Should the Defiant have an Aft Phaser?

posted on April 18th, 2010, 2:30 pm

Thanks to Myles for the idea of the Poll.

Personally, I'm going to say yes, I lose countless Defiants due to my inability to not be flanked!

posted on April 18th, 2010, 2:37 pm

Yes they should, no they won't. Game roles over canon.

posted on April 18th, 2010, 2:50 pm

You've asked this twice before
Star Trek Armada II: Fleet Operations - Dorsal/Aft phaser for the Defiant?
Star Trek Armada II: Fleet Operations - Defiant Downgrade

And so have others.
Star Trek Armada II: Fleet Operations - Suggestion to the Defiant aft phaser thread

It really doesn't fit the role of the ship in Fleet Operations - units are supposed to have distinct roles and not be omni-everything. Furthermore, strict realism to Star Trek shows/movies isn't going to take precedence either, as we won't have Galaxy classes firing off 10 phaser arrays and 15 photon torpedoes all at the same time (ala Best of Both Worlds). 

posted on April 18th, 2010, 5:21 pm

Yeah I'm with the nay-sayers.  I'd rather the Defiant's get a better-looking pulse aesthetic before an aesthetic phaser.

posted on April 18th, 2010, 5:23 pm

I agree with Dom's point. However, If a Aft defense was added ( say a  droppable mine or Phaser) Ide prefer it to be  dogfight range. Implimentation that way It would not  be  a false sense of security in it's use . yes it would de help but not much. Since the Difiant clas is the  Feds version of a A Klingon Brel/Kvort . Pure flying gunship ment to atttack head on !

posted on April 18th, 2010, 5:24 pm

I agree with Dom's point. However, If a Aft defense was added ( say a  droppable mine or Phaser) Ide prefer it to be  dogfight range. Implimentation that way It would not  be  a false sense of security in it's use . yes it would de help but not much. Since the Difiant clas is the  Feds version of a A Klingon Brel/Kvort . Pure flying gunship ment to atttack head on !

agreed 100%

posted on April 18th, 2010, 5:35 pm

Yeah but ... I dunno ... I just don't see it being useful enough to matter ....  and I know that's not really a hard REASON not to add it, but I just feel like really the Defiant would need a more extensive redo if it was going to be changed to a true "gunboat" status.

  With the pulses, the quantums on lvlup, and then a phaser just for aft .... I think it would appear a little messy to me .

posted on April 18th, 2010, 6:34 pm

The Defiant doesn't need it imo. It's whole angle is based on the fact that it has an unusually high forward firepower compared to most ships of it size. Now what I'd prefer to see, is a little more aesthetic accuracy. So rather than it just sitting there firing its pulse, it ducks in and out of combat.

I know it's been balanced to reflect this behind the scenes but it'd be nice to see that balance reflected in the way it conducts itself on the battlefield. Of course, that topic has been discussed before as well and is on the not too recent todo I believe.

posted on April 18th, 2010, 6:50 pm

well first id like to say, the feddies are such that almost every ship would and does fire in a 360 degree ark, the defiant however.... i dont think i see it with a full on phaser on the back, maybye a pooint defense phaser, or an aft torpedo though....

posted on April 18th, 2010, 7:06 pm

In canon, it has 2 standard Phasers to cover both front and back arcs, along with above and below. The aft Phaser would deviate from its in-game purpose, while the foward one would require a rebalance.

posted on April 18th, 2010, 7:23 pm

if there was an aft phaser for the defiant it would have to be so weak it didnt matter, purely just for looking good, slow reload low power etc.

posted on April 18th, 2010, 7:25 pm

I think it's rather stupid to have weapons without any effect. It's like those weak turrets which don't do a lot of damage but which look threatening. It's just a stupid decoy which disturbs your playing instincts.

posted on April 18th, 2010, 7:28 pm

lawl, but it looks nice

EDIT: it would work ok against those fighters

posted on April 18th, 2010, 8:03 pm

hm now there is an idea, a ship with the sole purpose of being anti fighter....

posted on April 18th, 2010, 10:17 pm

Yeah sure why not? I think that makes good sense. The "real" version had an aft firing beam phaser why not the game version.