Maybe the answer then is to have different loadouts/engagement profiles with costs rather than specifying X number of phasers and so forth.
Linked contents
Maybe the answer then is to have different loadouts/engagement profiles with costs rather than specifying X number of phasers and so forth.
StriderInCosmos
Wanderer in the Worldsea
- Location
- Somewhere in... Terminal Dogma? I think?
With that in mind, I could see a somewhat down-gunned version of this vessel being quite capable as an exploratory vessel post-war. We wouldn't even necessarily need to sacrifice all that much in terms of internal space. You don't even need to stop producing this design to have a good guard against peer and near-peer enemies that might have their own devices (subdued as that might be after we likely prove ourselves in a war against the most martial polity in the quadrant).
And that right here is the problem, people like this cutie and want to see it suceed yyou admiting to not want that gets you all the negative reactions.
- Location
- USA
That could definitely be a way to do it, make things fuzzier instead of harder.
Could have such weapons arrays as Point Defense, Forward Focus, Max Coverage, Chase, a more general Heavy and Light.
Let's you have some variety in what types of phasers exist without having to go hard into balance and stats.
NSMS
Probably evil, unfortunately.
- Location
- A rapidly widening tear in the fabric of reality
I could definitely see this approach working, yeah.
StriderInCosmos
Wanderer in the Worldsea
- Location
- Somewhere in... Terminal Dogma? I think?
I think that strikes a good balance between the number-driven among us and the theater-of-the-mind that I feel combat is intended to be. If your goal is introducing more granularity to particular combats, I could see the necessity of having a more detailed system, but I don't feel it needs to be overly complex (or even necessarily open to our view, unless we specifically request after-action reports for those specific battles) if such needs to exist.
I'd much prefer that at this point. Getting down to the nitty gritty has just destroyed the general atmosphere of the thread. 😥
- Location
- Seattle, Washington
[X] Linear Configuration (6.4/7/8.4) [268c/343c/592c]
Mechanis
Confirmed Extremely Screwed
- Location
- Absconding with Alacrity
The big thing is that the canon Connie was designed in a less critical pressure environment, and therefore could afford to be a good enough fighting ship and a "kinda okay" everything else ship, but this ship, as a consequence of its different threat environment and technological availability space, isn't going to be able to do the same kind of cruiser stuff you describe particularly well, because it's not designed for that; it's designed to be a big mallet for smashing D6s and D7s with. And as it is reasonable to assume that Starfleet is not stupid, I don't expect that a design like this one that isn't designed for those kinds of long range operations to be used that way. Frankly, I honestly expect that the Kea is going to end up doing that until such time as we replace it,
I mean, I think most of us are in on saving the name "Constitution" and "Enterprise" for a different, more generalist vessel, simply because the concept of the purpose built Explorer is something this thread (and timeline) has been working hard to perpetuate.
I would think that given the Watsonian reasoning for the phaser limit, having an "EPS load" stat that represents how much throughput the grid can handle vis a vis powering phasers in combat and phasers having X amount of load would be the approach which reflects accurately the lore on the subject. What exactly said statistic should be tied to (size, Warp Core type, etc) I do not state outright; only that the previous "fire two only" becomes more obvious a statistical limit of our previous/existing power transfer technology. Even in the above paradigm I would be hesitant to just drop the more powerful phasers for free, but that's a QM decision.
Edit: I absolutely do not support the design space restriction a shift to general "engagement profiles" would represent, unless you are prepared to have like twenty or thirty of them on tap. Which based on your previous preferences for fairly limited numbers of vote options, I suspect you won't.
I mean, I like this ship, but I don't want it doing Five Year Missions either, because it's not built in a way that would be conductive to that. Which is why I want to do a "proper" multirole Explorer design postwar, even if that requires some minor bureaucratic malfeasance in labeling it a "Science Cruiser" or something.
Last edited:
I think this has been said up-thread, but if you build a warship, how do you turn it into an explorer?
Well, you could do a refit. Give it top-of the line science, medical, and engineering capabilities.
Or
You could put Spock, McCoy, and Scotty on it.
The Enterprise isn't a hull. The Enterprise isn't a loadout. The Enterprise is a set of ideals, with a crew to match.
I honestly think the Starfleet design aesthetic varies from ungainly to ugly, and the ships can be considered "practical" or "effective" only through the careful application of handwavium and wishful thinking.
(I think this about a lot of scifi ships, actually)
What makes them beautiful is the dream that's attached.
To be an Enterprise, a ship doesn't have to be peaceful, or built for science, or whatever. To be an Enterprise, a ship has to boldly go, with friendship in one hand and integrity in the other.
Well, you could do a refit. Give it top-of the line science, medical, and engineering capabilities.
Or
You could put Spock, McCoy, and Scotty on it.
The Enterprise isn't a hull. The Enterprise isn't a loadout. The Enterprise is a set of ideals, with a crew to match.
I honestly think the Starfleet design aesthetic varies from ungainly to ugly, and the ships can be considered "practical" or "effective" only through the careful application of handwavium and wishful thinking.
(I think this about a lot of scifi ships, actually)
What makes them beautiful is the dream that's attached.
To be an Enterprise, a ship doesn't have to be peaceful, or built for science, or whatever. To be an Enterprise, a ship has to boldly go, with friendship in one hand and integrity in the other.
Last edited:
Mechanis
Confirmed Extremely Screwed
- Location
- Absconding with Alacrity
sure. but it's like any other task: you can compensate for the limits of the equipment with personnel, or you can just have the right equipment to start with and not have to. And with the thread's developed preference for well designed specialists that are really good at their job, I think that it would make more sense for us to design a ship specifically meant for Five Year Missions and Boldly Going than it would to take a ship not really meant for that and shoehorn it into the role.
2229: Project Constitution (Forward Torpedoes)
[X] Sprint Configuration (6.2/7/8.6) [238c/343c/636c]
With it's maximum speed increased the ship will be breaking speed records, and you are quite confident that it will able to at least match the speed of any equivalant Klingon ship. Frankly your money is on being able to run any Klingon cruiser down, let alone keep up with it, but for a warlike species with a disdain of the sciences the Empire does still have a lot more experience with advanced technology than you do. But now you have settled on the ship's general performance metrics you have to dial in the tactical systems. The first up for consideration are the forward torpedoes, which will determine how heavy a punch the Constitution will be able to throw out in any one instant. The photon torpedo with its sapphire-blue glow has become synonymous with Starfleet and has always represented the tip of the spear when it comes to combat.
The first option is to fit three standard launchers, two in the saucer section and one in the neck. Having three torpedoes hit home will be a hefty swat for any ship and certainly drive the shields of anything smaller than a mainline combatant well into the red and at high risk of failing entirely to the Constitution's phasers. But there are alternatives.
The rapid launcher is still a prototype and correspondingly expensive, but it has the capability to fire three standard torpedoes in a single sequence. The advantage this represents cannot be overstated, as more firepower on target in the same timeframe gives a hostile starship that much less opportunity to turn the tables. With the Constitution's powerful engines giving it the most agility you've ever seen out of a ship her size, nothing short of the highest performing frigates on par with the Selachii will be able to juke her forward tubes. Combine the new launcher with two standard tubes and you've nearly doubled the number of torpedoes it can put on target. Forget redlining the shields of any unfortunate frigate in her sights, they'll probably have holes in the hull.
The downside is cost, and it really comes down to a single question: are you willing to pay less efficiently for a greater capability? With the state-of-the-art engines fitted to the design you are certainly in a position to enthusiastically justify the expenditure to the review board, so opprobrium regarding your decisionmaking certainly won't be a factor, but it is still a greater expense. The question is if that increase in lethality is notable enough to accept that outlay of resources.
[ ] Three Torpedo Salvo (Cost 45.5 -> 52) [Second Tranche: 43.5 -> 50.5]
[ ] Five Torpedo Salvo (Cost 45.5 -> 65) [Second Tranche: 43.5 -> 59.5]
Two Hour Moratorium, Please
With it's maximum speed increased the ship will be breaking speed records, and you are quite confident that it will able to at least match the speed of any equivalant Klingon ship. Frankly your money is on being able to run any Klingon cruiser down, let alone keep up with it, but for a warlike species with a disdain of the sciences the Empire does still have a lot more experience with advanced technology than you do. But now you have settled on the ship's general performance metrics you have to dial in the tactical systems. The first up for consideration are the forward torpedoes, which will determine how heavy a punch the Constitution will be able to throw out in any one instant. The photon torpedo with its sapphire-blue glow has become synonymous with Starfleet and has always represented the tip of the spear when it comes to combat.
The first option is to fit three standard launchers, two in the saucer section and one in the neck. Having three torpedoes hit home will be a hefty swat for any ship and certainly drive the shields of anything smaller than a mainline combatant well into the red and at high risk of failing entirely to the Constitution's phasers. But there are alternatives.
The rapid launcher is still a prototype and correspondingly expensive, but it has the capability to fire three standard torpedoes in a single sequence. The advantage this represents cannot be overstated, as more firepower on target in the same timeframe gives a hostile starship that much less opportunity to turn the tables. With the Constitution's powerful engines giving it the most agility you've ever seen out of a ship her size, nothing short of the highest performing frigates on par with the Selachii will be able to juke her forward tubes. Combine the new launcher with two standard tubes and you've nearly doubled the number of torpedoes it can put on target. Forget redlining the shields of any unfortunate frigate in her sights, they'll probably have holes in the hull.
The downside is cost, and it really comes down to a single question: are you willing to pay less efficiently for a greater capability? With the state-of-the-art engines fitted to the design you are certainly in a position to enthusiastically justify the expenditure to the review board, so opprobrium regarding your decisionmaking certainly won't be a factor, but it is still a greater expense. The question is if that increase in lethality is notable enough to accept that outlay of resources.
[ ] Three Torpedo Salvo (Cost 45.5 -> 52) [Second Tranche: 43.5 -> 50.5]
[ ] Five Torpedo Salvo (Cost 45.5 -> 65) [Second Tranche: 43.5 -> 59.5]
Two Hour Moratorium, Please
Last edited:
Duzzit
CSC 1st Multiversal Fleet Commander
- Location
- London, UK
The thing is, Sayle has already implied that the design brief we got was broadly comparable to what OTL Starfleet gave out for the design. Whether or not thats remotely true to Canon it is to the QM of the thread feels the Connie was meant to do before it got famous for being Kirk's ship, and whilst I rewatched TNG onwards a lot more than original series, I don't ever recall Kirk's Enterprise actually being all that special/having special labs etc unlike say, the Galaxy being purpose designed for being the sort of super special ship. I still think that Starfleet will be able to make use it it beyond just pew pew, no matter the vitrol of some of the people in this thread. Just its sheer speed alone will let it have some sort of career post war.
I mean, if we're seeking out new civilizations to whom we can espouse Federation virtues, I think it's ok if one of those virtues is Not Getting Stomped By The Klingons.
Mostly, I want us to live up to the ideals of our Starfleet Ship Design semi-roleplay, and stop being assholes to each other.
Edit:
[ ] Five Torpedo Salvo (Cost 45.5 -> 65) [Second Tranche: 45.5 -> 62]
Oh yes.
Mostly, I want us to live up to the ideals of our Starfleet Ship Design semi-roleplay, and stop being assholes to each other.
Edit:
[ ] Five Torpedo Salvo (Cost 45.5 -> 65) [Second Tranche: 45.5 -> 62]
Oh yes.
- Location
- Somewhere and somewhen in time and space
Slightly more expensive, but well worth getting the 5 torpedo salvo.
NSMS
Probably evil, unfortunately.
- Location
- A rapidly widening tear in the fabric of reality
No option to go triple-RFL? Awww...
Regardless, in my opinion getting more firepower here is more than worth the cost. Hell, we practically designed the entire ship from the start for the purpose of getting the maximum number of torps on target.
Regardless, in my opinion getting more firepower here is more than worth the cost. Hell, we practically designed the entire ship from the start for the purpose of getting the maximum number of torps on target.
Five torpedo salvo seems like a must-have to me, it makes it more costly but instantaneous lethality is very valuable.
We want rapid fires and we won't wait!
[ ] Five Torpedo Salvo (Cost 45.5 -> 65) [Second Tranche: 45.5 -> 62]
- Pronouns
- Fae/Faer
She's such a weird ship, I'm in love
Only 3 torps in a salvo is probably not enough to deter or quickly dispatch a D7, so imo 5 salvo it is.
Endorfinator
Awkwardly Social
- Location
- California
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Worth it, the main purpose of this ship is something that can reliably kill D7s, cost effectiveness being a close second.
