Linked contents
KleverKil'Vanya
Ortillery Operator
[X] Dual Engines [Cost: 99] (Maneuverability: Maximum) [200% Standard]
Endorfinator
Awkwardly Social
- Location
- California
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Ships half the mass?!? Of course it's going to have a maneuverability disadvantage, it's huge. You're comparing apples and oranges.
- Location
- USA
- Pronouns
- He/They
[X] Dual Engines [Cost: 99] (Maneuverability: Maximum) [200% Standard]
Like I said a while ago:
And as has recently become even more apparent we really do need every possible edge we can get. I am becoming increasingly terrified that the Excaliburs will only have driven the Klingon ship designers to make better use of their overwhelming tech advantage. I know, intellectually, that we're catching up, and the odds are we'll be at least close to parity by the next time they manage to wrangle their internal dysfunction into presenting a relatively-united threat, but god damn.
Like I said a while ago:
And as has recently become even more apparent we really do need every possible edge we can get. I am becoming increasingly terrified that the Excaliburs will only have driven the Klingon ship designers to make better use of their overwhelming tech advantage. I know, intellectually, that we're catching up, and the odds are we'll be at least close to parity by the next time they manage to wrangle their internal dysfunction into presenting a relatively-united threat, but god damn.
Last edited:
If my assumption regarding the fixed nature of the K'tinga's weapons is correct then the K'tinga isn't going to be able to constantly dance around their target if they want to deal any serious damage since the only likely non-fixed weapon onboard is a single Heavy Disruptor Beam and even that likely only has about as much coverage as one of our phasers.
That is going to seriously limit how they can maneuver against a Federation class since in order to bring the vast majority of it's weapons to bear it requires them to fly in a relatively straight line or else they won't be able to fire the vast majority of their weapons while we're constantly tagging them with phaser fire since presumably we're going for max phaser coverage.
If they are constrained to that sort of flight pattern then while we can't regularly get torpedoes on target it is still going to be something that they will need to work around when engaging a Federation class.
IMO RFL's probably don't make sense for this ship and we're better off shelling out for the new Phasers and Type-4 Torpedo Launchers but I do think maxing out maneuverability would still help against the K'tinga.
Last edited:
The K'Tinga is considerably over half the mass of the Federation, and likely to have the manouverability of a 90,000 tonne starship. With it's likely fuck off powerful weapons suite having a manouverability that's equal to a 'standard' 180,000 tonne starship would put it at a profound disadvantage compared to them.
Additionally it'd also put the ship at a disadvantage compared to future/more massive foes, which will likely be every bit as manouverable as her with standard engines on a considerably higher mass budget.
- Location
- Wörms, the half continent
I just think central engine will look better.
If their single-target damage is limited to that narrow an arc, it also makes maneuver more valuable as a defensive tool on the Federation.
Which is why I've changed my vote.
I'm still going to oppose significant torpedo investment; 2x prototype Type 4s forward and 2x standards to the rear seem like they'd be plenty. Maybe even drop the rear standards.
If cost is a concern, then 2 of the type 4s are better than a RFL type-1. (10 vs 12 cost, 72 burst vs 56)
Which reinforces my leaning toward the double engines, as it's a pretty damn good deal for decent torpedo armament.
Hmm
Type-II Phasers: 8x phasers = 8 x 4 x 0.75 Maturity Discount = 24 points
Type V Phasers: 8x phasers = 8 x 4 x 1.25 Prototype Penalty = 40 points
Assuming five torpedo launchers, three in front and two behind
2x Type-1 RFL + 3 Type I standard launchers = [2x12] + [3 x 0.75 Maturity Discount] = 30.75
2x Type-1 RFL + 3 Type 4 standard launchers = [2 x 12] + [3 x 4 x 1.25 Prototype Penalty] = 39
5x Type -4 standard launchers = [ 5 x 4 x 1.25 Protoype Penalty] = 25
Options 1 and 2 are salvoes of seven torpedoes forward, two torpedoes aft
Option 3 is a three torpedoe salvo forward, two torpedoes aft
Thank you @Sayle
And there goes that size inflation that was mentioned. With Klingon ships literally doubing in mass
The K'tinga is a pretty obvious response to the Excalibur, and was something I expected
More surprising is the B'rel pattern BoP
Secondary peacetime capabilities are not a requirement in Klingon military ships; I imagine that reduces their costs and size a fair bit. Not to mention that their clients are probably selling to them at below fair market prices, when they arent just sending tribute. And non-Klingon shipyard workers are probably not on Federation-equivalent pay scales
Of course, Klingon society has expectations that forces non-military considerations in force design ; a situation where major politicians are expected to be field commanders leads to everyone getting their own BoP
A more rationa force design, and they would have conquered the Quadrant by now
Last edited:
- Location
- USA
Something I dont think I've seen mentioned yet in this debate. The Dual Engine setup is INHERENTLY wasteful.
