Shuttlecrafts

posted on January 5th, 2012, 6:44 am

This brings up the comparison of a fighter to a shuttle, well then I would argue the inclusion of a shuttle over a fighter makes sense, as shuttles are encountered throughout star trek, while fighters are barely included throughout the entirety of trek.

We see them, yes, but we see fighters in combat. Have you ever passed a marina, seen a yacht, and thought to yourself: "I've sure seen a lot of yachts around. Why don't people rig them up to attack aircraft carriers?" You haven't, because it's a really dumb idea.

Thinking outside the box is good, but oftentimes boxes exist for a reason.

posted on January 5th, 2012, 8:50 am

There is no need to resort to name calling, unless you need to in order to make your arguments?

[Redshirt]

posted on January 5th, 2012, 8:59 am

Last edited by Redshirt on January 5th, 2012, 9:19 am, edited 1 time in total.

Name calling? I have said nothing about you. I do note that you didn't dispute the point behind the last post.

-edit-

To further clarify (as I feel is important here), I detailed an idea and called it dumb - while the link to your idea was implied, it wasn't stated outright - nor are your ideas the same thing as you as an individual. Pointing out the obvious foolishness of a notion is a far cry from name-calling.

Conversely, your subtle jab at me in your reply - that I require underhanded tactics to further my viewpoints - is an ad hominem, as it attempts to diminish an argument by attacking the credibility of the person behind them.

-edit2-

Hehe, boy am I coming off as an asshole in this thread 

Yes, I'm being zealous against what I feel is a very bad idea - tainted to the core, in fact. Nonetheless, I don't think less of you or anyone else for advocating an idea. That would be silly.

posted on January 5th, 2012, 9:58 am

Calm down guys. It's about shuttles.

posted on January 5th, 2012, 10:25 am

Hm. On the topic of shuttles, I remember one of the options in SFCII was to load up a shuttle with explosives and use it as a literal proxy torpedo. This would make an interesting damage-dealing ability for a unit that would logically possess many *cough*AVALON*cough*, so long as it comes with a not-insignificant supply cost to preserve the desperation of the tactic.

posted on January 5th, 2012, 12:29 pm

Hm. On the topic of shuttles, I remember one of the options in SFCII was to load up a shuttle with explosives and use it as a literal proxy torpedo. This would make an interesting damage-dealing ability for a unit that would logically possess many *cough*AVALON*cough*, so long as it comes with a not-insignificant supply cost to preserve the desperation of the tactic.

I could see klingons doing that for sure. but the federation woulden't do that unless they had some sort of auto pilot...But they have photons for that job.

posted on January 5th, 2012, 4:35 pm

Calm down guys. It's about shuttles.

Indeed it's best we all agree to add Danube as a multi mission platform and a Fed-Borg Intrepid which spawns Delta Flyers.

We can keep the option of flying a Runabout filled with explosives from a star base open as a last resort Weapon of Mass Destruction (Danube-dreadnought missile).

The debate seems to focus on two items:
1. Reducing the 100% beam weapon hit rate to allow for better survivability of smaller craft (including possible addition of Runbout/Shuttles). Personally i am in favor of this proposal especially since any graphical bugs can certainly be worked out.

Those against fear those graphical bugs and believe a reduction will destroy beam weapons completely making them a laughing stock like in Star Wars.

2. Adding smaller craft than the current Saber, Rhien and Bug is seen as introducing Star Wars Like fighter. In my option such small craft can be very interesting if they are allowed to be modified for various missions. Scouting, hunting scouts, dropping sensors/mines/jammers, fast low capacity miners and so forth.

Adaptability is a quality of it's own. If they were pure combat I'd agree with the opposition that the Runabouts/Shutles are useless, but the proposed multi functionality sets those shuttles/runabouts apart from those vessels currently in the game. IMO the devs should go for it.

posted on January 5th, 2012, 11:22 pm

Indeed it's best we all agree to add Danube as a multi mission platform and a Fed-Borg Intrepid which spawns Delta Flyers.

We can keep the option of flying a Runabout filled with explosives from a star base open as a last resort Weapon of Mass Destruction (Danube-dreadnought missile).

The debate seems to focus on two items:
1. Reducing the 100% beam weapon hit rate to allow for better survivability of smaller craft (including possible addition of Runbout/Shuttles). Personally i am in favor of this proposal especially since any graphical bugs can certainly be worked out.

Those against fear those graphical bugs and believe a reduction will destroy beam weapons completely making them a laughing stock like in Star Wars.

2. Adding smaller craft than the current Saber, Rhien and Bug is seen as introducing Star Wars Like fighter. In my option such small craft can be very interesting if they are allowed to be modified for various missions. Scouting, hunting scouts, dropping sensors/mines/jammers, fast low capacity miners and so forth.

Adaptability is a quality of it's own. If they were pure combat I'd agree with the opposition that the Runabouts/Shutles are useless, but the proposed multi functionality sets those shuttles/runabouts apart from those vessels currently in the game. IMO the devs should go for it.

Intrepids with Delta Flyers doesn't sound bad until you remember that the Delta Flyer is larger than the Intrepid's shuttle bay doors, and two simply won't fit. Two small fighters based on the Delta Flyer? That might work.

The Feds would never use a Danube as a missile when they can use a cheaper shuttle for the same effect.

