Page 15 of 158
Re: Gamma Mission Prep
Posted: Mon Aug 11, 2008 12:36 pm
by Reliant121
as we keep saying, its 10 years not 20.
as far as i know.
Re: Gamma Mission Prep
Posted: Mon Aug 11, 2008 12:38 pm
by Thorin
What's 10 years?
Ahead of the previous mission? Yes - which was, incidentally, a further 10 years ahead of the commisioning of the Sovereign. 10 + 10 = 20
Re: Gamma Mission Prep
Posted: Mon Aug 11, 2008 12:40 pm
by Reliant121
oh fair enough.
Re: Gamma Mission Prep
Posted: Mon Aug 11, 2008 2:13 pm
by Thorin
...So anyone else thinking this battleship is way underpowered? It should be (by the DITL calculator at the very least) stronger than the Scimitar; that gets about 12,000 on the indices, this gets about 4,000 - hardly any more than the Sovereign.
Re: Gamma Mission Prep
Posted: Mon Aug 11, 2008 2:15 pm
by Reliant121
The Scimitar, was in reality alot weaker than most predictions though.
Re: Gamma Mission Prep
Posted: Mon Aug 11, 2008 2:19 pm
by Thorin
Not really my point - my point is that the phaser, shield, and torpedo strengths of the Fed's strongest and only battleship, are hardly any improvement on a ship which is 20 years old exploratory vessel.
Re: Gamma Mission Prep
Posted: Mon Aug 11, 2008 3:42 pm
by Mikey
I think there was a bit of backlash - the point of our design process was to avoid fanboy-ism, and I think that sort of made us shift in the other direction. Also, when Teaos began the project, it wasn't based in a ten-year-later RP... I think it was originally intended to be comtemporary.
Re: Gamma Mission Prep
Posted: Mon Aug 11, 2008 4:15 pm
by Thorin
Mikey wrote:I think there was a bit of backlash - the point of our design process was to avoid fanboy-ism, and I think that sort of made us shift in the other direction. Also, when Teaos began the project, it wasn't based in a ten-year-later RP... I think it was originally intended to be comtemporary.
I think you're completely right about going in the other direction - the percentages, to me seem too big.
I think we should rework it on here; just using the details already made as a guideline on the physical ship (eg; the size, the phaser lance, etc). The numbers themselves should be done on here to fit in line with an original/2390 uprated Sovereign/Akira.
And I also had a thought that perhaps
this could be our model?
Re: Gamma Mission Prep
Posted: Mon Aug 11, 2008 4:56 pm
by Reliant121
one of teaos's posts to come is about hull configuration.
Re: Gamma Mission Prep
Posted: Mon Aug 11, 2008 5:00 pm
by Thorin
Reliant121 wrote:one of teaos's posts to come is about hull configuration.
If it's taking into account so few torpedo launchers (etc) then I don't think we'll be able to use it.
Re: Gamma Mission Prep
Posted: Mon Aug 11, 2008 5:02 pm
by Reliant121
Meh, he told me in one of the torp threads that once the torps are done, we're gonna have a hull config poll/brainstorm.
Re: Gamma Mission Prep
Posted: Mon Aug 11, 2008 9:47 pm
by Mark
Thorin wrote:Is it just me that thinks the battleship that has been made or nearly made is far too weak? Going by the DITL calculator it should be much stronger - it's not anywhere near a match for the Scimitar (a ship 10 years behind the times), and things like its shields, for example, aren't even double the Sovereign's - a ship 20 years old.
The shields 7 million terajoules, are only 1.5 million TJ better than the Sovereign. Personally, as an out and out battleship - and 20 years ahead of the times - I think it should be closer to 15/20 million.
The beam weapons are 200000 TW, only double the Sovereign, and 1/5 of the Scimitar's beams. Personally I'd say a minimum of 750,000
It's torpedo coverage is also pretty poor. Personally I think by now quantum torpedos would be completely standard, and the 20 year old rapid fire would be easily standard on a pure battleship. I'd say 8 rapid fire quantum torpedos.
I don't want to **** on anyone's bonfire, but it's far too weak (especially on the DITL calculator). I think - personally - the only options are to either make up a new battleship, or to basically double/triple all the stats on the one that's already been made.
Good point. Actually, wouldn't burst fire quantums most likely be in use now?
Re: Gamma Mission Prep
Posted: Mon Aug 11, 2008 9:56 pm
by Thorin
Definitely, but the rapid fires are better than the burst fires anyway, though I could see the Akira 5.0 been upgraded to Burst fires rather than the crappy pulse fires. I always found it strange though how the pulse fires take into account the 3 second reload time (on the DITL calculator) but for all the other tubes the reload times aren't taken into account!
Re: Gamma Mission Prep
Posted: Mon Aug 11, 2008 10:04 pm
by Mark
Thorin wrote:Definitely, but the rapid fires are better than the burst fires anyway, though I could see the Akira 5.0 been upgraded to Burst fires rather than the crappy pulse fires. I always found it strange though how the pulse fires take into account the 3 second reload time (on the DITL calculator) but for all the other tubes the reload times aren't taken into account!
Well, according to Grahams calculation the burst fires fire roughly every 2 and a half seconds. How fast do the rapid fires shoot, like four a second or something? A new type 5 quantum burst torpedeo launcher would be able to put three times the number of torpedos in the air than a four a second rapid fire launcher, right?
Re: Gamma Mission Prep
Posted: Mon Aug 11, 2008 10:54 pm
by Thorin
Mark wrote:Thorin wrote:Definitely, but the rapid fires are better than the burst fires anyway, though I could see the Akira 5.0 been upgraded to Burst fires rather than the crappy pulse fires. I always found it strange though how the pulse fires take into account the 3 second reload time (on the DITL calculator) but for all the other tubes the reload times aren't taken into account!
Well, according to Grahams calculation the burst fires fire roughly every 2 and a half seconds. How fast do the rapid fires shoot, like four a second or something? A new type 5 quantum burst torpedeo launcher would be able to put three times the number of torpedos in the air than a four a second rapid fire launcher, right?
I think the fact whether a launcher is quantum or photon isn't relevant. But the rapid fire can deal 4 per second, and perhaps a type 5 burst fire would deal 2.8 per second. The advantage of the burst fire is that they take less room and are less complicated. The advantage of the rapid fire is that they fire more often and are more accurate.
My point was though that Graham has only taken into account the reload times on one type of tube - the pulse fire. I'll have a word