Defiant vs Akira

[JPJappic]

In the recent week there has been much debate on where the Akira and Defiant configurations should be placed in relation to each other in the tier trees.

From what I have observed, most people have come to the conclusion that the Akira is better than the Defiant purely by the size difference. In all reality I strongly disagree... but instead of just saying so I will try to prove my point.

First, let's look at the armaments of both ships.

Information is taken from http://www.ditl.org/

Defiant Class
4 x Class I rapid fire phaser pulse cannons
1 x Type X phaser bank, total output 70,000 TeraWatts
3 x Pulse fire quantum torpedo tubes
1 x Probe/photon launcher equivalent to standard photon torpedo tube with 120 rounds

Akira Class
3 x Type X phaser arrays, total output 17,500 TeraWatts
15 x Pulse fire photon torpedo tubes with 300 rounds

Alright, now let's discuss the two.

The Defiant Class is clearly a ship designed for war. It was primarily designed as a way to attack the Borg, the Federation's most dangerous enemy. Not only does it have the powerful pulse cannons, but i can also fire quantum torpedoes. The Defiant is designed for quick strikes / hit and run attacks and this is exemplified by the fact that it has a high maneuverability.

The Akira is also a ship designed for battle but it wages a different kind of war. What it loses with power from its phasers it makes up with its complement of torpedoes. The Akira is designed to stay back and put the pounding on the enemy with its salvo of torpedoes.


Strength Indices
To understand how this works, here is a link to a description of it. http://www.ditl.org/index.php?daymain=/pagcalculator.php?Ship6019

Defiant Class
Beam Firepower : 1,400
Torpedo Firepower : 2,150
Weapon Range and Accuracy : 810
Shield Strength : 880
Hull Armour : 3,400
Speed : 955
Combat Maneuverability : 8,660
Overall: 1,551

Akira Class
Beam Firepower : 350
Torpedo Firepower : 3,750
Weapon Range and Accuracy : 910
Shield Strength : 695
Hull Armour : 640
Speed : 1,203
Combat Manoeuvrability : 1,880
Overall: 1,493

As we can see, the Pulse Cannons from the Defiant do far much more DPS (i hate to use this in this discussion but it's the best word that fits) than the Akira's beam weapons. Again we are shown though that the Akira's torpedoes are where they get the most of their damage from.

Ultimately though, the Defiant only marginally beats the Akira in its capabilities and they are pretty even overall.

They are two different kind of ships with two different kinds of roles in war.

=========================================

In conclusion, I suppose my argument is not to say which one is better than the other.. they are similar with different roles..... what i'm proposing is that both ships possibly be moved to Tier 3, and that some other ship takes the place of the Akira in Tier 2, perhaps the Steamrunner.

[Minister_Corey]

um i agree. the defiant would win. but wat if the akira had quantum torpedoes:eek:

[Paulo999]

last time i checked they were both ships of the federation :P The Akira covers the Defiant bla bla bla :P

though if you want to turn this into a civil war arguement :D we can find out in battle :D

[JPJappic]

last time i checked they were both ships of the federation :P The Akira covers the Defiant bla bla bla :P

Oh I totally agree with you.... i'm just trying to appease all the people who are like... the Akira is better than the Defiant when literally they are pretty even.

[Musterion]

It's a forgone conclusion for me, the Defiant would destroy the Akira :o

[Minister_Corey]

oh. that will be funny. a galaxy class vs an akira/crabicus class.

[Paulo999]

Oh I totally agree with you.... i'm just trying to appease all the people who are like... the Akira is better than the Defiant when literally they are pretty even.

meh its a 50/50 .. all depends on how the battle starts... if the defiants in front of the Akira.. its dead.. however if the defiants moving about all over the place the akiras dead.

[Pyrceval]

Again, as I posted elsewhere I ran some checks on this in both SFC3 (non cheating) and Bridge COmmander...in both scenarios the defiant decimated the Akira in a matter of seconds...when I played as the Akira, I would eventually win, but it was a very difficult battle and I took a great deal of damage. So, yeah, I do believe when it comes to pure combat, the Defiant is the more powerful ship.

And to the person above, nope, standard, the Akira comes with photons only.

[Minister_Corey]

What would win a galaxy class or a crabicus class. most definetilly the crabicus because of the 2 ion cannons. hehehe:cool:

[Sinclair]

The ship's armaments cited are from old sources.

In STO, ship armament may depend on what you load up as your equipment.

A skilled captain in a better armed Akira would have a leg up on a newbie captain in a defiant.

The combinations are many.

[Manta2015]

I believe it's one of those 'bad matchups' 1 vs 1 ~ In STO, the Akira should last longer, put out more firepower (not with 15 launchers, but still plenty) especially at longer range. The Defiant would be able to run circles around bigger targets such as the Akira and brawl/doing damage nice and close.


-Manta-

[denarre]

I feel that the defiant class ship is designed as a 'knife fighter' it has some longer ranged applications but generally is designed like a fighter, bobbing and weaving into the fray.

Akiras are designed to be mobile weapons platforms with decent long range weaponry.

I think ultimately, the ship that got to stay at its best range would do best. If the Defiant got in close, it'd chew up an Akira, conversely if an Akira can keep its distance, its torpedo loads would rain hurt.

[J.L.Picard]

first of all

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/en/images/d/d6/USS_Perpetual%2C_STO.jpg POW cryptic eat ur heart out. its a shame cryptics engine cant produce that level of graphics.

The Akira class was the testbed for ALOT of Sovereign Technology just like the Defiant was so as far as tech goes they are more or less equal. HOWEVER 15 Torpedo launchers = a dead Defiant. The Akira was designed as a Carrier/Battlecruiser.

the biggest failure of the defiant class was that it needs to point in order to get of its shots and when it does BOOM bubye Defiant.

this is simple logistics guys i love both ships but the fact is simply that the Akira will have stronger shields and will generally last longer in battle without em. Akira will be refit with Quantum torpedoes at minimum.

and it will be pretty interesting to see if cryptic give you a Carrier version.

you torpedo info on the defiant is wrong.


and as for the defiant running circles around enemy that is all fine and dandy but that is ALL it will be doing because the pulse cannons eed to be aimed (pointed at the target).

[Zoberraz]

Just what stops the STO Akira-class to be equipped with Pulse Phasers too? It certainly has more hull space to. Heck, I could put pulse phasers on the SF3 Akira too and increase its maneuvrability to keep up with the Defiant - the only really advantage the Defiant has in SF3 is that for its size-class it has a much lighter mass, making it more nimble, which allows it to more easily make hit-and-run attacks. But, again, with some tweaking I could just increase the Akira's maneuvrability too.

I also wouldn't consider seriously the Defiant vs. Akira in BC. One is a fan-implemented ship against another that was balanced to stick in the single player game.

While we're at it... I can beat a Sovereign fairly easy with the Defiant in either game. Does that mean the Defiant is Tier 4? No.

DITL is also not a oh-so-great source of accurate information.

