I'm not overly invested in guns, 4-5 while being able to point all of them forwards is a decent improvement over the Stingray, especially with the new phase cannons.
The torpedos are the important part, but yeah were probably only going to be able to get 1.
I'm not sure the 6 forward guns are really worth the industry. They're going to take a beefy power supply and that's awkward with the lack of internals and I'd rather get more hulls out.
Thoughts about an aft torpedo launcher? We could do a cute manoeuver where you fly towards enemies, fire your front torpedo, then bypass them and fire your aft torpedo for twice the torpedo fire. Sort of a dive bomber vibe. It should have the engines to pull it off.
I'm supportive of an aft torpedo launcher, but unless power is a significant problem I want to use the strength of the arrowhead design to give it full forward firepower, so I'm reluctant to place less than six forward guns even though I could probably be convinced to go down to four forward with two aft if cost becomes an issue.
Given the shape it's likely to be two/three guns on port and starboard that can fire forward. The torpedo tubes are only going to come if we spend extra and roll well on prototype and/or experimental rolls.
Spending extra defeats the purpose of choosing the cheap hull personally.
Given the shape it's likely to be two/three guns on port and starboard that can fire forward. The torpedo tubes are only going to come if we spend extra and roll well on prototype and/or experimental rolls.
Spending extra defeats the purpose of choosing the cheap hull personally.
If this has 0 torpedo tubes this is worthless so I think the effort for fitting the first forward torpedo tube is worth it. Especially since from the update that's probably just paying for an underslung deflector to free the front of the ship. I'd love to keep the streamlined inline profile but not at the cost of our best weapon system.
The aft torpedo is probably not going to cost too much design, the space isn't occupied like in the front. And this should turn well enough it can use both in the same engagement.
If this has 0 torpedo tubes this is worthless so I think the effort for fitting the first forward torpedo tube is worth it. Especially since from the update that's probably just paying for an underslung deflector to free the front of the ship. I'd love to keep the streamlined inline profile but not at the cost of our best weapon system.
The aft torpedo is probably not going to cost too much design, the space isn't occupied like in the front. And this should turn well enough it can use both in the same engagement.
More than one tube is explicitly labeled behind the experimental option. It all depends on the weapon options we're given with the underslung or "standard" deflector, though we haven't done an arrow so we don't know what's standard yet.
Given the shape it's likely to be two/three guns on port and starboard that can fire forward. The torpedo tubes are only going to come if we spend extra and roll well on prototype and/or experimental rolls.
Spending extra defeats the purpose of choosing the cheap hull personally.
Not having torpedos makes the maneuverability almost pointless to me, torpedos need to be on target, phase cannons can be fired in any direction.
This ship could make better use of torpedos than any other ship we've designed, not adding them would be a massive waste, especially with our new photonics.
I've heard calls for ALL THE GUNS from fellow arrowhead voters. Like, trying to slap on 6 in an all forward layout to get 3/4+ the forward DPS of our recent battleship. Which could basically burn through a Romulan ship in one pass.
I'm saying 3/4+, because the layout of the Thunderchild can't quite get all its forward/aft armament onto a single target in that arc, while the arrowhead is a better shape for concentrating fire.
More than one tube is explicitly labeled behind the experimental option. It all depends on the weapon options we're given with the underslung or "standard" deflector, though we haven't done an arrow so we don't know what's standard yet.
Is it though? We've been told the underslung deflector is necessary to get the first forward tube on the arrowhead, though that isn't experimental. I don't think it's clearly stated anything would give us a second forward one. The nacelle prototype is about compensating for the lost warp efficiency from the underslung deflector.
Aft launchers haven't really been mentioned yet either.
I'm still on half saucer team because this isn't promising to me but it's probably going to lose so we'll have to see but I really don't expect options to get us to 2 forward torpedo tubes.
Not having torpedos makes the maneuverability almost pointless to me, torpedos need to be on target, phase cannons can be fired in any direction.
This ship could make better use of torpedos than any other ship we've designed, not adding them would be a massive waste, especially with our new photonics.
Phasers have firing arcs arcs as well. I'm guessing it's going be like ~135 degrees for the port and starboard guns with the 90* deadspot for the engines.
I want more torpedoes as well. That's why I voted half. 👀
Is it though? We've been told the underslung deflector is necessary to get the first forward tube on the arrowhead, though that isn't experimental. I don't think it's clearly stated anything would give us a second forward one. The nacelle prototype is about compensating for the lost warp efficiency from the underslung deflector.
