Linked contents
The extra torpedoes does seem like they'd be worthwhile, as it makes it far more doable to fight 2 to 1. If your first salvo cripples or destroys a frigate or destroyer classed vehicle. Then you could afterwards fight a second ship with out to much trouble with a second ship, like a cruiser.
So engagement wise this seems to give some pretty substantial benefits as it allows far more to more reliably fight what should be otherwise more dangerous fights. This seems like a very large tactical step up well worth the extra cost paid for it.
[X] Five Torpedo Salvo (Cost 45.5 -> 65) [Second Tranche: 43.5 -> 59.5]
---------------
For the upcoming modules several suggestions have been made already, but I think there is a very strong argument to be made for sensors and a computer core. That is a combo that would let one discover ships quicker and from further out and then let this cruisers superior speed chase them down, or alternately side step what seem like potential ambushes. Being able to see the other first when you have a speed advantage lets one far more reliably engage and disengage at will. Which would help to giving the ship a zoom and boom ability against opposition, especially any smaller ship to far away from support would with this suddenly become at risk of being taken apart piecemeal. As a side benefit, better sensors and a computer would give the ship some after war science ability as well.
Further arguments can certainly be made for extra fuel to give more high speed endurance. And while a bit less necessary with large numbers of Archer support craft out there, a work shop and small storage could be complementary. Though one could potentially consider other tactical equipment if one thinks that gives more benefit.
So engagement wise this seems to give some pretty substantial benefits as it allows far more to more reliably fight what should be otherwise more dangerous fights. This seems like a very large tactical step up well worth the extra cost paid for it.
[X] Five Torpedo Salvo (Cost 45.5 -> 65) [Second Tranche: 43.5 -> 59.5]
---------------
For the upcoming modules several suggestions have been made already, but I think there is a very strong argument to be made for sensors and a computer core. That is a combo that would let one discover ships quicker and from further out and then let this cruisers superior speed chase them down, or alternately side step what seem like potential ambushes. Being able to see the other first when you have a speed advantage lets one far more reliably engage and disengage at will. Which would help to giving the ship a zoom and boom ability against opposition, especially any smaller ship to far away from support would with this suddenly become at risk of being taken apart piecemeal. As a side benefit, better sensors and a computer would give the ship some after war science ability as well.
Further arguments can certainly be made for extra fuel to give more high speed endurance. And while a bit less necessary with large numbers of Archer support craft out there, a work shop and small storage could be complementary. Though one could potentially consider other tactical equipment if one thinks that gives more benefit.
[X] Five Torpedo Salvo (Cost 45.5 -> 65) [Second Tranche: 43.5 -> 59.5]
Emitter heads are blue, so I figure it's TOS style.
I don't think an aft torp launcher will be necessary. One extra torp on top on the main salvo isn't THAT much more, and given maneuver score it's got it should be able to main volley reliably. It'd help, of course, but I suspect it'd be a useful place to save a bit.
Edit: right, my actual vote:
[X] Five Torpedo Salvo (Cost 45.5 -> 65) [Second Tranche: 43.5 -> 59.5]
Edit: right, my actual vote:
[X] Five Torpedo Salvo (Cost 45.5 -> 65) [Second Tranche: 43.5 -> 59.5]
Last edited:
Endorfinator
Awkwardly Social
- Location
- California
- Pronouns
- He/Him
[X] Five Torpedo Salvo (Cost 45.5 -> 65) [Second Tranche: 43.5 -> 59.5]
Though I am tempted to suggest no aft armaments at all no matter how much it gives Starfleet Tactical uncomfortable feelings.
Endorfinator
Awkwardly Social
- Location
- California
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Looking at the current vote I think it's safe to move on to the rest of the armaments
- Pronouns
- Fae/Faer
I'd say compromise on phaser coverage and aft missiles; the five-salvo is running away in the poll, I'm not remotely concerned about this ship being undergunned
The original Constitution came out in 2245 I believe, this thing is coming out in the early 2030s or so I suspect. So you could even see it as not necessarily delayed by much, as you could presuming the war goes well, start on such a class right after.
