Linked contents
Abby Normal
High Clerk of the Ymaryn
- Pronouns
- He/Him
[X] 6 Phaser Banks
[X] 4 Phaser Banks
[X] 4 Phaser Banks
Cygnus | Median
Cost: 20 | 12
Infra: 23 | 16
Looks to me like the Cygnus was probably a D rating for both cost and infrastructure. Well above median so unlikely to be a C or even C-.
Cygnus | 6 phaser Galileo
Single target: 8 | 12
Multi-targer: 3 | 12
While the Cygnus was well above the median cost and our Galileo is well under that, and the Cygnus was above the median Infrastructure while a six phaser Galileo will be roughly median, the no torpedo Galileo has 150% the single target rating of the Cygnus and 400% the multi-target rating.
I think the Galileo doesn't hit the same reasons for not building it during war that the Cygnus did.
I'd contend the difference is between 7 and 8 seats since we're looking at a pretty empty van so far but yeah, in a sedan or coupe that would be a big cost.
Edit: Unrelated to that if this ship has a role in a fleet then we're saying it can go where we expect fleets to go. To then say the torpedoes which are most usable against big opponents and in furballs are useless because we'd never send this ship class as part of a fleet seems like an odd position to take. Even if it's only defensively, they'd be in support roles for starbases and fleets.
Last edited:
- Location
- his hidden lair
Wrong. I used Selachii as a reference to the amount of shipyard output that would be saved, not because we *have* to build Selachii with the savings. That's why the key thing we get is flexibility. We can build more Galileos and whatever our next project is without making sacrifices.
Just because you can't imagine the value of those possibilities does not mean every other voter can't or shouldn't. It could be listening posts on the Romulan or Klingon borders, a fortified station design like so many were clamoring for, a dedicated diplomatic vessel, hospital ships, the mythical cloak-ship Sayle will never let us actually make, etc.
This is just pretending the production we would save doesn't exist if it's not going towards more Selachii or Galileos and concluding nothing of value could possibly be lost. Naturally, a lot of people don't find such industrial solipsism particularly compelling
Last edited:
- Location
- Swansea
[X] 6 Phaser Banks
So infrastructure only affect how many armed ships can be build at once and as we are in peacetime for the forseeable future that is no problem.
But the second half is way more important to me: The torpedos consume an utility slot.
As such I can not vote for them for this design.
Honestly for a ship this size future mid life refits can probably upgrade the engines to make it turn better. But unless we leave a lot of empty space near the outer hull we're not likely to add more guns to it.
Better ones sure. More....probably not.
Also are we still in the this is just what Earth/humanity is making for the federation phase?
Otherwise the production numbers are a little low all things considered.
Better ones sure. More....probably not.
Also are we still in the this is just what Earth/humanity is making for the federation phase?
Otherwise the production numbers are a little low all things considered.
Last edited:
ClawClawBite
Mad Engineering!
- Location
- Seattle, WA
[X] 6 Phaser Banks
Makes a good escort cruiser, not a strike cruiser.
Makes a good escort cruiser, not a strike cruiser.
- Location
- Montana
As you realized that your action required an apology but did it anyway, I find your apology hollow and rather insulting. Please never tag me like this again.
- Location
- USA
- Pronouns
- He/They
[X] 6 Phaser Banks
Torpedoes are bad cost effectiveness and worse space effectiveness.
Torpedoes are bad cost effectiveness and worse space effectiveness.
- Location
- Australia
Historically we've not done a great deal of parts swapping. I think we've had phasers a few times, but I can't think of any time we've changed major components like thrusters without a full redesign.
Please don't hesitate to correct me if I'm wrong.
So again, there is not, according to Sayle, any value whatsoever being lost. There is no "savings".
The Infrastructure Cost being higher represents production line capacity for certain components, not a final cost difference, or anything we can "bank". If it isn't used, it simply vanishes, we aren't producing and saving up torpedo launchers by themselves. The only circumstance where the Infrastructure Cost matters is if we're building more ships than we have production lines to make weapons for. So for example, trying to to start the Thunderchild Mk. II whilst still in the production run for the torpedo-Galileo would lead to a crunch. Otherwise, it makes no difference. There is no savings in not having torpedoes, or any tangible cost difference whatsoever.
If this is not convincing, please click the link, and read the posts with the QM explaining this in detail. I really would prefer not to discuss this further.
No, personally I do not think we would build a 400,000 ton cruiser with a B- Tactical Rating in wartime. Keep in mind that even with torpedoes, in a war we would be building mostly Selachiis, so the idea that we would be building a Galileo which is vastly worse in a fight seems unlikely. This only becomes more true further in time we go, when a Galileo sans torps looks progressively worse, and we will have cruiser designs which are far more capable.
If you aren't convinced, then feel free ask Sayle whether we would produce it in wartime; I am not interested in continuing this further.
Last edited:
- Location
- Australia
Nah man, they are terrible cost effectiveness.
You have argued successfully that the terrible cost effectiveness doesn't matter because it's industry cost that we can afford, not civilian cost but the fact remains that they are going to be running on a frame ill suited to it and the same cost applied to a different ship with better agility would get better results.
You feel that the ease of payment makes it worth it, I feel that it doesn't add enough compared to that extra potential module.
I would have been absolutely on your side of we had better maneuverability, but we don't.
You have argued successfully that the terrible cost effectiveness doesn't matter because it's industry cost that we can afford, not civilian cost but the fact remains that they are going to be running on a frame ill suited to it and the same cost applied to a different ship with better agility would get better results.
You feel that the ease of payment makes it worth it, I feel that it doesn't add enough compared to that extra potential module.
I would have been absolutely on your side of we had better maneuverability, but we don't.
