- Location
- Illinois
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Ah, you're correct. That's a huge change then, our infra score is a B. I think there's still additions that aren't worth it (the dorsal engineering guns) but that's a big difference.
Linked contents
[X] 0: Ten Saucer Type-1 Phasers (Infra++) [Avg Damage: 9]
[X] 1: Two Forward Photon Launchers (Infra++) [Avg Damage: 1.5] [Alpha Strike: 36]
[X] 2: One Aft Photon Launcher (Infra+) [Avg Damage: 0.75] [Alpha Strike: 18]
[X] 3: Four Engineering Section Type-1 Phasers (Infra++) [Avg Damage: 3]
[X] 1: Two Forward Photon Launchers (Infra++) [Avg Damage: 1.5] [Alpha Strike: 36]
[X] 2: One Aft Photon Launcher (Infra+) [Avg Damage: 0.75] [Alpha Strike: 18]
[X] 3: Four Engineering Section Type-1 Phasers (Infra++) [Avg Damage: 3]
Last edited:
- Location
- Illinois
- Pronouns
- He/Him
[X] 0: Ten Saucer Type-1 Phasers (Infra++) [Avg Damage: 9]
[X] 1: Two Forward Photon Launchers (Infra++) [Avg Damage: 1.5] [Alpha Strike: 36]
[X] 2: One Aft Photon Launcher (Infra+) [Avg Damage: 0.75] [Alpha Strike: 18]
[X] 3: Two Engineering Section Type-1 Phasers (Infra+) [Avg Damage: 2]
Yeah I mean if we're looking at starting from a B instead of a D there's no reason to not go with this set up. Changing my vote. The aft dorsal phasers remain awful though lol.
Weapons totals:
Phasers: 8/7/7/6
Phasers ventral: 5/4/4/4
Phasers dorsal: 3/3/3/2
Torpedoes: 4/0/0/2
Edit: This has the same number of phasers in the forward arc as Thunderchild had phase cannons, meaning we'll be getting something like 1.6x the damage in each quadrant when compared to Thunderchild. Total firepower is probably most similar aft.
[X] 1: Two Forward Photon Launchers (Infra++) [Avg Damage: 1.5] [Alpha Strike: 36]
[X] 2: One Aft Photon Launcher (Infra+) [Avg Damage: 0.75] [Alpha Strike: 18]
[X] 3: Two Engineering Section Type-1 Phasers (Infra+) [Avg Damage: 2]
Yeah I mean if we're looking at starting from a B instead of a D there's no reason to not go with this set up. Changing my vote. The aft dorsal phasers remain awful though lol.
Weapons totals:
Phasers: 8/7/7/6
Phasers ventral: 5/4/4/4
Phasers dorsal: 3/3/3/2
Torpedoes: 4/0/0/2
Edit: This has the same number of phasers in the forward arc as Thunderchild had phase cannons, meaning we'll be getting something like 1.6x the damage in each quadrant when compared to Thunderchild. Total firepower is probably most similar aft.
Last edited:
[X] 0: Ten Saucer Type-1 Phasers (Infra++) [Avg Damage: 9]
[X] 1: Two Forward Photon Launchers (Infra++) [Avg Damage: 1.5] [Alpha Strike: 36]
[X] 2: One Aft Photon Launcher (Infra+) [Avg Damage: 0.75] [Alpha Strike: 18]
[X] 3: Four Engineering Section Type-1 Phasers (Infra++) [Avg Damage: 3]
[X] 1: Two Forward Photon Launchers (Infra++) [Avg Damage: 1.5] [Alpha Strike: 36]
[X] 2: One Aft Photon Launcher (Infra+) [Avg Damage: 0.75] [Alpha Strike: 18]
[X] 3: Four Engineering Section Type-1 Phasers (Infra++) [Avg Damage: 3]
[X] 0: Ten Saucer Type-1 Phasers (Infra++) [Avg Damage: 9]
[X] 1: No Forward Torpedoes
[X] 2: One Aft Photon Launcher (Infra+) [Avg Damage: 0.75] [Alpha Strike: 18]
[X] 3: Four Engineering Section Type-1 Phasers (Infra++) [Avg Damage: 3]
[X] 1: No Forward Torpedoes
[X] 2: One Aft Photon Launcher (Infra+) [Avg Damage: 0.75] [Alpha Strike: 18]
[X] 3: Four Engineering Section Type-1 Phasers (Infra++) [Avg Damage: 3]
I completely agree.
[X] 0: Six Saucer Type-1 Phasers (Standard) [Avg Damage: 5]
[X] 1: No Forward Torpedoes
[X] 2: One Aft Photon Launcher (Cost+) [Avg Damage: 0.75] [Alpha Strike: 18]
[X] 3: Four Engineering Section Type-1 Phasers (Cost++) [Avg Damage: 3]
- Location
- Illinois
- Pronouns
- He/Him
I will continue to argue against the dorsal engineering phasers. They're pretty terrible. They get us 2 phasers that can only fire aft between the nacelles, so not even the full aft arc, for an entire additional infra+ compared to the central-only engineering phasers. They get us 1 more point of avg damage, which is half the reward we get from the first level of engineering section phasers. Furthermore, anything trying to camp a phaser blind spot between the saucer side/aft turrets and the ventral engineering turrets is going to be sitting directly in front of a torpedo launcher, which is broadly unhealthy.
- Location
- west
[X] 0: Ten Saucer Type-1 Phasers (Infra++) [Avg Damage: 9]
[X] 1: Two Forward Photon Launchers (Infra++) [Avg Damage: 1.5] [Alpha Strike: 36]
[X] 2: One Aft Photon Launcher (Infra+) [Avg Damage: 0.75] [Alpha Strike: 18]
[X] 3: Four Engineering Section Type-1 Phasers (Infra++) [Avg Damage: 3]
[X] 1: Two Forward Photon Launchers (Infra++) [Avg Damage: 1.5] [Alpha Strike: 36]
[X] 2: One Aft Photon Launcher (Infra+) [Avg Damage: 0.75] [Alpha Strike: 18]
[X] 3: Four Engineering Section Type-1 Phasers (Infra++) [Avg Damage: 3]
Strunkriidiisk
THE LEGEND
- Location
- Canada
- Pronouns
- He/Him
If the design's dipped to Medium-Low manoeuvrability (I hope not, but waiting for a confirmation one way or the other) it would probably be for the better to scrap the rear torpedo bay and go all in on phaser banks. I don't think it's worth stripping the torpedoes off entirely because we can still prototype the newer ones and there will still be occasions where the ship can use the big sucker-punch, but phasers are still the better option if the ship can otherwise be outflown.
Well, let's not be too reductive. The dorsal secondaries would have like a 20- to 30-degree dead-zone to either side on the diagonal, but they'd still be able to engage three smaller arcs (up and in the middle, and mostly-flat horizontal) aside from straight to the stern.
- Location
- Illinois
- Pronouns
- He/Him
The mostly flat horizontal arc is almost entirely blocked by the lower nacelles. Like, if you look at the diagram, the turrets could go either fore or aft of the struts, but either way the flat horizontal arc is blocked by a nacelle. You could have a small gap between the two nacelles that the turrets could fire through, but that's not nearly as good as the other turrets.
My prelim count for lobbying purposes, should be close but people edit/new voters add their vote.
0 - Saucer Phasers
10 Phasers: 33
6 Phasers: 14
1 - Forward Torps
2 Photons: 44
0 Photons: 4
2 - Aft Torps
1 Photon - 33
0 Photons - 16
3 - Secondary Hull Phasers
2 Phasers - 24
4 Phasers - 19
0 Phasers - 7
0 - Saucer Phasers
10 Phasers: 33
6 Phasers: 14
1 - Forward Torps
2 Photons: 44
0 Photons: 4
2 - Aft Torps
1 Photon - 33
0 Photons - 16
3 - Secondary Hull Phasers
2 Phasers - 24
4 Phasers - 19
0 Phasers - 7
Remember that Star Trek combat does not happen only in realspace, but can also occur when both ships are at warp speed.
When you are being pursued by a peer or superior opponent, they will have their forward torpedo tubes aimed at you, and if you have no torpedo launchers at the rear, you cannot do anything about it without being forced to stop.
Having an aft launcher to fire at them might be the difference between survival and destruction.
grimely
Twink Death Sufferer
I don't understand this logic at all. The aft torpedo launcher isn't the one we're going to maneuver to fire, it's literally a stern gun for when we're being pursued.
That's an incredibly niche use, when you can always just slow down.
Don't we have a piece of structure right behind the saucer, Are we gonna shove it into the engineering ventral stuff?
The aft torpedo is just expensive for what is essentially a super niche case tool. Its literally 'you're being chased' kind of weapon. We're just not THAT fast so the amount of time we're being chased vs the time we're slugging it out just makes it feel pointless.
If we were way faster I might be more in favor, but TBH I'd just prefer Heavy lasers on the main ship, some modern torpedos pointing forward, and some light auxillary phasers on the engineering.
As I advocated in my vote, aft torpedos are just niche as hell, and we already have a form of alpha-strike.
Last edited:
Strunkriidiisk
THE LEGEND
- Location
- Canada
- Pronouns
- He/Him
There's still something like ~120 degrees of free elevation (from straight back to stopping before the angle of fire would intersect the rear edge of the saucer) and more than 90 degrees of lateral angling (45 to either side off the central axis) before the phasers would even come close to the nacelles. Technically restrictive yes, but there's enough wiggle room that the phasers can engage in two of the cardinal arcs which is about as much as can be asked of any phasers on the ship. They're not any more inherently limited than the stern torpedo bay.
Jensaarai
Sing Victory Everlasting
- Pronouns
- They/Them
Not completely accurate. The romulan strike on Earth involved phaser and disruptor fire while mid-warp.
Chargone
Invisable operator
- Location
- New Zealand
I think the idea is take either those phasers or the rear torpedo bay, and the torpedos give more bang for our buck.
- Location
- Illinois
- Pronouns
- He/Him
The torpedoes give us vastly more bang for our buck. There's only one arc not covered by our existing phasers that would be covered by dorsal engineering guns (directly astern in the same plane as the ship), and we can cover that gap with a torpedo launcher. Once that's in place, there's very little reason to add a little more damage to the rear arcs when those are already very well covered (6 mounts capable of firing aft).
Gear
Set Moon to Ramming Speed!
[X] 0: Six Saucer Type-1 Phasers (Standard) [Avg Damage: 5]
[X] 1: Two Forward Photon Launchers (Infra++) [Avg Damage: 1.5] [Alpha Strike: 36]
[X] 2: One Aft Photon Launcher (Infra+) [Avg Damage: 0.75] [Alpha Strike: 18]
[X] 3: No Engineering Section Phasers
I'm calling this the 'Refit Plan', as we can always add more phasers later. Torpedoes, not so much.
[X] 1: Two Forward Photon Launchers (Infra++) [Avg Damage: 1.5] [Alpha Strike: 36]
[X] 2: One Aft Photon Launcher (Infra+) [Avg Damage: 0.75] [Alpha Strike: 18]
[X] 3: No Engineering Section Phasers
I'm calling this the 'Refit Plan', as we can always add more phasers later. Torpedoes, not so much.
Strunkriidiisk
THE LEGEND
- Location
- Canada
- Pronouns
- He/Him
If this ship has Medium-Low vulnerability it's basically not going to be able to run away (except at warp*) and benefit from a stern gun most of the time. A forward launcher gives it extra punch against big, slow ships that can't manoeuvre well enough to stay out of the frontal arc, and all-around phaser coverage will be better able to hit nimble (probably lighter) ships that can dance that well. A stern-only launcher with no forward tubes is going to be useless most of the time - a forward launcher at least has the benefit that ships in Star Trek are usually pointing noses at each other on first meeting so they can potentially get an opening salvo off.
I'm also not convinced of the efficacy of combat in warp - either the ship can outrun its pursuer in which case it will, or it can't in which case it's better to hit the proverbial emergency brake, drop out of warp, and then either stand and fight like the pseudo-battleship it is (and not risk evaporating from subspace disruption or something) or take advantage of the confusion of the situation (assuming the enemy overshoots or something) to pick a new vector and flee back into warp having hopefully shaken off immediate pursuit.
Last edited:
[X] 0: Ten Saucer Type-1 Phasers (Infra++) [Avg Damage: 9]
[X] 1: Two Forward Photonic Launchers (Infra+) [Avg Damage: 0.6] [Alpha Strike: 15]
[X] 2: One Aft Photon Launcher (Infra+) [Avg Damage: 0.75] [Alpha Strike: 18]
[X] 3: No Engineering Section Phasers
[X] 1: Two Forward Photonic Launchers (Infra+) [Avg Damage: 0.6] [Alpha Strike: 15]
[X] 2: One Aft Photon Launcher (Infra+) [Avg Damage: 0.75] [Alpha Strike: 18]
[X] 3: No Engineering Section Phasers