Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
[X] Aft Phaser, Aft Torpedo (Cost 73 -> 79.25)

F-15 here we go

I don't think Connie is going to be our thunderchild. She seems more vanguard than heavy-metal. Sure she could do heavy metal in a pinch, but it seems like a waste to use our beautiful fighter-jet-ass dogfighter of a boat as a fleet anchor.
 
Last edited:
[X] Aft Phaser, Aft Torpedo (Cost 73 -> 79.25) [Second Tranche: 67 -> 73.25]
[X] Aft Torpedo (Cost 73 -> 75.25) [Second Tranche: 67 -> 69.25]
 
[x] Aft Phaser, Aft Torpedo (Cost 73 -> 79.25) [Second Tranche: 67 -> 73.25]

Simply it's a warship and in war ideal usage scenarios aren't.
The ability to outside optimal conditions to fire in both way is critical in war and the ability to multi track is critical.
Burst+constant dps.

If we don't the Klingons are going to take a page out of the cats books and build a bunch over thrusted frigates that will live on our backside like barnacles. Even if they can't mission kill they would make every engagement a time trial. The choice of both will remove such consideration with the exception of true desperation.

Edit: Thats why i voted for ventral trade 2 phaser foward for a phaser and torp aft.
 
Last edited:
The combination aft phaser and torpedo, as well as giving us the ability to deliver a pretty significant rear alpha for when we pass over the enemy will also let this ship aid others in fleet battles by letting it snap fire at other targets in our rear aspect as we line up another attack run on ships ahead of us.
 
[X] Aft Torpedo (Cost 73 -> 75.25) [Second Tranche: 67 -> 69.25]

I think this is the most reasonable option. Enough to deter following us and add some burst damage in attack runs without breaking the bank.
 
[X] Aft Torpedo (Cost 73 -> 75.25) [Second Tranche: 67 -> 69.25]

This ship is already getting too expensive guys, like they what to build this thing in quite a big amount but won't be able to with how much it will cost.
 
[X] Aft Torpedo (Cost 73 -> 75.25) [Second Tranche: 67 -> 69.25]
 
People keep saying they want the rear phaser for fleet battles, but that's the last place I'd expect to use them - any time the forward phasers aren't on a target, neither are the torpedo tubes, and we can't fire both the front and back phasers simultaneously.

It wouldn't be useless, but in a fleet battle we really should be relying on the rest of the fleet to shoot ships behind this one anyway.
 
Deathbybunnies said:
and we can't fire both the front and back phasers simultaneously.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I think this a the big deal yeah. There's going to be plenty of moments in fleet battles where a nimble ship dives in between enemies and has angles on both front and aft but you'll want power to go front to support the alpha strike potential of this design. Torpedoes don't have the same issue so there's a lot more benefit to the aft torpedo.
 
the update literally says this: ". 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." and this "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.". The only reason not to get both is penny pinching.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top