Where do I base my own opinion? Here. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pvk3PgRQ5js)

The Defiants are gnats. I can understand the appeal of David and Goliath scenarios and won't deny the Defiants have one heck of a sting. However, the size difference is just too great - an Akira equipped with competitive technology should be able to outperform it in many other aspect aside nimbleness.

[J.L.Picard]

Just what stops the STO Akira-class to be equipped with Pulse Phasers too? It certainly has more hull space to. Heck, I could put pulse phasers on the SF3 Akira too and increase its maneuvrability to keep up with the Defiant - the only really advantage the Defiant has in SF3 is that for its size-class it has a much lighter mass, making it more nimble, which allows it to more easily make hit-and-run attacks. But, again, with some tweaking I could just increase the Akira's maneuvrability too.

I also wouldn't consider seriously the Defiant vs. Akira in BC. One is a fan-implemented ship against another that was balanced to stick in the single player game.

While we're at it... I can beat a Sovereign fairly easy with the Defiant in either game. Does that mean the Defiant is Tier 4? No.

DITL is also not a oh-so-great source of accurate information.

Where do I base my own opinion? Here. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pvk3PgRQ5js)

The Defiants are gnats. I can understand the appeal of David and Goliath scenarios and won't deny the Defiants have one heck of a sting. However, the size difference is just too great - an Akira equipped with competitive technology should be able to outperform it in many other aspect aside nimbleness.

yepyep what this guy said.

Defiants work well in games because you can abuse then vs a NPC but try it against a human and things are going to turn bad very fast especially against other federation vessels with tend to have equal damage output at 360 degrees unlike the Klingons and Romulans

[ibby1kanobi]

Where do they get their info from? Phaser output and all that jazz? Seems kinda made up to me....I've never even heard of that photon compliment on an Akira....15 pulse-fire torp launchers? Seriously?

[ransomwk]

Comparing the two is apples and oranges imo. The Defiant is a close quarters fighter, the Akira is stand-off torpedo boat. If the two got into it, it would come down to range. If the Defiant could get in close and use those big guns and her quickness, it would be a hard fight for the Akira. Conversely, if the Akira started it from a distance and got off a few good salvos of torpedoes, the Defiant would be screwed. 15 torpedoes would put a serious hurt on anything.

The two would work marvelously in tandem though. Have the Defiant get in close where she does her best while the Akira keeps her distance and does fire support.

To justify the placement of the Akira at T2 and the Defiant at T3, I would allow the Defiant exclusive access to the pulse phasers, and make them lose effectiveness at long range, but be extremely potent up close. Then give the Akira a larger than normal limit on her possible torpedo load-out. In this way, any team going into a fight would want to have some Defiants in the fight to make use of their massive front-loaded firepower, and some Akiras to take advantage of their excellent long range artillery strikes. In this way we could see a few T2 ships participating in end game right next to the T3s and T4s.....unless they make the Prometheus just as capable at long range as the Akira, but that's a whole other can o' worms.

[ransomwk]

Where do they get their info from? Phaser output and all that jazz? Seems kinda made up to me....I've never even heard of that photon compliment on an Akira....15 pulse-fire torp launchers? Seriously?

They do cite sources. The 15 torpedoes thing comes from an article in the star trek magazine on the Akira where they spoke with the guy who invented it. I think I actually have that one around here somewhere.

[Minister_Corey]

They do cite sources. The 15 torpedoes thing comes from an article in the star trek magazine on the Akira where they spoke with the guy who invented it. I think I actually have that one around here somewhere. wats ur ship.

[THORN74]

Oh I totally agree with you.... i'm just trying to appease all the people who are like... the Akira is better than the Defiant when literally they are pretty even.

yes, personally i think they should both be tier 3 ships ... i think we need more choices in each tier. I think most on these bords that are having a problem with the akira/defiant isnt one would beat the other. the problem is the ranking them in 2 different tiers. they should both be in the same tier.

[JPJappic]

yes, personally i think they should both be tier 3 ships ... i think we need more choices in each tier. I think most on these bords that are having a problem with the akira/defiant isnt one would beat the other. the problem is the ranking them in 2 different tiers. they should both be in the same tier.

This is exactly what i'm saying and i'm shockingly surprised that half of the people who replied to this thread can't even see what I'm trying to do.

[J.L.Picard]

guys one thing to remember is that within the tier system you have the 3 "classes" also and this is where the Akira will shine since it will have the sort of versatility that the Defiant can only dream of. All Defiant ships are warships its the only Ship class in the Federation with this design principle.

Crew quarters are almost non existent it is the kind of ship a Klingon can fall in love with. It is the federation version of a B'rel except way faster and more powerfull (it is a Destroyer and the B'rel is only a Scout).

I really like both ship designs and the Defiant made DS9 tolerable. But like I have said before The Defiant should be Tier 2 along with the Inrepid especially since IF the Defiant is a Tier 3 ship then what on earth is in Tier 2?? Gasseos anomolies?

Tier1 = Saber, Nova
Tier2 = Miranda(not sure why its even in the game), Defiant/Vigilant and Intrepid prometheus Aegian could either go here or possible top end Tier 1
Tier3 = Akira, Nebula, Steamrunner Excalibur(I dont see cryptic putting it in T2)
Tier4 = SOVEREIGN, Galaxy, Lunar

Thhe higher you go the fewer classes should be available and a good bulk in middle.

[klingon1021]

yes, personally i think they should both be tier 3 ships ... i think we need more choices in each tier. I think most on these bords that are having a problem with the akira/defiant isnt one would beat the other. the problem is the ranking them in 2 different tiers. they should both be in the same tier.



I agree, if you put a Defiant and a Akira together theres gonna be alot of Klingon debris in the Nutrual Zone.

[Vampir888]

They do cite sources. The 15 torpedoes thing comes from an article in the star trek magazine on the Akira where they spoke with the guy who invented it. I think I actually have that one around here somewhere.

You mean this article? Link (http://www.starshipdatalink.net/art/akira.html)


As long as both ships have no modifications it is hard to say which one would win a fight. It depends on luck and skill.

But the Akira has a mass of 3,055,000 metric tons while the Defiant has only 355,000 metric tons (taken from DITL). So the Akira has much more space for equipment and (weapon) upgrades.
To make a long story short... Akira is more versatile and can be used for more missions while the Defiant might be stronger in a tactical sense. In STO both are in the Escort-tree and there tactic is more important. So maybe Defiant has more tac-BO and/or more weaponslots and because of this it is in the higher tier. If that is the case I can live with it as long as Akira has more equipmentslots overall and more engineering/science-BO (Akira bridge is bigger).

[Tain]

I'd say ask the Breen. They have blown up both of them with a single shot :D

[JPJappic]

Tier2 = Miranda(not sure why its even in the game)

They've said a million times that the Miranda is a starter ship.. End of Story.

What in the tiers is not really want this discussion is about per se.. it's more about how the Defiant and Akira should be on the same tier.

[Sawatz]

I like the way cryptic already has it set up. Now those fins on the Discovery I find them a bit too odd.

[Vorgse]

This is Interesting since, in Star Trek Armada, The Akira is like 4 slots higher on the tech tree than the Defiant.

