Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
With 51 votes for 6/0 and 25 for 6/2 I know where I'm putting my money to bet on the winner. Short of some combination of 27 new voters coming in for 6/2 with no one going 6/0 or 14 people changing their vote from 6/0 to 6/2 it seems highly likely any further arguments are moot. I'm not saying not to make them, have fun! But stressing out about it probably won't be productive.

This does not seem to be a quest where the QM is making every decision we make a razors edge matter of life or bad end to the quest. The arguments I keep seeing are vastly over the top for the consequences of the 'wrong' decision.
 
Skippy said:
I pray and hope that this can put the cost argument to bed, and people can find a different reason to justify their vibes-based dislike of the torpedoes, like losing a slot. This is at least technically true; even if the cost benefit is clearly in favour of an entire rating grade in a core mission requirement versus an auxiliary capability.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah like, this is the only thing that actually carried some weight for me, even if our science baseline is already pretty darn good because we got the new computers.

The D- infrastructure is a real cost but considering we're in peacetime right now, the opportunity cost currently isn't that bad for us right now? We print out the A- cost ship right now, have it be a very nice ship that's a general filler with great tactical great cost and most likely decent science because iirc our hull capacity is pretty good and we can stuff it up with other things as needed, and then when we hit wartime we stop building these and print out the wartime ships

It's not like it's ever bad for a ship to be better armed when the trade-offs on the capability on the ship are comparatively minor, from my understanding.
 
landcollector said:
Which makes no logical sense in any way. Your ideal, a 6 Phaser 2 Torp all the SCIENCE! hull, somehow keeping an A- cost rating (I guess Infra means little to nothing in your eyes so not bothering to include it anymore), speaks to wierd stuff happening with the back-end of the design process as a whole.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Different budget pools, right now the starfleet infrastructure is basically twiddling their thumbs so giving them something relatively time consuming isn't a roadblock to building more ships.
 
Basically the question is "What else are our photon torpedo tube production lines doing at the moment?" and right now they don't have another ship to build photon torpedoes tubes for so we may as well give them something to do.
 
landcollector said:
Which makes no logical sense in any way. Your ideal, a 6 Phaser 2 Torp all the SCIENCE! hull, somehow keeping an A- cost rating (I guess Infra means little to nothing in your eyes so not bothering to include it anymore), speaks to wierd stuff happening with the back-end of the design process as a whole.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Well, I get that, it was unintuitive to me as well. But respectfully I would maybe ask you to take this up with the QM, rather than voting to reduce the power of our ship whilst we both know that it does not really gain us anything in savings? Like if you you really care about the module slot, then fair enough, but I think it's still a very bad tradeoff.

In terms of why it is this way, I personally think it's easy to rationalise. We have a bunch of production lines which spun up for the war effort and are sitting empty when we stopped building Selachiis. So the total cost is basically just the hull cost, whereas the cost of the weapons is mostly "how much of this armaments capacity do you want to tie down, versus being maximally flexible for another combat-focussed project". Which in this case, does not realistically exist on a near- term horizon. Also remember we're a semi-post-scarcity command economy, so the accounting is a bit different.

In five years time we will not have the same circumstances, which is what makes this all the more golden of an opportunity.
 
Fouredged Sword said:
Cost is how much it taxes the civilian industry.

Industry is how much it taxes the military industry.

Industry is not a major consideration for a ship we intend to build during peacetime when and we have military industry slack.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Still doesn't make much sense to me. Unless the military is fabbing its own raw mats and intermediate components for the Phasers and Torps those are coming in from the civvie side in someway.
 
After this ship, I want to build a mainline combat ship that has High Manuverability, the soon-to-be experimental Duratanium-Enhanced Hull Plating, and has a higher mass so it fit in more stuff too. I don't want to spend all our military budget for the next two ships on this one instead.
 
[X] 6 Phaser Banks, 2 Forward Torpedo Launchers

There it is. Our big stick. UEG is living up to Churchill and Pliny's motto. Our diplomats can afford to speak softly with a stick this big.
 
Fouredged Sword said:
Basically the question is "What else are our photon torpedo tube production lines doing at the moment?" and right now they don't have another ship to build photon torpedoes tubes for so we may as well give them something to do.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Thank you so much for saying what I've been trying to explain for eight pages in a much more concise and clear way. 😅
 
landcollector said:
Still doesn't make much sense to me. Unless the military is fabbing its own raw mats and intermediate components for the Phasers and Torps those are coming in from the civvie side in someway.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yes, but this quest isn't going to get into that level of nitty-gritty minerals, especially with Industrial Replicators being A Thing.

The problem with Federation production capability isn't raw materials (unless it's like dilithium) it's *ability to construct and fabricate*
 
landcollector said:
Still doesn't make much sense to me. Unless the military is fabbing its own raw mats and intermediate components for the Phasers and Torps those are coming in from the civvie side in someway.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Our military is fabbing it's own raw mats and intermediate components. I guess the bottleneck for phasers and photon torpedoes is a completely different material than the bottleneck for anything civilian so there isn't much crossover.

But the thing I think that is being overlooked is that Starfleet "military" is very different than what we consider military. It's a lot more civilian than what we would consider military and it likely DOES run it's own resource extraction operations using Starfleet personnel.
 
