They really do quite compellingly out-tech us. Not only are they a lot higher combat capability per ton, they also aren't more expensive.
Linked contents
darkstarling
Brilliantly Crazed
- Location
- Columbus, Ohio
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Aircraft carriers function exclusively in fleets. The Federation Class won't be doing that. Being able to operate as a fleet anchor is important, but that's not what it will spend most of its life doing.
- Location
- Elsewhere
[X] Dual Engines [Cost: 99] (Maneuverability: Maximum) [200% Standard]
NSMS
Probably evil, unfortunately.
- Location
- A rapidly widening tear in the fabric of reality
Only reason we stood a chance in the Four Years War was because the Klingons aren't a properly united polity, while the Federation is. Without that, the Excaliburs wouldn't have been enough.
I mean, I'm taking the opposite view from the new enemy statbook. The K'tinga still dies in one or two combat rounds from the Excailber and even if we're conservative with the Federation and give it a ~90 forward burst we can heavily damage them round one?
The Klingons have overextended themselves and neglected their techbase and the K'tinga shows it. What we need to be worried about is not goldplating so we can catch up on numbers.
Last edited:
Shields aren't a strict 1 to 1 match with DPS in numbers.
We know that the BoP, with 12 shields, takes two Type 1 torps to put those shields down without breaching the hull - the third torp or a phaser hit kills, but if the numbers matched we'd expect the first torp to put down the shields and the second to kill.
Anyway. The K'Tinga's big enough, and Klingons seem to stick to Standard maneuverability as... standard, so I'm willing to cut loose the Cost for the extra engine cluster.
Though I don't think we should trust that the K'Tinga will also have standard maneuverability. I don't think it matching the Excalibur for mass is an accident.
[x] Dual Engines [Cost: 99] (Maneuverability: Maximum) [200% Standard]
Last edited:
- Location
- Anatolia
It's not gold-plating though? We legitimately voted for the ship project that was going to be the most expensive. Why would we be attempting to penny pinch on a project that will only be hurt by that?
If the heavy emphasis on Disruptor Cannons over beams is any indication I suspect that these new designs are going to have very high maneuverability for their size.
Assuming the Disruptor cannons mentioned in these designs are the fixed style ones rather than turreted ones (the canon B'rel has fixed cannons) the fact that these ships should be made to counter the highly maneuverable Excalibur's means that they would need to have very high maneuverability themselves to make sure they can get their Disruptor cannons on target consistently.
Last edited:
Even Very High maneuverability on the Federation is going to have trouble bringing torpedoes to bear on the K'tinga in that case. We can forget about everything smaller.
But it will still make a difference in that merely Above Average might not be able to land torpedoes at all, which, well.
I'm perfectly happy betting on a pure phaser win versus things smaller than the K'tinga. But only the smaller ones.
Last edited:
You can overspend on a small ship just as easily as a large ship. We're on track to have picked max cost for 6/7 of the choices so far. If picking every single option that is the highest cost isn't goldplating, why do the options have costs? Why do the descriptions ask us to consider not spending the maximum? : p
People say we need more hulls, people say we need to fill out the patrol numbers. And then they chose the costs that make that impossible. When the K'tinga comes online and the Mirandas are the linchpins instead of the Federations because we don't build them people will question why while still voting for max costs.
Last edited:
Endorfinator
Awkwardly Social
- Location
- California
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Because we want to build more than three of these?
If we're going to get three then the savings from going cheap wouldn't have gotten us four.
[X] Dual Engines [Cost: 99] (Maneuverability: Maximum) [200% Standard]
Quite literally 8 fucking point, so there no reason not to pick it as it barely saves anything on cost.
Quite literally 8 fucking point, so there no reason not to pick it as it barely saves anything on cost.
"Someone has extracted all the latinum! There's nothing here but worthless gold!"
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6QdY6YDfj0
- Location
- UK
- Pronouns
- He/Him
The Federation doesn't need to be agile to use torpedoes because anything agile enough consistently stay out of torpedo arcs it is going to be small enough to be swatted with phasers. Anything big enough to be a threat is going to be similarly lumbering that they can throw torpedoes at each other.
The torpedoes aren't there for shooting birds of prey or other light harassers, they're for blasting other cruisers and upwards, and one engine will be just fine for getting those on target.
The torpedoes aren't there for shooting birds of prey or other light harassers, they're for blasting other cruisers and upwards, and one engine will be just fine for getting those on target.
A ship with a profound manouverability disadvantage compared to suspected foes is of lesser tactical utility, therefore less will be built.
They probably won't be, actually. The Federation is nominally a heavy cruiser, but at 300,000 tons one engine means that it has around half the maneuverability of a D7, let alone the K'Tinga which will probably be specced to fight Excaliburs and win. I suspect that if we take one engine, the Federations will suffer badly outside of fleet scale actions.
[x] Central Engine [Cost: 91] (Maneuverability: Normal) [120% Standard]
Though the Klingons were still losing enough ships that they were sacrificing hull quality by recycling scrapped obsolete vessels into new hulls.
If the K'Tinga sticks to having standard (for its size) manouverability, I don't think it will in light of the Excalibur having 200% (or close enough) manouverability.
Cannons are typically fixed mounts, so to get them on target/have an effect they'll need to equal or out manoeuvre it.
Edit: if we're going for STO canon arc logic (since iirc outside of FASA it's the only stuff to give real weapons arcs, even if it's constrained by needing to be a video game), heavy canons are pretty much universally around 45° in their firing arc.
Last edited:
[X] Dual Engines [Cost: 99] (Maneuverability: Maximum) [200% Standard]
Its possible this is the wrong choice and we've made it too dear. But I don't think we've ever made something too expensive before, so if we do it'll be a good learning experience. In any case I think we need the agility edge, the Klingons build small and fast, we won't be able to beat them at their game but if the disparity is too great we may suffer a large disadvantage.
Its possible this is the wrong choice and we've made it too dear. But I don't think we've ever made something too expensive before, so if we do it'll be a good learning experience. In any case I think we need the agility edge, the Klingons build small and fast, we won't be able to beat them at their game but if the disparity is too great we may suffer a large disadvantage.