www.ditl.org

You only wish little man, you only wish. The fact that we agree only means not only do you lose but you lose big time.

Indeed. with Deepcrush AND Seafort on the same side is NOT good for you. You have already lost my friend.

Deepcrush wrote:You only wish little man, you only wish. The fact that we agree only means not only do you lose but you lose big time.

Oh pa leese. The Klingons have made an interstellar armada out of stuffing more and more things into cramped hulls. Now here you come and say that its beyond the collective resources of the United Federation of Planets to refit the Ambassador Class Starship by removing the 2 forward firing Type 1 Burst fire torpedoe launchers and installing 4 Type 3 Burst fire torpedoe launchers and of course squeezing 2 pulse fire torpedoe launchers for rear defense, why that just down right insane! Many a technician and a grinding of teath will happen before such complete and total absurdity as those extra launchers into a 526m x 320m x 125m frame will ever happen.


About the only thing that really boggles my mind is that the Lakota outways the Ambassador by 145,000 metric tons.

That and after increasing the Excelsiors combat capabilities by 300% and dubbing it the Lakota refit, people insist on still reffering to it as a 100 year old design. I still maintain that if it had its original equpiment, or even its regular refits, fine, its a 100 year old design. But when you completely gut something out and practically build a new ship into it, what other then the original framework on that thing is 100 years old?? Your marvelling at its modern state of the art equipment beating another ship full of modern state of the art equipment. Or more acurately, the two ending in a draw. Wow, what a shocker that wasn't. Way to go you 100 year old design full of the latest state of the art equipment. Did your anscestors proud, even if they almost have nothing left the same as yourself other then they look alike. yeah for that victory.


Did I mention the lack of sleep already??

Reliant121 wrote:Indeed. with Deepcrush AND Seafort on the same side is NOT good for you. You have already lost my friend.

That's assuming that this is some sort of p*ssing contest.

I don't see anything less reasonable about refitting an Ambassador than cramming a bunch of weapons on an Excelsior, other than the low number of available spaceframes for the former.

Tsukiyumi wrote:

Reliant121 wrote:Indeed. with Deepcrush AND Seafort on the same side is NOT good for you. You have already lost my friend.

That's assuming that this is some sort of p*ssing contest.

I don't see anything less reasonable about refitting an Ambassador than cramming a bunch of weapons on an Excelsior, other than the low number of available spaceframes for the former.

An ally an ally!! Well, maybe not, but atleast he doesn't completely disagree with the feazability of what I want to do with the Ambassador.

So i'm chalking that up as a victory. Yeah me ... and yeah Tsukiyumi too!!

ultron2099 wrote:

Tsukiyumi wrote:

Reliant121 wrote:Indeed. with Deepcrush AND Seafort on the same side is NOT good for you. You have already lost my friend.

That's assuming that this is some sort of p*ssing contest.

I don't see anything less reasonable about refitting an Ambassador than cramming a bunch of weapons on an Excelsior, other than the low number of available spaceframes for the former.

An ally an ally!! Well, maybe not, but atleast he doesn't completely disagree with the feazability of what I want to do with the Ambassador.

So i'm chalking that up as a victory. Yeah me ... and yeah Tsukiyumi too!!

Hell, they slapped several additional photon launchers onto the Sovereign pre-Nemesis. I see no reason why external bolt-on kits like that couldn't be used on an Ambassador. Though, I'd imagine the mechanisms for the Type-3 burst fire tubes would be considerably larger than the Ambassador's original Type-1, though pulse-fire tubes might fit without removing the entire front of the engineering section.

There's nothing unreasonable about refitting any ship with upgraded systems - the real question is: would it be an effective use of resources?

Dude, you have to understand spacing. The PTLs on the Ambassador just like any other ship take up space. Stop trying to add more. Upgrade what you have. Do the math with the PTLs she already has and upgrade them to rapid fire QTLs. You might like that a lot more anyhow.

Tsukiyumi wrote:
Hell, they slapped several additional photon launchers onto the Sovereign pre-Nemesis. I see no reason why external bolt-on kits like that couldn't be used on an Ambassador. Though, I'd imagine the mechanisms for the Type-3 burst fire tubes would be considerably larger than the Ambassador's original Type-1, though pulse-fire tubes might fit without removing the entire front of the engineering section.

