Remove ads

Department of Starship Design (Trek-ish)

Reader mode
Using the 524 spaces figure I've put spaces into my spreadsheet and done some calculations. I've taken into account all known systems that I have space data for.

I used the following weapons: 20 T1 5 Gun Battery, 8 T2 2 Gun Type 2, 1 Type 3c Disruptor, 3 T4b 3 Gun Battery, 1 T4c 2 Gun Battery
This needed 50 Aux Fusion Reactors and 100 Aux Computers.

This leaves 96 spaces free. So yeah. We've got the room for a Matter Printer.

[Edit - I was charging double for the Fusion reactors, and had slightly too little power for the main warp core. Call it ~150 spaces free]
No, I was right. They do expand in size with hull size.
 
Last edited:
Jalinth said:
This leaves 96 spaces free. So yeah. We've got the room for a Matter Printer.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Advantages for high engineering and matter printers is that they can also help repair/build up stuff that isn't the ship when they aren't busy with other stuff.

For the non-direct combat stats I would go for an ok-good for medical (mostly to cover the personal), good for engineering, bad-meh for science.

The big question mark there then becomes crew comfort and how much space to use/how space efficient it is to push for higher stages.
 
Last edited:
It looks like I was basing the power of the reactor off the main hull, not the overall size. That gives the ship a bit more power, about 1 aux reactor worth. I also did the math on the expanding the size of the core reactor. +1 power costs the same as an Aux reactor but 2x the space needed. It just gets worse from there.

Here is the comparison between the Secondary Computer Core we had the option to grabbing to the Aux cores. That's a pretty big savings, so unless we see something better next turn I'm going to be putting them as a high priority option.
#ItemCISpaceRuntime
105Auxillary Computer Cores105210420
9Secondary Computer Core4554423
 
Jalinth said:
It looks like I was basing the power of the reactor off the main hull, not the overall size. That gives the ship a bit more power, about 1 aux reactor worth. I also did the math on the expanding the size of the core reactor. +1 power costs the same as an Aux reactor but 2x the space needed. It just gets worse from there.

Here is the comparison between the Secondary Computer Core we had the option to grabbing to the Aux cores. That's a pretty big savings, so unless we see something better next turn I'm going to be putting them as a high priority option.
#ItemCISpaceRuntime
105Auxillary Computer Cores105210420
9Secondary Computer Core4554423
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

mh might want to under build the Aux computer cores to fix the issue with secondary computer core, with a refit ?
Just need to make sure we use enough spaces to replace the Auxillary computer cores with all the secondary computer cores we need.
 
Skjadir said:
I am expecting them to patrol not just the home system, but also nearby systems and (new) colonies.

Add it that the ship likely has a rather slow warp speed and I expect it to be on trips without maintenance infrastructure (doubts that a new colony has the industry for that as an example or the small outposts) for weeks to month at a time.

I think star seeker had/has a warp speed of 2.8 (?).
This ship is likely slower (?) and looking over the warp tables on the wiki for a bit of references which at least for the lower warp speeds seem to agree that at warp 3 a trip of 5 light year is 2 months of travel time and warp 2 for the same distance about 6 months.

So from my side at least I expect to travel something between 2 and 6 month just for moving between the closest nearby systems.
Edit: just saw that we have in Quest info for warp speed and that is a good bit slower.
That turns the warp 3 trip for 5 light years into a ~225 day trip and for warp 2 that is 450 days.
So yeah expect them to see lots of time without maintainance infrastructure if they ever leave the system.

And for combat it is pretty much the difference between we can make repairs in the field to a lot of potential battle damage vs have to move back to the shipyards for repairs or maybe even getting the ship back to a shipyard for more extensive repairs at all.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm pretty confident we can get it able to operate semi-independently for around 5 earth years. By the standards our ships are being designed to- that is massively less than the circumstances that justified a matter printer on the Iron Road or the Star Seeker.

We just do not have many places to defend right now, and any developing colony is going to have an Iron Road pass through relatively frequently- where its enormous engineering score can be put to use. 400 days is peanuts from what we've seen, and it's far more likely this ship is used for garrisoning a system rather than patrolling the vast empty spaces between our future systems we don't really care about at the moment.

Jalinth said:
Lessons learned from the Star Seeker mission is going to feature the Matter Printer quite heavily. "Our first space combat showed that self-repair was essential to getting the crew home. However we think you'll be fine without that."
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Let's not pretend we know exactly how many spare points could be carried by 12 spaces of cargo bay, let alone 24. The ship that's operating 5 years from home is one thing, the ship that's operating 5 months to a year is another.

Moreover- our turns cover decades, the Star Seeker's mid journey refit was only ever relevant because it was never going to see a dockyard over the course of nearly 25 years. There's almost no circumstance where something similar happens and a Guardian can't get to infrastructure or an Iron Roads over the course of a decade.

The Matter Replicator is not magic. It can't make parts from nothing. It needs a lot of feed stock to justify itself.

Edit: it turns out it wasn't an engineering multiplier like I remembered, and while it's mechanically more efficient than cargo bays I'm still not convinced we can't just carry spare parts or components to be machined in a workshop.
 
Last edited:
Honelsty what we need is dedicated damage control lockers/stockpiles/ready stations. Maybe crib a note off the aux sensors for the stat line?

Say it offers a flat boost of out of combat repair capabilities and gives a x1.05 boost to endurance to a max boost of x1.5
 
Karugus said:
Let's not pretend we know exactly how many spare points could be carried by 12 spaces of cargo bay, let alone 24. The ship that's operating 5 years from home is one thing, the ship that's operating 5 months to a year is another.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Who's pretending? A matter printer uses the same number of spaces as 2 large cargo bays and provides 7 ENG vs 4 ENG. So it's more valuable stats wise then an equal amount of raw storage. It's not magic, but it's pretty clearly some kind of force multiplier.

The Star Seeker took damage that was stated as needing to wait for replacement parts to print. They didn't carry enough conduit to repair the drives, even on a ship as cargo bay heavy as the Star Seeker. Battle damage is unpredictable and a matter printer means that if you've guessed wrong about the exact mix of parts you need you can still repair the ship.

Then there is the fact that even with my 8 mount T2 plan and a full hundred T1 guns there would still be nearly 100 spaces free. Doing 10 5 gun mounts leaves over 200 spaces free. Your 6 mount plan uses 26 less space then my 8 mount plan.
 
Jalinth said:
Then there is the fact that even with my 8 mount T2 plan and a full hundred T1 guns there would still be nearly 100 spaces free. Doing 10 5 gun mounts leaves over 200 spaces free. Your 6 mount plan uses 26 less space then my 8 mount plan.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I assume this is factoring in all the runtime and power we're going to need? As well as critical components like the Warp Core and the primary computer? I'm a little more open given it's a flat modifier- for someone reason I confused the Transporter's engineering multiplier with the Replicator's flat.

A large science lab is 18 spaces, let's just say 4 small labs to supplement it and then 10 aux sensors- and that's 40 spaces right there. If we're insisting on a matter printer, it+cargo bays+a workshop or two is easily 40-50 spaces. Thats 90 spaces. Call it another 16-20 for medical and transporters- 110.

I'm not going to die on this hill but I think it's easy to underestimate the space we'll need if we treat these things like a matter of course. Probably a tad hypocritical given the torpedo deck I pushed, but I don't want to take anything for granted if we don't necessarily need it.

Edit: are you including the T1s we're liable to mount on the radials in your estimates? Or would that be an additional 15 to consider?
 
Last edited:
This sheet isn't meant for others to use so it's kinda rough, but it should get things across. The 244 below spaces is how many are left free once you subtract everything else. On the far right the Runtime 3 and Power Left 7 is how much surplus there is.

Shields use 0 space because I'm using the total space you counted on the current grid. I keep finding minor corrections for the sheet but right now I'm pretty sure it's close enough.

[Edit - Bloody hell. I just noticed I was charging double for the Aux fusion reactors. They take up 1 space not 2. So that's an extra 30 spaces free right there.] No, on ships this size they do take up 2 spaces... unless they take up 4. Which they might?

[Edit 2 - Also missed the 16 spaces for the shuttle bays. Still ends up with more space free then I was saying before]

Edit 3 - Right. I'm going to get some painkillers and double check things.
 
Last edited:
What layout is everyone thinking for T1 batteries? I know I tend to veer on the light side of coverage but I'm currently thinking around 9 batteries: 3 on the radials, a pair on the lower dorsal deck just left of 4, a pair on the upper ventral deck just left of , and a pair on the rear of deck 2 or 3.

I could see the argument for a pair forward facing- but the radials would largely cover that, and would presumably at least partially cover the broadsides and either the top or bottom of the ship depending on where exactly the radials are mounted.

Jalinth said:
This sheet isn't meant for others to use so it's kinda rough, but it should get things across. The 244 below spaces is how many are left free once you subtract everything else. On the far right the Runtime 3 and Power Left 7 is how much surplus there is.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Just as a heads up, I didn't include the radials in my 524 spaces since a 3x3 is lot easier to understand than the actual deck dimensions and they were largely spoken for- given you're accounting for the radial's T4bs in your spreadsheet I want to make that clear.

With the radials included the total space is 551.
 
Last edited:
Karugus said:
Just as a heads up, I didn't include the radials in my 524 spaces since a 3x3 is lot easier to understand than the actual deck dimensions and they were largely spoken for- given you're accounting for the radial's T4bs in your spreadsheet I want to make that clear.

With the radials included the total space is 551.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Thanks for that. Here is what I think is a corrected plan. It has 10x Five Gun T1s and 8x T2 batteries. Looking at the Star Seeker I've increased the size of the AUX fusion reactors to 2x2 rather then the 1x2 I had before. Star Seeker is the next bracket up and has a 3x3 shape that I had been unable to ID. Only thing that makes sense is the aux fusion reactor.

Overall this has 163 spaces free. Which should cover the 'rest' fairly well. We just have to be restrained with adding additional armaments going forward. I'm thinking a very light forward torp battery and otherwise calling it good. That said if @Mechanis can weigh in on the topic that would be great.

 
Jalinth said:
Overall this has 163 spaces free. Which should cover the 'rest' fairly well. We just have to be restrained with adding additional armaments going forward. I'm thinking a very light forward torp battery and otherwise calling it good. That said if @Mechanis can weigh in on the topic that would be great.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm still hoping we might be able to mount the 1A slots with T4b batteries when we get to finalization. 12 Spaces, 78 power and 36 runtime. 18 more spaces for the aux computers, 16 more spaces for aux power if I'm understanding things. 46 spaces is probably too tight for our space budget- but it certainly seems like a good idea for a refit once we get proper secondary computers

I'd like to see small broadside torpedo tubes (maybe 6 total- 3 each) if we ever actually get an idea of how far a torpedo can go off bore- but absent that a light torpedo forward armament probably makes the most sense. Downscaling the T1 arrays to 45 in 9 batteries would save us what? ~16 spaces or so? Likewise going to 11 batteries would knock us to ~147 free spaces. My 110 estimate was probably on the frugal side of things, throw in 8 spaces for a single crew lounge, the aux sensors I've been assuming we'd max out would take another 2 spaces for runtime if we wanted to run them in combat (which sounds useful but mechanically, 1 tactical isn't that impressive by any metric). 120*1.2 (because I'm probably cheaper than most in the thread) and we'd want roughly 144 slots for noncombat functions.
 
Last edited:
Karugus said:
What layout is everyone thinking for T1 batteries? I know I tend to veer on the light side of coverage but I'm currently thinking around 9 batteries: 3 on the radials, a pair on the lower dorsal deck just left of 4, a pair on the upper ventral deck just left of , and a pair on the rear of deck 2 or 3.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
There is only a single space left free on the radial. 2 for the thruster, 6 for the gun, leaving 1.

Karugus said:
I'm still hoping we might be able to mount the 1A slots with T4b batteries when we get to finalization. 12 Spaces, 78 power and 36 runtime. 18 more spaces for the aux computers, 16 more spaces for aux power if I'm understanding things. 46 spaces is probably too tight for our space budget- but it certainly seems like a good idea for a refit once we get proper secondary computers

I'd like to see small broadside torpedo tubes (maybe 6 total- 3 each) if we ever actually get an idea of how far a torpedo can go off bore- but absent that a light torpedo forward armament probably makes the most sense. Downscaling the T1 arrays to 45 in 9 batteries would save us what? ~16 spaces or so? Likewise going to 11 batteries would knock us just below 150 free spaces.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
With how tight we are getting on space I'm really not feeling the broadside torps. A 2 turret type 2 battery with it's supporting reactors and computers takes up the same space as 4.5 torp launchers (hand waving their power). It's got the edge in Burst and actually has some sustain. More expensive, but I'm less worried about that then I was.

I'm also unsure if we will have the option to use 5 gun instead of 7 gun mounts for the point defense. Either way, I'm burning for a Warp 5 reactor to help with the power requirements, and some secondary computers for runtime.

Mechanis said:
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
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We've done fore main and secondary batteries and broadside main. I'm thinking we will need to go very light on the aft weapons to leave room for the Type 1s. I admit that was part of why I was going for the T2s on the broadside.

[Edit - Looks like Mechanis just did the vote tally, so I'm guessing that things are going to be going ahead soon]
 
Last edited:
Adhoc vote count started by Mechanis on May 5, 2024 at 7:55 PM, finished with 62 posts and 12 votes.
Click to expand...



Right. That should work out fairly well. Time for batteries. For which there are... Options.
 
Jalinth said:
There is only a single space left free on the radial. 2 for the thruster, 6 for the gun, leaving 1.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm saying 3 in the sense of 1 on each radial.

Jalinth said:
With how tight we are getting on space I'm really not feeling the broadside torps. A 2 turret type 2 battery with it's supporting reactors and computers takes up the same space as 4.5 torp launchers (hand waving their power). It's got the edge in Burst and actually has some sustain. More expensive, but I'm less worried about that then I was.

I'm also unsure if we will have the option to use 5 gun instead of 7 gun mounts for the point defense. Either way, I'm burning for a Warp 5 reactor to help with the power requirements, and some secondary computers for runtime.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That's a good point, though I'd argue the 7 gun batteries would be substantially less convenient given the goal here is coverage, not saving a handful of spaces. We'll have to see. We could probably make 8 batteries of 7 work. We clearly need better power generation and runtime access- I'm hoping that Warp 5 reactors give us better secondary reactors too- or at least make expanding the primary reactor more worthwhile.
 
Remove ads
Turn 3: Project Guardian, Weapons 4/8 (Broadside Secondary Battery)
  • Threadmarks
    • It is decided to fit the Guardian with a total of sixteen Type Two turrets, arranged in eight paired batteries split evenly between the dorsal and ventral surface, and fore and aft aspects. This should provide the ship with at least one such battery able to bear on a target for most angles.
    Next is the matter of secondary weapons—and here there is potential to give the ship substantial broadside firepower. There are four practical locations each for batteries of Type 4a and 4b cannons. For the Type 4a, up to eleven total batteries could potentially be mounted on the dorsal surface, in a single large gun deck amidships. On the dorsal surface, a total of nine locations are suitable for Type 4a gun batteries, four foreward, three aft, and two amidships.

    For the larger Type 4b, there are again four potential locations: the dorsal surface can accommodate up to three mounts foreward, four mounts amidships, and two aft; four more may be fitted amidships on the dorsal surface.
    Type 4a:
    [ ] (Write-in plan)
    Dorsal has only one location, with up to 11 mounts. Ventral has three locations: Fore, which can accommodate up to 4 mounts; Aft, which may accommodate up to 3 mounts, and Amidships, what can accommodate a maximum of 2 mounts.
    Type 4b:
    [ ] (Write-in plan)
    The Dorsal hull has three possible locations: Fore, which may accommodate up to 3 mounts; Amidships, which may accommodate up to 4 mounts, and Aft, which may accommodate up to 2 mounts. 4 additional mounts may be added to the Ventral hull if desired.
    Note: by default, I will be using my own judgement in regards to placement, should you take less than maximum allotment (recommend, since that would leave you awful short on space); you may optionally suggest a recommended configuration, such as "pairs, but even distribution" or "weighted forward".
    Please Vote By Plan ​
    One Hour Moratorium ​
    AN: If you want Age of Sail style gun decks, now is the time. May result in blatant epixys of naval captains from various period fictions I enjoy in the future. Or *le gasp* Real Life History.

    Must. Resist. Urge. To. Make. The. Current. Leader. Of. The. Orion. Syndicate. A. Blatant. Epixy. Of. Chang. I. Sao-
     
  • Threadmarks
    • We could maybe afford a pair of 4bs if we're fairly frugal with science and engineering and/or settle for around ~40 T1s. But I propose that we look at the power/runtime requirements of the 3c and 4c forward batteries and plan around these broadsides being used instead of those rather than supplementing. We've already accounted for the T2s being fully operational all the time, so even when the broadsides are quiet we'll still have coverage.

    That's 70 Power and 35 Runtime to play with. We could, with a few spaces making up the difference squeeze in a single 4b pair with that. 4a batteries are effectively out of the picture in that scenario. If we assume we might turn off two of the radial 4b batteries if broadsides are necessary we could squeeze in another 4b battery pair. A 6 gun 4a battery costs 48 power and 24 runtime- so a pair of them costs substantially more to operate than a pair of 4b batteries. A 3 gun 4b battery by comparison costs 39 power and 18 runtime. The runtime difference would basically make up for the inherent size difference alone.
     
    Last edited:
    On further thought how about we weight theses batteries to the aft and amid ship while letting the guns we already have cover the forward arcs?
     
    This is the section where we can note that we really only need to be able to run 1/2 of the broadside guns at a time. In the majority of situations, we won't be firing out both sides of the ship simultaneously. And if we are, we probably aren't firing the forward guns.

    If we need to fire both broadsides and the forward batteries all at the same time, then the ship is in serious trouble.
     
    Razzocnor said:
    This is the section where we can note that we really only need to be able to run 1/2 of the broadside guns at a time. In the majority of situations, we won't be firing out both sides of the ship simultaneously. And if we are, we probably aren't firing the forward guns.

    If we need to fire both broadsides and the forward batteries all at the same time, then the ship is in serious trouble.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    So a pair of 4b batteries on each side of the ship maybe?
     
    Razzocnor said:
    This is the section where we can note that we really only need to be able to run 1/2 of the broadside guns at a time. In the majority of situations, we won't be firing out both sides of the ship simultaneously. And if we are, we probably aren't firing the forward guns.

    If we need to fire both broadsides and the forward batteries all at the same time, then the ship is in serious trouble.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    I hadn't considered the fact we almost certainly aren't using both broadsides at a time- we can probably afford a pair of 4bs on each flank then if we're careful going forward but I'm still leery of cutting things that close and it's not like our flanks are undefended as is. I'd ere on the side of caution and advocate for just a 4b on each side amidships. We still have several stages left, so presumably a single aft 4b battery and maybe ~2-4 torpedo launchers forward but that's liable to be it besides for the T1s.

    I'd favor ventral mounts, the dorsal 4c should have some degree of ability to fire upwards, so we have some coverage in that regard already, but firepower we can direct downwards is a bit sparser.

    Edit: Assuming the T2s are fully powered as are the T1s (I think Jalinth will have words for me if I argue otherwise lol)- the single 4b battery starboard, port, and aft works out pretty nicely if we're planning to turn off the prow guns for them. We just assume we'll likely only being powering at most 2 out of 3 at a time (or can turn off a radial as needed). 18 space for all three batteries plus 2x2 for power (this would leave like 12 excess power) is 22 spaces. I'm sure it's probably more than Jalinth would like, but that's still 141 spaces- let's say 16 for 4 forward launchers and that's 125 spaces for everything else. That's manageable, any more than that and we're going to be making some sacrifices.
     
    Last edited:
    I would definitely say keep the broadside armaments light, casemate secondary cannons were abandoned in favor of more mechanically complex turrets for good reason.

    More to the point, we should not be putting an emphasis on presenting the single largest target possible to an enemy by showing them our broadside. Keep the armament light, but substantial enough that flying alongside isnt 'free'.

    Would be nice to have some of the mounts angled slightly off kilter from the rest, give just that little bit more coverage without compromising overlapping fields of fire, but I think that's below the level of abstraction here.
     
    Reader mode
    You must login or register to reply here.
    Remove ads
    Back
    Top