Topic: Dumb Question, BUT...

[Vipre]

I wish I never asked the original question! However, returning to the original topic I would like to add that I am puzzled by the lack of a rear facing heavy weapon mount on the Constitution, or for that matter - any vessel!

Can't fault you there. Why you would build a ship that can't fire all of it's weapons in a 360 degree range makes no sense. I can only guess it's because of Gene's involvement with aircraft. Wasn't he a pilot or air crew member or something in WW2 or Korea? Get in behind a fighter and poof, he's in for a bad day. The phasers could fire in a 270 degree combined arc but couldn't fire anything aft and torp only forward . Really large oversight.

Regarding the dates of TOS, it is assumed that the characters are the same age as actors themselves during the series. This is the main reason why 300 was just added to the actual date Nineteen Sixty Watever to get the future dates of Twenty-two Sixty Whatever. As in Actor A born in 1930 and he's 35 so character A was born in 2230 and is 35 hence 2265.

[Rod ONeal]

Of course it all depends on the given perspective, but in SFC it's concentration of firepower that matters. In almost every circumstance, with heavy weapons you'd be better off if all of the torps were aiming in the same direction. Typically forward. Phasers are different because they are used for point defense as well. Which brings the one reason for dividing your firepower up, if you can be outmaneuvered by your enemy so you can't bring them into you concentrated firing arc. That's why, in SFC, it's the really large and unmaneuverable ships that have rear firing torps, generally BBs and Tugs.
There are racial exceptions. The Gorn and ISC, but they are seeking weapons and their ships, by and large, are less maneuverable. The ISC were also designed to fight in the Echelon Formation.
The ships that were added as canon ships (the Miranda for example) that have their torps divided between the front and rear get easily outclassed by comparable ships (the NCA in the instance of the Miranda) that concentrate their firepower in one direction.
In reality the ships in Trek would be armed more like wet navy ships, not fighters, as they more or less are now. That's the obvious layout. Like the FRAX, for those of you who are familiar with them from SFB.

[Don Karnage]

when the enemy ship sneak behind you you can't fire with foward weapons, some ship have rear waepons and the should, fighter might be good if you have a lot of them, more that 10 cause ther not efficient, the enemy will get rid of them and you have not many weapons for defence.

[Scottish Andy]

The ships that were added as canon ships (the Miranda for example) that have their torps divided between the front and rear get easily outclassed by comparable ships (the NCA in the instance of the Miranda) that concentrate their firepower in one direction.

Rod, I don't find so. When I take a canon BCE or NCM or CAI against a comparable "standard" SFB/C ship, I can beat them up pretty good. You can't fight like an SFB/C-er, that's all. Different tactics because of different armament.

You can't just alpha-strike someone in a canon ship because it has no SFB defences. You cannot fire off all your phasers or you're defenceless against drones, PFs or fighters. But the canon ships have more phasers than normal for their class, and stronger shields as well. If you time it right, an alpha strike from a canon ship is devastating, and by unmasking the aft torps into the down shield gets great Mizia weapons hits.

Those ships are hard to fight well, I grant you, but if you have the skill and luck, you'll win just as well as with a standard SFB/C ship.

[Rod ONeal]

Ships don't sneak up behind you in space. Although we tend to fight in open space in our game, in reality it would rarely if ever occur that way. Battles would occur around fixed points in space. Planets and bases where ships/fleets would drop out of warp to do battle.

Scottish Andy, The BCE can't stand in with any other Fed BC when flown by 2 competent pilots. The NCM can't either against an NCL. Never mind an NCA, which is really the canon equivalent. I'm afraid that I'll just have to respectfully disagree with you on that, my friend.
With that said, both those ships were designed for movies where capabilities are made up as you go along, not wargaming.
Just simple math - You have 2 torps aiming at him - he has 4 torps aiming at you... Who's got the advantage? If you should manage to get behind him and gain the advantage, he gets what he deserves.

[Lieutenant_Q]

The OP shiplist makes all four torpedoes fire FA and RA arcs.

[Rod ONeal]

Yes, you're right. It's been awhile since I looked at the stock NCM where they have the fa/ra arcs added to the game. My bad. The BCE doesn't though, although it's 4 forward and 2 back. Is there anything that suggests that it's possible to have a photon launcher fire both fore and aft?

[Scottish Andy]

Hehe, you haven't been playing them properly, Rod. The canon ships also have more engine power. With more power, you can overload the forward torps and still keep good speed if you shut down aft torps. Get into overload range... 

The BCE can keep ahead of the enemy and just keep spinning around, keeping the enemy shields raw all round, where as SFB/C ships have to keep facing you to use heavy weapons. So they're always trying to close. Use your longer legs to keep them at a distance and proxy them to death. You fight on your terms, you have a far better chance of winning. You fight on theirs, odds are you will lose unless you are better at their game than they are.

Anyway, I'd love to try a match up with you to test this theory in the only way that matters. Do you have EAW 2.0.3.6? I don't have OP. Just tried to buy it on eBay, got outbid...   

As for a fore-&-aft photon launcher on the Excelsior, that's a big no-no. The Miranda can manage it because it's a short photon pod with FA-RA arcs. The Excelsior has two seperate 2-shot FA photon tubes beside the nav deflector, and 2 seperate 1-shot RA tubes, under the cargo bay fantail. They're almost the entire length of the ship apart, so no FA-RA there. It would be possible for the Constitution, though. Put in a single (or double) photon tube at the back of the standard torpedo bay... the tube(s) would be a bit long, but it's doable--if perhaps not tactically sound. 

[Scottish Andy]

Oh, I just re-read your post, Rod, and I think I got you wrong. My Miranda-class deck plans (by Alex Rosenweig) show 4 separate tubes serviced by a central loader. I suppose you could have the tubes enclosed and fed like cartridges into a breach in the fore-&-aft tube, but I cannot see it as being feasible or sensible. There's the whole "which way is the warhead pointing, which end has the warp sustainer engine" problem. You load it to fire forward. The enemy gets behind you, how do you turn the torp around? If you can, when do you decide?

The FA-RA arc is a nice idea, but I can't see it being practical.

[Vipre]

Ships don't sneak up behind you in space.

Tell that to the Romulans and the Klingons
Guess no one ever did get the use of a cloaking device down correctly. 

Just kidding. I agree though that if you can manage to stay in your opponents blind spot or weak arc spot he does deserves his fate.

[Don Karnage]

if you battle more that one ship the other can get behind you and fire at your weekest shield, with the miranda you have front and back torpedo arc so if the enemy sneak behind you you can shoot at him, the rear phaser is good for drone defence, unless you have "A", "B" or "Y" phaser and causing heavy damage to the enemy ship, droping a mine is good if you can go fast and the enemy is not too close so the mine can detonate.

as for sfc op try this link: http://cgi.ebay.ca/Star-Trek-Starfleet-Command-Orion-Pirates-NEW-PC-Game_W0QQitemZ250074567035QQihZ015QQcategoryZ62053QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem