Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
[X] 0: Ten Saucer Type-1 Phasers (Infra++) [Avg Damage: 9]
[X] 1: Two Forward Photon Launchers (Infra++) [Avg Damage: 1.5] [Alpha Strike: 36]
[X] 2: One Aft Photon Launcher (Infra+) [Avg Damage: 0.75] [Alpha Strike: 18]
[X] 3: Four Engineering Section Type-1 Phasers (Infra++) [Avg Damage: 3]
 
Dragonlord7012 said:
That's an incredibly niche use, when you can always just slow down.
Don't we have a piece of structure right behind the saucer, Are we gonna shove it into the engineering ventral stuff?

The aft torpedo is just expensive for what is essentially a super niche case tool. Its literally 'you're being chased' kind of weapon. We're just not THAT fast so the amount of time we're being chased vs the time we're slugging it out just makes it feel pointless.

If we were way faster I might be more in favor, but TBH I'd just prefer Heavy lasers on the main ship, some modern torpedos pointing forward, and some light auxillary phasers on the engineering.

As I advocated in my vote, aft torpedos are just niche as hell, and we already have a form of alpha-strike.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This was literally a scenario in the last war.
The Battle of Cheron involved the Vulcan and Andorians drawing the fastest Romulans off and then doubling back.

And no, you might not have the option of slowing down, because the people pursuing you might outnumber or outpower you, or you might be on something time-sensitive.
Both of which are scenarios that an Explorer operating solo has to plan and account for.
 
Strunkriidiisk said:
Hmm.

@Sayle just checking since it sounds like we had a failure on performance for the Type-2 thrusters, what's the Copernicus' manoeuvrability score look like? Is it still Medium, or did it drop to Medium-Low or something?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

46.8% maneuverability instead of the expected 50.2%. It's a dip, but not the end of the world.

If people want to plan vote feel free. The vote tally program accounts for it. Just [X] voter name.
 
Speaking of the tally here's how things stand right now.

Adhoc vote count started by Andy0915 on Dec 15, 2023 at 4:22 PM, finished with 142 posts and 52 votes.
Click to expand...
 
I know it's probably not going to happen any time soon, but I hope at some point we put a quad nacelle sprint with as many impulse engines we can onto the smallest ship we can just to see how quick we can get a ship.
 
I feel like plan voting is preferable in this instance.

[X] All-round firepower
-[X] 0: Ten Saucer Type-1 Phasers (Infra++) [Avg Damage: 9]
-[X] 1: No Forward Torpedoes
-[X] 2: One Aft Photon Launcher (Infra+) [Avg Damage: 0.75] [Alpha Strike: 18]
-[X] 3: Four Engineering Section Type-1 Phasers (Infra++) [Avg Damage: 3]
 
[X] 0: Six Saucer Type-1 Phasers (Standard) [Avg Damage: 5]
[X] 1: Two Forward Photon Launchers (Infra++) [Avg Damage: 1.5] [Alpha Strike: 36]
[X] 2: One Aft Photon Launcher (Infra+) [Avg Damage: 0.75] [Alpha Strike: 18]
[X] 3: Two Engineering Section Type-1 Phasers (Infra+) [Avg Damage: 2]
 
[X] 0: Ten Saucer Type-1 Phasers (Infra++) [Avg Damage: 9]
[X] 1: Two Forward Photon Launchers (Infra++) [Avg Damage: 1.5] [Alpha Strike: 36]
[X] 2: One Aft Photon Launcher (Infra+) [Avg Damage: 0.75] [Alpha Strike: 18]
[X] 3: Four Engineering Section Type-1 Phasers (Infra++) [Avg Damage: 3]
 
Dragonlord7012 said:
an incredibly niche use, when you can always just slow down.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Niche, perhaps. But if you're running from something, it's a threat the ship can't or shouldn't realistically manfight so slowing down is not a good idea imo. The rear torp is forcing them to make the tough choice- either evade and/or slow down themselves, or take an antimatter warhead to the chin at superluminal speeds, itself probably a bad and very painful result.
 
[X] 0: Six Saucer Type-1 Phasers (Standard) [Avg Damage: 5]
[X] 1: Two Forward Photon Launchers (Infra++) [Avg Damage: 1.5] [Alpha Strike: 36]
[X] 2: One Aft Photon Launcher (Infra+) [Avg Damage: 0.75] [Alpha Strike: 18]
[X] 3: Two Engineering Section Type-1 Phasers (Infra+) [Avg Damage: 2]
 
[X] 0: Ten Saucer Type-1 Phasers (Infra++) [Avg Damage: 9]
[X] 1: Two Forward Photon Launchers (Infra++) [Avg Damage: 1.5] [Alpha Strike: 36]
[X] 2: No Aft Torpedoes
[X] 3: Two Engineering Section Type-1 Phasers (Infra+) [Avg Damage: 2]
 
[x] 0: Ten Saucer Type-1 Phasers (Infra++) [Avg Damage: 9]
[x] 1: Two Forward Photon Launchers (Infra++) [Avg Damage: 1.5] [Alpha Strike: 36]
[x] 2: No Aft Torpedoes
[x] 3: Two Engineering Section Type-1 Phasers (Infra+) [Avg Damage: 2]
 
Sayle said:
46.8% maneuverability instead of the expected 50.2%. It's a dip, but not the end of the world.

If people want to plan vote feel free. The vote tally program accounts for it. Just [X] voter name.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Oh yeah, that still puts us in Medium then, just the lower end of it. Good enough I think. 440ish kt propulsion vs what, 450 kt mass after the mass savings from the hull material? That's probably close enough that it'd still be called Medium, and it''ll likely be hashed out in a later tranche.
 
Last edited:
Ugh. I voted against them, sure, but full saucer and aft photon aren't like BAD. The dorsal engineering hull phasers are REALLY BAD though.
*sigh*

Also dang this desperately needed to be a plan vote, yeah.
 
And I was ninja'd by author again!
Ok, that's not too bad.
My sleepy brain went "10% less power on 150 is 15, times three, that's 45, we just lost half an entire old thruster! Waaah!"
 
[X] 0: Ten Saucer Type-1 Phasers (Infra++) [Avg Damage: 9]
[X] 1: Two Forward Photon Launchers (Infra++) [Avg Damage: 1.5] [Alpha Strike: 36]
[X] 2: One Aft Photon Launcher (Infra+) [Avg Damage: 0.75] [Alpha Strike: 18]
[X] 3: Two Engineering Section Type-1 Phasers (Infra+) [Avg Damage: 2]
 
[X] 0: Ten Saucer Type-1 Phasers (Infra++) [Avg Damage: 9]
[X] 1: Two Forward Photon Launchers (Infra++) [Avg Damage: 1.5] [Alpha Strike: 36]
[X] 2: One Aft Photon Launcher (Infra+) [Avg Damage: 0.75] [Alpha Strike: 18]
[X] 3: No Engineering Section Phasers
 
[X] 0: Ten Saucer Type-1 Phasers (Infra++) [Avg Damage: 9]
[X] 1: Two Forward Photon Launchers (Infra++) [Avg Damage: 1.5] [Alpha Strike: 36]
[X] 2: One Aft Photon Launcher (Infra+) [Avg Damage: 0.75] [Alpha Strike: 18]
[X] 3: Four Engineering Section Type-1 Phasers (Infra++) [Avg Damage: 3]
 
thepsyborg said:
Ugh. I voted against them, sure, but full saucer and aft photon aren't like BAD. The dorsal engineering hull phasers are REALLY BAD though.
*sigh*
Also dang this desperately needed to be a plan vote, yeah.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Fair, and valid.
We're all basically "We need big gun. But want to remove/downgrade X for [justified reason]" but collectively its probably going to just end up full-Dakka As if you spread Yes*3, No*1 across all permutation, we end up with 75% "Yes big gun" across the board.
 
[X] 0: Ten Saucer Type-1 Phasers (Infra++) [Avg Damage: 9]
Because more Phaser coverage is always good

[X] 1: Two Forward Photon Launchers (Infra++) [Avg Damage: 1.5] [Alpha Strike: 36]
Get the new designs tested out and into use

[X] 2: Two Aft Photonic Launchers (Infra+) [Avg Damage: 0.6] [Alpha Strike: 15]
Don't need to test photons on ALL slots and as aft is less likely to be used we can stick with the current standards

[X] 3: Two Engineering Section Type-1 Phasers (Infra+) [Avg Damage: 2]
Need the extra coverage, don't think we need to splurge on 4
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top