The problem is that this assumes that we will not order further runs of this ship, especially during wartime. I don't think that's reasonable. Unless we design a better cruiser between now and then, the next time war breaks out then this will be one of our primary combatants.
Linked contents
Endorfinator
Awkwardly Social
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Yeah, if you just stretch the events out to reasonable scale instead of jamming it all into 3 years. There are some other fanfiction projects you could draw from as well, with permission of course.
TheShadowDeamon
Mighty Dragon
In that case, I think we really could do with a new cargo design. Specifically tuned for high speed efficent cruising (come on 3 nacelles, I believe in you). Lot's of cargo spaces and a medium shuttlebay for 2 standard and 2 heavy lifter shuttles.
- Location
- Outside the Box
- Pronouns
- She/Her
Yeah. If we miss out on +2 Science, or +2 Engineering, or ??? Capability, I can't consider the torpedoes "free".
And why is that a bad thing? Like, it makes the ship better, for negligible cost. We can still use it the same way as we were planning, or even employ it to help bulk out our line of battle as an extremely cost-effective line cruiser. We only gain.
This is the bit I find so bizarre about this logic; it's like deciding to chop off one foot because the minimum design requirement is that we need to be able to hop.
Which is explicitly contradicted by the QM, who has stated that the number of ships we build will not change. This is not surprising, as the production cost also does not change. If war were declared now or in the next few years, then again according to the QM, we would mostly be building the Selachii.
Across a longer timeframe, the idea that we would be building a Galileo without torpedoes as our a primary combatant is patently ludicrous. The Selachii is a better fighter pound for pound than a Galileo sans torps, and we would have other classes of ships by then. We'd have to.
- Location
- his hidden lair
[X] 6 Phaser Banks
We've made an ideal light cruiser; cheap, fast, capable of smashing smaller ships and running away from anything bigger. Insisting it has the torpedoes it needs to stand and die against a proper warship of heavier tonnage is just a mistake, and insisting it's a costless choice only underlines your own biases.
To paraphrase you- I don't understand the logic of it: we chose the phasers that were great at punching down and ass at raw firepower, we have torpedo boats to carry the raw firepower against heavier targets, and now we'll have a light cruiser to punch down. The Galileo was never going to be a primary combatant, and it certainly never should be after we sacrificed it's mobility (and thus it's means of leveraging our heavier weaponry), balking now is just compromising the flexibility of our shipbuilding capacity.
The minimum cost changes things from a Galileo being roughly the price of 1.8 Selachii to 2.2 Selachii. Assuming a production run of 15 Galileo's you've removed 6 Selachii from the equation. I'd much rather have 6 Selachii- in whatever big battle that has enough heavy cruisers to warrant the Galileo's torpedo tubes than a fraction of those Galileo's being present (because it's a rear line combat ship rather than a ship of the line regardless and the Selachii is all tooth and no tail by comparison)
We've made an ideal light cruiser; cheap, fast, capable of smashing smaller ships and running away from anything bigger. Insisting it has the torpedoes it needs to stand and die against a proper warship of heavier tonnage is just a mistake, and insisting it's a costless choice only underlines your own biases.
To paraphrase you- I don't understand the logic of it: we chose the phasers that were great at punching down and ass at raw firepower, we have torpedo boats to carry the raw firepower against heavier targets, and now we'll have a light cruiser to punch down. The Galileo was never going to be a primary combatant, and it certainly never should be after we sacrificed it's mobility (and thus it's means of leveraging our heavier weaponry), balking now is just compromising the flexibility of our shipbuilding capacity.
Last edited:
[X] 6 Phaser Banks
If this ship were billed as the Cygnus replacement instead of the Curiosity replacement I'd be more onboard with adding the torpedo tubes.
Since this thing's supposed to be science oriented rather than engineering oriented like the Cygnus there will still be a need to replace all the Cygnus's that are flying around since those are getting pretty old.
I'd be more inclined to invest in torpedoes for a hypothetical Cygnus replacement rather than this since if there is gonna be a cruiser weight ship that might be built in greater numbers than this thing it would be the Cygnus replacement.
If this ship were billed as the Cygnus replacement instead of the Curiosity replacement I'd be more onboard with adding the torpedo tubes.
Since this thing's supposed to be science oriented rather than engineering oriented like the Cygnus there will still be a need to replace all the Cygnus's that are flying around since those are getting pretty old.
I'd be more inclined to invest in torpedoes for a hypothetical Cygnus replacement rather than this since if there is gonna be a cruiser weight ship that might be built in greater numbers than this thing it would be the Cygnus replacement.
Exceedingly cool. That you went so far as to find names for all the other ships is very impressive.
[X] 6 Phaser Banks
Torpedoes are significantly worsened by the lack of engines. Even ignoring the downside of being harder to mass-produce during wartime, I care more about saving the space and thus improving the ship's actual science capabilities.
I voted for 3 engines and with that we would have enough maneuverability to make torpedoes worthwhile, but they're just not worth it here.
Torpedoes are significantly worsened by the lack of engines. Even ignoring the downside of being harder to mass-produce during wartime, I care more about saving the space and thus improving the ship's actual science capabilities.
I voted for 3 engines and with that we would have enough maneuverability to make torpedoes worthwhile, but they're just not worth it here.
A Galileo with torps is almost certainly a strategically superior combatant than a Sagarmatha, so within our doctrine we would produce a mix of Galileo's and Selachii. On the other hand, if we elect to avoid torpedoes and later design a vessel better suited to frontline combat (not low agility) we can build those instead, or simply build a dreadnought if we don't have a new explorer by then.
Basically, the higher the tactical rating the more likely the infrastructure rating will actually matter, and I don't think the Galileo with torps is a valuable enough combatant compared to some of the other things Starfleet could spend infra on in the next war. The only way this is actually free is if we just start turning all our ships into heavily armed frontliners so Starfleet can actually pick and choose which ones are optimal once war starts.
We need to replace the Cygnus anyways, and a ship with expansive cargo bays and engineering facilities has obvious benefits as a cruiser. I would prefer that we leave the Galileo as a ship that does not expect to fight heavy cruisers and turn the Cygnus replacement into a warship instead.
Presumably until I burn out. The ships keep getting marginally more detailed, so who knows when that will stop.
Not a primary combatant, as a science ship or utility vessel. Something to cover low intensity situations to free up primary combatants.
So, it's valid to point to the module slot as a cost. But equally this ship has more internal volume than anything we've ever built before, and a boost to Science from its computer core. Given the internal volume, there is almost certainly going to be auxiliary module slot to sacrifice first before Science modules. So we need to ask which offers the the better cost/benefit.
Going up a whole ranking in Tactics is clearly worth an extra cargo bay or a crew lounge given the importance of combat to the design. Like in general rankings are weight higher auxiliary capabilities outside special circumstances, but especially when it's core to our mission profile and creates an amazingly cost-effective combatant.
Okay, but as @Sayle says in the same post you quoted this from:
Right now, we are not building any Selachii at all, and have no plans to start churning them out again short of another war in the near future. It is not the actual practical limiting factor even in wartime, as we would build mostly Selachii in that scenario.
In short... there is no meaningful cost, other than the module slot.
No, we would not, for the same reason we were not building the Cygnus during the Federation-Kzinti War.
Going up a whole ranking in Tactics is clearly worth an extra cargo bay or a crew lounge given the importance of combat to the design. Like in general rankings are weight higher auxiliary capabilities outside special circumstances, but especially when it's core to our mission profile and creates an amazingly cost-effective combatant.
Okay, but as @Sayle says in the same post you quoted this from:
Right now, we are not building any Selachii at all, and have no plans to start churning them out again short of another war in the near future. It is not the actual practical limiting factor even in wartime, as we would build mostly Selachii in that scenario.
In short... there is no meaningful cost, other than the module slot.
No, we would not, for the same reason we were not building the Cygnus during the Federation-Kzinti War.
Because, to extend your analogy, the 450HP model has 3 seats and I want one with 4 seats, and the HP is secondary to the number of seats.
Chimeraguard
We do deserve to exist.
[X] 6 Phaser Banks
if we took three thrusters you would maybe have a point, but in the last update we deliberately took two thrusters with the understanding that this ship was not intended to fight enemy capital ships, and would at most be used to screen the flanks of the main fleet or see off raiders in Federation space. Taking a massive hit to infrastructure in order to stick a ship of the line armament onto what was meant to be a light patrol cruiser just doesn't seem worth it. We'll get the first run for the same cost, and after that it'll be competing with newer, better warships, including the Cygnus replacement which really should be our new workhorse cruiser.
[X] 4 Phaser Banks
[X] 6 Phaser Banks
I think that this is not a long-range ship. Most of its non-wartime fights are going to be against pirates in/near the Federation itself. Phasers alone should be good enough against mere pirate ships, because they're not going to be sneaking dreadnoughts and heavy cruisers across the border. The only time these ships should be engaging the heavy combatants where torpedoes are most useful is going to be in wartime where they will be operating as part of a fleet. And being part of a fleet means they are working with other ships. Given their low maneuverability I'm picturing these ships as fleet anchors who soak up the enemy fire while draining their shields with phasers to create openings where smaller more maneuverable ships will use torpedoes to finish off ships that a Galileo had disabled their shields.
A fleet has room for ships of many different roles. In RPG terms I think these ships will work best as tanks, absorbing fire and drawing attention while the smaller DPS ships use their maneuverability to destroy enemies focused on the larger target.
[X] 6 Phaser Banks
I think that this is not a long-range ship. Most of its non-wartime fights are going to be against pirates in/near the Federation itself. Phasers alone should be good enough against mere pirate ships, because they're not going to be sneaking dreadnoughts and heavy cruisers across the border. The only time these ships should be engaging the heavy combatants where torpedoes are most useful is going to be in wartime where they will be operating as part of a fleet. And being part of a fleet means they are working with other ships. Given their low maneuverability I'm picturing these ships as fleet anchors who soak up the enemy fire while draining their shields with phasers to create openings where smaller more maneuverable ships will use torpedoes to finish off ships that a Galileo had disabled their shields.
A fleet has room for ships of many different roles. In RPG terms I think these ships will work best as tanks, absorbing fire and drawing attention while the smaller DPS ships use their maneuverability to destroy enemies focused on the larger target.
- Pronouns
- He
[X] 6 Phaser Banks
Night
Widow Null
- Location
- Hoff
[X] 6 Phaser Banks
This is meant to lay cover fire in a serious engagement, to act more as a warm body, low mix, presence without cost vessel. Torpedoes provide alpha but it's not designed for them and to an extent not compatible with their role as flank guards and protectors of other ships that they are equipped for. They aren't free to maneuver as they see fit in a fleet action, even if they had the ability, and thus would have difficulty bringing launchers to bear.
This is meant to lay cover fire in a serious engagement, to act more as a warm body, low mix, presence without cost vessel. Torpedoes provide alpha but it's not designed for them and to an extent not compatible with their role as flank guards and protectors of other ships that they are equipped for. They aren't free to maneuver as they see fit in a fleet action, even if they had the ability, and thus would have difficulty bringing launchers to bear.
- Location
- New York
- Pronouns
- He/Him
[X] 6 Phaser Banks
KlavoHunter
THOU SHALT WORSHIP NO GODS ABOVE ENTERPRISE!
It's basically a Science-Cygnus, but newer, bigger, badder. Let's dewit!
Given a ship of this size should have at least one auxiliary slot, it's probably we don't get cup holders.
Again, the cost increase of the Gailleo with torps makes no significant difference even if it was being built together with the Selachii during wartime, because we are building mostly Selachii and it's not that much of a cost hike:
I'm afraid I'm not going to approach the rest of the post because it's too incoherent.
Or it can have all of those capabilities and be a flatly better combatant, whilst available in the same numbers, at no cost other than a module slot.
Obviously there is going to be a tendency to portray this module slot is the Holy Grail, which will last approximately until we get to the next update and it's an officer's lounge or auxiliary cargo bay or something, and no one cares.
The ship's manoeuvrability is accounted of in the Single-Target Damage value and the overall Tactical Rating, both of which increase significantly. The ship gains a great deal as a combatant from torpedoes.
Anyway, this is getting silly, I'm officially checking out of the vote unless something drastically changes.
Being Perpetually Annoyed Golden Retriever Community Notes for half the thread saying "This is explicitly not true-" when people say the same wrong things over and over does not seem to be cheering anyone up, or shifting the vote at this point.
Last edited:
On a different note I applaud @Gear for acquiring Trek merch like that and sharing it with us. Would like to show off a bit as well-
View: https://imgur.com/a/j0ek3do
Also have an Excelsior class kit that still needs built.
View: https://imgur.com/a/j0ek3do
Also have an Excelsior class kit that still needs built.