Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
Darth Locutus said:
With the budget hawks sabotaging the maneuverability, this thing absolutely needs full phaser coverage.

I want the torpedo launcher as well, but more for science probes than their combat role since torpedo tubes are the standard delivery mechanism for such probes. Torpedoes and probes get used to solve the science problem of the week almost as frequently as the deflector dish does, possibly even more so.

[ ] 6 Phaser Banks, 2 Forward Torpedo Launchers
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I think the thread decided that without torp tubes the ship would still be able to direct lots of velocity to probes when need be via some sort of launcher tube. And will have probes still. And will of course be able to deploy probes without adding extra velocity to them via the airlocks and shuttle bays. And lots of torpedo storage might lower the space for custom probes and probe workshops.

@Sayle, people still think torpedo tubes helps science. Maybe you could update the post to say without torpedoes it will have utility mass drivers or rocket tubes or whatnot?

[X] 6 Phaser Banks
 
Last edited:
[X] 6 Phaser Banks, 2 Forward Torpedo Launchers
We have the space to build an incredibly capable ship here. Let's go ahead and do it. She'll have the shields to take enemy fire, and enough coverage and damage output to be able to deal with almost anything else. Again, this is a Sagamartha, except cheaper because we're not adding extra nacelles or range. Lots of space for science, where I think we should target the Sagamartha's score as a minimum.
 
Briefvoice said:
I just don't understand why people are freaking out so much about having less than 100% coverage. Yes you might miss some shots on small, maneuverable ships. Some shots. They can't evade forever!
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
In the case of this ship, low manuverability combined with how one of the primary expected opponents outside of fleet action is three to five Klingon Birds-of-Prey, mean there are entirely valid concerns about such highly manuverable craft settling into a blind arc and staying there. Particularly the aft, which has less than great coverage for the lesser numbers of phasers. Honestly the"ideal" configuration is honestly probably the four phaser design with a torpedo fore and aft to mitigate that weakness, but the six phaser design is doable, eminently doable, and I am also considering that our next expected opponents are the Klingons. Who both build powerful and dangerous ships like the K'Tinga/D-7, but are likely to be more considering of starting a fight if Starfleet looks strong and powerful- which such a potent ship, which we can produce in numbers thanks to the low cost rating, is part of our fleet's backbone.
 
Raw90 said:
This ship is very much no longer a light cruiser. That may have been how the project started, but we're well into heavy cruiser territory here. She's going to mass almost the same as the Sagamartha, and have, at the top end, an equivalent average damage output (1 point less). We know from text that the Sagamartha was competitive with the D6, the terrifying Klingon battleship that forced "canon" (very loosely canon, since all that stuff is EU) Starfleet to pump out a bunch of emergency warships. The next heavily armed class we're likely to build is a new explorer, and that can be some ways off, given the Sagamarthas are still perfectly capable and this ship can free them from any internal work, as well as some external work.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That's a very charitable reading of this quote:

Sayle said:
There is only one record of them being used in a combat situation, during which the UFS Kilimanjaro ambushed a Klingon D6 cruiser over Archer IV, turning a lopsided confrontation into an even fight that the Kilimanjaro won after sustaining substantial battle damage.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
 
[X] 6 Phaser Banks, 2 Forward Torpedo Launchers

In the shocking development of the century, I'm voting for torpedoes.

Raw90 said:
This ship is very much no longer a light cruiser. That may have been how the project started, but we're well into heavy cruiser territory here. She's going to mass almost the same as the Sagamartha, and have, at the top end, an equivalent average damage output (1 point less). We know from text that the Sagamartha was competitive with the D6, the terrifying Klingon battleship that forced "canon" (very loosely canon, since all that stuff is EU) Starfleet to pump out a bunch of emergency warships. The next heavily armed class we're likely to build is a new explorer, and that can be some ways off, given the Sagamarthas are still perfectly capable and this ship can free them from any internal work, as well as some external work.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yeah, to be clear, this is exactly right. The Galileo will not have the exact same firepower as a bespoke battlecruiser whilst having an A- cost, that would be ludicrous. But it will be almost as tanky due to its sheer size, because Defence Rating scales with mass. In terms of firepower, we're significantly in excess of a Selachii (with infinitely greater ability to engage multiple targets), and roughly equivalent to our last-generation battleship in the Sagarmatha.

For an A- cost rating ship, which can also do science lots of in peacetime??!

That's an amazing backbone of Starfleet, we churn out twenty four of these things and we're golden. Then we build something small for our next class, maybe test another prototype technology, and when the Galileo production run ends... we build our next explorer, and Starfleet is looking very capable heading into the 2220s.
 
[X] 6 Phaser Banks, 2 Forward Torpedo Launchers

Do keep in mind, we don't have anything between the Sagarmatha and the Selachii that's really combat capable, so a 'Heavy' Cruiser like this monster would have a niche it could fill really well. Especially if the Klingons decide they want some smoke.

It's a long odds vote, but screw it, Daddy knows what he likes.
 
Skippy said:
The thing is, we were given a brief for a ship which can serve capably as a combatant. This allows us to greatly exceed that brief,...

So the way I look at is is sorta like... why wouldn't we seize that opportunity to get an immense upgrade almost for free? If we build twenty four to eighteen of these things, that's a foundation for Starfleet which gives it a line of battle about as good as it had in canon, before we even build our actual explorer design.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Because we don't want these things out being Frontline warships. The design brief and Starfleet's current need is for a better Science vessel that can provide second line combat capabilities. If we turn this into a monster combatant at huge infrastructure cost, then everyone who has a say in anything will demand it be taken off science duty where all that combat potential is wasted and put into Frontline service.

Which means Starfleet won't have the science ship it needs, and will have something less capable than a true Explorer, but is close enough and expensive enough to disincentivize building a proper Explorer.

Nyvis said:
We can either accept that this will basically not be valid as a 2nd rate combattant, or sacrifice most of the gains made on costs. I don't want to say I told you so but who am I kidding, I told you so.

I think the right option here is to just take the L, admit we failed to make a multirole cruiser and hope there's demand for a non tactical explorer on the cheap, because the infrastructure grade drop for arming this properly to cover for its lack of mobility is enormous.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
An A- cost and C- infrastructure for a B- tactical rating is hardly an "L". That's an incredible low cost design, that has average impact on our construction capabilities and an above average combat capability. That is a phenomenonal accomplishment by any measure!

***
6 Phasers no torps gets
Cost: A-
Infrastructure: C-
Tactical: B-

6 phasers and torps gets
Cost: A-
Infrastructure: D-
Tactical: A

Two A's and a failing grade is a lot worse than a full house of passing in my book.

This is a science vessel first and foremost. If we give it a A tactical and D infrastructure, then human nature will push it into a warship and science be damned.

6 Phasers for full coverage and a solid B- when war comes, while still having an exceptionally low cost and average industrial impact. In Science first, In War fierce, In Production efficient.

[X] 6 Phaser Banks
 
[X] 6 Phaser Banks

We need the space for maximum science, but the coverage to make up for the slow speed.

A max coverage ship means that there is little advantage to be gained by fielding a high maneuverability ship against it, which our low maneuverability makes important.

Whether or not we add torpedoes is it's own question, but I think we really ought to go for max coverage.
 
[X] 6 Phaser Banks, 2 Forward Torpedo Launchers

Basically, what Skippy said. This is an amazing opportunity to get a potent workhorse that we can produce in quantity, and I'd like to grab that with both hands.

And as mentioned, "Makes the Klingon Empire more heasitant to go to war" is a factor I would like; which that would likely help do.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top