[BreachAndClear]

All of the info in white text that isn't sourced is speculation on the part of the webpage's author. It says this right on the site.

All of the power indices and power outputs are speculations at best. And with how little we see the Akira in action, it's impossible to get any good estimate of how strong it is as an individual ship. With how little time to shine the Akira is given, I have no problem accepting that the Defiant is a stronger ship. The Defiant is depicted as a very powerful ship in hard canon, while pretty much all of the Akira's abilities are depicted in soft canon.

And in the context of STO, I'm not going to count on being able to shoot 15 torpedoes. In Legacy, Akira was depicted as having more torpedo tubes than the other Federation ships - and I can't even say that they were tubes since they loaded one at a time - but that was with 4 forward and 4 aft tubes. I would expect something similar at best, for gameplay purposes.

[blujester]

I love the Akira too... but lets look at the ingame info we have on the sister ships shall we.

Oslo Class (Akira Config)


Class Specifications

Dimensions:

* Overall Length: 371 meters
* Overall Draft: 54 meters
* Overall Beam: 228 meters
* Displacement: 625,000 metric tons

Defensive Systems:

* Advanced Deflector Shield Generators
* Rodinium-Alloy Hull Plating

Velocity:

* Cruising: Warp Factor 7
* Maximum: Warp Factor 9.75

Offensive Systems:

* Six Type XII Phaser Arrays
* Fore and Aft Torpedo Launchers


Vigilant (Defiant configuration)


Class Specifications

Dimensions:

* Overall Length: 180 meters
* Overall Draft: 32 meters
* Overall Beam: 136 meters
* Displacement: 115,600 metric tons

Defensive Systems:

* Reinforced Deflector Shield Generators
* Dual Ablative Armor

Velocity:

* Cruising: Warp Factor 7
* Maximum: Warp Factor 9.5

Offensive Systems:

* Fore and Aft Type XII Phaser Arrays
* Fore and Aft Torpedo Launchers
* Phaser Cannons



This is the tonnage we need to look at not speculative fan fic BS. And these are the weapom loadouts we have to look at as well. Notice the speed difference. Notice the armement. Now we know that the Defiant and Akira are going to be very siniler to these two so we should use these stats in the debate and not some mythical made up crap like the guys in the Galaxy/ Sovy thread who can't get it through their heads that no matter what the web has to say about weapons and power out put, it's whats in the game that counts.


Bj

[JPJappic]

This is the tonnage we need to look at not speculative fan fic BS. And these are the weapom loadouts we have to look at as well. Notice the speed difference. Notice the armement. Now we know that the Defiant and Akira are going to be very siniler to these two so we should use these stats in the debate and not some mythical made up crap like the guys in the Galaxy/ Sovy thread who can't get it through their heads that no matter what the web has to say about weapons and power out put, it's whats in the game that counts.

The point I was trying to show with this thread, which you have missed as well is the fact that the Defiant Class and Akira Classes are very similar ultimately in power but are used very differently in war.

[Osias]

I think Cryptic is on the ball and that we should let them decide which tier to put ships in.

[Manta2015]

I feel that the defiant class ship is designed as a 'knife fighter' it has some longer ranged applications but generally is designed like a fighter, bobbing and weaving into the fray.

Akiras are designed to be mobile weapons platforms with decent long range weaponry.

I think ultimately, the ship that got to stay at its best range would do best. If the Defiant got in close, it'd chew up an Akira, conversely if an Akira can keep its distance, its torpedo loads would rain hurt.

QFT ~ I was late to work so I couldn't elaborate on my post... but this sums up my thoughts perfectly =)


-Manta-

[blujester]

The point I was trying to show with this thread, which you have missed as well is the fact that the Defiant Class and Akira Classes are very similar ultimately in power but are used very differently in war.

And you may notice I did not dispute your opinion at all. In fact I agree that even looking at the game stats for the Oslo and Vigilant it looks like the Oslo has the edge. Unfortunately it has been confirmed by the DEVs that Akira is T2 and Defiant is T3. Personally I plan to fly the nacels off my Akira and when the time comes for a promotion I'll likely slide over into a Nebula just because I know the majority of T3's out there will be Intrepids and Defiants and I refuse to conform to the masses. All I'm asking is, since we already have the sister ship stats IN GAME, we should base our arguements off of those and not fan site BS that has no application in this game. I mean, 15 torpedo slots...Really? Looks like one forward and one aft to me on Both ships. So lets just stick to the stats we know shall we, as these actually do apply.


Bj

[JPJappic]

And you may notice I did not dispute your opinion at all.

I apologize then. I misinterpreted what you said.

It's hard to compare current stats though from current ships as we don't have the specific stats for the Akira and Defiant Classes respectively which is what i'm comparing. We only have their sister ships.

[Kaybok]

Who's willing to bet that once Cryptic releases technical info on all in-game ships that it WILL NOT match all these tech-manual-database web sites and we will end up debating this all over again?? LOL

edit:
I just pulled up the calculations for "Prometheus Class Docked Mode" - 1340 Overall Strength. Since we will have no MVAM in game what tier should the Prometheus be moved to? It's obviously weaker than the Akira & Defiant. I don't care for the Prometheus... too bad Cryptic won't be using this database to determine tier ranks.

[TruthSeer]

And you may notice I did not dispute your opinion at all. In fact I agree that even looking at the game stats for the Oslo and Vigilant it looks like the Oslo has the edge. Unfortunately it has been confirmed by the DEVs that Akira is T2 and Defiant is T3. Personally I plan to fly the nacels off my Akira and when the time comes for a promotion I'll likely slide over into a Nebula just because I know the majority of T3's out there will be Intrepids and Defiants and I refuse to conform to the masses. All I'm asking is, since we already have the sister ship stats IN GAME, we should base our arguements off of those and not fan site BS that has no application in this game. I mean, 15 torpedo slots...Really? Looks like one forward and one aft to me on Both ships. So lets just stick to the stats we know shall we, as these actually do apply.


Bj

Even after the promotion you could possibly stay with the Akira for a while.

[blujester]

Who's willing to bet that once Cryptic releases technical info on all in-game ships that it WILL NOT match all these tech-manual-database web sites and we will end up debating this all over again?? LOL

Thats what I've been saying all along.. The guys in the Sovy vs Galaxl thread are actually ray traceing modules to compute mass and pulling numbers out of ten different sources to bolster their arguement and it's all pointless. We don't have the ingame stats for the Galaxy and the stats for the NX are way off what they claim the Sovy has.

Here we at least have a base for comparison. The likely difference between the Defiant and the Vigilant will be seat araingment only. On will have an extra Eng. where the other has an extra Science or something like that. The Defiant will almost certainly be armed and spec'd just the same as the Vigilant. Same for Oslo and Akira. BO seats will be the difference between the sisters and the tiers. And that is all. From the looks of the stats the Oslo out guns and out runs the Vigilant. But the Vigilant being a T3 means it gets another seat and it's seats will allow a higher level of skill. Does this make the Oslo weaker... maybe...but not at first. Only when the skills come into play and as I've said a million times, the best skills in the world are pointless if poorly used. The Captain wins the fight, not the tier of the ship.


