I don't think I'm wrong, but if you also don't think you're wrong and neither of us are willing to bet money on who's right, then "How is Base/High/Max calculated?" sounds like something I'd ask @Sayle to weigh in on.
Linked contents
Maximum Cruise is the midpoint between Maximum Warp and Efficient Cruise.
Current Type-2 Nacelles:
Cruise: 4.8
Max Cruise: 5.8
Max Warp: 6.8
Your worst possible result right now for the Type-3 is:
Efficient Cruise: 5
Maximum Cruise: 6
Maximum Warp: 7
Your best possible result is:
Efficient Cruise: 5.2
Maximum Cruise: 6.3
Maximum Warp: 7.4
And of course on ships you can usually get a +0.2-+0.4 bonus to cruise or maximum based on where you put the nacelles.
Remember the other improvements were all from how you mounted the nacelles, not the nacelles themselves. So if the Sagarmatha had a statline of 5/6/7, it's because going quad-inline got you +0.2 to all stats.
So if you're comparing to the Sagarmatha, Extended would get you 5.6/6.1/6.6 at worst possible or 5.8/6.4/7 at best possible. Standard would be 5.2/6.1/7 at worst, or 5.2/6.3/7.4 at best.
Last edited:
- Location
- Wörms, the half continent
Taking those states, after we change that to Extended we get 5.4/5.9/6.4 as the worst possible, or 5.6/6.2/6.8 as the best possible state. Which is... awful, IMO? That's pretty awful.
It's pretty clear, given how it's the midpoint of Max and Efficient, that losing -0.6 for +0.4 is going to drop Max Cruise by -0.1 because that's the average of the changes we're applying. This will not, and cannot, boost maximum cruise. It gives a hefty boost to Efficient Cruise, that isn't a lie. +0.4 is about 25% extra speed, at efficient, but if you want more Maximum cruise to go along with it, going for this option is a bad option.
Enthusiast#117
This is not the Profile you are looking for
- Location
- United States
I also am not a fan.
A drop in performance in any metric is not what you want to see for such an expensive component.
Right now, minimum rolls will at least get us to the previous numbers.
Doing this, even maximum rolls would see us fall behind.
A drop in performance in any metric is not what you want to see for such an expensive component.
Right now, minimum rolls will at least get us to the previous numbers.
Doing this, even maximum rolls would see us fall behind.
NSMS
Probably evil, unfortunately.
- Location
- A rapidly widening tear in the fabric of reality
This does seem like a good point to split the development pathway of the nacelles, yeah.
TheShadowDeamon
Mighty Dragon
So a ship with 2 pairs of nacelles- a pair for high cruising and the other for max sprint. Use the cruising pair most of the time and switch when you really need to haul ass.
- Location
- France
- Pronouns
- She/They
I think one question we need to ask ourselves is what ships we are likely to build next, since they will be the ones using those new nacelles. We've already filled our utility niches due to 3 straight rounds of peacetime building so I feel we are going to need the emergency warp speed in the coming builds.
There's nothing that says the older nacelles can't be used for designs that need a higher max speed. I think we should focus on getting the best Cruise possible so that these nacelles can be used for logistics, economy and support ships while more militarized vessels can use the old nacelles. In fact, since we just finished a design that's basically our equivalent of a battleship, the next few designs are probably going to be patrol and support craft who benefit the most from efficient cruise over max, and if they're not we just use the older design.
Basically, we can always use different nacelles for different needs.
Basically, we can always use different nacelles for different needs.
Shard
One and Many
- Location
- Malaysia
I don't think you can match Nacelle types like that, not without some substantial tradeoffs.
MordredRaal
Agitating
- Pronouns
- She/They
[X] Standard Length
My math was more off than I thought. Well, that's a bit of egg on my face.
So if we add extended, that plus nacelle placement comes out to
Worst (choose 1 parenthesis for nacelle placement)
Efficient Cruise: 5.4 (+0.2 - +0.4)
High Cruise: 6.0
Maximum Warp: 6.6 (+0.2 - +0.4)
Best (choose 1 parenthesis)
Efficient Cruise: 5.6 (+0.2 - +0.4)
High Cruise: 6.1
Maximum Warp: 6.8 (+0.2 - +0.4)
And both NP options will add +0.1 - +0.2 to High Cruise, since it's midpoint
Plus whatever the next choice provides, which if it follows the alternating choices we've done so far will be another Max Warp choice.
Not as good as I hoped, but good enough that I'll still vote for extended.
Plus, this bit here
So if we add extended, that plus nacelle placement comes out to
Worst (choose 1 parenthesis for nacelle placement)
Efficient Cruise: 5.4 (+0.2 - +0.4)
High Cruise: 6.0
Maximum Warp: 6.6 (+0.2 - +0.4)
Best (choose 1 parenthesis)
Efficient Cruise: 5.6 (+0.2 - +0.4)
High Cruise: 6.1
Maximum Warp: 6.8 (+0.2 - +0.4)
And both NP options will add +0.1 - +0.2 to High Cruise, since it's midpoint
Plus whatever the next choice provides, which if it follows the alternating choices we've done so far will be another Max Warp choice.
Not as good as I hoped, but good enough that I'll still vote for extended.
