Starfleet Design Bureau

Turrets. In Star Trek.

Well, it's nice to know voters here are deeply unserious.
The NX-01 had turrets. As did every single design we built up til the type 1 phaser came out.

DS9 had turrets too.

They are simply a means of mounting a weapon. And right now, voters seem to believe that a turreted cannon is the best option with currently available technology.

Eventually, they, like every other weapons system we have made, will become obsolete and be replaced by new technology with different needs.

And then, we get the Defiant, whose weapons are are fixed coaxial weapons.
 
[X] Type-2 Gimballed Cannon

This is space. Low firing arcs are bad. If the fixed mounts were substantially less expensive on account of fewer moving parts, then it might be worth it, but given they're not only 50% more expensive per mount but something on the order of four times the cost for equivalent coverage?
No, no, and hell no.

Frankly the thing we should be doing is yelling at the power system people to fix whatever the problem is that keeps it limited to only two phasers at a time, because that suggests that either the power grid leaks like a sieve or they've somehow managed to forget about how fusion reactors are a thing. Frankly I almost suggest we should be glueing a dedicated fusion reactor to the phaser mounts anyway, since that would A, increase their ability to keep firing even when the ship is heavily damaged, B, add extra reserve power when the ship needs to escape the latest negative space wedgie, and C, do the same in combat, as power from the arrays that aren't in a position to fire could be routed to, oh, the shields, just for an example.
 
The NX-01 had turrets. As did every single design we built up til the type 1 phaser came out.

DS9 had turrets too.

They are simply a means of mounting a weapon. And right now, voters seem to believe that a turreted cannon is the best option with currently available technology.

Eventually, they, like every other weapons system we have made, will become obsolete and be replaced by new technology with different needs.

And then, we get the Defiant, whose weapons are are fixed coaxial weapons.
Nah bro. We go with gimballed phaser strips. Lift the entire array on a gimballed arm. Have 270 360 degree coverage with a single phaser. Mount 2 of them on a ship on opposite sides and call it a day.
 
Last edited:
The NX-01 had turrets. As did every single design we built up til the type 1 phaser came out.

DS9 had turrets too.

They are simply a means of mounting a weapon. And right now, voters seem to believe that a turreted cannon is the best option with currently available technology.

Eventually, they, like every other weapons system we have made, will become obsolete and be replaced by new technology with different needs.

And then, we get the Defiant, whose weapons are are fixed coaxial weapons.

I expect *stations* to have turrets. I think primitive ships are OK with turrets, but I really do like the elegance of canon design, and this is taking that and *wrecking it*. We won't have strips if we go this route, so excuse me for being mildly upset we're all using bad foundational assumptions to reduce things to abstract numbers ... look. I'm not getting into this. I'm just getting sour at everything and need to stop before I get actually upset because after all, you should vote how you please.

On that note, I guess I'll see people on the next project.
 
Nah bro. We go with gimballed phaser strips. Lift the entire array on a gimballed arm. Have 270 degree coverage with a single phaser. Mount 2 of them on a ship on opposite sides and call it a day.
I mean, the primary advantage of strips is that they get the best of both worlds- higher (and dialable) power per shot and a frankly ridiculous firing arc on account of how the things can shoot at 90° off-bore for the entire arc covered by the strip. While having basically no moving parts at all.
 
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.

This. We went way too far in on burst damage for phasers when they're supposed to be more of the general damage option.

The cost is painful as well, 12 of the focused phasers on the next explorer would be 108 before torpedoes. 💀
 
I expect *stations* to have turrets. I think primitive ships are OK with turrets, but I really do like the elegance of canon design, and this is taking that and *wrecking it*. We won't have strips if we go this route, so excuse me for being mildly upset we're all using bad foundational assumptions to reduce things to abstract numbers ... look. I'm not getting into this. I'm just getting sour at everything and need to stop before I get actually upset because after all, you should vote how you please.

On that note, I guess I'll see people on the next project.
I mean, I see no reason why we wouldn't get phaser strips eventually, and failing that why we wouldn't get something else in their place if we DID lose phaser strips.

I mean, the primary advantage of strips is that they get the best of both worlds- higher (and dialable) power per shot and a frankly ridiculous firing arc on account of how the things can shoot at 90° off-bore for the entire arc covered by the strip. While having basically no moving parts at all.
Yes, but you gimbal it and now you can shoot 90 degrees off bore and can twist your bore through 135 degrees. That's basically able to shoot in any direction save through the ship itself.

And we keep giving our ships a fish theme in that they basically have side flippers.
 
Last edited:
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.
Define less powerful if you please. The Kzinti disruptors hit much harder than our type 1s so I dispute your overgeneralization.
 
Last edited:
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 was saying if we wanted to prioritize shooting the enemy we'd be able to do so while using more of our potential maneuvering envelope. I'm not certain how this could be argued with. In the other direction if you prioritize maneuverability first then gimballed phasers give you more opportunities to deal damage while being evasive.

As far as maintenance and reliability the update sounds like the focused phasers put more strain on their components. Maybe the amount of energy is closer to the limits of the parts so even though they don't move there isn't a significantly reduced operational cost.
 
[X] Type-2 Gimballed Cannon

At the end of the day, what kills the focused option in my eyes is that it's massively overpriced. Had it been 3, or at the very maximum 4, in cost they'd have been great.

But as is, they seem designed to take on entirely different foes than Starfleet will encounter during most of its service life. They're tailor made to bring maximum firepower to bear on average to lower but very tough enemies. Which considering that the Federation has to deal with speed freak cat-people and Klingon Birds of Prey, makes the focused phasers the perfect weapon for the wrong war.
 
Last edited:
And that ship's name? The Hula Dancer.
Actually, I modeled it up and it looks pretty cool. Here is the general idea modeled onto a Sagramatha.

Folded

Unfolded


And note, a phaser array can shoot 90 degrees off bore from any point along the array. The array is on the leading edge of the gimballed saucer wings, and they can rotate and flip front to back. This means each gimballed phaser array actually has a shocking 360 degree fire arc as they can shoot any ship in any direction. They can shoot left or right, front or back, top or bottom without restriction.

And also I just generally like points of articulation on ships. It's cool, and allows for interesting visuals.

Another cool idea? A ship with armor that deploys out over the warp nacelles to shield them during combat.
 
Last edited:
Well, now... this is an interesting path to go down (and already somewhat contentious, I see).

Type-2 PhaserType-1 PhaserType-2 Gimballed CannonType-2 Focused Emitter
Firing Arc (Degrees)10513575
Damage469
Cost346

As has been stated above, there are tradeoffs and advantages to each type of weapon mounting, and there has been discussion over the merits and demerits of each. And while focussed emitters, while expensive, do offer a greater amount of damage, they are the 'default canon' option.

So I'm not exactly voting based on firing angles or damage calculations or potential task fleet doctrines. I'm mainly voting on the gimballed cannons because they're a step away from the path of canonicity, something we've been more than willing to do with our ship hulls thus far. The entire draw of this quest, for me at least, was the 'what if?' aspect of it; the ability for us to take the Federation's design ethos in new and unexpected directions while sticking to some of the signpost design principles. If I wanted to make different versions of canon starships, I'd just go and play with Star Trek Online's ship designer. So:

[X] Type-2 Gimballed Cannon
 
Last edited:
Hmm.

The limitation of "Only two phasers can fire at a time" is a gigantic hassle, it does mean though that "Most things that we can get in the firing arc of one of our phaser banks are going to get Wrecked".

Honestly, the more I look at it, the more these numbers almost seem... How should I put it, backwards?

Like, the Focused Phasers seem to benefit light and middleweight starships more than Big Explorers because they have the ability to better assert their ideal firing arcs, so you can get away with giving a given ship only maybe two phasers and still get surprising fire support--but for a big chonky Explorer, having more Phasers doesn't help because there's only so many you can shoot at once, and you're less able to line up your ideal firing arc, neccessitating a larger number of guns, which makes the costs balloon.

