True so lets look at the source of the Ambassador's Reaction and the Comets:
Comet:
- Compact High Performance Pattern Nacelles: 2.4 (20%)
- Response Pattern Deflector: 2.4 (20%)
- Small Annihilation Core (FC): 2.1 (17.5%)
- Impulse Thrusters: 1.9 (15.8%)
- Communications Array: 1.2 (10%)
- Tactical Sensors: 0.8 (6.7%)
- High-Fidelity Sensors: 0.8 (6.7%)
- Secondary SIF Node: 0.4 (3.3%)
Ambassador:
- Large Annihilation Core: 6.4 (48.5%)
- Shuttlebay: 1.7 (12.9%)
- Frontier Pattern Nacelles (CE): 1.2 (9.1%)
- Explorer Pattern Deflector (CE): 1.2 (9.1%)
- Communications Array: 1.2 (9.1%)
- Secondary Deflector Shields: 0.5 (3.8%)
- Secondary Deflector Shields: 0.5 (3.8%)
- Secondary Deflector Shields: 0.5 (3.8%)
Approximate R dedicated to Warp:
Comet: 60.8% of 12 = 7.3
Ambassador: 78.1% of 13 = 10.2
Looking at this distribution I would say that the Comet is a well designed fast ship. It is capable of high speeds both in and out of warp and has quite a significant amount of deflector power which lets it sustain a higher warp speed then almost any other ship in the fleet. The Ambassador meanwhile is capable of significantly higher speeds due to its nigh endless power reserves but it is limited by its less efficient nacelles (designed for long duration and ease of maintenance rather then peak performance) and a weaker deflector relying heavily upon its redundant shielding to endure the flight. The latter isn't as much of a problem as you might think though since if you look at the ships Hull values the Comet at 3 can't really afford to strain its hull less it break apart while the Ambassador at 9 can handle a lot of shaking even if it isn't as pleasant a ride.
Or at least that is how I would translate the stats and components into narrative. These things are of course up to GM discretion.
Last edited:
