Linked contents
Well you already had an answer on this, but I think I could also give a real world point of view on how the Mk3 Thruster design went.
Which is basically they created a nice engine in simulation which seems to work, make an off comment to the leading design bureau on its great simulation performance. And then before you know it you are now being funded to make a few test engines immediately while they try to setup a production line for it with any final tweaks and modifications to make it work being adjusted in the production line on the go. I'm sure this was an amazing experience for those designers and pretty stressful and hectic, but in this case they got to end it with a big win.
One thing this means is, the engine runs. So even though it's a 'prototype' rating, you don't get a roll. Because as already noted, we already know it works.
Still this means that while one definitely has the engine running in the Archer class and have some years of data on it, the production lines are still a bit ad-hoc and being streamlined and they're probably still incorporating new data coming from the test engines and deployed Archers on where the main complexities are, which parts are failing early and need a small redesign, and various other tweaks.
Obviously with more funding and engines produced, the production and engine maturity will sort out more quickly in such a case. And so they'll enter the mature segment of the technology earlier.
In a sense, one invested big in a new technology and so it completes earlier. And so efforts to the next tech round start earlier.
So based on this to give an example. I expect Thrusters will end up solidly a gen ahead with MK3 probably being Standard/Mature by the time the original Constitution came out, and the next gen shields that were probably what the Constitution used being standard/mature around that time as well. So Thrusters are way ahead, Shields are kind of normal as they never saw the same level of push.
NSMS
Probably evil, unfortunately.
- Location
- A rapidly widening tear in the fabric of reality
Getting a full five-torpedo salvo to the face is going to be devestating to anything in the same weight class and tech tier, yeah. Something like a bird of prey would probably just be outright destroyed.
Maybe instead of going with different models of phaser, you have a 'basic' level of phaser damage: say the current 18. But then you have a 'maximum' damage, maybe something like 24. Or even 27 for +50%. The catch being that the damage goes up as your ship get bigger and their warp cores get beefier. Maybe a 100kt ship has to deal with 18DMG phasers, but a 400kt behemoth is throwing out 27DMG death rays. But going above that doesn't improve things because the phasers have reached their mechanical limit for energy flow.
Mechanis
Confirmed Extremely Screwed
- Location
- Absconding with Alacrity
sure. I'm not arguing that this isn't a good ship, or that it won't have a role after the war ends, simply that I don't expect that in general it will do well at the kind of tasking that is the Five Year Mission and similar; and that we will be as a consequence of demonstrated design preferences designing a ship specifically for the role, in the tradition of the NX and Sagarmatha classes. Even if we have to play bureaucratic games to get it built.
So yeah I think we're all pretty much in agreement for the Five Rounds Rapid torpedo configuration? both for getting the rapid launcher prototyped and for making the D7 go " Urk!" which is very important we are able to do?
2 fore RFLs would be a dream, but Tactical's probably going "Aw Hell no." to us. And this vote is only for forward torps, might be a separate vote for aft facing weapons.
NSMS
Probably evil, unfortunately.
- Location
- A rapidly widening tear in the fabric of reality
Btw, Sayle? I think you may have the layering wrong on the image- the nacelles look like they're coming from the saucer's tail in the lower (top-down) image, but from the lower hull in the other two.
Last edited:
Strunkriidiisk
THE LEGEND
- Location
- Canada
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Slight art error probably, but you appear to have the nacelle struts attaching to both the secondary hull and the rear extension of the primary, depending on the view?
As someone who prefers ensuring weapon coverage, I share your pain.
But sustained phaser fire costs, and it's been made clear it just doesn't bring enough to the table by itself. We should seriously evaluate just plowing most of those resources into increasing torpedo throw weight. If we can't keep Klingon ships targeted with our torpedoes, we've already lost the battle, so let's go big.
The torpedoes actually have a reasonably wide arc of fire.
And yes, I have stressed the importance of damage before and have argued repeatedly that going for 100% Coverage may not be necessary in all cases. But only a single 75% arc to the front is going to far the other way, and it will risk reducing our effective damage. (As in, it will absolutely and categorically reduce our Average Damage Rating.) Two Phaser Banks does not break the bank (hehe) and provides a good median.
Like at the risk of blowing my own trumpet, given that I predicted Focussed Emitters would be the better choice due to the need for damage over coverage, and predicted the D7 cruiser and not swarms of BoP would be the real foe we'd have to contend with back during the Kea debate... maybe my intuition here about this sort of thing hasn't been terrible?
StriderInCosmos
Wanderer in the Worldsea
- Location
- Somewhere in... Terminal Dogma? I think?
If we are staring down the barrel of potential Federation-wide damage (with a Battle of Andoria potentially taking place in a now redacted piece of Temporal Agent documentation), our choices might well be 'refit a ship to work as an explorer' or 'wait for the next two or three decades and go without as you rebuild'. And exploration, even within our borders, is something that I can't see us laying aside as we rebuild ourselves in the aftermath. As unpalatable as the choice might be to some, it might be the only way we reach out and find more species to ally ourselves with, more resources to put towards our efforts, and more locations to put our flag into. As much as I'd like a dedicated explorer to go out and do things in the aftermath of the war, it just might be too prohibitive to pull off in the aftermath of a war as potentially devastating as this one is.
As for the current vote:
There's something to be said about the cost-effectiveness of 'only' being able to put three photon torpedoes downrange at a time. That's still a significant amount of firepower that'd be slamming into an enemy vessel, and I wouldn't be negatively chuffed if that's the case (especially given our maneuver-based tactics granted by our thrusters which allows us to put more torpedoes into an enemy before they can touch us).
However, the ability to put the Rapid-Fire Launcher through its paces and see a decrease in cost by the end of the first production run of ships... it certainly makes it very tempting, if nothing else. I think I'll lean towards the Five Torpedo Salvo for the moment, but I can be swayed to exclusively back the Three-Launch Salvo with the right arguments.
Five torpedoes. Victory will come when we scare the Klingons off, and a very scary ship will do that faster.
We need to convince the Klingons that war with us means they lose D7 battleships. Rolling up and crippling one in an initial salvo demonstrates that emphatically.
We need to convince the Klingons that war with us means they lose D7 battleships. Rolling up and crippling one in an initial salvo demonstrates that emphatically.
Last edited:
[ ] Five Torpedo Salvo (Cost 45.5 -> 65) [Second Tranche: 45.5 -> 62]
Fork over the toobz
edit: less asininely,. I feel it's worth it for the extra alpha strikes. But thats a 25% increase in cost. Keeping cost down is something we need to do as well, because more ships means more total toobz.
Fork over the toobz
edit: less asininely,. I feel it's worth it for the extra alpha strikes. But thats a 25% increase in cost. Keeping cost down is something we need to do as well, because more ships means more total toobz.
Last edited:
Yep, shield strength matters less when the other guy's critical systems have exploded or overloaded in the first minute of battle.
- Location
- Springfield, Illinois
So looking at the ship, I am getting some bullpup vibes and also to me at least the pylons for the nachells look mighty thin, would hate to try to 3d print them..
Also am getting a lirpa vib as well, anyway will likely go for the 5 torpedo burst after all I love daka
Also am getting a lirpa vib as well, anyway will likely go for the 5 torpedo burst after all I love daka
Last edited:
NSMS
Probably evil, unfortunately.
- Location
- A rapidly widening tear in the fabric of reality
That's the style for a lot of ships in TOS- necks and nacelles were often a lot thinner than in later generations of ships.
And just think... In the future triple launchers will be mature tech and these ships will get a refit for triple triple launchers. Even when tech moves on there is a staying power inherent to NINE photon torpedoes in a salvo.
And while our warp core is not retrofitable I bet the triple launchers ARE, and they make a lot of our "Phasers and a torp launcher" non-combat ships suddenly VERY deadly.
I want to push the triple launchers into non-prototype as fast as possible.
And while our warp core is not retrofitable I bet the triple launchers ARE, and they make a lot of our "Phasers and a torp launcher" non-combat ships suddenly VERY deadly.
I want to push the triple launchers into non-prototype as fast as possible.
Last edited:
Endorfinator
Awkwardly Social
- Location
- California
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Oh I like Lipra as a class name, I'm not keen on granting this the honor of being the Constitution-class.
Assuming the scale is still the same (and it should be) the nacelle pylons are about 1.5 metres thick, with the neck being about 6.5 metres thick.
Edit: scale is the same, saucer is 281px long (maximum internal length) which at 50cm=1px is just slightly over 140m, maximum length overall is ~284px or 142m.
Last edited:
Fixed. The magic of layering making that an easy fix. Just needed to move the nacelle layer lower.
Blame TOS. In love with thin nacelles. I even inflated them a little.
Mechanis
Confirmed Extremely Screwed
- Location
- Absconding with Alacrity
More, let's put some random (variable) numbers on things; Warp Core A has (X+(Y*mass)) EPS load available for phasers in normal combat conditions. firing a Phaser bank takes Z load.
Improving the warp core improves X, which should be a relatively low value and increment.
Improving the EPS grid improves Y, which may need to be a rounded fractional value simply to keep the math reasonable.
phaser modifications obviously affect Z, with weaker or more power-efficient-per-second models lowering it and stronger or less power efficient models raising it.
This prevents too much capability from being tied to any one system, but provides obvious paths for upgrades---and at the same time, allows for one system or another to be a specific limiting factor due to the technical constraints of any given project.
Then you simply set the "base" value of X, Y and Z to something that results in the desired "can fire 2x phasers" restriction (this would certainly involve some initial fiddling, but after that would be relatively simple to modify as needed.)
This allows plenty of choice in what to pursue technologically: do you focus on improving the EPS grid itself, or do you try to make more efficient phasers? Do you go for weaker phasers that might allow more to fire at once, increasing ability to deal with target-rich environments, or do you pursue more powerful weapons that hit harder, but can engage fewer ships at one time?
etc etc etc.
No aft launchers?
So you vote for the expensive variant while saying you want to keep the cost down? How do you want to keep it low? Not installing shields because they cost to much?
hAHAH oh you mean that? Please take part in a paintball match with everyone wearing armour/faceshields while buck naked that should convince you that speed/maneuverability are nice to have but armor is armor (Or in this case shields)
Just wait with it until we vote on the class name okay?
Likely a different vote, based on the threadmark title.
StriderInCosmos
Wanderer in the Worldsea
- Location
- Somewhere in... Terminal Dogma? I think?
Not as of yet; the current vote is specifically for forward torpedo capabilities, if you'll observe the threadmark.
Edit: Ninja'd by that much. Ah, well.