Aft launchers haven't really been mentioned yet either.
I'm still on half saucer team because this isn't promising to me but it's probably going to lose so we'll have to see but I really don't expect options to get us to 2 forward torpedo tubes.
The only problem listed in the Arrowhead design is torpedo tubes placement, so that's what it should be referring to solving for additional costs and two rolls.
I've heard calls for ALL THE GUNS from fellow arrowhead voters. Like, trying to slap on 6 in an all forward layout to get 3/4+ the forward DPS of our recent battleship. Which could basically burn through a Romulan ship in one pass.
I'm saying 3/4+, because the layout of the Thunderchild can't quite get all its forward/aft armament onto a single target in that arc, while the arrowhead is a better shape for concentrating fire.
The idea that we could get anywhere near the firepower if the thunderchild in one arc is kind of ridiculous.
From what I remember the Thunderchild has the firepower of the NXs front arc as the bear minimum on every arc. Its also something literally every ship we have can do.
Torpedos on a highly maneuverable ship actually adds a capability we don't already have easily getting them on target compared to the slow Thunderchild which most ships could out maneuver.
[X] Arrowhead. Aim for a cheap light cruiser. (Industry: 2)
There was spirited debate among the team, split between the advantages of the light and cheap arrowhead shape and the bulkier but more capable half-saucer. In the end while the half-saucer may have been able to fit a full forward torpedo barrage in the vein of the Bulwark (albeit by seriously skimping on other weapon systems), the expense of that capability attached to a smaller and potentially quite fragile hull raised some eyebrows. But there is a consolation - by compromising and integrating a ventral bulge, it seems like it will be possible after all to fit a couple of tubes in the arrowhead as well, though the forward cannon systems are going to be rather weak as a result.
With the main shape of the hull decided, now you arrive at the main issue of the design: there's nowhere to put the deflector. Any solution is going to involve building out the hull in some way to accommodate it, and were United Earth not under so much pressure to build any competent ships capable of engaging Romulan forces on better terms you think that building a ship of this size would be a thing of the past. But you are fully committed now: cheap and effective, but mostly cheap.
So, the deflector. Option one: a blister beneath the bow. You have just enough space to still provide clearance for the main navigational array, and you might even be able to squeeze in a pair of torpedo tubes in the ventral bulge. The problem is that at best you would only be able to fit one phase cannon in the nose, seriously limiting the more versatile particle beam armament. Putting the deflector in the nose would also deny you a mounting point for the nacelles, forcing you into a port and starboard mount that will further limit internal space in the aft sections.
Option two is a blister behind the navigational array. This would increase the mass of the ship but also provide a mounting point for the nacelles and a ventral phase cannon that would be able to fire forward as well as aft. Or maybe instead of a ventral cannon you could expand the deflector blister towards the rear and fit in an extra forward torpedo launcher? You could have more weapons, but the extra material would require more engine investment to keep the ship manoeuvrable, and all the downsides of added plating and hull material would drive up costs on their own, even disregarding the increased investment required in other areas.
You end up drawing up cost estimates based on the idea that the ship needs to be as agile as possible and accounting for the unavoidable costs: essentially the entire build minus any optional weapon expansions. The aft deflector would essentially provide greater offensive capability at a greater cost, the exact shape of those capabilities still to be determined.
Okay this is better than I was expecting. The calculus between 0 and 1 torpedoes or 1 and 2 is very different to the calculus between 2 and 3. The gain seem smaller and the cost much higher, so I think the main difference is the cannons. Those have been disappointing last round so I don't think it's worth a whopping 8 industry per hull plus the extra we'll pay to fit more cannons (which cost individually) and the extra systems promised.
I also think the forward deflector will result in a more compact ship overall and I think that's desirable with our current non-shield defenses.
If we're concerned about cost now is the time to pick the cheaper option, for a whole 8 industry difference. I also don't think the aft deflector is described as more manoeuvrable?
If we're concerned about cost now is the time to pick the cheaper option, for a whole 8 industry difference. I also don't think the aft deflector is described as more manoeuvrable?
Just to clarify: are these Industry scores also including the cost of the weapons systems listed? Seems like a big jump, but it would make sense in terms of giving us an idea of the overall cost here.
