Well, going for Standard supprts given the warnings in this update. We want a heavy cruiser after all, not a SuperDread (yet).
Linked contents
[JK] Rollbar Nacelle Supports, but hollow without systems.
Keep it cheap, but I like the aesthetic.
Keep it cheap, but I like the aesthetic.
Yes, but we just hit the Starfleet's price point. Adding this pushes us into more mass than Starfleet is asking for. It may be a useful ship and Starfleet may build them, but it's no longer what the tender asked for - a heavy cruiser, not a dreadnaught.
[ ] Standard Nacelle Supports
We're going to have a very hard time getting our tubes locked onto any of the expected possible combatants the Federation might face. We want at least a token armament, to control space around our ship and to fence off sections of space that opponents might want to maneuver through, but the only thing in the warbook we might ever be able to hit with torpedoes is the K'tinga.
Burning large amounts of space to carry even more of a weapon the Federation won't be able to use effectively seems like a mistake.
We're going to have a very hard time getting our tubes locked onto any of the expected possible combatants the Federation might face. We want at least a token armament, to control space around our ship and to fence off sections of space that opponents might want to maneuver through, but the only thing in the warbook we might ever be able to hit with torpedoes is the K'tinga.
Burning large amounts of space to carry even more of a weapon the Federation won't be able to use effectively seems like a mistake.
chaotic-logic
possible impossibility
- Location
- unknown
both of you, no voting yet
we got two hours before it is open
I mean, I kinda want to use the rollbar, but then to simply not put torpedoes in the saucer at all. Reserve the entire saucer for phasers and utility systems.
I think this is about space in the hull rather than more mass, so it's coming out of utility rather than increasing hull and shield costs even more.
If I'm wrong, though, it wouldn't take that much more mass to get us a ship that can't even bring its tubes to bear on a K'tinga, which would make the expense even more of a waste.
I would imagine it may add a module space or two in the Saucer and engineering hull since no torp launchers in them, but comes with notable Cost and/or Mass additions given the language used.
Enthusiast#117
This is not the Profile you are looking for
- Location
- United States
[X] Standard Nacelle Supports
Too early by quite a bit.
No, we don't. Excalibur hulls are quite kill-y, but they don't quite have the shield strength (partly owing to their lighter mass) to be a true tank. They are hunter-killers.
Last edited:
There's space for two forward torpedoes. This gives you the option for another two, if you want it. As for why is it an option, why not. It's about the time you started to see the same kind of structure on the Miranda.
- Location
- EcksEcksEcksEcks
Hmm it's now close to being an expensive boondoggle
- Location
- USA
- Pronouns
- He/They
You know, it's funny that this vote is one of the closer ones we've had recently, when it's also a very rare example of a vote with an actual, explicitly-spelled-out right and wrong answer.
But for maximum clarity let's actually turn this into a decision matrix:
Thus, since I expect one-on-one engagements to be overwhelmingly the most common encounter type, the choice of weaponry does not matter to me for this vote- the extra engines are better regardless.
The only people who should be voting for the single engine are those who both (1) want to go for a phaser bote and (2) believe this ship's hostile encounters will be primarily in fleet actions.
#1 is a perfectly valid position. However, #2 is directly contradicted by Starfleet's in-character projections and the thread's out-of-character knowledge/expectations. Belief #2 is therefore provably incorrect. Voting for the single engine cluster is thus also incorrect.
The issue is confused (but not complicated) by the fact that we're designing this ship, nominally, for its role in fleet engagements, as the lynchpin of a task force or the wall of a fleet. Thus, it does need to be a good fleet anchor for the design to be a successful project outcome. However, it also needs to be a good solo combatant to be a successful ship.
This is inevitably going to result in a very expensive ship, so...better make sure it's worth it, yes, but also trying to avoid said expense inevitably results in flailing or failing at one of its actual required functions, so this is really, really not the design for panic-penny-pinching. Particularly since the very recent memory of the very recent close call over a core member's homeworld means this is quite possibly the moment in history when the Starfleet budgeters will have the most tolerance for expense, as long as they're confident they will get what they pay for.
1. Even if you are going to lose a warp pursuit, the extremely high linear velocities involved mean that the battlespace is effectively "stretched" longitudinally, meaning that a much much larger speed & maneuverability advantage is necessary to stay out of an opponent's torpedo facings. (The speeds involved are so high that the faster ship can't practically get ahead and off to one side and then come in from the side; the window of fire when crossing the T at dozens to hundreds of multiples of c would be shorter than the lock time of the pursuer's torpedo launcher.) A Warp 8.2 ship can only close with a Warp 8 ship at angles of less than 21.78 degrees- in straight lines, and without either side maneuvering during the closing phase, sure, but that's right on the line of "you don't get to close at all on this pass, actually" on one side of the angle, and really damn close to "you're in the aft torpedo launchers' field of fire" on the other side. The fleeing ship can't guarantee perfect uptime-on-target by any means, but the pursuer being able to avoid the fleeing ship's torpedo arc permanently would require orders of magnitude more extreme of a maneuverability advantage than doing so in realspace.
(For those interested, the maximum closing angle in radians is arccos(V₁/V₂), where V₁ is the speed of the slower ship in c and V₂ is the speed of the faster ship in c. Assume for convenience that the slower ship is fleeing vertically; this is thus the angle at which the Y-component of the pursuer's vector matches that of the slower fleeing ship.)
2. Taking the fight into the Warp also takes the pursuer's non-torpedo armament out of the equation entirely. Given the sheer power of Klingon disruptors, and the relative strength of our shields, it's very likely that changing the equation from "our shields versus their disruptors and torpedoes all the time, against their shields versus our phasers all the time and our torpedoes never" to "our shields versus their torpedoes most of the time, against their shields versus our torpedoes some of the time" is still going to tilt the balance substantially in our favor.
2b. Even if it doesn't tilt the balance in our favor, taking the majority of their armament out of the equation still slows the rate of shield depletion down enormously, all while making tracks toward the nearest sensor-interfering nebula or allied ship or recently-mapped negative space wedgie or what have you.
2c. At least on the current nacelles, our ships can go to warp literally as fast as somebody can hit the button, so there's a good chance the initial jump will open a gap of a light-hour or two, while the pursuers react to our disappearance, calculate our track, and enter Warp themselves to pursue. (If their warp coils require a warmup period to energize properly, then it might even be more, though I wouldn't count on it.) Which doesn't change the ultimate outcome of the chase at all, of course, but does increase the radius within which we might be able to reach someone to help or somewhere to hide.
tl;dr: running away at warp is still a valid response to getting jumped by too many next-gen or next-next-gen Klingon(s) to beat- even if you can't actually escape them entirely, it still tilts the tactical situation in ways that significantly reduce (and may, may eliminate) your disadvantage, should they choose to pursue.
Edit: Oh boy I missed a whole new threadmark while I was doing math and writing this. Hmm.
Code:
IF ((phaser ship) AND (fleet action))
THEN (only need >standard)
IF ((torpedo ship) OR (solo engagement))
THEN (want engines to max time-on-target)| Expected Main Damage Source→ Encounter Type↓ | Phasers | Torpedoes |
| Fleet Action | better-than-standard is all it needs | engines to maximise on-target time |
| One-on-One Engagements | engines to maximise on-target time | engines to maximise on-target time |
Thus, since I expect one-on-one engagements to be overwhelmingly the most common encounter type, the choice of weaponry does not matter to me for this vote- the extra engines are better regardless.
The only people who should be voting for the single engine are those who both (1) want to go for a phaser bote and (2) believe this ship's hostile encounters will be primarily in fleet actions.
#1 is a perfectly valid position. However, #2 is directly contradicted by Starfleet's in-character projections and the thread's out-of-character knowledge/expectations. Belief #2 is therefore provably incorrect. Voting for the single engine cluster is thus also incorrect.
The issue is confused (but not complicated) by the fact that we're designing this ship, nominally, for its role in fleet engagements, as the lynchpin of a task force or the wall of a fleet. Thus, it does need to be a good fleet anchor for the design to be a successful project outcome. However, it also needs to be a good solo combatant to be a successful ship.
This is inevitably going to result in a very expensive ship, so...better make sure it's worth it, yes, but also trying to avoid said expense inevitably results in flailing or failing at one of its actual required functions, so this is really, really not the design for panic-penny-pinching. Particularly since the very recent memory of the very recent close call over a core member's homeworld means this is quite possibly the moment in history when the Starfleet budgeters will have the most tolerance for expense, as long as they're confident they will get what they pay for.
Two counterpoints:
1. Even if you are going to lose a warp pursuit, the extremely high linear velocities involved mean that the battlespace is effectively "stretched" longitudinally, meaning that a much much larger speed & maneuverability advantage is necessary to stay out of an opponent's torpedo facings. (The speeds involved are so high that the faster ship can't practically get ahead and off to one side and then come in from the side; the window of fire when crossing the T at dozens to hundreds of multiples of c would be shorter than the lock time of the pursuer's torpedo launcher.) A Warp 8.2 ship can only close with a Warp 8 ship at angles of less than 21.78 degrees- in straight lines, and without either side maneuvering during the closing phase, sure, but that's right on the line of "you don't get to close at all on this pass, actually" on one side of the angle, and really damn close to "you're in the aft torpedo launchers' field of fire" on the other side. The fleeing ship can't guarantee perfect uptime-on-target by any means, but the pursuer being able to avoid the fleeing ship's torpedo arc permanently would require orders of magnitude more extreme of a maneuverability advantage than doing so in realspace.
(For those interested, the maximum closing angle in radians is arccos(V₁/V₂), where V₁ is the speed of the slower ship in c and V₂ is the speed of the faster ship in c. Assume for convenience that the slower ship is fleeing vertically; this is thus the angle at which the Y-component of the pursuer's vector matches that of the slower fleeing ship.)
2. Taking the fight into the Warp also takes the pursuer's non-torpedo armament out of the equation entirely. Given the sheer power of Klingon disruptors, and the relative strength of our shields, it's very likely that changing the equation from "our shields versus their disruptors and torpedoes all the time, against their shields versus our phasers all the time and our torpedoes never" to "our shields versus their torpedoes most of the time, against their shields versus our torpedoes some of the time" is still going to tilt the balance substantially in our favor.
2b. Even if it doesn't tilt the balance in our favor, taking the majority of their armament out of the equation still slows the rate of shield depletion down enormously, all while making tracks toward the nearest sensor-interfering nebula or allied ship or recently-mapped negative space wedgie or what have you.
2c. At least on the current nacelles, our ships can go to warp literally as fast as somebody can hit the button, so there's a good chance the initial jump will open a gap of a light-hour or two, while the pursuers react to our disappearance, calculate our track, and enter Warp themselves to pursue. (If their warp coils require a warmup period to energize properly, then it might even be more, though I wouldn't count on it.) Which doesn't change the ultimate outcome of the chase at all, of course, but does increase the radius within which we might be able to reach someone to help or somewhere to hide.
tl;dr: running away at warp is still a valid response to getting jumped by too many next-gen or next-next-gen Klingon(s) to beat- even if you can't actually escape them entirely, it still tilts the tactical situation in ways that significantly reduce (and may, may eliminate) your disadvantage, should they choose to pursue.
Edit: Oh boy I missed a whole new threadmark while I was doing math and writing this. Hmm.
Last edited:
Turns out, the difference between a ship being gold-plated is rollbars.
Good to know, though if the rollbars are the only spots we use for torpedoes, that could cut the cost enough, maybe.
Though probably not.
Good to know, though if the rollbars are the only spots we use for torpedoes, that could cut the cost enough, maybe.
Though probably not.
Moratorium, guys.
---
Definitely want the line cruiser option, though. Guess we found the 'too expensive' threshold.
[ ] Standard Nacelle Supports
darkstarling
Brilliantly Crazed
- Location
- Columbus, Ohio
- Pronouns
- He/Him
This ship doesn't need a massive torpedo focus. It needs torpedoes, but not rollerbar torpedoes. The maneuver was mostly to avoid stupidly powerful plasma torpedoes we can't tank.
Thus, we now know what a Federation fleet will look like - Mirandas with heavy torpedo armament, anchored to Federations with massive phaser coverage.
Thus, we now know what a Federation fleet will look like - Mirandas with heavy torpedo armament, anchored to Federations with massive phaser coverage.
[ ] Standard Nacelle Supports
Edit there unvoted
Edit there unvoted
Last edited: