Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
I do not consider "Takes up a module" as "FREE" in any way.
Thats honestly the most expensive thing IMHO. Even more than industry.

That is a direct hit on FUNCTIONALITY.
To translate, adding Torpedos is costing a hypothetcial "Supped upengeineering bay modules" which could add a full rank in engineering, in exchange for a few steps on tactical.
 
Dragonlord7012 said:
I do not consider "Takes up a module" as "FREE" in any way.
Thats honestly the most expensive thing IMHO. Even more than industry.

That is a direct hit on FUNCTIONALITY.
To translate, adding Torpedos is costing a hypothetcial "Supped upengeineering bay modules" which could add a full rank in engineering, in exchange for a few steps on tactical.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I'm sure I could spend more time on an argument, but Starfleet explicitly wants this to be a Science/Tactical cruiser, not a Science/Engineering one.
Is it a disingenuous argument, yes, but it boils down to exactly what the argument against torpedoes has become.
 
Honestly, even if it does take up a module slot, this ship is large enough it will likely have more than enough to replace the lost slot in terms of room for equipment, labs, and other modules.
 
I wouldnt say people are necessarily averse to tactical options, 6 phasers is still winning handily.

Admittedly, probably because Sayle seems somewhat averse to giving us weapons in the rear arc without going full bore on total phasers.
 
KleverKil'Vanya said:
I can pretty much guarantee it's not gonna be spent on tactical though, which taking torpedoes if it takes a slot would count as, why is everyone so damn averse to tactical options when we are asked to include them but so okay with them when not asked to, it's bizarre.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It is literally impossible to have a consistent plan for a ship when we vote on it piece by piece, and frankly, most voters don't try, including most of the people making an argument for torpedoes. Even those who might have a vision have to take the crude reality of the voting into account and revise the plan.

That's just the way this quest is going to be based on its vote structure. If things have gone against your vision for the ship, you have to adapt.
 
Roaming_Guardian said:
I wouldnt say people are necessarily averse to tactical options, 6 phasers is still winning handily.

Admittedly, probably because Sayle seems somewhat averse to giving us weapons in the rear arc without going full bore on total phasers.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I wonder if people would have voted for torps if it was one fore and aft, would negate the whole 'muh maneuverability' that was latched onto near the start of this, just frustrating that we are willfully making this ship have a sharply limited lifespan as anything but a rear area patrol ship, it's a heavy cruiser in size but has armaments of a ship 2/3 it's displacement.
 
KleverKil'Vanya said:
I wonder if people would have voted for torps if it was one fore and aft, would negate the whole 'muh maneuverability' that was latched onto near the start of this, just frustrating that we are willfully making this ship have a sharply limited lifespan as anything but a rear area patrol ship, it's a heavy cruiser in size but has armaments of a ship 2/3 it's displacement.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'll say it again, Sayle doesn't like giving us aft facing weapons.
 
[X] 6 Phaser Banks, 2 Forward Torpedo Launchers

This is supposed to be a science ship, science ships always get stuck in negative space wedgies, and one day, it won't be reversing the deflector polarity that gets them out of the wedgie, it will be shooting at it until it goes away. :D
 
KleverKil'Vanya said:
I wonder if people would have voted for torps if it was one fore and aft, would negate the whole 'muh maneuverability' that was latched onto near the start of this, just frustrating that we are willfully making this ship have a sharply limited lifespan as anything but a rear area patrol ship, it's a heavy cruiser in size but has armaments of a ship 2/3 it's displacement.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
400,000t is now considered a light cruiser. The reason a lot of us are actually happy that it's going to be relegated to rear area patrols is because it's supposed to be a science vessel that can do rear area patrols during war. Keeping it from being pressed into front line service is a goal, so that it can spend most of its time doing what we are designing it to do, SCIENCE!
 
Sayle said:
Blame TOS - they aren't a big fan of them up until about TMP.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The TOS Connie does explicitly have a rear torpedo launcher.


View: https://youtu.be/sm63K_tkkFc?

On a tablet so I can't time stamp it but at the end you can literally see it fire rear torpedoes against the Tholian asteroid base. Archer also makes a comment asking if it has aft torpedoes, which is affirmed by Tucker.

I've not watched enough of SNW to comment, but I'd be surprised if it lacks for such weapons there either.
 
Last edited:
Tank man said:
The TOS Connie does explicitly have a rear torpedo launcher.


View: https://youtu.be/sm63K_tkkFc?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


To be fair it explictly didn't have rear armament until that depiction, so it was definitely a retrofit well after the Constitution was launched. On old plans the dome over main shuttlebay is either the aft navigational array or the shuttlebay traffic control room. Given how often the original Constitution switched weapon layouts and types they were probably in dock every other year for an upgrade of one sort or another.

Then again the Enterprise was clearly modelled just as much on a submarine as an age-of-sail ship at that point, what with it having 'a dozen' torpedoes which is entirely in line with a WW2 submarine.
 
Last edited:
Another interesting capability of the Connie from TOS.

Defensive 'screens' as opposed to shields. Which can tank hundreds of hits from it's own photon torpedoes at the cost of being unable to shoot back with them active.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top