Fighters

[Random19]

After seeing that new Klingon ship class, the Vo'Quv, I noticed that it said "Fighter Launch Bays". This has brought me to wonder, will you be able to "sick" fighters (considering you have a ship with launch bays) on the enemy?

[codeminer]

I would have thought fighters would be obsolete in the ST universe with LoS weaponry that goes out 100k km.

But, then again, I suppose it's up to whoever dreams up the combat mechanics . . . :rolleyes:

[DarkCel]

I would have thought fighters would be obsolete in the ST universe with LoS weaponry that goes out 100k km.

Not necesserally, I remember an episode from ENT where the Enterprise J (I think) was described as fighter carrier. So why not ...

[Random19]

Not necesserally, I remember an episode from ENT where the Enterprise J (I think) was described as fighter carrier. So why not ...

Indeed it was

[overlordthor]

In DS9, the federation used fighters in the Dominion war. In Voyager some races used fighter craft. And dont forget the Maqui raiders

TNG you see some fighters as well, so they are established to exist, but only really for the war situations.

You can also think of Shuttles and Runabouts as fighters, just not very dedicated to combat, the Deltaflyer can also be considered a fighter.

I hope to see some fighters and things in the game(I dont think this is the first reference to fighters), that would be a lot of fun, the SFC series games had fighters, and let you use shuttles as weak fighters to.

In this games terms you would change the control system, but could easily leave them that basic style of fighting, almost like little "pets" that act like tiny computer controlled ships.

[Commander_Nate]

The Dominion and Cardassians had them. Plus the Remans on the Scimitar during Nemesis. You could probably also call the Delta Flyer a sort of heavy fighter or bomber type. Don't forget the Runabouts either.

Fighters have their place in ST.

[TruthSeer]

After seeing that new Klingon ship class, the Vo'Quv, I noticed that it said "Fighter Launch Bays". This has brought me to wonder, will you be able to "sick" fighters (considering you have a ship with launch bays) on the enemy?

I think the SoL update pretty much answers your question:
The Vo'Quv can launch salvos of trained pilots in To'Duj-class fighters to harry its foes, leaving them vulnerable to the Vo'Quv's torpedoes and disruptors.


The only question is how will the be controlled? I'm hoping that we have some control over them and they aren't just a visual DoT.

[codeminer]

Sorry, did not mean to alter the trajectory of this topic. Was being a little too realistic. :D

Seeing how they have added a carrier, I think fighters will act like drones/pets, and have just limited command abilites like 'Attack' and 'Return'. Seems logical at least.

[overlordthor]

The only question is how will the be controlled? I'm hoping that we have some control over them and they aren't just a visual DoT.

Thats my concern, I'm hoping they are like simple pets with a few simple commands.

[Flatfingers]

Talking about fighter craft again raises the question again of what will be the appropriate counter-weapon?

Star Fleet Battles (and the Starfleet Command computer games based on SFB), which combat in Star Trek Online seems to be resembling, suggests a couple of possibilities.

One is a special type of short-range phaser/disruptor. Like the name says, it's not much good beyond a short range, and it doesn't pack much of a punch, but its advantage is that you can pack multiples of them into a slot that only one of a larger direct-fire weapon could use. For example, instead of a standard Ship Phaser-I, which does 20 damage out to a range of 10,000 meters (I'm just making up these numbers for comparison), a Ship Phaser-III might do only 6 damage out to 4,000 meters, but you can fit three of them into a hardpoint.

The advantage here (as it was in SFB) would be that you could use your big guns against other capital ships, but if they launch smaller weapons such as fighters at you, you've got your close-range point defense weapons available.

The other possibility from Star Fleet Battles is drones. These are basically small missiles that can come in "scatter packs" -- like Phaser-IIIs, they don't do a lot of damage, but STO potentially might let us throw a bunch of them out there at one time either as a defensive screen or as a way to wear down an opponent's shields.

Any thoughts on these or other anti-fighter measures?

--Flatfingers

[overlordthor]

I can see anti fighter measures as being your standard weapon armament, set to low yield and higher reload/fire rate. While many ships have a variety of phasers mounted on a ship, each of these might be able to fire on different settings, for example fire a phaser 10 at half power and fire twice as often.

[Avenger_Dragon]

Fighters have their place as mentioned earlier. It's all about packing a ddecent ammount of firepower in a small package, and sending that package off to another area without risking the carrier.

In the case of the battlecarrier, ship almost doubles it's effectiveness when using fighters. Favorite tactic of mine in SFC was to blast a shield down, then launch fighters to blast awy at the hole in the shields. Pull them back and do it all over again.

I just don't see the federation really using them. For a government that places a lot of value on the individual life, it seems pretty stupid to all of a sudden send out these little, comparatively weak-armed ships into mass-combat, when survivbility is higher to keep the crew aboard the ship.

So what about drones? The exocomps refused to take orders, data has acted out of defiance once in a while... and oh yeah, the federation is being sued by a bunch of HOLOGRAMS. Next thing we know is the fighter drones start feeling they aren't being appreciated and won't operate until their programming gets installed into something larger, like a miranda or sabre.

yeah, feds screwed themselves there with fighters. Klingons on the other hand, fighters are a great way to die in battle, and if you live is an even bigger deal.

