I'm trying to find a method to calculate a ships tactical strength...
But I'm wondering about the capabilities and parameters of Starfleet systems
Here is the equipment template for the Uprated Galaxy Class (aka Bright Star):
Main launcher fore L200C High capacity quantum torpedo launcher Loading cycle: 0.52 s Firing cycle: 0.22 s Maximum chambering: 12 fires T62C Multipurpose quantum torpedo Maximum range: 1.8 x 10^6 km Yield: 50.8 it Size: 2.4 m
Main launcher aft/Saucer launcher aft 2 x L23M Standard photon torpedo launcher Loading cycle: 0.46 s Firing cycle: 0.32 s Maximum chambering: 6 fires T47T Multipurpose photon torpedo Maximum range: 1.6 x 10^6 km Yield: 18.5 it Size: 2.1 m
Shield system D93T High dissipative multi areal shielding Capacity: 6200 PJ Dissipation: 11.2 PW Breakthrough limit: 22.4 PW Regeneration rate: 6.8 PJ/s Areas: 8 Windows: 4
The Phaser section would be longer so I've left it out for now.
Any suggestions for different numbers or parameters?
"Si vis pacem para bellum." Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Riiiight.
What the "fuck" are "PJ", "PW" and "it" anyway? Or did you also make that up?
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
quote:What the "fuck" are "PJ", "PW" and "it" anyway?
Petajoule, petawatt, and isoton. For shame you aren't up on your terminology, Trek Boy. B)
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Indeed. Could we PLEASE try to be nice to the (returning) newbies for a change?
Mark
Posted by Fleet-Admiral Michael T. Colorge (Member # 144) on :
Are you just doing the tactical systems or will be going over all the upgrades made on a Galaxy Class such as Deflector Dish technology, sensor modules and scanning ranges, Warp Propulsion and Impulse Engine outputs, and Communication system replacements?
Also, why have the foward torp launcher be Quantum and the aft torp launcher photon? Wouldn't it make more sense to make both visible launchers Quantum Torpedo Launchers?
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Ahh.. right. Well, on my defense, those SI prefixes are a bit rarer than the others .
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
So, is this just based upon the poster's imagination? Should I be moving the thread to the "Creativity" section?
Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
Well... based upon the many discussions that we've had here and I've had elsewhere... it's crazy to think that torpedo tubes are limited to either photon or quantum. They fire both and can do so in the same volley along with a probe and casket!
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mark Nguyen: Indeed. Could we PLEASE try to be nice to the (returning) newbies for a change?
My lynch mob hates you.
Look, if one's going to make stats up, then one can really do no wrong by consulting sites like DITL.com. It's full of made-up stats, like a septic tank is full of....
*dragged off by angry DITList mob*
Posted by CaptainMaxwell (Member # 932) on :
Of course every quantum launcher can fire photon torpedos too.
Torpedo stock for the uprated Galaxy Class (aka Bright Star) is as follow:
60 quantum torpedos (either T62C or T89A but the latter is only seldom carried by Galaxys) 200 photon torpedos (either T47T or the advanced T53A, T33C and T46K could theoretically be fired from the L23 series but are only seldom used)
It is clear that the quantum stock would be far earlier empty so the L200C can switch to the other for photons. (They can even mix it, a Type IV probe, 4 quantums, 6 photons and a "Spock-in-a-can" coffin can be fired together.)
The TM gives size figures only for the photon (the older T27 series, but the T47 and T53 are of the same size) but none for the quantums. But all this technobabble about a zero-point-field-chamber and fluoronetic steam makes me think the quantum is larger than the photon. So a larger loading chamber, tube, ... for the torpedos would be needed. It would make no sense to me to upgrade every launcher in the fleet for the use of quantums when most of the vessels will never see a quantum in their whole service time. (Only the Sovereign (14 in service), the uprated Galaxy (29), the Prometheus (3) and a few non-canon ships use quantums in the STAR TREK: CONCORDIUM series.)
How often have we seen a Galaxy firing from her aft launcher? Assimilate me if I'm wrong but it must have been less than ten times.
(I have written weapons, shield and warp propulsion data for most Starfleet vessels, maybe tactical sensors and impulse propulsion/maneuvrability will be added late.)
"Si vis pacem para bellum." Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
29 uprated Galaxies?!? 14 Sovvies? What year are you 'in' as it were?
Did the DS9TM have any info about the size of the Q-torps? I know there was a bit about them but can't remember exactly what info was included.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
The graphics suggested they were about the same size as the photon torps, but with a slightly sleeker shape.
Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
The DS9 TM gave dimensions, they were similar and compatible IMO.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Shouldn't this be in the Creative Forum then?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I'm still trying to figure that out. It depends, I suppose, upon what the point of the thread is. And I can't figure that out, either.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Since when do threads have to have a bloomin' point?
Posted by CaptainMaxwell (Member # 932) on :
Of course its creative...
I had to make specs FOR THE CONCORDIUM SERIES and not for the pleasure of the world. I do not force anyone to use or believe my numbers, I just want to know if they're realistic (the specs, not the ship numbers in service).
But I can't get rid of the feeling that my numbers are crap, since you don't like them.
--------------- The numbers are from January, 29th 2381; Starfleet has 1838 officially listed capital ships in 43 ship classes... That is fan fic of course and as stated above I do not force anyone to believe it. Maybe you think of a 7219 ships fleet and only 9 Galaxys (Y unless you want to list them up in the Messier catalogue). ---------------
"Hush! You may wake that Warbird!" - Dedication plaque of U.S.S. Whisperer Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
They would be equally realistic if you multiplied them by 10. Or divided by 3. Because there is no evidence for any of these specs anyway.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
See, that's the problem. We can talk about, say, a potential top speed for ships, because we have other ships to compare to. We can theorise whether the Defiant should be able to outrun a Galaxy, or not. But a dissipation of 11.2 PW for a Galaxy shield system? Pure fantasy. There's nothing to compare it to at all, so there's no way of saying whether they are too high or too low.
One thing, is this Star Trek: Concordium the fan-fic series you are talking about? If so, a friendly word of warning: Please don't make Trek Fanfic Mistake No 1: Spend all your time worrying about pointless tech details at the expense of characters, story, plot, and stuff like that.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Indeed. In fact, tech is absolutely worthless if you don't have a story. The less tech is required, the better the story is.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Okay, now that I know where this belongs, it's on its way.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
.