The math was done at 180k mass 2 T2 is max maneuver at 200k you need 3 T2.
At least one forward, at least one back, and you want that one minimum because our new phasers still hit as hard as a photon torpedo and reload a lot faster.
Ahh, yes. Reload/cycle time is relevant.
Do you have a quote for that math? I've been trying to keep up with the thread, but must have missed the relevant post.
Phasers do 18 damage consistently for a fraction of the price of torpedoes while having much wider firing arcs.
Phasers are way better than barely relevant. 18 damage will make up a third of our best sustained firing arc if we do two rapids and pass the prototype roll. The issue in the past is that we treated full phaser coverage as "can see off an enemy ship alone" but that isn't really true. If they're more maneuverable than you and have photons, you need to be considerably bigger and tougher. But phasers can add some valuable flexibility to a ship that is maneuverable enough to use photons and evade enemy photons.
Max maneuver is double the mass. So with our 20% bonus, 180k is max maneuver on 3 T2, anything heavier is 4 T2. There's no waste. Basically if we want big engineering hull, half will mount the thrusters required better, otherwise thin full will mount 3 cheaper.
Rapid fire torpedoes have the same sustain as a phaser while being able to hit three times in one burst. They also cost 3 times as much, but being able to front load damage is very tactically useful.
That math matches before thrust was rescaled and the vote restarted. It used to be 150k for a Type-2 thruster, so 180k with our bonus and 2 Type-2 was enough for 180kt hull. This got changed though.
And of course this completely neglects that the canon Connie has vertically mirrored banks, she's got Dorsal phasers too (frequently used during chase scenes to fire astern, thanks to the camera angle being "above and behind" in the one scene they kept reusing because of budget reasons)
the thing is that the two blindingly obvious solutions to the problem, don't need any kind of new technology. They're literally just "change how we lay out the EPS grid so each phaser is segregated into its own high capacity grid and thus doesn't interfere with the others" and "Just power it locally with a dedicated reactor and take the EPS grid entirely out of the equation."
That already exists on the Pharos, but we haven't actually designed any combat focus ships since then.
If we can't mount four torpedoes fore, I think we have to mount dual rapids. The reason is that we know that two torpedoes and 12 phaser damage is insufficient, because this is the armament of the Kea, Saladin, and Newton, and we risk failing the prototype roll and having this plus 6 phaser damage. I don't think being tougher than the Newton and more mobile than the Kea/Saladin is enough to safely beat a D7 in a duel. Decisively overmatching our previous armament means dual rapids, or at least 3 standard launchers.
That's wrong standard T2 is 150k with bonus its 180k.
It was reduced to 100k/120k T2 and 150k/180k T3. This is why we're having a revote.
Carbon copy? We're still only choosing the saucer, it's a bit early to start making those claims
We do have better engines? I can see the case for disgruntlement, though.
I don't actually want a big engineering hull, actually, so I'm glad to hear someone else verify the chain of reasoning that led me to vote for the thin/classic saucer.
Those are called phaser strips and based on the last quest we probably won't start seeing them until the 2330's.
I mean the minimum known thing that we can power phaser banks off of is a warp core. And the new warp core has higher output EPS which enables 18/15 damage phasers. But it's 7 decks tall and finding space for an entire extra warp core is going to be kind of impossible. Even if we could it'd only be one, and we don't know how much it costs(but it is probably a lot, warp core/nacelles are the biggest cost single items). The previous warp core was I think cost 4, and powered 12 damage of phasers. So doubling the phaser battery would mean fitting a second old warp core(like 2-3 modules of stuff), parallel EPS ideally with crossovers, and then actually mounting additional phasers, which aren't free.
See this for my issue with small engineering hull and likely only 2 photon mounting points. We don't want to end up with a ship that doesn't actually beat the D7, and if we mount multiple rapid fire launchers, our cost will explode. Ending up with a ship that is small, but expensive seems worse than a ship that strains the yards slightly, but can be built affordably.
This is at best a myth, and it's been debunked for so long, so thoroughly, and so explicitly that it's more likely a lie. We are not going to spot cloaked ships, period, dot, end of story, by explicit Word of QM. Cloak beats equal-tech-level sensors every single time, and the Klingons are over half a tech level ahead of us. If any amount of science or sensors could spot cloaked ships, cloaked ships wouldn't be a thing.
