Remove ads

Department of Starship Design (Trek-ish)

Reader mode
Leaning 6/12 shuttlebay; I want to be able to have one shuttle down for maintenance and still send capable cloaked scouts in two directions, and have room for some shuttlepods. 6/12 bay, standard fit with 3 shuttles and 4 shuttlepods, room for one more shuttle or two more shuttlepods, seems reasonable?

No strong feelings on aft vs amidships location; ventral means suboptimal weapon mounting locations, aft means fewer aft weapon mount options but I care much less about those (if we'd gotten six-engine I might even say I don't care at all about those).

Amidships appears to have no downsides at all though? At least none mentioned in the writeup. So probably rhat.

STRONGLY in favor of the standard deflector; we've gone...not all-out, but definitely leaning more toward the upper end of the budget range, with everything else, so ease of refit to next-gen deflector (and indirectly, ease of refit to minimum requirements for next gen warp drive) means greater design longevity means getting more out of our investment over the next century or so.
 
Last edited:
thepsyborg said:
STRONGLY in favor of the standard deflector; we've gone...not all-out, but definitely leaning more toward the upper end of the budget range, with everything else, so ease of refit to next-gen deflector (and indirectly, ease of refit to minimum requirements for next gen warp drive) means greater design longevity means getting more out of our investment over the next century or so.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The main point i see for option 2 would be that it will likely discount deflector shields 3.
And R&D is the area where we are weaker compared to industry, so i can see the argument at least for eating the higher industry cost to help R&D to get done faster.
 
I have no real opinion on the shuttlebays, but I do think that going for bespoke system for size reduction is the play for the deflector.
 
I prefer the engine shuttle bays over amidships. It's not going to come up much, but if we have to deploy shuttles while in combat I'd rather not have any small craft having to enter or leave a bay where it might be in the crossfire for our heavy radial batteries.

As for Deflector discounts... Mk3 costs 25 RU. It doesn't need a discount, we just had other low hanging fruit that were more attractive. We can live with a 4x4 default deflector, a bigger deflector than that is going to be obnoxious to work around however, and a smaller deflector probably isn't worth the price.
Jalinth said:
Of course the armament of this ship gets more complicated when I look at the weapons list for the ~220-240kt nebula BC. I have no idea how our weapons compare in size to theirs, and the Gortak ships are all about all the guns. Still it does make 9 medium cannons, 1 super heavy beam, and 20-30 ultra light beam mounts seem less impressive.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Breaking it down they have 20 medium beams, 6 heavy beams, 2 heavy cannons, and 6 medium cannons. We could argue the T4b is a heavy cannon given it's only one size category smaller than the T4c super heavy beam. In which case we'd be mounting 9 heavy, 1 super heavy, and 20-30 light beams by comparison on a ship that's 150% it's mass. I just want to know where they're getting the power/runtime, we can assume they don't have exotic power, and I'm going to assume they couldn't maintain any advanced computing.
 
Last edited:
Karugus said:
As for Deflector discounts... Mk3 costs 25 RU. It doesn't need a discount, we just had other low hanging fruit that were more attractive. We can live with a 4x4 default deflector, a bigger deflector than that is going to be obnoxious to work around however, and a smaller deflector probably isn't worth the price.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I mean, it wouldn't be about it needing the discount and more about that freeing up R&D points that could be spent on other stuff, but that mostly assumes we take deflector 3 next R&D turn.

It would likely also mean more if we went with a smaller hull size where space is more of a pressing issue.
But as is yeah standard hull for the most part looks good.

That said, I think we are unlikely to make use of the discount next R&D turn because just getting our power generation and computing power up will likely be the core focus and for both of them I expect to be pretty expensive.
 
Skjadir said:
I mean, it wouldn't be about it needing the discount and more about that freeing up R&D points that could be spent on other stuff, but that mostly assumes we take deflector 3 next R&D turn.

It would likely also mean more if we went with a smaller hull size where space is more of a pressing issue.
But as is yeah standard hull for the most part looks good.

That said, I think we are unlikely to make use of the discount next R&D turn because just getting our power generation and computing power up will likely be the core focus and for both of them I expect to be pretty expensive.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That's a decent point, on top of the fact that next turn is likely to be the frigate design. And the best listed development for a smaller design saves at most 2 spaces (it's possibly we roll great and get something better, but it's certainly still not going to be worth picking).

