Page 1 of 1

[Proposed] Ascension Class Specifications

Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:20 am
by Alex
Please see the link below for the proposed Ascension class specifications. As usual, the specifications are now open to discussion.

Ascension Class

Re: [Proposed] Ascension Class Specifications

Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 1:19 pm
by Thompson
2 Issues.

Firstly the Classification. Definitely not a cruiser. Ship of the line for something like this.

Secondly Phasers. This is waaaay after starfleet built the Sov Class and so putting Type 11's on a ship like this wouldn't happen, much less the type 10's. So Type XII's all around. The Sov has them so so should this. Other than that it looks fine to me.

Very good job on the deck listing.

Re: [Proposed] Ascension Class Specifications

Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:08 pm
by Alex
Fair enough. I'll work with you on the phasers. A complaint brought up on a previous ship is that the Type XII would be large, so having a lot of these on a small ship would not work. However, this is a large ship. I still left some Type XI's though since there will likely still be a few phaser arrays placed in areas where space is more of a factor, such as the nacelle pylons. The ratio is still 20:6 though.

As for changing from a Cruiser to a Ship-of-the-Line, that one you might have to convince me. From what I see with this ship, with the marines, heavy weaponry, and shuttle launch capabilities, this ship feels like a warship. Ships-of-the-Line generally will sacrifice some of this offensive capability to serve as diplomatic ships, or science vessels, or whatever role they need to fill for that mission. Also, Ships-of-the-Line as a rule do not have marines. If we want to keep marines on this ship, then I say that we keep it as a cruiser, albeit heavier than most of the other cruisers. It really won't make much of a difference when it comes to what kind of missions it can take on. It just tells us that it is primarily an offensive ship capable of doing other things.

Re: [Proposed] Ascension Class Specifications

Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 8:49 pm
by Williams
'Cruisers' can technically encompass 'Light' Cruisers and 'Heavy' cruisers too, so size isn't really an issue in that regard :)

Re: [Proposed] Ascension Class Specifications

Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 9:12 pm
by Alex
Agreed. The decision to make it a Cruiser is not based on size. Size of the ship is irrelevant; they are categorized by function.

Re: [Proposed] Ascension Class Specifications

Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 10:18 pm
by Thompson
Sold me on a cruiser :) After all while it can do what needs to be done the primary purpose is to combat the teeth out there, especially when the Klingons and Romulans both have heavies that will stop or at least give a Sovvie a good run for their money.