HOME | DD
DawnPaladin — Cruisers
by-nc-sa
Published: 2011-01-21 23:25:54 +0000 UTC; Views: 13646; Favourites: 148; Downloads: 148
Redirect to original
Description
Cruisers are the big, tough, go-anywhere, do-anything ships of Star Trek Online. Every variant of the NCC-1701 has been a cruiser; pictured is my personal starship, the U.S.S. Paladin. Ain't she a beaut?
Cruisers can take an enormous amount of damage without batting an eye and then dish it right back out. They are dangerous from every direction, their large warp cores give them power to spare, and defeating a skilled Cruiser captain will often take concentrated effort from multiple opposing ships over an extended period of time--and if you don't put forth that effort and focus on other targets instead, they'll transfer power and send engineering teams to their allies, keeping a whole task force afloat.
Related content
Comments: 45
As a STO cruiser skipper, I approve this message.
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
A ten kilometer kill radius? Oh, wow! You could hit some space dust with that! Well, that or ram stuff. Yeah, space is big.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
I told them during beta that measuring combat distances in terms of ten kilometers or less was ridiculous, and that they should multiply that number by at least a thousand to match Star Trek canon. They wouldn't listen.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Cruisers happen to be me favorite ships to play as (ESPECIALLY battle cruisers), next to dreadnoughts, of course. Big, tough, and powerful, not to mention a PAIN should they have some decent hull and shield heal abilities as well as eight weapon slots. And then there's the new Kobali Cruiser....which I gave to my Tac Romulan
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
so true. The countless people I've blown up can attest to that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
So true. OH so true!
Yes a beautiful ship without a doubt. Star Cruiser?
Got a Tac Oddy myself. Oh how I love it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
*on board Uss. Paladin*
captain they have us outnumbered ten to one
those poor#%#%*£€
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I used to use a cruiser, I use a escort now. Mainly because recently I've played with friends of a much higher level, I need to get in their first to get at least one team before they blow their load.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
10km...
*looksat Iowa-class sea Battleship*
10km vs OVER 18km?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Star Trek Online is kind of weird that way. Ships on the show commonly interact at ranges of hundreds of thousands of kilometers; for gameplay reasons, STO standardizes at 10 km. I asked them to change it during the beta and they ignored me.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That just the big folks:They think they're smart,but they aren't. Example:US Navy deeming the Battleship obsolete when they can actually outgun,outrun and outsurvive any of today's modern warship.That's the Battleship's "Triple O"
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
... On an 80 year old hull and a ship system based on technology that hasn't been in wide fleet use in 40 years.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
...which must not be improved TOO much because of the strain the gun put on the electronics.seriously,you think they made the missile launcher on the Iowas "Amored Box Launcher"just to look cool?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The armored box launchers are what was in use at the time - the Mk 41 Vertical Launching System deployed for the first time in 1986 aboard USS Bunker Hill (CG-52). The final version of VLS didn't go to sea for the first time (1983) until after the Iowas were already back in service (1982). The ABLs were also fitted to the nuclear-powered Long Beach and Virginia-class cruisers as well as the Spruance-class destroyers (the latter were later refitted with Mk 41).
The thing is, 16" guns are overkill. Virtually no shore fortifications are built to withstand shelling by anything over 155mm - the idea that 16" guns were necessary for shore bombardment was back-formed from the idea that we needed to keep battleships in commission; in reality, for support fires for an amphibious landing 5" and 3" are superior because they can be used closer to troops and for shore bombardment without the landing support requirement you're better off with 6" to 8" guns because you can carry more shells (or the same number of shells on a much smaller ship) and most shore fortifications can't withstand them anyway. Battleships are actually more vulnerable than destroyers to anti-ship missiles because they can't carry substantial amounts of point defense and the warhead of a guided missile is much, much larger than the largest bursting charge on a gun shell.
Even without carrier aviation, late battleships were an inherently dead-ended ship type; 14"-18.1" guns were primarily useful for fighting other battleships and were tremendous overkill for virtually all shore targets. If not for the Japanese line of battle the US would have been far better off in all respects building a fleet of 12"-armed battlecruisers like Alaska and Guam (yes, I know Alaska and Guam were designated as Large Cruisers; the position in the US line of battle which they filled, however, was analogous to the intended role for battlecruisers; namely fast-steaming heavily-armed ships that could seek and destroy other cruisers while being largely immune to counterfire).