At the risk of undermining my point, our warp 4 Iron Road can cruise at exactly the same speed as the Warp 3 Star Seeker. It's entirely possible our mediocre deflectors are throttling our effective cruise speeds to some extent under the hood.
 
thepsyborg said:
Leaning 6/12 shuttlebay; I want to be able to have one shuttle down for maintenance and still send capable cloaked scouts in two directions,
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Outside of that nebula, which was deliberately made to block sensors, I don't think we're going to need scouts; standard sensors should be able to spot ships from across a solar-system.

And these aren't going to be running surveys like a Star Seeker; I expect the primary use of shuttles on this ship to be recovering escape pods, with maybe a secondary use of delivering boarding parties.

[X] Plan: Cheap and Easy
-[X] Use an aft Shuttlebay
--[X] …with 4/8 capacity.
-[X] Use standard Deflector

(Actually, a boarding shuttle would be a fun design to do)
 
[X] Plan: Test bed for mark 3 Deflector
-[X] Use an aft Shuttlebay
--[X] …with 4/8 capacity.
-[X] Use a bespoke system focused on size reduction

Mostly because i have a feeling that the point about the deflectors limiting what the warp engines can do is true.
Mostly by looking at option 3, in that the Mark4 Deflector likely will help us a lot for getting our ships a faster warp speed likely without increasing the cost* like the warp engine upgrades seem to do.

*bring more performance, but the CL price also goes up quite fast.
 
The description of Bespoke technologies when the concept was introduced talks about how a ship that goes all in on that can be greater then the sum of its parts. I'm eager to see what that looks like. We are taking a chance, yes, but it might be wonderful. Saving any RP we can is going to be nice, as the list of must haves is just getting longer and longer the more we look at the system. Before we started digging into the new weapons I felt quite confident that Runtime and Power were not things to actually worry about. Now they are a prime concern.

It will also give us some data points about if bespoke is worth it going forward. Will we fill that the extra fiddly bits are worth the extra cost and refit difficulty?

Note I had an identical plan typed up when Skjadir posted. So I'll just copy and paste.

[X] Plan: Test bed for mark 3 Deflector
-[X] Use an aft Shuttlebay
--[X] …with 4/8 capacity.
-[X] Use a bespoke system focused on size reduction

Karugus said:
We could argue the T4b is a heavy cannon given it's only one size category smaller than the T4c super heavy beam.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
They are 60cm cannons. The guns in the T2 are 80cm guns. Turrets could have had a 200cm gun, and if we went huge instead of large then the 4b would have been 160cm gun. I don't think the 4b is a heavy weapon. I've got to leave to get to an appointment, but I'll be back later.
 
Jalinth said:
They are 60cm cannons. The guns in the T2 are 80cm guns. Turrets could have had a 200cm gun, and if we went huge instead of large then the 4b would have been 160cm gun. I don't think the 4b is a heavy weapon. I've got to leave to get to an appointment, but I'll be back later.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm going to go off the metric of bulk and capability rather than bore diameter. The T2's guns might have a larger bore but they're both clearly smaller cannons, and weaker ones. I can't really consider any metric where they're considered heavier weapons accurate- especially once we talk the bulk of the turret assembly into account.
 
Last edited:
Karugus said:
I'm going to go off the metric of bulk and capability rather than bore diameter. The T2's guns might have a larger bore but they're both clearly smaller cannons, and weaker ones. I can't really consider any metric where they're considered heavier weapons accurate- especially once we talk the bulk of the turret assembly into account.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Without any hard info either of us could be right. Mechanis declined to give any further information about the size or performance of the weapons we salvaged.
Overall I was thinking the T2s were also medium weapons.

What my main point was more about feel then anything else. I'm not actually concerned that our new ship will under perform. I wasn't really clear with what I was trying to get across.

