Starfleet Design Bureau

Mmkay.
One. Spellcheck will make people take your arguments significantly more seriously. That said-

Two. Four phaser banks in the front DOES NOT increase the ship's ability to simultaneously engage multiple targets or its per-time-unit firepower---it can still only shoot two of them at a time after all---only the arc in which it is possible to fire. On a ship with lower manuverability, I might even agree with you that a wider fire arc is desirable, as it is, the canonical Connie was significantly less manuverable and managed fine with a similar proportion of narrower arc but more powerful phasers (3 banks to our 2, presumably covering about the same arc) so in this case I don't feel the need to significantly exceed the canon loadout as we have already nearly doubled the torpedo throw weight compared to canon.

Three, Starfleet is not stupid, this ship is built to be used as a mobile wrecking ball and we can reasonably assume that Starfleet will use it appropriately for its design and capabilities.

Four, the ship will have Very High manuverability. The only way it's getting decisively outmaneuvered is by a concentration of force so large that we would either amass our own fleet in response, or it should be leveraging its superior speed to withdraw. Basic Battlecruiser tactics: Too heavily armed and armored to be outfought by anything that can catch it, and too fast to be caught by anything that can outfight it.

Five: We need to cut cost somewhere if we're to get a decent number built in time for the war, and phaser armament is pretty much the only real place we can do so without compromising its mission ability at this point (the other being engines, but that ship has sailed) in light of our overall technical restrictions.
Sorry about the spelling. I'm writing on my way to work.

2. The Alpha Strike ability has been checked with the Torpedos. Phasers are for me the secondaries. The Conni needs better arcs should the Alpha Strike fail.

3. I agree Starfleet isn't stupid. But will it Always dictated the Battlefield or Situation before the Engagement Starts? The Conni's will be not be that high in Numbers AS a smaller ship would.

4. Numbers aren't the only way to force an Engagement. An Attack against slower Targets or a fixed one Like a coloney also would negate the Speed Advantage. Better arcs would allow the Conni to engage easier in different directions.

5. Cutting costs should be done later with modules. The primery Focus should lay in the ability to fight.
 
But you describe Battles of small scale. Which, I agree, allows the Conni to Play at its stregth. But she isn't a frigatte but will be our heavy unit in the field. More offen being forced to be at the Center of the fight. Going for an all Alpha build makes only Sense if the ship can decied when and where to make a stand.

The Conni is simply to large to have that luxus. She will be bound in places to defend, she will fight multiple enemies at the same time which can manouver around her. It comes with her role in any doctrine.
I acknowledged fleet battles are a different matter, yes.

How ever a lot of operations are far more common with small groups of ships, or even a singular. There just aren't enough ships to send fleets everywhere for either side.

Which means a lot of fights will be ones where they can play to their strengths and attrite the enemy away. You can do a lot of damage that way.


As for fleet battles, there are limits there as you can't completely abandon your less capable Spacecraft that are fighting alone side you. How ever it's not like any Klingon can dodge it with its agility, so it should be able to fight in high agility rolls with in fleet battles as well, like skirmishers. Which means there isn't really a reason it needs to take the center of battle or even form up a standard center, because it is such a fast but also rather powerful attacker it can continually threaten the flanks of any hostile line of battle. Basically eating away at the sides, of course lines would use things like their own skirmishers to try and prevent that. But I'm pretty doubtful any ships the Klingon might use for that can properly hold up against this new Heavy Cruiser. Which means you can in many cases probably prevent normal fleet battle engagements as less standard formations need to be taken to keep these heavy skirmishers from ripping the formation apart.

Well all this is a way of saying that in the end one designs ones strategies around the ships one has available today. If one has plenty of heavy brawlers, then play to their strength and try to engage in large brawling fights. When one has a lot of agile ships which the current Federation is more biased towards, make it hard to hold coherent formations and make it easier to pick away at weaknesses in the other side. Make it hard to advance, strangle their supplies, try and take down anyway that strays to far and in the end isolate the fleet all alone behind enemy lines with few supplies. That would be a good outcome in this stratagem.


Now if we had time to design and build sufficient Brawlers after this design, I'd not be averse to it. But we'll probably struggle to make it on time. To an extent one has to fight with the forces one has and the strategies those allow, it's better to not force a role on to a ship it's not best suited for. To put another way, what is the point to give brawler abilities to a ship that for the most part probably will not use them, not even in a fair few fleet actions.

Getting more guns and so might be something for them to get later in a refit when they've become slower compared to other ships.
 
Last edited:
2. The Alpha Strike ability has been checked with the Torpedos. Phasers are for me the secondaries. The Conni needs better arcs should the Alpha Strike fail.
A fair point.

3. I agree Starfleet isn't stupid. But will it Always dictated the Battlefield or Situation before the Engagement Starts? The Conni's will be not be that high in Numbers AS a smaller ship would.
Another fair point. But we are looking to min-max here, an aft-facing weapon has definite utility, we've got a super-agile fighting ship, widening the arcs has uncertain utility against the very high utility of making as many fighting ships as possible.

4. Numbers aren't the only way to force an Engagement. An Attack against slower Targets or a fixed one Like a coloney also would negate the Speed Advantage. Better arcs would allow the Conni to engage easier in different directions.
Another good point, but I'd prefer 10 Connis with 2 phasers than 9 with 4. You're right it lowers the versatility of our weapons somewhat, but we can always add more phasers to later tranches. We may not have later tranches unless we either scare the Klingons off, or inflict enough losses they decide to halt or delay their invasion. A single war cruiser could tilt the balance.
 
The betting odds are that the Connie can straight-up run away from a D7 faster than it can chase at warp, so the aft torpedo is somewhat irrelevant in the context of fighting D7s, which I know some players wish to optimize for.

Aft torp would be a safety blanket for the cases where something does catch up, be it a Connie having engine trouble that needs to put mud in a D7's eye, or if Orions are chasing her at some later point... Or maybe a Badmiral unfreezes Khan to have him design a secret super-ship that makes the Connie look like an inbred toy poodle...
Or you could do the "fire stern armament during the initial part of the pass, and pepper them with aft armament after you passed them but before you turned around" maneuver which previous ships of ours did.
 
Anyway, on a completely different topic, if someone could compile a list of Starfleet ships in service circa ~2180ish, with known names and any known fates, you can probably guess why, that would be great. @Sayle , you have the deets?
 
[X] Ventral Banks (2 Phaser Banks) (Cost 65 -> 73) [Second Tranche: 62 -> 70]

Should be good enough for the job with the maneuverability and, if not, adding 2 more phaser banks should be a simple refit. Fortunately or unfortunately, whether the full banks are necessary or not will soon be tested via Klingons.
 
Anyway, on a completely different topic, if someone could compile a list of Starfleet ships in service circa ~2180ish, with known names and any known fates, you can probably guess why, that would be great. @Sayle , you have the deets?

I think that would be the surviving NXs and Warspite from the Earth-Romulan War, plus the Curiosity, Cygnus, Sagarmatha, and Selachii. The Sagarmatha at least has a complete name list, and at the outbreak of war I think there were only a handful of Selachii out of the dockyards? I might be misremembering.
 
[X] Ventral Banks (2 Phaser Banks) (Cost 65 -> 73) [Second Tranche: 62 -> 70]
This ship's modus operandi is 'put the nose on them and kill them'.
 
[X] Ventral Banks (2 Phaser Banks) (Cost 65 -> 73) [Second Tranche: 62 -> 70]

Use the cost saving here to buy some rear weapons. They're good for opportunity strikes in fleet combat, discouraging pursuers, and delivering more damage/a killing blow to anything we sweep past after alpha striking it.
 
Torpedoes were waaaay more expensive back then. Now a regular torpedo tube is just 2.25 per.
Yeah. Even slapping 2 aft torpedo launchers in is only half a point more expensive than a single phaser emitter. They're crazy cheap. We really gotta make it standard for every cruiser-sized ship to have 2 fore and 2 aft, I reckon, or start angling for class 2 torpedo launchers, ya know, higher yield.

It'd be quite satisfying to have an over-ambitious Klingon BoP tailing one of our science ships, and then get a pair of photons to the face. "But it's a science ship! Why has it got 2 aft torpedo launchers?" "I don't know sir, but the science ship is turning around, and it looks angry." "Withdraw!"

I know Sayle's got Quest Mechanics to worry about, but that bit always bugged me; surely with the right tweaks you could fire Voyager's torpedoes from the NX-01 and vice-versa? The yield etc is more the ordnance itself rather than the launcher? If that's true then it should be more like, more capable launchers that do volley-firing, fast-loading or the opposite and are more compact. The yield shouldn't be particularly effected by the launcher, only the ordnance that is compatible with it.

Edit: Now I think about it I guess it could come to the same thing. If you had a new driver coil assembly or something that made your torpedoes faster, but it meant last-gen launchers couldn't use your torpedoes safely, then it's functionally the same thing. I guess there's probably a few different models within the class-1 designation that are progressively cheaper, more reliable and have some shinier features, we only see it from a very abstract POV.
 
Last edited:
[X] Ventral Banks (2 Phaser Banks) (Cost 65 -> 73) [Second Tranche: 62 -> 70]

Two forward with one aft torpedo launcher.
 
2230: Project Constitution (Aft Weapons)
[X] Ventral Banks (2 Phaser Banks) (Cost 65 -> 73) [Second Tranche: 59 -> 67]

With the forward weapons nailed down the last point at issue is the aft weapons. As is stands there is a strong argument for no weapons at all, especially as so much of the Constitution's forward armament is so focused. With the ship's capabilities being primarily in the bow facing adding weapons to aft may just be adding them for the sake of adding them, and a decision you may end up regretting when it comes to the balance sheet.

That said, there are real arguments for making sure there is some capability there. First is that in engagement regimes involving high-energy-passes and fly-bys aft weapons can compound and support the first salvo carried out by the bow armament. The second is that in warp speed that an aft torpedo launcher is capable of bombarding pursuers, though given the Constitution's high top speed that is a somewhat less pressing concern than it was in the Archer. For those purposes an aft launcher will do just fine.

But if you wish to lean into the idea of engagement passes and support that tactic, then adding a phaser would provide even more damage output than the torpedo alone and ensure that the ship can keep up the fight even while its torpedo launcher is undergoing its reload and recharge sequence.

[ ] No Aft Armament (Cost 73) [Second Tranche: 67]
[ ] Aft Torpedo (Cost 73 -> 75.25) [Second Tranche: 67 -> 69.25]
[ ] Aft Phaser (Cost 73 -> 77) [Second Trance: 67 -> 71]
[ ] Aft Phaser, Aft Torpedo (Cost 73 -> 79.25) [Second Tranche: 67 -> 73.25]

Two Hour Moratorium, Please

 
Last edited:
Back
Top