[Random19]

I just don't see the federation really using them. For a government that places a lot of value on the individual life, it seems pretty stupid to all of a sudden send out these little, comparatively weak-armed ships into mass-combat, when survivbility is higher to keep the crew aboard the ship.

The Federation Attack Fighter was a very decent offensive weapon during the dominion war.

[Tain]

In Ds9, Federation fighters were routinely being hit and destroyed by single shots from Cardassian Galor class warships. So I imagine beam weapons are their solid counter. (which makes sense to me) They are probably tricky to hit with torpedoes or pulse style weapons.

[Telinous]

To remove small strike craft from a navy is unrealistic, even in Star Trek fighters would still maintain a supurb advantage of being fast small targets hard to hit, distracting guns from firing on capital ships and wreacking havoc to subsystems with ease. They would also serve to destory boarding craft. As for the federations value of each and every life, the members of Star Fleet are consigned to the possibility of death in service of the UFoP they would all willingly die to protect the lives of others they fight for. If this was not the case then Star Fleet would consist of nothing more then long range torpedo/missile craft who could destroy their targets at range.

[Kriss]

The Romulans also have a fighter/carrier. So they seem to be used by just about every major race. And why not. Fighters are cheap and can even be flown via remote or using an advanced AI. Plus they pack some nice firepower.

Cheap and a swift kick in the pants. What's not to like about fighters? :P

[Kriss]

The Federation Attack Fighter was a very decent offensive weapon during the dominion war.


Look at it from a numbers game. The avg starfleet ship has what, maybe 200-400 crew? If you were to place 400 people each into fighters, the accumulated firepower would be MUCH more than a single star ship.

Why we don't see more carriers I really don't know.

[TruthSeer]

Look at it from a numbers game. The avg starfleet ship has what, maybe 200-400 crew? If you were to place 400 people each into fighters, the accumulated firepower would be MUCH more than a single star ship.

Why we don't see more carriers I really don't know.

Because the Federation is very touchy about casualties. I'm not saying I don't agree with carriers being used ( they're the main pull for the Klingons for me) It just seems to me that despite the tactical advantage they might give, the Federation wouldn't put hundreds of lives at risk like that.

Pretty much every other race we've met in the ST Universe would though. Especially the Dominion, just clone more troops. Kinda BSG-ish.

[Telinous]

Because the Federation is very touchy about casualties. I'm not saying I don't agree with carriers being used ( they're the main pull for the Klingons for me) It just seems to me that despite the tactical advantage they might give, the Federation wouldn't put hundreds of lives at risk like that.

Pretty much every other race we've met in the ST Universe would though. Especially the Dominion, just clone more troops. Kinda BSG-ish.

To be honest I would think the reason fighters have not been a logical part of Star Fleet is to fit the feel of the show. They wanted a show that focused on the ship her officers and problem solving. Adding fighters would mean having to implement the hot shot ace characters that would fly them and thus changing the battles from one of ship to ship orientation to, the lone ranger style of fighter vs massive craft.

[Random19]

Since other factions have fighters, and use them advidly, it would only make since to have a few squadrons of fighters on board to repel the enemy fighters as ship phasers and torpedos would have difficulty destroying the enemy fighters in mass, especially since they are focusing on capital ships.

[cocoa-jin]

ECM may make fighters very viable assets. Both in shock value if they scream in unnoticed and difficult to engage. Second, if they can provide a heavy punch, even if only temporarily(thus requiring waves), they can be of tactical value.

I have my doubts about their effectivess as basically flying guns for a front line warship(essentially a battleship with detached guns) because they are force multipliers anymore...they are just disembodied guns. I cant imagine carriers having any more damage output than a comparably tiered non-carrier opponent...so I see carriers in their current form more as gimmicks.

Fighters as a force multiplier would be used as support for actual front-line warships, multiplying the front line warship's damage/combat potential. The benefit fo the carrier in this cse wouldnt be tactical but strategic in that it could patrol a large sector of space by potentially extending its reach into a number of tactical areas/engagments from where location it resides within range.

This strategic stand-off model would allow one ship to act as a potential force multiplier of several combat groups at one time. So if there are 5 same faction starship groups within its range, it would essentially act as 5 potential cruisers...though each engagement the carrier splits its avialable forces amoungst would reduce its actual impact/contribution to each group it is activly supporting. So having fighters split amoungst 3 combat engagements woulds reduce the carriers actual contribution to 3 escorts...an escort for each of the 3 groups engaged.

[MajorD]

Not necesserally, I remember an episode from ENT where the Enterprise J (I think) was described as fighter carrier. So why not ...
Indeed it was
Never happened. They didn't say anything about the Enterprise-J other than Xindi serve on her.
In DS9, the federation used fighters in the Dominion war. In Voyager some races used fighter craft. And dont forget the Maqui raiders

TNG you see some fighters as well, so they are established to exist, but only really for the war situations.

You can also think of Shuttles and Runabouts as fighters, just not very dedicated to combat, the Deltaflyer can also be considered a fighter.

I hope to see some fighters and things in the game(I dont think this is the first reference to fighters), that would be a lot of fun, the SFC series games had fighters, and let you use shuttles as weak fighters to.

In this games terms you would change the control system, but could easily leave them that basic style of fighting, almost like little "pets" that act like tiny computer controlled ships.
However, all of those fighters take themselves into combat, they don't use carriers. Shuttles and runabouts, including the Delta Flier, don't count, they only exist to give a ship's crew more flexibility. It should be telling that the Delta Flyer was never launched while Voyager was in combat, unless the Delta Flyer was launched ahead of time as part of a covert mission. Even Data's Mission Scout from Insurection, which is so fightery that it is only second to the Federation fighter in fighterishness, seemed to be an independent vessel, considering no other Starfleet ships were in the system at the time.
The Dominion and Cardassians had them. Plus the Remans on the Scimitar during Nemesis. You could probably also call the Delta Flyer a sort of heavy fighter or bomber type. Don't forget the Runabouts either.

Fighters have their place in ST.
The Scorpions are meant for ground to ground combat when their design is considered. They had excellent ground tracking as displayed by Picard's escape through the Scimitar's passageways, and it has a top mounted weapon which is ideal for firing straight ahead and up, not up and down, nor down. Only ground vehicles mount their primary weapons on top of themselves for various reasons.

The Dominion and Cardassian fighters are also both about 90 meters long and wide. That actually makes the Bird of Prey a fighter, too. I hope the new carrier carries Bird of Prey because its the only really reasonable fighter, but it brings up the huge question of why don't they just bring themselves into combat as they have always done in the past?
The Federation Attack Fighter was a very decent offensive weapon during the dominion war.
It died in droves to the secondary fire of Galor class ships and were used in a significant way in only one battle. I think there is a very good reason the Maqui were the first ones to use them, they were probably a cheap as dirt conversion of another type of vessel. Their firepower was decent but their defense was nearly non-existent.

[cocoa-jin]

Never happened. They didn't say anything about the Enterprise-J other than Xindi serve on her.

However, all of those fighters take themselves into combat, they don't use carriers. Shuttles and runabouts, including the Delta Flier, don't count, they only exist to give a ship's crew more flexibility. It should be telling that the Delta Flyer was never launched while Voyager was in combat, unless the Delta Flyer was launched ahead of time as part of a covert mission. Even Data's Mission Scout from Insurection, which is so fightery that it is only second to the Federation fighter in fighterishness, seemed to be an independent vessel, considering no other Starfleet ships were in the system at the time.

The Scorpions are meant for ground to ground combat when their design is considered. They had excellent ground tracking as displayed by Picard's escape through the Scimitar's passageways, and it has a top mounted weapon which is ideal for firing straight ahead and up, not up and down, nor down. Only ground vehicles mount their primary weapons on top of themselves for various reasons.

The Dominion and Cardassian fighters are also both about 90 meters long and wide. That actually makes the Bird of Prey a fighter, too. I hope the new carrier carries Bird of Prey because its the only really reasonable fighter, but it brings up the huge question of why don't they just bring themselves into combat as they have always done in the past?

It died in droves to the secondary fire of Galor class ships and were used in a significant way in only one battle. I think there is a very good reason the Maqui were the first ones to use them, they were probably a cheap as dirt conversion of another type of vessel. Their firepower was decent but their defense was nearly non-existent.

Impressive observations...thorough, swift, decisive and to the point...I wish we had a clapping "smilie"!

[flttopbox88]

I'm curious about the range of the fighters. Could the carrier-class stay out of sensor range or at least the range of all other ships except science ships, giving science ships a greater fleet role?

If this is true, we may see battles similar to navel battles over the past 75yrs. Sweet.

[Draconianknight]

Since before WWll carrier based aircraft have been apart of humanity's arsenals. It has taken the US to really perfect it and turn it into a real staregem of warfare.
There was at least one episode in TOS were the Enterprise encountered a small hostile ship that nearly kicked its butt.
My oint is this two fold. One is that carrier based warfare will follow us to the stars. It is a sound tatical advantage to be able to deploy small agile craft that can engage your enemy effectively. Two, is that the idea of small craft used as or in fighter style combat is not new to Star Trek.

[cocoa-jin]

I'm curious about the range of the fighters. Could the carrier-class stay out of sensor range or at least the range of all other ships except science ships, giving science ships a greater fleet role?

If this is true, we may see battles similar to navel battles over the past 75yrs. Sweet.

That would be sweet.

[flttopbox88]

If in fact ships are customizable with a large selection of weapons and upgrades we may see some great fleet battles with ships that are more specialized. An example of this (within the realm of this topic) is some kind of anti-fighter cruiser (as in midsize ship, not cruiser class like the modern day AEGIS systems) with upgraded sensors, long range microtorpedos, and point defense phaser banks with shields being sacrificed. Just some food for thought. I'm hoping...

[kaden]

If the Feds get fighters Cryptic can use my design!

http://www.kadendesign.com/gkdwip/orcus_front.png

[cocoa-jin]

If in fact ships are customizable with a large selection of weapons and upgrades we may see some great fleet battles with ships that are more specialized. An example of this (within the realm of this topic) is some kind of anti-fighter cruiser (as in midsize ship, not cruiser class like the modern day AEGIS systems) with upgraded sensors, long range microtorpedos, and point defense phaser banks with shields being sacrificed. Just some food for thought. I'm hoping...

It would be a beautiful thing...modding game mechanics oriented for task specialization/niche, not for uberness...oh my, could it work?

[flttopbox88]

It would be a beautiful thing...modding game mechanics oriented for task specialization/niche, not for uberness...oh my, could it work?

