Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
[X] Arrowhead. Aim for a cheap light cruiser. (Industry: 2)

Supermaneuverability and concentrated forward phaser power is a great precedent to set for our smallest dedicated military ships.
 
Our Photon Torpedoes are the best of our latest weapons, so I'm gonna vote half-saucer so we can get the most of them we can on this new ship for a big punch that doesn't require it keeping them pointed at a warbird for several seconds like doing multiple pulsed phase cannons would.
 
Alectai said:
Yeah, I think I can get behind that. Speed is Armor, and six Pulsed Phase Cannons should be enough to crack a Warbird.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Six is gonna be mad expensive for such a fragile vessel (9 industry going by the rates for Project Bulwark, and the goal for this vessel is to be cheap). If we want to drop that much on a small ship like this.... 4 PPCs + a torpedo launcher would come out to 9 industry too, and actually have a torp launcher, which I think would balance out better with a hypermobile vessel.
 
Last edited:
Alectai said:
Yeah, I think I can get behind that. Speed is Armor, and six Pulsed Phase Cannons should be enough to crack a Warbird.

[ ] Arrowhead. Aim for a cheap light cruiser. (Industry: 2)

These aren't going to be operating alone after all.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I am really not confident about this cannon assertion. The Stingray clearly has firepower problems and the cannon upgrade was disappointing last update so I wouldn't count on that bridging the gap. Torpedoes volume is what we need here.
 
Speed is still armor, but I guess we can see what we can set up so we can have one torpedo tube.

One's better than none, right?
 
What do we actually want this thing to do differently from the Stingray, apart form using updated tech?

The Stingray already has high maneuverability and without shields whatever we build is going to die to enemy fire just as much.
 
SegaCD said:
Isn't an underslung projector what was chosen for the Bulwark? That's what prevented it from cross firing.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The ship with an underslung deflector is the NX, the Bulwark has an inline deflector (and that looks damn good). And that's what had consequences for cross firing cannons. I'd be more worried about the underslung deflector occupying the space where the torpedo launcher usually goes.

iemand said:
What do we actually want this thing to do differently from the Stingray, apart form using updated tech?

The Stingray already has high maneuverability and without shields whatever we build is going to die to enemy fire just as much.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Maximizing torpedo launchers rather than the mostly cannon based offensive package of the Stingray is what I care most about right now.

Cornuthaum said:
one is definitely better than none when you're throwing photon-jacketed antimatter at someone
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yes but what about a second breakfast torpedo launcher? I'm really hoping the half saucer let us squeeze that in and we can maximize the volley per industry by going cheap on the other choices.
 
Last edited:
One option might be to have a secondary hull directly underneath an Arrowhead primary hull, and using some sort of fairing on each side of the secondary hull to mount photonic torpedo launchers. While this would compromise ventral-aft firepower, that could be compensated for with enough maneuverability + adding one or two aft phase cannons on the back of the secondary hull.

Nacelles could either be slung underneath the primary hull, extending out from the secondary hull/fairings, or attached above the primary hull with short struts.
 
Going off of the design diagrams for the Stingray, we'd be (theoretically, of course) trading off a torpedo tube for a phase cannon, perhaps two, if we went for the arrowhead design and a secondary hull. Not the most palatable trade-off in my eyes, but we'd also be putting in photonic torpedoes instead of atomics, a marked increase in power. But is it enough to justify maybe one torpedo tube if we don't get creative?
 
Ash19256 said:
One option might be to have a secondary hull directly underneath an Arrowhead primary hull, and using some sort of fairing on each side of the secondary hull to mount photonic torpedo launchers. While this would compromise ventral-aft firepower, that could be compensated for with enough maneuverability + adding one or two aft phase cannons on the back of the secondary hull.

Nacelles could either be slung underneath the primary hull, extending out from the secondary hull/fairings, or attached above the primary hull with short struts.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
secondary hulls tend to be industry-intensive and this design has a "be as cheap as you can get away with" mandate, even if i otherwise agree withyour analysis
 
Moratorium has run.

[X] Half-saucer. Aim for a capable medium cruiser. (Industry: 4)
 
[X] Half-saucer. Aim for a capable medium cruiser. (Industry: 4)

As i said, my goal is lots of photon launchers, and I'm willing to make the new design bigger and more expensive to get them.
 
[X] Arrowhead. Aim for a cheap light cruiser. (Industry: 2)

Make it a cheap, very mobile, 4-gun arrowhead that maybe can fit a torp launcher if the hull design experimetns work out. If we can get enough guns on target warbirds will die.
 
[X] Arrowhead. Aim for a cheap light cruiser. (Industry: 2)

My votes are in terms of personal preference. I don't have much stake one way or another into how this design ultimately looks, but the design challenges of making the arrowhead work are going to be interesting if it does win out.

Edit: removing my vote for the half-saucer design due to further discussion. As has been shown, we need something cheap, quick to produce and fly, and maneuverable. An arrowhead can at least get us started on the right track.
 
Last edited:
Ash19256 said:
One option might be to have a secondary hull directly underneath an Arrowhead primary hull, and using some sort of fairing on each side of the secondary hull to mount photonic torpedo launchers. While this would compromise ventral-aft firepower, that could be compensated for with enough maneuverability + adding one or two aft phase cannons on the back of the secondary hull.

Nacelles could either be slung underneath the primary hull, extending out from the secondary hull/fairings, or attached above the primary hull with short struts.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I don't see how you keep that streamlined enough to not make it a bigger target than the nominally larger half saucer though.

Remember, we don't have shields, so structural integrity is a lot more important than on later designs.


Anyway, let's restate my position since the vote is open: I think our answer to the Stingray's failings is to get enough firepower to overwhelm our shield disadvantage, and I think considering their respective performances in the last prototyping round, torpedoes are the way to do this right now. The arrowhead might have later options to claw back its disadvantage in launcher fitting points but that will compromise cost or compactness in some ways, and the half saucer will also have opportunities to improve itself through later options if we want to go there so I don't think those answer its deficiency adequately.

[X] Half-saucer. Aim for a capable medium cruiser. (Industry: 4)
 
Last edited:
[X] Arrowhead. Aim for a cheap light cruiser. (Industry: 2)

An arrowhead with an over-under Akula-style nacelle setup sounds cool.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top