No one would think Aircraft Carriers aren't good at war and we don't make them max speed torp boats, we make Destroyers for that. It doesn't give us a massive hit. It's just saying we're choosing not to specialize in it.
Linked contents
No one would think Aircraft Carriers aren't good at war and we don't make them max speed torp boats, we make Destroyers for that. It doesn't give us a massive hit. It's just saying we're choosing not to specialize in it.
Iridium Flare
Cyborg Commando
- Location
- AC-130 Gunship circling overhead
Let us consider that Starfleet believes the primary engagement scenario to be one on one ship duels. Assuming we go for maximum phaser coverage, we can reasonably be expected to defeat or at least draw with anything significantly lighter and more maneuverable than us. Against a peer or near-peer target, we will want some degree of torpedo capability, and we will want to ensure said torpedoes can arrive on target in a reliable fashion. It would also be worthwhile to minimize the ability for other vessels to target us with impunity.
I do not know how expensive full phaser coverage will end up being. I do know that failing to accomplish it will be foolish at best, especially if we choose the lesser engine. Torpedoes I am less concerned about, though we must retain some capability in that regard.
A very rough proposal would be twin fore rapid launchers and a single rear rapid launcher, but it will depend on how things math out. I do not expect us to require more firepower than a six-strong salvo. It is possible the rear tube could be swapped with two single-fire launchers, price depending. All of this, of course, depends on whether there's a prototype we should spring for, which Sayle has hinted toward - in which case, wanting to get the best use out of said torpedoes, we would want higher maneuverability.
I am trying my best to come up with pros and cons for both engine arrangements, and I am failing to convince myself that the central engine is a good pick. I feel that the price difference is negligible at best and the benefits are by far worthwhile. However, should the central arrangement win out (as it appears to be doing), I must reiterate the vast importance of maximum phaser coverage - if we cannot guarantee keeping an enemy within a given arc, we must ensure we have a gun in every arc.
[X] Dual Engines [Cost: 99] (Maneuverability: Maximum) [200% Standard]
I do not know how expensive full phaser coverage will end up being. I do know that failing to accomplish it will be foolish at best, especially if we choose the lesser engine. Torpedoes I am less concerned about, though we must retain some capability in that regard.
A very rough proposal would be twin fore rapid launchers and a single rear rapid launcher, but it will depend on how things math out. I do not expect us to require more firepower than a six-strong salvo. It is possible the rear tube could be swapped with two single-fire launchers, price depending. All of this, of course, depends on whether there's a prototype we should spring for, which Sayle has hinted toward - in which case, wanting to get the best use out of said torpedoes, we would want higher maneuverability.
I am trying my best to come up with pros and cons for both engine arrangements, and I am failing to convince myself that the central engine is a good pick. I feel that the price difference is negligible at best and the benefits are by far worthwhile. However, should the central arrangement win out (as it appears to be doing), I must reiterate the vast importance of maximum phaser coverage - if we cannot guarantee keeping an enemy within a given arc, we must ensure we have a gun in every arc.
[X] Dual Engines [Cost: 99] (Maneuverability: Maximum) [200% Standard]
Less backup, and more secondary armament; the five-inchers to the torpedo's twelve inch main guns
That seems ike it is in the process of changing in the direction of their being co-equal effectors, but that transition hasnt happened yet
Thank you for the expanation with regards to the Callies
And while a warbook woud be quite welcome even as a purely fluff exercise of an overview of other militaries, do not feel obliged to exercise yourself on our account
We can manage without it
The meta for the foreseeable future is solo engagements
Thats official Starfleet doctrine as of 2244
Fleet anchor only comes into play when we have big enough fights to have Starfleet taskforces throwing hands
The Excaliburs were decommissioned in 2295 without seeing a new war
Make of that what you will
I mean if we don't have sprint then we can't force an engagement, but equally well if we don't have sprint and can't win the fight, then we can't even risk deploying. At the same time it is fair to say that even without high maneuverability, we could likely win a fight against most extant cruisers. But there might be future combatants that could change that.
This analogy doesn't hold up because all our ships fight essentially similarly, in the same combat arena with the same weapons and defenses. So making a ship that is good at one sort of combat makes it easier to also be good at other sorts. Aircraft carriers aren't good as AAW missile ships because the features that make a good AAW ship compete with those that make a good carrier.
Also in general as I've noted the nature of Starfleet means it can't afford highly specialized warships or noncombatants. We've seen that over the Four Year War and the runup that Starfleet just has limited ships relative to its requirements, so hulls are inevitably forced to cover multiple roles or end up shortchanging the mission in various ways.
