Remove ads

Department of Starship Design (Trek-ish)

Reader mode
Karugus said:
I'm willing to consider conceding the prow 4c battery for backing for the triple 4b radials
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Why not both?

[X] Add a Type 3c and 4c combo for the ship's fore main battery
Roaming_Guardian said:
Mmm, aesthetic concerns are coming in for me.

Vertical paired beams are kinda eh.

If we could get a port and starboard type 3 I'd go for that, but having to mount them top and bottom... makes me say single doom beam supported by cannons.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I don't MIND the top and bottom look, but I'd prefer a Dorsal and Ventral mount for the 3c if we were going vertical. Still I think combo of beams and cannons is going to be pretty darn good.

BTW the image is broken in the media post. I happened to have saved it to my hard drive.
 
Last edited:
Leaning 3c+4c here. The 3b's are too inefficient, and while all-cannon is probably technically optimal by raw stats, A) doombeam cool, and B) hoping for some emergent awesomeness out of our one fully bespoke weapon. Mostly A though.

Edit: also worth pointing out that the 4s have a quarter of the 3s field of fire, and we didn't go for six engines (10 vs 20 degree, meaning half the sweep and half the elevation/depression = one quarter the total field of fire). We're still gonna be very reasonably nimble, but against near-peer-agility opponents (where getting the nose on target is neither guaranteed nor impossible), it'll be literally four times easier with the Type 3s.
 
Last edited:
thepsyborg said:
Leaning 3c+4c here. The 3b's are too inefficient, and while all-cannon is probably technically optimal by raw stats, A) doombeam cool, and B) hoping for some emergent awesomeness out of our one fully bespoke weapon. Mostly A though.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
All hail the DOOM BEAM. The vote's open, so feel free to make your objectively correct decision official :)

All 4c does hit the hardest, but the resources needed for that extra 10 damage is noteworthy. This should leave a tiny bit more resources free for other fun toys.
 
thepsyborg said:
Edit: also worth pointing out that the 4s have a quarter of the 3s field of fire, and we didn't go for six engines (10 vs 20 degree, meaning half the sweep and half the elevation/depression = one quarter the total field of fire). We're still gonna be very reasonably nimble, but against near-peer-agility opponents (where getting the nose on target is neither guaranteed nor impossible), it'll be literally four times easier with the Type 3s.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The Type 4s actually have a higher field of fire. I went with Recessed - Minimal (40° fire arc, [~] Size) for them. Knowing what I know now I might have gone for a tighter field of fire, but as it stands? The Type 4s are pretty flexible.
 
thepsyborg said:
...huh. I could have sworn they were both fixed. My bad, then.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
There were some folks voting that way, but I wanted to experiment with the recessed cannon. A fixed Cannon only has a 5° firing arc.

There has been some discussion about our next batch of energy weapons going for a huge fixed cannon. That's decidedly more recent and is probably what you were thinking of.

That was part of the discussion where I was suggesting that we use two development slots to create an otherwise identical pair of flexible beams. One small and one huge which overlaps on the 2 m aperture size. If people end up deciding that sounds too redundant, a small with a 180 and a fixed huge would still give us a 2 m beam weapon of both designs.
 
[X] Add a Type 3c and 4c combo for the ship's fore main battery

Whatever happens, remember, we have the Type 3, and they do not.
 
Karugus said:
Whatever happens, remember, we have the Type 3, and they do not.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Truth.
Roaming_Guardian said:
I'd say chin mount for the doom beam, nose deflector, and cannons above.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I kinda like the nose mounted DOOM BEAM. Makes it look like a spinal mount, even if it isn't nearly that big.
Rivenscryr said:
Ah, the joy of doom beam.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Truth.

In other news it looks like some dice were rolled about the new deflector. Sadly the rolls on the deflector tech check seem to have been quite low. C'est la vie.
 
We rolled relatively well on cost and decently for size. Its not going to have a profound impact on the next gen of Deflectors, but we probably won't ever bother replacing this deflector unless we get much better Warp drives- and somehow I imagine that's a more problematic refit anyways.
 
Adhoc vote count started by Jalinth on May 3, 2024 at 1:25 PM, finished with 29 posts and 15 votes.
Click to expand...

Such a close vote. Who can tell what will win in the end? :D

I've already updated the ships table. I can always fix it if some very strange thing happens, but I'm feeling comfortable with making the change now.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top