Meanwhile, Gimballed mounts are extremely beneficial to heavy ships because it lets them ensure they can cover any angle of attack adequately with a smaller number of weapons--while each individual salvo does only 66% or so of the damage of the Focused Emitters, it's very difficult to be attacked from an angle that you're not constantly able to shoot at. This is an exceptional option for spammed light starship spam that the Klingons and the Kzinti like to use, but runs into Problems against other capital ships. This also isn't great for lighter ships because they're already in a good position for lining targets up, and they want to resolve tactical engagements in the fewest exchanges possible, before their more limited defenses are breached.

We Do know one thing though. Namely, that Focused Emitters was the canon option, and the Federation ended up winning most of the slugfests it got into. And that eventually, they managed to get wide coverage back anyway by the time of tail end of ToS and into TNG without losing firepower.

EDIT: Come to think of it, that might actually be why the Focused option did so well in the OTL. For all that the focus is on the big chonky Explorers--most of Starfleet are light and middleweight starships, in which point the benefits of Focused Emitters wins out. "If a small ship can only survive being shot at four times then you want to make sure you get as much done in that window as possible. If a big ship can survive being hit thirty times, you still benefit by taking your time and lining up your shots and the other guy won't stay out of your firing arcs forever--if you can explode them in one clean salvo in that opening, you still win."

Gimballed mounts really require agile ships that can either outmaneuver their targets and grind them down over time while limiting their risk from return fire, or greater capacity to fire multiple weapons to compensate for reduced per-shot power with volume. I'm imagining that this will be the tech tree if we decide to go down that paradigm, improving the EPS ability to transfer energy without violently exploding, possibly by exploring the capacitor options so you can steadily charge them and then unload with a scary-ass hail of fire when you can line up multiple arcs in one go? Rather than one or two 460 mm cannons that can fire twice a minute for instance, you're pivoting to four to eight 206 mm cannons that can each fire ten times a minute. As long as it's impossible to achieve Total Invulnerability in this setting, it's mostly an aesthetic and doctrinal choice.
 
Last edited:
Hmm.

The limitation of "Only two phasers can fire at a time" is a gigantic hassle, it does mean though that "Most things that we can get in the firing arc of one of our phaser banks are going to get Wrecked".

Honestly, the more I look at it, the more these numbers almost seem... How should I put it, backwards?

Like, the Focused Phasers seem to benefit light and middleweight starships more than Big Explorers because they have the ability to better assert their ideal firing arcs, so you can get away with giving a given ship only maybe two phasers and still get surprising fire support--but for a big chonky Explorer, having more Phasers doesn't help because there's only so many you can shoot at once, and you're less able to line up your ideal firing arc, neccessitating a larger number of guns, which makes the costs balloon.

Meanwhile, Gimballed mounts are extremely beneficial to heavy ships because it lets them ensure they can cover any angle of attack adequately with a smaller number of weapons--while each individual salvo does only 66% or so of the damage of the Focused Emitters, it's very difficult to be attacked from an angle that you're not constantly able to shoot at. This is an exceptional option for spammed light starship spam that the Klingons and the Kzinti like to use, but runs into Problems against other capital ships. This also isn't great for lighter ships because they're already in a good position for lining targets up, and they want to resolve tactical engagements in the fewest exchanges possible, before their more limited defenses are breached.
For heavy ships you want to solve that problem with photon torpedoes anyway. That's why, I think, a number of people are going for the gimballed mounts. The focused phasors don't do anything photon torpedoes don't already do better - kill things in the forward arc as quickly as possible. Phasors are primarily useful for shooting fast things too close for photon torpedoes to reliably hit.

And I think the phasor restriction is a reactor restriction. A ship only produces enough plasma to power 2 phasors firing at once.
 
Last edited:
We Do know one thing though. Namely, that Focused Emitters was the canon option, and the Federation ended up winning most of the slugfests it got into. And that eventually, they managed to get wide coverage back anyway by the time of tail end of ToS and into TNG without losing firepower.

Of course, there's every chance that, one to two generations from now, if (more likely when looking at votes) gimballed cannons win out, that we see an upgrade in firepower anyway, though retaining some divergent aspects of the gimballed design. Looking at canon in a quest that's about 'what if' to a significant extent feels like a rather slippery slope into 'well? just follow the canon designs and ethos. They worked well enough in canon' (much as I griped about transporters, which is on me).
 
Back
Top