www.ditl.org

Yes, and if you tear out the holodeck and the king-sized quarters there'll be more space to safely store torps and phaser banks. What part of this do you not understand?

Rochey wrote:
Yes, and if you tear out the holodeck and the king-sized quarters there'll be more space to safely store torps and phaser banks. What part of this do you not understand?

Prove it then.

Wow, you're really getting desperate, aren't you?

Larger Federation ships carry more torps than smaller ones. Ergo, the more space available, the more torps it can store.
Simple common sense also proves it, of course. There's nothing to say they can't store more.

In this thing called empty space you can put objects with mass! These objects with mass could be apples, pears, lorries, asteroids, or - heaven forbid - TORPEDO BAYS!

that was a blunder blackstar. More space = More items.

More Torp bays = More torps.

I didn't mean prove they could store more, I meant prove that they could have more to store in the first place. And that it's safe to store such a massive amount of torpedoes in one place.

I didn't mean prove they could store more, I meant prove that they could have more to store in the first place.

What? Are you seriously suggesting the Federation is suffering some sort of torpedo shortage? Gee, how about the fact that every ship we see is always fully stocked with torps?
You're claiming there's a torp shortage: prove it.

And that it's safe to store such a massive amount of torpedoes in one place

Fed ships seem just fine storing hundreds of torps as it is. The fact that we've never heard of torps cooking off inside the hull indicates that they're deactivated and unfuelled until they're fired.

Rochey wrote:

I didn't mean prove they could store more, I meant prove that they could have more to store in the first place.

What? Are you seriously suggesting the Federation is suffering some sort of torpedo shortage? Gee, how about the fact that every ship we see is always fully stocked with torps?
You're claiming there's a torp shortage: prove it.

I never claimed there was a torpedo shortage. And you need to prove that every ship we see is fully stocked.

And that it's safe to store such a massive amount of torpedoes in one place

Fed ships seem just fine storing hundreds of torps as it is. The fact that we've never heard of torps cooking off inside the hull indicates that they're deactivated and unfuelled until they're fired.

So you're saying to fire a torpedo, they need to fuel each one individually before firing it, rather then going with the simplest solution?

I never claimed there was a torpedo shortage

Then what the hell did you mean by:

I didn't mean prove they could store more, I meant prove that they could have more to store in the first place.

And you need to prove that every ship we see is fully stocked.

Wrong, burden of proof is on you. Prove they aren't.

So you're saying to fire a torpedo, they need to fuel each one individually before firing it, rather then going with the simplest solution?

Given that we've never seen or heard of any problems with torps cooking off while the warp core goes screwy every second week, it's a logical assumption that the torps are kept in some inert state.

Rochey wrote:

I never claimed there was a torpedo shortage

Then what the hell did you mean by:

I didn't mean prove they could store more, I meant prove that they could have more to store in the first place.

And you need to prove that every ship we see is fully stocked.

Wrong, burden of proof is on you. Prove they aren't.

Wrong, you're asking me to prove that something isn't there.

[quoteSo you're saying to fire a torpedo, they need to fuel each one individually before firing it, rather then going with the simplest solution?

Given that we've never seen or heard of any problems with torps cooking off while the warp core goes screwy every second week, it's a logical assumption that the torps are kept in some inert state.[/quote]

That doesn't mean they're any safer. If you drop an 'inert' bomb it can still explode.

Wrong, you're asking me to prove that something isn't there.

Incorrect, it's not a negative I'm asking you to prove. I'm asking you to prove something that logicaly makes no sense and differs from the default assumption of Occam's Razor. Provide proof that ships are sent out without full torp complements, or Occam's Razor proves they have full complements.

That doesn't mean they're any safer. If you drop an 'inert' bomb it can still explode

Well whoop-de-fracking-do. The fact remains that whatever method of storage the Federation uses for torps keeps them in a safe state.

It comes down to this; and let's use Graham's indices as a rough guide

The Sovereign of 2370, a luxury battlecruiser, scores 2700
If the Sovereign were a top level battlecruiser of 2370 - a purebreed warship, it would probably score about 3800 [this would entail stronger phasers, only quantum torpedos, and stronger shields]
If the Sovereign were a top level battle cruiser of 2390, it would probably score about 7000

The Defiant of 2370 scores 1550 - and it is a purebreed warship. It is a pocket battleship/destroyer. It has approximately 1/10 of the volume of luxury battlecruiser the Sovereign.
If the Defiant were a pocket battleship of 2390, it would probably score around 3000

A battleship of 2370 - a purebreed warship, should probably score around 5000

The Paladin, a top level battleship of 2390 scores about 4000! That's the same as, I think, as if the Sovereign were fully kitted out as a warship in 2370.
It should be scoring at least 10,000 in 2390, IMO.

fine then. say we go for your 10,000 estimate. heres a synopsis of what happens in the RP Battle.

Meet fleet, battle starts.

Oh dear, the shields are beginning to weaken. Remodulate and compensate!

Shoot enemy. done.

end.


_________

sorry but thats not a good RP. in fact thats crap.

Okay...I think we're getting very off topic here. In an attempt to get back to the important stuff we were talking about, why should the warship be any tougher then what we designed it as? It was built with a well balanced design plan that we all voted on. If you wanted a tougher ship you should've voted for tougher weapons and shields.

*Thorin snip*

Do you have anything to support these estimates other then wild fanboyism guesses?

Reliant121 wrote: sorry but thats not a good RP. in fact thats crap.

That would be pretty horrific, yes. So we don't play it out like that. How many times - we write the RP and make it enjoyable, the RP doesn't make the writers writings enjoyable.