Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
[X] Arrowhead. Aim for a cheap light cruiser. (Industry: 2)

This is a tough choice, but we were told to keep things cheap. Let us drown the Romulans in starships, they can't shoot them all! :V
 
[X] Arrowhead. Aim for a cheap light cruiser. (Industry: 2)

The real utility of photon torpedoes is in their burst damage output. Useful, but not necessarily the defining feature on what's ultimately a design intended to dogfight other relatively small warships.

1 or 2 tubes should be fine. 1 is a given and ~2 is probably experimental- but we don't need this thing to sunder a space station in a single pass. We just need it to be able to punish openings the enemy dog fighter has. And 1 photon on bare hull should at a minimum badly cripple a warbird
 
I would point out that the Stingray isn't fully armed. We did opt not to put its phase cannon count to 6 as it would mostly only help for coverage.

With the Arrowhead we could mount those 6 cannons and because of its shape it would be able to put all 6 on one target, and do so extremely easily with its very high maneuverability. Note that our new Dreadnought can only put a maximum of 8 on a single target and it was smacking warbirds out of the air.

In terms of durability I seriously doubt there will be much difference in either hull shape, so to me that's not even really a factor.

[X] Arrowhead. Aim for a cheap light cruiser. (Industry: 2)
 
Karugus said:
[X] Arrowhead. Aim for a cheap light cruiser. (Industry: 2)

The real utility of photon torpedoes is in their burst damage output. Useful, but not necessarily the defining feature on what's ultimately a design intended to dogfight other relatively small warships.

1 or 2 tubes should be fine. 1 is a given and ~2 is probably experimental- but we don't need this thing to sunder a space station in a single pass. We just need it to be able to punish openings the enemy dog fighter has. And 1 photon on bare hull should at a minimum badly cripple a warbird
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

1 tube is very much not a given with the arrowhead as it's presented. It's going to cost us something to get even that.

Also, this is a cruiser, it's not a fighter plane, it's not really going to dogfight either way.

And the whole problem is that we aren't getting a lot of shots at bare hulls. Torpedoes do work in shields and in fact our last prototype run for them got us a serious upgrade for that. There's very little reason to think cannons are a better place to be.

UlseDovThur said:
I would point out that the Stingray isn't fully armed. We did opt not to put its phase cannon count to 6 as it would mostly only help for coverage.

With the Arrowhead we could mount those 6 cannons and because of its shape it would be able to put all 6 on one target, and do so extremely easily with its very high maneuverability. Note that our new Dreadnought can only put a maximum of 8 on a single target and it was smacking warbirds out of the air.

In terms of durability I seriously doubt there will be much difference in either hull shape, so to me that's not even really a factor.

[X] Arrowhead. Aim for a cheap light cruiser. (Industry: 2)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Our Dreadnought also has 6 total torpedo tubes and that was a big part of its damage. I think it only got one kill with pure cannon fire and that was an opening where most of its cannons could be on target. I really don't think cannons are what we want to rely on considering the last prototype's performance.
 
Last edited:
[X] Arrowhead. Aim for a cheap light cruiser. (Industry: 2)

I have a personal bias towards energy weapons and away from torpedoes and if we can squeeze 6 of the things (which I know is unlikely) into the forward firing arc that would be plenty. 4 is a more likely maximum. The performance difference is close enough for me to not feel bad about not having torpedoes.
Also, aesthetics.
 
[X] Half-saucer. Aim for a capable medium cruiser. (Industry: 4)

Half-saucer to ensure it has enough firepower via torpedoes. Forego secondary hull next vote to keep cost down and agility up.
 
Skippy said:
Going from previous projects, I believe "underslung" does not actually refer to a secondary hull, but instead a configuration where the deflector is fused to the bottom of the saucer. It would be worth confirming with @Sayle though.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

You're not at "you get a secondary hull, you get a secondary hull!" era yet. You aren't even really in the "long neck to secondary hull" era at this point.

Skippy said:
@Sayle could you shed light on whether an underslung deflector with an arrowhead primary hull means a full secondary hull or not, and what if any tradeoff this implies?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Underslung is fused to the saucer. It might kinda be a secondary hull, but it's a part of the main ship rather than a discrete section.
 
Alectai said:
Speed is Armor
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I seem to recall that not working out well for the battlecruiser historically.

Anyways too survive in battle is probably a balance of three things:

Maneuverability: not getting hit
Durability: not getting destroyed by hits
Firepower: destroying your opponent before getting hit

Arrowhead gives up durability and some firepower to have more maneuverability while being cheaper. The half saucer gives up some maneuverability and is more expensive to have a more balanced distribution. I don't think one is blatantly wrong but heres the thing. Due to their shields longer engagements seem to benefit the Romulans so firepower is important. I'm already leery about only having one forward torpedo tube. Not having one seems insane to me. They are our best weapon for quickly knocking out opponents. And I don't think a strategy of max maneuverability means we won't take any hits is viable. The Stingray isn't a slug, but warbirds seem to have no problem hitting them.
 
SoHowAreYou said:
I seem to recall that not working out well for the battlecruiser historically.

Anyways too survive in battle is probably a balance of three things:

Maneuverability: not getting hit
Durability: not getting destroyed by hits
Firepower: destroying your opponent before getting hit

Arrowhead gives up durability and some firepower to have more maneuverability while being cheaper. The half saucer gives up some maneuverability and is more expensive to have a more balanced distribution. I don't think one is blatantly wrong but heres the thing. Due to their shields longer engagements seem to benefit the Romulans so firepower is important. I'm already leery about only having one forward torpedo tube. Not having one seems insane to me. They are our best weapon for quickly knocking out opponents. And I don't think a strategy of max maneuverability means we won't take any hits is viable. The Stingray isn't a slug, but warbirds seem to have no problem hitting them.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The problem is that a Battlecruiser was still too big of a target, it couldn't go fast enough to truly achieve Speed is Armor.

This is functionally a Destroyer, they can absolutely be dodgy little zippy bastards who can evade most fire.
 
[X] Arrowhead. Aim for a cheap light cruiser. (Industry: 2)

This is my vote. If we can squeeze a photonic torpedo tube, then it's good, otherwise, command is requesting a ship that can be deployed as fast and affordable as we need.
 
If we do arrowhead i advise against trying to go for the experimental nacelles better just use underslung and accept that it will only have a single tube
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top