Strunkriidiisk
THE LEGEND
- Location
- Canada
- Pronouns
- He/Him
A single phaser 'shot' seems to be at most a second in length, and the time to cycle between emitters/arrays appears to be negligible.
Linked contents
I think it might be useful to keep some perspective in mind in relation to the Excalibur for deciding what is heavily armed. Specifically the Excalibur is already quite heavily armed, so anything at a similar weapons tonnage ratio to it would presumably also be heavily armed for its size.
Our current design if it took just the normal two nacelle is heading for 260.000 tons, this is about 45% more tonnage then the Excalibur, in any case well below 50%. One could take a four nacelle design of course, how ever that's mostly tonnage and space that's already spent on more warp systems then, it does not actually really contribute much to combat capability beyond giving a bit more phaser and shield power, you certainly won't get much space from it.
So I think it's reasonable as such to focus on the 260.000 ton variant for comparison here, as that is how much effective extra space you will be getting. As such, one is getting less then 50% extra useful mass and volume to put weapons in.
Now going by the official spec sheet for the Excalibur it has 1 RPL and 2 normal tubes, so a burst damage of 5 torpedoes, it also has 4 phasers total. So based on this you'd already be getting more then 50% increase of weapons per tonnage if you had a burst fire of 8 torpedoes and 6 phasers.
As such even 2 RPL forward and 1 RPL rear is an enormous 80% firepower increase far beyond the tonnage equivalence, the main difference being that the firepower has become a bit more equally spread out, with the rear being more covered. Even so, this is quite the escalation in firepower and pushing the design a bit more towards being a warship first. Most suggestions also seem to be suggesting more then 6 phasers for the design, instead potentially thinking of 8 or possibly even more, which would be then at least a 100% increase in installed phaser power.
If one really put that much weaponry on this barely larger then a Kea class spacecraft, you'd effectively be heavily upgunning it compared to the Excalibur standard, with it substantially exceeding the weapon density that the Excalibur has. This might not make it a pure warship, but certainly it would be a substantial step in that direction. As such, I think that is something to keep in mind.
To put it another way, In the end unlike the dreadnought and super dreadnought era ships, we did not create much larger ships to hold a vastly larger array of weapons and instead crammed it all in basically similarly large hulls as last gen. The increased engine power basically all going to improve maneuverability instead making last generations ships of more average agility levels, highly agile instead. In that sense I guess what we've done is more equivalent with the treaty era battleships, where one tried to use better technology, more efficient packing of weapons and improved armor schemes to try and get more out of the same hull sizes. And maybe that works for one generation or so, but in the end there is but so much one can do in a same size hull before it starts getting a bit overloaded.
Well these are my thoughts on the current weapon discussions, I hope it is a useful perspective to everyone else.
Our current design if it took just the normal two nacelle is heading for 260.000 tons, this is about 45% more tonnage then the Excalibur, in any case well below 50%. One could take a four nacelle design of course, how ever that's mostly tonnage and space that's already spent on more warp systems then, it does not actually really contribute much to combat capability beyond giving a bit more phaser and shield power, you certainly won't get much space from it.
So I think it's reasonable as such to focus on the 260.000 ton variant for comparison here, as that is how much effective extra space you will be getting. As such, one is getting less then 50% extra useful mass and volume to put weapons in.
Now going by the official spec sheet for the Excalibur it has 1 RPL and 2 normal tubes, so a burst damage of 5 torpedoes, it also has 4 phasers total. So based on this you'd already be getting more then 50% increase of weapons per tonnage if you had a burst fire of 8 torpedoes and 6 phasers.
As such even 2 RPL forward and 1 RPL rear is an enormous 80% firepower increase far beyond the tonnage equivalence, the main difference being that the firepower has become a bit more equally spread out, with the rear being more covered. Even so, this is quite the escalation in firepower and pushing the design a bit more towards being a warship first. Most suggestions also seem to be suggesting more then 6 phasers for the design, instead potentially thinking of 8 or possibly even more, which would be then at least a 100% increase in installed phaser power.
If one really put that much weaponry on this barely larger then a Kea class spacecraft, you'd effectively be heavily upgunning it compared to the Excalibur standard, with it substantially exceeding the weapon density that the Excalibur has. This might not make it a pure warship, but certainly it would be a substantial step in that direction. As such, I think that is something to keep in mind.
To put it another way, In the end unlike the dreadnought and super dreadnought era ships, we did not create much larger ships to hold a vastly larger array of weapons and instead crammed it all in basically similarly large hulls as last gen. The increased engine power basically all going to improve maneuverability instead making last generations ships of more average agility levels, highly agile instead. In that sense I guess what we've done is more equivalent with the treaty era battleships, where one tried to use better technology, more efficient packing of weapons and improved armor schemes to try and get more out of the same hull sizes. And maybe that works for one generation or so, but in the end there is but so much one can do in a same size hull before it starts getting a bit overloaded.
Well these are my thoughts on the current weapon discussions, I hope it is a useful perspective to everyone else.
Last edited:
Shard
One and Many
- Location
- Malaysia
We really need a ton of module space free if we want this ship to be anything other than a beatstick. If that means less torpedoes, then that's the price of a balanced ship. 3 RPLs is already a whopping 36 cost. Can the ship really afford that many?
Last edited:
Chargone
Invisable operator
- Location
- New Zealand
Consider that 3 RFL is actually one Less launcher than the excaliber (which has three forward and one aft, though three of those are standard) though I believe the rapid fire launchers are individually larger than the standard ones. May be relevant, along with the tech maturing (I forget their current status and when it changes, but that's important if relevant).
Also we're working with a full saucer this time.
Also we're working with a full saucer this time.
*checks*
The current benchmark is the Excalibur, which had four torpedo launchers: 1x rapid + 3x standard
The following is a list of varying torpedo configurations suites for the Federation's 260kt to 300kt final weight, as well as estimated costs for each, using different combinations of rapid and standard launchers and a hard cap of no more than half again the Callie's torpedo suite
Excalibur: 1x rapid + 3x standard launchers = 18.75
Configuration A: 3x rapid launchers = 36
Configuration B: 2x rapid + 3x standard launchers = 30.75
Configuration C: 3x rapid + 2x standard launchers = 40.5
Configuration D: 3x rapid + 3x standard launchers = 42.75
Worth noting that none of this includes phaser costs, which is its own separate chunk of expenditure
But it does illustrate that torpedo costs can easily get out of control if we let them
EDIT
I should have added a 4x launcher(2x rapid + 2x standard) option for the Federation, but it only just occurred to me and I dont feel like redoing this
The current benchmark is the Excalibur, which had four torpedo launchers: 1x rapid + 3x standard
The following is a list of varying torpedo configurations suites for the Federation's 260kt to 300kt final weight, as well as estimated costs for each, using different combinations of rapid and standard launchers and a hard cap of no more than half again the Callie's torpedo suite
| CONFIGURATION | Total launcher number | Forward Rapid number | Forward Standard number | Forward Max Salvo | Forward Cost | Aft Rapid number | Aft Standard number | Aft Max Salvo | Aft Cost | Total Torpedo Salvo | Total Cost (<2060) | Total Cost (>2060) |
| Excalibur | 4 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 16.5 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2.25 | 6 | 18.75 | 15.75 |
| Fed Config A: Rapid Only | 3 | 2 | 0 | 6 | 24 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 12 | 9 | 36 | 27 |
| Fed Config B: Forward Rapids | 5 | 2 | 1 | 7 | 26.25 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 4.5 | 9 | 30.75 | 24.75 |
| Fed Config C: Aft Rapids | 5 | 2 | 1 | 7 | 26.25 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 14.25 | 11 | 40.5 | 31.5 |
| Fed Config D: Max Rapids + Standard | 6 | 2 | 2 | 8 | 28.5 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 14.25 | 12 | 42.75 | 33.75 |
Excalibur: 1x rapid + 3x standard launchers = 18.75
Configuration A: 3x rapid launchers = 36
Configuration B: 2x rapid + 3x standard launchers = 30.75
Configuration C: 3x rapid + 2x standard launchers = 40.5
Configuration D: 3x rapid + 3x standard launchers = 42.75
Worth noting that none of this includes phaser costs, which is its own separate chunk of expenditure
But it does illustrate that torpedo costs can easily get out of control if we let them
EDIT
I should have added a 4x launcher(2x rapid + 2x standard) option for the Federation, but it only just occurred to me and I dont feel like redoing this
Last edited:
I haven't been following the quest too well but I recently found a weapon of mass comedic destruction that would fit it. I ask that one of the thread sacrifices themselves like a redshirt and watch it so it can be posted when most appropriate for the thread to see it. If you are unwilling, refrain from this sacrifice so the final effect can be most powerful
- Location
- California
That seems rather logical, you'd probably need a Connie II torpedo box style refit (where you know, they've ripped out all the old torpedo systems and have specifically built a new section to house them, which is reasonably voluminous) and given how big this ship is already going to be (saucer or secondary hull wise) I doubt we'd see something like that where you get a whole new section to put them in.
Until stated otherwise it is logical to assume that we can only upgrade like for like as far as torpedoes are concerned.
Doubly fitting given she cut a German submarine in half with her bow, which is the only confirmed incidence of a battleship sinking a submarine (Warspite's walrus aside, and that was more an aircraft kill - also the first aircraft kill of a submarine in ww2, I believe).
The existence of more powerful Mark 4 torpedoes as an upgrade suggest otherwise
Basically, photon torpedoes are matter-antimatter annihilation devices
Since Star Trek does not load AM until the torpedo is in the tube, the adoption of a more powerfu torpedo requires upgrades of the ship's ability to deliver antimatter safely to the launchers
And that throughput is essentially the most important element of adopting rapid fire tubes that I can see
Of course, this is my opinion of the data we have
The QM might disagree, whether in interpretation of the technical data or even just for game balance reasons
That was certainly a distinctive experience.
- Location
- USA
- Pronouns
- He/They
Partly it's wishful thinking, yeah, but there's good reason to believe that- even if not directly equivalent- the RFL's volume budget is much closer to a single standard launcher than it is to multiple. Remember, it was developed for the sole reason that enough standard launchers took up entirely too much space for their salvo size. Given how cheap hull size is, the Federation would absolutely not be paying ten times as much for an RFL that's "merely" half the volume of three standard launchers- the juice just wouldn't be worth the squeeze. They'd have either kept working on the RFL till it was compact enough and/or cheap enough to be worth using, or scrapped the idea and gone back to batteries of standard tubes. Since they didn't, we can assume that the RFL is of broadly similar size to the standard launcher. It's certainly not a simple plug-and-play upgrade, but I believe it's a very, very plausible one for a major yard refit.
I believe our core is slightly better, but yeah, their nacelles are way up on ours at present, and while we might have a brief moment of superiority immediately after our new nacelles come out, I think their next-gen warp drive tech will be coming out very shortly after that indeed. The tech gap is shrinking, and it's shrinking faster in warp tech than weapon or shield (actually I'm not sure we're closing in on them in weapon tech at all, but that's a worry for another day), but it's got quite a ways to go.
Edit: To clarify, in real-world performance I think our warptech is already broadly on par with theirs- remember, the Callies were dramatically, decisively faster than anything in their inventory. Just remember, they're getting the-same-or-better-but-mostly-better cruise and still-pretty-respectable sprint off of a worse warp core, which says really good things about how power-efficient their warp coils are. If they decide to just throw antimatter-efficiency to the winds and build as oversized a warp core as they need to power those coils as hard as they can take, I expect we're in for an unpleasant surprise- even if they'd be driving antimatter consumption through the roof for the privilege.
Last edited:
Blegh. The Christmas Flu sucks. Anyway, in regards to torpedo advancements, my read is the switch from TOS -> TMP torpedoes isn't just a yield thing but something that ends up needing really substantial launch tubes. The torpedoes themselves also seem quite a bit bigger, and in the movies you seem to see a lot of bleedthrough damage even before shields fail. Maybe in addition to yield improvements they're also built to try and slam some of the damage through modern shield systems.
I've got like, 3/4s of the diagram done. Unfortunately I've had to redesign the secondary hull twice. The first time because I realised it was double the mass because I'd forgotten how big the saucer was and so it just looked way too chonky once the decks were in, and the second time because the shape had gone all wonky. But I'm not making the mistake of leaving the front/rear views for later, because that turned out to be a massive pain for the Excalibur. I'm keeping my spirits up by reminding myself that after this there's the Type-4 nacelle and then we get away from smooth bronze/gold hulls towards something a bit more visually interesting. Though TMP itself can be a little bland you at least get some interesting aztecing and there's going to have to be a OS change for the computer screen. Interesting circular blue/green designs going on there.
I've got like, 3/4s of the diagram done. Unfortunately I've had to redesign the secondary hull twice. The first time because I realised it was double the mass because I'd forgotten how big the saucer was and so it just looked way too chonky once the decks were in, and the second time because the shape had gone all wonky. But I'm not making the mistake of leaving the front/rear views for later, because that turned out to be a massive pain for the Excalibur. I'm keeping my spirits up by reminding myself that after this there's the Type-4 nacelle and then we get away from smooth bronze/gold hulls towards something a bit more visually interesting. Though TMP itself can be a little bland you at least get some interesting aztecing and there's going to have to be a OS change for the computer screen. Interesting circular blue/green designs going on there.
Take a FUCKING BREAK. thats an order Sayle. dont rush things and make it worse for yourself.
TheShadowDeamon
Mighty Dragon
Yes, get well soon and don't push yourself trying to rush it. if it takes time to do it right then that's what'll have to happen.
Trent01
A Fountain of Quest Ideas
Fourthing the motion: take a break if you need it. Holiday flu is the worst and we still got New Years coming up. Stuff is gonna fly around, take it easy and do it right not fast.
That said, glad you're plotting out the art. It's one of the best parts of this game for all the arguments we have. Definitely worth pre-planning to keep things straight as we roll through more designs in the future.
That said, glad you're plotting out the art. It's one of the best parts of this game for all the arguments we have. Definitely worth pre-planning to keep things straight as we roll through more designs in the future.
- Location
- Australia
I won't write another paragraph repeating what others have said, but health is always more important than games, however fun.
This is very, very exciting. It's making me question if I want to push for multiple nacelles on project Federation though. Oh, the possibilities...
This is very, very exciting. It's making me question if I want to push for multiple nacelles on project Federation though. Oh, the possibilities...
- Location
- USA
If the Connie refit is any indication, a nacelle swap later down the line is entirely within reason.
Funny thing that I've only recently come across, the S1/S2 proposals for Constitution class starship names.
21 ships, 22 if both Monitor and Merrimac were extant, and 22/23 if the Constellation was replaced.
And related to Justman's proposal (1967), about 11 ships as of the time it was compiled.
21 ships, 22 if both Monitor and Merrimac were extant, and 22/23 if the Constellation was replaced.
And related to Justman's proposal (1967), about 11 ships as of the time it was compiled.
Strunkriidiisk
THE LEGEND
- Location
- Canada
- Pronouns
- He/Him
I'm not sure what you're getting at with this.
I'm not getting at anything, I'm just spreading some Trek knowledge that I, someone who considered themselves to be reasonably well versed, didn't know.
Potemkin is a funny ship name to pick, since it's mainly known for a mutiny... and for the incredibly influential movie about the mutiny, which is why I imagine a bunch of Hollywood people would pick that. Not that I can make a better suggestion.
I mostly remember the name in the context of fake villages.
Not really better, admittedly.
She is also perhaps the most famous Russian ship (from a 'western' point of view) to ever exist, I doubt Gangut or Kirov ('35) would have resonated with viewers much before the 2000s.
Plus, having ships with outright soviet warship names probably wouldn't have flown that much, even if the Soviet Union (even if it would likely resemble a Union of Soviet Sovereign Republics more) is meant to be a constituent of United Earth.
To remind people with the upcoming choice between dual and quad nacelles.
Also once the type 4 nacelles become avaible, a refit will increase that even more 7,6 or even 7,8 max cruise are absolutly possible!
This would let us get a ship with the highest cruising speed we have built! Also we would style massivly on San Fran with a good quad design in comparison to the Radiant.
Also once the type 4 nacelles become avaible, a refit will increase that even more 7,6 or even 7,8 max cruise are absolutly possible!