Edit - I put the two tables for this game into my sig. To make it faster and easier for me to find them, and could benefit other people.
Edit 2 - I made a typo in my software, which nerfed the batteries for Type 3a. I'm going to confirm that I did, in fact, screw that up and will put fixed charts into the weapons post.
Edit 3 - Charts updated. The fact the Type 3a and 3b were getting the same results was bugging me. Turns out I had the frontage of the 3a being 2 instead of 1. The charts in the weapons post now have the corrected 3a batteries. Given how little the Type 3 series saves in batteries I doubt it's going to change much of what is planned.
 
Last edited:
Adhoc vote count started by Mechanis on May 2, 2024 at 10:53 PM, finished with 16 posts and 6 votes.
  • [X] Plan: Test bed for mark 3 Deflector
    -[X] Use an aft Shuttlebay
    --[X] …with 4/8 capacity.
    -[X] Use a bespoke system focused on size reduction
    [X] Plan: Cheap and Easy
    -[X] Use an aft Shuttlebay
    --[X] …with 4/8 capacity.
    -[X] Use standard Deflector
Click to expand...



Mmm. Bit sparce today. Oh well.
Now then, to deploy Wordz™.
 
Been busy all day, just missed the vote. Oh well. I was going to vote Plan: Cheap and Easy, but my vote wouldn't have changed the outcome.
 
Remove ads
Turn 3: Project Guardian, Weapons 1/8 (Fore main battery)
  • Threadmarks
    • Plan: Test bed for mark 3 Deflector
    -Use an aft Shuttlebay with 4/8 capacity.
    -Use a bespoke system focused on size reduction.
    The Guardian, it is decided, will possess port and starboard shuttlebays accessible from the aft, each capable of supporting up to two shuttlecraft or four shuttlepods. Decisions on standard establishment, it is decided, will be deferred until the completion of other critical systems, primarily the weapons arrays and necessary power and computing support needed for a modern warship. The ship deflector, meanwhile, will be a specialized "one-off" design aimed at compressing the relative volume occupied by various internal components, to better fit the ship's overall geometry.
    Next there is the ship's weapons fit, which has been broken into eight overall compartments: fore main and secondary batteries, broadside main and secondary batteries, aft main and secondary batteries, tertiary batteries/point defense, and torpedo launchers. The first of these will be the fore main battery, for which there are effectively three main options: the first is to place a single Type 3c heavy beam emitter in the ship's nose, with the deflector shifted to a ventral position. This would, however, limit the available add-ons to essentially a single pair of Type 4c cannons on the dorsal surface. Alternatively, a pair of Type 4c cannons could be mounted on the dorsal and ventral surface, with the Deflector in the nose, though this would largely prohibit the ship from carrying a full size Type 3c. A third path would be to go "all in" on the Type 3 by mounting the deflector instead on the dorsal surface, which would allow a pair of Type 3b emitters be fitted to the ship's nose, and a Type 3c fitted to the dorsal surface.
    [ ] Add a Type 3c and 4c combo for the ship's fore main battery
    [ ] Add a pair of Type 4c mounts for the ship's fore main battery
    [ ] Add a pair of Type 3b and Type 3c mounts as the ship's fore main battery
    [ ] Add (Write-in combo) as the ship's fore main battery
    Available locations are dorsal, ventral and nose. Type 3c mounts may be placed in the nose or ventral location; Type 4c mounts in either the dorsal or ventral locations. Twin Type 3b mounts may only be placed in the nose. One location must contain the deflector, though it may be placed in any of the three locations. You may also neglect to fill a location, which will make it available for the following stages.
    Please Vote By Plan ​
    One Hour Moratorium ​
    AN: yes, there's a reason why "expected use case" is a thing on those weapon sheets.
     
    Last edited:
  • Threadmarks
    • I'm not sure which option is the best for a big beam weapon.
    [ ] Add a Type 3c and 4c combo for the ship's fore main battery
    or
    [ ] Add a pair of Type 3b and Type 3c mounts as the ship's fore main battery
     
    I mean a pair of the big bastard beams would give us the absolute largest initial strike, leaving the other compartments for follow-up heavy cannons and lighter weapons for full coverage.
     
    We apparently cannot fit TWO of the heavy model 3C lances, we have to choose which weapon supports the big boy. Either two heavy cannon mounts or a pair of the smaller 3B Lances.

    Iirc, the cannon arrangement will be a bit cheaper but wont hit as hard.

