Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
DarknessSmiles said:
so one big thing that does not seem to be covered in the stats is the size of the emplacements.

each of the gimablled emitters is 10 meters long. the sagarmatha is 227 meters long total. including nacelles. the Selachii is only 127 meters long.

these things are huge. we will not be able to mount a significant number of them on ships without major compromises on other systems.

there is also a major question of what they lead to for Phasers V3 and onwards. The focused ones still seem to lead towards phaser strips ala TNG. but the gimballed emitters seem to be on a completely new path.

while the focused emitters definitely have some issues, i think they are the better choice between their damage output and durability
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Quite to the contrary, it means our ships get a distinctive look that makes for cool models with unique non-canon appearances.

pheonix89 said:
4 edged sword makes a good point about rolling for vertical coverage.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's still double the cost for 50% more damage, but now you have a considerable cavate in your coverage. Sure, it is practically impossible to avoid your fire entirely, but you have whole sections of the battlespace you cannot shoot into at all and there is nothing you can do about it but pick and choose where those dead spots are.
 
Last edited:
[X] Type-2 Gimballed Cannon

See My Earlier Points for my reasoning these phasers are not just meant for pure combat focused vessels, but also the non combat focused ones that would need decent coverage for the price
 
Helher said:
[X] Type-2 Gimballed Cannon

See My Earlier Points for my reasoning these phasers are not just meant for pure combat focused vessels, but also the non combat focused ones that would need decent coverage for the price
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah, it becomes a real option for civilian ships to simply slap a phasor on the bow and aft and get damned close to 100% coverage. Sure, you have a slice along your belly band you can't shoot into, but you are a civilian ship. Your response to damager is to ether shoot it and run or run and shoot it.
 
Excellent point. Focused emitters ROYALLY fuck over secondline vessels. Not only are the handful of phasors you are allotted more expensive giving you even less of them, but the few you get are going to leave massive blind spots that anything marginally faster will exploit viciously.
 
[x] Type-2 Focused Emitter
Only takes five of 'em to cover a 360 degree arc. If it's small it can put the nose on 'em, if it's big it can afford to fit more.
 
I feel vaguely the arguments for gimbal overstate for another reason: if there are no trap options both must equally work within reason for ship design.

But tbh, I like how canon phasers look and want to focus design down that path.
 
KNakamura said:
I feel vaguely the arguments for gimbal overstate for another reason: if there are no trap options both must equally work within reason for ship design.

But tbh, I like how canon phasers look and want to focus design down that path.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Oh, you can make focused phasors work. They just do 50% more at double the cost and create a problem for big ships in that they have to roll to bring targets to bare.

But that's an entirely workable set of problems for phasors that deal 50% more damage.

Gimballed phasors make a cruiser/dreadnaught fleet attractive. Focused phasors make a frigate/cruiser fleet attractive.
 
Last edited:
Roaming_Guardian said:
Excellent point. Focused emitters ROYALLY fuck over secondline vessels. Not only are the handful of phasors you are allotted more expensive giving you even less of them, but the few you get are going to leave massive blind spots that anything marginally faster will exploit viciously.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Secondline vessels would be on the backfoot already due to their nature of being behind the tech curve of the likely opposition. Gimballed cannons won't save them.
 
Focused was the canon design choice, which ended up with ships like the Constitution having very solid but very distinct firing arcs forward, port, and starboard. Very heavy punches in those directions, but very much that sailing ship vibe of getting broadside. And that was the refit! My suspicion is that engine technology in TOS/TMP lagged behind mass and resulted in a more stately maneuvering style. The TOS Connie seems to have primarily stuck for forward/aft phasers and just rolled with it.

The Excelsior seems to have been the apex of focused phasers, with 5(!) banks of two on each saucer surface. Very punchy in the forward arcs. In fact I'd guess that the Type-3/4s they were using (the Type-3 would probably be a refinement of the TOS phasers linked into dual banks) were probably down to something like a 45 degree arc.

As for the gimbals, the inspiration for those was this:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4mlY5eeWyQ

Something of a path-less-travelled. Lower damage, more adaptable.

Focused would be more like this, just with blue beams.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXzoIqnOdwQ
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top