Yeah but what's the magazine capacity of these tubes? We know that a magazine would take up extensive space and there's only so many ways you can arrange it to create more. And your most likely correct about the newer launchers taking up more space, more complicated (and first generation) kit usually takes up more space. Look at the Enterprise orginally having eight reactors compared to the Nimitz having two.

There's nothing unreasonable about refitting any ship with upgraded systems - the real question is: would it be an effective use of resources?

Either SF has so much material that it cost very little to upgrade a 100 year old ship or their desperate. Remember the Lakota didn't far very well against Defiant (though I'm sure some of that is act of plot), so it wasn't really that great of a use of material. Perhaps it was a demonstrator?

Cpl Kendall wrote:Yeah but what's the magazine capacity of these tubes? We know that a magazine would take up extensive space and there's only so many ways you can arrange it to create more.

If the Ambassador really didn't have rear-facing tubes (I don't remember whether you can tell on the model or not), even two standard tube bolt-on launchers with 10 or 20 torps would be better than nothing for covering the aft.

Cpl Kendall wrote:And your most likely correct about the newer launchers taking up more space, more complicated (and first generation) kit usually takes up more space. Look at the Enterprise orginally having eight reactors compared to the Nimitz having two.

By that logic, though, the Type-3 launchers, being more advanced, are likely smaller rather than larger. I don't buy that, personally, but the Sovereign supposedly has what? Four Type-4 launchers, plus a rapid-fire Quantum tube? It's about 40 meters smaller vertically, but they still crammed all that in (plus four more standard launchers pre-NEM).

Cpl Kendall wrote:Either SF has so much material that it cost very little to upgrade a 100 year old ship or their desperate. Remember the Lakota didn't far very well against Defiant (though I'm sure some of that is act of plot), so it wasn't really that great of a use of material. Perhaps it was a demonstrator?

I always assumed it was just a demonstrator to show how much they could upgrade an old ship. A GCS with an equivalent upgrade would be near to a Sovereign in power.

Tsukiyumi wrote: If the Ambassador really didn't have rear-facing tubes (I don't remember whether you can tell on the model or not), even two standard tube bolt-on launchers with 10 or 20 torps would be better than nothing for covering the aft.

True but now your talking about a bolt on with near the capacity of the pre-refit Connie.

I can't remember if the Ambassador had rear tubes either, or if we even saw the rear end at all.

Cpl Kendall wrote: By that logic, though, the Type-3 launchers, being more advanced, are likely smaller rather than larger. I don't buy that, personally, but the Sovereign supposedly has what? Four Type-4 launchers, plus a rapid-fire Quantum tube? It's about 40 meters smaller vertically, but they still crammed all that in (plus four more standard launchers pre-NEM).

At least the QT launcher is located in a bulge under the saucer. I thought we were talking about type 1 launchers and type three was a burst fire, at any rate that's a lot of kit to shoehorn into a ship. I suppose we could reconcile it as the E-E having less crap in there. LIke smaller quarters etc.

I always assumed it was just a demonstrator to show how much they could upgrade an old ship. A GCS with an equivalent upgrade would be near to a Sovereign in power.

That's how I rationilise it.

The under hull of the Ambassador is very close the the GCS so there is no reason why she wouldn't have an aft PTL. 20 PTs won't help you to much either. If you build the ship and you want to add fire power you should look to replacing her Phasers as Ultron did and look to upgrade her TLs. Don't add more when thats only going to take up more room and cost you ammo. Phasers seem easily added as the Lakota showed us but the TLs are another story.With everything Lakota did they didn't add extra TLs on to her but instead upgraded what was already there. There must be and IU reason to this. Ammo or that the kits would or could cause problems for the hull or engines or shields or anything else.

Yeah what about the Soveriegn Deepcrush and Sea dude. You going to tell me that with a ship as state of the art and advanced as the Soveriegn that it makes perfect sense they stuffed another 4 torpedoe tubes and added 4 more type xii phaser arrays to that ship and yet adding torpedoes tubes to the ambassador is completely insane??? heck, they even jacked up the shield strength on that thing. so lay out again why i can't have my modifications to the ambassador when both the lakota and the sovereign had there hulls stuffed full of more.





As for the reason the lakota didnt get extra tropedoe launchers, it was because she was designed to take on the defiant which was a close in attack weapon, torpedoes require some space to maneuver. they upgraded the existing torpedoe systems and then crammed the ship with more phaser banks because it would be easier to hit a defiant swarming all over you with phasers rather then with torpedoes.

