Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
landcollector said:
We wouldn't though? Miranda is using 6 Type-II Phasers I believe, so at the least we'll always be hitting harder if we go for 6 Type-Vs
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The more salient argument would be the size/power differential. Miranda's going to be in service for a century, don't count on it keeping Type-2s for long.

[X] 10 Phaser Banks (Type V) [Damage 32] [100% Coverage] [Cost: 149]
 
TheShadowDeamon said:
The type 4's are a nice boost in damage, while still being cheaper than the rapid. I'm planning on voting for 2 rapids FORE and 2 T4 AFT for a total cost of 34, burst damage of 180 and an average damage of 60.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Assuming the tables you have there are correct, then with the kind of damage type 4 torpedoes make, there's only a few cases where rapids or even normal torpedoes make any sense at all. After all 3 type 4 at 15 cost is the same firepower as two rapids at 24 cost. So unless one can't for some reason put 3 type 4 in the front of this ship despite its size, rapids have pretty much no particular point of being used. Aside of if one really wanted to up damage by a third at a very high price premium.

Overall speaking even normal torpedoes barely edge out type 4 in cost effectivity despite them being a mature technology. And if I recall correctly using new tech more is supposed to accelerate how quickly it matures and so presumably when the next tech cycle starts. So if that were the case type-4 have a rather strong case.


It's kind of rare that the pricing for something is so relatively clear cut with the previous systems having relatively few cases where it makes sense to use them.
 
Ebiris said:
Also unrelated to the current vote, I kind of hate the quad-nacelle rollbar.

It feels like the lower pair of nacelles are gonna be all wobbly, they really need a strut coming off the engineering hull to hold them in place.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I thought it was just me
Ive never liked the rollbar look, and an esthetic one doesnt even have the figleaf of functionality
 
Cool thing about dead angles is that they force people to try and take advantage of them. In group battles that creates predictability.

[X] 6 Phaser Banks (Type V) [Damage: 32] [60% Coverage] [Cost: 129]
 
[X] 6 Phaser Banks (Type V) [Damage: 32] [60% Coverage] [Cost: 129]

Voting this, although I won't be mad if the 10 Bank Type V option wins - I just want us to actually prototype the new phasers, and this leaves us the budget to also prototype the new torpedo launchers in a substantial number - which makes the Federation very good at killing peer opponents, and keeps it relevant later in its life when it's one of the small fries on the field instead of being on the chunkier end of things.
 
[X] 6 Phaser Banks (Type V) [Damage: 32] [60% Coverage] [Cost: 129]

[X] 10 Phaser Banks (Type V) [Damage 32] [100% Coverage] [Cost: 149]
both options are good - we really need to have better phasers so ships won't be so covered in torpedoes like the last few designs
 
[X] 10 Phaser Banks (Type II) [Damage 24] [100% Coverage] [Cost: 129]
[X] 6 Phaser Banks (Type V) [Damage: 32] [60% Coverage] [Cost: 129]
 
[X] 6 Phaser Banks (Type V) [Damage: 32] [60% Coverage] [Cost: 129]

The cost is getting kinda stupid and we haven't chosen sufficient synergies for it to be fully optimized. Our ship is plenty agile and to be blunt we've never had fast ships sitting in our blind spots. Even if we can only hit it 3 out of 4 rounds it's basically getting, what, 2 torpedoes to the face every round? Nothing light enough to exploit that is going to live for more than a few seconds.
 
[X] 10 Phaser Banks (Type V) [Damage 32] [100% Coverage] [Cost: 149]

Maximum output! I'm not undergunning this heavy cruiser.
 
[X] 6 Phaser Banks (Type V) [Damage: 32] [60% Coverage] [Cost: 129]

Small evenly spaced gaps that we can generally turn quick enough to deal with is good for me. Push the tech and punish anyone that thinks they're zippy enough to stay in a sliver.
 
Im tired and dont have the strength to marshall an argument right now
But we really should take the 10-phaser Type V
Thats all I really have the effort for right now
 
Looking back over the design process, I kinda wish we had gone with the 140m saucer with inverse slope, still picked the large warp core, and then picked cruise configuration for two nacelles? Just for confusing the absolute fuck out of anyone cross-time that the Constitution Project didn't produce the ship with a Constitution-class silhouette, which is the long-haul heavy cruiser of the fleet.
 
[X] 10 Phaser Banks (Type II) [Damage 24] [100% Coverage] [Cost: 129]
[X] 10 Phaser Banks (Type V) [Damage 32] [100% Coverage] [Cost: 149]

Starfleet wants a fleet anchor with comprehensive coverage, so ten phaser banks it is. I'd prefer to pay the premium for the Type V, but the Type II is also acceptable. I don't like the significant loss in damage, but the cost difference is enough that I'm willing to approval vote for it.
 
[X] 6 Phaser Banks (Type V) [Damage: 32] [60% Coverage] [Cost: 129]
[X] 10 Phaser Banks (Type V) [Damage 32] [100% Coverage] [Cost: 149]

While I build my argument, I'll just go to general approval voting.
 
[ ] 6 Phaser Banks (Type V) [Damage: 32] [60% Coverage] [Cost: 129]
[X] 10 Phaser Banks (Type V) [Damage 32] [100% Coverage] [Cost: 149]

I was a large proponent of coverage in earlier posts, but given the stated difficulty in exploiting blind spots, I'm happy with either of the Type V layouts. I feel that the damage increase from the Type V's would adequately compensate for less than full coverage. Current-gen BoP's have 12 shields, even if their next-gen option doubled that we'd still be punching through and (presumably) dealing critical systems damage in one shot.
The savings of springing for maneuverability rather than full coverage amount to about 12, and this also allows for additional ability to lay torpedoes on peer targets.
Speaking of, what are we feeling for torps, dual rapids for a six-salvo? Quad type-4s? Not sure how many mounts we'll have to work with, but two's a reasonable number.

EDIT: I'm convinced. Full send. Thunderchild-A.
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top