Armed mining station

posted on May 6th, 2009, 1:13 pm

Didnt most shipyards and starbases have some sort of weaponry to defend themselves? anyway, what i am proposing is if you have 2 moons in the vicinity of each other and there are the reccomended number of freighters around each, the combined firepower could destroy 2 attacking destroyers with maybe a couple losses. so basically 2 or 3 offensive power. This would help discourage rhienne raids or b'rel bombing runs.

starbases arent very powerful without upgrades...

as for shipyards... their defence is called... SHIPS!!! the things they make to defend themselves...

posted on May 6th, 2009, 1:17 pm

well if anybody remebers, i had the idea a while ago of giving the mining a special ability, just to fend of that borg probe, or to fend off those breals for a second till help arivves, if i remeber my ideas were as follow

borg: get nothing, cus there probe is to powerful

feds: 3 delta flyers can attack one ships

roms: sabotage, and destroy, one ship under idk 15 defense?

kligons: defense phaser (like there contruct, and they already have mining ships turning into war ships, so yeah)

dominion: a bunch of small workerbees and shuttles come out of the bay and ram into a ship,

so yeah.......... just to fend off for a sec, or take out one

al your dieas are pointless, your basically trying to make up for you inability to play...

your ideas fo stalling to calvery arrives basically takes away the whole point of hitting someones mining and defeats the object of an early attack...

ill tell you what why, we dont we arm EVERY STATION and give cloak to starbases free... and then you can have an endless game that never ends because you decided to over power everything to make up for the fact you can cant Learn, Adapt and Conquer....

honestly its not that hard...


i played a game with cbosdell and he hit my mining early on with like 9 bugs and i had about 2 sabers as i was testign risner so i warped in and attacked his, so we both lost our mining, it was a fair battle and got him to retreat his bugs!!!

thats what the games all about, its not that complicated!

posted on May 6th, 2009, 2:51 pm

I've noticed that.  People keep creating new ideas based on the fact that the game is too hard.  if anythng, it should be harder.  a armed mining outpost is an oxy-moron imo

posted on May 6th, 2009, 2:59 pm

I've noticed that.  People keep creating new ideas based on the fact that the game is too hard.  if anythng, it should be harder.  a armed mining outpost is an oxy-moron imo

and these posts tend to come from the same people... 

posted on May 6th, 2009, 4:08 pm

no armed miners and no armed stations please. The sbase is armed as it is a Sbase. But we have turrets for the rest of the sundry stations.

posted on May 6th, 2009, 4:23 pm

Armed Miners might not be a good idea, but why not Klingon Miners? Most important word: Klingon.

It can detach pods to become a K't'inga, why not let it have a low-power version of the Disruptor that ship has?

posted on May 6th, 2009, 4:27 pm

Cos all power is diverted to maintaining the mining beam and the cargo holds. the weapon comes on line once the additional drain is removed by dropping cargo pods and converting.

posted on May 6th, 2009, 4:29 pm

The idea of Klingons diverting any power from a weapon still amazes me.

posted on May 6th, 2009, 4:38 pm

i dunno. 
the idea of a ktinga moonlighting as a miner should then be equally astonishing.

posted on May 6th, 2009, 4:51 pm

i dunno. 
the idea of a ktinga moonlighting as a miner should then be equally astonishing.

wow i agreed with serpicus and gave him a thumbs up...

posted on May 6th, 2009, 4:58 pm

It is still used as a warship, in the form of the K´beajQ. The K´beajQ Class is just a K´t´inga Class with a new name. The weapons are only slightly stronger, the engines are slightly weaker and the look is almost identical.

Mostly, the K´t´inga was renamed, rather than replaced.

posted on May 6th, 2009, 5:02 pm

It is still used as a warship, in the form of the K´beajQ. The K´beajQ Class is just a K´t´inga Class with a new name. The weapons are only slightly stronger, the engines are slightly weaker and the look is almost identical.

Mostly, the K´t´inga was renamed, rather than replaced.

cant be bothered to get in to this... hopefully serpicus will...

posted on May 6th, 2009, 5:03 pm

cant be bothered to get in to this... hopefully serpicus will...

Why post then?

[Anonymous]

posted on May 7th, 2009, 8:01 pm

Last edited by Anonymous on May 7th, 2009, 8:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

im not into continuing this discussion.

It seems to be delving into more of an abstract argument with more hypothetical premises than concrete ones.

However, for the record the Kbeaq is not a K'tinga. It is a more augmented design, with thicker armour.
In effect it is a form of ktinga 2. Surely we cannot compare miranda 2s with miranda 1s and then try to associate abstracts for the miranda 1 by borrowing from miranda 2 specs.

If the kbeaq is a revamped ktinga, it goes to show that the empire has relegated the ktinga to mining and does not consider it to be a combat ship. hence the outfit with storage tanks and a mining beam.

We cannot measure the output of the mining beam and the energy required to maintain the storage tanks.
In effect deriving abstracts about firepwer and what we find to be plausible is irrelevant here.

At the end of the day, the empire is well aware of its ship designs. The fact that the ktinga has to drop its storage and lose its mining beam in order to become a fighting ship demonstrates that this shiop does not have the power to be both even to a lesser degree.

Why not, is something you can take up with a klingon engineer if we ever meet one. we can reproach him for his poor design that cannot retain even a low intensity beam as a miner, but instead needs a full conversion in order to emerge as a warship.

I humbly withdraw from this abstract discussion, but maintain that gameplay is more fun with miners having to transform, and not attempt a useless construction ship style beam.

[Anonymous]

posted on May 7th, 2009, 8:05 pm

Last edited by Anonymous on May 7th, 2009, 8:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Hear hear!