Bruh, no offense but this is getting more than a wee bit obsessive. Might be time to disengage and take a breath. It's just a Quest.
On a more serious note, are you OK ATM? Feel free to direct message or whatever this site supports if you need to.
- Location
- Southern Virginia
I mean as far as I can tell "Industry Cost" represents availability of components, and not cost in the accounting sense. Starfleet is set up to produce X amounts of torpedo tubes every year (and shield generators and power conduits and etc). If you're not producing any ships that need torpedo tubes, maybe they cut back on capacity to build torpedo tubes in favor of something else, or maybe they can stockpile some components, etc. Otherwise the production gets slated to the Galileo class as the only ships in serial production needing the tubes, unless they're still turning out Selachii class vessels anyway. Which they might prefer to pivot away from for a bit due to post-war considerations, I dunno.
If it comes to a war, or runup to war, then they stop producing the peacetime light cruisers and build warships.
If it comes to a war, or runup to war, then they stop producing the peacetime light cruisers and build warships.
- Location
- USA
- Pronouns
- He/They
@Skippy So I had already read all that, and I decided that sure, maybe it was terrible cost effectiveness that we could by a lucky coincidence afford, but it was still terrible space effectiveness, and I'd rather not lose a module slot for it.
But you know what, clearly you care way the hell more about this than I do, and I remember my own frustration begging and pleading and explaining to everyone why the Sagarmatha needed- needed- would be BLINDINGLY IDIOTIC not to go with cruise nacelles, and how much it sucked feeling like I was just pissing into the wind. So sure. I'll vote for torps, because because given my own history of tilting at windmills you have somehow managed to trigger more sympathy from me than you have spite.
(Seriously, though, the tag-bombing?
)
[X] 6 Phaser Banks, 2 Forward Torpedo Launchers
But you know what, clearly you care way the hell more about this than I do, and I remember my own frustration begging and pleading and explaining to everyone why the Sagarmatha needed- needed- would be BLINDINGLY IDIOTIC not to go with cruise nacelles, and how much it sucked feeling like I was just pissing into the wind. So sure. I'll vote for torps, because because given my own history of tilting at windmills you have somehow managed to trigger more sympathy from me than you have spite.
(Seriously, though, the tag-bombing?
)[X] 6 Phaser Banks, 2 Forward Torpedo Launchers
- Location
- Canada
Thanks for the info, I do appreciate being made aware of info that I'd missed. I'm still going to keep my vote the same (I personally value that extra module for... whatever options we get), but thanks anyway.
TOS was kinda like that though, 12 Constitution-class explorers. Even if you count only the 4 founder worlds that seems awfully low, unless there are at least ~50 smaller starships filling science, patrol/escort etc and ~100-200 smaller survey, support, utility etc. I don't think we ever saw those sorts of numbers, and that doesn't count the many colonies and new Federation members,
Now that I think of it, a run of 6-12 Galaxy-class also seems very limited, especially if they're debuting/testing next-gen gear.
Wasn't the Excelsior-class refitted with 2 extra impulse drives on either size of the saucer? Or do you just mean this Quest?
Last edited:
- Location
- Australia
Oh man, I remember that. It caused me so much pain as well. Not enough to change my vote out of sympathy, but I get the frustration.
I just meant this quest, but I'm always happy to improve my general knowledge with stuff like this, thanks!
- Location
- Southern Virginia
To put it another way, say Starfleet has 30 units of torpedo tubes per year. They put 10 units aside for the Selachii, leaving a capacity to build 20 units per year. But they don't have any other ships in production that need torpedo tubes! So maybe it makes sense to sling excess torpedo tubes on the Galileo class, because otherwise they'd just be stockpiling components for future use or maybe even shutting down torpedo tube factories. So if we have excess torpedo tube capacity then why not put them on the Galileo to give it options against heavier targets?
Okay maybe it loses a module, but having heavy cruiser firepower makes it a lot more effective of a warship and that's still a major consideration, especially given it's the most modern peacetime ship likely to see significant production for a while. And that could make a big difference if war comes up suddenly and the Galileos are the most numerous capital ships we'll have for a while.
Okay maybe it loses a module, but having heavy cruiser firepower makes it a lot more effective of a warship and that's still a major consideration, especially given it's the most modern peacetime ship likely to see significant production for a while. And that could make a big difference if war comes up suddenly and the Galileos are the most numerous capital ships we'll have for a while.
Last edited:
Cheers!
There was a discontinued site, Advanced Starship Design Bureau, if memory serves they postulated that was because the Excelsior had become so outdated it needed higher agility and reactor output, the refit also added better torpedo launchers I think. The class also became fodder after a couple decades, since the Federation hadn't tested it under battle conditions against a peer for so long they had a nasty surprise when the latest Klingon ships were able to run circles around it, punch through its shields and withstand its weapons with ease. Starfleet was stuck with large numbers of a combat cruiser that was an even match for a single BoP and had to crash refits and new patrol ship designs. Not canon but interesting. Miss that site.
Depends whether you feel losing a science or utility module is worth extra firepower. I feel we need pure science and utility vessels, if we could have extra weapons that's awesome, but we keep compromising non-war designs with extra weapons they don't seem to need. We have warships and can make more readily. We don't have an abundance of fast science ships, it's excellent this one's gonna have 6 phasers, I'd prefer torpedo launchers too, but not at the cost of its primary purpose.
But, ultimately, Your Mileage May Vary, it's your vote.
Endorfinator
Awkwardly Social
- Pronouns
- He/Him
AsDB is still around but a lot of it is non-functional
dhasenan
always lowercase
- Pronouns
- She/Her
[x] 4 Phaser Banks
You send big guns to stop the enemy from destroying the convoy with small guns. They can still destroy it, but they need to devote a lot more materiel to the task.