[X] Dual Engines [Cost: 99] (Maneuverability: Maximum) [200% Standard]
This exact same argument happened with the Kea, when we decided that as a non-combatant we would give it low maneuverability, high phaser coverage and a mediocre torpedo armament (in that it had none). And even though it was a fuckhuge ship, the Kea ended up being a poor combatant because phasers simply are not enough to fight enemy cruisers.
Let's not make the exact same mistake on an honest-to-god warship, yeah? One of the lessons that Starfleet took from the Klingon war was that high capability warships are expensive, and this is very much meant to be a high capability warship. Just suck it up and build an expensive warship.
This exact same argument happened with the Kea, when we decided that as a non-combatant we would give it low maneuverability, high phaser coverage and a mediocre torpedo armament (in that it had none). And even though it was a fuckhuge ship, the Kea ended up being a poor combatant because phasers simply are not enough to fight enemy cruisers.
Let's not make the exact same mistake on an honest-to-god warship, yeah? One of the lessons that Starfleet took from the Klingon war was that high capability warships are expensive, and this is very much meant to be a high capability warship. Just suck it up and build an expensive warship.
While I mostly agree with your points this is IMO a serious mistake. Retrospectives do not predict the future. People leaned on them to argue that we didn't need to consider heavily armed ships or refit capability on the new warp core, and then the Klingons invaded us twenty years early. Retrospectives represent a possible, even likely future, but they're not certain.
I asked you not to quote me, please respect that. The design brief comes after the retrospective you're quoting. The design brief is the official request by Starfleet command and the latest word we have of their intentions. Everything else is conjecture by you and me.
They want a ship they can build small task forces around and if needed center a fleet.
Goldenlima
Statistical Anomaly
The problem is that this makes zero sense under physics. Any spacecraft that dedicates ten percent of its mass to manoeuvring thrusters will be exactly as manoeuvrable as any other whether it mass ten tonnes or a million.
Now various caviats apply: this is only true as long as you have sufficient surface area to mount all these thrusters; physical stresses on the frame from centrifugal force limit rotation speed and eventually relativistic effects place a hard limit theron; and a larger ship will move a smaller percentage of its dimensions which limits dodging.
Few of these should apply here. Star trek ship thrusters take up negligible surface area and we are no where near hitting relativistic effects from turning. Structural limits could reduce the amount of thrusters we can safely mount but Star trek ships make a mockery of structural forms anyway.
Acceleration and turning should be effectively independent of mass as long as thrust to weight is kept constant. Smaller ships should be better at dodging.
It IS going to be doing solo combat missions most of the time
Thats the default for combat; explicit word from the Starfleet admiralty
Its Sprint is not maxed out, but because we specced for Max Cruise unlike other ships it can keep pursuing a given enemy ship for longer than it can afford to sprint
Essentially we're built the Feddie's warp capacity as an endurance predator, the way human hunters can literally pursue faster animals to death
- Location
- Outside the Box
- Pronouns
- She/Her
Huh. It looks like we can see next-gen torpedoes and phasers in the technology threadmark:
And on that fateful day, the stars themselves will weep, at the beauty, at the horror, at the overwhelming omnidirectional firepower of the Serena Williams class Combat Orb.
- Location
- New York
- Pronouns
- He/Him
[X] Dual Engines [Cost: 99] (Maneuverability: Maximum) [200% Standard]
Peace through - wait, wrong quest
Peace through - wait, wrong quest
Warbook: Starships
Starfleet Warbook [2250]
Klingon Empire
K'tinga Heavy Cruiser [Development]
Mass: 180,000 Tons
Maneuverability: ?
Armament: 2 Heavy Disruptor Cannons, 1 Heavy Disruptor Beam, 1 Plasma Torpedo Launcher
Shield Rating: 50
Cruise: Warp 7
Maximum: ?
Estimated Cost: 80-95
D7 Heavy Cruiser [Active Production]
Mass: 120,000 Tons
Maneuverability: 120,000 Tons (Standard)
Armament: 2 Heavy Disruptor Beams, 1 Plasma Torpedo Launcher
Shield Rating: 30
Cruise: Warp 7
Maximum: Warp 8.2
Estimated Cost: 60
D6 Cruiser [Out of Production]
Mass: 60,000 Tons
Maneuverability: 60,000 Tons (Standard)
Armament: 2 Disruptor Beams, 1 Photon Torpedo Launcher
Shield Rating: 20
Cruise: Warp 6
Maximum: Warp 7.2
Estimated Cost: 44
B'rel Bird-of-Prey [Development]
Mass: 60,000 Tons
Maneuverability: ?