We can only hope. So many things going for it.

[Avenger_Dragon]

The Romulans also have a fighter/carrier. So they seem to be used by just about every major race. And why not. Fighters are cheap and can even be flown via remote or using an advanced AI. Plus they pack some nice firepower.

Cheap and a swift kick in the pants. What's not to like about fighters? :P

Fighters + direct beam weapons = Easy Death. I haven't seen the federation fighters in DS9, but the whole "Fast and hard to hit" argument goes out the window when beam weapons have Lightspeed tracking and target locking. There is no travel time to avoid being hit.

And the federation can't afford to be flying automated ships because their automated workers are filing a class-action lawsuit against them. the drones would want equal rights too.

Fighters are cheap and in droves can bring the firepower of another ship, but in the face of insta-death by enemy quick-fire weapons, they can't bring their first attack to bear in time, much less a second attack.

[MajorD]

Fighters + direct beam weapons = Easy Death. I haven't seen the federation fighters in DS9, but the whole "Fast and hard to hit" argument goes out the window when beam weapons have Lightspeed tracking and target locking. There is no travel time to avoid being hit.

And the federation can't afford to be flying automated ships because their automated workers are filing a class-action lawsuit against them. the drones would want equal rights too.

Fighters are cheap and in droves can bring the firepower of another ship, but in the face of insta-death by enemy quick-fire weapons, they can't bring their first attack to bear in time, much less a second attack.

You can see the Sacrifice of Angels battle on Youtube. Here it is (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwKnvRPIrl0), plus the prelude. The attack fighters, as Sisko calls them, are little hard to hit but not so hard, and once hit they die easy. About half way through the battle the wings we see seem to be down to a third their numbers and by at least the time the Klingons arrive the fighters are no where to be seen. Their main utility was as a distraction and it wasn't even a success, the enemy saw right through the ploy, this is also the only battle where the fighters are even bothered with. Based on the desperation of the battle, as described in the preceding events shown, the only reason I think they bothered with fighters was because they were aware of their distinct lack of ships, especially so with the Klingons saying they wouldn't participate.

In the Chintoka battle that came later no fighters were used, even though that was an even larger and more important engagement.

[Dahakra]

Fighters + direct beam weapons = Easy Death. I haven't seen the federation fighters in DS9, but the whole "Fast and hard to hit" argument goes out the window when beam weapons have Lightspeed tracking and target locking. There is no travel time to avoid being hit.


You can see the Sacrifice of Angels battle on Youtube. Here it is (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwKnvRPIrl0), plus the prelude. The attack fighters, as Sisko calls them, are little hard to hit but not so hard, and once hit they die easy.

and the ship carries electronic countermeasures capable of hampering enemy sensors. The Vo'Quv has the energy necessary to use these countermeasures even when cloaked.

Now maybe I'm being a bit to presumptuous here, but. A ship equipped with ECM, designed to "hamper enemy sensors" on a ship that already posses a cloaking device can really only mean one thing. The ECM is there to help prevent these (presumably) lightly armoured / shielded craft from being effectively targeted in the first place. We all know that Federation ships have ungodly accuracy and coverage with their phaser arrays, a smart enemy would address this problem first and foremost when designing this ship and combat style.

Whats more, just because Starfleet hasn't been able to perfect this idea, or use if effectively, doesn't automatically mean the Empire can't.

- Dahakra

[Dahakra]

If the Feds get fighters Cryptic can use my design!

http://www.kadendesign.com/gkdwip/orcus_front.png

Thats damned sexy. I like :)

- Dahakra

[TruthSeer]

You can see the Sacrifice of Angels battle on Youtube. Here it is (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwKnvRPIrl0), plus the prelude. The attack fighters, as Sisko calls them, are little hard to hit but not so hard, and once hit they die easy. About half way through the battle the wings we see seem to be down to a third their numbers and by at least the time the Klingons arrive the fighters are no where to be seen. Their main utility was as a distraction and it wasn't even a success, the enemy saw right through the ploy, this is also the only battle where the fighters are even bothered with. Based on the desperation of the battle, as described in the preceding events shown, the only reason I think they bothered with fighters was because they were aware of their distinct lack of ships, especially so with the Klingons saying they wouldn't participate.

In the Chintoka battle that came later no fighters were used, even though that was an even larger and more important engagement.

But see a smarter strategy for carriers/fighter would be to deploy them and have them fight while the major battle was going on, not on their own.

[Avenger_Dragon]

Now maybe I'm being a bit to presumptuous here, but. A ship equipped with ECM, designed to "hamper enemy sensors" on a ship that already posses a cloaking device can really only mean one thing. The ECM is there to help prevent these (presumably) lightly armoured / shielded craft from being effectively targeted in the first place. We all know that Federation ships have ungodly accuracy and coverage with their phaser arrays, a smart enemy would address this problem first and foremost when designing this ship and combat style.

Whats more, just because Starfleet hasn't been able to perfect this idea, or use if effectively, doesn't automatically mean the Empire can't.

- Dahakra

We'll see when and if the targeting issue is addressed, which i highly doubt since the next star trek anything will be in the "alternate universe" so we're stuck.

