Linked contents
The rapid fire launchers, depending on our prototype roll, will give us either the power of two or three torpedo tubes each.
There's no point comparing them to our phasers. And our most heavily armed ships are armed with an anemic two standard tubes each; if you have been paying attention, none of our ships have the guns to fight a D6.
We can match the low-roll of the rapid launcher prototype with two standard tubes; mounting two rapid-fire tubes instead of four standards increases the cost of the ship by 50%, and means we get significantly fewer ships.
Trying to mount four rapid tubes means our torpedo tubes represent a strict majority of the cost of the ship. I'd bet quite a bit of money that we will outright not get that as an option.
The vote is broken, you'll need to add an ] at the end for it to be counted.
- Location
- USA
- Pronouns
- He/They
This is very clever, and very well-thought-out, but I believe it's totally unnecessary. With capped agility, we should be just fine with a dorsal pair forward, a ventral pair foreward, and a single dorsal and ventral aft. Torpedoes are the bulk of our offense anyway, and we're anticipating absolutely no difficulty bringing them to bear and keeping them there, so stripping back phaser armament to a forward focused plan with bit of a sting in the tail to deter chasers will save quite a bit on pricey and tactically unnecessary emitters.
Last edited:
I'm on Team "Anything-But-Half-Saucer". Save those for the next class! The Enterprise needs a full saucer, damnit!
Horologer
Incertae sedis
- Location
- a risen sea
I'm not relying just on defenses, but I am expecting that we will want very strong defenses on this ship. Again, the design brief calls for a ship that can take hits. Since we also to keep costs down, that means less mass, and since we want less mass, we don't need as many impulse thrusters, which mostly obviates the need for the half-saucer.
My idea here is we beat the Klingons by having a lot of relatively cheap ships that are hard to hit and hard to kill even when you do hit them. If production is high and losses are low, we can just beat them into the ground with raw numbers as they lose forces to attrition. Even if each individual ship isn't as heavily armed, collectively the Klingons will be facing more phasers and more torpedoes because we just have more ships.
And to be clear I still want these to be quite heavily armed ships; I just don't think we need to maximize the amount of possible torpedoes (or phasers) on a single hull.
I'd be all for mounting 6 standard tubes, but realistically the Sagarmartha only got four front tubes on it's 380kt saucer, so no matter what we do I can't imagine we'll get more than like 3 if we're lucky.
Nope, the canon one for this quest has a single launcher with some variants also having a rear one.
In any case, I highly doubt we'll be able to cram 4 or more frontal launchers even on a 200kt saucer given the fact that the Sagarmatha which had a similar scale saucer could only fit 2.
Last edited:
Chargone
Invisable operator
- Location
- New Zealand
Oooor.... Go with the solution that doesn't (potentially) cripple the federation and hold onto the class and ship names for later rather than sticking them on this particular class of ship.
Last edited:
We're designing the ship. This is a thing that is at least within our power to influence. I think that half saucer and a big engineering hull is the best option to try and increase the possible torpedo mounts. It minimizes impulse thruster interference, thruster cost, and maximizes the space we have fore for launchers.
- Location
- Springfield, Illinois
[X] 140 Meter Half-Saucer (140,000 Tons)
Throwing my hat in the ring, I don't really like trying to impose cannon style on an alternate time line also in the design brief it basically says want warship, and warships are half saucers. If there was an option for arrow head I would take that in a heartbeat, cause again we have been building arrowheads for the most part as warships.
Throwing my hat in the ring, I don't really like trying to impose cannon style on an alternate time line also in the design brief it basically says want warship, and warships are half saucers. If there was an option for arrow head I would take that in a heartbeat, cause again we have been building arrowheads for the most part as warships.
Last edited:
- Location
- Cara Fahd
[X] 140 Meter Thin Saucer (140,000 Tons) [Canon: Constitution-class]
That's from before the mass retcon.
Given that the Kea is officially using the same saucer as the Sagarmatha and the Kea mounts a 140m saucer, I think we've got pretty good odds of getting offered four.
Also this ships design brief is "warship" so I think we will get options that the slow science cruiser or cheap patrol cruisrr didn't. We need to keep those avenues open.
I agree that we should try to maximize the tubes, but the 380kt saucer on the Sagarmartha only managed to fit four forward facing photonic launchers, and apparently only two photon launchers.
Yeah, it turns out I misread and it only fit two forward photon torpedo launchers. Maybe we'll get one more on the engineering hull, but I don't think we'll be offered more than three.
Horologer
Incertae sedis
- Location
- a risen sea
You're missing a bracket at the end of your first vote, by the way.
The Sagarmatha saucer was retconned to 160kt and is smaller than the 200kt full saucer and less thick than the 140kt half saucer. Also the Sagarmatha will have a smaller engineering hull just because of the demands of our warp core.
- Location
- USA
- Pronouns
- He/They
The half-saucer is the same mass and as cost the thin saucer, and gets more out of it for less cost.
Agreed. I expect thick 140m (whether 200kt full or 140kt half-saucer) to be offered three or maybe four forward tubes (one or two more than the not-as-thick-but-also-140m Saga, albeit for a class with a far higher willingness to expend internal module space for more torpedoes), and thin saucer to be offered two, with the option of a further one or perhaps two in a larger Engineering hull. I'd like to get five or six standard tubes, but expect to wind up voting for either four standard or one rapid-fire and two or three standard.
Hopefully you're right and we can save like 25 cost in torpedo tubes.