The obsolescence of battleships, however, has nothing to do with their (oversized) guns and everything to do with them not being compatible with how a modern navy works - they can't carry the data links that would let them interface with the rest of a task force, and they can't contribute meaningfully to a task force's air defense (the latter being a particularly critical deficit - the four Iowa class battleships were completed because they could steam with and contribute to a carrier's air defense).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
i may have to agreed with you.but then again,these titans usually do pretty good with the "intimidation" job.if i remember correctly, there was an occasion where they come to bombard the shore but the enemy surrendered by the time they was there.lucky shot if you ask me,but would you really want to mess with something that can clear out massed in seconds.and that is one of the BB's LAST remaining use:mass killing,even though most of the enemy the US faces don't have that many forces to begin with but then again,5000$ worth of shells is more efficient than 90 000 000$ worth of missile,but then AGAIN,these missile have quite a lot of range compare to the 16''s but THEN they could still be intercepted by jamming and CIWSes.I guess they each have a specialty of their own.And i might have overestimated the Iowa's AAW capabilities.4 Phalanx are cool and all but they really won't be that efficient comparing to the SeaRAMs.i guess there is a point of divergence when you really want to came down to it:you want to scare of a nation but don't want to utterly decimate them and you REALLY don't want to spend money on missiles to counter missiles or shoot stuff down but just want the ship's armor to tank it,BBs are for you,and they even came with the supportive role of being able to refuel other ships during operation and can get there fast(33 knots and over?here i come!)and also having a decent ship-to-ship combat value even by todays standards.But if you wat a precise,strategic pinpoint killing on decent scale and aviation decimation of the enemy's airforce,i'll have to hand them over to the DDGs and CGs of today's.Good luck boys!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
it is...trust me, I know
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
..ok that's it im going to download star trek online and name my ship the U.S.S. gallade!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Noted and amended. Thanks!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The line given in the thing is pretty much what my Odyssey Tactical Cruiser is. 2500 crew, 8 Phased Polaron Beam Arrays Mk XII [Acc] [Dmg], and the Chevron Separation and Aquarius Escort, along with WORK BEES(FEAR THE BEES!). I can kill/piss off everything within a 20km Sphere of my ship. Only reason I don't carry torps is that I prefer broadsiding. And my character that has said ship, is a Tac officer.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Actually, the NX-01 Enterprise (Least in the STO universe), is classified as a Light-Escort...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I chose mine to be the assault cruiser and engineering career line, but I outfitted it to have nearly balanced weapons with slightly more beams in front, so I can choose to sit there and let them go around me or follow them take out their sheilds then let them go around to my launchers in back, everything goes boom
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I'm a science officer in an Odyssey Star Cruiser.
If some unlucky player doesn't focus on destroying my Odyssey in fleet combat, I Torpedo Spread (level III) the whole enemy fleet and set my phasers on Fire At Will (level II) AND transfer shield power to my allies. Watch them change their minds really quick. It's hard to focus on the escorts when a single cruiser is matching their combined power.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Oh please everyone knows that the escorts ability to kill anything directly in front of them and then die to something to the side is the best.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
nice picture, you using nomad naccele? , also good description i played cruiser throughout most of my playthrough, although i got bored and bough a sci and an escort to try them out
however i have noticed that the sheer number of escort ship captains compared to cruisers and sci ships, means in a PVP engagement your cruiser is going to need more than a coat if paint
my main criticism of STO was its focus on DPS and lack of priority on survivabilty , if defeated ships were unable to return to the battle it would have made the cruiser a lot more useful in the game, however the focus on escorts and their firepower can make for very boring and repetative gameplay
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Words cannot describe the awesomeness of this image
^.^
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Cool Shot!! Love how there are all those phasers beaning fired and she just sits there! How big is she?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
STO doesn't seem to list the length of its ships, so all I can tell you is that she's friggin' huge.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
was the largest avalible for a while wasn't it, well it was certainly longer than the galaxy, though the galaxy class had that alternate configuration that was huge
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
i found several sites stating that the Sovereign class ships are at least Battlecruisers (in wartime) or deep-space explorers (that would need heavy weaponry incase of hostile encounters).
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Wasnt the Enterprise B, a modified Excelsior class, considered a BattleCruiser type? I mean in ST6 TUC, Gen Kang(?) i believe called it a BattleCruiser? I would label the Galaxy class ships dreadnoughts or battleships due to their size, but the ST people called them Exploration Cruisers, which are powerful nonetheless anyway. doesn't STO have bigger ships than cruisers? i thought they did anyway
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Here "cruiser" is used as a category, delimiting ships which are neither escorts nor science ships. This category includes heavy cruisers, exploration cruisers, et al. You can view the list of ships grouped under the "cruiser" category here: [link]
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I have one thing to say to the Borg if they ever saw it. Resistance is futile. Your culture is about to get owned
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
DAMN......they're dreadnaughts......sounds like the Second ship Captain keyes had in the book Fall of Reach...the Iroquois if i remember correctly...but still badass
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
One of the rare ships you can buy actual has a "spinal phaser lance" not too different in concept from the MAC gun Keyes used to such great effect.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
not just the MAC guns, but also the Nuke and the Nav equipment
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The Dreadnaught ship is actually the Galaxy-X variant used in the TNG series finale. It's a high powered lance that fires twice, and uses quite a bit of power. The one I have on average does 20k per shot if it goes to hull.
Now, if you want MAC Guns, that's a whole nother kind of ship...
👍: 0 ⏩: 0