Yeah what about the Soveriegn Deepcrush and Sea dude. You going to tell me that with a ship as state of the art and advanced as the Soveriegn that it makes perfect sense they stuffed another 4 torpedoe tubes and added 4 more type xii phaser arrays to that ship and yet adding torpedoes tubes to the ambassador is completely insane??? heck, they even jacked up the shield strength on that thing. so lay out again why i can't have my modifications to the ambassador when both the lakota and the sovereign had there hulls stuffed full of more.

This is one of those annoying things about cannon. But, the problem with cannon is it isn't up to us to say if makes sense or not. Our place is to find a reason to make it make sense. The Sov was upgraded but may have been built with such a thing in mind. We don't know and so we can only guess. If the Ambassador is so easy to upgrade why did they need to build the GCS? Again its a weird thing but its also cannon.

As for the reason the lakota didnt get extra tropedoe launchers, it was because she was designed to take on the defiant which was a close in attack weapon, torpedoes require some space to maneuver. they upgraded the existing torpedoe systems and then crammed the ship with more phaser banks because it would be easier to hit a defiant swarming all over you with phasers rather then with torpedoes.

That may be a possible reason but unlikely. The last thing I would want to do would be to fight the Defiant up close. I would rather use PTs or QTs at long range to beat her down. Phasers also don't need ammo, just power. Stacking a bunch of phasers is meaningless as you can't say that all of them can fire at the same time. Like I've said before, its about fire arcs and protection. If you want to add PTLs then you have to take something away. What is it that you are willing to lose?

ultron2099 wrote:Yeah what about the Soveriegn Deepcrush and Sea dude. You going to tell me that with a ship as state of the art and advanced as the Soveriegn that it makes perfect sense they stuffed another 4 torpedoe tubes and added 4 more type xii phaser arrays to that ship and yet adding torpedoes tubes to the ambassador is completely insane??? heck, they even jacked up the shield strength on that thing. so lay out again why i can't have my modifications to the ambassador when both the lakota and the sovereign had there hulls stuffed full of more.

There's quite a bit off difference between shoving in TL's (which take up alot of space) and swapping out emmiters and upgrading the powerlines to those emitters. I imagine the reactor would have to be swapped out as well but SF ships certainly aren't laking in space for those, what with the cathedral of an engine comparment that they have.

As for the reason the lakota didnt get extra tropedoe launchers, it was because she was designed to take on the defiant which was a close in attack weapon, torpedoes require some space to maneuver. they upgraded the existing torpedoe systems and then crammed the ship with more phaser banks because it would be easier to hit a defiant swarming all over you with phasers rather then with torpedoes.

Wait, are you seriously suggesting that Lakota was planned and upgraded with the express purpose of engaging Defiant? Did Admiral whatshisname possess precognative powers? And if he was going to do that why not upgrade a newer design, you know one with a better chance of not getting destroyed.

As for the reason the lakota didnt get extra tropedoe launchers, it was because she was designed to take on the defiant which was a close in attack weapon, torpedoes require some space to maneuver. they upgraded the existing torpedoe systems and then crammed the ship with more phaser banks because it would be easier to hit a defiant swarming all over you with phasers rather then with torpedoes.

Wait, are you seriously suggesting that Lakota was planned and upgraded with the express purpose of engaging Defiant? Did Admiral whatshisname possess precognative powers? And if he was going to do that why not upgrade a newer design, you know one with a better chance of not getting destroyed.[/quote]



He's was an admiral and in charge of earth defenses, but he wasn't a god. He knew what he was doing, he knew the likelyhood that his long standing friend sisko would appose it, and that the most powerful weapon in sisko's arsenal of tricks is worf aboard the defiant. he conned the council and the admiralty into upgrading the excelsior class to the lakota because there were hundreds of excelsiors and the admiralty could be fooled into believing the lakota was a testbed upgrade for the rest of the excelsior fleet to bring starfleet's collective firepower up a notch in preperation for war with the dominion.


As for the soveriegn upgrade, it was originally designed with the borg in mind. the upgrades that later came up work a hindsite given to the dominion threat and most likely were not a planned overhaul. I mean come on, they added 5 standard type torpedoe launchers. if they were seriously planning for a topredoe tube upgrade in the future it would been with pulse fire or type 3 or type 4 burst fire in mind. you do not plan to upgrade your latest weapon of war in the future by strapping on something as ancient as a torpedoe system some 100s of years old. thats not just stupid its insane.