KnightDisciple
Love God. Do Right. Fear No Man.
- Location
- Midwest, USA
[X] 10 Phaser Banks (Type V) [Damage 32] [100% Coverage] [Cost: 149]
Linked contents
- Location
- United States
[X] 10 Phaser Banks (Type V) [Damage 32] [100% Coverage] [Cost: 149]
Chargone
Invisable operator
- Location
- New Zealand
We have an (unspecified) effectiveness minimum necessary to justify the size of the ship, and a need to not do rediculous things like bolt on a whole extra ship's worth of torpedoes that punt the design entirely outside the boundaries of what can reasonably be called a cruiser.No, because we actually do have a budget back up by explicit quest text warning. You blew it on every vote before the weapons vote.
Once again, the canon 180kt Connie with medium speed and 18% coverage was a era defining ship. We're faster then that and would have 3x the coverage at 60%.
So far as I've seen and recall, we do not, in fact, have an actually meaningful budget limit, as such.
To take a quote from Q Who:
"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross, but it's not for the timid."
That's not to say we should always blow through the warnings, but we've got to stop freezing and backtracking like a deer in headlights every time it comes up.
Then vote as you like. I, however, will remember when the retrospective comes out. : p
Last edited:
- Location
- United Kingdom
[X] 10 Phaser Banks (Type V) [Damage 32] [100% Coverage] [Cost: 149]
darkstarling
Brilliantly Crazed
- Location
- Columbus, Ohio
- Pronouns
- He/Him
This yes. Giving maximum phaser coverage is in alignment with our brief, trying to turn this into a dreadnaught isn't.
- Location
- Australia
So I've been thinking pretty intensely on 4 hours sleep about this.
First, there are 3 separate angled blinds spots off 45 degrees a ship would have to be in.
Second, assuming they are in the exact middle on the exact angle of that dead zone, we only have to rotate 22 degrees in any direction to hit them.
Third, 22 degrees is freaking tiny.
If it was an entire arc of the ship undefended, it would be an immensely foolish choice for a fleet anchor to have partial coverage. Instead, it's 3 separate small regions. Sayle is also looking at reworking the multi-target ship formula, which makes me think they will take information like that into account.
[X] 6 Phaser Banks (Type V) [Damage: 32] [60% Coverage] [Cost: 129]
Because saving 20 cost in exchange for occasionally having to rotate 20 degrees with a maximum maneuverability ship is amazing cost effectiveness. I honestly don't think it will realistically impact it's fleet anchor abilities.
First, there are 3 separate angled blinds spots off 45 degrees a ship would have to be in.
Second, assuming they are in the exact middle on the exact angle of that dead zone, we only have to rotate 22 degrees in any direction to hit them.
Third, 22 degrees is freaking tiny.
If it was an entire arc of the ship undefended, it would be an immensely foolish choice for a fleet anchor to have partial coverage. Instead, it's 3 separate small regions. Sayle is also looking at reworking the multi-target ship formula, which makes me think they will take information like that into account.
[X] 6 Phaser Banks (Type V) [Damage: 32] [60% Coverage] [Cost: 129]
Because saving 20 cost in exchange for occasionally having to rotate 20 degrees with a maximum maneuverability ship is amazing cost effectiveness. I honestly don't think it will realistically impact it's fleet anchor abilities.
Chargone
Invisable operator
- Location
- New Zealand
The issue isn't so much the first ship as it is its buddy coming in from a different direction that is then in a different blind spot Because the ship has rotated.
Now, whether that's actually a Problem with 6 phasers or not, I don't know, but that's the issue our non-kea ships were having and which this ship is supposed to not have.
Then we would have shot their buddy before we turn right?
Chargone
Invisable operator
- Location
- New Zealand
Probably. Certainly one would hope so, at least, but there are all sorts of situational reasons why that might not be the case on any given occassion.
- Location
- Australia
The same rotation would let you hit them all.
Hold out your hand and rotate it 20 degrees. It's less than a half turn of a half turn of a half turn.
- Location
- in the trash
"It's only 10 extra cost, we need 200% manueverability."
Followed by people deciding to compromise on the thing we're supposed to be building for because oops, there's not much slack left in the budget.
