View Single Post
Join Date: Dec 2007
06-26-2011, 04:52 PM
Originally Posted by
The reason why IMO the BoP is such a limited Science ship has to do with the 3/3/3 arrangement.
There were those who said the Nebula is not that good for Science is precisely because with its 3 Science console slots you can't stack consoles properly.
If the ship you're proposing is supposed to be more useful than a BoP in that capacity, to quote you:
"...the KDF would have a science ship that's not the Varanus or a Bird of Prey moonlighting as one."
would it not make sense if it actually had 4 science consoles?
Otherwise it would be moonlighting as much as the BoP does.
Also the T5 BoP (with the Exception of the Chang model)
as big as a K't'inga and also have as many and sometimes even more visible weapon mounts.
So them outgunning an ancient cruiser is not too far off.
The reason I don't think it'd be moon lighting as much as the BOP is now is that it'd have the same abilities as a science ship, the subsystem targeting, higher shields, sensor scan etc. As far as I can see, the Nebula's a genuinely formidable ship and holds it's own well amongst the pantheon of starfleet science vessels. Also, owing to the fact that realisticly, the KDF is never going to have as many ship choices as starfleet, it makes sense to cover more than one base with any new ship so it's useful to more than one career path, just like the Nebula is.
I understand your point, but I feel the Nebula "blueprint" is sciency enough to get by on just three science consoles. The consequences of making it have four would be that something else only has two, like tactical or engineering, and neither choice really "suits" the image of the K'tinga I've always had, but then again, that's just me.