Armament: 2 Disruptor Cannons, ? Torpedo Launcher
Shield Rating: ?
Cruise: ?
Maximum: ?
Estimated Cost: 40-55
Bird-of-Prey [Active Production]
Mass: 30,000 Tons
Maneuverability: 15,000 Tons (Very High)
Armament: 2 Light Disruptor Beams, 1 Photon Torpedo Launcher
Shield Rating: 12
Cruise: Warp 6
Maximum: Warp 7.2
Estimated Cost: 24
Klingon Empire
K'tinga Heavy Cruiser [Development]
Mass: 180,000 Tons
Maneuverability: ?
Armament: 2 Heavy Disruptor Cannons, 1 Heavy Disruptor Beam, 1 Plasma Torpedo Launcher
Shield Rating: 50
Cruise: Warp 7
Maximum: ?
Estimated Cost: 80-95
D7 Heavy Cruiser [Active Production]
Mass: 120,000 Tons
Maneuverability: 120,000 Tons (Standard)
Armament: 2 Heavy Disruptor Beams, 1 Plasma Torpedo Launcher
Shield Rating: 30
Cruise: Warp 7
Maximum: Warp 8.2
Estimated Cost: 60
D6 Cruiser [Out of Production]
Mass: 60,000 Tons
Maneuverability: 60,000 Tons (Standard)
Armament: 2 Disruptor Beams, 1 Photon Torpedo Launcher
Shield Rating: 20
Cruise: Warp 6
Maximum: Warp 7.2
Estimated Cost: 44
B'rel Bird-of-Prey [Development]
Mass: 60,000 Tons
Maneuverability: ?
Armament: 2 Disruptor Cannons, ? Torpedo Launcher
Shield Rating: ?
Cruise: ?
Maximum: ?
Estimated Cost: 40-55
Bird-of-Prey [Active Production]
Mass: 30,000 Tons
Maneuverability: 15,000 Tons (Very High)
Armament: 2 Light Disruptor Beams, 1 Photon Torpedo Launcher
Shield Rating: 12
Cruise: Warp 6
Maximum: Warp 7.2
Estimated Cost: 24
We really should have new additions to that threadmark show up in their respective regular threadmark…
Not sure about the torpedoes but I'd definitely go for the phasers, which are probably TMP style, given their maturation date.
It seems like a lot of people are voting for central with the understanding that this ship will exclusively fight as the center of large set piece battles. But from the sixth post of the four-years war:
It's clear that this ship needs to be capable of serving in small scale actions, and for that it needs to be able to maneuver well. From our war book we can see that maximum maneuverability on a 300,000 ton ship will put us close to a D7, and hopefully not too far off a K'tinga.
new phasers new phasers new phasers new phasers new phasers
for NO price increase after maturing ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Last edited:
I see that the K'tinga, at least, will be big enough for the Federation to hit it with the big guns. Good to know.
I think I'd go for either the new Type 4 launchers, or a mix of a Type 4 and a Rapid for forward tubes; I think we can take a hit to the total forward punch in exchange for advancing torpedo tech, but having only prototype tubes makes me antsy.
A very useful war/factbook, not entirely sure how their weapons stat out but it's good to see well handily exceed their shields by 25 points.
Also shows that (for their heavy shields equivalent) they're able to squeeze out ~27.5/27.7… per 100kt.
- Location
- Somewhere in the Ashes
- Pronouns
- She/Her
Huh. The D7 is smaller than I expected.
But we DO make Aircraft Carriers to be max speed for their size
They are the fastest things in the US surface fleet after the Independence-class LCS boats, and they have the most endurance to boot of anything that isnt a nuclear submarine
====
My apologies to Wootius; I forgot
But the point remains: they want a ship to anchor task forces in wartime
But thats in addition to its base ability of operating solo during war and peace, which every Starfleet warship is expected to be capable of day to day. Even the Attenboroughs operate solo, and they are tiny at 105 kt
The UF does not have enough ships to operate ships in groups routinely
- Location
- Texas
[X] Dual Engines [Cost: 99] (Maneuverability: Maximum) [200% Standard]
If it wasn't being mentioned that ships are getting bigger, I'd say stick with the central. But if the ship ends up being smaller than it's opponents then my vote is for manuverability.
If it wasn't being mentioned that ships are getting bigger, I'd say stick with the central. But if the ship ends up being smaller than it's opponents then my vote is for manuverability.
RFL forward and the new ones behind?
Although, two out three hits from two Type 4 Torpedoes and our phasers eat those shields for less then the cost of an RFL, then we get a 30+ damage hit in from the one we didn't need to pop the shields. That would be a bargain.
Last edited: