Our Ship - Shape

[Reliant121]

Plus in the deep space nine battle in Sacrifice of angels, The Majestic took a phaser beam to the nacelle, blowing it open. she still survived, albeit drifting, to take the cannon blast from the Dominion cruiser.

[Mikey]

4, medium. If you do take catastrophic damage to even two nacelles, you still have what is basically a fully functional warp drive.

[Mark]

I'm a four nacelle man myself. I know, that if I were on an enemy ship, I'd be targeting the nacelle struts as the look to be rather easily removed from the ship, and as mentioned is increases survivability in a firefight. There is another reason which I'll mention in a second.

I'm also going to go with a medium distance from the ship. Honestly, I've never been comfortable with nacelles projected away from the ship as the target is just to tempting, and if something goes wrong, I want to be able to jettison the nacelles.

My vision of the ship is similar to a Soveriegn class crossed with a Prometheus Class. The general size, shape and appearance of a Soveriegn with the four nacelle design, with the nacelles in closer to the ship, with the nav dish shifted slightly down.

The modifications are because I truely want the ship capable of multi vector assault mode. I used properly, it is a devestating ability, and can turn the odds in a fleet battle. It makes perfect sense as well. The Prometheus is a newer design than the Soveriegn, else likely the Soveriegn would have it as well. If this is supposed to be Starfleets premier battlecruiser series, then it would only make sense that she'd have all of the tactical systems for the past number of years.

I just KNOW that this is going to start a $hit storm

[Sionnach Glic]

No, no MVAM.

[Captain Seafort]

No, no MVAM.

Heartly seconded.

[Reliant121]

If you put MVAM on that ship, i'm rigging the core to go up.

[Monroe]

I voted 4 and medium. If you're going to have four, which why not if you're going to have three almost the same drawbacks. Might as well put them kind of close for safty sakes and the added naciles cover any weakness in mobility.

[Mark]

Not fans of MVAM, huh??? I have to ask, why?

[Captain Seafort]

Not fans of MVAM, huh??? I have to ask, why?

The short version is that it adds unnecessary complexity and weakens the ship by adding extra area to the shields for the same power. The long version is an argument that can run to a dozen or more pages and tends to get somewhat heated.

[Sionnach Glic]

Do a search on the forum for MVAM. You'll find our arguments, along with the 20 page thread that erupted from that debate.

It should also be noted that MVAM's one advantage, the ability to attack from multiple vectors against a single target, would be completely useless on this type of vessel. This ship is intended to fight in large fleet actions against multiple enemy vessels. Splitting the ship up into multiple weaker sections would be a massive tactical blunder in such a situation.

[Mark]

Ok....I'll stand down from the MVAM.....but then with the exception for lowering the deflector dish, my vision for the ship stands. By the way, are we carrying any "MACOs" or "Marines" or whatever we are calling the SF groundpounders these days?

[Teaos]

I like MVAM in genera but not here. The ship is to slow and heavily armoured for it to work with out weakening it.

[Mark]

Question: Is anyone a good enough sketch artist to draw and upload the final ship?

[Teaos]

I'm gonna give it a shot but I've never done anything like it before.

[Mikey]

MVAM = eine topic verboten.

Anyhoo, I like MVAM, but I don't think it fits a ship of this scope and nature.