Starfleet Design Bureau

[Nyvis]

This isn't a small ship strat. It is explicitly for large low maneuverability ships to minimize the advantage smaller, faster, ships have over them. It allows a large slow ship to force a smaller, faster ship into it's alpha strike zone.

If you are fast enough to keep the enemy in your forward arc then forward arc is simply better.

Click to shrink...

I can't parse what you're saying or what you think you're replying to but I don't think it's what I wrote. I know that full coverage is good for large slow ships, I'm just saying that I don't think it's a good tradeoff for smaller faster ones even if we had a battle where they had to defend each other's rears.

 

[Fouredged Sword]

I can't parse what you're saying or what you think you're replying to but I don't think it's what I wrote. I know that full coverage is good for large slow ships, I'm just saying that I don't think it's a good tradeoff for smaller faster ones even if we had a battle where they had to defend each other's rears.

Click to shrink...

What I am saying is not just full coverage, but actively focusing firepower in the rear arc rather than the forward arc. Most phasors can contribute to the broadside in one way or another, but phasors generally ether shoot forwards or back. Traditionally the tendency is to lean forward. I think leaning back is viable and would in fact have significant advantage in a large slow ship.

It would trade the powerful closing alpha strike for the more consistent ability to pull an enemy into the alpha strike during combat.

 

[Horologer]

What I am saying is not just full coverage, but actively focusing firepower in the rear arc rather than the forward arc. Most phasors can contribute to the broadside in one way or another, but phasors generally ether shoot forwards or back. Traditionally the tendency is to lean forward. I think leaning back is viable and would in fact have significant advantage in a large slow ship.

It would trade the powerful closing alpha strike for the more consistent ability to pull an enemy into the alpha strike during combat.

Click to shrink...

This only works if your enemy is expecting your firepower to be concentrated in the front. Once your opponent realizes that your big ship's rear firing arcs are stronger, they'll just try to stay in front of them instead of behind them.

 

[Chargone]

This only works if your enemy is expecting your firepower to be concentrated in the front. Once your opponent realizes that your big ship's rear firing arcs are stronger, they'll just try to stay in front of them instead of behind them.

Click to shrink...

I believe the point is that "staying in front" in a combat effective manner is more difficult than "staying behind", especially if the ship doing so has its weapons concentrated forward and their engines thrust mostly-rearwards (like ours).

 

[KNakamura]

My rational for the extra firepower:

Better to have that extra firepower and not need it; not every stranger you meet in the cosmos is going to throw a party after coming in contact with you. Some of them are bound to be viciously territorial. Also Wars do not happen at a time of your convenience.

Click to shrink...

What does that have to do with an assessment that you should know which situations you should not try to fight in without more ships?

Also, strawman: arguing against heavy armament is not arguing for none. My vote was 10/2/none/2 after all.

The enemy gets a vote too.
You dont get to determine if the enemy is faster than you; see the New Model Romulan warbirds that showed up in the latter half of the Romulan War with a top speed of Warp 6.

Click to shrink...

Sure. But by that logic I'd argue that in that situation you can't rely on armament or speed alone anyway and you're trading more ships against the possibility of being good in that situation. Who's to say that that hypothetical enemy doesn't also outgun us?

As for your analysis, I flat out must say it's unconvincing. It commits the broadsins of applying wartime needs to peacetime. It ignores that costs are a thing and several ships were produced to keep under tight budgets with known weaknesses. It probably extrapolates too much from too little.

Like. I'm not going to argue you shouldn't vote the way you want. I just don't think these arguments are good ones against moderation in our choices.

 

[UlseDovThur]

Don't know about anyone else but I went with maximum firepower purely off the idea that Explorer ships should be as individually capable as is possible. No expense spared. Quality above all else.

We can worry about efficiency and quantity for other ships. There, it can be afforded.

 

[KarmaA]

This only works if your enemy is expecting your firepower to be concentrated in the front. Once your opponent realizes that your big ship's rear firing arcs are stronger, they'll just try to stay in front of them instead of behind them.

Click to shrink...

I read it that concentrating firepower to the back is more economical than the sides and provides definite utility when trying to fight against basically any craft.

Something like:
~beyond the first few weapons you'd want to have your design shift from a 3 forward:1 Aft to something closer to 1.5:1. 3/1/1/1 to 3/1/1/2 (instead of 4/1/1/1 or 3/1.5/1.5/1)

Maybe I'm reading a lot into it but I didn't feel @Fouredged Sword was saying the aft firepower should be stronger. It'd be like a one-two punch the forward alpha strike and phasers and then if we're passing (or turning) odds are good they'll end up in our rear arc at some point and the aft armament can take advantage. All the stuff facing forward has the best chances to hit during that initial pass and if the distance is great the forward weapons have even more time.

If the enemy learned and began to avoid front and rear areas then combat might be longer since if they're trying to stay in our broadside the captain could slowly rotate while moving forward to spread damage out.

 

[Horologer]

I believe the point is that "staying in front" in a combat effective manner is more difficult than "staying behind", especially if the ship doing so has its weapons concentrated forward and their engines thrust mostly-rearwards (like ours).

Click to shrink...

This is only true in certain frames of reference, where the ships are moving in the same direction. By definition, the front and back of the ship always "track" at the same speed, so there's no general advantage to any particular end there.

Practically speaking, the most common frame of reference is two ships moving towards each other, since most battles occur when ships are converging upon a contested point.

 

[Fouredged Sword]

I read it that concentrating firepower to the back is more economical than the sides and provides definite utility when trying to fight against basically any craft.

Something like:
~beyond the first few weapons you'd want to have your design shift from a 3 forward:1 Aft to something closer to 1.5:1. 3/1/1/1 to 3/1/1/2 (instead of 4/1/1/1 or 3/1.5/1.5/1)

Maybe I'm reading a lot into it but I didn't feel @Fouredged Sword was saying the aft firepower should be stronger. It'd be like a one-two punch the forward alpha strike and phasers would maul the shields and then if we're passing (or turning) odds are good they'll end up in our rear arc at some point and the aft armament can take advantage. All the stuff facing forward has the best chances to hit during that initial pass and if the distance is great the forward weapons have even more time.

If the enemy learned and began to avoid front and rear areas then combat might be longer since if they're trying to stay in our broadside the captain could slowly rotate while moving forward to spread damage out.

Click to shrink...

Ok, so not quite. It's about travel arcs and making it easier or harder for the other side to move from one arc to another.

Arcs are cone shaped. To escape an arc the enemy needs to reach the outer surface of it. When you fly towards someone they move closer to the tip of the cone and so the edges of the cone are closer.

This allows them to cut inside your fire arc and move out of your ideal fire arc.

But if instead you fly away they move towards the base of the cone that is your fire arc. They need to traverse MORE space to escape your guns.

The effect of this is that turning in towards an enemy makes it easier for them to escape your fire arc while turning away makes it harder.

None of this matters if you have a solid speed advantage. If you can turn fast enough that you can always keep them in your ideal arc none of this matters.

But if you are slower than the other side turning away should force them to move about 20-30% further to escape your fire arc as opposed to turning towards. It's just geometry.

But most ships don't want to do this because their aft weapon arc is their weakest.

This is only true in certain frames of reference, where the ships are moving in the same direction. By definition, the front and back of the ship always "track" at the same speed, so there's no general advantage to any particular end there.

Practically speaking, the most common frame of reference is two ships moving towards each other, since most battles occur when ships are converging upon a contested point.

Click to shrink...

Not quite. You can't avoid crossing passes entirely, but you get a vote. Once you pass the other guy has to come about and chase you (or just leave, but if he is faster he can just do that anyway).

You can ether also turn about and go broadside to broadside while the faster craft tries to get into the aft of the slower OR you DON'T turn and make them have to not just catch but overtake you to change things.

A passing exchange is temporary unless both sides vote to keep doing it. If you vote no the other side has to chase and deal with a parallel exchange. You can keep voting no and turning away and they have to overtake you entirely to change that.

And that just gets them one more passing exchange before they are once again behind you.

They ALWAYS need to cut the larger arc path to get in front of you than you need to turn your front away from them.

 

[Chargone]

Mind you, if you're both trying for that you end up engaging in what amounts to a broadside slugging match with your engines constantly more exposed than would otherwise be the case until someone runs (at which point coming about to chase them becomes a bit of a nonsense and the pursuer is at a disadvantage, which sucks if it's you) or gets their engines shot off.

So I'd conclude that there's a solid argument for significant front and rear firepower, but that port and starboard firepower is basically irrelevent. Mind you "broadside" probably more accurately refers to the dorsal and ventral sides of a starfleet ship, when you consider where weapons are mounted and where they can and can't shoot due to the hull being in the way.

 

[KarmaA]

@Fouredged Sword I think I'm understanding, please point out where I'm not .

Something like forward biased weapons make sense for an aggressor (or for pursuit), or when no shields are involved because early damage could have a big impact on future damage or performance. With shields that can last through an alpha strike though the rear armament becomes more valuable if we're a defender or have the option to bug out.

If we already have an advantage the rear armament isn't very valuable (win harder) but when we're at a disadvantage the rear armament could provide that 20%+ increase in time the enemy needs to escape the rear firing arc.

It feels like there's an accuracy tradeoff (sensor focus/targeting?) and something like weapon cycle time vs range/closing speed that would also affect whether stronger forward or backwards makes more sense.

 

[Joyful_Overkill]

What does that have to do with an assessment that you should know which situations you should not try to fight in without more ships?

Also, strawman: arguing against heavy armament is not arguing for none. My vote was 10/2/none/2 after all.



Sure. But by that logic I'd argue that in that situation you can't rely on armament or speed alone anyway and you're trading more ships against the possibility of being good in that situation. Who's to say that that hypothetical enemy doesn't also outgun us?

Click to shrink...

Please stop trying to put words in my mouth. I simply argued for a design that leaned toward heavier armament. I did not say anything else.

Secondly why are you still emotionally invested in this debate? The votes on this are over.

Can you please stop overreacting?

 

[Fouredged Sword]

@Fouredged Sword I think I'm understanding, please point out where I'm not .

Something like forward biased weapons make sense for an aggressor (or for pursuit), or when no shields are involved because early damage could have a big impact on future damage or performance. With shields that can last through an alpha strike though the rear armament becomes more valuable if we're a defender or have the option to bug out.

If we already have an advantage the rear armament isn't very valuable (win harder) but when we're at a disadvantage the rear armament could provide that 20%+ increase in time the enemy needs to escape the rear firing arc.

It feels like there's an accuracy tradeoff (sensor focus/targeting?) and something like weapon cycle time vs range/closing speed that would also affect whether stronger forward or backwards makes more sense.

Click to shrink...

You make it hard to take advantage of being faster than the enemy to make it not as bad when they are faster than you.

 

[Ramble]

I'm still dubious about the merits of a rearward heavy Armament. If you neglect forward firepower, you get a ship that's good at defending itself but an utterly worthless fleet element. Good for something like an oberth, but not for something that might actually need to get into fights.

It's definitely a good idea to make stern chases very exciting indeed for the other poor Bastard, but you need to make sure you can do more than that.

 

[Fouredged Sword]

I'm still dubious about the merits of a rearward heavy Armament. If you neglect forward firepower, you get a ship that's good at defending itself but an utterly worthless fleet element. Good for something like an oberth, but not for something that might actually need to get into fights.

Click to shrink...

In a fleet fight it does a thunderchild and sits in the middle of the furball, but now the enemy parts of the furball have to keep ahead of your rear as you keep flying forward, meanwhile your allies keep ducking behind you to clear any tails they develop.

 

[KNakamura]

Please stop trying to put words in my mouth. I simply argued for a design that leaned toward heavier armament. I did not say anything else.

Secondly why are you still emotionally invested in this debate? The votes on this are over.

Can you please stop overreacting?

Click to shrink...

Unless that was the last ship we'll be discussing armament on, a debate on approaches to firepower still remains valid.

Also:

Better to have that extra firepower and not need it; not every stranger you meet in the cosmos is going to throw a party after coming in contact with you. Some of them are bound to be viciously territorial. Also Wars do not happen at a time of your convenience.

Click to shrink...

(bolding mine)

But with that I'll probably stop, I do not think I am convincing people either way and we are in between ships.

 

[Strunkriidiisk]

It also feels deeply counterintuitive to arm the ship that way and then to deliberately angle our most vulnerable systems (the nacelles, damage to which at best is going to strand the ship) at an opponent, as has been bandied about as a tactic.

 

[Joyful_Overkill]

Unless that was the last ship we'll be discussing armament on, a debate on approaches to firepower still remains valid.

Also:

(bolding mine)

But with that I'll probably stop, I do not think I am convincing people either way and we are in between ships.

Click to shrink...

Fair enough i think we can agree to having different opinions. This i an arguement that can go back and forth for eternity. I am willing to drop it if you are.

 

[KNakamura]

Fair enough i think we can agree to having different opinions. This i an arguement that can go back and forth for eternity. I am willing to drop it if you are.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, I am. Think this would just fill the pages up if we kept going. Thanks for the argument!

 

[Fouredged Sword]

It also feels deeply counterintuitive to arm the ship that way and then to deliberately angle our most vulnerable systems (the nacelles, damage to which at best is going to strand the ship) at an opponent, as has been bandied about as a tactic.

Click to shrink...

Yes, but imagine if we built a ship with this in mind and put the Nacelles out front like it's a giant podracer.

 

[Strunkriidiisk]

Yes, but imagine if we built a ship with this in mind and put the Nacelles out front like it's a giant podracer.

Click to shrink...

...So you want to arm the ship so that its heaviest armament is to the rear. And put the warp drive in the front. And have it manoeuvring in reverse in combat situations so as to keep the primary hull and rear armament blocking the nacelles from enemy fire.

You've basically just done a bunch of complicated gymnastics to come back to the exact same form factor as we were already using, except it inexplicably goes in reverse for warp.

 

[LawsOfRobotics]

So you want to arm the ship so that its heaviest armament is to the rear. And put the warp drive in the front. And have it manoeuvring in reverse in combat situations so as to keep the primary hull and rear armament blocking the nacelles from enemy fire.

Click to shrink...

I don't think he is advocating for manoeuvring in reverse in combat. I think the idea is to keep the enemy behind the ship most of the time, which would still expose the impulse engines, but not the nacelles in this flipped design.

Personally I am not sure the design is a good idea because I don't like the idea of relying on the enemy to keep chasing the ship for optimal engagement. I think there will be lots of situations where you need pursuit capability for decisive engagement with the enemy, which this flipped design is bad at.

Edit: If nothing else having a ship that fights better while running away seems like a bad idea with Klingons for neighbors, that seems like it would make them inclined to attack us as cowards, and be much less eager to fight together against any mutual enemies. I also think it makes sense to optimize the ship to be able to easily maneuver to focus on a priority target in a fleet engagement, and having to flip so the target is behind the ship seems like a bad idea, even if it buys slightly better firing angles in some scenarios.

 

[Fouredged Sword]

...So you want to arm the ship so that its heaviest armament is to the rear. And put the warp drive in the front. And have it manoeuvring in reverse in combat situations so as to keep the primary hull and rear armament blocking the nacelles from enemy fire.

You've basically just done a bunch of complicated gymnastics to come back to the exact same form factor as we were already using, except it inexplicably goes in reverse for warp.

Click to shrink...

It also goes on reverse in sublight. You put the impulse thrusters on what is now the front so you fly nacelles first all the time.

 

[UbeOne]

I'm now waiting for an omake featuring Starfleet designers and tacticians debating about the rear-focused ship idea.

 

[Horologer]

Not quite. You can't avoid crossing passes entirely, but you get a vote. Once you pass the other guy has to come about and chase you (or just leave, but if he is faster he can just do that anyway).

You can ether also turn about and go broadside to broadside while the faster craft tries to get into the aft of the slower OR you DON'T turn and make them have to not just catch but overtake you to change things.

A passing exchange is temporary unless both sides vote to keep doing it. If you vote no the other side has to chase and deal with a parallel exchange. You can keep voting no and turning away and they have to overtake you entirely to change that.

And that just gets them one more passing exchange before they are once again behind you.

They ALWAYS need to cut the larger arc path to get in front of you than you need to turn your front away from them.

Click to shrink...

But they can vote "no" as well: they don't have to chase you. Because you are moving away from them, they can very easily decline further engagement by simply refusing to move or by continuing to burn away from you.

Also, there are cases when it's not possible to continuously move away from the enemy. If you're defending a planet under siege, for instance, the enemy can force you to turn around by simply returning to the planet.