Topic: phaser question?  (Read 8644 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Magnum357

  • Guest
Re: phaser question?
« Reply #20 on: January 13, 2004, 02:04:38 am »
Its really hard too say with this one.  Here is another one of those Inconsistancies that occurs in Star Trek.  That is why I always liked TNG and DS9, the inconsistancies where at a minimum.

As for the Miranda being a Surya, its very possible.  the Regestry number is not much higher then the Connies so that theory could easily fit.  And we all know that their was only 12-14 Connies built during the TOS era, but that doesn't nessessarly mean that Starfleet never built anymore then that.  I suppose that Starfleet could have easily just copied the whole Connie design (after the Refit of the Enterprise and other suriving Connies in the 2270's) and remanufactor the class again with updated systems.  The only problem I have with that is just by the fact that in ST1, it seems that the initial design was pushed too its absolute limit in capabilities.  Ya, ST5 and ST6 shows that the Constition 2's has some vastly different internal restructuring then the Refitted Connies of the 2270's, but it seems that overall the Connies never really got any more then minor additional Capabilites.  That is why I suggested that Starfleet might have considered a new Crusier design too replace the Connies.  The Constellations could be a very good canidate for this as it seems Starfleet jam-packed a lot of additional systems into the Consellations (4 warp engines, much more impulse power, lots of scanner devices, lots of additional Phaser mounts and possible extra Torpedo mounts, etc.), or its possible another type of crusier was developed too have as a "go-between" for the planned Excelcior Class and the Mirandas.

I personally have a theory why we see sooooo many Mirandas in the TNG era is possibly due too ship yards within the Federation.  I also think I may have an explanation in why the Regestry number is so close too the Constitions.  One possible theory on why the Reliant has such a low Regestry number is that it originally was a Surya at one time but was heavily refitted just like the Enterprise.  If I recall from our own navy, Ship production is planned well in advanced with plans, hull regestries and even ship names already preplanned well before the keel of the ship is even layed out in the ship yard.  Do you realize guys that our US navy already has on the books 30 new destroyers (forgot the class name) that will star construction in the next couple of years?  It will take rougly a decade too get all 30 constructed but they are designed with the latest technology and are planned too be in use for the next 40-50 years and are planned too replace a lot of the old destroyers in our navey that where built during the 60's and 70's.  I think Starfleet might have had a similar approach.  According to the TOS tech manual, it shows a DN, the Connie, and a DD/scout (the Salidin Class).  Its possible that Starfleet contracted somebody too start making 4 type of ships back in the early 23rd century and all would be built around the same time.  The DN, the Connie, the Surya, and the Salidins might have been all pre-planned well in advanced and the larger the ship, the less would be made.  For example, Their would only be a handful of DN's, about 15 planned Connies, maybe 50 tops of the Suryas and possibly 80-100 Salidins.  As we can see, all these ships seem too have common components which means that they possibly all came from the same shipyards.  When the Refit stage came buy for these ships (2270) whatever ships that where left of this run of ships, were refitted with the new Technology.  The Reliant Might have been one of these Refitted ships and why its regestry number is so close too the Constitutions and so low.  During and after this refit stage, Starfleet might have ran into an economic and logistics problem.  Starfleet did a remarkable job refitting the old vessels over too new Tech, but a need for new Ships too fill roles/losses would have too be made.  Granted, Starfleet could have just copied the Post-refit designs and run carbon copies of the design with bran new ships (aka, new refitted Connies, Suryas, Salidines) but its possible growing threats from Klingons and Romulans and advancing technology forced Starfleet too rethink new ship designs.  The Connies where great ships, but cost a lot too build and took some time too construct aswell (the DN's could fall into this catagory aswell).  The Salidines were very cost productive as they were small and cheap too produced, but hampered with design problems (lack of warp speed, low power for weapons and systems).  The Suyras (Mirandas after the Refit stage) where the only designs left that could take advantage of both being fairly cheap too produce in large numbers, and have some capabilities as a Connies would have.  So if Starfleet was too scrape the initial designs of the other three ships and keep producing Suyras/Mirandas, this frees up a lot of ship yards to concentrate on building Mirandas, while Starfleet could design a new ships too fill roles.  The Its possible the Excelcior concept was started not long after the Refit stage, and Starfleet might have wanted this ship too be a type of Dreadnought or possibly a "Super Crusier" too fill that role.  The Mirandas could fill the Destroyer role for combat purposes, but Starfleet would need too have some sort of crusier available too fill inbetween the Mirandas and Excelciors.  The Constellations could very well be this ship (mabye another class we never saw).  The ships is loaded with systems that looks too outweight the Connies.  Its possible Starfleet wanted too use existing technology (as it would be cheaper then using Advanced excelcior tech) so that the class could easily fill the role of heavy Crusier with lots of capabilites (the "Poor mans Crusier").  Not only is using existing tech a cheap alternative, but since many of the components are very similar too components used to build Mirandas, it would be easy too use one of the Miranda ship yards too build Constellations.  

