Not very IMO.
At the ranges that combat happen, I dont really see the profile thing being all that significant.
Especially since computers are in play for aiming
Linked contents
At the ranges that combat happen, I dont really see the profile thing being all that significant.
Especially since computers are in play for aiming
Chargone
Invisable operator
- Location
- New Zealand
Peacetime goals pretty consistently come down almost entirely to module loadout... With more modules being better and, until and unless this is changed, few or none of those modules having any cost on the scale we're working at beyond the cost of making the hull big enough to maximise quantity/quality of modules.
The only real issue there is that impulse engines and torpedo launchers sometimes impinge upon what could otherwise have bedn module space.
Shots do miss. Weapons are not hit scanning from the sensors. That means smaller targets are harder to hit. What matters is if you can move out of your own profile within the command loop of the enemy's sensors/fire control/weapons systems. The smaller your profile and the faster you can change velocity (including angular) the easier that is.
It also means less surface area presented to a space burst explosion like a photon torpedo meaning your shields need to absorb less energy to keep you safe.
- Location
- United States
- Pronouns
- He/Him
[X] Command Configuration (Mass: 140kt) [Cost: 27.5]
Chargone
Invisable operator
- Location
- New Zealand
Pretty sure i's been considered tactically relevant with previous designs? Might be misremembering, of course.
DualFront
Perhaps, this is Hell
For reference as to what each choice would look like aesthetically:
Inverse Slope:
Rising Slope:
And then Command Configuration seems to be just the bridge and an extension to the stern sticking up off of a perfectly flat saucer, I don't think we've made anything quite like it before:
Basically it would be an elongated version of our existing command decks though, with no slope up to it
Inverse Slope:
Rising Slope:
And then Command Configuration seems to be just the bridge and an extension to the stern sticking up off of a perfectly flat saucer, I don't think we've made anything quite like it before:
Basically it would be an elongated version of our existing command decks though, with no slope up to it
Last edited:
- Location
- United States
[X] Command Configuration (Mass: 140kt) [Cost: 27.5]
Not in this thread at least.
It's going to really impinge on internal volume/modules that can be put in. Which is probably going to do really shit things for the long term/peacetime utility of the ship.
[X] Inverse Slope Configuration (Mass: 170kt) [Cost: 33.5]
This isn't a Kea replacement, at least not in terms of utility. Starfleet very explicitly does not care about the scientific capability of this ship, and would accept even just a basic science lab.
Which does make sense, seeing as how we've just designed the Attenboroughs. A sort of midpoint in engineering between a Miranda and an Archer would probably be our best bet in getting decent order size, but a smaller ship would probably help with that too.
Chargone
Invisable operator
- Location
- New Zealand
If that's correct it completely puts me off the command configuration, while still leaving me baffled by the torpedo launcher restriction.
Pretty sure the bit you're refering to about science capability was specifically for the Miranda?
If anything I'd think they'd quite appreciate (if the option comes up) strategic materials prospecting capabilities (which tend to come under science) on this one. They'd potentially help it pay for itself, if nothing else. Remember, great as the attenboroughs are in their role, only a very small number were built, and they tnd to spend a lot of time sitting around on planets, not really available to go and do random things, nor are they specced for non-planetary science, particularly.
Last edited:
Iridium Flare
Cyborg Commando
- Location
- AC-130 Gunship circling overhead
[X] Command Configuration (Mass: 140kt) [Cost: 27.5]
Ideal phaser mounts? For our phaser boat? Say no more.
Ideal phaser mounts? For our phaser boat? Say no more.
Strunkriidiisk
THE LEGEND
- Location
- Canada
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Keep in mind that the comparison should be considered focused on the top plane - the underside of the hull is up to Sayle. Command and inverse slope presumably have a more rounded ventral hull, while the rising slope explicitly has a mostly flat ventral hull, and torpedoes aren't placed on the upper hull (IDK why).
The Attenborough fulfills a completely different niche compared to the Kea, which possesses:
[ ] 0: Small Arboretum (+2 Science)
[ ] 1: Secondary Computer Core (+2 Science, Advanced Computing)
[ ] 2: Dilithium Analysis (+1 Science, Dilithium Prospecting)
[ ] 3: Science Labs (+4 Science)
[ ] 4: Astrometrics (+2 Science)
[ ] 5: Biosciences (+1 Science, Biosciences)
[ ] 6: Geology Lab (+2 Science)
And I doubt the Miranda will have more than the basic scientific facilities mandated by the brief. With the Kea being somewhat obsolescent scientifically (thanks to the generalist labs, iirc, plus lacking the dilithium prospecting ability now) there are a few niches that are entirely unoccupied, and which will likely remain unoccupied for a while.
Of course, if you want to discount science modules it should be remembered that more advanced engineering/utility ones are typically 'fuck huge' and the command configuration saucer kneecaps it at basically 3 decks at best in the saucer.
Last edited:
- Location
- Somewhere and somewhen in time and space
[X] Inverse Slope Configuration (Mass: 170kt) [Cost: 33.5]
- Location
- Australia
[X] Inverse Slope Configuration (Mass: 170kt) [Cost: 33.5]
As awesome as command configuration sounds (And it does sound awesome) I do actually want the room for extra transporters and such as described.
I want this thing to be awesome as an anchor, but more importantly I don't want it to be limited to just an anchor. I'm happy with great coverage that can't be ignored from our phasers rather than prefect coverage - it's not like being at 320 instead of 360 will cause enemy ships to bypass us.
Not going to be surprised if the sheer novelty of command configuration wins the vote... if it does I'm going to have to prepare for a lot of arguing to get the modules emphasised elsewhere. I want room for Thrusters and modules damnit, not to have to pick between them again.
As awesome as command configuration sounds (And it does sound awesome) I do actually want the room for extra transporters and such as described.
I want this thing to be awesome as an anchor, but more importantly I don't want it to be limited to just an anchor. I'm happy with great coverage that can't be ignored from our phasers rather than prefect coverage - it's not like being at 320 instead of 360 will cause enemy ships to bypass us.
Not going to be surprised if the sheer novelty of command configuration wins the vote... if it does I'm going to have to prepare for a lot of arguing to get the modules emphasised elsewhere. I want room for Thrusters and modules damnit, not to have to pick between them again.
Last edited:
I guess based on this update that we can conclude that the only chance we had to get close to 400 kton big ships with out Starfleet starting to balk at it would have been if standard shield had been chosen. In that case the increased mass would be in part justified as bringing the ships shield up to required levels after all, with the total costs being some what the same. And you just so happen to suddenly have a lot of module space to play with then afterwards.
Well a useful lesson to remember for the future I guess, the bigger ships are probably only considered affordable if one doesn't choose the most expensive shield.
Well a useful lesson to remember for the future I guess, the bigger ships are probably only considered affordable if one doesn't choose the most expensive shield.
Last edited:
- Location
- Outside the Box
- Pronouns
- She/Her
You'll want to put that in a quote box or remove the Xs. Otherwise, the tally is picking those up as your vote. (Uju32's tally was made before your post. I ran a new one just now you can check if you want.)
- Location
- Australia
The warning isn't about being too big and expensive, so much as it is about being big, expensive and having not enough worth to cover it. We just need to make it really damned good in every other way.
Bit like the Archer's "I hate it, give me 20" but from finance instead of tactical.
I could sit down and do the math about just how negligible the difference is when you're shooting at the edge of a saucer.
Because even as close as a thousand kilometers, the angle subtended is negligible.
Let alone at like 50,000km or farther.
I could also point out that its a 180m wide saucer, and that the opposition does not have to approach in your own plane.
But Im frankly getting too worked up about this.
I'll just say that the ship's maneuverability is a lot more important to that than trying to minimize its edge profile.
And leave it at that.
This is of course true, I'm just wondering if we'd even got the warning otherwise. As in that case it would just have been needed to bring it up to required levels.
[X] Inverse Slope Configuration (Mass: 170kt) [Cost: 33.5]
Last edited:
There's still some hope, at least for a moderately big ship. The main issue is people overly focusing on the negative words in the first paragraph of the part 2 post and forgetting that whilst mass does help with defences (both hull and shields) it'll also help other tactical considerations (phaser power) and also in terms of what can be done with the ship module wise.
A more massive and voluminous ship naturally brings more to the table compared to a three deck pancake.
- Location
- United States
[X] Inverse Slope Configuration (Mass: 170kt) [Cost: 33.5]