Or alternately one could reconsider if one wants a heavy hitter at the start of the war, but it would mean it became a more militarized design then.
Though it would have been hilarious to make a ship with three standard tubes in the front and TWO pointing aft, who had the same 5 torpedo salvo by turning around mid charge.
Give the enemy a choice. They can ether chase you and continue to eat double photon torpedoes or break off and let you come around and put 5 more in their face.
She's not there to dogfight. She's there to chuck photon torpedoes at you from outside disrupter range while being fast enough to dodge your return fire.
If you chase you get smacked. If you run you get smacked. If you hold position you get smacked.
Deny the enemy honorable combat. Make a ship as pain in the ass to fight as possible.
Last edited:
- Location
- New York
- Pronouns
- He/Him
[X] Five Torpedo Salvo (Cost 45.5 -> 65) [Second Tranche: 43.5 -> 59.5]
Sarpedon
Knight Errant
- Pronouns
- He/Him
I think there is an argument to made to simply dispense with a chase armament all together. We have the maneuverability, we need to cut costs somewhere, might as well be something that doesn't really add all that much comparatively.
Chargone
Invisable operator
- Location
- New Zealand
[X] Five Torpedo Salvo (Cost 45.5 -> 65) [Second Tranche: 43.5 -> 59.5]
As for aft armaments... Depends what's going on with the shields and phasors. Good enough shields? No need for aft armaments defensively and it comes back to the "follow up shot" argument.
Depending on how the phasors end up, maybe they cover the rear well enough to not warrant torpedos, maybe they cost too much and we cut back on how many we put on the ship and stick in a rear torpedo tube to make up for it.
As for aft armaments... Depends what's going on with the shields and phasors. Good enough shields? No need for aft armaments defensively and it comes back to the "follow up shot" argument.
Depending on how the phasors end up, maybe they cover the rear well enough to not warrant torpedos, maybe they cost too much and we cut back on how many we put on the ship and stick in a rear torpedo tube to make up for it.
Last edited:
Mechanis
Confirmed Extremely Screwed
- Location
- Absconding with Alacrity
I mean, in canon the Constitution class wasn't even designed for another decade yet, so if anything this isn't even a Connie equivalent temporally since it's a good decade early. So.
As long as the war we're staring down doesn't go horribly, which hopefully it won't, I will, as mentioned, be arguing for a Big Lad multirole Cruiser, even if we have to call it a Kea successor/"science vessel" to get the political bean-counters to let us actually get the thing designed and built.
@Mechanis alternately argue that with a massive cruiser fleet and whatever other ships are needed now done, clearly one needs a battleship sized craft to create a solid fleet core against any future Klingon aggression. And then because 'obviously' it won't be used most of the time for war, one might as well give it some other abilities so one can use it for other tasks in the meantime.
So I wanted to briefly reply to this - in this post and others you've sketched out a system where we have like, a power budget that we spend on various systems.
Basically, I think this is great, but the reason it isn't going to go forward is because it would introduce more complexity to the system than is desired. That is not a criticism of the system in itself - just that it's not quite the right fit for this quest. If you were going for a system like this, then for one thing, the whole way we structure votes would not work because every major system is drawing from one pool of power - you'd need to make decisions on shields, weapons, and engines in parallel because everything effects everything else. That's much more similar to how something like IDK, Aircraft Design Company structured things, with a much more crunch-heavy system. But it's not this Quest, with its seqential voting stages for different systems and relatively low barrier of entry.
I do hope though that this new system addresses what I know was your primary complaint (and one I shared) - that bigger ships which should obviously produce more power don't have phasers with any more oomph. That hurt verisimilitude and made it feel that in hewing to TOS/TMP aesthetics we were somehow losing out, and I think this addresses it fairly neatly without adding too much extra complexity. Plus, free extra damage on this design!
Realistically the issue this is not done is because it would be a nightmare to draw a whole new warp core every time we wanted it to take up more or less decks. Having a single art asset for the warp core which is "plug and play" so to speak is the only practical solution. There is no reason we could not imagine that the cores for larger ships are a bit thicker in a way which is not shown on the MSD, though. That's one rationale.
As another factor to consider, it's worth noting that ships use fusion reactors as well as the warp core. These are what power the impulse engines, and in ships like the Galaxy they can demonstrably also power the phasers and shields at combat outputs as well. In some interpretations/sources, it's even stated that the warp core only powers warp drive, and impulse engines power everything else - this is not the interpretation the Quest is going with, but it does show what a big deal impulse power is. So a bigger ship with a larger saucer is going to have more fusion reactors to feed into phaser banks, up to the limit of what that phaser architecture can handle - this is fairly well-established canon.
To be fair, a phaser will be the same damage with a higher fire rate with all the phaser reworks. I do want one rear weapon but I'd take whatever's cheapest.
Thinking it over though, torpedo tubes are independent of the EPS grid so in the end it probably is better just to get one aft tube so the phasers can focus on forward or strafing work.
Last edited:
- Location
- USA
[X] Five Torpedo Salvo (Cost 45.5 -> 65) [Second Tranche: 43.5 -> 59.5]
2230: Project Constitution (Forward Phasers)
[X] Five Torpedo Salvo (Cost 45.5 -> 65) [Second Tranche: 45.5 -> 62]
In the end the sheer lethality represented by the rapid launcher is a difficult advantage to resist, especially when you have already invested in the ship's manoeuvrability. With it being so much easier to bring the launchers on target leaning into that atypical tactical profile becomes borderline sensible. But torpedoes are only one half of the equation, and a ship without phasers is hardly a ship at all.
As you see it you have two options when it comes to outfitting the bow of the Constitution. The first is to synergize with your existing torpedo alleys by installing a pair of ventral banks. This would enable the ship to fire phasers at any vessel with a valid targeting solution for the photon launchers, leaning further into the idea of the design as being highly lethal but very specialised to a narrow firing arc.
The second option is to accept that you will not always be able to put torpedoes on target, and that a more rounded armament is sometimes needed to supplement the most powerful weapon systems. With that in mind you could double the number of phaser by adding a mirrored set on the dorsal surfaces. While not completely covering the entire forward hemisphere it would go a long way to ensuring the Constitution can always have some weapons firing at anything it is attempting to engage. The decision is yours.
[ ] Ventral Banks (2 Phaser Banks) (Cost 65 -> 73) [Second Tranche: 62 -> 70]
[ ] Full Banks (4 Phaser Banks) (Cost 65 -> 81) [Second Tranche: 62 -> 78]
Two Hour Moratorium, Please
In the end the sheer lethality represented by the rapid launcher is a difficult advantage to resist, especially when you have already invested in the ship's manoeuvrability. With it being so much easier to bring the launchers on target leaning into that atypical tactical profile becomes borderline sensible. But torpedoes are only one half of the equation, and a ship without phasers is hardly a ship at all.
As you see it you have two options when it comes to outfitting the bow of the Constitution. The first is to synergize with your existing torpedo alleys by installing a pair of ventral banks. This would enable the ship to fire phasers at any vessel with a valid targeting solution for the photon launchers, leaning further into the idea of the design as being highly lethal but very specialised to a narrow firing arc.
The second option is to accept that you will not always be able to put torpedoes on target, and that a more rounded armament is sometimes needed to supplement the most powerful weapon systems. With that in mind you could double the number of phaser by adding a mirrored set on the dorsal surfaces. While not completely covering the entire forward hemisphere it would go a long way to ensuring the Constitution can always have some weapons firing at anything it is attempting to engage. The decision is yours.
[ ] Ventral Banks (2 Phaser Banks) (Cost 65 -> 73) [Second Tranche: 62 -> 70]
[ ] Full Banks (4 Phaser Banks) (Cost 65 -> 81) [Second Tranche: 62 -> 78]
Two Hour Moratorium, Please