You can see the Sacrifice of Angels battle on Youtube. Here it is (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwKnvRPIrl0), plus the prelude. The attack fighters, as Sisko calls them, are little hard to hit but not so hard, and once hit they die easy. About half way through the battle the wings we see seem to be down to a third their numbers and by at least the time the Klingons arrive the fighters are no where to be seen. Their main utility was as a distraction and it wasn't even a success, the enemy saw right through the ploy, this is also the only battle where the fighters are even bothered with. Based on the desperation of the battle, as described in the preceding events shown, the only reason I think they bothered with fighters was because they were aware of their distinct lack of ships, especially so with the Klingons saying they wouldn't participate.

In the Chintoka battle that came later no fighters were used, even though that was an even larger and more important engagement.

Thanks for the link, so far it proves my point about them being effectively useless, although in the face of lacking ships, "desperate times call for desperate measures"

[Dahakra]

We'll see when and if the targeting issue is addressed, which i highly doubt since the next star trek anything will be in the "alternate universe" so we're stuck.

Correct me if I wrong, but the next Star Trek Anything will be Star Trek Online. Which is NOT (http://www.startrekonline.com/startrek_xi) set in the "alternative universe". Its also a game that requires balance to be enjoyable for all concerned. The issue of near perfect phaser targeting will have to be addressed and I'm inclined to believe it is being addressed (at least in STO) with the addition of ECM to counter it.

- Dahakra

[Avenger_Dragon]

Correct me if I wrong, but the next Star Trek Anything will be Star Trek Online. Which is NOT (http://www.startrekonline.com/startrek_xi) set in the "alternative universe". Its also a game that requires balance to be enjoyable for all concerned. The issue of near perfect phaser targeting will have to be addressed and I'm inclined to believe it is being addressed (at least in STO) with the addition of ECM to counter it.

- Dahakra

I was referring to anythingcannon, but you're right (forgot which forum this was in) still, we'll see what they decide to do.

[DanSeale]

Talking about fighter craft again raises the question again of what will be the appropriate counter-weapon?

Star Fleet Battles (and the Starfleet Command computer games based on SFB), which combat in Star Trek Online seems to be resembling, suggests a couple of possibilities.

One is a special type of short-range phaser/disruptor. Like the name says, it's not much good beyond a short range, and it doesn't pack much of a punch, but its advantage is that you can pack multiples of them into a slot that only one of a larger direct-fire weapon could use. For example, instead of a standard Ship Phaser-I, which does 20 damage out to a range of 10,000 meters (I'm just making up these numbers for comparison), a Ship Phaser-III might do only 6 damage out to 4,000 meters, but you can fit three of them into a hardpoint.

The advantage here (as it was in SFB) would be that you could use your big guns against other capital ships, but if they launch smaller weapons such as fighters at you, you've got your close-range point defense weapons available.

The other possibility from Star Fleet Battles is drones. These are basically small missiles that can come in "scatter packs" -- like Phaser-IIIs, they don't do a lot of damage, but STO potentially might let us throw a bunch of them out there at one time either as a defensive screen or as a way to wear down an opponent's shields.

Any thoughts on these or other anti-fighter measures?

--Flatfingers

Scatter packs were good when a player was up against ships that were much larger than the one you were flying. I enjoyed it .. BUT for a Federation ship unless you have photon torps on board (several in the SFC series did not) .. the ship was usless.

AS for fighter defense .. I always loved the gatlings phasers .. set them to point defense .. or use them as a good weapon for close in fighting whlie waiting for torpedos or primary phasers to reload. The combination of the 3 was deadly. .. and yes the gatling phasers were great against fighters.

[Father_Origin]

Fighters add a new flexable weapon system to the game..also, anyone wanting
to play Kzinti...who use a lot of fighters, will be happy as well.

[Random19]

I can see fighters being even more deadly on the Klingon side, since in ST cannon they would be able to set a collision course with enemy ships once they get low on health.

[flttopbox88]

I can see fighters being even more deadly on the Klingon side, since in ST cannon they would be able to set a collision course with enemy ships once they get low on health.

Good point. I didn't even think about that. Give's me chills thinking about almost killing a few fighters and then they turn toward my ship and come in full bore... Yikes.

[MajorD]

Now maybe I'm being a bit to presumptuous here, but. A ship equipped with ECM, designed to "hamper enemy sensors" on a ship that already posses a cloaking device can really only mean one thing. The ECM is there to help prevent these (presumably) lightly armoured / shielded craft from being effectively targeted in the first place. We all know that Federation ships have ungodly accuracy and coverage with their phaser arrays, a smart enemy would address this problem first and foremost when designing this ship and combat style.

Whats more, just because Starfleet hasn't been able to perfect this idea, or use if effectively, doesn't automatically mean the Empire can't.

- Dahakra
I don't doubt that is the reasoning, but it's also flawed reasoning. ECM works by emitting radiation, cloaking works by concealing radiation. If you have the cloak running it should absorb the ECM, and if it doesn't the ECM will give away your location despite being cloaked. The ECM will jam sensors but it won't jam a simple sweep for radiation intensity alone. That's pretty much how anti-radar missiles and infrared missiles work, they seek the strongest source of their particular radiation. The ECM will still protect the fighters, but the main ship will be more vulnerable than it would have otherwise been.
But see a smarter strategy for carriers/fighter would be to deploy them and have them fight while the major battle was going on, not on their own.
To act that way would require it be a battle carrier, and the description definitely makes it sound like one. In real life, battlecarriers are horrible junk because they don't carry enough fighters to fight as a carrier and don't carry enough guns to fight directly, there are trade offs. Maybe this ship simply ignored those trade offs, I wouldn't be surprised. Or, Trek tech simply allows the combination thanks to miniaturization.
I can see fighters being even more deadly on the Klingon side, since in ST cannon they would be able to set a collision course with enemy ships once they get low on health.
Definitely a possible tactic and in Trek collisions are quite deadly if done right. But, then the Klingons should just make fighter size torpedoes, they would be far more effective.

[Avenger_Dragon]

To act that way would require it be a battle carrier, and the description definitely makes it sound like one. In real life, battlecarriers are horrible junk because they don't carry enough fighters to fight as a carrier and don't carry enough guns to fight directly, there are trade offs. Maybe this ship simply ignored those trade offs, I wouldn't be surprised. Or, Trek tech simply allows the combination thanks to miniaturization.

Modern ships need to deal with water displacement, maximum weight, center of gravity, all these have a minor consideration in space, some cases, no consideration at all.

In the case of the Vo'Quv, the tech wasn't minitaturized, they just made the hull bigger to be an effective carrier and battleship, most likely with a horrendous cost of resources. I see battle carriers in Trek being more feasible because of their technology. Fighters are still cannon fodder though.

[MajorD]

Yeah, the only real limit for a Trek battle carrier may be costs in material and time. But, my meaning is that the Trek power sources and weapons are so small it allows for that. If the weapons and power systems were as bulky as a modern battleship's, and if their fighters took as much personnel and space as modern fighters on modern carriers, then they wouldn't be able to combine the two.

The real cost may very well be the ease at which you lose pilots using fighters in Trek.

[Avenger_Dragon]

The real cost may very well be the ease at which you lose pilots using fighters in Trek.

Agreed, which goes back to the "why not use Autopilot or Drones" argument...

which the federation is still being sued by AI programs, so there goes the drones.

[cocoa-jin]

I still have doubts about the destructive power of fighter borne phasers/distruptors against a starship. It would seem that it would require a very large number of them to be effective.

I still see the strategic deployment of carriers as support as a more viable tactic. Allow starships to engage under normal conditions, then have the cloaked carrier warp to within a couple minutes warp from the engagment. While the starships are engaged, deploy torpedo fighters and send them in at warp.

The idea is that these vessels are bigger than a typically imagined fighter. They are warp capable and armed with one or two standard sized torps.

The launch of the fighter-bombers would be coordinated with the faction starships in the engagement early into the fight with a release of ECM. The starships engage the enemy, exchange fire to encourage tunnel vision and fixation by the enemy. The ECM is deployed early on to ensure its ability to be used before incuring too much damage. As the ECM is deplyed, the cloaked carrier releases its fighter-bombers who warp into the battle under the veil of the ECM. As they enter the fight, the ECM is turned off to allow automated targeting...or it remains on, allowing maual bore-sight firing(which should be perfect for this type vessel) of the torps.

The fighter-bombers salvo their torps and then exit the fight immeadiatly. The friendly starships turn off the ECM(because it would affect their own targeting just as effective as the enemy) and continues the engagement of their severly weakened advisaries as usual. The fighters warp back to the carrier, dock, re-arm and then carrier and all is re-located under cloak and then released as needed again for a second wave, or as support to another engagement.

[radman]

As I mentioned before the bottom line the game will ha:)ve fighters. How the developers tweak them or incorporate them will shatter what ever preconceived notions some of you have about the Star trek universe. I have a feeling that the movie disrupted what you have expected in the past.

[ComradeWolfie]

Agreed, which goes back to the "why not use Autopilot or Drones" argument...

which the federation is still being sued by AI programs, so there goes the drones.

As far as we know only the Klingons have carriers, so I fail to see why its a problem that the Fed can't use robots/ai/drones for fighter pilots. For the Klingons its pretty obvious, a fighter pilot is a nice easy way to star out earning honour/prestige/klingon dick waving contests without the problems of running your own starship/

[MajorD]

I rather have torpedo turrets and torpedoes that are large enough to one shot ships, or at least come close.
Agreed, which goes back to the "why not use Autopilot or Drones" argument...

which the federation is still being sued by AI programs, so there goes the drones.
The holodeck AI may be too complex to run using a shuttle size system.

I thought of another disadvantage. Since a lot of the ship should be empty space that means the shield system should be weaker since it has to cover more surface area. This is the same problem the Galaxy class might have since it always gave me the feeling most of the space is taken up by labs and civilian quarters. So a ship of equal size to either one should be far more powerful, or a ship that is much smaller can be its combat equal, perhaps the Sovereign will be the carrier's equal.
As far as we know only the Klingons have carriers, so I fail to see why its a problem that the Fed can't use robots/ai/drones for fighter pilots. For the Klingons its pretty obvious, a fighter pilot is a nice easy way to star out earning honour/prestige/klingon dick waving contests without the problems of running your own starship/
An AI driven fighter is still a fighter.

Being a fighter pilot would probably be the highest honor for a Klingon.

[pdidy]

Yeah, fighters are fighters, no matter how they are done. And the ability to use them could gain a tactical advantage for a ship.

[Avenger_Dragon]

I rather have torpedo turrets and torpedoes that are large enough to one shot ships, or at least come close.

The holodeck AI may be too complex to run using a shuttle size system.

I thought of another disadvantage. Since a lot of the ship should be empty space that means the shield system should be weaker since it has to cover more surface area. This is the same problem the Galaxy class might have since it always gave me the feeling most of the space is taken up by labs and civilian quarters. So a ship of equal size to either one should be far more powerful, or a ship that is much smaller can be its combat equal, perhaps the Sovereign will be the carrier's equal.

An AI driven fighter is still a fighter.

Being a fighter pilot would probably be the highest honor for a Klingon.

A Fighter AI would still be required to have some sort of decision making process, albeit with a vastly different library and without the personality traits of the EMH or CMH holograms. And once something can make a decision for itself, it can, and at some point knowing the history of Trek, declare it's freedom against its creators and claim abuse.

Sovereign vs Vo'Quv? well considering the Sovereign and the Neg'var are supposed to be on the same level, the Vo'Quv just steps up from there in a big way, and leaves the middle open for the klingon fighters. But we'll see who sits where in the tiers.

[Father_Origin]

Why fighters?

well it is easy to attack your enemy if he is one and stands in front of you, it is
much harder to strike a telling blow if your enemy is many and all around you in a swarm.

also, you cannot out manuver fighters, so if you develope a weakness...they will
exploit it, and your doomed...example, you lose the ability to fire aft, guess where
the enemy fighter will go?

[Rianames]

Fighters add a new flexable weapon system to the game..also, anyone wanting
to play Kzinti...who use a lot of fighters, will be happy as well.

Guess I will be happy then....:D

On the other hand, it might be a bit problematic as I am not sure if fur is possible on your character.


As for the carrier, the only thing (for the moment) I could see ECM useful for should be to influence the tracking computers of the phasers. It doesn't matter how accurate and lightspeed fast your weapon is, if you cannot get a lock-on, the weapon will be rather useless, besides the occasional random lucky hit.

[Klaleara]

I will be completely dissapointed if they are just visual DoT's.

I'm hoping for a few things for them though. One to work like pets, with a couple more commands then some suggest.

I hope there will at least be Fighters and Bombers (I dont see why a small ship couldnt have a small torpedo launcher on it). Bombers will obviously do more damage to large ships then the fighters, but fighters can work as a counter-attack to Bombers. Something that some people worry about.

I could see a support class ship sending a squad or two of bombers to the enemy ships, while he has his fighters working on taking out the Bombers on his allies. While a more offensive carrier ship would have all bombers attacking a enemy ship.

[MajorD]

Sovereign vs Vo'Quv? well considering the Sovereign and the Neg'var are supposed to be on the same level, the Vo'Quv just steps up from there in a big way, and leaves the middle open for the klingon fighters. But we'll see who sits where in the tiers.

Unfortunately there has never been anything shown by which we can draw a comparison between the Neg'Var and Sovereign. For all we know, the Neg'Var is excessively more powerful than the Sovereign, or the reverse is true. I find the latter less likely, unless it's through maneuverability and plentiful torpedoes.

[mcintyre72]

In DS9, the federation used fighters in the Dominion war. In Voyager some races used fighter craft. And dont forget the Maqui raiders

TNG you see some fighters as well, so they are established to exist, but only really for the war situations.

You can also think of Shuttles and Runabouts as fighters, just not very dedicated to combat, the Deltaflyer can also be considered a fighter.

I hope to see some fighters and things in the game(I dont think this is the first reference to fighters), that would be a lot of fun, the SFC series games had fighters, and let you use shuttles as weak fighters to.

In TNG, Starfleet had fighters stationed in Sector 001 in "The Best of Both Worlds, Part II" Granted they got rick-rolled by the borg, "One Shot, I counted!"

I'm hoping the fighters in the game will react similiarly to pets in other mmo's.

[Father_Origin]

well, fighter groups should be 'mostly' AI controlled, however, you might have the option
to place your main ship on AI and run the fighters personally.

that might throw the enemy into a loop...

What is that fighter group doing??.....OH HELL NO.....get me shields now !...too late.

[Kieshdor]

Hears a good question tho? What if any are the fighter types gonna be, will we have 1 generic fighter type for each race or are they gonna be interceptor, fighter, and bomber? There are a lot of thing they could do in this aspect, or are you gonna launch wings of fighters in like groups of 5 or 6 that do every thing, meybe single craft? How much controll over the craft are you gonna get? I my self like to operate fighter craft against capital ships from time to time on many different games, so like in wow would i be able to take direct control of my fighters like i do my cat, or better yet like in battlestations pacific i can get a BB very close to an enemy BB because i launch a recon plane and bomb the guns out on it.

[MajorD]

I still prefer my idea of having the option of controlling a fleet of lesser ships instead of a carrier with fighters.

[Swordopolis]

It'd be nice to be able to use fighters for things other than "Go attack the enemy over there"

Like using them as additional point defense (for yourself or an ally), for example.

[overlordthor]

It'd be nice to be able to use fighters for things other than "Go attack the enemy over there"

Like using them as additional point defense (for yourself or an ally), for example.

I would like a few interesting commands, but if you make them too complex they get too hard to use, but setting a squadron to point defense, sounds like a good idea.

A few ideas
1-Point defence(reserved for anit-fighter and missile roles)(if there are missiles, maybe staying really close in and shooting close ships possibly)
2-Specific target-Long Range attack (fighters attack a target you select, and try and keep there range while shooting)
3-Specific Target-close range(fighters go in close and stay in close constantly attacking the target)
4-Area or target defense-- Select place, they defend it, attacking anything close, or defend a target you select
5-Follow you-passive, waiting for order saving ammo
6-Dock

[cocoa-jin]

If we could actually deploy the fighters from a stand-off position, away from the main battle, complex and in-depth fighter controls wouldnt be all that complicated...because essentially the carrier becomes a just a launch pad(hopefully a cloaked launch pad) and your only focus is on directing, coordinating and tasking the fighters/groups.


On a side note, I also support the idea of wings/squadrons, one player controlling a group/formation of ships as a wing commander.

[DarkOrion69]

If fighters are hard to hit, can cloak, and are not subject to considerable point defense countermeasures...then consider me the future commander of the IKC Bro'Ken'Krap :)

[Tribbler]

After seeing that new Klingon ship class, the Vo'Quv, I noticed that it said "Fighter Launch Bays". This has brought me to wonder, will you be able to "sick" fighters (considering you have a ship with launch bays) on the enemy?

My way would be this:

You would click on them to provide various functions but without really controlling them.

Click on *ATTACK*, and they will fly towards the enemy and then go into evasive maneuvers dodging and weaving.

Click on "PROTECT", and they could stay near your ship and provide cover, or put them on the friendly ship where they would provide the friendly ship with cover.

Click on "KAMIKAZE", and they will fly directly to your enemy one at a time and bounce off the Federation shields like so many flies during a hurricane. :D

Click on "WAIT", and they would stop at a certain designated area, waiting for further orders.

Click on "FORMATION" and set up a horizontal or vertical single file, wedge, T, or arrow.

Yep that should just about cover it.

[Strandberg]

After seeing that new Klingon ship class, the Vo'Quv, I noticed that it said "Fighter Launch Bays". This has brought me to wonder, will you be able to "sick" fighters (considering you have a ship with launch bays) on the enemy?

In SFC (which they are largely copying) you had small non-controlable shuttles you could launch as "pets"

[DanSeale]

My way would be this:

You would click on them to provide various functions but without really controlling them.

Click on *ATTACK*, and they will fly towards the enemy and then go into evasive maneuvers dodging and weaving.

Click on "PROTECT", and they could stay near your ship and provide cover, or put them on the friendly ship where they would provide the friendly ship with cover.

Click on "KAMIKAZE", and they will fly directly to your enemy one at a time and bounce off the Federation shields like so many flies during a hurricane. :D

Click on "WAIT", and they would stop at a certain designated area, waiting for further orders.

Click on "FORMATION" and set up a horizontal or vertical single file, wedge, T, or arrow.

Yep that should just about cover it.

Pretty close:

1. launch .. fighters launch and await instructions
2. attack my target self explaintory
3. defend my target defend any selected ally or your own ship
4. stand by (hold formation) self explaintory
5. return to ship (land) fighters return to ship (even if mid flight to target) and land

[Tribbler]

Pretty close:

1. launch .. fighters launch and await instructions
2. attack my target self explaintory
3. defend my target defend any selected ally or your own ship
4. stand by (hold formation) self explaintory
5. return to ship (land) fighters return to ship (even if mid flight to target) and land

For me though, I would want Kamikazes and to pick types of formations. Its all about subtleties & nuances for me.

I know where you got yours from :D

[Random19]

Click on "KAMIKAZE", and they will fly directly to your enemy one at a time and bounce off the Federation shields like so many flies during a hurricane.

"Kamikaze" could be more faction-specific, for example the Federation captains would loose this ability, but perhaps have an extra ability others do not have, like "Team-work" (the fighters gain extra damage and precision). While the Klingon Empire may have "Kamikaze" but not have "Team-work".

[overlordthor]

In SFC (which they are largely copying) you had small non-controlable shuttles you could launch as "pets"

In SFC 1-2 you could launch tiny fighter squadrons, made up of at least 3 fighters that were fairly decent to have around for help.

[Random19]

If fighters do turn out to be something useful, I don't want to see every noobish player and their grandmother having fighters. Here are a couple guidelines that could prevent this:

1. You must have a good-sized ship (large enough to have a hanger bay)
2. The squadrons should cost a good amount to purchase and maintain.

[Zepath]

A) Its 30 years into a future we know little or nothing about. Cryptic/Paramount could easily take the position that Star Fleet had an epiphany and realized how important carriers are against an enemy that uses them.

B) What does it matter ... if the Klingons are the only ones who get them, bully for them, it makes the faction more unique. If both factions get a carrier, then its a non-starter issue, just another option of play ... and options are good.

[Varrangian]

A) Its 30 years into a future we know little or nothing about. Cryptic/Paramount could easily take the position that Star Fleet had an epiphany and realized how important carriers are against an enemy that uses them.

B) What does it matter ... if the Klingons are the only ones who get them, bully for them, it makes the faction more unique. If both factions get a carrier, then its a non-starter issue, just another option of play ... and options are good.

Yes options are good, but unique factions are good to. They've said to a degree content will be "different" for each faction and I think that is an wise choice to make. I think it also means that you give people reasons to choose to play one faction or another.