- Location
- Anatolia
War, since it's very beginning, has always been about stacking as many unfair advantages against your opponent as possible, and then viciously beating them into submission one way or another. If we're upgunned, so much the better.
Linked contents
NSMS
Probably evil, unfortunately.
- Location
- A rapidly widening tear in the fabric of reality
I'll note that the same logic was used for... I think it was the Kea? Our phasery, big slow ship that we decided not to put torps on because it was slow. And we saw in the retrospective that that was unambiguously a mistake. Torps are better on maneuverable ships (so go max speed!), but it's not a requirement to make them effective.
If we were talking a sizable cost increase, then yes. But this is 8 points- that's going to be one extra ship, at most, over its whole lifetime if it's built in similar number to the Excalibur. Maybe not even that.
If we're outnumbered, so much the worse.
... for nothing. If you want the increase in capability, you're going to have to spend something dumb like another 48 Cost worth of torpedo tubes that don't serve the role our tender asked for.
Last edited:
- Location
- Anatolia
We are almost always going to be outnumbered, trying to use it as an excuse for being a spendthrift isn't acceptable.
The magnitude we are outnumbered by absolutely matters.
We will be matching the Excalibur's 4-torpedo launcher weapons suite as a minimum
More than likely, as a ship thats 70% larger, you can expect 1-2 more torpedoes in that suite
So I think its a reasonable assumption
We SAW the Joyeuse kill Birds of Prey with torpedoes at Andoria
The update literally points at ongoing size inflation as a consideration
Our enemies are going to grow
[X] Dual Engines [Cost: 99] (Maneuverability: Maximum) [200% Standard]
- Location
- Australia
This choice is a difficult one for me. It doesn't need the extra engines when holding the line. Just, flat out doesn't. I don't want a torpedo boat mentality to push its role out of the way.
But.
It's also explicitly stated that the future is likely to be long range 1v1. Which this ship isn't theoretically being designed for. But 8 cost will massively boost its capability here. But but if we go dual engines, people are going to try to cram multiple extra rfl on, which I really don't want.
So basically I want to get dual engines, but I'm not sure I can prevent people trying to buy 4 RFL like was being discussed in the Christmas break.
Ugh
But.
It's also explicitly stated that the future is likely to be long range 1v1. Which this ship isn't theoretically being designed for. But 8 cost will massively boost its capability here. But but if we go dual engines, people are going to try to cram multiple extra rfl on, which I really don't want.
So basically I want to get dual engines, but I'm not sure I can prevent people trying to buy 4 RFL like was being discussed in the Christmas break.
Ugh
NSMS
Probably evil, unfortunately.
- Location
- A rapidly widening tear in the fabric of reality
Not for nothing, for a general boost in combat capability. It doesn't help the fleet anchor role, no. That much is true. But how often is it realistically going to be in that role, compared to other types of engagements? Not often, I bet- even putting aside that that sort of engagement requires a full-scale war, we've been told that the expected paradigm for combat in the near future is ship duels, which it most definitely will help with.
- Location
- Anatolia
So you'd rather a larger group of weaker ships that will be picked apart by the swarm, than a smaller group that will at least be able to stand and fight. Romulans and Klingons fight like rat bastards.
You will have more options than just rapid-launchers. Probably 2 standard, 2 rapids, or 2 prototypes.
We saw how well torpedoes and maneuver worked against swarms in the Four Years War.
The Newtons died like flies. Starfleet's asking us for a better Kea, and broad coverage phasers, precisely for defeating swarms.
- Location
- Anatolia
The Newton's also weren't built to handle what they did. Seeing as they were rather underpowered for the situation. We're either spending blood or treasure in the end. I choose treasure.
Horologer
Incertae sedis
- Location
- a risen sea
Starfleet is rebuilding from the Four Years' War. Updates for this project have explicitly told us they need raw hulls. Updates have also warned us against taking maximally expensive options, because Starfleet does care about the price tag for this ship.
Torpedoes aren't as useful against a more maneuverable enemy because their arc is so narrow. They are even less useful against lots of fragile, maneuverable enemies because the overkill effect means that a lot of your theoretical damage output is wasted.
Also, phasers can absolutely kill the hell out of ships. It takes them more than one round, but 36 damage/turn is nothing to sneeze at.
Last edited:
Extra combat capability is never a mistake on a combat ship
And we were explicity advised to pay for extra engines if we expect a lot of solo engagements, which is what Starfleet says is going to happen
The only reason this is an argument really is because its a binary
If we were buying
3x RFLs might happen
4x is not happening, because 4x RFLs is almost 50 points on its own, and doesnt really make sense in the current lethality meta. And that cost is before phasers
However, I would generally advise against making voting decisions in order to try to block other people's choices
That never works out
The Kea was explicitly refit with torpedo launchers because phasers were not enough
They were literally pulled off the line at the start of the war to do so
- Location
- USA
[X] Central Engine [Cost: 91] (Maneuverability: Normal) [120% Standard]
We were told to build a beam boat. This is the beam boat option. Simple as.
We were told to build a beam boat. This is the beam boat option. Simple as.
And no one here is claiming the Federation shouldn't have any torpedoes.
You just want that argument to apply to numbers less than six.
That was the design brief yes. A Kea battlefield replacement that's meant for line duty as the anchor in both fleets and small task forces, but people find it hard to not force a torpedo boat explorer 40 years early.
Last edited:
I've been wondering for awhile now if the different branch we took with phasers might ultimately end up in the same place with phaser strips. Because normally you'd think the strips have both power and wide angle ability, so if you improved one first then to get strips you have to improve the other afterwards. Still maybe one can get different kind of strips I guess, I guess we'll see if any good ideas come up if one ever gets there.
Sure, obviously the same engine would work like that. After all there is a direct linear relationship in real life between engine power and mass for maneuverability. Twice the engine power, twice the maneuverability, twice the mass, half the maneuverability. So that's a very intuitive way to see things.
What I was responding to instead was where you stated that a ship of twice the mass basically has half the maximum capable maneuverability. ie a 300 kton spacecraft at 200% maneuverability is equal to a 100% 150 kton spacecraft in maneuverability.
If that is true, this is basically the exact same as the relationship between mass and engine power. So if twice as heavy ships really had half the maximum maneuverability, then then the amount of engines needed to achieve this would be exactly the same. Because both are now running along the exact same linear relationship.
As an example 2 engines can say push a 150 kton ship to the max 200% maneuverability, by basic logic those same 2 engines would then move a 300 kton ship at 100% maneuverability, but because the max maneuverability of a twice as heavy ship is half, this means in practise one has to recalculate this number to the actual real maximum maneuverability for this size. This can be done by simply multiplying it by the factor, so 100%*2 is 200%, or those two engines are already maxing out the space frame of the twice as massive ship. In the end this would mean that the same 2 engines can push any space frame to max maneuverability then. Which seems like an undesirable outcome and obviously also a not used outcome.
So obviously this isn't how you're actually doing it, considering you seem to actually use the equivalent of 4 engines under the current vote as I understand it. It's just an inconsistency I saw in the explanation given.
Anyway, you already said you were pondering a new system, so this is more a clarification of what I was getting at. As it kind of seemed like it might not be fully understood what I meant. And it is quite possible I really misunderstood what you actually meant to say.
---
As for the rules changing constantly, well so far I haven't really thought it was an issue, it was just adjustments to make things work better after all. And as a side effect it actually meant that voters weren't able to develop an optimal design strategy I guess. And hey, constant technology changes causing engineers to be stuck in the wrong past paradigms is hardly a new thing. So it kind of felt like one was constantly stuck in the rat race of catching up with the newest paradigm with that. I guess it could have been better and more consistent in some aspects, but I don't think it was all bad as such, it actually kept things more fresh at times as well with trying to figure out the newest parameters to design along.
- Location
- Anatolia
Starfleet also isn't above having stupid ideas.
[X] Dual Engines [Cost: 99] (Maneuverability: Maximum) [200% Standard]
It has been repeated that the primary cap on Starfleet size is strategic material supply not cost
And Starfeet told us that the doctrine of cheap light cruisers was comprehensively discredited by the loss patterns during the War we just fought
The update warned against taking maximum size options for no reason other than size
To my recollection, there has been nothing about costs mentioned in this project, just that the capabiity be commensurate
8 points for Maximum Maneuver certainly is
Again, we saw the Joyeuse kill at least one Bird of Prey with torpedoes
And we see BoPs tank multiple torps; they require more than one hit to kill IIRC
Phasers take much longer time to kill ships
Thats why they are a backup weapon in the current meta; maybe with the next generation of phasers they will get more effective