I really don’t see how your idea of Ares difers from a destroyer with LC engines, @admin
In combat, I also disagree with siege being consistant with short bursts. If you want to destroy a station, and only the station (that is, not touching the supporting fleet), it all boils down to exploting small windows caused by the enemy moving aside. That being so, a slow cannon might not be able to use all of its firepower (say, you need to retreat a full second before the damned thing loads), while behind enemy lines your room for flexible positioning goes to hell very quick. It’s not that your conception is unworkable, it’s just more suited for a missile cruiser; or at least the way I’d fly one.
That said, the broadside ship is not that different in capacity from any other cruiser. With a skilled helm the damage output is more or less equivalent, while the reduced endurance is a welcome challenge for a crew with the experience the Phoenix has.
But most importantly, I strongly disagree that Ares and Artemis being similar will be good at all. Over the last nine months the Phoenix exhausted all the Artemis class has to offer. If we didn’t, the other six months I spent commanding an Artemis class for the USN surely did. The scope for further progress and learning in such a ship is too limited after this time, so I personally have no interest left, at all, in a ship class that’s too similar in style and handling. Fish’s work on redesigning the ship is something I’m grateful for because it allows for some new, exciting possiblilities, so an excess of similarity would be a huge step in the wrong direction.