Bj

[Piotrek]

Thats interesting it does not mention the defiants mine layer launchers in that armament. In one episode of DS9 the defiant took out a Flagship i cant think of the name or race but it was just by itself. Yes it was in the middle of fleet combat so it wasn't the ships primary target but still. The defiant flew in between the opening of the ship wings right around the warp nacelles i think they were from both sides launched like 3-4 mines each and a split second later boom all of them hit the ship and its down for the count.

[blujester]

Even after the promotion you could possibly stay with the Akira for a while.

That will be a given as I'll have to skill up T1 and T2 cruiser before I can take the T3 Nebula. So my Akira will get maxed to it's limits and beyond. I'll fly it 'til it just can't perform in solo missions at the skill level I need. But thats just me.



Bj

[blujester]

Thats interesting it does not mention the defiants mine layer launchers in that armament. In one episode of DS9 the defiant took out a Flagship i cant think of the name or race but it was just by itself. Yes it was in the middle of fleet combat so it wasn't the ships primary target but still. The defiant flew in between the opening of the ship wings right around the warp nacelles i think they were from both sides launched like 3-4 mines each and a split second later boom all of them hit the ship and its down for the count.

The devs have mentioned Mines as a skill your BO's and possibly you can get so it will be dependent on modules and skills not which ship you fly. Akira might just get mines too :) .


Bj

[Khern]

While I looked at the "point-statistics" given after the general armament description, I disagree with them.

Basically, the Akira is a much larger design. At best the Defiant is 170 meters long. Some estimations put it at 120 meters long. The Akira class 420-430 meters long. So how does length matter I hear you wonder. The Akira also has more decks. Basically this enables the ship to carry a larger and more powerful warp core.

And the Akira is not merily a support ship, it is a combat cruiser. The Defiant was never a cruiser. It was meant to be Deep Space 9's own defensive ship and mission runner. While I agree the Defiant probably has more firepower in its phaser armament, the Akira's armament would be more omnidirectional, while the Defiant would need to basically point itself towards the target. The Akira would be able to fire its phasers continuously, while the Defiant would have to turn and maneuver to get a good shot.

The probable difference in Warp Core power, as well as the size of the Deflector Dish, would hint that the Akira has a larger and more powerful shield, not weaker shield, than the Defiant. I am contradicting the given"point-statistics" here. I fully believe the shields of the Akira would be able to absorb more, not less, damage.

The Hull Armor of the Defiant is possibly greater than that of the Akira. Yet this would not be quite as telling as one could imagine. A direct hit from a photon torpedo would be disastrous to the small ship, if its shields were down. The larger hull of the Akira, while not quite as well armored, could suffer greater integrity loss due to its size alone. Thereby the Akira would take longer to destroy once the shields were down. If the armor of the Defiant gives any specific advantage, it would make the ship resistant to phaser fire, thereby harder to disable.

Overall the ships are very evenly matched. Firepower and agility against tactical superiority and longevity. The outcome would not be a given and I will not state one ship is truly superior. I will however take the "coward's path" and say the victory would go to the captain that could command his ship to the best of his ability.

[Angelphoenix12]

yes, personally i think they should both be tier 3 ships ... i think we need more choices in each tier. I think most on these bords that are having a problem with the akira/defiant isnt one would beat the other. the problem is the ranking them in 2 different tiers. they should both be in the same tier.

i too wouldnt have a problem this this either. :)

[Liberty]

Well.... From a common sense standpoint, the Akira is going to have a larger engine room, significantly larger engineering and repair crews, and more space available for refit of new or alien technology. Logic would dictate that a larger engine room would provide more power to weapons, shields, and engines.

However, I would give the Defiant significantly more maneuverability and it would be a difficult target to hit as demonstrated by its ability to get in close and take on a large Klingon Cruiser.

[Styles]

I would say both perform on a equivalent level but in complete different ways. We should not discuss what ship performs better we should discuss how well both would perform together.

And a sidenote... regardles of how well one of the ships performs I would always chose the one I like more.

[Liberty]

I would say both perform on a equivalent level but in complete different ways. We should not discuss what ship performs better we should discuss how well both would perform together.

And a sidenote... regardles of how well one of the ships performs I would always chose the one I like more.


I wish that were true. Alas. I think I can only take the poor little Tier 0 Miranda so far. Perhaps I can pray for a Tier 1 version Miranda as a preorder bonus. But I do agree that you should captain a ship that you like over stats.

[Styles]

The Miranda is one of my favorites too, would be great if we could "upgrade" it to a Soyuz class ship.
There are a lot classes to chose from and I like arround 50% of them with the most pre TNG.

Some more infos about Klingon ships would be nice. Closed Beta is near and we dont have much infos about most of the ships. I have hopes to get my hands on an upgraded D5.

BTT: I think both together would perform very well and its an MMO right? The more ships with different combat roles = better chance to win a fight.

[Eclipse1987]

I don't think that the power diffrence will be that big & with a certain amount of 'tier crossing' from 2-3 they should be pretty close.

personally Imo defiant>akira, that said I wouldn't care too much if they were switched as long as prometheus is @ t4.

side note: anyone else notice that all the t3 ships are tng era tv show hero ships?

[Kayos]

I don't think that the power diffrence will be that big & with a certain amount of 'tier crossing' from 2-3 they should be pretty close.

personally Imo defiant>akira, that said I wouldn't care too much if they were switched as long as prometheus is @ t4.

side note: anyone else notice that all the t3 ships are tng era tv show hero ships?

Thats so everyone can still fly their favorite ships from the tv shows and they will still be decent.

[Banar]

The problem I have with the Oslo - Defiant comparison, and how they portray the Oslo as the "sister ship" to the Akira... basically according to pretty reliable sources the Akira is MUCH larger than the Oslo. Length ~+90m, Draft ~+30m, Beam ~+90m, with a metric tonnage more than quadruple that of the Oslo. Source: http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Akira_class

I'm not sure if Cryptic intends to basically shrink the Akira, which I would be completely against.

It would be ridiculous to have a Heavy Cruiser with a weaker shield output than a "tactical escort.," not to mention the figures given for the phaser output... 70,000 for the Defiant compared the the 17,500 for the Akira are completely nonsensical, the main arrays on the Akira are each much longer than the Defiant itself.

If Cryptic decides to go with a more typical torpedo arrangement with the Akira as I think they will judging by the armament of the Oslo, than I'm confident that it will have more than 3 arrays anyways.

I'm of the opinion that the Akira and Defiant should have their tiers switched, though I believe they are relatively close to each other in performance.

The question I will close with is this: If Starfleet has the ability to build a warship more powerful than the Akira (and by extension almost all other designs/classes) in such a small, cheap package... why build any other combat vessel?

[Kayos]

I guess we will have to wait until Cryptic releases all the ship classes and stats to find out.

[klingon1021]

I guess we will have to wait until Cryptic releases all the ship classes and stats to find out.

Thats the only way were gonna find out, you can guess all you want but its not gonna make a difference in the end.

[steelsocks]

got to admit i was surprised to see the akira so low in the ship teirs, you could arguee the fact that one class is better than the other all day, but i deffenatly think the akira should be considered one of the strongest combat ships in the federation. maybe it doesnt matter that much which tier you can access it in. (possibly saving higher teirs for the more tv famous designs i guess) but i dont think they should down grade the akiras abilittes as a combat vessal just so they can fill the lower teirs. the ship should remain true to what the majority think about the akira, a hard hitting, damage absorbing, fairly fast moving (has got four impulse engines) battlecurser. much like its balance agenst the soverign and galaxy in bridge coommander realy, thought they ahd it bout right there. what do you recon?

[mezlabor]

Whats with everyone necroing ancient threads about ship balance today. This is like the third or fourth "my ships is better then yous" thread necroed today.

[cruel_cynic]

I would prefer the defiant.

[Deadeye31]

Whats with everyone necroing ancient threads about ship balance today. This is like the third or fourth "my ships is better then yous" thread necroed today.

Do you want this or the first or second post in a new topic providing a link to this and chastising the guy for making a topic about a previous discussion.

[mezlabor]

Do you want this or the first or second post in a new topic providing a link to this and chastising the guy for making a topic about a previous discussion.

I'm just saying today all of a sudden we've seen the people arguing over the galaxy and sov necro that thread and now this one and another one about klingon ship tiers all necroed today and not even by the same person, It's just weird.

[cocoa-jin]

Memory Alpha doesnt have much on weapon outputs, but both ship classes posses the same warp core, and likly similar core outputs.

I'd assume that both ships would put out roughly the same beam damage over time and have similar max shield output(both class were produced at the same shipyard around the same time apparently). MA only shows the Akira with two standard torp tubes(not 15), with the Defiant having more tubes(though its referenced as having only 2 tubes and 6 tubes) with the ability to launch quantum torps.

MA states the Defiant's pulse cannons as only almost as powerful as the disruptors on the BoP...I have a hard time believing the Akira isnt able to match a BoP's pair of disruptor output with its supposed 6 Type-X phasers.

Any other ship stats from anything other source other than MA would have to be, in my opinion, considered dubious at best.

[david1247]

well I did some research on phaser on memory alpha, and found this

source: http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Phaser

Type V phaser is used on auxiliary craft. In Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual it is stated that type 7 shuttlecrafts and type 9A cargo shuttles use phaser emitters of this type during special operations. According to Star Trek: Starship Spotter the Chaffee shuttlepod and the Delta Flyer also uses this phaser type.
Type VI phaser is used on auxiliary craft and runabouts. According to the Star Trek: Starship Spotter the Aeroshuttle and Danube-class starships phaser arrays are of this type.
Type VII phaser is used on starships. According to the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Technical Manual and Star Trek: Starship Spotter the twin phaser banks on Miranda-class starships are of this type.
Type IX phaser is used on starships. According to the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Technical Manual the Ambassador-class, Centaur-type, Curry-type, and one type of Excelsior-class variant uses them. The phaser emitters in the rotary weapon arrays of the weapon sail towers of Deep Space 9 are of this type.
Type X phaser is used on starships. According to Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual this is the type name of the phaser arrays used on the Galaxy-class starships. According to the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Technical Manual the Akira-class, Norway-class, Nebula-class, Saber-class, Soyuz-class and one type of Constitution-class variant also use them. The fixed phaser emitters in weapon sail towers of Deep Space 9 are of this type. According to Star Trek: Starship Spotter the Intrepid-class and Nova-class also use them.
Type X+ phaser is used for planetary defense. According to Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual this is the designation of some large dedicated planetary phaser defense emitters.
Type XI phaser is used normally for planetary defense. According to the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Technical Manual the emitters were designed to minimize atmospheric blooming of the beam. The phaser emitters in the carriages, embedded into the habitat ring of Deep Space 9, are of this type, modified for use in space.
Type XII phaser is used on starships. According to Star Trek: Starship Spotter this is the type designation of the phaser cannons of the Defiant-class starships and the standard beam phaser arrays of the Prometheus-class and Sovereign-class starships.
None of these type designations have been mentioned on screen.

I guess cryptic when with the who had the bigger gun :-)

[cocoa-jin]

well I did some research on phaser on memory alpha, and found this

source: http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Phaser

Type V phaser is used on auxiliary craft. In Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual it is stated that type 7 shuttlecrafts and type 9A cargo shuttles use phaser emitters of this type during special operations. According to Star Trek: Starship Spotter the Chaffee shuttlepod and the Delta Flyer also uses this phaser type.
Type VI phaser is used on auxiliary craft and runabouts. According to the Star Trek: Starship Spotter the Aeroshuttle and Danube-class starships phaser arrays are of this type.
Type VII phaser is used on starships. According to the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Technical Manual and Star Trek: Starship Spotter the twin phaser banks on Miranda-class starships are of this type.
Type IX phaser is used on starships. According to the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Technical Manual the Ambassador-class, Centaur-type, Curry-type, and one type of Excelsior-class variant uses them. The phaser emitters in the rotary weapon arrays of the weapon sail towers of Deep Space 9 are of this type.
Type X phaser is used on starships. According to Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual this is the type name of the phaser arrays used on the Galaxy-class starships. According to the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Technical Manual the Akira-class, Norway-class, Nebula-class, Saber-class, Soyuz-class and one type of Constitution-class variant also use them. The fixed phaser emitters in weapon sail towers of Deep Space 9 are of this type. According to Star Trek: Starship Spotter the Intrepid-class and Nova-class also use them.
Type X+ phaser is used for planetary defense. According to Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual this is the designation of some large dedicated planetary phaser defense emitters.
Type XI phaser is used normally for planetary defense. According to the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Technical Manual the emitters were designed to minimize atmospheric blooming of the beam. The phaser emitters in the carriages, embedded into the habitat ring of Deep Space 9, are of this type, modified for use in space.
Type XII phaser is used on starships. According to Star Trek: Starship Spotter this is the type designation of the phaser cannons of the Defiant-class starships and the standard beam phaser arrays of the Prometheus-class and Sovereign-class starships.
None of these type designations have been mentioned on screen.

I guess cryptic when with the who had the bigger gun :-)

Good find, I was looking for something like that. So now we need to determine if phaser type equates to a fixed output...or if other systems or sub-systems of the phasers determine normal output of the phaser.

It has been suggested that a Type-X on one ship class doesnt mean equal outputs on another ship class. We generally assume bigger types mean more bang...but it might mean something altogether. These arent increasingly larger caliber projectiles for which their power is derived by the munition loaded, but instead energy weapons that derive their output from the power the ship itself is capable of delivering to the emittor.

The various types could be indications of other improvements other than just output(especially with respect to a fixed output), it could be the ability to fire as bolts instead of beams, the rate of fire, the cool down period/heat resiliency, the tracking speed of the emittor, etc.

That is the info I'd like to see...and then see it applied to each ship in order to determine the combat values between the two ships.

[Disgaea]

I'd peg the defiant as a heavy hitter when it comes to taking out shields, then when paired with the Akira, for a massive torpedo salvo to finish the enemy off. Good little fleet would be two defiants and an akira. WIN.

[dsteve3]

I see many posts that talk about the size difference between the two ships, but have you noticed that the two configurations are very different in their size?

Here's Suricata's Chart (http://suricatasblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/stoshiptierchart9.png) detailing the different classes in their respective configurations by tier.

The thing that stands out to me is that tier two tactical ships are heavy escorts, while tier three tac's are tactical escorts. All tier two's are big, while all tier threes are small. Why is that? Why have a higher ranked officer in a smaller ship? The Akira is even bigger than the heavy cruisers! I wonder how the Engineers feel about that, ...

It boggles my mind that a ship that is essentially ~1/10 the mass can have approximately the same fire-power.

I can understand the OP's confusion with this tier system. If I were building a fleet, I would want both heavy and tactical escorts for separate roles. However, I suspect that this is the whole point. Maybe the heavy escorts have an easier time of it in an engagement? I suspect the real differences will shine when we see the module options and the stations.

Just my guess, but the differences between the tiers is too flagrant to ignore. They have obviously meant this to be this way.

[claydermunch]

The Defiant got whooped by the lakota, an Excelsior refit.
Sure the defiant hit back hard but in the end it was a fight that would have gotten both ships destroyed.


So... The Akira. modern warship... a hurm.....





As for the 15 torpedo tubes... i call BS on that.



How many times did the Enterprise and voyager NOT have power for even ONE photon tube?
How the fck is the akira supposed to power 15 of them? Does it carry a few extra warpcores in a trolly behind it?

I strongly urge you t olook at pictures of the akira, you can more or less clearly see:

2 very large phaser arrays, and 4 torpedo tube like thingys, aranged miranda style on the top pylon. That means that 2 more tubes are facing aft, making it 6 all together and much more realistic.




And it would win vs the defiant, simply based on the fact that they both are from the same technological generation and that the akira is bigger. And bigger indeed means better overall (if both ship vs. ship contestants are on the same technological level).

The Lakota was about to turn the fight into a death/death situation. The akira, with its frame and overall design concept based on the same generation as the defiant is more or less assured to turn it into a "get beat up but win" situation for itself.




As for STO:

Im pretty sure the small escorts trade in durability for agility in an effort to make use of weapon arcs.
Or they get a dodge modifier. we have to see.

[playoff52]

I see many posts that talk about the size difference between the two ships, but have you noticed that the two configurations are very different in their size?

Here's Suricata's Chart (http://suricatasblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/stoshiptierchart9.png) detailing the different classes in their respective configurations by tier.

The thing that stands out to me is that tier two tactical ships are heavy escorts, while tier three tac's are tactical escorts. All tier two's are big, while all tier threes are small. Why is that? Why have a higher ranked officer in a smaller ship? The Akira is even bigger than the heavy cruisers! I wonder how the Engineers feel about that, ...

It boggles my mind that a ship that is essentially ~1/10 the mass can have approximately the same fire-power.

I can understand the OP's confusion with this tier system. If I were building a fleet, I would want both heavy and tactical escorts for separate roles. However, I suspect that this is the whole point. Maybe the heavy escorts have an easier time of it in an engagement? I suspect the real differences will shine when we see the module options and the stations.

Just my guess, but the differences between the tiers is too flagrant to ignore. They have obviously meant this to be this way.

Well considering the Defiant design scheme was rigged so that the pulse cannons *which already hit for a 2 digit percentage value greater than beam phasors already* are shunted directly through the ships impulse power.

Look at it this way. Would you give a novice the keys to a Nuclear Warhead Submarine? or give him a slow cruiser to put around in and not cause as much damage if he breaks something?

You put your more experienced people in a harder hitting more efficient weapons platform.

And as far as the Akira being able to destroy a defiant? Depends entireally on the person manning the helm as the vessels have two different attack philosphies.

The Defiant is a destroy type of ship. Lots of forward facing weapons with a mean bite, tough shields, and manueverable as hell.

The Akira is more of a torpedo ship with moderate phasors. Bit faster forward thrust but can't exactly turn on a dime so it has a wider weapon arc to compensate.

Just depends on who's in charge and well they know thier equipment.

[CptKirk]

This is the tonnage we need to look at not speculative fan fic BS. And these are the weapom loadouts we have to look at as well. Notice the speed difference. Notice the armement. Now we know that the Defiant and Akira are going to be very siniler to these two so we should use these stats in the debate and not some mythical made up crap like the guys in the Galaxy/ Sovy thread who can't get it through their heads that no matter what the web has to say about weapons and power out put, it's whats in the game that counts.


Bj

Wait, are web statistics important or not? On one hand you spell out all the base statistical differences posted and, on the other, you say that whats important is the in-game results. :confused:

[Exocet.]

The thing that stands out to me is that tier two tactical ships are heavy escorts, while tier three tac's are tactical escorts. All tier two's are big, while all tier threes are small. Why is that? Why have a higher ranked officer in a smaller ship? The Akira is even bigger than the heavy cruisers! I wonder how the Engineers feel about that, ...

Just my guess, but the differences between the tiers is too flagrant to ignore. They have obviously meant this to be this way.

Oho, I imagine DS is onto something with this one.

While Cryptic have not graced us with any more details of a more in depth look at the various capabilities of the craft; we can all sit and hypothesize.

I like the idea here that the very class name highlights the difference in behaviour of the ships; with the Akira Tier being more of a heavyweight tanking styled escort (Heavy Escort); while the Defiant Tier is a punchier, more ... uh... tactically minded escort (Tactical).

[A_Martin]

wats ur ship.

Night Elf Mohawk.

[david1247]

yeah The Defiant got whooped by the lakota, an Excelsior refit. but the lakota was refitted with upgrades to weapons beyond the norm for an Excelsior-class ship, including quantum torpedoes. (DS9: "Paradise Lost")
a normal excelsior refitted could not beat a defiant class, but it does show even old design can be modernized and still be effected. also both ships where just going for the disable, tactic and not for the kill.
The resulting engagement was indecisive with both vessels reluctant to do more than attempt to disable the other. (Uss lakota)

I think this is why cryptic has keep our lower vessels to upgrade they to that level.

refit source: http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Refit'
uss lakota source: http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/USS_Lakota

[Nira3686]

As for the 15 torpedo tubes... i call BS on that.



How many times did the Enterprise and voyager NOT have power for even ONE photon tube?
How the fck is the akira supposed to power 15 of them? Does it carry a few extra warpcores in a trolly behind it?

I strongly urge you t olook at pictures of the akira, you can more or less clearly see:

2 very large phaser arrays, and 4 torpedo tube like thingys, aranged miranda style on the top pylon. That means that 2 more tubes are facing aft, making it 6 all together and much more realistic.

Except that the guy who designed the ship said that it was supposed to have 15 launchers. Quote from Alex Jaeger (ILM designer): "This was my gunship/battlecruiser/aircraft carrier. It has 15 torpedo launchers and two shuttlebays; one in front, with three doors, and one in the back. I really got into it with this one, with the whole idea that the front bay would be the launching bay, and then to return they'd come into the back, because they'd be protected by the rest of the ship." Whether this makes sense is secondary, so many things in ST ship design don't make sense.

Also, the uber-geeks at memory-alpha claim they can see all 15 of them, so I am inclined to believe them :D

[RedShirt]

I think the main problem between the ships is that the Defiant was designed to be a "hero" ship. It was designed to be able to take more and give more than a "standard" ship. Where as the Akira was designed as s regular ship, really for one movie, and we all know how underpowered regular starfleet ships are.

It puzzles me how a ship around the same size as an Oberth, can have anywhere near the fire-power to destroy a ship that's most likely had bigger bugs splatted on its viewscreen.

But then again the defiant is filled with uber technology that no other starship is allowed or able to equip. So I fail to see how anybody can complain about the ship the size of an Akira having enough power for 15 torpedo launchers , when the defiant has enough power to power godly shields, armour, torpedos and pulse cannons.

[claydermunch]

Except that the guy who designed the ship said that it was supposed to have 15 launchers. Quote from Alex Jaeger (ILM designer): "This was my gunship/battlecruiser/aircraft carrier. It has 15 torpedo launchers and two shuttlebays; one in front, with three doors, and one in the back. I really got into it with this one, with the whole idea that the front bay would be the launching bay, and then to return they'd come into the back, because they'd be protected by the rest of the ship." Whether this makes sense is secondary, so many things in ST ship design don't make sense.

Also, the uber-geeks at memory-alpha claim they can see all 15 of them, so I am inclined to believe them :D

Bush said iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Never backed up his claims now did he.


So, sure that guy Alex can say whatever he wants: the akira never flung a torpedo barrage our of 15 launchers.

A number that is CLEARLY pulled out of his arse.
just think. 15 Torpedo launchers.

That would instant kill most ships! And i have not seen them instaklling a lot of dominion ships, or fling 15+ torpedos at the borg cube in first contact.


As for the geeks at memory alpha:

Bush said...



They never made an effort to actualy SHOW us where the heck these launchers are supposed to be.

Ot explain how they are supposed to be powered.

They simply go with "jaeger said so, now we just need to bend over..."

[RedShirt]

Ot explain how they are supposed to be powered.

They simply go with "jaeger said so, now we just need to bend over..."

The same way the defiant powers it's weapons/shields.

If a ship the size of the defiant can power 6 torps, then why cant a ship more than double its size, with a larger powersource power 12+?

[claydermunch]

The same way the defiant powers it's weapons/shields.

If a ship the size of the defiant can power 6 torps, then why cant a ship more than double its size, with a larger powersource power 12+?



the most i have seen from the defiant, any defiant, is 3 tubes. 2 forward, one aft.

+ 4 pulse phasers on one array on the top.

[Nira3686]

[insert silly blabber]

I think you have a slight problem making the distinction between reality and fiction. Sorry to burst your bubble, but all that stuff is indeed fictional (as in "not real"). As there are no photon torpedo launchers in existence, it's futile to debate whether any ship could power 15 of them.

And yes, the designer can make up whatever the hell he chooses to, because he's the guy who has been paid for making up that fiction, and it's been approved by the people who own the IP. Whether you decide that it is "unrealistic" doesn't matter at all.

You could argue that it doesn't make sense in a logically consistent ST world, but then again, nothing in there really is logically consistent, mostly again because it is fiction and telling a good story always takes precedence over a logically consistent world.

[Kayos]

In the recent week there has been much debate on where the Akira and Defiant configurations should be placed in relation to each other in the tier trees.

From what I have observed, most people have come to the conclusion that the Akira is better than the Defiant purely by the size difference. In all reality I strongly disagree... but instead of just saying so I will try to prove my point.

First, let's look at the armaments of both ships.

Information is taken from http://www.ditl.org/

Defiant Class
4 x Class I rapid fire phaser pulse cannons
1 x Type X phaser bank, total output 70,000 TeraWatts
3 x Pulse fire quantum torpedo tubes
1 x Probe/photon launcher equivalent to standard photon torpedo tube with 120 rounds

Akira Class
3 x Type X phaser arrays, total output 17,500 TeraWatts
15 x Pulse fire photon torpedo tubes with 300 rounds

Alright, now let's discuss the two.

The Defiant Class is clearly a ship designed for war. It was primarily designed as a way to attack the Borg, the Federation's most dangerous enemy. Not only does it have the powerful pulse cannons, but i can also fire quantum torpedoes. The Defiant is designed for quick strikes / hit and run attacks and this is exemplified by the fact that it has a high maneuverability.

The Akira is also a ship designed for battle but it wages a different kind of war. What it loses with power from its phasers it makes up with its complement of torpedoes. The Akira is designed to stay back and put the pounding on the enemy with its salvo of torpedoes.


Strength Indices
To understand how this works, here is a link to a description of it. http://www.ditl.org/index.php?daymain=/pagcalculator.php?Ship6019

Defiant Class
Beam Firepower : 1,400
Torpedo Firepower : 2,150
Weapon Range and Accuracy : 810
Shield Strength : 880
Hull Armour : 3,400
Speed : 955
Combat Maneuverability : 8,660
Overall: 1,551

Akira Class
Beam Firepower : 350
Torpedo Firepower : 3,750
Weapon Range and Accuracy : 910
Shield Strength : 695
Hull Armour : 640
Speed : 1,203
Combat Manoeuvrability : 1,880
Overall: 1,493

As we can see, the Pulse Cannons from the Defiant do far much more DPS (i hate to use this in this discussion but it's the best word that fits) than the Akira's beam weapons. Again we are shown though that the Akira's torpedoes are where they get the most of their damage from.

Ultimately though, the Defiant only marginally beats the Akira in its capabilities and they are pretty even overall.

They are two different kind of ships with two different kinds of roles in war.

=========================================

In conclusion, I suppose my argument is not to say which one is better than the other.. they are similar with different roles..... what i'm proposing is that both ships possibly be moved to Tier 3, and that some other ship takes the place of the Akira in Tier 2, perhaps the Steamrunner.


This again, you couldn't let it die?
Don't forget that the Akira would have been upgraded to use quantum torpedo by this time so it would put it over the Defiant anyway.

[claydermunch]

I think

I doubt that.

[grimmage]

This again, you couldn't let it die?
Don't forget that the Akira would have been upgraded to use quantum torpedo by this time so it would put it over the Defiant anyway.

Guess you didnt read the OP post date.

[efgrib75]

sto is a mmorpg, it is no "sim starfleet" and no "starfleet flight simulator"! please be a little bit more a gamer, and litte bit less a nerd... ;)

[Sythian]

Simple fact is the Defiant is a short / medium range escort were as the Akira is a medium / long range escort. This is how the teirs should be bracketed.

[DukeNukemTX]

Bush said iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
Never backed up his claims now did he.
Bush said...
They never made an effort to actualy SHOW us where the heck these launchers are supposed to be.
"

god, more ignorent Bush Bashing... The left wing nut jobs are that way ----->

anyway, my 2 cents. The Akira is ment for long range bombardment, the Defiant is ment for up close and personal knock down drag out fights.

[david1247]

Except that the guy who designed the ship said that it was supposed to have 15 launchers. Quote from Alex Jaeger (ILM designer): "This was my gunship/battlecruiser/aircraft carrier. It has 15 torpedo launchers and two shuttlebays; one in front, with three doors, and one in the back. I really got into it with this one, with the whole idea that the front bay would be the launching bay, and then to return they'd come into the back, because they'd be protected by the rest of the ship." Whether this makes sense is secondary, so many things in ST ship design don't make sense.

Also, the uber-geeks at memory-alpha claim they can see all 15 of them, so I am inclined to believe them :D

Technical Manual
The following information of specifications and defenses comes exclusively from the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Technical Manual:
Production Base: ASDB Integration Facility, Antares Fleet Yards, Antares IV.
Type: Heavy Cruiser.
Accommodation: 500 officers and crew; 4,500 personal evacuation limit.
Power Plant: One 1,500 plus Cochrane warp core feeding two nacelles; one impulse system.
Dimensions: Length, 464.43 meters; beam, 316.67 meters; height, 87.43 meters.
Mass: 3,055,000 metric tonnes.
Performance: Warp 9.8 for 12 hours.
Armament: Six type-10 phaser emitters; two photon torpedo launchers.

[DukeNukemTX]

now where did they same that at, and the star trek technical manual states that the Akira has only has this weapon load.


Anybody got a translator?

[david1247]

Anybody got a translator?

sorry about that had other things going on.

the ship designer wanted the akira class to be a gun boat/carrier, but the studio made her into a normal heavy cruiser for star trek first contact.

[Sumoben]

What I don't understand is why everyone automatically assumes that all of the Akira's torpedo tubes are facing forward... For all you know it could be spread out between multiple launchers.

If I recall correctly, I remember reading something about early Akira class ships having all their tubes facing forward, except for the side launchers.

Seven on the Roll bar (First-Contact)
Two on each side for a total of 11.

Then there was a redesign adding four facing to the aft of the Akira.

Although, take this with a grain of salt, as anything anyone says is outdated in terms of STO-era. Being 30 years after Nemesis, Cryptic has alot of leeway for refits.

[Sim_Kill]

Isnt this topic null and void in regards to STO as the akira is in a lower tier than the defiant? I got the impression higher rank = better ships

[Sumoben]

Isnt this topic null and void in regards to STO as the akira is in a lower tier than the defiant? I got the impression higher rank = better ships

Not really, since it has been said that you can upgrade a lower tier ship to the basic abilities of a higher tiered ship.

[david1247]

here is my problem with the this the place that says that the akira has 15 tubes is the ship designer and it form a interview, not no from any technical manual or any other source.

[cocoa-jin]

Except that the guy who designed the ship said that it was supposed to have 15 launchers. Quote from Alex Jaeger (ILM designer): "This was my gunship/battlecruiser/aircraft carrier. It has 15 torpedo launchers and two shuttlebays; one in front, with three doors, and one in the back. I really got into it with this one, with the whole idea that the front bay would be the launching bay, and then to return they'd come into the back, because they'd be protected by the rest of the ship." Whether this makes sense is secondary, so many things in ST ship design don't make sense.

Also, the uber-geeks at memory-alpha claim they can see all 15 of them, so I am inclined to believe them :D

it was also initially conceived as a carrier...but we arent including shuttle figghters as part of its combat stats.

The Akira is what it is in canon...that is a ship that does not posses 15 tubes.

[mayamyth]

here is my problem with the this the place that says that the akira has 15 tubes is the ship designer and it form a interview, not no from any technical manual or any other source.

Technical Manual (particularly the DS9 one) can be wrong though. As evidinced by Ex Astris Scientia evaluation on the Defiant and it's actual size. (http://http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/defiant-problems.htm)

That said, I don't doubt that the execs likely powered down the Akira (just like they decided against the Carrier role it was designed for). Though, if you look at the ship, you CAN actually see all 15 torpedo tubes on both the Concept and CGI models (http://http://drexfiles.wordpress.com/2009/06/12/alex-jaeger-week-the-akira-class/). All of them are on the rollbar pod, except the Port/Starbard tubes located on the top edge of the saucer.

This thread seems to me like it was started not to say "STO Akira is better than STO Defiant" but rather that "STO Akira SHOULD be better than STO Defiant."

Their specifications within the game are irrelevant, as those are the very specifications people are arguing against.

[denarre]

I'd suspect that torpedo launchers don't really cost that much energy to use, in comparison to phasers. Photorps are self propelled, self guided (arguably, as seen in the various media photorps can be guided or spammed dumbfire as the scene demands). While its not canon, I did appreciate one of the better builds of the Akira for Bridge Commander. It had hefty forward arc torpedos and aft firing ones, but also had port/starboard ones which allowed for greater firing arcs.

I guess I can understand the thinking behind the Akira, kinda like how naval ships have missile boats today instead of a heavier allotment of big gun packing ships. Theoretically, if the Akira was supposed to be a missile boat, its strength would be speed and the ability to get more torps out of the tubes faster and in greater salvos than conventional ships.

I'm of the opinion that the Akira as a class should be better than the Defiant, as a class. Its hard to say how well the Defiant class itself did overall. Sure the Defiant itself did well (until it got nuked by that breen weapon) but that was due to its crew, a captain that knew the ship cause he helped build it, and its cloak. It had character shields to spare. Could any other crew have gotten the same out of the ship class? Or would the demands of the ship be too specific? The Akira seems more 'conventional' adn with bigger space and layout, could probably be set for more roles than the Defiant fighter-bomber kinda role.

[DanaDark]

I have always thought the Akira was stronger than the Defiant as the Defiant came first and the Akira was based off the same design idea but for a heavier, larger build.

Although, I'd consider the Akira more of a heavy cruider type rather than a simple escort....

meh, ain't that bad I suppose.

[YoshiSato]

The Akira is an artillery ship.

15x pulse torpedo tubes is going to unless a huge can of whop @$$. :cool:

I think the specs from DLIT are a bit off though. 3x type X phasers on the Akira and the total out put is 1/7th of the Defiants 1 type X phaser? And only 300 torpedo when you have 15 tubes that can fire 1 torpedo every second? :confused:

[50stone]

Also bear in mind that the Akira has extensive shuttle bays and is intended as something of a fighter carrier, none of which is ever used in any game in which it features.

Check out the concept sketches here.
http://www.starshipdatalink.net/art/akira.html

[joecolton]

the defiant would be get the shield down faster so it would probably win but akira would destory the hull quicker

[smithjake]

well is the game stats or star trek stats because you can change weapon load outs and Bos diffrent shields diffrent deflector dish not to menchin the Akira has a bigger crew so repairs are quicker

[decoy26517]

Defiant > NX class starship... I mean Akira.
K'vort > Defiant.