Address contradiction between Star Trek show cruisers and STO cruisers
View Single Post
Join Date: Jun 2012
01-30-2013, 12:45 PM
Originally Posted by
Heat energy dissipates very very slowly in space. Secondly, it has nothing to do with heat damage and more to do with the constriants of massive power consumption relative to the xyz area that has to be powered.
Think of it this way: Which would be more powerful - a ship with a massive warp core, powering a few holodecks, a botanical room, hundreds of private quarters, a bar, and many many more ship areas as well as shields, deflector and weapons. Or a ship with a massive warp core and nothing but guns and a few bulkheads strapped to it.
I wasn't really arguing the size of the warp core, but the nature of the weapons. With no kinetic force to pure energy weapons, the only real measure of damage is how much heat energy you can apply to your target, and how quickly. A constant application of heat is much more effective than even a rapid but non-constant application.
The real reason that the Defiant is so much more powerful than cruisers is the Revolver/Katana rule -- cannons are cooler than beams, and so they're just better, regardless of any actual basis in reality.
This is coming from someone who loves the Defiant, obviously. I've been flying one almost exclusively for over two years. The pulsed cannons just aren't the most efficient use of energy, realistically.