Holy Cow!  That was a lot of crap I just wrote.  Keep in mind people that this is just a hypothetical theory and I'm not referencing anything.  It just seems too me that the Mirandas where a fairly cheap vessel too produce and one way too make a vessel cheap too produce and build high numbers with is too free up a lot facilities that would build other vessels.  And the Constellations seems too use many parts that Mirandas uses so its logical too assume that the Constellations where somewhat easy too produce too (at least compared too a sophisticated Connie).    

Chrystoff

  • Guest
Re: phaser question?
« Reply #21 on: January 13, 2004, 10:18:49 am »
Unfortunately, the books are the best resource, and they are extremely rare. The best ones are anything by Mastercom Data, and anything by Jackill. I have looked on EBAY for these books, and I always narrowly miss them. It's quite aggravating.  

DonKarnage

  • Guest
Re: phaser question?
« Reply #22 on: January 14, 2004, 11:05:53 am »
Quote:

Quote:

 well its official but for the game what type of megaphaser is it?, the g the g2 the a the b or is it the y?, don't think its too big required too much that why its only on starbase for defence.

do you have more data like that, like for the belknap/decatur ect




I personally arm my NCC with 6 Type 1's (2fa, 2rs, 2ls), 6 Torpedoes (3 FARA, 3 FARA). For the megphasers, I use 4 phaser A's (2ls, 2rs). But, that's me.

I have Volume One of Ships of the Starfleet (revised), Starfleet Dynamics, and The Akyazi Class Perimeter Action Ship Specs. I am certain there are sources on the internet that have this info in readily availble form. Try this one: http://www.asdb.net/asdb/publications.htm
 




when i click on the link on that page  web page   i see only a blank page

DonKarnage

  • Guest
Re: phaser question?
« Reply #23 on: January 14, 2004, 11:24:33 am »
Quote:

Quote:

 well its official but for the game what type of megaphaser is it?, the g the g2 the a the b or is it the y?, don't think its too big required too much that why its only on starbase for defence.

do you have more data like that, like for the belknap/decatur ect




I personally arm my NCC with 6 Type 1's (2fa, 2rs, 2ls), 6 Torpedoes (3 FARA, 3 FARA). For the megphasers, I use 4 phaser A's (2ls, 2rs). But, that's me.

I have Volume One of Ships of the Starfleet (revised), Starfleet Dynamics, and The Akyazi Class Perimeter Action Ship Specs. I am certain there are sources on the internet that have this info in readily availble form. Try this one: http://www.asdb.net/asdb/publications.htm
 




for the miranda class i have the

uss miranda ncc1830 fncm  mk-1

uss avenger ncc1860 fncl  mk-1

uss reliant ncc1864 fncl+  mk-1

uss renown ncc1870 fncd  mk-2

and

uss saratoga ncc1937 fncd+ mk-2

so since the miranda avenger and reliant are mk-1 the have the mega phaser a so if the renown and saratoga are mk-2 the must have the mega phaser b , so since the miranda is a fncm and avenger and reliant are fncl and fncl+ what does the fncm fnct and fncd mean?, f for fed n for new c for cruiser and l for light and d for drone? wz have made what cold be a mk-3 by replacing the torpedo pod by a drone rack, so that make a real drone cruiser.  *confusing*  

 

Chrystoff

  • Guest
Re: phaser question?
« Reply #24 on: January 14, 2004, 12:16:52 pm »
Confusing is right, Don. All you can do is do what makes the most sense to you. Does anyone else reading this post have ideas on how they arm their NCL's?

I have no idea why that link doesn't function, Don. It takes me right to the ASDB website. I don't know what to say on that one. I'll see if I can locate some other simular sources.  

DonKarnage

  • Guest
Re: phaser question?
« Reply #25 on: January 14, 2004, 02:17:38 pm »
when i click on the link on the site i get i lost page and for the image of the cover book i got an icon of a image only (it may be windows) anyway i will format my main hd cause i did have a problem with win xp, was unable to open anythink that was microsoft and i have reinstall windows under a new name but i still have the old windows on the hd plus a lot of scap that need to be remove.

i was wondering if those who play sfc2/op need the cd to play single?, just wondering  

Chrystoff

  • Guest
Re: phaser question?
« Reply #26 on: January 14, 2004, 02:49:16 pm »
Quote:

 i was wondering if those who play sfc2/op need the cd to play single?, just wondering    



I don't need the CD to play single.  