I still don't buy the Danube as some revolutionary multi-use wunderkind. They can scout, but we have scouts, and scouting is what they do best. As for scout hunting, having a dedicated scout hunter would alter the balance significantly be making it even harder for non-cloaking races to keep tabs on their opponents. That is a bad thing. Danubes are too small to carry things like mines and deployable jammers. They could act as minor ECM ships, but they would be auto-targeted into oblivion before they could do anything. They're also too small to carry any worthwhile amount of resources.

Frankly, this "multi-role" nature is nonsense. They have no role that sets them apart from anything else in the game.

As for the beam nerf, the saving grace of beam weaponry is that they deal reliable damage. You desire to make them unreliable, all to give these smaller craft "better survivability". I am most certainly not okay with a broad, far-reaching nerf for an inane reason. To add insult to injury, you haven't even mentioned four of the five races! Nothing screams "BAD IDEA" quite like a Fed-exclusive proposal.

[Andre27]

posted on January 6th, 2012, 12:36 am

Last edited by Andre27 on January 6th, 2012, 12:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

Intrepids with Delta Flyers doesn't sound bad until you remember that the Delta Flyer is larger than the Intrepid's shuttle bay doors, and two simply won't fit. Two small fighters based on the Delta Flyer? That might work.

The Feds would never use a Danube as a missile when they can use a cheaper shuttle for the same effect.

I still don't buy the Danube as some revolutionary multi-use wunderkind. They can scout, but we have scouts, and scouting is what they do best. As for scout hunting, having a dedicated scout hunter would alter the balance significantly be making it even harder for non-cloaking races to keep tabs on their opponents. That is a bad thing. Danubes are too small to carry things like mines and deployable jammers. They could act as minor ECM ships, but they would be auto-targeted into oblivion before they could do anything. They're also too small to carry any worthwhile amount of resources.

Frankly, this "multi-role" nature is nonsense. They have no role that sets them apart from anything else in the game.

As for the beam nerf, the saving grace of beam weaponry is that they deal reliable damage. You desire to make them unreliable, all to give these smaller craft "better survivability". I am most certainly not okay with a broad, far-reaching nerf for an inane reason. To add insult to injury, you haven't even mentioned four of the five races! Nothing screams "BAD IDEA" quite like a Fed-exclusive proposal.

Lol.  I think we have not agreed on anything this whole topic.

Delta Flyers + Intrepid: Size inconsistencies are common in Star Trek and the actual size of the DF is not known so no problems there.

Danube with explosives: Danube has more cargo space so more room for explosives and/or additional shield generators.  Shuttles would be cheaper, but if you're desperate enough to fill a Runabout with explosives and send it out on remote control then you'll want to get the biggest bang for the buck. Danube is not such a bad idea with this in mind.

Usefulness of multi functionality has been tossed back and forth a number of times now. I'd prefer if we both agreed that my point of view was far superior, but history has shown it's probably best that we agree to disagree 

Even with a decrease in hit rate beam weapons will stay the most reliable weapons in FO.
It's certainly a bonus (IMO) that a decrease in hit rate increases the odds of small vessels such as scouts and runabouts, but the main concern is that a 100% hit rate independent of speed, vessel size and range (amongst other things) is insane to use your own phrase.

As for the insult of the other 4 races: Each has an advantage of their own such as cloaks, production, adapted photon torpedoes with 100% hit chance and so forth. A small generalist vessel such as a Danube will not make a difference.

posted on January 6th, 2012, 5:02 am

I just like shuttles

posted on January 6th, 2012, 8:36 am

Lol.  I think we have not agreed on anything this whole topic.

[snip]

A small generalist vessel such as a Danube will not make a difference.

We do agree on exactly one point, and it's the best argument against the danube so far.

posted on January 6th, 2012, 11:33 am

We do agree on exactly one point, and it's the best argument against the danube so far.

Too bad you quoted me out of context.
To use a WW2 example: MTB's were not a match against Corvettes, Destroyers and Cruisers. They did play a vital role though in the war in Europe and the Pacific. They were far from useless.

The Borg have their highly capable runabout sized ship with never missing torpedoes, the Romulans and Klingons have cloaks and the Dominion out produces everyone. In that context a multi purpose Danube does not make a difference.

posted on January 6th, 2012, 12:25 pm

shuttlecraft are not built for a combat role. they are "capable" of combat but that is not there intended task. fighters on the other hand are built for combat and are not recommended for transporting 3-4 people from starbase to starbase. the delta flyer is more similar to a venture class scout and the Danube is just a more capable class 2 shuttle .....faster ,stronger ,more cargo ,more passengers , longer range , but still not a "combat" ship.  and as for using it as some kinda  "missile" ship it would be far more cost effective to simply fire the same destructive equivalent in torps. and torps are much harder to target then a shuttle is and they  dont have expensive warp core, sensor array life support , shield gen, etc.   

posted on January 6th, 2012, 12:41 pm

Runabouts were used in the first skirmish with the Dominion, but I can't help thinking that was just so the characters had somewhere to watch the Galaxy explode from....

posted on January 6th, 2012, 12:51 pm

well in any case for any reason i can think of or has been mentioned here for the use of shuttles ...fleetops is a combat game and when you play a game you expect combat not a nebula survey.... so it makes more sense to have fighters before shuttles....right  if any ship/station could launch  a shuttle it makes more sense that it would launch a fighter as it will be in combat .....not scanning a planet well your ship is off fighting or moving 5-10 crew around the map from ship to station......