I expect people to learn absolutely nothing from this.
[X] 10 Phaser Banks (Type V) [Damage 32] [100% Coverage] [Cost: 149]
Followed by people deciding to compromise on the thing we're supposed to be building for because oops, there's not much slack left in the budget.
I expect people to learn absolutely nothing from this.
[X] 10 Phaser Banks (Type V) [Damage 32] [100% Coverage] [Cost: 149]
Last edited:
Unless we blow them up (possible for small ships if they've already got some other damage) or we don't. Then we're rotating to put torps on one of them or centering our closest phaser arc on them so they won't maneuver away.
It'd be extremely hard for multiple ships to stay in different blind spots. They'd have to be strafing in ways that match our rotation and I don't think that's actually possible. Once our tactical notices then our ship starts turning opposite their flight. If they're coming right at us the clearance gets smaller and we rotate to bear on them quicker than if they're flying in the same direction as our rotation.
Edit: We spent 10 on engines to save 20 on phasers.
Last edited:
- Location
- USA
[X] 10 Phaser Banks (Type V) [Damage 32] [100% Coverage] [Cost: 149]
I want Type 5 phasers and Type 4 torpedoes to push that tech, and since we went big with the quad nacelles might as well go for full coverage.
I want Type 5 phasers and Type 4 torpedoes to push that tech, and since we went big with the quad nacelles might as well go for full coverage.
[X] 10 Phaser Banks (Type V) [Damage 32] [100% Coverage] [Cost: 149]
I think going for max coverage makes sense here.
The Klingon's are currently fielding or will field ships which should all be able to outmaneuver (to varying degrees) a Federation-class but aside from the K'tinga all of them effectively have a glass jaw against a 32 damage Phaser.
Current Gen Klingon BoP's have only 12 shield strength and at 30kt likely have very few hull points and so would get evaporated from a single 32 damage Type-V Phaser hit.
The D7 sits at 30 shields so even a single hit from a 32 damage Type-V is going to result in it's shield's failing plus hull damage and a follow-up shot will likely kill or cripple it.
The D7 at 120kt standard thrust also isn't that much more maneuverable compared to the 150kt standard thrust (300kt 200% thrust or 150kt standard thrust) Federation class which means it's also going to need to watch out for torpedoes on the regular.
The B'rel if we're being generous and assuming it has 250% more shield strength over the BoP to match the D7 would still receive hull damage and on a 60kt hull wouldn't be able to handle said hull damage anywhere near as well as a D7 would so it should also die to a follow up shot.
Even assuming the B'rel has comparable durability and superior maneuverability however runs into the issue of it coming pretty close to the D7 in terms of cost (40-55 vs 60) so spamming them like the previous gen BoP's is likely a lot less viable considering the fact that the D7 to BoP cost ratio (2.5 BoP / D7) was more generous than the B'rel to K'tinga (2-1.6 B'rel to K'tinga) cost ratio.
Basically all of the above ships would suffer more (we can get away with low coverage the most against the D7 since the maneuverability levels are so close) against a max coverage Type-V Phaser Federation-class than a 60% coverage one since max coverage would give it a lot more freedom to maneuver since no matter how it maneuvers it will always be able to tag them with a devastating hit from it's Phasers whereas a lower coverage Federation-class would need to focus more on keeping them within it's firing arcs.
The K'tinga however is a little bit of a different story as unlike all the previous ships it doesn't have a glass jaw vs a 300kt scale Type-V Phaser.
At 50 shields and massing 180kt like the Excalibur even if we assume it's hull points are comparable to an Excalibur we're looking at a minimum 3 Phaser hits to kill one, which is being incredibly generous since it's assuming Klingon ship materials are only comparable to ours when so far outside of Warp Core tech their tech has been superior.
Assuming they aim to match the Excalibur (I don't see why they wouldn't try that at a bare minimum) maneuverability wise (180kt 200% thrust or 90kt standard thrust) at 90kt standard thrust equivalent our 150kt thrust equivalent ship isn't going to having the easiest time getting Phasers on target if we skimp on coverage much less torpedoes.
TLDR, outside of bullying D7's which are probably on the way out I think we'll get more mileage out of coverage than we would from saving 10 cost.
[X] 10 Phaser Banks (Type V) [Damage 32] [100% Coverage] [Cost: 149]
Edit:
While the K'tinga probably does have superior maneuverability assuming 90kt standard vs 150kt standard I don't think getting torpedoes on target against them is impossible so this isn't me advocating we skimp on torpedoes.
The Klingon's are currently fielding or will field ships which should all be able to outmaneuver (to varying degrees) a Federation-class but aside from the K'tinga all of them effectively have a glass jaw against a 32 damage Phaser.
Current Gen Klingon BoP's have only 12 shield strength and at 30kt likely have very few hull points and so would get evaporated from a single 32 damage Type-V Phaser hit.
The D7 sits at 30 shields so even a single hit from a 32 damage Type-V is going to result in it's shield's failing plus hull damage and a follow-up shot will likely kill or cripple it.
The D7 at 120kt standard thrust also isn't that much more maneuverable compared to the 150kt standard thrust (300kt 200% thrust or 150kt standard thrust) Federation class which means it's also going to need to watch out for torpedoes on the regular.
The B'rel if we're being generous and assuming it has 250% more shield strength over the BoP to match the D7 would still receive hull damage and on a 60kt hull wouldn't be able to handle said hull damage anywhere near as well as a D7 would so it should also die to a follow up shot.
Even assuming the B'rel has comparable durability and superior maneuverability however runs into the issue of it coming pretty close to the D7 in terms of cost (40-55 vs 60) so spamming them like the previous gen BoP's is likely a lot less viable considering the fact that the D7 to BoP cost ratio (2.5 BoP / D7) was more generous than the B'rel to K'tinga (2-1.6 B'rel to K'tinga) cost ratio.
Basically all of the above ships would suffer more (we can get away with low coverage the most against the D7 since the maneuverability levels are so close) against a max coverage Type-V Phaser Federation-class than a 60% coverage one since max coverage would give it a lot more freedom to maneuver since no matter how it maneuvers it will always be able to tag them with a devastating hit from it's Phasers whereas a lower coverage Federation-class would need to focus more on keeping them within it's firing arcs.
The K'tinga however is a little bit of a different story as unlike all the previous ships it doesn't have a glass jaw vs a 300kt scale Type-V Phaser.
At 50 shields and massing 180kt like the Excalibur even if we assume it's hull points are comparable to an Excalibur we're looking at a minimum 3 Phaser hits to kill one, which is being incredibly generous since it's assuming Klingon ship materials are only comparable to ours when so far outside of Warp Core tech their tech has been superior.
Assuming they aim to match the Excalibur (I don't see why they wouldn't try that at a bare minimum) maneuverability wise (180kt 200% thrust or 90kt standard thrust) at 90kt standard thrust equivalent our 150kt thrust equivalent ship isn't going to having the easiest time getting Phasers on target if we skimp on coverage much less torpedoes.
TLDR, outside of bullying D7's which are probably on the way out I think we'll get more mileage out of coverage than we would from saving 10 cost.
[X] 10 Phaser Banks (Type V) [Damage 32] [100% Coverage] [Cost: 149]
Edit:
While the K'tinga probably does have superior maneuverability assuming 90kt standard vs 150kt standard I don't think getting torpedoes on target against them is impossible so this isn't me advocating we skimp on torpedoes.
Last edited:
SirLagginton
Shadow Cabal Caerbannog Bun-Bun
- Location
- Arrrghhh
[X] 6 Phaser Banks (Type V) [Damage: 32] [60% Coverage] [Cost: 129]
It's not a 1:1 correlation, One Phaser is not going to flatline+ a D7's shield.
Still, going for the more powerful phaser mount and going for more of them means that we're going to get more and more powerful shots out, which'll get the shields down that much quicker.
Theunderbolt
"Prepare for trouble..."
- Location
- USoA
[X] 10 Phaser Banks (Type V) [Damage 32] [100% Coverage] [Cost: 149]
The Bird of Prey shall know fear
The Bird of Prey shall know fear
I mean, the one directly behind the ship should be covered by the torpedo launchers, and if the ship is moving forward anything trying to stay in the flank blindspots will have a rough time staying there.
That's probably not simulated, though.