Khaliban

  • Guest
Re: phaser question?
« Reply #27 on: January 15, 2004, 12:08:54 am »
Just thought I'd mention, most people miss a couple of phasers on the Miranda.  i didn't notice them myself until I started working on the model.  See highlighted area in the picture below.

 

nx_adam_1701

  • Guest
Re: phaser question?
« Reply #28 on: January 15, 2004, 02:42:20 am »
Holy crap, thanks, this helps alot, first it was the miranda in the lead, then the constitution, and now the miranda, im so confused im just going to roll a dice, even for constitution, odd for miranda


adam out

SPQR Renegade001

  • Guest
Re: phaser question?
« Reply #29 on: January 15, 2004, 09:34:47 am »
Quote:

Holy crap, thanks, this helps alot, first it was the miranda in the lead, then the constitution, and now the miranda, im so confused im just going to roll a dice, even for constitution, odd for miranda
 




Empires do not always replace something with a bigger more powerful thing.
If the Federation could build Mirandas at 2/3 the cost, for a ship only slightly inferior, it'd be a no brainer for me.

On the same thought, the US Army is looking to make the M1x Abrahms obsolete with the far less powerful LAV, hoping that the improved maneuverability, faster deploy time and lighter supply tail will make for a superior weapon on the modern battlefield.  

Fury_of_a_Seraph

  • Guest
Re: phaser question?
« Reply #30 on: January 15, 2004, 10:37:59 am »
I thought those were running lights.

Magnum357

  • Guest
Re: phaser question?
« Reply #31 on: January 15, 2004, 11:20:15 am »
Ya, I though so too.  Like stated above, even if the Mirandas are only about 80-90% combat effective compared too a Connies, if Mirandas cost 2/3 the price and can be constructed 33% faster then a Connie, then the Mirandas in that respect are logistically superior too the Connies.  

I didn't know that the Army was thinking about phasing out the M1's, but again it makes much better sense too.  M1's are gasss hogs and are much more expensive too build then Bradlys.  The only real good advantage with the M1's is that they provide excellent fire support from its main gun, and its a tough mother too take out with such heavy armor.  But even in the war in Iraq, I remember seeing one of our M1's cripples/destroyed due too just a massive amount of RPG hitting it.  One RPG hitting an M1 would barely scratch it, but if you kept hitting it with 50 too 100 of them, even an M1 isn't indistructable.  And RPG costs maybe a few thousand dollars too make, while an M1 I beleive costs millions.  Bradlys have less Armor too protect itself against RPG's, but are cheaper too produce.  Also, I think the Army is counting on that a Bradly can handle most Battle tanks we see today.  A Bradly with its high Manuvering and speed plus a high rate of fire with its cannon can still probably go toe to toe with a T-72.

SPQR Renegade001

  • Guest
Re: phaser question?
« Reply #32 on: January 15, 2004, 11:56:16 am »
Quote:

I didn't know that the Army was thinking about phasing out the M1's




It's an ongoing debate between the old school minds fearing WWIII and the new school who say that conventional entrenched battlefield warfare is a thing of the past. Depending on your source and the phase of the moon, either the M1 or the LAV is toast, or they'll both share a role in the army of the future. Who knows what's really gonna happen.  

Anthony_Scott

  • Guest
Re: phaser question?
« Reply #33 on: January 15, 2004, 02:53:21 pm »
Quote:

Unfortunately, the books are the best resource, and they are extremely rare. The best ones are anything by Mastercom Data, and anything by Jackill. I have looked on EBAY for these books, and I always narrowly miss them. It's quite aggravating.    




I have the book about the Akayazi if you want it. Lemme know.

Semper Fi, Carry On

ganymad

  • Guest
Re: phaser question?
« Reply #34 on: January 15, 2004, 03:23:50 pm »
I never noticed the phasers below the impulse engines on the mirinda before.nice detailed shot! however.that would mean we have the following situation: constitution refit: 18 phasers and 2 photon tubes forward.mirinda: 14 phasers, 2 megaphaser cannons and 4 photon tubes.the mirinda is a beast! but i still think it should be at least slightly weaker than the conny. maybe less shielding.and the photon tubes: yes there are 4 tubes , but they should only have the capability to fire one torpedo each at a time. the conny can fire 2 photons from one tube in a row ( weve seen that in st6).
so i think they have about the same potential when it comes to torpedoes.the megaphasers shouldnt be too strong.
all in all the conny should have a btw about 10 points higher than the mirinda.

my idea.(i use phaser 2 on fed ships mostly, just for balance)
conny: 18 ph2 , 4 photon

mirinda 14 ph2, 4 photon, 2phX

i like phX for the megaphasers. more range and damage than the ph2 and the option to overload it. the cannons cover an 180 degrees angle each.

the fed ships i use at the moment ( im rebuilding my collection, since i was without a pc for the last 4 month!)
       class                   primary weapons  heavy weapons   additional weapons
fff     oberth                  2Ph2                      1Phot
fdd   salazar               12Ph2                      2Phot
fcl    baker                  16Ph2    
fncl  mirinda               14Ph2                      4Phot                 2PhX
fca   constitution         18Ph2                     4Phot
fcb   constellation        12Ph2                     8Phot                 2PhX
fbce excelsior             28Ph2                     6Phot
fdn   ulysses               24Ph2                     8Phot
ffa    lotus flower           6Ph2  
fcva  taldren xmmer     16Ph2                     6Phot                 Fighters





greatings from germany,



ed

Chrystoff

  • Guest
Re: phaser question?
« Reply #35 on: January 15, 2004, 03:32:39 pm »
Quote:

I have the book about the Akayazi if you want it. Lemme know.



I have the Akyazi book as well. But I really appreciate the offer!  

Khaliban

  • Guest
Re: phaser question?
« Reply #36 on: January 15, 2004, 06:58:20 pm »
My take on the phaser question.  Please note, this is not supported by anything but personal observation.  Any disagreement with sourcebooks will be largely ignored.

The Miranda and the Enterprise don't have 18 phasers.  They have 2.

Consider the terminology.  Phaser bank, primary phaser coil and phaser emitter.  Consider also the statement of Will Decker, that they are routed through the warp core to increase power.

In the WoK, we see the Miranda and the Enterprise both fire phasers, but not all of them.  It's not the spray of orange power you see in Klingon Academy.  Each pair of external emitters is normally viewed as an isolated phaser bank, but that doesn't make sense.  How could enemy weapon system be so easily shut down so, so frequently on ever series to date, with only a single phaser shot?  Because, phaser power is generated in the primary phaser coil, routed through the warp core, and emitted from the external phaser mounts.  When the weapons officer targets enemy phasers, they are targeting the phaser coil.

So, why phasers all over the ship?  Two reasons, arc of fire and back up for damage to another emitter.  Why paired emitters?  The Enterprise and the Miranda generate enough power to fire from two emitters simultaneously.  But no more than two.  As I recall, Khan needed three precision strikes on the Enterprise in the initial salvo.  He had three sets of paired emitters facing the Enterprise but only used one.  Why?  He could only fire from one.  Why the rolebar emitters?  They are the most precise.  They are designed to do the bulk of the ship to ship firing for the Miranda.  I'll explain why in a moment.

Where is the Miranda main deflector dish?  You can see it in the picture above just below the impulse engines.  Most people identify this as a back-up navigational deflector.  I'm sure many of you are shouting, "It can't be.  It needs to face forward."  No it doesn't.  The deflector generates a bubble around the ship.  You can put the deflector in any orientation, but forward is prefered.  So, why aim the deflector down?  Look at its size and location.  It is very protected from attack.  What effect would such a deflector design have?  It would significantly reduce the maximum speed of the ship.

What is the role of the Miranda?  We know the role of the Enterprise; long range exploration and fleet workhorse.  It has a massive deflector, forward set, and a long straight design ideal for speed and long range work.  Now look at the Miranda.  Same mass as the Enterprise but shorter, close engine placement and a low center of mass.  If the Enterprise is a greyhound, the Miranda is a bulldog.  It could turn more easily and has a larger impulse engine placed closer to the center of mass.  The Miranda is designed for close range workhorse duty and defense.  Look at the rolebar.  High and away from the ship.  It gives the phasers and the torpdoes maximum visibility.  It's not a warship.  Before the DS9 Defiant, the Federation didn't make warships.  But it is designed for combat and defense.  Like all Federation weapons in this era.  It does its best work close to the core systems and handles the workhorse duties in that area of space.

Which one would win?  In a race, the Enterprise.  In a fight, the Miranda.

So, what about the Excelsior?  Good question.  It has 5 paired emitters on its main dish, two more than is need in this theory.  The answer to that is simple.  With its heavier engines and greater power, the Excelsior is equipped with 4 phasers and can fire from 2 paired emitters simultaneously.  Phaser strips of TNG era are really tens or hundreds of small emitters linked together in series.

I can't believe you read all the way to the end of that.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 pm by Khaliban »