Less of another bid and more us hearing of potential interest regarding a ship type and then deciding to go ahead and offer such a ship to them entirely on our own initiative - like a shipyard of the 1800s making its own unique design based upon what they've been able to feel out is of interest/what their designers believe things are going trending wise and then trying to sell that to the navy (or any navy), just without the risk of us going bankrupt over it.
Linked contents
darkstarling
Brilliantly Crazed
- Location
- Columbus, Ohio
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Yeah, we're disagreeing about how weird the Enterprise's mission profiles are. This quest took the position - and I was convinced - that the USS Enterprise was actually a pretty typical cruiser that happened to have an extraordinary crew. The Enterprise D was an unusual ship, since there were like 7 Galaxy Class ships in total, but since we see the Cerritos do similar diplomatic stuff even if you don't count its primary Second Contact mission (which you should) I think it can be inferred that actually the Spiders George situation is the space gribblies and anomalies. If only because most ships don't survive more than one.
The Federation class is a cruiser. It's going to be spending a lot of time travelling through space, checking on systems and chasing pirates and responding to Situations. A lot of those Situations would be greatly facilitated in resolution with a team of legal and cultural experts, as well as everything you need for a diplomatic conference.
10 named (of which 4-5, depending on if the USS Magellan was lost or not, were known to be destroyed), 2 under construction/partially constructed between 2370 and 2371, 2 unnamed Galaxy-class starships as part of the 2nd fleet in 2373, 3 unnamed in orbit of Starbase 375 before the counter-attack and of which we later see 10 unnamed departing the Starbase during the counter-attack in 2374, 2 unnamed 'war galaxies' in orbit of DS9 in 2375, 1 unnamed Galaxy departing from DS9 alongside Galaxy and Venture towards Chin'Toka, 1 unnamed Galaxy seen during the battle of Cardassia and finally at least 7 galaxies escorting Voyager hame after her emergence near Earth.
Whilst we cannot draw solid numbers from this, it can pretty safely be reasoned that the tech manual numbers (6 built and 6 frames kept partially constructed) are bunk and that far more than 12 Galaxy-class starships were built, with the production line likely being kept open all throughout the TNG era. Not only replacing losses but seeing the class numbers grow.
Sorry for this aside, I just really find the idea of there being no more Galaxies than there were meant to have been Connie's (since even movie era media shows more/new ships of that class, even if in mostly behind the scenes material) rather silly.
Last edited:
darkstarling
Brilliantly Crazed
- Location
- Columbus, Ohio
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Huh, good to know thanks.
So yeah, that makes my point even further then. The hero ships are weird for encountering (and surviving) really weird space nonsense, they aren't weird for being a major focus of foreign and domestic policy decisions and negotiations.
Heck, during Insurrection, the midst of the Dominion War*, the Enterprise itself is stuck on a bunch of diplomatic missions because even in an existential war life goes on. Of course they were probably on rotation away from the front lines, since every crew needs that no matter how heroic, but the point stands.
*Allegedly, personally I headcanon it to the immediate aftermath because it makes so much more sense and it contradicts nothing
Last edited:
My Two Cents are, I like the Idea of the Federation Class being good at all 3 of the main ideals of the Federation, Peace, Diplomacy, Unbreakable Will.
"Peace through superior firepower." Arm the ship enough to make people refuse to fight it.
Diplomatic spaces beautiful enough to make a Vulcan cry. (And a great medical suite to fix that)
Shields strong enough to ignore all but a fleet of combatant ships so you can hail them and ask them to stop before destroying them. Gotta keep a good rep somehow, right?
"Peace through superior firepower." Arm the ship enough to make people refuse to fight it.
Diplomatic spaces beautiful enough to make a Vulcan cry. (And a great medical suite to fix that)
Shields strong enough to ignore all but a fleet of combatant ships so you can hail them and ask them to stop before destroying them. Gotta keep a good rep somehow, right?
Not super thrilled with how the rollbar turned out visually, but it is what it is. Anyhow, I've been thinking about systems in general and if it's worth while the next nacelle is being designed to take a small break and re-evaluate some systems. In particular weapons/defenses, stats, that sort of thing.
Like average damage. All it expresses is that if a ship shows up on a random vector an infinite number of times, how much damage would it be expected to take. That isn't helpful, it says nothing. The useful information is already in the multi-target rating, which is a sort of shorthand for shooting every direction and how good the ship is at that.
I'm more open to a phaser power system, but mainly because I'd just never offer you the ability to fire multiple phaser banks in the same direction unless it makes sense for the ship (ie small, entirely tactical designs). It could also be an opportunity to bring it to the same sort of logic as phaser strips would be running on.
The single and multi-target ratings were predicated on the idea of shooting one thing or shooting everything, but that's not even a thing any more. Could be better rephrased and recontextualised to how the ship performs against ships in its maneuverability rating and against those below it.
Maneuverability, of course, has always been kind of a gut feeling flirting with specific numbers, but if enemy ships have specific stats now then that needs to be defined more accurately. But I'm not sure how to articulate that. Engagement range has other connotations. Agility rating sounds a bit gamey. Have specified frigate/light cruiser/heavy cruiser/battleship brackets that sit across maneuverability ranges so a ship can be said to be designed to engage cruisers over 150kt? But what then if enemy ships also get the system and something 150kt actually flies like something 75kt? You have two stats referencing mass when one isn't actually mass. Maneuverability rating, with lower being better? That's the stuff I'm least happy about it, where solutions don't seem obvious.
Like average damage. All it expresses is that if a ship shows up on a random vector an infinite number of times, how much damage would it be expected to take. That isn't helpful, it says nothing. The useful information is already in the multi-target rating, which is a sort of shorthand for shooting every direction and how good the ship is at that.
I'm more open to a phaser power system, but mainly because I'd just never offer you the ability to fire multiple phaser banks in the same direction unless it makes sense for the ship (ie small, entirely tactical designs). It could also be an opportunity to bring it to the same sort of logic as phaser strips would be running on.
The single and multi-target ratings were predicated on the idea of shooting one thing or shooting everything, but that's not even a thing any more. Could be better rephrased and recontextualised to how the ship performs against ships in its maneuverability rating and against those below it.
Maneuverability, of course, has always been kind of a gut feeling flirting with specific numbers, but if enemy ships have specific stats now then that needs to be defined more accurately. But I'm not sure how to articulate that. Engagement range has other connotations. Agility rating sounds a bit gamey. Have specified frigate/light cruiser/heavy cruiser/battleship brackets that sit across maneuverability ranges so a ship can be said to be designed to engage cruisers over 150kt? But what then if enemy ships also get the system and something 150kt actually flies like something 75kt? You have two stats referencing mass when one isn't actually mass. Maneuverability rating, with lower being better? That's the stuff I'm least happy about it, where solutions don't seem obvious.
Last edited:
2250: Project Federation (Phasers)
New
[X] Rollbar Nacelle Supports (Aesthetic) [No Bonus/Malus]
With the nacelles actually attached to the ship you can start looking forwards the tactical system. The primary advantage of the command configuration has been the large swathe of flat, empty space along the ventral and dorsal surfaces. As a result positioning phaser emplacements towards the rim of the saucer section allows them commanding fields of fire across the horizon, including behind the ship.
As you see if there are two main arrangements of phaser turrets that will serve your purposes. The first is a set of three on each hull, covering the firing arc forward of the main bow and then a set of two to cover parts of the aft quadrant and to port and starboard. It will leave a trio of narrow, 45 degree blind spots, but all of them equally spaced in such a way that they would be difficult for an attacker to exploit with any regularity.
The second option is to seal those blind spots with a series of five equally spaced phaser turrets on each surface, their ranges overlapping by only a few degrees per emplacement. The ship would then be able to direct phaser fire into every direction that is fore, aft, port, or starboard. The decision about whether or not to use six phaser banks or ten is primarily a question of capability, and how robustly you want the ship to be able to engage targets that are more maneuverable than it is.
Unfortunately this decision is further complicated by exactly what type of phaser to use. While the Type-II is perfectly reliable, the latest prototypes out of Tactical have an equal engagement envelope and a substantially increased particle density that pulses an orange nadion beam into a given target with lethal results. The extra expense is not insubstantial for the improved performance over the Type-II, but it is an option.
[ ] 6 Phaser Banks (Type II) [Damage: 24] [60% Coverage] [Cost: 117]
[ ] 10 Phaser Banks (Type II) [Damage 24] [100% Coverage] [Cost: 129]
[ ] 6 Phaser Banks (Type V) [Damage: 32] [60% Coverage] [Cost: 129]
[ ] 10 Phaser Banks (Type V) [Damage 32] [100% Coverage] [Cost: 149]
Two Hour Moratorium, Please
With the nacelles actually attached to the ship you can start looking forwards the tactical system. The primary advantage of the command configuration has been the large swathe of flat, empty space along the ventral and dorsal surfaces. As a result positioning phaser emplacements towards the rim of the saucer section allows them commanding fields of fire across the horizon, including behind the ship.
As you see if there are two main arrangements of phaser turrets that will serve your purposes. The first is a set of three on each hull, covering the firing arc forward of the main bow and then a set of two to cover parts of the aft quadrant and to port and starboard. It will leave a trio of narrow, 45 degree blind spots, but all of them equally spaced in such a way that they would be difficult for an attacker to exploit with any regularity.
The second option is to seal those blind spots with a series of five equally spaced phaser turrets on each surface, their ranges overlapping by only a few degrees per emplacement. The ship would then be able to direct phaser fire into every direction that is fore, aft, port, or starboard. The decision about whether or not to use six phaser banks or ten is primarily a question of capability, and how robustly you want the ship to be able to engage targets that are more maneuverable than it is.
Unfortunately this decision is further complicated by exactly what type of phaser to use. While the Type-II is perfectly reliable, the latest prototypes out of Tactical have an equal engagement envelope and a substantially increased particle density that pulses an orange nadion beam into a given target with lethal results. The extra expense is not insubstantial for the improved performance over the Type-II, but it is an option.
[ ] 6 Phaser Banks (Type II) [Damage: 24] [60% Coverage] [Cost: 117]
[ ] 10 Phaser Banks (Type II) [Damage 24] [100% Coverage] [Cost: 129]
[ ] 6 Phaser Banks (Type V) [Damage: 32] [60% Coverage] [Cost: 129]
[ ] 10 Phaser Banks (Type V) [Damage 32] [100% Coverage] [Cost: 149]
Two Hour Moratorium, Please
Last edited:
Oof those numbers.
KleverKil'Vanya
Ortillery Operator
I kinda feel 10 Type-Vs is our optimal outcome
Edit: Also shouldn't the phaser damage be mass increased?
Edit: Also shouldn't the phaser damage be mass increased?
chaotic-logic
possible impossibility
- Location
- unknown
I think that we should get 100% coverage as that was a problem that has been seen in our previous fights
NSMS
Probably evil, unfortunately.
- Location
- A rapidly widening tear in the fabric of reality
I'm leaning towards 6 type Vs; as mentioned, and with high manueverability for our size, we'll be able to keep these on target the majority of the time despite the reduced coverage, and the +25% damage boost over the type IIs is not an insubstantial one. I think it has more value than the extra coverage from 10 Type IIs, which costs the same, and that the extra coverage from the 10 type Vs probably isn't worth the extra cost given how rarely we'll use it. It'll also contribute to continued phaser development too, hopefully.
- Location
- Illinois
- Pronouns
- He/Him
We should take one of the ten bank options. This ship was designed from the start for super high coverage phasers, to be able to swat BoPs out of the sky wherever they appear. This is not the time to throw that away on it costing more. If we're going to sacrifice on costs, it should be in taking the Type-II.
- Location
- Outside the Box
- Pronouns
- She/Her
I was hoping we'd need less phasers for full coverage, oof. Anyways, Type-II phasers are Mature and only cost 3 each, while Type-V phasers are prototypes that cost 5 each. The baseline cost of both is actually the same at 4 cost each, so Type-Vs will become just as cheap as Type-IIs eventually. But in the meantime, that's a hell of a price hike.
Last edited:
Maybe sand off some of the hard edge between ships? I.e. rather than going "engaged with best arc" or "engaged with average arc" things smoothly scale between these as one ship or the other has a maneuverability edge. Not quite sure what the numbers might be there. So like a ship with twice the maneuverability than its opponent always engages with its best firepower arc, and is engaged by its opponent's average arc, and ships with the same maneuverability are engage with half of their best arc and half of their average arc, summed together? As an example of how it would work.
Expressing things concisely doesn't seem easy. Logarithms might work? That is a ship which has 180kt mass and 200% engine thrust has a maneuverability of logbase2(180000/2)=16.4. Then it at least makes it easy to compare maneuverability between ships if the same half-size rules apply. But you still have bigger numbers are worse issue. Subtract the log result from 25? So the example ship would have a maneuverability rating of 8.6, and a 40kt max maneuver ship a rating of 10.7.
Equation would be Maneuver = 25 - logbase2(mass*mass/thrust)
Last edited:
- Location
- UK
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Given we splurged on the extra engines, I don't mind having those spaced out small blind spots. It's not like a huge dead zone in the rear, it's just a few arcs which will be trivial to cover with small movement by the ship, so I think 6 of the new phasers is the way to go.
NSMS
Probably evil, unfortunately.
- Location
- A rapidly widening tear in the fabric of reality
It probably is giving us bonuses- I'd guess those blind spots would be a decent amount larger with the other saucer types.
- Location
- alphen aan den rijn
100% cover is a must. not sure if we go 4 or 5 but full cover yes.
Strunkriidiisk
THE LEGEND
- Location
- Canada
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Well, as I said having the same or worse armament than the Miranda is a losing proposition. Let's fuckin' go.
[ ] 10 Phaser Banks (Type V) [Damage 24] [100% Coverage] [Cost: 149]
[ ] 10 Phaser Banks (Type V) [Damage 24] [100% Coverage] [Cost: 149]
We chose dual engines for maximum maneuverability, so I'm inclined to think 60% coverage would actually be sufficient.
[ ] 6 Phaser Banks (Type V) [Damage: 24] [60% Coverage] [Cost: 129]
[ ] 6 Phaser Banks (Type V) [Damage: 24] [60% Coverage] [Cost: 129]
Something to keep in mind here is that the type IIs damage will be 24, and the Type Vs damage will be 32.
So it's more
Type II: 48 burst damage (or 144 to 240 maximum theoretical damage)
Type V: 64 burst damage (or 192 to 320 maximum theoretical damage)
I cannot in good consciousness go for type II phasers. And I'm more in favour of 10x type v
Corrected.
Strunkriidiisk
THE LEGEND
- Location
- Canada
- Pronouns
- He/Him
It occurs to me that the ship's engineers are going to hate having to do work on the nacelles directly. That's a lot of very inefficiently laid-out jefferies tubes to crawl through.
@Sayle assuming the Type-5 phasers have the same tonnage to power progression I think it should be 30?
