www.ditl.org

Fair enough but isn't 6 low grade launchers a bit much? Since you're not using much space you should think about an upgrade to the type 4s.

I covered that with the second part of my original answer - older launchers are more likely to have the inevitable bugs worked out of them. There's a good RL example of this - when the Nelson-class battleships were first commissioned in the early 20s, their main armament was notoriously complex and unreliable. By the time the war started, most of the problems had been ironed out, with the result that HMS Rodney inflicted most of the damage during the Bismarck's last fight, while HMS King George V, which had been in service less than a year, never managed to get her entire main armament into action, due to mechanical problems.

Did E-D ever have trouble with it PTLs? Those always seemed to work just fine. I can understand your point about the Rapid Fires but the type 4's have been around for about 40 years at this point. By then the kinks have been worked out.

This is the last major thing we are adding to our ship. Anything else we add will just be us expanding on other things as I pointed out in the internal volume run down.

I'll do what I did for the Beam weapons and throw up another poll when this one is sorted with the different configurations.

In that case, I'm changing to 20%, replicator, and the extra 1% for 200 extra QT's on my configuration #1.

a) 2x rapid fire tubes, 4x type 3 tubes, and an 800 torp stock

If I'm getting this correctly, I'm saying 20% volume, and replicator, broken down as follows:

3 rapid-fire tubes, all forward. (12%)

2 type-four tubes, one forward, one aft. (4%)

Then the replicator takes 2%, and 800 torpedoes would fill the remainder, plus two percent.

We would then have 5% of the total volume remaining for other considerations like living standards, etc.

Didn't Teaos say that the speed could be added to with extra warp core size? We need a little wiggle room here at the end, IMO.

DAMN!

Someone put down a heavier loadout then me!

What? Who?

You dumb ass! I only put 3 RFQTLs and you put 3 RFQTLs plus type 4s to boot.

Deepcrush wrote:You dumb ass! I only put 3 RFQTLs and you put 3 RFQTLs plus type 4s to boot.

Okay, I'll admit, I baited you into that insult on purpose.

I just wanted to make sure I didn't miss someone else creating a heavier config earlier (I didn't want to re-read the whole thread).

On a side note, that config could theoretically run out of all 800 torpedoes in about 48 seconds.

I went for a 20% internal volume.

- 2 x Rapid fire QT = 8%
[both forward facing]

- 2 X pulse fire PT/QT = 5%
[Both aft facing]

- 2 Type 3 burst fire PT = 3%
[one aft, one forward]

- 2 x 200 Torpedo stocks (400 torps) = 2%

- 1 PT regenation system = 2%

__________
20%

I think i could have been a little shy with the Torpede stocks, but i can alter that later if necessary.

On a side note, that config could theoretically run out of all 800 torpedoes in about 48 seconds.

If something survives that our ship deserves to die.

If we take the replicator we dont really need that much torpedo stock. Just enough for the QT's and a little room for PT stock.

Kinda the aim of my spec. if we reserve 50 for PT's which are constantly regenerating, then 350 for the QT's then we got a pretty good compliment.

On a side note, that config could theoretically run out of all 800 torpedoes in about 48 seconds.

Feel the ownage!

Rochey wrote:

On a side note, that config could theoretically run out of all 800 torpedoes in about 48 seconds.

Feel the ownage!

Hey, I didn't make the numbers, I just did the math. IMO, it's a good argument for having at least 800 torps. I was actually thinking of going for a nice, even 1,000. Which would run out in just under a minute.

Die, enemy fleet, die!