So maybe some kind of name that is not war-related, but also projects some kind of strength/majesty.
Mountains work well. They're big, impressive, beautiful. They can be dangerous, but they can also be inspiring.
EDIT -
If we are going with 7 produced, I would propose
Everest-Class
USS Everest
USS Olympus Mons
USS Fuji
USS Kilamnajaro
USS Selaya
USS Tar'Hana
USS Haleakala
Do we not want to save mountain name for the true colossuses? eg Whatever our Thunderchild replacement will be.
Though having said that, calling our space battleship Yamato is also appealing, especially as we are coming up to the year 2199
The new thrusters are installed without much ceremony beside furrowed brows from the supervisors. It's quite a complex operation, but eventually all the supports and braces are in place to support a full burn from the sublight drives without risking buckling the spaceframe. The saucer section has gained a deuterium-fusion impulse reactor which feeds two thruster assemblies either side of the secondary hull at half-strength each, while two lighter but nonetheless full-power assemblies on the nacelle struts siphon their activation energies from the warp plasma itself and have done away with much of the usual engine mass. The cost has been as projected, but unfortunately the thrust tests have shown an almost ten percent shortfall in expected output. Strictly speaking the Type-1s remain a slightly better performance to cost proposition, but your main limitations are structural rather than financial so it may be worth sticking to the Type-2s and hoping for refinements rather than ditching it.
That brings you to tactical systems. As you see it there are three major decisions to make, each relating to a different part of the ship. First is the main saucer, which is currently equipped with six Type-1 phaser emitters capable of covering all major firing arcs. Presently they have a strong presence to aft, but the forward arcs only have two emitters to cover them. Adding another two emplacements to bring the total to ten would further reinforce port and starboard, while also allowing three emitters to fire forward for each arc at the bow rather than just one.
Second is the torpedo systems. While the Copernicus has space for four forward photonic torpedo tubes and two aft at the warp regulator, an alternative to the standard payload is currently being developed. The photon torpedo intends to further enhance the standard payload with a larger antimatter charge and counter-defense systems. However this would require much more internal space for the extra preparation and launch systems, and you will at most be able to mount two forward torpedoes and one aft with the tighter space constraints. The technology is also yet to be proven, and you can't be sure it will live up to the hype.
Last are the phasers on the engineering section, with mounting points available along the ventral and dorsal surfaces. The two ventral hardpoints would provide extra firepower both forward and aft in the ventral plane, while the two hardpoints above the shuttlebay would add extra security aft in the dorsal plane. Given that every extra phaser and all the attendant power conduits and sophisticated technology increases the infrastructure needed to devote to the ship, you should probably consider carefully if you really want to push the ship to its maximal capabilities in exchange for a high cost.
[ ] 0: Six Saucer Type-1 Phasers (Standard) [Avg Damage: 5]
[ ] 1: Two Forward Photon Launchers (Cost++) [Avg Damage: 1.5] [Alpha Strike: 36]
[ ] 2: No Aft Torpedoes
[ ] 3: No Engineering Section Phasers
Maybe it is a bit too late to worry about cost, but I am kinda vibing with this kind of layout. I like big numbers and the experimental tag, but if the other directions are covered a bit by the existing loadout, i don't think this particular ship needs to be a hedgehog.
For the forward launchers, even if the 2x forward photons prove disappointing with the space they take up it'd be a fairly simple affair to retrofit 4x photonic torpedoes in its place, or simply wait for a more capable but similarly sized torpedo system
Once again, I would have preferred only one torpedo tube in the aft, but as that isn't an option I'll vote for none aft and two forward. Also, MAXIMUM PHASERS
Edit: Looks like the aft option was the one that looked messed up, I might vote for just the one tube
I feel as though this format is probably one of the better balanced ones. Remember if photon torpedoes prove themselves the 2nd batch (and any further) can simply be built with one photon aft, and the existing ships retrofitted when they come into dock.
OK, so I think one thing we can absolutely cut is aft torpedoes. I do think a mainly phasor armament is good, and I think with 10 phasors we get 100% coverage.
Therefore I present 2 plans. One of them is traditional and one is something I think is actually better but reflects a radical diversion from standard practice.
Reverse into battle allows us to have more than 4 phasors (I think it totals 6 actually) aimed into the rear arc and actually makes this ship deadlier when it flies backwards into combat. It would make the prospect of CHASING one of these bad boys an absolute copper plated nightmare.
But primarily I suggest that this means we should actually reverse the Nacelles and make what is currently the back of the craft the front and make this a very interesting "Saucer behind Nacelles" design.
Hmm, if we are worrying about Infra and want to keep it lower, if we think 7 average phaser damage is good enough one option would be to skip the extra saucer phasers and go for the 2 Engineering instead, since those cost less.
We get more bang for our Infra++ with the extra 4 saucer phasers than we do with the 4 engineering phasers though, so we should take the saucer upgrade instead of those unless we're aiming for an "all the phasers" ship.
Could have one aft photon torpedo, skip the forward torps entirely, and max out the phasers. Really don't want to skimp on phaser coverage or use photonic torpedoes.
