Adding a third nacell?

[Jordanis]

Going backwards and getting more basic, I think that many of us are unconvinced that this is the case. As each section seems more than likely in possession of its own core, the reduction in power upon separation (if any!) would be MUCH less than arithmetical division.

Then you could leave the three warp cores alone in the solid Prometheus and then it could match the MVAM's power output. I'm not convinced this is the case, since otherwise I would expect to see more multi-core ships, but, fine. Shoehorn three cores into the solid Prometheus (or two more efficient ones, since the saucer one appears to be Defiant-style, or indeed, leave the warp core placement completely alone while you rub out the attachment points and move weapons), have the same energy output plus the aforementioned advantages of a larger solid ship.

And while firing from multiple quadrants may not help overload shields in one area, it eliminates the usefulness of many evasive maneuvers; it disallows the possibility of shunting shield power from one section to another;

I'll give you this. It definitely makes shield section management harder.

it forces the bogey to split its fire a/o ignore two targets. Very useful things indeed.

This I will not give you. I think the reasons that ignoring two targets is the strategy of choice have been amply discussed previously in this thread.

[Mikey]

This I will not give you. I think the reasons that ignoring two targets is the strategy of choice have been amply discussed previously in this thread.

Perhaps. But the fact remains that those two targets which you ignore can still fire on you.

[Jordanis]

This I will not give you. I think the reasons that ignoring two targets is the strategy of choice have been amply discussed previously in this thread.

Perhaps. But the fact remains that those two targets which you ignore can still fire on you.

And? It's not like they're doing more damage than a comparably armed single ship would. Possibly less, given burn-through.

[Mikey]

But if you're ignoring those two and concentrating on one, those two can continue to fire from their comfort zone for a longer period.

[Captain Seafort]

It might be worth looking at a RL example of this situation (that is, three weaker ships attacking a strong one) - the Battle of the River Plate, on the 13th December 1939.

The German Graf Spee (6 11-inch guns) was engaged by HMS Ajax (8 6-inch guns), HMNZS Achilles (same) and HMS Exeter (6 8-inch guns). Exeter attacked from one direction while the other two attacked from another, attempting to split Graf Spee's fire. They failed - Graf Spee concentrated on Exeter and put her out of action in about 35 minutes. Graf Spee in turn suffered damage from both Exeter and the smaller ships, but her combat effectiveness was not affected, and she was still a potent threat when she put in to Montevideo harbour that night.

Graf Spee was later scuttled in the Plate Estury when tricked by false British signals into believing that the battlecruiser HMS Renown (6 15-inch guns) and the aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal were waiting for her over the horizon, whereas in fact there were only Ajax, Achilles, and HMS Cumberland (8 8-inch guns). Renown and Ark Royal were in fact over a thousand miles away at the time.

Conclusion: the answer to a powerful ship is an even more powerful ship, not a group of weaker ones.

[mlsnoopy]

As each section seems more than likely in possession of its own core, the reduction in power upon separation (if any!) would be MUCH less than arithmetical division

Yes that still means that a solid Prometheus has 3 times more power at its disposal. 3 times more power for shilds weapons engines.

it disallows the possibility of shunting shield power from one section to another; it forces the bogey to split its fire a/o ignore two targets

I have 3 times more powerfull shilds, and can use whole weapons cover, I attack the part that is in fron with foward facing wepons the part that is behind me with back facing weapons, ..... The weapons are 3 times more powerfull and the shilds that they are firing at are 3 times less powerfull,
and when one section is destroyed you lose 1/3 of your firepower.

[Mikey]

Seafort is correct, although the German pocket battleship barely limped into Montevideo and was scuttled there because Montevideo wished to remain neutral rather than effect repairs for the Germans, and the German ship wouldn't survive one more encounter with ANYTHING. We're also talking about three cruisers vs. a pocket battleship, a heretofore unknown type. The prommie example would be more akin to three light cruisers v. a heavy cruiser.

As far as

Yes that still means that a solid Prometheus has 3 times more power at its disposal. 3 times more power for shilds weapons engines.

I have already mentioned that the reduction in power going into MVAM will be less than an arithmetical reduction; the inverse also applies, in that combining the vectors will give MUCH less than an arithmetical increase in available power. And, as Ian Kennedy already pointed out, a particular component's max power capacity is a constant, no matter how much extra available power remains in the warp core.

[mlsnoopy]

no matter how much extra available power remains in the warp core

You can power more weapons, put more power to shilds.
Remember the line all avalible power to shilds.

[Mikey]

Sure, once they're critically low. However, a shield emitter rated for x cannot be powered to x PLUS a positive number.

[mlsnoopy]

However, a shield emitter rated for x cannot be powered to x PLUS a positive number

True but you can put a shield emitter that is rated for 3x, and have enough power to run it, when you can only put an emitter rated for x into a single section.

[Captain Seafort]

Seafort is correct, although the German pocket battleship barely limped into Montevideo and was scuttled there because Montevideo wished to remain neutral rather than effect repairs for the Germans, and the German ship wouldn't survive one more encounter with ANYTHING. We're also talking about three cruisers vs. a pocket battleship, a heretofore unknown type. The prommie example would be more akin to three light cruisers v. a heavy cruiser.

The Panzerschiff were heavy cruisers not battleships, pocket or otherwise. They were well armed and armoured for the time, but they were smaller than even some late-war light cruisers. Displacement of Ajax and Achilles was 7000 tons, and Exeter was around 8400 - combined total 22,400 tons versus 12000. If anything, compared to a single Prommie versus it's separated components, the River Plate was biased in favour of the lighter ships.

As for the battle itself, Graf Spee suffered only superficial damage, and by the end was in a better state than the allied squadron - Exeter was a wreck, and both Ajax and Achilles were both damaged and short of ammunition. An all-out fight to the finish in those circumstances would have left Graf Spee the victor.