- Location
- USA
Yes. If Starfleet slacks on routine preventative maintenance.
Starfleet. Slacking on maintenance.
Linked contents
Starfleet. Slacking on maintenance.
There are other scenarios you refuse to accept or contemplate.
- Location
- USA
Such as? Like, I see ZERO reason that these guns would be some sort of trap option prone to regular malfunction even under combat conditions.
- Pronouns
- He
[X] Type-2 Focused Emitter
- Pronouns
- He/Him
[x] Type-2 Focused Emitter
- Location
- his hidden lair
[x] Type-2 Focused Emitter
Given the fundamental limitation that we can currently only fire 2 phasers at a time,Focused might not be any cheaper in terms of cost per damage- but it allows us to concentrate firepower in ways that are flat out impossible for the gimbal to do.
And I view designing ships to fight based around a specialized but powerful weapon more interesting than slapping as many of a weaker but more flexible weapon we can get away with and calling it good. It promotes discussion over trade offs and emphasis rather than removes the need for said discussion.
Edit: Besides, Sayle's take is that canon made them work despite relatively weaker engines and using Age of Sail style broadsides- clearly focused emitters can be made to work even on slower ships.
Given the fundamental limitation that we can currently only fire 2 phasers at a time,Focused might not be any cheaper in terms of cost per damage- but it allows us to concentrate firepower in ways that are flat out impossible for the gimbal to do.
And I view designing ships to fight based around a specialized but powerful weapon more interesting than slapping as many of a weaker but more flexible weapon we can get away with and calling it good. It promotes discussion over trade offs and emphasis rather than removes the need for said discussion.
Edit: Besides, Sayle's take is that canon made them work despite relatively weaker engines and using Age of Sail style broadsides- clearly focused emitters can be made to work even on slower ships.
Last edited:
- Location
- USA
Do we not already have that in the form of the various torpedo launchers?
- Location
- Earth
[X] Type-2 Focused Emitter
Night_stalker
Slava Ukraini!
- Pronouns
- He/Him
[x] Type-2 Focused Emitter
0t4n1z3r019
Member of the HAFPTG
- Location
- Philippines
[X] Type-2 Gimballed Cannon
[X] Type-2 Focused Emitter
[X] Type-2 Gimballed Cannon
So we never put 1 phasor into ship. We put in the range of like 4-8.
Lets say a random Klingon attacks from stealth, and have 8 phasors in a circle.
We get 1 volly. 135* / 360*. = 37% chance of coverage. 3 Phasors will be abble to attack, for avg 18 damage total. (6 each)
On the other end;
1 volly 75*/360* = 1.66666 will be able to attack, for avg 15 damage (9 each)
And that is a largely 2D example. Space is very 3-Dimensional. That 75* isn't a flat arc, its CONES. Relatively Narrow one in terms of angles of attack. A gun is only valuable if you can hit with it, no matter how much damage it does.
So we never put 1 phasor into ship. We put in the range of like 4-8.
Lets say a random Klingon attacks from stealth, and have 8 phasors in a circle.
We get 1 volly. 135* / 360*. = 37% chance of coverage. 3 Phasors will be abble to attack, for avg 18 damage total. (6 each)
On the other end;
1 volly 75*/360* = 1.66666 will be able to attack, for avg 15 damage (9 each)
And that is a largely 2D example. Space is very 3-Dimensional. That 75* isn't a flat arc, its CONES. Relatively Narrow one in terms of angles of attack. A gun is only valuable if you can hit with it, no matter how much damage it does.
Last edited:
Your math has the error of forgetting only 2 phasers can be fired at a time.
StriderInCosmos
Wanderer in the Worldsea
- Location
- Somewhere in... Terminal Dogma? I think?
I mean my math also ignores that the cones of the focused means that it would probably be best to never have the cones overlap in all but the most agressive ships, and even then it means its relatively easy to avoid said cones.
Focused arrays mean we would need to stop designing big chonkers because we absolutely must have manuverabilty if we want to be able to point our narro-band weapons at anything. It would be like adding a multitude of blind spots to every ship where the enemy can lurk and simply not get hit.
Edit: My instinct says 2phasor limit is temporary, as we can improve the technology of both power and output. But arcs of fire is a structural issue. Yes the narrow band would probably shoot a lot harder, but again, you have to be able to hit.
Edit 2: The fact they cost a lot less, doesn't hurt either.
Last edited:
2/3rds as much as a focused emitter. The damage to cost ratio is proportional between the two.
Two things.
First, you can only fire 2 phasors at a time. You never get more than 12 damage from a gimballed
Second you don't have a variable chance that a ship coming out of cloak will have a phaser pointed at it. A ship coming out of cloak chooses the angle of attack. If there is an angle that doesn't have a phaser pointed at it the ship will 100% come out of cloak without a phaser pointed at it.
I have suggested that the number of phasers you can fire at once be linked to ship size. Bigger ships should, by all sense, have bigger antimatter reactors capable of powering more phasors at once.
It would give bid dreadnaughts with 100% coverage more of a purpose as opposed to limiting ourselves to cruisers who have the same firepower but an easier time putting photon torpedoes on target.
It also gives an interesting design decision in dreadnaughts to ether focus on overlapping fields of 4 phasers or to get 100% coverage with fewer phasers per arc but be able to shoot at multiple targets if in a furball.
Last edited: