I´ve got some (low priority?) suggestions to improve FleetOp

posted on April 19th, 2011, 11:32 pm

Very simple, the bigger the living areas are on a space craft, the more strength your ship needs to have just to hold in the air pressure.  If you want efficiency, you will not build the living areas any bigger than what is necessary to move around in.  Having 3-man fighters is illogical.  That extra space can be used for torpedo storage.  There's no reason that something like the Intrepid couldn't hold around 2 or 3 thousand people plus an extra 1 or 2 thousand fighter support crews.  Plus the Intrepid has the advantage of not needing a runway.  So it could hold fighters more efficiently than a carrier.

Speaking of which, fighters are limited to an atmosphere because of how things respond to the vacuum of space.  You can just change the orientation of your vessel and its angle of attack remain 0 or even close to 0 (angle of attack or AOA is the vessel's velocity relative to the orientation of the vessel).  You would have to expend a lot of resources to manually reduce the angle of attack to what you want.  Collision avoidance using fighters in space would be next to impossible and any weapons you fire would greatly alter the fighters trajectory.  So star fighters are illogical period.

You have a point on ships needing to be self-sustaining, which furthers the reason to reduce the amount of living space to a minimum.  To increase the amount of supplies that can be carried.

posted on April 19th, 2011, 11:34 pm

A coolness device of course

The Mars Defense was totally unlike any ships we've seen past and present - who knows

Once we begin on the the trail of assumptions there is no stopping it. Take for instance, the D'deridex. We knew its maximum warp speed, and yet we see them in DS9 for some unfathomable reason - so very very far away from Romulan space. Rule of cool is the final word for explanations, and I doubt you - or anyone else that likes to try and make sense of these - will ever find a reason for all the uncomfortable messups in Startrek that is truly satisfactory.  ^-^

posted on April 19th, 2011, 11:37 pm

As I'm sure others mentioned before, the crew don't seem to be factored your efficiency 'calculations'. In fact, I'm positive others have brought it up.

posted on April 19th, 2011, 11:41 pm

Very simple, the bigger the living areas are on a space craft, the more strength your ship needs to have just to hold in the air pressure.

Material strength in trek renders this a non-issue

There's no reason that something like the Intrepid couldn't hold around 2 or 3 thousand people plus an extra 1 or 2 thousand fighter support crews.  Plus the Intrepid has the advantage of not needing a runway.  So it could hold fighters more efficiently than a carrier.

That would require an extenseve redesign for barracks living, for even less wasted space, for a bigger hanger, etc etc. It'd requrie a re-worked ship. A ship so cramped that keeping the crew onboard for any length of time causes issues.

Speaking of which, fighters are limited to an atmosphere because of how things respond to the vacuum of space.  You can just change the orientation of your vessel and its angle of attack remain 0 or even close to 0 (angle of attack or AOA is the vessel's velocity relative to the orientation of the vessel).  You would have to expend a lot of resources to manually reduce the angle of attack to what you want.  Collision avoidance using fighters in space would be next to impossible and any weapons you fire would greatly alter the fighters trajectory.  So star fighters are illogical period.

They fire energy weaponry, have impulse engines, limited warp capacity, etc etc.

I dont think that your arguement against them holds water considering it's star trek.

You have a point on ships needing to be self-sustaining, which furthers the reason to reduce the amount of living space to a minimum.  To increase the amount of supplies that can be carried.

Replicators my man, replicators. Most material can be replicated. Main thing is antimatter and deuterium, to fuel the impulse and warp engines.

posted on April 19th, 2011, 11:44 pm

Who said this fighters need carriers.
They are not like the fighters today. They are not ristrikted in range or amo (exept torpedos) and it is posible to fit a warpdrive into them. I mean, this little warp 10 shuttle build on the Voyager was realy small and was faster on warp then any other Federation starship.
The fighters could be bigger then Shuttles. Give the guys in them something to eat and drink, a chair you can sleep in an a personaly transporter for all the waste of your body . Or if they are big enough a bed.
But I'm not shure if they are realy use more then one pilot. I think they are very similary to these trainingships Crusher crushed. But they also could be based on federation courirships like the Marquieships. This things even had a engeniering section Then they are independend like a runabout.

The fleet is gathering on a starbase and when all are ready the fighters will join. Its not like there are days between gathering an fighting in DS9. So, why there should be carriers.


@TC
Energyweapons have no recoil and torpedos are just like missels. Drop them and then they will start to fly

posted on April 19th, 2011, 11:46 pm

Nadions are particles I believe and at least photons have momentum . Who knows what they do in Startrek 

[Stoned Rhyno]

posted on April 19th, 2011, 11:48 pm

Last edited by Stoned Rhyno on April 19th, 2011, 11:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

For some reason that keeps being refused, but yeah I think it would be awsome.

Im pretty sure that the venture is supposed to be a lot newer than the danube. The Danube runabout is basicly just a shuttle capable of semi-independent operations.

That said being able to get a scout with heavier weapons for shorter sensor range and no cloak detect could be an intersting option, but I'd rather the feds (and the rest of the races really) got balanced better before that were even considerd. That said since all of the klink ships from the starbase to the Negvar are using MICRO photons, prehaps give the regular photons to the runabout ? Would make as much sense as it currently does :p .


