- Location
- west
Fine, no big, slow warships were made in that era.
Linked contents
- Location
- Outside the Box
- Pronouns
- She/Her
Missing the X here.
Pedantic: It's a 20% boost to impulse and a 10% boost to shields:
[X] Focus on Particle Density (75 Degrees Arc, 12->18 Damage)
No, but we shouldn't double down and weaken its weapons even further. You said yourself we have double buffs to agility and speed, so why would we want to optimize towards weapons geared for slow, cheap or non-combat performance? We want to be optimizing for maximum firepower, we have the ability to keep our enemy in our firing cones and don't need to be able to fire a round anywhere around us.
Whoops, misremembered that.
DualFront
Perhaps, this is Hell
Moratorium wasn't quite over yet. Added in regardless.
- Location
- sweden
People consider overlapping firing fields if we are not dumb with placement it would turn any overlap angles that being not on the opposite side of the ship into 30 damage it spares us from building double of everything for power arrays and emitters.
Like have you guys seen a 108° angle that cone is wide as all heck placing 3 of them at a round shape makes it so 2 emitters are ALWAYS ALIGNED based on geometry
Like have you guys seen a 108° angle that cone is wide as all heck placing 3 of them at a round shape makes it so 2 emitters are ALWAYS ALIGNED based on geometry
Last edited:
Knowing how a D6 stats out would definitely be useful since the Sagarmatha was noted to be at a significant disadvantage against a D6, never mind a D7.
DualFront
Perhaps, this is Hell
We're still going to be able to have overlapping fields with the 75 degree phasers. Hell, we're still going to have better coverage than the canon Constitution (which had no notable issues getting multiple guns on target) and we're going to be way faster and more maneuverable as well.
EDIT: And considering we still don't have anything that can reliably fight D6's, we desperately need as much firepower as we can get if we're going to handle the D7
Last edited:
ClawClawBite
Mad Engineering!
- Location
- Seattle, WA
[X] Focus on Particle Density (75 Degrees Arc, 12->18 Damage)
- Location
- Hollister
[X] Focus on Particle Density (75 Degrees Arc, 12->18 Damage)
I suppose now is the time where I start shilling for a not-quite-as-huge-as-possible Connie.
We have great impulse engines, with higher-than-canon power. I'd like to stick with that, even on our flagship. If we can get better-than-medium maneuverability, then we can reliably put torpedos and phasers on target.
Which compliments my vote for
[X] Focus on Particle Density (75 Degrees Arc, 12->18 Damage)
as reduced arc isn't a problem, when you can just turn the ship.†
Mind you, I'm not arguing for a small Connie! I'm advocating a merely Big rather than Hueg ship.
And it's weird to make an argument that leads to even slightly reduced capability for an Explorer. But smaller ships turn faster, and getting guns on target is the best way to survive a combat.
Ideally, mounting fewer, more focused phasers would make for enough space savings to offset a smaller hull.
Additional benefits: marginally cheaper to produce, might get an extra ship built. Also, will be closer in size to the canon Constitution, which is a purely emotional bonus that nonetheless matters to me.
Build Big, not Huge!
Vote for stronger, narrower phasers to support this!‡
† Stamped on the front of a starship, in very small letters: THIS END TOWARDS ENEMY
‡ And, like, any other plan that leans towards more firepower or higher maneuverability.
---
We have great impulse engines, with higher-than-canon power. I'd like to stick with that, even on our flagship. If we can get better-than-medium maneuverability, then we can reliably put torpedos and phasers on target.
Which compliments my vote for
[X] Focus on Particle Density (75 Degrees Arc, 12->18 Damage)
as reduced arc isn't a problem, when you can just turn the ship.†
Mind you, I'm not arguing for a small Connie! I'm advocating a merely Big rather than Hueg ship.
And it's weird to make an argument that leads to even slightly reduced capability for an Explorer. But smaller ships turn faster, and getting guns on target is the best way to survive a combat.
Ideally, mounting fewer, more focused phasers would make for enough space savings to offset a smaller hull.
Additional benefits: marginally cheaper to produce, might get an extra ship built. Also, will be closer in size to the canon Constitution, which is a purely emotional bonus that nonetheless matters to me.
Build Big, not Huge!
Vote for stronger, narrower phasers to support this!‡
† Stamped on the front of a starship, in very small letters: THIS END TOWARDS ENEMY
‡ And, like, any other plan that leans towards more firepower or higher maneuverability.
---
I'll hit twice for 36, thanks.
That's not the compromise we're being offered; the choice is more coverage or higher damage. No need to go borrowing trouble.
We picked wide arcs to deal with a weakness we saw in our ships. Then we picked the impulse boost to further address that weakness. If we were dealing with a higher tech version of runabout and frigate spam as our primary threat then we'd have less of an urgent need to focus on firepower.
Since we've dealt with the weaknesses of our designs and we're fighting the Klingons we're now seeing that our firepower hasn't increased to match our needs. So we focus on firepower.
Changing your loadout to deal with a different tactical scenario and enemy is sensible. It doesn't mean your old loadout was garbage for all the scenarios it got you through especially those it was specifically designed to deal with.
Since we've dealt with the weaknesses of our designs and we're fighting the Klingons we're now seeing that our firepower hasn't increased to match our needs. So we focus on firepower.
Changing your loadout to deal with a different tactical scenario and enemy is sensible. It doesn't mean your old loadout was garbage for all the scenarios it got you through especially those it was specifically designed to deal with.
Poor Ensign Red Shirt,
Even in death there is no dignity,
Autopsy instead of a hero's grave.
Yeah, I want Full Saucer for being able to mount 3 impulse engines without losing too much space but a smaller secondary hull to save on weight would be good.
- Location
- sweden
It's the difference between a sharp triangle and a blunt one and makes placement easier, cheaper and allows for actual two phaser emitters use more often as the bigger overlap creates bigger optimal firing ranges of double damage at 30 instead of a mere18
Compare these two shapes any difference between them is optimal firing ranges it would be diffrent if it was 90° degree angles 75° leaves too much of a smaller overlap and close range blind spots when star fleet always fly into prison shank range for combat the type where you go into a hug and you sometimes move your forearm but you are basically walking into someone mostly.
Edit: feels like people dont realize overlap doubles our damage without double or triple the cost it is more damage but seen more indirectly it's not as cool or glamorous just like the archer class overlap was already a pain there and on other designs
Last edited:
[X] Focus on Particle Density (75 Degrees Arc, 12->18 Damage)
View: https://youtu.be/6A9IZHWz45Q?si=n1WxnOqbxBYyp5bq&t=44
When she was getting Riker'd. Observe:
View: https://youtu.be/6A9IZHWz45Q?si=n1WxnOqbxBYyp5bq&t=44
Last edited:
- Location
- Seattle, Washington
[X] Focus on Particle Density (75 Degrees Arc, 12->18 Damage)
Alectai
Speaks Words of Wisdom... On occasion
YEAAAAAAAAHHHHH
I hope we can at least get Kelvinverse level Connie here!
Perhaps for the Excelsior equivalent, but unless we decide to go for a mobile starbase ~700m+ is a bridge too far for us right now.
[X] Focus on Particle Density (75 Degrees Arc, 12->18 Damage)