[X] 4 Phaser Banks, 2 Forward Torpedo Launchers
[X] 6 Phaser Banks

I mean, I wouldn't actually be that surprised if we start work on a big capital ship with torpedoes soon? We still probably are going to make a long range explorer for this generation of ships, no way this will cover that role with only 70ly, and the last explorer we made was all the way before the police cutter and new nacelle so it's pretty high time for a new one.

I am intrigued by the few arguments sprinkled here and there that this ship might end up dealing with a bunch of solo raids from individual ships trying to slip by where a group assembling might get noticed easier though. In which case even accounting for the low maneuverability 4+2: gains a +4 increase in single-target damage over 6 in a exchange for a -4 in multi-target, and trades just 1 point of Average Damage for a quadrupling of Alpha Strike damage, all for just a single tier of Infra rather than the 3 for 6+2.

And yes this ship isn't going to be Alpha Striking with that often with it's (lack of) manuverabilty. But with that significant increase of Alpha the Galileo will have to not line up or luck into an Alpha Strike 36 times for the 12 Average Damage to just break even. If the Galileo can manage an Alpha Strike just 3% of the time it fires that's still a damage increase.
 
Last edited:
Sayle said:
And the comparison sheet for the current era, with corrected masses.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Could you put a note on the info threadmarks that the change was made? I was reviewing the previous ships and then noticed that the numbers were very different on the infomark. It took me a bit of digging to find this post and figure out why a ship I clearly remember as being 100ktons was suddenly 24ktons.
 
Jalinth said:
This does not seem to be a quest where the QM is making every decision we make a razors edge matter of life or bad end to the quest. The arguments I keep seeing are vastly over the top for the consequences of the 'wrong' decision.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I mean, of course it isn't life or death, apologies if my tone indicated otherwise. If we forgo the torps, then the Gailleo will be fine, and its scientific capabilities will be just the same.

What would befrustrating is if we pass up on a massive upgrade to a key design capability which we can get for a song, and a refusal to look at the evidence that contradicts people's gut feelings despite painstaking attempts to obtain good information and explain it. That's hardly unusual in a quest, it happens all the time, it's just vaguely annoying.

Derpmind said:
After this ship, I want to build a mainline combat ship that has High Manuverability, the soon-to-be experimental Duratanium-Enhanced Hull Plating, and has a higher mass so it fit in more stuff too. I don't want to spend all our military budget for the next two ships on this one instead.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I mean, this is valid, but the Selachii exists, and is still a fairly new design, which we have available in significant numbers. So I don't think we're getting a significantly better high-manoeuvrability warship without more techs unlocked. Normally our build cycle for a single production run is like, 5-8 years ish? So we're forgoing a maximally combat heavy ship for one other class at most, not two, in exchange for a lot of extra up-front combat power.

Like, Sayle explicitly said it's not really an issue unless we were building the Thunderchild Mk. II for our next class. Which would be silly, because... we aren't going to do that.

We could, based on what Sayle has said, probably build another workhorse design which was moderately armed for our next class, and it would be fine.
 
I kinda like the tactical layout of the phasers - all of them are on the dorsal surface, so naturally any maneuvers the Galileo would make to bring her phasers to bear would hide the warp core-bearing secondary hull behind the saucer...
 
Skippy had me mostly convinced, but Mechanis tipped me over with the 'standard-issue torpedoes' argument.

[X] 6 Phaser Banks, 2 Forward Torpedo Launchers

Mechanis said:
Yeah I'm in the six phasers and torpedoes camp, but mostly because I want to move to Torpedoes being standard issue equipment- honestly I would actually prefer a one-fore-one-aft configuration to help cover the lower manuverability issue by doubling the arc it can fire Torpedoes into (and to smack impertinent BoPs on the nose if they try to get up her skirts) but yeah, I would prefer we actually put guns on the things this time.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

But this is what I really want:
[-] 6 Phaser Banks, 1 Forward Torpedo Launcher, 1 Backward Torpedo Launcher
 
7th Hex said:
I mean, I wouldn't actually be that surprised if we start work on a big capital ship with torpedoes soon?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

If it isn't our next class, it does not matter, and it's not realistically going to be, because there's no reason to design a dreadnought right now.

Also... the Galileo is a big capital ship with torpedoes. It is not the literal killiest version of a cruiser we could build, but it's extremely economical, so the firepower/cost is actually extremely good. Inexpensive and capable combatants are incredibly important for a navy. It will also be quite tough, by virtue of its size.

Like, at the Cost Rating/Tactical Rating this offers, it would be a good design if all it could do was haul cargo and do light engineering work. Having a rally high Science rating too and doing a really useful peacetime job is like, absurd amounts of utility in one hull. This ship will never not be indispensable with an A/A Tactical/Science rating.
 
Skippy said:
I mean, of course it isn't life or death, apologies if my tone indicated otherwise. If we forgo the torps, then the Gailleo will be fine, and its scientific capabilities will be just the same.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Given that the thread has seen well deserved threadbans because of how heated some people got, I felt like it would be wise making a call for calm before things got too heated. I've put in some researched arguments in the past for some threads myself.

To be clear the 'keep seeing' was referring to the current and previous thread as a whole.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top