Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
So I just went and looked at the actual design brief again:

Sayle said:
On the other, a light cruiser that deliberately fits a useful armament could then be an effective combatant during future states of hostility.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

This ship is meant to be a capable combatant, armed so that it can usefully contribute offensively to future wars. (Against adversaries who may be 20 years advanced from the current year.) There is no mention of only being a rearline ship who is only meant to take on light combat duties! That was mentioned with reference to the Cygnus, but that is not the description we're given in the brief here for the light cruiser. In fact, from the brief as it is actually written, there seems to be every reason to think combat capacity is meant to be equally important to science here, not less important.

So this whole idea that we were explicitly tasked to build a science ship which can only serve rearline combatant seems like... a very strained reading at best, and simply false at worst? And I believed this!
 
Last edited:
[] 6 Phaser Banks
Giving its reduced manoeuverability, I'd say six phasers is an absolute must have. I was iffy about the torpedoes- if there had been an option for only one I would have taken it. However two I think is too much on the costs.
I think we should consider the likely role this ship will play, as it could be considered a modern day version of a battlecruiser; slower and less manoeuverable than smaller lighter ships, but with enough firepower that they can easily handle any that get within range of it. However, larger heavier armed ships that it comes into contact with it then has enough speed advantage i.e. a higher factor that it can disengage.
As someone already said, given its low manoeuvring, the only thing it's likely to be able to torpedo is larger warships- and its main objective in that case would be to get away from it. On this ship the torpedoes at a sinkhole for resources and industry. Better to spend them on building more ships instead.

EDIT:
[X] 6 Phaser Banks, 2 Forward Torpedo Launchers
I.changed my mind
 
Last edited:
Skippy said:
So I just went and looked at the actual design brief again:



This ship is meant to be a capable combatant, armed so that it can usefully contribute offensively to future wars. (Against adversaries who may be 20 years advanced from the current year.) There is no mention of only being a rearline ship who is only meant to take on light combat duties! That was mentioned with reference to the Cygnus, but that is not the description we're given in the brief here for the light cruiser. In fact, from the brief as it is actually written, there seems to be every reason to think combat capacity is meant to be equally important to science here, not less important.

So this whole idea that we were explicitly tasked to build a science ship which can only serve rearline combatant seems like... a very strained reading at best, and simply false at worst? And I believed this!
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The brief, again, also states it's a successor to the Curiosity which is explicity designated a rearline combatant. It's less a strained reading imo and more you wanting to make a several decades early proto Connie which far exceeds called-for specs in terms of firepower.
 
[X] 6 Phaser Banks

We chose to make a science vessel that can pull double duty as a decently beefy flyswatter so it can contribute to an order of battle when necessary. Ideally in war time it's never going near the front lines except as part of a supply convoy maybe, but since ideal situations rarely happen in war it's best to give this slow turning ship full coverage so it can swat all kinds of flies, like corvettes and torpedoes.
 
Last edited:
TheShadowDeamon said:
As someone already said, given its low manoeuvring, the only thing it's likely to be able to torpedo is larger warships- and its main objective in that case would be to get away from it. On this ship the torpedoes at a sinkhole for resources and industry. Better to spend them on building more ships instead.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It explicitly does not make any difference to building more ships, or to the cost, as confirmed by Word of QM.

A higher Industrial Cost represents with an opportunity cost that we cannot design and roll a next-generation battleship as our next project after this one without production delays; but this is extremely unlikely given we are in peacetime, recently finished a war, have a large number of still relatively-modern sitting around, and would want more technologies unlocked before we committed to our next explorer/battleship.

Except if you believe we are building the Thunderchild Mk II: Photonic Boogaloo as our next project, which would be an objectively poor decision, it is explicitly costless, for a massive upgrade in a key design requirement. And it gives us a ship which can contribute usefully as a second-rate line cruiser, rather than hiding behind the lines and just-about-defending itself from lighter foes. I.E., what the brief actually asks us for.

landcollector said:
The brief, again, also states it's a successor to the Curiosity which is explicity designated a rearline combatant. It's less a strained reading imo and more you wanting to make a several decades early proto Connie which far exceeds called-for specs in terms of firepower.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The Curiosity is not even designated as a combatant full stop, and this is called out as a massive problem. Also, what it's succeeding is irrelevant - the actual design brief for the light cruiser variant is written explicitly:
Sayle said:
On the other, a light cruiser that deliberately fits a useful armament could then be an effective combatant during future states of hostility.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
 
[X] 4 Phaser Banks
[X] 6 Phaser Banks

Torpedoes don't make sense for this ship. With it's low maneuverability it's ability to fire torpedoes at anything that isn't a station is going to be really bad.
 
Skippy said:
The idea that, by massively upgrading this ship's capabilities for nothing more than an opportunity cost we would not plausibly be taking anyway, we somehow made it less efficient is... I struggle to parse it.

Unless you genuinely believe we're going to roll out Thunderchild Mk. II, Photonic Boogaloo in the next six years, whilst we already have a ton of Selachiis... this is the perfect time to put our arms industry to good use in making a more powerful second line combatant. Otherwise that industry is simply going to waste! Even if you think we'd build another "patrol cruiser" like the Cygnus after this.... this cost/capability balance this ship offers is amazing due to a fortuitous blend of circumstances. We're not likely to get that again, it's like rolling a Nat 20.

It's like... I just don't get it.

It's like a reverse version of utilitarianism, where exceeding the minimum capabilities at the same unit cost is bad.



It is a turn of phrase to represent the options @Sayle has made available to us.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I am right there with you man

Like, word of QM is we get the same number of hulls regardless, so there's no real gain to not putting the maximum armament on this thing- maybe it makes them harder to build in wartime when we're also building a bunch of other things, but in that scenario we'd almost certainly be building loads of Sharks anyway, not these. It's the right time for this kind of design to be happening.
 
[X] 4 Phaser Banks
[X] 6 Phaser Banks

Torpedos are not nessecary for its intended purpose. The coverage is important should it need to be deployed against cloaked opponents.
 
Skippy said:
Except if you believe we are building the Thunderchild Mk II: Photonic Boogaloo as our next project, which would be an objectively poor decision, it is explicitly costless, for a massive upgrade in a key design requirement. And it gives us a ship which can contribute usefully as a second-rate line cruiser, rather than hiding behind the lines and just-about-defending itself from lighter foes. I.E., what the brief actually asks us for.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That's not what the QM said, though. What the QM said was that if we turn this into our mainline warship, then the high infra cost will mean that we won't be able to afford to build much else during wartime because we will have to pump out more mainline warships. So the question is whether or not we want a ship we initially intended to serve as rear line security and possible flank screening to instead be our main warship, at the potential opportunity cost of not being able to build an actual purpose-built combatant when war kicks off.

What are we using for internal security right now, anyways? I feel like it's been a while since any of those ships were replaced?

[X] 6 Phaser Banks
 
[X] 6 Phaser Banks, 2 Forward Torpedo Launchers
[X] 4 Phaser Banks, 2 Forward Torpedo Launchers

I want torpedo launchers due to how often in canon ships used modified torpedoes for some technobabble or as probes, or…
 
Skippy said:
So I just went and looked at the actual design brief again:



This ship is meant to be a capable combatant, armed so that it can usefully contribute offensively to future wars. (Against adversaries who may be 20 years advanced from the current year.) There is no mention of only being a rearline ship who is only meant to take on light combat duties! That was mentioned with reference to the Cygnus, but that is not the description we're given in the brief here for the light cruiser. In fact, from the brief as it is actually written, there seems to be every reason to think combat capacity is meant to be equally important to science here, not less important.

So this whole idea that we were explicitly tasked to build a science ship which can only serve rearline combatant seems like... a very strained reading at best, and simply false at worst? And I believed this!
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
[ ] Secondary capability, medium range, decently armed. (Light Cruiser: ~400k)

Primary capability was science vessel. The option was between a mono-focused science ship or one with secondary combat capabilities. It was in the vote options, maybe you skipped that vote cycle?
 
Dropping the torpedoes is giving up on getting something for nothing.

Unless you think we are going to build another dreadnought or explorer in the next five years, which we almost certainly aren't because there are no next-generation weapons or shields yet to put in it. This is the tradeoff explicitly stated by the QM. We lose a massive upgrade to our tactical abilities, which we get essentially for free. It does not effect production cost, the number of hulls, or anything else.

Please, I know this has been quite a lively debate, but I implore voters to look at what Sayle has said, and the actual numbers and improvement to our Rating this gives.

Shard said:
Torpedoes don't make sense for this ship. With it's low maneuverability it's ability to fire torpedoes at anything that isn't a station is going to be really bad.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

This is explicitly not true, as stated by the numbers in the update, and the QM. Manoeuvrability is fully accounted for in the Single Target Damage Rating, which is +50% higher, as well as Average Damage and Multi-Target Damage.

The Maximum Sustained Damage and Alpha Strike are double and quadrupled respectively. It is not unreasonable to expect that we could alpha strike another capital ship, within a fleet engagement involving other ships. Other capital ships may well be of the same manoeuvrability; as Sayle has stated already that capital ships tend to get a bit slower and more like ships of the line in this era.
 
Last edited:
[X] 6 Phaser Banks, 2 Forward Torpedo Launchers

6 phasers for coverage and 2 torpedoes to punch ships on the same weight class? Sold.

All this dooming about how the Galileo isn't fast enough is a bit much though.
 
Last edited:
Skippy said:
Unless you think we are going to build another dreadnought or explorer in the next five years, which we almost certainly aren't because there are no next-generation weapons or shields yet to put in it. This is the tradeoff explicitly stated by the QM. We lose a massive upgrade to our tactical abilities, which we get essentially for free. It does not effect production cost, the number of hulls, or anything else.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
A "why not?!" Is not enough justification for me to want to engage in this level of feature creep.
 
We do not loose any hulls if we go for 6 phasers and 2 torpedos, we're unlikely to loose any auxiliary slots given this is basically a slightly smaller Connie refit and we know where the torpedos for that go.

What we do get is a combatant second only to our top of the line explorer in greater numbers! At a time where we've likely rocketed up the Klingon's worthy foe (to raid and war with) metre considerably!
Since we're at peace this is the perfect time to go for a big ship (which we have) with lots in the way of weapons (which we're hesitating on); there isn't going to be a weapons production bottleneck.

There is literally no reason not to go for 6 phasers and 2 torpedos.
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top