[X] Three Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 39.75 Cost) [Very High Manoeuvrability]
[X] Four Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 42 Cost) [Very High Maneuverability]
[X] Four Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 42 Cost) [Very High Maneuverability]
Linked contents
- Location
- being near locations is my passion.
If you leave this vote in until Sayle closes it, do you think finance will actually wake up in tears in-quest?
Edit:
This is silly.
It's a complete waste of Thruster due to inertial dampner limitations.
[*] Five Type 3 Thrusters, and make the ship bigger.
Last edited:
Godwinson
"Well, I've got nothing."
Consider, however, the gods-defying speed that is Five Type-3 Thrusters. The entire rear half of the ship? Engine. My inertia? Undamped. My torpedoes? Already in their targets. Have you ever wanted to break the lightspeed barrier before you powered up your nacelles? Vote Five Type-3 Thrusters and not only will you, but you'll go back in time to vote for it again.
Did you miss that I DONT CARE about the result of this vote and am just saying hey you crossed the line here have a minus internet point.
Any winning option is Fine, and I was leaning towards 3x2s because Mechanis made good points. But you know, MULTIPLE PAGES OF WHINING about a vote not going your way is BAD. Then Doubling Down on it with Mass Ping is Cross the line for me.
... you know, enough type 3s, and we could probably drop the nacelles entirely. That would wrap back around to cost savings, right?
Mechanis
Confirmed Extremely Screwed
- Location
- Absconding with Alacrity
Someone upthread suggested four Type Threes because apparently cost saving is edible, ha.
The reason we are focused on putting warheads onto foreheads is because our phasers can't do the job. as it turns out, we ended up having picked an evolutionary dead end for phaser development that assumed we would be able to bring multiple batteries into single arcs, but have effectively been told we're not going to be able to do that until we invent strips. as a consequence, slow and stately capitals that eligantly pick apart enemies with phasers before delivering a coup de grace with a torpedo or two aren't a paradigm we can do, we are stuck with "phasers are for supressing shield regentation while we line up another salvo."
edit: Additionally, having not gotten a free shield boost with our Warp 8 engines, we need the "Speed is Armor" dodge-tanking ability and being able to consistently outmaneuver hostile vessels to stay out of their most dangerous fire arcs in order to remain competitive functional durability wise.
In short, defensively we invested heavily into the "Don't Get Hit" part of the defense onion and less into the "Don't Get Penetrated" part.
Last edited:
- Location
- being near locations is my passion.
Reputable sources* have informed me that Five Mark 3 Thrusters can be engaged while a ship is travelling at warp 8 to make it travel at warp 9!
*me, making it the fuck up.
Chargone
Invisable operator
- Location
- New Zealand
Maybe, maybe not, though it certainly Helps. Though that maneuverability is also making up for our shields being insufficient as well. If our phasers and shields were meaningfully better relative to our enemies capabilities it would matter less, but for now they're not, so...
Also, I wouldn't call our current phasers a dead end, exactly, they hit as hard as our torpedos on a per shot basis as is, and the larger arc Does have its uses/advantages, but it does mean that they take longer to get through stronger shields than would have otherwise been the case and we do need to account for that.
Last edited:
Strunkriidiisk
THE LEGEND
- Location
- Canada
- Pronouns
- He/Him
*Section 31 is dispatched, and their data deleted*
Strunkriidiisk
THE LEGEND
- Location
- Canada
- Pronouns
- He/Him
I mean, it kind of is? Phaser strips are an entirely different design paradigm than phaser turrets, the latter cannot turn into the former. At best, one can say we had the idea early but could not achieve it.
Godwinson
"Well, I've got nothing."
I'm going too fast for the jackboots to catch me.
NavySeel
"I don't know what I'm doing."
- Location
- Places
I've been informed that making shit up is a proud Starfleet tradition.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
That also would have pissed of the Necromancer Council, as that would trigger a clause in my Membership insurance as well as angering the Spirits I had contracted to advise me.
You'd think that, but they have the protection of Who, the resources of Section What and the technology of I Don't Know
Chargone
Invisable operator
- Location
- New Zealand
By that logic the same is true of the canon pre-strip phasers as well.
I was clarifying the actual upsides and corresponding issues of the type 3 engines since you (and a few others, but you were both the clearest and most recent) seemed to not know them, and then acknowledged that those arguments weren't what you were basing your vote on anyway with the aside at the end. Clearly you are choosing to keep the spite vote which, as I specified in my prior post, is a perfectly reasonable choice.
Last edited:
- Pronouns
- Him/He/His
"Where we're going, we don't need bones, or a ship!"
"And where's that,
"Straight to hell!" Engages the USS Dante's engines
[X] Four Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 42 Cost) [Very High Maneuverability]
I personally like this option vastly better than the type 3s and it gives us a red line button and costs less, but we have a chance for refit in the future. That said since @thepsyborg pinged me I'll throw him a bone.
I personally like this option vastly better than the type 3s and it gives us a red line button and costs less, but we have a chance for refit in the future. That said since @thepsyborg pinged me I'll throw him a bone.
Mechanis
Confirmed Extremely Screwed
- Location
- Absconding with Alacrity
They hit as hard as our torpedoes because we walked back from the "wide arc with weaker beam" paradigm we originally had chosen---on the assumption that we would be able to bring 4-5+ of them to bear into single arcs if we configured a ship appropriately---to the "Narrow arc with stronger beam" paradigm; except that because we didn't just pick that in the first place we've effectively ended up with the worst of both worlds. It'll probably take a Mark III or proper Type Three phaser to get them back to just being where the narrow arc Type Two design would have been at adoption, missing out on any refinement that might have otherwise taken place over that development period and likely adding a cost and complexity tax we would not have otherwise had.
So yes, we can pretty definitively say that the wide arc phasers were an evolutionary dead end and with the benefit of hindsight we should have taken the narrow arc Type Two design.
Last edited:
