• If you were supposed to get an email from the forum but didn't (e.g. to verify your account for registration), email Wes at stararmy@gmail.com or talk to me on Discord for help. Sometimes the server hits our limit of emails we can send per hour.
  • Get in our Discord chat! Discord.gg/stararmy

Takumi Class ECC (Expeditionary Command Cruiser)

Andrew

SARPiverse Culture Dreamer
Staff Member
🌟 Site Supporter
FM of Tsenlan
🌸 FM of Yamatai
Submissions Reviewer
🎖️ Game Master
Discord Booster

Thanks to all on the GM forum that aided me with this.
 
Hey, could you put the "Location" field in for each weapon?
 
Location field added.
 
I just noticed the Takumi lacked an hyperspace fold system. Is this an oversight or intentional?

I get the feeling longer trips wouldmean something if the ship was limited to CDD FTL capabilities, but the ship being state-of-the-art and yet lacking this piece of equipment does seem slightly odd.
 
Ooops
I will fix that. It was accidental
 
Why are the shields so ridiculously more powerful per square meter than even the Sakura's?
 
What do you think a more reasonable sheild output would be for a ship this size?

I am not very good with that kind of stuff
 
Changed to 22 YottaWatts for the shielding.
 
Wes said:
Why are the shields so ridiculously more powerful per square meter than even the Sakura's?

It's bigger, and it's a Command/capital ship, those are generally Stratigic targets in inter-fleet combat, so a good defense is required.
 
It isn't a very good comparison anyway, the Sakura could sit inside a black hole and take _no_ damage. So any sheild numbers we get nowdays are just technobabble fluff really.
 
The sakura has no room with how powerful it's shields are. It's a small fast craft.

For the bigger ships, stronger shields are required. Since they're not as fast, and are eaier to hit. Why do you think big boats in navys have mor armor then smaller ones? Better protection.
 
Edits made, waiting for approval.
 
Y'know......

22 yottawatts of defensive power is very weak given the weapons in this setting since......most of the weapons in this setting given their descriptions have yields at least in the gigaton range - and the most powerful nuclear device ever tested (50 MT by the Soviets) has a yield in the yottawatt range.

Since there aren't any actual figures for the yields of most Star Army weapons, I use the NDI's weapons as a benchmark - most energy wave projection cannons on a warship have yields up to and exceeding 200 gigatons - the most powerful versions have teraton yields.

And NDI shields can defend against attacks in that teraton range - part of the reason why I continually make the statement that NDI warships are ridiculously hard to kill.
 
Easier to go with a benchmark that uses the Sakura as a base, as Wes (and everyone else) have a rough idea how difficult it is to destroy. So, Sak x 10 shields? Or something like that?
 
The sakura has 4.5 yottowatt shields.

The Chiharu capital ship, which is only slightly bigger then this, has 55 Yottowatts. The Yuumi battle cruiser, which is also only slightly bigger has 20 yottowatts.

To be tecnhical, since this ship is roughtly the same size as capitalships, shouldn't it have the same shield grid strength as them?
 
Yeah. I guess no changes need to be made after all.

This reinforces my desire for a ship damage stat system.
 
bump for approval?
 
APPROVED

But I wish we had some art for it. ^_^;
 
=Guys, there is no need to compare weapon outputs with the shield strength of SA vessels since no one uses them anyway. As scribbles said, outputs for shields and weaponry are just so people can say "ooo! my guns are bigger than yours! <sticks>", they have no bearing on the game in any hard way. For this shield buisness, it is a hideous example of overpowerdness, seeing as the shield can withstand the entire output of 834 Sol-output stars per second. Does anyone ever pay attention to numbers like this when engaged in combat? not really. Another example are the positron railguns which have been repeatedly described as able to destroy a planet, despite the fact that their maximum theoretical yield is nearly 930 billion time less than what is needed to just barely cause a planets mass to slowly break up (and keep in mind the theoretical yield is far less then what its actual yield would be).

And btw, I would like to comment again on what I put in one of my original posts in the tech discussion thread way back when:

The firepower present on all starships and there mobility is such that navies would bear no resemblance to modern day forces. If a scout is equipped with a weapon whose damage is listed as "total annihilationâ€
 
Ok Firstly...

This ship was approved. So I am not going to debate every peice of Star Army technology with you. I would like to point out to you a few things however.

This ship doesn't have some planet destroying guns. I repeatedly see you making posts about this stuff, why not take it to a separate thread rather than repeating yourself over and over.

Nextly as for Katsuko's involvement in the project. One of the things assigned to the 5th Expeditionary Fleet was to participate in a Starship Improvement Program. During this time she recommended the designs of the Hummingbird CDC, and then this ship. Its safe to say that Katsuko did not execute the entire design process herself. Its likely she came up with the concept and forwarded it to the designers at KFY, not to mention she does have a staff...

As for her skills. Id like to point out here that she has developed more skills over time. I just have not had the time to update her bio as that I have been busy running the plot arc, etc.

Im glad you have the time to work out all these little equations, and comment continually about how Star Army technologny doesn't work. There is some science fiction involved.

I would like to remind you that Star Army is a roleplaying community not a University. We try to stay within the realms of science but some concepts are indeed fiction.

But please if you want to debate weapons, systems etc that have been an accepted part of this RP for years, please do so in another thread.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…