3.1.4 suggestions

posted on December 2nd, 2010, 3:37 am

Adding more carriers strips the Avalon of the only reason people would ever build it, it certainly isn't built for its impressive weapons array and scanning facilities.

The Advanced Shuttle Bays currently used by Risners custom Akira is suitable, preventing the loss of an Avalon from stripping you of your fighters straight away.

posted on December 2nd, 2010, 3:42 am

Actually I know it doesn't seem like it but the Avalon's phaser is remarkably good at swatting down smaller ships.  They work especially well against those ships that have SSEC and therefore have weaker sub systems.  Leahvals and Kvorts both get their systems knocked out frustrating easily because the Avalon can break a system in 1 phaser blast .

posted on December 2nd, 2010, 4:45 am

Actualy Tyler, if it were done like I suggested there would be minimal impact on the Avalon.

You'd need to have chasis lvl3 AND whatever fighter tech there is researched to activate the carrier upgrade for smaller ships, and then the squads are smaller and the fighters take MUCH longer to be replaced when destroyed, they would have nothing near the staying power of the Avalon or other carriers.

posted on December 2nd, 2010, 5:57 am

well if your going to chassis level 3, then why build smaller ships for fighter carries, when you could just build an avalon?

also, im sorry but intrepids and ventures i dont belive could carry fighters, they are too small....

posted on December 2nd, 2010, 7:03 am

Actualy Tyler, if it were done like I suggested there would be minimal impact on the Avalon.

You'd need to have chasis lvl3 AND whatever fighter tech there is researched to activate the carrier upgrade for smaller ships, and then the squads are smaller and the fighters take MUCH longer to be replaced when destroyed, they would have nothing near the staying power of the Avalon or other carriers.

If you can make something like Sovereigns into carriers, the chassis is irrelevent. Those ships are superior to the Avalon. Avalon would be a meaningless construction when you can just refit better ships to do the same job.

posted on December 2nd, 2010, 4:59 pm

There are some interesting points here:

1. Fighters have become much cooler than before with patch 3.14.  A such, people  want them to not be as rare.

2. However, the Star Trek universe keeps its use of fighter-craft to a minimum.  While I think expanding fighter usage is a great idea, it isn't really canon.

3. If the avalon is added to other avatars or fighters are added to other ships, I think we can all agree that the risner avalon should remain the BEST carrier for the feds.

Tok'ra has suggested giving them to several other ships as a refit and capping them.  Ruanek pointed out that this would make carriers too common, and he's right.  Capping the ships will make it so small numbers of them are used, but Ruanek was talking about how often they appear in a game.

Now, I can think of a few options to add more carriers but make them less desirable:

You could make each fighter cost something.  So maybe after a small research, an akira has a special to build a fighter in its civilian bay.  Costs a few supplies, maybe 25/25 resources or more and the akira has one fighter until it dies.  No automatic fighter spawns except for the avalon.  Alternatively, you could give SFC or the starbase a special ability (maybe it costs money, maybe not) and spawns a fighter in the civilian shuttle bay of a friendly ship.  This way they can only get new fighters at your home base and cannot replenish them in the field.

You could give the Avalon itself an ability to transfer a fighter to another ship with civilian shuttle bays, so you still need an avalon but then your whole fleet gets fighters.  Either the bays or the ability itself would need to be an expensive upgrade.

Finally, you could use the refit model or even abandon it entirely and make it a super-tech, a very expensive late-game chassis 3 upgrade that gives fighters to all civilian shuttle bays.

posted on December 2nd, 2010, 6:11 pm

I really like that there is only one carrier and i dont see the point of adding them to other ships. By doing that you take something away from the uniqueness of the avalon. However i do support having an upgrade to the starbase to give it fighters. I also support having an additional ship that the carriers could deploy as a bomber (the runabout comes to mind) If it was a targetable ability it would make up for the avalons lack of an active power.

posted on December 2nd, 2010, 6:15 pm

im sorry but intrepids and ventures i dont belive could carry fighters, they are too small....

Damnit! TOM! GET THE FLYER OUT OF THE SHUTTLE BAY! SOME GUY ON THE INTERNETS SAYS THE BAY IS TOO SMALL!


:p

You could make each fighter cost something.  So maybe after a small research, an akira has a special to build a fighter in its civilian bay.  Costs a few supplies, maybe 25/25 resources or more and the akira has one fighter until it dies.  No automatic fighter spawns except for the avalon.  Alternatively, you could give SFC or the starbase a special ability (maybe it costs money, maybe not) and spawns a fighter in the civilian shuttle bay of a friendly ship.  This way they can only get new fighters at your home base and cannot replenish them in the field.

You could give the Avalon itself an ability to transfer a fighter to another ship with civilian shuttle bays, so you still need an avalon but then your whole fleet gets fighters.  Either the bays or the ability itself would need to be an expensive upgrade.

Finally, you could use the refit model or even abandon it entirely and make it a super-tech, a very expensive late-game chassis 3 upgrade that gives fighters to all civilian shuttle bays.

That'd be fun too.

However I'd also change the name from civillian shuttle bays, that sounds like something on a builder/miner ship.

What I think would be best would be the build internaly option, BUT make it were even then you can only replenish a few times before needing resupply.

And if they become limited, add a 'launch/recover' button for the fighters, since in some smaller fights you wouldnt want to launch/waste them.


Dircome, in DS9 fighters used micro quantum torps. The Runabout isnt a fighter or a bomber, it's just a small warp core, fuel sorce, warp naccles, with a crew compartment bolted on.

[Tyler]

posted on December 2nd, 2010, 6:22 pm

Last edited by Tyler on December 2nd, 2010, 6:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Actually, why is the passive called a Civil Shuttle bay in the first place? They're military ships.

The type of torpedo the fighters used is debatable, they didn't use the effect for Quantums. They looked more like Photons.

Damnit! TOM! GET THE FLYER OUT OF THE SHUTTLE BAY! SOME GUY ON THE INTERNETS SAYS THE BAY IS TOO SMALL!


:p

Hey, Janeway and the crew would never say that! They'd tell the Internet (and reality) to bend over.

Actually, they already do that every episode...

posted on December 2nd, 2010, 8:04 pm

Did, not do, but aside from the tense used I agree.


But yeah, if not the Intrepid class, prehaps the Norway since it IS a giant hanger bay allready, and could likely fit a fighter in it's bay.

[Anonymous]

posted on December 2nd, 2010, 8:37 pm

Last edited by Anonymous on December 2nd, 2010, 8:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Maybe a compromise could be a special for the Avalon call Forward Tactics or maybe Advanced Fighter movements or something like that were the Avalon could redirect its fighters to engage the targets of a ship that has Civilian Shuttle bays and in within Artillery range of the Avalon for a set period of time. That way the fighters could provide a strategic boost to any Akira or Sovereigns in need of a little support while still being the only Carrier ship for the Federation and not being put in the direct line of fire itself.

posted on December 2nd, 2010, 9:01 pm

Far better to just add to starfleet command or a starbase a 'deploy fighters' option, that adds fighters to some ships, giving those ships the option to deploy/recover them.

posted on December 2nd, 2010, 9:06 pm

Actually, why is the passive called a Civil Shuttle bay in the first place? They're military ships.

Its not called that in game they are advanced shuttlebays

posted on December 2nd, 2010, 9:42 pm

This vessel is equipped with modern civil shuttle bays

I see 'civil' in there.

posted on December 2nd, 2010, 9:57 pm

Civil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Civil may refer to:

    * Civic virtue, or civility
    * Civil action, or lawsuit
    * Civil affairs
    * Civil and political rights
    * Civil disobedience
    * Civil engineering
    * Civilian, someone not a member of armed forces
    * Civil law (disambiguation), multiple meanings
    * Civil liberties
    * Civil religion
    * Civil service
    * Civil society