That'd be quite the unique project, not sure if we've ever really done anything like this.
And a perfect place to maximise, depending on the exact role.
Linked contents
And a perfect place to maximise, depending on the exact role.
Uh.. I don't understand why you think a) that this wouldn't be used for that and b) second line ships usually are just older frontline ships.
A diplomatic vessels sounds really cool to be honest, I'm all for that. Also definitely means there'd be no cost to the Infrastructure Cost on this thing, unless we're going to send treaty drafts via Photon Torpedo. 
This is a perfectly valid point, but I would point out... we can still use these ships as rearline if we want to? They're simply vastly better at it. Personally I think this would also be a perfectly good idea. Keep half of our Galileos at home, and have half to bulk out the battlefleet. That seems perfectly reasonable to me?
Or keep all of them at home, or whatever. The point is that having better ships for no significant cost... does not cost us anything, or bind our hands. Whatever we were planning to do with them before, we could still do with them with significantly increased firepower.
This is a perfectly valid point, but I would point out... we can still use these ships as rearline if we want to? They're simply vastly better at it. Personally I think this would also be a perfectly good idea. Keep half of our Galileos at home, and have half to bulk out the battlefleet. That seems perfectly reasonable to me?
Or keep all of them at home, or whatever. The point is that having better ships for no significant cost... does not cost us anything, or bind our hands. Whatever we were planning to do with them before, we could still do with them with significantly increased firepower.
Last edited:
Art: Birth of the Federation Fleet
Without a war or more tech making a monster ship next (while a choice we could make) doesn't seem like it is a must have. There's no real incentive to pick that as our next project if we're given a choice. Then if we don't pick the battleship/ dreadnought project the drawbacks from this design including torpedoes don't actually matter.
Starfleet infrastructure isn't busy so giving them some work that'll wrap up before our next big project doesn't hurt us.
Having more capable support ships for the same money just means we're better prepared. If you have more tools in your toolbox you're generally able to tackle things more effectively.
Starfleet infrastructure isn't busy so giving them some work that'll wrap up before our next big project doesn't hurt us.
Having more capable support ships for the same money just means we're better prepared. If you have more tools in your toolbox you're generally able to tackle things more effectively.
CrabMonarchy
Allegedly Dutch
- Location
- the Netherlands, apparently
[X] 6 Phaser Banks, 2 Forward Torpedo Launchers
NSMS
Probably evil, unfortunately.
- Location
- A rapidly widening tear in the fabric of reality
Wasn't the Ambassador technically a diplomatic vessel?A diplomatic vessels sounds really cool to be honest, I'm all for that. Also definitely means there'd be no cost to the Infrastructure Cost on this thing, unless we're going to send treaty drafts via Photon Torpedo.
Technically, but that was more an aspect of "it's the hero ship, which is always a diplomatic battleship"
Because that's not how militaries generally work? If you have big gun, you use big gun. If we put warship grade armaments onto a ship, it's a warship. It's going to do warship things, and if they're investing more military infrastructure per ship than a Selachii, then it's probably going to end up on the frontlines. Starfleet is not going to look at a ship which does 90% of what a Sagarmatha does and decide to use it to protect convoys. And it's not like the Galileo is freeing up some older class of cruiser to go perform those duties instead.
- Location
- Illinois
- Pronouns
- He/Him
This is incredible, nice work.
Explorers tend to double up in some capacity as diplomatic vessels due to First Contact potential.
" Six Canadian destroyers and 17 corvettes, reinforced by seven destroyers, three sloops, and five corvettes of the Royal Navy, were assembled for duty in the force, which escorted the convoys from Canadian ports to Newfoundland and then on to a meeting point south of Iceland, where the British escort groups took over. "
Kinda honestly, escort duty of convoys *is* what you spend warships on.
You do realise that a great many convoys were escorted by battleships during both world wars, right? Even full on fleet carriers in some cases.
In many cases a big guns are needed to see off the enemy from sending their own big gunned ships to just whack an otherwise totally defenceless convoy.
Arctic convoys of World War II - Wikipedia
Even in cases where they weren't, hundreds of corvettes, frigates, destroyers and cruisers served as convoy escorts throughout both.
- Location
- Illinois
- Pronouns
- He/Him
It will most certainly do exactly that, particularly with the existing Cygnus-class light cruiser. The Cygnus retrospective explicitly states that the class was passing to rear-line duties exclusively by 2220, about 15 years in the future, while the class was totally decommissioned in 2252. That suggests very strongly to me that the ships we're building now will in fact free up ships for rear-line duty.
- Location
- Outside the Box
- Pronouns
- She/Her
The arguments for torpedoes is just frustratingly circular. Last vote, we chose two impulse engines to save on cost because we didn't intend to make this a frontline combat ship. This vote, because we saved on cost, now it makes sense to make it a frontline combat ship? Pull the other one, please.
This ship has Low Maneuverability. Making it our primary combat ship in wartime means we'd lose a lot more of them than we would for a ship with even Medium Maneuverability. And a fleet doctrine where we spam cheap, slow, armed but not especially well-armored ships seems damn cruel to our crews.
The Selachii works because it has Very High Maneuverability, making it very hard to hit and letting it use its torpedoes to their maximum potential. The Thunderchild worked because it had massive armor and as many weapons as could fit. Project Galileo has neither. We should save the torpedoes for a ship better suited to using them.
This ship has Low Maneuverability. Making it our primary combat ship in wartime means we'd lose a lot more of them than we would for a ship with even Medium Maneuverability. And a fleet doctrine where we spam cheap, slow, armed but not especially well-armored ships seems damn cruel to our crews.
The Selachii works because it has Very High Maneuverability, making it very hard to hit and letting it use its torpedoes to their maximum potential. The Thunderchild worked because it had massive armor and as many weapons as could fit. Project Galileo has neither. We should save the torpedoes for a ship better suited to using them.
Yeah, that's a fair point, I guess all explorers are?
But with explorers it's more... they can do Mad Science, and fight enemy battleships at the same time... diplomatically. 😅
I mean, I sort of get what you mean here but.... if it costs the same and gives us more capability, this still seems a bit odd to me?
Like nothing forces us not to use a ship that does 90% of what a Sagarmatha does to protect convoys, especially if we have a couple dozen of them, and hopefully our next explorer class and maybe a generalist frigate along the lines of the Reliant or Cygnus in service by the next war. For that matter, we also have all our old Selachii class escorts. They have roughly the same single-target firepower, but are slower at warp, so would be a good choice if we're looking for a general escort for rear area duties some time from now.
Realistically, a navy is always going to divide its forces by jobs, not say "No, you're just too good for convoy work", so if Galileos were the ships available at the time, I don't think Starfleet would baulk at it? They're not the Imperial Japanese Navy. In the second world war, Arctic Convoys would have battleships and cruisers in their escorts sometimes. Often to smoke out enemy surface raiders and then kill them, admittedly, but still. In a war a decade or two from how, I think the Galileo is going to be solidly at the level of "punchy and very cost effective light cruiser" not, "cutting edge battleship we can't afford to take off the front lines". If the war happened tomorrow, then I suppose we might want them forward, but then we'd have Selachiis and Cygnuses for escorts.
So like... I understand what you mean now, I think it may cause some decisions over how to use them, but I broadly trust starfleet to get it right? And I don't think having to decide how best to use a free 50% firepower increase is a good reason not to take a 50% firepower increase.
[X] 6 Phaser Banks
Prefer to have a good score across all metrics that two great scores and a crappy one. Still not going to be mad if the other options win.
Prefer to have a good score across all metrics that two great scores and a crappy one. Still not going to be mad if the other options win.
KleverKil'Vanya
Ortillery Operator
[X] 6 Phaser Banks, 2 Forward Torpedo Launchers
Discodisk with some party poppers!
Discodisk with some party poppers!
I could be persuaded to take the extra torpedo launchers, if it indeed has no effect on our numbers (I'm seriously worried about our numerical situation) if @Sayle could confirm whether or not they'd diminish our scientific facilities. If so I don't want them. If not I'll gladly take them.
Last edited:
Except it has an "A" Tactical Rating, and is the chonkiest ship we've ever built, meaning that for what it costs us to build at "A-", it's extremely survivable and effective. Not "this ship can never be destroyed under any circumstances", but that's not how you asses the value of military platforms? It's about the cost to build versus utility, which is explicitly excellent here. The Ratings are the ultimate governor of how good ships are at the things we can do.
There also is not circularity here. The extra engines badly hurt our Cost Rating. The torpedoes explicitly do not, and make the ship better at what we want it to do, for no significant cost due to a fortuitous coincidence in build schedules. Whether we deem it a frontline combatant or not is entirely up to us, and this scare-mongering is rather silly. But if we do want it as a frontline combatant to bulk out our line of battle, it will no doubt perform well.
- Location
- Australia
I agree with the reasoning that we can afford the torpedoes, it's absolutely correct.
However the fact that we can barely hit with them massively reduces their effectiveness and there's a good chance it will cost us science score makes me not want them. If we had average maneuverability I would have considered it a vital must have.
Between the space saved with not putting in that third thruster and not putting in torpedoes, I think that's there's an excellent chance of S science score.
[] 6 Phaser Banks
[X] 6 Phaser Banks, 2 Forward Torpedo Launchers
Last edited: