best for people to just listen, and discuss what we have heard.

[Drake24]

in turth yes most carryer dont have alot of guns. the"irony" is it was the carryer enterprise by the middle of the war that carryed guns up to 5inc and aa down its sides also all carryers or realy vary heavly arromed with dubble hulls and plates between sections to stop a exploding shell from taking out more then one section....both in the tarpedo skirt / shild and the upper decks.... still there not made to go dead middle of a battle and start acting like a iowa LOL..... but enterprise (carryer) was tore up and did some tearing but always made it home... thus its gray ghost nick name... if the history ch got it right....

as for as making the differince in battle... it gives them more to shoot at then just you... what are red suits for anyways... :(

also they said the same thing about fighter air craft going agenst the aymoto... one lucky shot and there went the king fish.....

but your right it all just suggestion & speculation i dont think anyone will care if it dont happen....

[cocoa-jin]

A carrier by class was a largely unarmored, and unarmed. The carriers used during world war 2 only had 50 cal machine guns as a primary defense. Basically, they were intended to stay as far away from real combat, and act as a mobile landing pad for the Air Force. Being full of ammo and aviation fuel, they were actually quite volatile, and thus easily destroyed by a single torpedoe, or blast from a 5mm Cannon...:(

I was really hoping for carriers to be stand-off units. I can accept the gunship/carrier hybrid(i dont like it, but I tend to not represent the masses in the forum)...but I certainly hope we get a true stand-off variant also.

I'd really like to see a variant that cloaks(they are Klingon), and releases warp capable fighters at extreme distances(within the radius of 1-2 star systems).

Detection of carriers would be through back tracing the bearing of the uncloaked fighter's approach path, communication emissions(Huff/Duff the carriers transmissions...look it up) for controlling the fighter "pets".

Control of fighter "pets" at long range will be through basic combat and non-combat command taskings(explore/scan, patrol, recon, attack, defend, return to base) and waypoint designation(Go to, loop waypoints, hub n' spoke from fix). Every change in fighter "pet" tasking or way-points requires a sub-space transmission from the carrier, each transmission allows the enemt to pin-point the location of the cloaked carrier.

Fighter "pet" transmission of data to the carrier wouldnt allow for the pin-pointing of the carrier since the carrier can recieve it passivly(just like you cant find me in the dark just because Im listening to a friend yell out info to me).

[Drake24]

hmmm... not bad... not a bad thought with the tracking down of a the ship tactics... and the pets... it might just work :cool:

[Aramis]

In the episode on DS-9 titled "Sacrifice of Angels", Capt. Sisko gives orders to Federation Fighter Squadrons to attack Dominion ships to break their formation. The episode includes detailed scenes of those fighters, which are clearly single seat shuttlecraft. That tidbit is for those who say that the Federation never built carriers. They were a long way from a starbase, and the fighters are not warp capable so you do the math. They had to come from somewhere.

For those who think of carriers as volatile boxes, easily destroyed, there is both evidence for and against that position. For example, Some WWII carriers were vulnerable to fire due to wooden landing decks, and yes fuel and weapons on deck. The US figured that out reasonably early and the flight deck on most were armored. The Japanese could not afford to match that and their carriers paid the price. During the Cold War, US Fleet Carriers were moderately armored, comparably to other ships of the modern era. They also were built to be fast, and the Nuclear powered ships could operate for extended periods outside range of support. Armament was light as you could expect, confined to self defense only. The CVN classes commonly mounted a limited amount of missile launchers, as well as CIWS or Phalanx guns to knock down incoming missles. Fleet doctrine dictated that these ships were surrounded by escorts with both anti-aircraft and anti-submarine weapons and specialty sensors. It makes little sense then to heavily arm these ships as well. Their use fit into a Strategic Doctrine of force projection, essentially delivering fighters to any place on earth as needed to support their nation's Foreign Policy. UK carriers were instrumental in the halting of Argentian aggression in the Falklands. US Carriers were involved in every major or minor conflict for the past fifty years. Soviet Russia even experimented with a Cruiser/Carrier hybrid using VTOL fighters.

As for their appropriateness within the setting of a game based on Star Trek; it depends. I think that the game mechanic of controlling squadrons of fighters would be a daunting task to code. However as ships that exist and could be in the game, perhaps with scripted fighters patrolling nearby, I can see that.

It takes the game to a different level for players to command flight groups of fighters. Even in the Wet Navy, the Captain of a Carrier doesn't have direct control of the fighters flying from his ship, that task is delegated to dedicated Flight Control teams, ultimately commanded by the "Air Boss", or Flight Operations Officer.

The Operation of carriers is incredibly complex and well outside the Star Trek theme of the game, IMO.

[Crab66]

A carrier by class was a largely unarmored, and unarmed. The carriers used during world war 2 only had 50 cal machine guns as a primary defense. Basically, they were intended to stay as far away from real combat, and act as a mobile landing pad for the Air Force. Being full of ammo and aviation fuel, they were actually quite volatile, and thus easily destroyed by a single torpedoe, or blast from a 5mm Cannon...:(


Umm, carriers during WW2 and beyond were armed to the teeth with defensive weaponry and often very tough to sink. Many carriers took massive punishment and kept fighting.

Essex Class Carrier

"The design boasted four twin 5 in (127 mm)/38 caliber gun turrets, seventeen quadruple 40mm anti-aircraft guns and 65 single 20mm close-in defense guns."

Of course the primary weapon are the aircraft.

The weapons on a modern carrier are fewer in number but much more potent...and carriers don't exactly sail alone.

[BreachAndClear]

Even though Federation has Escorts, Science Vessels, and Explorers while the Klingon Empire has Raiders, Cruisers, and Carriers, there is likely some overlap in capability. In the STO trailer there are small shuttles/fighters shown attacking the Borg, and it was announced on two separate occasions that the beginning ship would be roughly a light cruiser or frigate in size. So, it is unlikely that those ships were player controlled, but rather were probably NPC ships launched from one of the larger Federation vessels. So even though the Federation doesn't have "carriers," we'll likely see them be able to act in such a role at least to a limited capacity. The Klingon carriers are probably more specialized to that role, perhaps with having a much greater fighter capacity than the Federation ships that can deploy fighters/shuttles.

[Loekii]

From what I recall, in SFB, carriers were an effective ship.

They basically were armed like a Lite Cruiser, but had a fighter compliment, that effectively moved their 'fire power' up to that of a heavy cruiser.

Basically, it is a different style of 'Heavy Cruiser', where the mobility and abilities of the fighters make it different.

[Vorador]

Carriers in STO will likely be heavily armed ships that have fighters. This is needed because Klingon technology can not compete with ships like a Sovereign. The addition of fighters to a battleship will give it better overall firepower than a Sovereign, but of course defensive wise it will still have weaker shields and hull structure.

[Arachnidus]

A carrier by class was a largely unarmored, and unarmed. The carriers used during world war 2 only had 50 cal machine guns as a primary defense. Basically, they were intended to stay as far away from real combat, and act as a mobile landing pad for the Air Force. Being full of ammo and aviation fuel, they were actually quite volatile, and thus easily destroyed by a single torpedoe, or blast from a 5mm Cannon...:(

When it's said as a carrier, I think it's implied less as an aircraft carrier and more as a version of Galactica or any other Battlestar as seen in Battlestar Galactica. Heavily armored, standard armament(Galactica carried about 10 nukes and an ass load of standard cannons), but it's strength lied in the ability to launch other craft(Viper fighters and Raptor shuttles/assault craft). Seeing as there is, of course, shuttles, Peregrine-class fighters, Delta-Flier class ships and other support craft, I would like to see carrier class ships in the game. Could be very useful for fleet combat, possibly even to the extent of carrying smaller classes of main ships(Defiant, Nova, etc). There's also the idea that standard ships could be used as carriers. The Excalibur class(apocryphal), for example, has several hangar bays that are visible in STBC.

[Crab66]

Carriers in STO will likely be heavily armed ships that have fighters. This is needed because Klingon technology can not compete with ships like a Sovereign. The addition of fighters to a battleship will give it better overall firepower than a Sovereign, but of course defensive wise it will still have weaker shields and hull structure.


How are we certain that both sides don't have various ships bigger and badder than a sovereign?

[Teejo08]

Well technically speaking there is already a carrier for the Feds in-game. The Akira class is designated a carrier because of its 'fly-through' flight deck. It also packs a punch in standard weaponry.

A Carrier often functions as part of a 'carrier battlegroup' which helps overcome its weakness of not having large calibre guns. Obviously modern carriers are more than capable of defending themselves from just about anything with thier fighter/bomber complement, phalanx weapon system and assortment of other weaponry.

I'm not sure whether we'll see carriers in STO. We'll obviously have the Akira class but allowing them to launch fighters that can be potentially dangerous to something larger such as a Negh'Var and D'Derix could be unfair.

[Tumek]

A carrier by class was a largely unarmored, and unarmed. The carriers used during world war 2 only had 50 cal machine guns as a primary defense. Basically, they were intended to stay as far away from real combat, and act as a mobile landing pad for the Air Force. Being full of ammo and aviation fuel, they were actually quite volatile, and thus easily destroyed by a single torpedoe, or blast from a 5mm Cannon...:(

im talking about ww2 http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Negh%27Var_warship i bleive that is klingon carrier class ship, i also remember it have alot disruptor bays that brought down ds9's sheild in "attack of the klingons"

[cocoa-jin]

Umm, carriers during WW2 and beyond were armed to the teeth with defensive weaponry and often very tough to sink. Many carriers took massive punishment and kept fighting.

Essex Class Carrier

"The design boasted four twin 5 in (127 mm)/38 caliber gun turrets, seventeen quadruple 40mm anti-aircraft guns and 65 single 20mm close-in defense guns."

Of course the primary weapon are the aircraft.

The weapons on a modern carrier are fewer in number but much more potent...and carriers don't exactly sail alone.

but not one ever did or ever would allow itself to fight on the firing line against convential warships. Carriers knew they couldnt allow themselves to be within gunnery range of a fleet of cruisers and battleships...it would be suicide. The resources lost would be much to great a risk to justify putting a carrier in the center of a naval fight.

carriers are stand off units.

but what I see being modeled for STO is more like the hybrids used...essetially a convential cruiser/gunship with a small(relativly) compliment of fighters. Back then it was one or two fighters...these aircraft were only supplemental, barely even secondary, in nature to the ship's total combat assets.

I see STO taking this design and taking it a next step and calling it a carrier mainly because it actually has fighters that provide some significant contribution...but not truly encompassing a "fleet carrier" model.

[Ogedei]

and to reference a point made earlier.... the "Peregrine Class" attack fighter which was the model featured in SoA on DS9 was warp capable... albeit the range wasn't much further than that of type 15 shuttlecraft... but it was capable... and carriers would be Extremely prudent in a big ship fleet confrontation... in the Opening minutes of SoA the 3 fighter waves used destroyed 3 galor class vessels and a far larger number of Hideki's.... and that was before the 2 fleets even made contact... the value of strikecraft against larger less manueverable vessels well never disappear all together...

[TruthSeer]

While I recognize that this is Star Trek and not BSG, in my mind carriers should be BIG ships and have at least 40 launch-able fighters. Obviously there could be various tiers of carriers, the higher the tier the bigger and more fighters. Carriers should also be well armed, not the best, but should be able to dish out some damage and also defend itself against enemy fighters.

Carriers shouldn't be a front line ship, but a support ship sending in fighters and laying down some serious fire power.

[cocoa-jin]

While I recognize that this is Star Trek and not BSG, in my mind carriers should be BIG ships and have at least 40 launch-able fighters. Obviously there could be various tiers of carriers, the higher the tier the bigger and more fighters. Carriers should also be well armed, not the best, but should be able to dish out some damage and also defend itself against enemy fighters.

Carriers shouldn't be a front line ship, but a support ship sending in fighters and laying down some serious fire power.

they certainly should have defense to protect it from enemy fighters and possibly even light starship variants...but against a cruiser(certainly several) or larger vessel, or against any convential warship of equal mass, the engagment should be potentially devastating to the carrier if within gunnery range of the opponent.