    Regardless, we cant NOT have the fuckoff doom beam in here, so the pure cannon nose is less than desirable.
     
    Roaming_Guardian said:
    We apparently cannot fit TWO of the heavy model 3C lances, we have to choose which weapon supports the big boy. Either two heavy cannon mounts or a pair of the smaller 3B Lances.

    Iirc, the cannon arrangement will be a bit cheaper but wont hit as hard.

    Regardless, we cant NOT have the fuckoff doom beam in here, so the pure cannon nose is less than desirable.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Point of order, you technically can, by dorsal mounting the deflector. It's just that I didn't feel like listing out every possible combination, so gave three "basic" suggestions and allowed for other combos to be written in as desired, within a modest restriction set.
    Edit: you could also, for example, bring a 3c and nothing else, if you want to do that, or stick some cannons on the dorsal surface and call it done.
     
    Last edited:
    Not sure what's best? Let me run some numbers for you...

    I'm going to open with stating that I am desperate to get a Type 3c on this ship. As the QM put Write-in as an option I'm going to look at the two options that I see as an alternate to the 3 listed.

    Edit - I'm not interested in leaving a slot free for lesser weapons. The big guns are our most efficient weapons and are freaking awesome. I'm looking forward to the fear in our opponents eyes when the behold the DOOM BEAM and twin cannons.

    Weapons for this vote
    Weapon typeSizeGunsBase CostSavingsTotal CostSDBDPDPowerRuntime
    Type 3b Disruptor:2x319.30%9.38.3100.11912
    Type 3c Disruptor:3x41140%14.014.72002615
    Type 4c Disruptor:3x4225.630%17.913.231.004420

    [] Add a Type 3c and 4c combo for the ship's fore main battery - SD = 27.9, BD = 51, Power = 70, Runtime = 35, Cost = 31.9 MI
    [] Add a pair of Type 4c mounts for the ship's fore main battery - SD 26.2, BD = 61, Power = 88, Runtime = 40, Cost = 35.8 MI
    [] Add a pair of Type 3b and Type 3c mounts as the ship's fore main battery - SD 31.3, BD 40, Power = 64, Runtime = 39, Cost = 32.6 MI
    [] Write-in #1 Add a Nose and Ventral Type 3c - SD = 29.4, BD = 40, Power = 52, Runtime = 30, Cost = 28 MI
    [] Write-in #2 Add a Ventral 3c + Pair of Nose 3b - SD = 29.8, BD = 51, Power = 82, Runtime = 44, Cost = 36.5 MI

    First Sustained Damage - All 5 options are pretty close. That's not going to be the deciding factor.
    Burst Damage - We get the most raw firepower out of the quad Type 4c mount. However that lacks a type 3c and so fails. Going for a 3c and 4c or 2x 3b and 4c is next with 51. Pair of 3c or 2x 3b and 3c are only 40.
    Power - Any option with 3bs is quite power hungry for the damage it deals.
    Runtime - 3b is also very runtime heavy.
    Cost - quad 4c or 4c + 2x 3b are the most expensive. The plans using a 3c are all a bit less expensive.

    For me this is really coming down to the first option or my Write-in #1. While I have to admit that the idea of putting *2* DOOM BEAMS on the front of the ship is really cool, I'm thinking that the 3c and 4c combo is the best overall option. It gives us the joy of DOOM BEAM, it hits really hard, and is uses a noticeable less amount of resources.

    That said if you want the nose to be the least expensive, and use the least power and runtime then vote for 2 DOOM BEAMS. I'm okay with that. I just think the first option is best.

    Mechanis said:
    Point of order, you technically can, by dorsal mounting the deflector. It's just that I didn't feel like listing out every possible combination, so gave three "basic" suggestions and allowed for other combos to be written in as desired, within a modest restriction set.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Your post appeared as I was hitting post on this message. I'm glad that the write in is legal.
     
    Last edited:
    Mmm, aesthetic concerns are coming in for me.

    Vertical paired beams are kinda eh.

    If we could get a port and starboard type 3 I'd go for that, but having to mount them top and bottom... makes me say single doom beam supported by cannons.
     
    Reader mode
    You must login or register to reply here.
    Remove ads
    Back
    Top