Ivan the Not-so-Terrible
AH MEW CHEEKI BREEKI I V DAMKE
- Location
- Mikonyan’s USSR
[X] 6 Phaser Banks
Linked contents
Gets even better when you compare the 6P+2T design to the Sagar
Sagarmatha-class Explorer [2175]
Mass: 290,000 Tons
Single Target Rating: 25
Multi-Target Rating: 13
-Average Damage: 15
-Max Sustained Damage: 30
-Alpha Strike Damage: 56
-Coverage: 100%
-Maneuverability: Medium-Low
Maximum Galileo:
107.7% of the multi target rating,
93.33% of the average damage,
85.7% of the alpha strike damage,
80% of the max sustained damage,
72% of the single target rating,
On a hull much cheaper!
Last edited:
Starfleet: "We want a second line cruiser which can do science, and serve as a combatant in wartime."
Players: "Okay, let's find something cheap, sciencey, that can also fight."
Starfleet Design Bureau: "Okay, in a stroke of inspiration, we've worked out how to fit loads of science in, weapons nearly as powerful as our last-generation first-rate combatant, it can take more punishment and also it still costs ay less."
Players: "Hold on there, are you exceeding all our design targets whilst remaining low on cost? That's too good!
"
Players: "Okay, let's find something cheap, sciencey, that can also fight."
Starfleet Design Bureau: "Okay, in a stroke of inspiration, we've worked out how to fit loads of science in, weapons nearly as powerful as our last-generation first-rate combatant, it can take more punishment and also it still costs ay less."
Players: "Hold on there, are you exceeding all our design targets whilst remaining low on cost? That's too good!
"
[X] 6 Phaser Banks
- Location
- Outside the Box
- Pronouns
- She/Her
[X] 6 Phaser Banks
We already decided last vote not to make this a mainline combatant, and save our costs with only two impulse engines. Reversing that to add on expensive torpedoes just doesn't make sense. I'd rather save the infrastructure for our next ships, where many of us have been planning to have good maneuverability and more guns overall. Also, torpedoes usually eat up as much space as a ship's internal slot, meaning that extra firepower will make the ship worse at science. I find that unacceptable.
We already decided last vote not to make this a mainline combatant, and save our costs with only two impulse engines. Reversing that to add on expensive torpedoes just doesn't make sense. I'd rather save the infrastructure for our next ships, where many of us have been planning to have good maneuverability and more guns overall. Also, torpedoes usually eat up as much space as a ship's internal slot, meaning that extra firepower will make the ship worse at science. I find that unacceptable.
We are the Starfleet Design Bureau. Please don't mock strawmen.Starfleet: We want a second line cruiser which can do science, and serve as a combatant in wartime.
Players: Okay, let's find something cheap, sciencey, that can also fight.
Starfleet Design Bureau: Okay, in a stroke of inspiration, we've worked out how to fit loads of science in, weapons nearly as powerful as our last-generation first-rate combatant, it can take more punishment and also it still costs ay less.
Players: Hold on there, are you massively exceeding our design targets whilst remaining low on cost? That's too good!
Last edited:
- Location
- Earth
- Pronouns
- She/Her/They/Them
[X] 6 Phaser Banks
Mechanis
Confirmed Extremely Screwed
- Location
- Absconding with Alacrity
Basically the main reason I was sold on the six phaser and Torpedo design. A ship like that would be a godsend if and as when the Klingons decide to get in a punchup with the Federation, even before whatever science and engineering stuff we put in the gigantic hull.
It's more effective against single targets, which I consider to be the more common use case.
Darik29
Verified Delicious
[X] 6 Phaser Banks, 2 Forward Torpedo Launchers
Because fuck it, we built this thing to be a damn Light Explorer, we might as well arm it properly to play the part.
And more importantly, while it may come at a cost to infrastructure, that means that the infrastructure for more phasersand torpedoes should get built up, making it less of a hassle for future generation ships
Because fuck it, we built this thing to be a damn Light Explorer, we might as well arm it properly to play the part.
And more importantly, while it may come at a cost to infrastructure, that means that the infrastructure for more phasersand torpedoes should get built up, making it less of a hassle for future generation ships
Added some more values for a better comparison.
Maximum Galileo:
107.7% of the multi target rating,
93.33% of the average damage,
85.7% of the alpha strike damage,
80% of the max sustained damage,
72% of the single target rating.
Best of all, the torpedo instillation isn't going to take up that much space, hell, given this is basically the Connie refit we know where it'll most likely go - at the base of the neck and out of the way of any potential modules we'd place.
Last edited:
- Pronouns
- He/Him
[X] 6 Phaser Banks, 2 Forward Torpedo Launchers
- Location
- USA
[X] 4 Phaser Banks, 2 Forward Torpedo Launchers
[X] 6 Phaser Banks
Ya know, something I'll mention that was nice from the prior iteration of the quest.
Knowing we werent the ONLY source of starships gave us a bit more freedom. Canon designs were coming out alongside our own work, so we could rest a little easier knowing that even if we fuck up, Starfleet still has good ships.
[X] 6 Phaser Banks
Ya know, something I'll mention that was nice from the prior iteration of the quest.
Knowing we werent the ONLY source of starships gave us a bit more freedom. Canon designs were coming out alongside our own work, so we could rest a little easier knowing that even if we fuck up, Starfleet still has good ships.
IMO if we build a 6+2 we won't need to build a new mainline combatant because we'll already have one and in quantity. At that point our future battleships will be a little fewer in number but they'll honestly be limited in number anyway. Losing 1-2 battleships off an order of like 8 hurts BUT if it means the 20+ Galileos can punch up at larger combatants I'm willing to make that trade. If we go with a 6+0 we'll have an excellent secondary combatant that is good at sweeping and support. It'll be less useful for punching up so it'd be best grouped with a future heavy design.
Either vision for the ship is completely valid. I personally just like the idea of an extra 40 torpedo tubes spread across the fleet over vs waiting for a heavy design that (on a good day) would give us an increase of 20 tubes.
Either vision for the ship is completely valid. I personally just like the idea of an extra 40 torpedo tubes spread across the fleet over vs waiting for a heavy design that (on a good day) would give us an increase of 20 tubes.
[X] 6 Phaser Banks
The idea that, by massively upgrading this ship's capabilities for nothing more than an opportunity cost we would not plausibly be taking anyway, we somehow made it less efficient is... I struggle to parse it.
Unless you genuinely believe we're going to roll out Thunderchild Mk. II, Photonic Boogaloo in the next six years, whilst we already have a ton of Selachiis... this is the perfect time to put our arms industry to good use in making a more powerful second line combatant. Otherwise that industry is simply going to waste! Even if you think we'd build another "patrol cruiser" like the Cygnus after this.... this cost/capability balance this ship offers is amazing due to a fortuitous blend of circumstances. We're not likely to get that again, it's like rolling a Nat 20.
It's like... I just don't get it.
It's like a reverse version of utilitarianism, where exceeding the minimum capabilities at the same unit cost is bad.
It is a turn of phrase to represent the options @Sayle has made available to us.
Unless you genuinely believe we're going to roll out Thunderchild Mk. II, Photonic Boogaloo in the next six years, whilst we already have a ton of Selachiis... this is the perfect time to put our arms industry to good use in making a more powerful second line combatant. Otherwise that industry is simply going to waste! Even if you think we'd build another "patrol cruiser" like the Cygnus after this.... this cost/capability balance this ship offers is amazing due to a fortuitous blend of circumstances. We're not likely to get that again, it's like rolling a Nat 20.
It's like... I just don't get it.
It's like a reverse version of utilitarianism, where exceeding the minimum capabilities at the same unit cost is bad.
It is a turn of phrase to represent the options @Sayle has made available to us.
- Location
- Somewhere and somewhen in time and space
[X] 6 Phaser Banks
[X] 6 Phaser Banks, 2 Forward Torpedo Launchers
[X] 6 Phaser Banks, 2 Forward Torpedo Launchers
