At the Trade off of this hull maneuvering like a beached whale in combat and making torps largely ineffective against anything more agile than it (which would be most aggressor hulls in this era).
Linked contents
if the only correct choice is max cost, why do we have a choice?
both the Thunderchild and Sagarmatha were medium/medium-slow and they had zero issues fulfilling their combats role and had great service lives even as they fought against opponents that favored speed, just admit you want to build a torpedo boat instead of a fleet anchor : p
both the Thunderchild and Sagarmatha were medium/medium-slow and they had zero issues fulfilling their combats role and had great service lives even as they fought against opponents that favored speed, just admit you want to build a torpedo boat instead of a fleet anchor : p
Last edited:
I want a ship that, while it can tank if it has to, doesn't have to tank in every single slapfight it gets into because it either lacks the damage output to end fights decisively or the agility to evade some of the time.
Edit: as for the Sagarmartha comparison, do remember that it had poor odds against a D6 in a straight up 1v1 where it couldn't ambush said D6.
Last edited:
Those had good phaser coverage with phasers that had wide firing angles. Our current phasers comparatively suck at coverage even though they do lots more damage. It kinda changes how things work. We have to stay pointing at our opponent do deal damage effectively compared to their just get in the middle and fire approach.
- Location
- Outside the Box
- Pronouns
- She/Her
On second thought... this isn't just about this choice. It's also about what weapon loadout we give this ship. Do we want to invest in full coverage phasers as a priority? Or do we want to maximize torpedoes and phasers? I don't so much care about Cost right now, but I think given the ship's role I don't think we'd really be hurting it if we go with a central engine and focusing on phasers over torpedoes. At this size and given Star Trek's ship combat, she's not going to dodge enemy fire regardless. It's more about being able to fire torpedoes more often than anything else, with only matters in one-on-one combat encounters. And that's just not this ship's combat role.
Something else is, with only a central engine we still have 120% maneuverability thanks to the warp core plasma injector. But with dual engines, we don't benefit from that as we max out at 200% maneuverability. If the ship weighed even more than we'd have more mass for the dual engines to push, but as-is they're arguably overkill.
I think I've talked myself into voting for central engines. Huh.
Something else is, with only a central engine we still have 120% maneuverability thanks to the warp core plasma injector. But with dual engines, we don't benefit from that as we max out at 200% maneuverability. If the ship weighed even more than we'd have more mass for the dual engines to push, but as-is they're arguably overkill.
I think I've talked myself into voting for central engines. Huh.
Last edited:
[] Dual Engines [Cost: 99] (Maneuverability: Maximum) [200% Standard]
Last edited:
Little quick off the mark, there. Wait another 15 minutes.
Fuck, my clock timer is off by an hour for some reason. Thanks much.
Quoting myself because I got a laugh emoji, but it's actually a serious question. I'm interested in how the engine tradeoff will affect the final visual appearance of the ship and strut design.
Only if you vote to skimp on phasers, which is one of the few things starfleet specifically asked for on this ship. 8 is 300° degrees of coverage, the canon Constitution had ~65° and was the mainline cruiser for the era.
And Medium does that! It is average, modestly above average in our case with the % system exposed. For ships our size we're above average and for ships smaller then us phasers will hit like a truck letting one good volley with RFLs ruin their day. What medium is not is an Excalibur dive bombing in for every single volley like a Selachii.
Last edited:
[X] Dual Engines [Cost: 99] (Maneuverability: Maximum) [200% Standard]
- Location
- in the trash
[X] Central Engine [Cost: 91] (Maneuverability: Normal) [120% Standard]
Strunkriidiisk
THE LEGEND
- Location
- Canada
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Unfortunately neither, technically speaking. Nacelles generally attach to the engineering section, which given the relative positioning of the nacelles means four individual struts would look weird as hell. Either way we're probably looking at a spoiler-bar arrangement like the Saga had, with variations on shaping to account for the thruster placement.
- Location
- Outside the Box
- Pronouns
- She/Her
We've spent a lot of Cost for maximizing The Federation's primary role. And I like doing that! But Dual Engines aren't that. They're primarily for enhancing the ship's capabilities in one-on-one ship combat, increasing the ship's single-target damage rating. But it's the multi-target damage rating that we need for this ship's role in fleet battles, and the extra expense of Dual Engines doesn't do anything for that. We need something that's good enough for its cost, and so far that's aligned one-to-one with spending more for more capability. But here, I don't think the expense (both Cost and internal volume) can be justified for this ship's purpose.
[X] Central Engine [Cost: 91] (Maneuverability: Normal) [120% Standard]
[X] Central Engine [Cost: 91] (Maneuverability: Normal) [120% Standard]
[X] Dual Engines [Cost: 99] (Maneuverability: Maximum) [200% Standard]
Edit:changed vote
Edit:changed vote
Last edited:
Worse yet, unless we start tangling with people who make much bigger ships, single-target damage rating won't do anything in 1v1s, either.
What with single-target damage only applying to things within our same general weight class or larger, and us having designed a chonker.
MordredRaal
Agitating
- Pronouns
- She/They
[X] Dual Engines [Cost: 99] (Maneuverability: Maximum) [200% Standard]
- Location
- UK
- Pronouns
- He/Him
[X] Central Engine [Cost: 91] (Maneuverability: Normal) [120% Standard]
Central engine's fine, I'm willing to save a bit here to splurge more on weapons, manoeuvrability was never this design's primary concern. Also it'll probably make the nacelle struts easier to work with.
Also don't forget double engines on a full saucer design infringes on module space.
Central engine's fine, I'm willing to save a bit here to splurge more on weapons, manoeuvrability was never this design's primary concern. Also it'll probably make the nacelle struts easier to work with.
Also don't forget double engines on a full saucer design infringes on module space.
Last edited:
