Tithed_Verse
Vainglorious
- Location
- Iowa
- Pronouns
- They/Them
[X] 6 Phaser Banks (Type V) [Damage: 32] [60% Coverage] [Cost: 129]
Linked contents
- Location
- his hidden lair
[X] 10 Phaser Banks (Type V) [Damage 32] [100% Coverage] [Cost: 149]
I have become my past self's worst enemy from way back when I fought so hard for lower coverage higher damage phasers. Nonetheless, I must stand and die on my hill. We can talk about enough maneuverability (it's an open question), we can talk about how difficult 4 15 degree arcs are to leverage against us, we can talk about about how rear torpedoes address one of the coverage gaps- these are all valid arguments... but I want to see that Multi-Target Damage.
I have become my past self's worst enemy from way back when I fought so hard for lower coverage higher damage phasers. Nonetheless, I must stand and die on my hill. We can talk about enough maneuverability (it's an open question), we can talk about how difficult 4 15 degree arcs are to leverage against us, we can talk about about how rear torpedoes address one of the coverage gaps- these are all valid arguments... but I want to see that Multi-Target Damage.
Torpedoes do 18 damage and fire once every 3 rounds. Average is 18/6=3. It's a way of tracking damage over time.I literally bolded the average damage part of the quote which says 6 and the Battle of Andoria Quote specifically notes 2 torpedoes hitting the BoP which would amount to 12 damage.
You're also incorrect about Burst Damage since Standard Photon Torpedo Launcher burst damage in that same quote clocks in at 18.
Last edited:
Archduke
Don't Take Geology Puns For Granite
- Location
- Texas
It's definitely not a question if we go Type V. That much is clear.
The good news is that we have enough Maneuverability that the 60% coverage will probably not hurt us in the near-to-medium future. After that, who knows?
The bad news is that the brief favors full coverage. It's gonna cost more, and we're bordering on what Starfleet considers too much. We'd probably have to go with a light-than-expected torpedo loadout.
But back to the good news: We aren't getting any warnings about this thing about to become a battleship; just that the cost will get higher here. As such,
[ ] 6 Phaser Banks (Type V) [Damage: 32] [60% Coverage] [Cost: 129]
[X] 10 Phaser Banks (Type V) [Damage 32] [100% Coverage] [Cost: 149]
We'll have to be more frugal with the torpedoes, but I'm ok with that.
The good news is that we have enough Maneuverability that the 60% coverage will probably not hurt us in the near-to-medium future. After that, who knows?
The bad news is that the brief favors full coverage. It's gonna cost more, and we're bordering on what Starfleet considers too much. We'd probably have to go with a light-than-expected torpedo loadout.
But back to the good news: We aren't getting any warnings about this thing about to become a battleship; just that the cost will get higher here. As such,
[ ] 6 Phaser Banks (Type V) [Damage: 32] [60% Coverage] [Cost: 129]
[X] 10 Phaser Banks (Type V) [Damage 32] [100% Coverage] [Cost: 149]
We'll have to be more frugal with the torpedoes, but I'm ok with that.
[X] 10 Phaser Banks (Type V) [Damage 32] [100% Coverage] [Cost: 149]
[X] 10 Phaser Banks (Type V) [Damage 32] [100% Coverage] [Cost: 149]
I don't think having a rear blindspot is so bad (anything trying to sit there can eat torpedoes), but those 45 degrees off either flank that we can't engage in might be a problem during fleet engagements where we won't be able to maneuver much.
We're probably going to spend 20 cost on torpedoes with 2 front 2 back, so we'll end at 169. Rough, but not that bad.
I don't think having a rear blindspot is so bad (anything trying to sit there can eat torpedoes), but those 45 degrees off either flank that we can't engage in might be a problem during fleet engagements where we won't be able to maneuver much.
We're probably going to spend 20 cost on torpedoes with 2 front 2 back, so we'll end at 169. Rough, but not that bad.
TheShadowDeamon
Mighty Dragon
[X] 10 Phaser Banks (Type V) [Damage 32] [100% Coverage] [Cost: 149]
- Location
- United States
- Pronouns
- He/Him
[X] 10 Phaser Banks (Type V) [Damage 32] [100% Coverage] [Cost: 149]
[X] 10 Phaser Banks (Type V) [Damage 32] [100% Coverage] [Cost: 149]
Yes, all the guns.
Yes, all the guns.
Your preferred option is winning, wdym?
- Location
- Australia
Nickle and diming would be getting the old cheap phasers and claiming the new are too expensive or something. I honestly just don't think that the three minor blindspots will meaningfully effect performance for the cost.
- Location
- United States
[X] 10 Phaser Banks (Type V) [Damage 32] [100% Coverage] [Cost: 149]
Let's reach out and touch someone.~ No matter what angle they approach.
Let's reach out and touch someone.~ No matter what angle they approach.
Especially when this thing has stupid levels of shielding and is surprisingly nimble. We haven't even got to torpedoes yet. I'm gonna vote for at least 3 fore Type-IV launchers, preferably 4. I want this to evaporate a K'Tinga if it meets one, or be able to split fire from its launchers and frag 2 of anything less meaty than a D7 war cruiser.
But, I'll try not to be bitter. This is a vote, and I shall endeavour to respect it. Perhaps I'm wrong about my choice anyway, it's always educational to find out an assumption is incorrect. Maybe this'll be so capable Starfleet will still order a few, because the value it brings is so great. Maybe the Gorn or Tholians will see one hanging around, and immediately say, "Actually, we've got housework to do, we can't party this weekend, sorry."
We haven't even got to modules yet, either.
Don't worry, we'll max out torpedoes. 3 type 4 launchers and an RFL fore, and a type 4 and RFL aft.
[X] 6 Phaser Banks (Type V) [Damage: 32] [60% Coverage] [Cost: 129]
glyph
completely and utterly fine
[X] 6 Phaser Banks (Type V) [Damage: 32] [60% Coverage] [Cost: 129]
We've already been warned that we're edging against the upper limit of our cost envelope and we already invested money in the super-expensive super-maneuverable drives so I'm happy to take a cut here.
We've already been warned that we're edging against the upper limit of our cost envelope and we already invested money in the super-expensive super-maneuverable drives so I'm happy to take a cut here.
