Ship nits on main site

Discuss the site here - suggestions, comments, complaints, etc.

Re: Ship nits on main site

Postby IanKennedy » Sun Jul 05, 2009 3:03 pm

Teaos wrote:
This allowed both reactor and fuel to be removed fromdividual platforms, making them significantly smaller. This in turn allows a more compact field geometry, which increases the effectiveness of the shields. Building one large reactor is also considerably more efficient than many small ones of equal overall output.




From Here.

fixed...
email, ergo spam
User avatar
IanKennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4260
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 1:28 pm
Location: Oxford, UK

Re: Ship nits on main site

Postby Sionnach Glic » Mon Jul 06, 2009 4:06 pm

I seem to be unusualy busy today. Well, no complaints from me.

MM&I's posts moved to the Testing Please thread.
"You've all been selected for this mission because you each have a special skill. Professor Hawking, John Leslie, Phil Neville, the Wu-Tang Clan, Usher, the Sugar Puffs Monster and Daniel Day-Lewis! Welcome to Operation MindFuck!"
User avatar
Sionnach Glic
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 26014
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 9:58 pm
Location: Poblacht na hÉireann, Baile Átha Cliath

Re: Ship nits on main site

Postby Coalition » Sat Jul 11, 2009 3:18 am

Couple questions about the Dominion Battlecruiser and Battleship.

The Battlecruiser is listed as having 2500 crew and 4,215,000 tons of mass. Multiplying the dimensions gives a rectangular volume of roughly 70 million cubic meters.

The Battleship is listed as having 1200 crew, 20,000 troops, and 18,200,000 tons of mass. Multiplying the dimensions gives a rectangular volume of roughly 435.3 million cubic meters.

My questions:
Does the Battlecruiser's crew include ground troops, and if so, what fraction is necessary for operating the ship? If the BC crew is literally the amount needed to run the ship, then how does the larger battleship get away with needing about half the crew?

The Battleship is 4.3 times more massive than the BC, but 6.2 times as much volume. Most ships as they get larger will have to compact the design, due to structural limitations.


My suggestions:
Keep the BattleCruiser page as it is, due to the TM.

Change the Battleship page to the following:
Mass: 33,720,000 tons (exactly 8 times the mass of the Battlecruiser)
Crew: 24,000, plus up to 200,000 troops

Second option is to make a Battleship page that is twice the volume of the Battlecruiser.
That would look like:
Length: 807.6 meters
Width: 660.2 meters
Height: 204.1 meters
(all of the above numbers are taken from dividing the original Battleship dimensions by 2, then multiplying them by the cube root of 2)
Decks: TBD (I have no idea)
Mass: 6,625,000 metric tons
Crew: 5000 with capacity for 80,000 troops.


Weaponry I am not sure about yet, but a rough guess would be making the number of the weaponry proportional to the 2/3 value of the volume (effectively making it proportional to the surface area), but the weapon type and power output would be proportional to the volume. The shield strength would also be proportional to the mass of the ship.

Also, the "Link to this page" in the bottom right of each page for the all of the Dominion ships is not working.
Relativity Calculator
My Nomination for "MVAM Critic Award" (But can it be broken into 3 separate pieces?)
Coalition
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
 
Posts: 746
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:34 am
Location: Georgia, United States

Re: Ship nits on main site

Postby Hailene » Sun Oct 04, 2009 7:57 am

Just a quick question:

The Federation's New Orleans is supposed to be armed with "three torpedo tubes of the most modern type available." The Galaxies came out 2 years earlier according to the site and are armed with type two burst fires. Even assuming that the NO's torpedo tubes are, say, smaller and more compact (hence modern) versions of the standard torpedo tube, it'd odd that the Intrepid, which is said to be unsuited to fleet combat, has such a huge advantage of torpedo power over the more militarized NO.

In fact, the Intrepid's torpedo power is waaaay over the top. Perhaps we could reduce some of the torpedo tubes with single-fire emergency torpedos or modified probe launchers?

Even replacing 4 of the standard torpedo tubes with emergency one-shots from the Klingon's still has it hovering at an uncomfortably high 410. 1 standard and 5 emergencies puts it around 325--about right, I think. But I haven't paid much attention to Voyager's torpedo tubes specifically, so I don't know if we've seen multiple tubes from multiple torpedoes.
Hailene
Petty officer third class
Petty officer third class
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 8:24 am

Re: Ship nits on main site

Postby Mikey » Mon Oct 05, 2009 2:06 pm

Welcome!

And you make a valid point, but I think you're overlooking the role of... well, role. The New Orleans-class is designed to be a picket, PT, outrider, or somesuch - not to be on the line, as it were. As such, a more modest overall torp armament may be more than sufficient for its role, while the Intrepid's may be greater in toto but less sufficient for a more dedicated combat role.
"You fought with Captain Reynolds in the war?"
"I fought with a lot of people in the war."
"And your husband?"
"I fight with him sometimes, too."
User avatar
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 32909
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 2:04 am
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA

Re: Ship nits on main site

Postby Hailene » Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:27 pm

It still seems odd. The NO is almost 2/3rds again as large (volume wise) than the Intrepid. And for a ship that, at least to me, seems to be a dedicated torpedo ship, it seems odd that a *much* smaller dedicated explorer/science ship out arms it by such a considerable margin.

True, Voyager is more advanced, but only by a handful of years.
Hailene
Petty officer third class
Petty officer third class
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 8:24 am

Re: Ship nits on main site

Postby Mark » Tue Oct 06, 2009 5:31 pm

Welcome to DITL!!!

As Mikey said, I think its a matter of role as well. The Intrepid class is a scout/explorer.......which means its needs to operate independantly for short periods of time, with little or no support, and survive to get the intel back to the main fleet, hence it's extremely high speed.

The New Orleans has a somewhat different role, wouldn't you say?
They say that in the Army,
the women are mighty fine.
They look like Phyllis Diller,
and walk like Frankenstein.
User avatar
Mark
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 17671
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 11:49 pm
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii

Re: Ship nits on main site

Postby Hailene » Tue Oct 06, 2009 10:59 pm

Ah, let me clarify. I didn't mean the overall strength index, but rather strictly the offensive power of both.

Both ships have nearly the same phaser power--the Intrepid shockingly has a the edge by the barest of margins. The torpedo power, however, is hopelessly lopsided in favor of the Intrepid, however.

As you've both said, the Intrepid is an explorer/scout; it's not designed to duke it out in fleet actions. As such, it should be lightly armed and very fast.

Well, it *is* very fast, but too heavily armed, in my opinion. The *much* larger (volume wise) New Orleans class has considerably less damage potential, which is odd considering in its description it says, "The New Orleans would also have nearly equal speed to facilitate fleet operations."

Clearly it's designed to take part in large fleet battles. Yet it's hopelessly outgunned by the Intrepid scout.

Edit: Furthermore the Intrepid's own entry says that, "The Intrepid's combat role was also somewhat limited by her size; unable to carry large numbers of torpedoes or high power phaser banks".

Yet it still outguns the dedicated fleet Frigate, the NOs.

Now that I look deeper, I think the NO's strength index is understrengthed! From the NO's specs:

"This ingenious concept not only allowed all three torpedo tubes to be housed within the design, but also permitted a nearly 25% increase in the volume available for other applications within the proper hull... The sensor and computer systems of the New Orleans represent a significant increase in capacity over previous designs. "

I would assume that, given she has outstanding sensor and computer systems, her weapon's range and accuracy would be relatively high. In actuality it's below the un-refitted Miranda class! A much smaller ship that was built over 120 years before the first New Orleans ever space dock. Keep it mind that's not the refitted Miranda, but the original.

And the NOs are supposed to be maneuverable. Her entry says, "Her manoeuvrability is also quite impressive." (Keep in mind maneuverability is misspelled :p.) Yet she's scarcely more manuerable than the honking Soverign. Granted the Soverign is supposed to manuverable, too, though.

Still, the Intrepid is nearly twice as the NO. And the older Norway, which is larger than the NO, is more maneuverable than the NO. And the Norway is supposed to be a science/diplomatic ship.
Hailene
Petty officer third class
Petty officer third class
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 8:24 am

Re: Ship nits on main site

Postby Mikey » Tue Oct 06, 2009 11:39 pm

I do see your point. However, you are making some assumptions that I don't think are based on concrete footing:

Hailene wrote:As you've both said, the Intrepid is an explorer/scout; it's not designed to duke it out in fleet actions. As such, it should be lightly armed and very fast.


The point in saying that she is an explorer/scout is that one could reasonably expect an Intrepid-class to have to deal with fairly dangerous situations on her own, without hope of assistance arriving in a reasonable time frame.

Hailene wrote:"The New Orleans would also have nearly equal speed to facilitate fleet operations."

Hailene wrote:Clearly it's designed to take part in large fleet battles.


Clearly it is from that description, and I'd agree with that description - but bear in mind that said description is as non-canon as me saying that the New Orleans-class was designed to carry the tooth fairy and transport coins and molars. More to the point, you're confusing a ship "designed to take part in large fleet battles" with a ship-of-the-line. PT boats took place in large fleet battles in WWII, but didn't match the firepower of, well, anything. Tenders take part in large fleet battles; butyou'd agree that it would be ludicrous to claim that means that tenders should be armed as well as a destroyer-escort. Picket/outrider duties would be "part of large fleet battles" without requiring cruiser-type offensive armament - for which duties the New Orleans-class seems to be made.

Hailene wrote:Yet it still outguns the dedicated fleet Frigate, the NOs.


Bear in mind that it is patently obvious that the frigate designation means something entirely different in 'Trek than it did in the 18th century, when the term became popular.

As to the rest, you're talking about quotes from Graham's interesting and well-though, but finally fictional, entries.
"You fought with Captain Reynolds in the war?"
"I fought with a lot of people in the war."
"And your husband?"
"I fight with him sometimes, too."
User avatar
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 32909
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 2:04 am
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA

Re: Ship nits on main site

Postby Hailene » Wed Oct 07, 2009 2:28 am

Indeed, the entirety of the New Orleans entry is created by by Graham. Even down to its name. But wouldn't it make better sense to try to keep the entries and strengths consistent?

Again, purely from Graham's imagination, it says from the Intrepid entry, "Fitted out with Type VIII phaser arrays and single fire torpedo tubes, the Intrepid would be capable of engaging vessels the size of a Bird of Prey one-on-one." Yet the current Intrepid out matches the B'Rel by a huge margin. Almost 50%. Now if the intention is to keep the Intrepid that strong I'd advise changing that line.

If not, then modify some of the strength indexes.
Hailene
Petty officer third class
Petty officer third class
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 8:24 am

Re: Ship nits on main site

Postby Mikey » Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:51 am

Why would you change that line? I'd definitely call outgunning your opponent by half again "capable of engaging."
"You fought with Captain Reynolds in the war?"
"I fought with a lot of people in the war."
"And your husband?"
"I fight with him sometimes, too."
User avatar
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 32909
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 2:04 am
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA

Re: Ship nits on main site

Postby Hailene » Wed Oct 07, 2009 5:32 am

It seems odd to mention a ship is capable of engaging a ship so much weaker than themselves.

It's like saying a battleship is capable of engaging a torpedo boat. Usually in that sort of context you'd name a ship with more or less equal power.
Hailene
Petty officer third class
Petty officer third class
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 8:24 am

Re: Ship nits on main site

Postby Captain Seafort » Wed Oct 07, 2009 5:05 pm

50% greater firepower is more or less equal: WW2 warships typically had over five times the broadside energy of the next lower type (battleships to cruisers and cruisers to destroyers).
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.

Across the Universe - Chapter 2 now up
User avatar
Captain Seafort
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 14878
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: Ship nits on main site

Postby Deepcrush » Wed Oct 07, 2009 8:42 pm

I'm going to agree with Hailene that the New Orleans Class is very poorly scored on the DITL ship page. However, remember that while the Intrepid Class is able to engage a BoP, her fire power is spread out. The BoP is focused fully forward.
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
User avatar
Deepcrush
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 18917
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 7:15 pm
Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA

Re: Ship nits on main site

Postby Hailene » Wed Oct 07, 2009 9:13 pm

Captain Seafort wrote:50% greater firepower is more or less equal: WW2 warships typically had over five times the broadside energy of the next lower type (battleships to cruisers and cruisers to destroyers).


Regardless of the KE of each broadside for WW2 era ships, it has little meaning at DITL. Look at how close the strength indexes are between ships. If you were to boost the Intrepid's strength by 50%, for example, she'd nearly be match for a Galaxy class ship. And how could you say the former Flagship and most powerful ship of its time be more or less equivalent to a scout ship a double handful of years newer than it?

By that logic, the NO, a frigate should be 1/650th as powerful (frigate--destroyer--light cruiser--heavy cruiser--battleship) as a Galaxy class. Assuming a 328 for the NO, that'd put the GCS at about 213,200 strength. Or keeping the Galaxy at 1000, that'd put the NO at around a 1.5.
Hailene
Petty officer third class
Petty officer third class
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 8:24 am

PreviousNext

Return to DITL

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest