Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
[X] Focus on Particle Density (75 Degrees Arc, 12->18 Damage)

While wide coverage might've helped us before, and recently is now becoming a detriment, with new technology coming out, increasing phaser particle density is a good option to upgun our weaponry without adding more torpedo tubes into a new ship hull.

We got the speed and maneuverability now thanks to increases in impulse engine outputs and a new warp engine.
 
[X] Focus on Particle Density (75 Degrees Arc, 12->18 Damage)

Glad we are getting a chance to backstep the choice of coverage over damage.

(Though admittedly, coverage would have advantages without the two weapon limitation)

((Not that I'm arguing against that, just saying))
 
Last edited:
The primary function of wider arc phasers ultimately is either to improve the cost of a ship or to improve the available internal space of a ship, as it's either a matter of needing fewer phasers to achieve the desired coverage or needing fewer impulse engines so that the coverage is able to maintain fire on target.

Our decisions with the Warp Eight Engine have massively traded off on refit-capability in exchange for reduced internal space requirements, with the decision to increase impulse engine power over shield power amounting to the same thing for any given maneuverability rating.

The sum total result of this is that for the same non-combat capabilities, we need a smaller ship with fewer phasers, which aims for cost effectiveness. Unfortunately, the cost of the warp engine and the nacelles are sufficient that even with the reduced needed tonnage to maintain capabilities (and the commensurate reduction in hull and shield costs), we aren't able to build enough additional smaller ships to make up for the reduction in our overall concentration of force -- our old fleet is slower than the main timeline, because the lack of Warp Eight Engine refitting, and our sustained damage output for each ship is lower.

The confluence of decisions to improve available internal space for non-combat capabilities and reduce the per-ship cost by reducing the number of weapons haven't resulted in sufficient improvements to the overall condition of the Federation to offset that reduced overall military capacity, and is something that we need to take steps to address.

[X] Focus on Particle Density (75 Degrees Arc, 12->18 Damage)
 
[X] Focus on Particle Density (75 Degrees Arc, 12->18 Damage)

We can always add more coverage or mobility, much harder to add more firepower.
 
Vehrec said:
I feel like even with 'oversized' nacelles, this thing would struggle to maintain a long-enough warp bubble to encompass all the train you depict here. They just don't look...well, like they would project far enough aft, and I worry about the cross-field effects.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Maybe the containers might be better arranged only one container deep, but 2 high and 3 across?
Or maybe just one deep, one high and then 3 or 4 across.

It'd make the ship wide, but that might give room for specialised (read: big but lower costing) equipment that helps boost the efficient cruise speed.

I have the feeling that a four-nacelle arrangement would be best at forming a warp field that covers such a wide cross sectional area which has cargo pods in the centre, which would seriously increase the costs of building such a ship.

Edit: Or Mechanics is right that warp fields are constrained more by the mass of what's inside them, and that volume is easy to adjust for.
 
Last edited:
Diverging from canon feels like it was ultimately a mistake. We chose the wrong big number

[X] Focus on Particle Density (75 Degrees Arc, 12->18 Damage)
 
Well the vote is going one way. With that in mind I've updated the tech table in the informational with what you'll have access to during ship construction. For the sake of completeness I'll post the full table here and you'll get the individual stats when it comes to the decisionmaking points.

Edit: look in the informational threadmark instead.

 
Last edited:
[X] Focus on Particle Density (75 Degrees Arc, 12->18 Damage)

I do think the original decision was motivated at least as much by cost as by the desire for wide coverage, so when that's taken out of the picture going for power makes a good amount of sense.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top