To quote the GM again, while we are being asked on the drawing board to make a 'fleet anchor', the political-strategic situation leads to no Big Fleet Battles occurring that need Fleet Anchors. Individual ships engaging the enemy on their own is the future reality the Federation-class will be born into.
Therefore in a 1v1 (or even a terribly rude and unfair 1v3 fight!), it is necessary to be able to bring your opponent into the frontal arc and end the fight with a decisive torpedo strike.
There is no reality in which skimping on the Federation-class' impulse engines will conjure up a second Federation-class in the same place at the same time to even up an unfair gang-up fight against her. That additional ship would be elsewhere far way doing another high-priority mission.
Respectfully?
Indeed. As I said before, Klingons and Romulans fight like rat bastards.
Yeah, while it makes zero sense that the primary cap on Starfleet's size would be strategic material supply (that's not how supply and demand works, nor resource extraction in all but the most exotic, rare, unable-to-be-produced materials), if that IS the case, then cost is not really a meaningful design consideration.
False. Anything big enough to survive enough rounds that the Federation hasn't pulped them with its heavy phasers before they manage to scratch the 75 shields the Federation is carrying is going to be big and slow enough 120% thrust will still be enough to bring tubes to bear.
The update warned us against taking maximum size purely for the sake of it because Starfleet cares about cost. Starfleet is not asking us to design a cheap ship, but that was never in the cards. Starfleet just also doesn't want unnecessary expenses, because they need more ships.
Yes. It is possible to kill BoP with torpedoes. It's just not as useful because they're harder to hit. Especially with a ship this massive, even with maximum maneuverability.
Thank you. The fact that it only goes to two helps a lot.
[X] Dual Engines [Cost: 99] (Maneuverability: Maximum) [200% Standard]
Having your strategy be blocking the other guy's punch with your face has never been desirable over preventing damage entirely.
This
This entire argument is based on the assumption that NPC ships are subject to the same technological rules and limitations that we are in designing or building their ships
I fail to see your logic here.
I mean unless they decide to build something more maneuverable themselves? Making a ship with a similar design concept as the Federation wouldn't be unreasonable for the Klingons or Romulans who know how the Four Year War went. The Tholians and Cardassians also probably aren't entirely ignorant. I don't think we should compromise on the firepower and maneuverability, it's better to be capable of engaging both smaller and peer ships well.
But building a line anchor means building a ship with broad phaser mounts and good torpedo firepower, at which point we are expensive and adding on high engine power is not a major marginal cost for considerable gain. It won't make them a better anchor, but it will make them better when they are called on outside that role, which they inevitably will be due to Starfleet's relatively small size compared to its territory.
It's penny pinching and giving us a massive hit to our capacity to engage 1v1 at sublight speeds, which we have been told is what's going to be happening. Ships for fighting are the costliest thing in the game system, but that's just a reality we'll have to live with.
The Fed isn't exactly slow at a sprint. It's not as fast as it would have been, but it's still got pretty good sprint speed and can actually go long distances faster.