Plus, this bit here
makes it sound like there might be a hidden durability/damage resistance mechanic involved, in the same vein as that 10-12 second spool up that a previous option had but wasn't explicitly included in the voting option
Honestly, yeah, this would be my preferred option too. Make this whole voting segment Type 3A for long hauls and do a 3B non-extended variant for sprints, if we don't just do another voting arc entirely.
One thing we don't have which is going to be very relevant to our current situation is a bulk cargo/engineering ship; I could absolutely see us being requested to make one to facilitate colonization.
Last edited:
Someone woke up this morning and chose violence 
If it wasn't for the quick clarification the thread would have been bloody. As is losing out on Max Cruise is a dealbreaker for me, that's your most common emergency response speed when a Max Warp sprint won't get you the distance. If Max Cruise had stayed the same I would be more conflicted.
If it wasn't for the quick clarification the thread would have been bloody. As is losing out on Max Cruise is a dealbreaker for me, that's your most common emergency response speed when a Max Warp sprint won't get you the distance. If Max Cruise had stayed the same I would be more conflicted.
TheShadowDeamon
Mighty Dragon
So if we go for a median, we'd get 5.5/6.05/6.6
It's looking like the best choice would be standard nacelles arranged in the cruising position. As in previous designs that has given a +0.4 to cruising without losing sprint.
I've changed my mind, I'm voting STANDARD LENGTH now
You're essentially establishing a new "baseline", which is currently:
Cruise: 4.8
Max Cruise: 5.8
Max Warp: 6.8
Remember the other improvements were all from how you mounted the nacelles, not the nacelles themselves. So if the Sagarmatha had a statline of 5/6/7, it's because going quad-inline got you +0.2 to all stats.
So if you're comparing to the Sagarmatha, Extended would get you 5.6/6.1/6.6 at worst possible or 5.8/6.4/7 at best possible. Standard would be 5.2/6.1/7 at worst, or 5.2/6.3/7.4 at best.
Last edited:
- Location
- The Netherlands
What kind ships do you think would benefit more from efficient cruise over max cruise? That seems to me like very much civilian purposes and not any kind of ship that Starfleet would want to build.
TheShadowDeamon
Mighty Dragon
The sprint pair would be deactivated until needed. In an emergency they would be warmed up, then the ship would drop out of warp, shut-down the cruising pair and activate the sprint pair before resuming warp- only faster
If we were designing a civilian and a military nacelle, this trade off would be wonderful for the civilian one.
This said, in a civilian model compressor rings would be a wonderful idea as well.
But we do not. We are designing the new universal standard for all future nacelles, at least for some time.
Thus, just as the wind up time of compressor rings was in the end not acceptable for the ships liable to end up in combat, so is a loss of about a third of max speed not tactically acceptable as well, at least in my opinion. This is a difference of mostly our ships choosing when to engage or disengage vs the enemy ones doing the same, and we saw in the romulan war just how huge a difference this can make. So I can't vote for longer nacelles as a universal standard here.
This said, in a civilian model compressor rings would be a wonderful idea as well.
But we do not. We are designing the new universal standard for all future nacelles, at least for some time.
Thus, just as the wind up time of compressor rings was in the end not acceptable for the ships liable to end up in combat, so is a loss of about a third of max speed not tactically acceptable as well, at least in my opinion. This is a difference of mostly our ships choosing when to engage or disengage vs the enemy ones doing the same, and we saw in the romulan war just how huge a difference this can make. So I can't vote for longer nacelles as a universal standard here.
Last edited:
I am confused about how the numbers work still.
Ok, so the baseline makes sense. 4.8/5.8/6.8. Add +0.2 to everything because of the layout and you get 5/6/7. That makes sense.
But the different length options make less sense.
Worst extended
5.6 (+.6)
6.1 (+.1)
6.6 (-.4)
Best extended
5.8 (+.8)
6.4 (+.4)
7 (+0)
Worst Standard
5.2 (+.2)
6.1 (+.1)
7 (+0)
Best Standard
5.2 (+.2)
6.3 (+.3)
7.4 (+.4)
So the extended will net us between +.4 and +.6 cruise speed depending on roll and -.4 max warp always? I am confused because the story post suggests the opposite and cruise should be +.4 and max warp should be -.6.
Last edited:
[] Standard
Something to bring up, but if you make those fuckers longer, you also make them a larger target, and add mass.
I think its a hidden problem, but something to definitely consider.
I'm a champion of the Cruise speed, but size matters.
Something to bring up, but if you make those fuckers longer, you also make them a larger target, and add mass.
I think its a hidden problem, but something to definitely consider.
I'm a champion of the Cruise speed, but size matters.
Last edited:
Theoretically if we build the Nacelles long enough cruise speed will match max warp and we can forgo multiple speeds entirely and just have speed.
Unironically I think this would be what you would ideally want for civilian ships. For a cargo hauler, for example, I could see a solid argument that a .1 increase to cruise speed would actually be worth not having a maximum warp speed entirely and being stuck with cruise as your maximum speed.
Unironically I think this would be what you would ideally want for civilian ships. For a cargo hauler, for example, I could see a solid argument that a .1 increase to cruise speed would actually be worth not having a maximum warp speed entirely and being stuck with cruise as your maximum speed.
Last edited:
I dunno, I was working off the numbers in another post and it's possible I made a mistake. Basically just remember that you're working on a new baseline, and ships get to have their own buffs added to that.