Fair.. but I am OK with not making dreadnoughts lol
Linked contents
It's called the buddy system. You are hyperfocusing on coverage to the detriment of everything else imo.
Ok, but you are then reliant on double the cost AND double the number of ships to reliably get 50% more damage.
Meanwhile 2 gimballed ships shoot consistently and do double the damage for double the ships.
- Location
- in between
[X] Type-2 Gimballed Cannon
[X] Type-2 Focused Emitter
[X] Type-2 Gimballed Cannon
[X] Type-2 Gimballed Cannon
I wouldn't want them to have 100% coverage for anything except our monster designs but with the cheaper cost I think we could make designs with great overlapping coverage.
I think Gimballed is the best option for our weakest platforms and gives the most flexibility in where we want our damage arcs to be for larger platforms. It also gives a finer slider for industrial costs. I'm a big fan of multiple ships focusing down enemies if there's a fleet action. The Gimballed design supports this letting more ships contribute to the task plus it creates fewer maneuvering restrictions when maintaining fire on a target. This means our ships become harder to hit which is something I like.
I wouldn't want them to have 100% coverage for anything except our monster designs but with the cheaper cost I think we could make designs with great overlapping coverage.
I think Gimballed is the best option for our weakest platforms and gives the most flexibility in where we want our damage arcs to be for larger platforms. It also gives a finer slider for industrial costs. I'm a big fan of multiple ships focusing down enemies if there's a fleet action. The Gimballed design supports this letting more ships contribute to the task plus it creates fewer maneuvering restrictions when maintaining fire on a target. This means our ships become harder to hit which is something I like.
Last edited:
[X] Type-2g Gimballed Cannon
I'm hoping that we can eventually develop proper turrets with this route.
I'm hoping that we can eventually develop proper turrets with this route.
slybrarian
Creature of Fable
- Location
- A Far and Sunless Land
- Pronouns
- He/Him
[X] Type-2 Gimballed Cannon
I'm leaning towards this for the argument about our less combat focused ships getting more benefit.
I'm leaning towards this for the argument about our less combat focused ships getting more benefit.
- Location
- United States
[x] Type-2 Focused Emitter
- Location
- USA
- Pronouns
- She/Her
So one thing that leaps out to me is that the focused mount costs 1.5x as much per gun but only provides half the coverage, meaning that our larger ships are going to need to mount twice as many focused mounts as they would gimballed mounts, making the cost actually 3x as much for only 1.5x as much dps. On the cost basis, I'm going to have to go with gimbals.
[X] Type-2 Gimballed Cannon
[X] Type-2 Gimballed Cannon
Turrets. In Star Trek.
Well, it's nice to know voters here are deeply unserious.
It means nothing of the sort. We're trading off phaser cost for engine cost, and assuming we can always make our ships zippy. That's true, but also: these phasers are just more complex to use and maintain so I guess we're going to eat that cost.
(I also remind people that Star Trek is a single ship type sail-of-line setting, and not a mil sci-fi setting where ships operate in packs.)
Well, it's nice to know voters here are deeply unserious.
It means nothing of the sort. We're trading off phaser cost for engine cost, and assuming we can always make our ships zippy. That's true, but also: these phasers are just more complex to use and maintain so I guess we're going to eat that cost.
(I also remind people that Star Trek is a single ship type sail-of-line setting, and not a mil sci-fi setting where ships operate in packs.)
Enthusiast#117
This is not the Profile you are looking for
- Location
- United States
[X] Type-2 Gimballed Cannon
Cheaper cost means more ships.
More coverage means fewer turrets needed per ship, which means cheaper ships which means more ships.
Cheaper cost means more ships.
More coverage means fewer turrets needed per ship, which means cheaper ships which means more ships.
NHO
Dumb is a state of existence
- Location
- ᓚᘏᗢ
[X] Type-2 Focused Emitter
This thread has an intense paranoia about lack of weapon coverage being deadly, perhaps forgetting that starships are capable of turning. The entire "damage over time" mathematical argument made on the previous pages is reliant on the idea that we can't keep our enemy in our firing arc, which might be true, but is a fairly major an unstated modelling assumption.
The focussed emitter setup was obviously hugely successful in the OTL, given that it produced the Excelsior, Constitution, and other famous classes, so there's no reason to fix what isn't broken.
This thread has an intense paranoia about lack of weapon coverage being deadly, perhaps forgetting that starships are capable of turning. The entire "damage over time" mathematical argument made on the previous pages is reliant on the idea that we can't keep our enemy in our firing arc, which might be true, but is a fairly major an unstated modelling assumption.
The focussed emitter setup was obviously hugely successful in the OTL, given that it produced the Excelsior, Constitution, and other famous classes, so there's no reason to fix what isn't broken.
- Location
- Illinois
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Hm. On the one hand, I think the gimballed cannons look ridiculous, while the turret emitters are far better. On the other, rather hefty hand, the ball turrets are more expensive for less coverage. That's just crippling for any small ship, since we seem committed to mounting phasers in banks. Someone else can work out the math I'm sure, but the industry cost of these banked emitters is going to be very very high if we want anything approaching adequate coverage on our ships. It makes sense for our capital ships and our corvettes, but not frigates or light cruisers.
Unfortunately for all my aesthetic preferences, I have to say:
[X] Type-2 Gimballed Cannon
Unfortunately for all my aesthetic preferences, I have to say:
[X] Type-2 Gimballed Cannon
Sorry. I have a hearing disability that makes it hard to spell because phonetics just don't always work for me.
I our last war we JUST watched a brand new state of the art ship, WITH GREAT MANEUVERABLITY, take significant damage because it couldn't shoot backwards at a smaller, less powerful ship after a nose to nose pass.
Last edited: