Linked contents
[X] Command Configuration (Mass: 140kt) [Cost: 27.5]
- Location
- United States
[X] Inverse Slope Configuration (Mass: 170kt) [Cost: 33.5]
- Location
- west
[X] Inverse Slope Configuration (Mass: 170kt) [Cost: 33.5]
Onionjones
とある 科学 の 大学生
- Location
- a swing state
I don't think that counts as a vote if you wanted it to be one
- Pronouns
- He/Him
[X] Inverse Slope Configuration (Mass: 170kt) [Cost: 33.5]
- Location
- in between
[X] Inverse Slope Configuration (Mass: 170kt) [Cost: 33.5]
- Location
- New York
- Pronouns
- He/Him
[X] Command Configuration (Mass: 140kt) [Cost: 27.5]
Not really, whilst it does improve phaser firing angles a bit the mass lost directly impacts phaser firepower, shield rating and hull rating.
darkstarling
Brilliantly Crazed
- Location
- Columbus, Ohio
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Phaser fire for fleet anchor role, and we SPECIFICALLY got a warning from Starfleet Command saying 'Don't bulk the mass just for firepower'
SCIFI-enthusiast
Fractal-Pattern Technological Singularity
- Pronouns
- He/They
[X] Command Configuration (Mass: 140kt) [Cost: 27.5]
These ships are going to attract the brunt of enemy fire and likely slug it out with enemy heavy units, improved offensive and defensive strength will be important nere.
No, the quote was "Starfleet is unlikely to look kindly on a ship bloated by mass just for the improved defensive functionality if that's all it brings to the table."
People who are voting for the command configuration on the basis of "we were told not to bulk it up" are generally ignoring that we can and will add extra functionality with that mass, both directly in the tactical sense and indirectly in terms of the module fit we can give it.
As it stands the command configuration ship is probably going to be of limited utility outside of combat, which will directly impact on the longevity of the ship and how many Starfleet gets built.
I would not be THAT concerned. It likely ends up with one less module, but gets another ship in each run due to decreased cost, so I suspect it is a wash.
No options are strictly inferior or superior to others.
[X] Command Configuration (Mass: 140kt) [Cost: 27.5]
[X] Command Configuration (Mass: 140kt) [Cost: 27.5]
I kinda want it to look like a upscaled TOS coded Miranda for giggles.
I kinda want it to look like a upscaled TOS coded Miranda for giggles.
- Location
- UK
- Pronouns
- He/Him
I mean, yes. But if we were given any module options that impact tactical viability they'd have the exact same tradeoff and they'd be a good pick for this ship and its role.
Since we haven't actually seen any such modules yet outside of starbases, there's no guarantee they'll be offered, but this is on offer and it's useful.
I mean, it's fine if you just want to pick the max size option for every choice because bigger numbers, but the command configuration is specifically offering something useful to go with its lower size, and having a lower size on at least one of these choices might well motivate people to pick bigger sizes in subsequent votes because they'll feel there's some slack built in with this one. For instance if we'd taken a smaller saucer, I'd certainly be more open to picking a larger mass option on this vote.
[X] Command Configuration (Mass: 140kt) [Cost: 27.5]
[X] Inverse Slope Configuration (Mass: 170kt) [Cost: 33.5]
Given we're all but guaranteed to have a secondary hull thus making this not the pancake of doom successor that was the Thunderchild, I cannot be jazzed by the last option.
[X] Inverse Slope Configuration (Mass: 170kt) [Cost: 33.5]
Given we're all but guaranteed to have a secondary hull thus making this not the pancake of doom successor that was the Thunderchild, I cannot be jazzed by the last option.