Each engine cluster counts as '120%' of expected capacity. Buying two puts us at '240%', but that overtaxes the superstructure, so we only get '200%.
Meaning we are spending money on capability that cannot be used. Not a whole lot, somewhere between 2 and 4 budget, but that's worth noting when talking about extraneous expenses.
Each engine cluster counts as '120%' of expected capacity. Buying two puts us at '240%', but that overtaxes the superstructure, so we only get '200%.
Meaning we are spending money on capability that cannot be used. Not a whole lot, somewhere between 2 and 4 budget, but that's worth noting when talking about extraneous expenses.
- Location
- Australia
I'm also leaning towards two Type-4 and maximum prototype phasers. I don't want the expense of two RFL.
I could honestly forgo aft torpedoes. The phasers are there to punch down, the torpedoes are at the front to punch up.
And this thing isn't running in warp and trying to shoot backwards. It's defending things.
At most I want standard cheap torpedoes in that position.
I could honestly forgo aft torpedoes. The phasers are there to punch down, the torpedoes are at the front to punch up.
And this thing isn't running in warp and trying to shoot backwards. It's defending things.
At most I want standard cheap torpedoes in that position.
KlavoHunter
THOU SHALT WORSHIP NO GODS ABOVE ENTERPRISE!
I'm entirely willing to hold back on trying prototype photorps on this ship as a cost-saving measure. They can be upgraded during a later refit, after all, and current-generation photorps are quite satisfactory thus far, and against the projected K'tinga.
But I'm just dying to slather the new prototype phasers everywhere on this beastie. Create a real bubble of death the enemy dares not enter!
The prototype tubes are cheaper than the Rapids.
(They're also less gun. But they mean future ships get more gun, so.)
... Honestly, I think the prototype tubes might be undercosted at the moment? Compared to Standards, they do double damage but they're only barely costing more than double the price - after Prototype and Mature modifiers.
Do they also take up more space in the hull?
Last edited:
Taking a quick look at the above systems, I think something like 8 Type-V Phasers and ~4 Type-4 Launchers (3 forward 1 back) should be a reasonable armament.
8 Type-V Phasers should max or nearly max out coverage while 3 Forward Type-4 Launchers would out DPS the Excalibur's torpedo armament by a decent amount (12*3=36 Average vs 18+6*2=30 Average and 36*3=108 Burst vs 54+18*2=90 Burst).
Cost wise it comes out to 8*5+4*5=60 cost which is actually pretty good compared to the previous plans involving Rapid Launchers which frequently came out to more than 60 cost as even just 2 Rapid Launchers would cost more than 4 Type-4 Launchers.
Cost wise 4 Type-4's comes out to marginally more than the Excalibur's own Torpedo investment (20 vs 16+2.25=18.25 or less than a single Type 1 Launcher) for a decent increase to both average and burst damage.
The main area where costs go up is going to be the Phasers but compared to some of the old plans involving 2 or more RFL's 60 cost for superior firepower (once phasers are factored in) is a bargain.
Last edited:
- Location
- Australia
I appreciate the maths!
But at this stage, it's probably 2 forwards. No idea how many shooting backwards of course, but I'm hoping it's limited as well.
Shouldn't be 60; you count compared to the alternatives, which is something like 6x Type 2 phaser banks at the bottom end. So 42 cost at worst, for an extra ~10 damage per turn that doesn't miss.
It only looks expensive compared to the torpedoes' equivalent DPS if you assume we're going to be able to bring the torpedoes on target regularly, and it doesn't look like that's going to be true for any of our expected targets anytime soon.
Last edited:
- Location
- Classified
[X] Dual Engines [Cost: 99] (Maneuverability: Maximum) [200% Standard]
They're likely going to be the box launchers, so they won't be taking up hull space, imo.
TMP torpedo launchers are chonky boys.
A hole in the hull for you to kick a torpedo casing through that is not.
That would do it. Thanks.
- Location
- USA
- Pronouns
- He/They
Interesting to see the Klingon salvage apparently jumped our next-gen torpedoes and phasers right through the Theoretical and Experimental stages, straight to Prototype. Not bad. Not bad at all.
