Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
[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: Two Engineering Section Type-1 Phasers (Infra+) [Avg Damage: 2]
 
[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]
 
Fouredged Sword said:
BACKWARDS SHIP!

Reverse the nacelles so the saucer is behind them and between the 6 saucer phasors and 4 engineering phasors, plus one "aft" photon torpedo launcher, we should be able to put 6 phasors into the now forward arc.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You jest, but something like this is actually a semi-famous tactic in SFB. It's called the Kaufman Retrograde and it is deeply unfair to anyone who doesn't have photon torpedoes.

I honestly don't have strong feelings on this vote though, so I think I'll just sit this one out.
 
I don't mind moving toward a plan based system in the future. But it should probably only happen whenever @Sayle puts in the update to vote in that manner, and whenever we have a vote like this with the options of []1 []2 []3 etc.
 
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: No Aft Torpedoes
[X] 3: Two Engineering Section Type-1 Phasers (Infra+) [Avg Damage: 2]
 
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: No Aft Torpedoes
[X] 3: Two Engineering Section Type-1 Phasers (Infra+) [Avg Damage: 2]

Here's my reasoning: start with the forward photon launchers, because they're the most straightforward decision for me. We've been wanting to prototype photon launchers, and the Copernicus needs better alpha-strike and single-target damage. Two forward photon launchers check both those boxes nicely.

Then the phasers. Six phasers aren't going to cut it for a ship this size, so we need more. I don't think eight is enough, either, which means I have to go for at least four phasers on engineering or ten on the saucer. The saucer ones offer more damage and have better firing arcs, so ten saucer phasers it is.

So then it's just the engineering section left. I do the phasers first, because I think there's a clear winner here: Ten phasers is nothing to sneeze at, so zero phasers is workable but I still think the ship needs a little more oomph. Four engineering phasers strike me as excessive: as tempting as it is to go full dakka, this ship also needs resources to do SCIENCE!! with and a double Infrastructure cost is pretty steep. Two engineering phasers offers some very efficient damage, at 1 damage per phaser for only a single infrastructure cost. I also don't think we've mounted phasers on the engineering section before, so that'll be nice.

Finally, we get to the aft torpedo options. The extra alpha strike damage is nice, but the sustained damage they offer is mediocre. They do only cost one infrastructure, but even that cost is tough to justify on an already-expensive ship. I don't think we need any of them, and we already have two forward launchers. No aft torpedoes it is.
 
[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]
 
Firehawk242 said:
You jest, but something like this is actually a semi-famous tactic in SFB. It's called the Kaufman Retrograde and it is deeply unfair to anyone who doesn't have photon torpedoes.

I honestly don't have strong feelings on this vote though, so I think I'll just sit this one out.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Actually, thinking it through, for a big ship with a good chance at lower than enemy maneuverability a rear facing alpha strike is actually interestingly practical.

Maneuverability means MOST high speed ships have a forward facing weapon set. They want to get in their enemy's tail and stay there. A powerful aft alpha means you want to stay the hell out of that arc.

And that means it doesn't matter if you are faster you can't chase. You are stuck ether doing passes or leading your target and using your own aft weapons.

Meanwhile the big ship just keeps turning away. They don't need to escape, but they just need to keep turning away and you need to travel MUCH further than they do to escape their back arc.

In fleet movements the big ship wants to hairball. You fly into the middle and start to spin, trying to whip your back arc around and catch someone, again where "fly away" is a valid aggressive option that puts all enemies in your back arc and forces them to not only follow but overtake you in whatever direction you turn and you can just keep turing.

Your weak arc is forward and if an enemy wants to sit in your forward arc with their forward weapons facing you they need to be able to fly backwards faster than you can fly forwards.
 
Last edited:
[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: Two Engineering Section Type-1 Phasers (Infra+) [Avg Damage: 2]
 
I wonder how dumb an idea would an Arsenal Ship be in Star Trek, mainly because it would get beaten like a drum in true ST Wunderwaffe fasion by the plucky crew of [insert race here] before it can actually show it's worth. Just imagining the fusillade of Torps for station breaking is cool though! :rofl:
Like an Explorer sized Steamrunner!
 
You know, I have to wonder about the inevitable reaction of whichever Romulan got left behind to spy on us. (Come on, we all know there's at least one.) The Cygnus was definitely an uptick in Earth's capabilities, but as the ship to herald in the Federation it's... Well, kind of boring? It's not bad, but it's nothing the Vulcans or Andorians wouldn't have built. It's calming, reassuring even, to see that the UFP isn't going to be shitting out Thunderchild scale ships and is moving towards quiescence.

And then we launch this monster. Bricks will be shat.
 
Jensaarai said:
The budget counters caught on to how much the Constitution design team was spending, huh?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
... They'll be installed Tuesday...

KleverKil'Vanya said:
I wonder how dumb an idea would an Arsenal Ship be in Star Trek, mainly because it would get beaten like a drum in true ST Wunderwaffe fasion by the plucky crew of [insert race here] before it can actually show it's worth. Just imagining the fusillade of Torps for station breaking is cool though!
Like an Explorer sized Steamrunner!
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Eh, it seems that torpedoes require a proper big coilgun launcher to get the torps up to a tactically-useful speed, it's not like we can just externally release torpedoes that accelerate 100% on their own.

Horologer said:
Still considering my vote, but I think the aft torpedo launcher isn't worth it. This ship's not going to running away from a fight very often, so the launcher's position isn't very valuable, and the extra alpha strike damage just doesn't seem worth the cost.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That may be so, but I can easily imagine terrified enemies trying to find respite behind Copernicus' nacelles from the blanket barrage of phaser fire... It would be satisfying to finish them off with a quick torp, aye?
 
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]

Soooo... Going from 6 to 10 Saucer Phasers costs Infra++, and going from 0 to 4 Engineering Phasers also costs Infra++. The Engineering Phasers cost the exact same as the Saucer Phasers. They may not be positioned in the best spot for maximizing average damage, but they still increase our coverage. And I'd rather have 14 Phasers of coverage than 12.
 
[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]

Cleary we need more DAKKA.
 
[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: No Aft Torpedoes
[X] 3: Two Engineering Section Type-1 Phasers (Infra+) [Avg Damage: 2]
 
No. We do not need more DAKKA. This isn't wh40k. Or even Star Wars. Like kinda.. guys.. we can not go top tier on tactical. We make *warships* for that, when we need it.

(ETA: This is, to be clear, a frustrated statement about overestimation of tactical threats that a single ship should be capable of handling.)
 
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: No Aft Torpedoes
[X] 3: Two Engineering Section Type-1 Phasers (Infra+) [Avg Damage: 2]
 
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] 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: No Aft Torpedoes
[X] 3: Two Engineering Section Type-1 Phasers (Infra+) [Avg Damage: 2]
 
Why are some people voting with Cost+ in their vote instead of Infra+ when the threadmark vote options use Infra? It is making the vote tally really hard to read and Sayle is going to have to manually group the votes with the Manage Votes button to sort it out to get a coherent tally.
 
LawsOfRobotics said:
Why are some people voting with Cost+ in their vote instead of Infra+ when the threadmark vote options use Infra? It is making the vote tally really hard to read and Sayle is going to have to manually group the votes with the Manage Votes button to sort it out to get a coherent tally.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The initial post said "cost" and this was later edited to "industry", but the old wording got copy pasted from in it's initial form.
 
No need for aft torpedoes, and the photon launchers aren't attractive enough yet.

[X] 0: Ten Saucer Type-1 Phasers (Infra++) [Avg Damage: 9]
[X] 1: Four Forward Photonic Launchers (Infra++) [Avg Damage: 1.25] [Alpha Strike: 30]
[X] 2: No Aft Torpedoes
[X] 3: Two Engineering Section Type-1 Phasers (Cost+) [Avg Damage: 2]
 
I'm honestly going to add my voice to the people who support going over to plan voting, at least for options that aren't just a binary "option one or option two" - because as it's set up currently, it's basically impossible to make a coordinated plan to reduce costs, unless you can make a solid argument and get it referenced by follow-on players to keep the plan in people's minds.

Either way, I have no idea how badly our infrastructure score is going to get mulched, but this ship is going to be a tactical monster if the photon torpedoes work - even just photonics in place of the photons, this ship has the potential to outgun the Thunderchild in terms of firepower (by virtue of phaser banks hitting harder and being able to match the Thunderchild torpedo tube for torpedo tube), with photons she'll potentially be in a league of her own.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top