Define nemesis refit prehaps ?

>>> If you watch ST Nemesis, you will see the Enterprise has different (or more) weapons. The most recognizeble are the pulse phasers.

It'd also add lag too I bet, tho it'd be hilarious, and a good way to cause people to mistake kvorts for brels (since, at least in TNG/DS9 they are the same model, just with the size changed). It'd be neat to have brel/intrepid get to have nacelles/wings up for a speed boost in return for reduced rate of fire, damage, shield regen rate, but overall not too useful. Kvorts should never move their wings, they'd look too much like the BoP then.


That would make sense if only because the avalon model is so fugly (why does it have a phaser cannon lol), but unfortunitly there is a great hatred for having ships fit in how they should in trek, on the forums at least (if you get in MP you're hear the opposite, and great mocking of the way things were done).

>>> Looks like we broke loose a rather hefty discussion 

Klinks need rework yes, however if their ships are too cheap they'll become the unbeatable race that the federation is currently (since you're new, fly a monsoon class near a starbase, you'll see what I mean :p ). the way its done now, klink ships have extra offense at the expense of defence, the glass cannon syndrome, works good at that.

may be intersting, but only if you have to choose between regenerate and armor. Personaly I dont think it'd work. Besides Borg are getting a total re-work for the next verison, so not much of a point in discussing them til that is out.


Fusion cube was retarded, flops is going for REAL cubes instead. Also if you check out the guide, the command cube will return eventualy.

Ive long thought this would be a good idea, make the addons weaker than the 'starbase' in the center, so poping the addons is a valid tactic prehaps too.


I dobut this will ever happen, the mod revolves arround THEIR characthers and timeline.

And it beats the cannon timeline, what with that stupidity from star trek online, nemesis, enterprise, plus Jar Jar Abrams filth...

Yeah.... a lot of this has allready been suggested. Section 31 is one of the more popular fed ones as an example, oh and sela was never Tal'Shiar, besides (since you started citing memory beta) sela is dead :p

>>> Afaik the last story Sela appeared was "Dead in Winter" and in the end of that story, she was exiled on one of the conquered Romulan slave worlds.

fleet ops really tends to ignore trek were it's easier to do so.

posted on April 19th, 2011, 11:56 pm

Nadions are particles I believe and at least photons have momentum . Who knows what they do in Startrek 

Photons (you mean torpedos?) have a momentum if they are fired from a normal torpedolauncher. But on the other hand Star Trek physics seems to be different or it has something to do with the Impulsedrive.
In real physics things would be possible like the Starfurys in Babylon 5 did. But in Star Trek all fly like they are in an athmosphere. Just think about the only looping the Defaint did. They also could tunr the ship and fly further in the same direction controling the flight with thrusters. But this seems to be imposible in Star Trek .

If you say that a photon (this crude thing that is a particle and energywafe in one what ever. They could have movement. yes.

posted on April 20th, 2011, 12:04 am

I don't know why I bother bringing logic to a Star Trek universe.

posted on April 20th, 2011, 12:07 am

Yup, I mean the particle

posted on April 20th, 2011, 12:07 am

Well you have to remember in star trek they have artificial gravity which would drastically change the way ships move  :thumbsup:

posted on April 20th, 2011, 12:12 am

I don't know why I bother bringing logic to a Star Trek universe.

Neither do I, when trying to proves you're not very good at it.

posted on April 20th, 2011, 12:14 am

I don't know why I bother bringing logic to a Star Trek universe.

1. There was no real logic in your Ideas.
2. Star Trek at its own is illogic but on that the game is based :p

@Stoned Rhyno
In Nemesis the Ent had no pulsephasers. That only where short but normal phaserburst from all phaserstrips to hit something that can not be targeted. It had aft and front photonlaunchers and an quantumtorplauncher at the saucer (which was intended to be turnable).
It was not better equiped then other ships of it class.

@fallout
Yes, but the gravity is IN the ship. They don't use gravimetric drives.

posted on April 20th, 2011, 12:24 am

Speaking of which, artificial gravity wouldn't be possible.  Along with warp drive.  Space, time, and gravity are inter-related.  Change one, you change all three.  A warp field would create gravitational and temporal shockwaves that would destroy everything in its path including the ship producing them.  Probability of success as a propulsion system, 0%.  Probability of success as a weapon, 100% destroying friend and foe alike with no one escaping or surviving.  Oops!  It also means that light inside the warp field would be accelerated greatly due to the temporal changes caused by the warping of space.  If you managed to survive inside a warp field, you would live your life in the blink of an eye.  Don't try any propulsion systems that don't warp space as they will not be able to get to light speed, much less past it.  So thrusters and impulse engines can't do it and warp fields are far too dangerous.

Yes, I am saying that faster than light travel is impossible.

---

And Quatre, there is logic to my ideas.  They just don't conform to what Star Trek would like.

posted on April 20th, 2011, 12:31 am

And thank you for that lesson professor chapman. But I'm going to tell you something and I don't want you to freak out or anything, but its just a show and just a game