I was thinking 4x internal volume. So by that logic a pod 200 meters long and 56 meters wide would fit.
Last edited:
Linked contents
I was thinking 4x internal volume. So by that logic a pod 200 meters long and 56 meters wide would fit.
D7s, you mean.
The people in the line ships are just salty that the ORB has a cinema and they don't.
Yeah, I'm a little disappointed that after that talk of specialized cargo pods a medic pod never seemed to make it into the retrospective.
No, it's just having high hopes and wanting the best for our baby.
- Location
- USA
It's basically akin to a Liberty ship in many ways. The Archers are ships that do exactly what they are supposed to, which is be the best damn engineering ship that we can make. I think that the Klingons explicitly targeted them with their next gen warbirds is an incredibly potent statement about how effective they were, as well as the not insignificant defenses we stuck on. Nothing glamorous about them, but I bet many colonies have stories about an Archer bailing them out of a bad situation. And that's enough.
Last edited:
Don't you mean the Archers? The Newtons are San Francisco's design.
NavySeel
"I don't know what I'm doing."
- Location
- Places
Starfleet: "Thanks I hate it."
darkstarling
Brilliantly Crazed
- Location
- Columbus, Ohio
- Pronouns
- He/Him
If we go with a bigger, more powerful warship I'd like to pre-emptively nominate the name Orca class.
Starfleet: "This better not awaken something in me"
Call it the Horseshoe Crab, in honor of the Skate. The Stingray class if we're not feeling subtle.
Starfleet: "I hate that I love this."
Starfleet: "This better not awaken something in me"
Last edited:
The Enterprise A also survived penetration and detonation of a photon torpedo in the forward saucer section, iirc.
That doesn't quite add up with the pixel scaling, at 50cm/1px (assuming a 3m deck, which the furniture seems to support) the length is about 136m for the small pod (some margin for error given how I'd worked it out but I'm pretty sure @Nyvis got no less than 120m) and the height of the pod is 35.5m.
In regards to the phaser thing, I'm firmly holding that the reason every Starfleet ship before phaser strips doesn't have overlapping fields of fire is significant. We don't get complaints by captains that they're being outfought, and even the Scimitar wasn't just rain-of-firing the Enterprise in the Battle of the Bassen Rift despite allegedly having something like 50 cannons and nearly 30 torpedo tubes.
There are three distinct eras. Enterprise we see lots of weapon fire from lots of small guns. Then by TOS through to TMP things are consolidated into linked phaser banks. Then you get to TNG where phaser strips can fire in all kinds of different ways, which makes sense given their design basically being something like 300 phaser emitters strapped together in a curve, each with their own power feed that can chain into each other. No reason you can't split it up. Looking forward to having to figure out a way to spreadsheet that mechanic.
The most obvious answer to this is it's a powerflow issue. The second answer is that it's doctrinal. Phasers are the scalpel of energy weapons, but they're still potent enough for military work. And the thread chose to have lower-power phasers in exchange for having to build less of them to cover more firing arc. Now as it happens this isn't especially relevant given the next choice is a refinement of the phaser banks to TOS-levels with the Warp 8 power systems. The problem is that if I throw up my hands and go 'okay you can fire as many phasers as you have on target', then phasers just become another version of torpedoes and you lose the inherent incentives to build in canon-alike ways.
The math works out for that. I was just going by what was left in the calculator part of the spreadsheet for determining the volume of basic shapes. Clearly I was playing with something of about 100 meters at some point afterwards. Ah, yes. Newton-class engineering pods. There you go.
There are three distinct eras. Enterprise we see lots of weapon fire from lots of small guns. Then by TOS through to TMP things are consolidated into linked phaser banks. Then you get to TNG where phaser strips can fire in all kinds of different ways, which makes sense given their design basically being something like 300 phaser emitters strapped together in a curve, each with their own power feed that can chain into each other. No reason you can't split it up. Looking forward to having to figure out a way to spreadsheet that mechanic.
The most obvious answer to this is it's a powerflow issue. The second answer is that it's doctrinal. Phasers are the scalpel of energy weapons, but they're still potent enough for military work. And the thread chose to have lower-power phasers in exchange for having to build less of them to cover more firing arc. Now as it happens this isn't especially relevant given the next choice is a refinement of the phaser banks to TOS-levels with the Warp 8 power systems. The problem is that if I throw up my hands and go 'okay you can fire as many phasers as you have on target', then phasers just become another version of torpedoes and you lose the inherent incentives to build in canon-alike ways.
The math works out for that. I was just going by what was left in the calculator part of the spreadsheet for determining the volume of basic shapes. Clearly I was playing with something of about 100 meters at some point afterwards. Ah, yes. Newton-class engineering pods. There you go.
Last edited:
Ah, fair enough. It's rather easy to forget there's a whole backend we questers have no idea of.
I'm personally fine with the restriction as they are now. But an option for +cost on phasers or even a single per 90 arc bank of "heavy" phasers might eek by the thread for the next few builds.
Last edited:
Do we? Huge ships that take ages to build, can only be in 1 place at a time and have a mono-purpose that makes them rapidly obsolete? What would've happened if we spent the money on that Thunderchild thingemy building smaller warships?
If holding to the exact aesthetic of the the SFX in the shows is that important - and I respect that even if I'm less wedded to it - then I think we need to actually start treating the phasers and power output of ships as more individually scaling with their size rather than fungible. Which is certainly how things must actually work in canon - like, the idea that a Galaxy and a Sabre have the same total power output from their warp core simply because they are built in the same era is obviously silly. Likewise, a Constitution should have a higher power output and larger phaser banks than a smaller ship built in the same era, and phasers designed to match, or really it would simply not be efficient at all to build a Constitution in the first place.
I guess what I'm saying is we can't be completely realistic in one aspect, and then very game-ified in another, or it produces obvious distortions like this.
We could still use the existing schema for phaser types and warp core generations - they're the same fundamental design after all, just scaled down or scaled up versions. In terms of quest mechanics, the simplest way would be to keep things as is where a Type-2 Phaser has a set damage output, etc., and then have use some kind of multiplier based on the "weight class" of the ship, or other modifiers. The votes on phaser layout will remain as we've done previously, because those trade-offs between cost/coverage won't change.
A lot of attrition.
I'll direct you to go re-read Warspite's Last Hurrah long after her obsolescence on what we can expect if we decide to focus entirely on small craft as a way of handling the D7s.
LunaMoth
Wings of Kynareth is my comfort song...
- Pronouns
- He/They
I mean if we want to mimic the first federation, we could....
Giant SPHERE with detachable parts
We've been over this before. Smaller ships would have gotten cut to pieces like the Skate was and outclassed entirely by the Romulan warbirds.
Tell me what you think would happen if, say we are generous, 4 smaller light cruisers were at the debut battle of Thunderchild and faced the same alpha strike? You'd have lost two outright destroyed at best, three destroyed or crippled more likely and the station would have still been there shooting at the fleet instead of being destroyed in a thunder run.
More than likely the task force sent against the station and its defense fleet would have gotten routed.
Whilst we don't necessarily need a dreadnought, we do need a battlecruiser in the form of a larger than usual heavy cruiser (since we're already kinda bigger than the Connie/Connie-II in some respects with the Sagar and Kea) able to not only persecute the D-7 individually (at perhaps a 3:1 number disadvantage) but also able to push deep into Klingon space and blow shit up (for former of which will lend itself nicely to an explorer)
2225: Type-2 Phaser (Mark II)
As the Bureau gears up for the next major project interesting news comes out of Starfleet Tactical. Extensive experience with the Type-2 phaser and increasing advancements in particle generation systems means the newest systems have been promising improvements for some time now without materialising. The Warp 8 Engine has changed that, with the higher electroplasma temperatures and much of the conduit work involved in bringing the project into reality being cross-applicable to starship power grids. There now exists a power supply capable of feeding Tactical's new toys.
Unfortunately beam diverter technology has lagged somewhat behind these improvements and there seems to be no advancements on the horizon which would enable the Type-2 to improve the phaser beam while also maintaining its range of movement. Since this reduction in arc-coverage has invalidated the advantages of the pivot-and-barrel design the new phaser models will be back to using the old technique of a spherical magnetic lens that uses fundamentally the same technology to deflect the phaser beam but is less vulnerable to return fire.
Essentially the stronger the particle beam the less able the diverter is to deflect it, and the more the firing arc shrinks. As it stands there are two options. The first option is to accept the limitations of the diverter and work with it, reducing maximum particle density to preserve as much of the present advantages as possible. Live-fire tests in the laboratory predict a 20% reduction in firing arc would result in a pleasingly symmetrical 20% improvement in particle density. The second option is to instead focus on maximising particle density at all costs. The diverter would become not only less effective but also less efficient, resulting in a 45% reduction in firing arc for a 34% improvement in particle density.
The choice is up to you. Maintaining arc would make vessels able to cover every major angle of attack viable at the cost of lower raw damage output, while particle density will make such efforts prohibitively expensive.
[ ] Focus on Particle Density (75 Degrees Arc, 12->18 Damage)
[ ] Focus on Maintaining Arc (105 Degrees Arc, 12->15 Damage)
Two Hour Moratorium, Please
Canon Type-2 (Mk II): Particle Density (45 Degrees Arc, 18->24 Damage)
Unfortunately beam diverter technology has lagged somewhat behind these improvements and there seems to be no advancements on the horizon which would enable the Type-2 to improve the phaser beam while also maintaining its range of movement. Since this reduction in arc-coverage has invalidated the advantages of the pivot-and-barrel design the new phaser models will be back to using the old technique of a spherical magnetic lens that uses fundamentally the same technology to deflect the phaser beam but is less vulnerable to return fire.
Essentially the stronger the particle beam the less able the diverter is to deflect it, and the more the firing arc shrinks. As it stands there are two options. The first option is to accept the limitations of the diverter and work with it, reducing maximum particle density to preserve as much of the present advantages as possible. Live-fire tests in the laboratory predict a 20% reduction in firing arc would result in a pleasingly symmetrical 20% improvement in particle density. The second option is to instead focus on maximising particle density at all costs. The diverter would become not only less effective but also less efficient, resulting in a 45% reduction in firing arc for a 34% improvement in particle density.
The choice is up to you. Maintaining arc would make vessels able to cover every major angle of attack viable at the cost of lower raw damage output, while particle density will make such efforts prohibitively expensive.
[ ] Focus on Particle Density (75 Degrees Arc, 12->18 Damage)
[ ] Focus on Maintaining Arc (105 Degrees Arc, 12->15 Damage)
Two Hour Moratorium, Please
Canon Type-2 (Mk II): Particle Density (45 Degrees Arc, 18->24 Damage)
Last edited:
- Location
- in between
I too am in favour of resurrecting the Dreadnought fleet role. Warspite is a museum ship at this point, and even if she wasn't she's so bloody old that our frigates are closer to her mass than they are to the Skate. She needs a successor, and even if we still end up only creating DN style combatants during wartime, we'll at least have them instead of hoping the Heavy Explorer of the age can pull double duty.
Edit: Update! Wait, really? We don't even get a choice regarding whether to stick with a turret system? Dammit! I like that so much better! I swear, if this is a response to all of the guys complaining about only getting two phasers at a time I will actually commit homicide -
Ugh. Well, guess there's no point in trying to keep our high coverage if this is happening. Full focus phasers it is, yay....
Edit: Update! Wait, really? We don't even get a choice regarding whether to stick with a turret system? Dammit! I like that so much better! I swear, if this is a response to all of the guys complaining about only getting two phasers at a time I will actually commit homicide -
Ugh. Well, guess there's no point in trying to keep our high coverage if this is happening. Full focus phasers it is, yay....
Last edited:
- Location
- Earth
I think if we focus on particle density, we will need to compensate with better engines accordingly. I'm in favour of this option myself.
As it is, our Archers didn't appear to have issues with firing arcs and BoPs out manoeuvring them. But having better engines with focused arcs mean better time-on-target for weapons with better punch and better evasion.
As it is, our Archers didn't appear to have issues with firing arcs and BoPs out manoeuvring them. But having better engines with focused arcs mean better time-on-target for weapons with better punch and better evasion.
Last edited:
darkstarling
Brilliantly Crazed
- Location
- Columbus, Ohio
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Okay interesting. Im going to go for sheer punch power in the hope we can compensate in maneuverability. It was good enough for the Fist of the Prophets, it can be good enough for us.
May I suggest we don't make the same mistake we did last time? We didn't realize how restrictive only firing 2 phasers per round was going to be and it's caused issues with our combat capabilities on a strategic scale, encouraging the Klingons to attack early.
If we go with Maintaining Arc, we're stuck with limits on damage. We've got Type-3 impulse drives early and a +10% buff to impulse power, let's go all out on max firepower. Small ships can make do with smaller numbers and use their natural agility, larger ships can simply mount more arrays.
If we go with Maintaining Arc, we're stuck with limits on damage. We've got Type-3 impulse drives early and a +10% buff to impulse power, let's go all out on max firepower. Small ships can make do with smaller numbers and use their natural agility, larger ships can simply mount more arrays.
Last edited: