Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
[ ] Aft Phaser, Aft Torpedo (Cost 73 -> 79.25) [Second Tranche: 67 -> 73.25]

Firing passes, as well as having at least some tactical options that don't require the ship to face its opponents.
 
[ ] No Aft Armament (Cost 73) [Second Tranche: 67]

We have to cut costs somewhere so we can churn these out and chase armaments are a niche use case which we can discard due to maneuverability.
 
aft torpedo for sure, im not so certain on the phaser given our maneuverability, but it won't hurt.
 
Oh. No weapons on our side.
This has to be our fellow designers putting their collective feet down :p

Torpedo for sure. I'm not sure about the phasor. I was prepared to go one each side but I'm not sure about one at the back. I'll let it develop in discussion.
 
Golgotha said:
Oh. No weapons on our side.
This has to be our fellow designers putting their collective feet down :p

Torpedo for sure. I'm not sure about the phasor. I was prepared to go one each side but I'm not sure about one at the back. I'll let it develop in discussion.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I still think 100% coverage with type 2 phasers would be optimum. The type 3s are too expensive to get that sort of coverage and this ship doesn't need the little extra edge of alpha strike.
 
Aft Torpedo is the absolute minimum. Anybody whining about the cost of doing at least that is penny wise but pound foolish. It's 2.25 cost. It's such a minute expense that not putting it in is shooting yourself in the foot.

The Aft Phaser would be great too, but at twice the cost of a torpedo tube (for the same alpha albeit with better sustained), it starts getting into the territory where we might want to cut it out of budget reasons.
 
Fouredged Sword said:
this ship doesn't need the little extra edge of alpha strike.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Ironically, I think you saying this crystallized in my head that it does.
Well, more specifically, the high energy engagement passes.
If it was a "perhaps it could do this" it would be more iffy, but if we can fully lean into our higher maneuverability and warp speed and the idea is baked into the very design...

Warp in, hit disgustingly hard, warp out. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat.

[ ] Aft Phaser, Aft Torpedo (Cost 73 -> 79.25) [Second Tranche: 67 -> 73.25]

I was prepared to pay for two phasers to hit from the side. Why should I balk at the cost of one confirmed to work in fly by attacks?

18 phaser damage. 36 torpedo damage. 54 torpedo rfl damage. That's 108 Alpha.
Then an additional 18 phaser and 18 torpedo damage. That's an additional 36 a few seconds later.

That's like 33% more "Alpha" damage for a very cheap cost.
 
Last edited:
I just realized that there's another name we can potentially call this ship class. Saratoga. Just so that Saratoga is no longer the most unlucky ship name in Starfleet history.
 
Last edited:
WRT naming, the joke about Chesapeake was that she was constructed to a significantly divergent design, to some connsternation by the original designer. I thought that given all the back and forth wrt the faithfulness of our design it might be appropriate to give the ship a name that references how it is and isn't a Constitution class.
 
Neodymium said:
A single aft torpedo would be prudent and such a weapon would not break the bank but anything more would be rather costly.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
But is it? Or does it feel more costly just because we have three listed choices and it's the most expensive one?

I think every plan we had made included phasers on the side. That means picking an aft phaser is actually cheaper than our previous planning, while helping us significantly tactically in both wolf pack tactics and mass fleet engagements.
 
[x] Aft Phaser, Aft Torpedo (Cost 73 -> 79.25) [Second Tranche: 67 -> 73.25]
[X] Aft Phaser (Cost 73 -> 77) [Second Trance: 67 -> 71]

I'd rather have both but I'd take one of either.
 
Last edited:
[x] Aft Torpedo (Cost 73 -> 75.25) [Second Tranche: 67 -> 69.25]
[x] Aft Phaser (Cost 73 -> 77) [Second Trance: 67 -> 71]
[x] Aft Phaser, Aft Torpedo (Cost 73 -> 79.25) [Second Tranche: 67 -> 73.25]
 
[X] Aft Phaser, Aft Torpedo (Cost 73 -> 79.25) [Second Tranche: 67 -> 73.25]

6.25 for being able to slap anything that gets or is put behind us for +20 damage is a steal.

As mentioned in the update, higher maneuverability let's you use both your forward and Aft weapons on the same target.

This isn't just for shooting anything that tries to chase us, it can be used offensively against a target that was initially in front of the ship.
 
[X] No Aft Armament (Cost 73) [Second Tranche: 67]

EDIT: Tactical voting time.

[X] Aft Torpedo (Cost 73 -> 75.25) [Second Tranche: 67 -> 69.25]
 
Last edited:
[X] Aft Phaser, Aft Torpedo (Cost 73 -> 79.25) [Second Tranche: 67 -> 73.25]

33% more damage in fly by attacks for 7% or less cost. That's seriously efficient damage!
 
[x] Aft Torpedo (Cost 73 -> 75.25) [Second Tranche: 67 -> 69.25]
[x] Aft Phaser (Cost 73 -> 77) [Second Trance: 67 -> 71]

I'd like an aft weapon, and I can see positives to both types. Doing both may be a bit too much cost.
 
Last edited:
[X] Aft Phaser (Cost 73 -> 77) [Second Trance: 67 -> 71]

Thanks for adding the option, Sayle.

I think a single aft phaser is a good middleground option. Our torpedoes do 18 damage in a burst, and 6 damage on average. Our phasers deal 18 damage flat out, with no reload time. It's not as powerful as taking both a phaser and a torpedo together, but it's cheaper while being more powerful than just taking the torpedo. Plus, while torpedoes don't take up much space, phasers take up even less.

The big drawback is that it'd be harder to refit this in the future to fit aft burst torpedoes, but by the time we can afford to do those expensive refits, the immediate price crunch for quickly building these ships will have passed.

[X] Aft Torpedo (Cost 73 -> 75.25) [Second Tranche: 67 -> 69.25]
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top