-
Going forward, links to content from Twitter (now X) will no longer be embedded. Pre-existing links should not be affected.
Department of Starship Design (Trek-ish)
- Thread starter Mechanis
- Start date
- Sci-Fi
- Location
- Germany
Personally only plan to put enough aux computers to "reserve" the space taken up by the proper secondary computers and then pretty much refit them when that is research.
The CI and space cost of the stupid things is just way too high otherwise.
That would be 27 aux computers for a cost of 27 CI and 54 space -> +108 runtime.
Which is then enough space to replace them with the 9 secondary computers for I think all the Runtime we need.
[X] Plan: No Broadsides at all, Thanks
mostly to keep the power and tuntime needs down a bit already a problem as is.
- Location
- Canada
- Pronouns
- He/Him
I've enthused about the idea I mentioned previously of doing double Bespoke Beams that we make otherwise identical. We know the 3c is plenty 'good enough' based on the recent revelations. So I'm thinking we do minimally recessed doom beams. Giving us 1m, 1.5m, 2m, 2m again?, 4m, and 8m beams. That might cover a replacement for the type 1, or we can keep the standardized type one as a decent PD weapon if the new 1m version isn't suitable for whatever reason. I'm also thinking that for wide arc weapons going for beams instead of cannons seems the way to go.
The replacements for the Type 4 will be some fixed huge cannons. We can see how that compares to the minimally recessed type 4s.
That would leave one option open to experiment.
The problem with this plan is that we can't say for certain we will take that tech. It's high on my list, but there might be other compelling options. I know there won't be enough points for everything and the choices we are going to be forced to make will be painful. That said, with the commentary about how well the current batch of weapons did I'm feeling less pressure to go plasma this turn. Barring some combat data suggesting otherwise.
I remember us both dismissing the SCC on at least one occasion. How things have changed...
[X] Plan: 2 out of 3 ain't bad.
I am extremly hesitant to go for no broadsides because I fear a faster and more manouverable opponent would be able to justarc dodge our main battery and then have all the time in the world blasting away at our new cruiser witout it being able to meaningfully retaliate.
I am extremly hesitant to go for no broadsides because I fear a faster and more manouverable opponent would be able to justarc dodge our main battery and then have all the time in the world blasting away at our new cruiser witout it being able to meaningfully retaliate.
- Location
- Germany
I am more than willing to make that call here, because it is so expensive trying to get all the runtime via the aux computer expensive both cost and space wise and that won't get better for the next ship.
Because baseline with all the weapons now added the ship is what 300-400 CI costwise?
Being 1/3 or 1/4 of the total CI cost + nearly half the internal space is just too fucking much.
Edit:
Looked at baseline hull + secondary hulls with nothing else added 75.9 CI.
I think with warp engine added, thrusters, shuttles and weapons i think we are still below 150 CI?
... yeah i am going for the reserved space plan when it comes to the aux computers.
Last edited:
- Location
- Canada
- Pronouns
- He/Him
We have 4 mounts with 2 turrets each with 2 80cm guns on each flank. That it a serious amount of firepower, which is why I put forward a plan for a good number of T2 mounts. The turrets are placed so half of them SHOULD be able to fire at targets ahead or behind. The broadside battery isn't going to change the math much.
We just did a tech that might unlock better computer tech. That might be the call instead. Or maybe there will be some strange black swan event that just throws everything out the window. Like I said they are a high priority item, I am just unwilling to call anything 100% yet.
Last edited:
[X] Plan: 2 out of 3 ain't bad
- Location
- his hidden lair
This is one thing I'm leery of. The two best weapons for battery discounts both happen to be minimally recessed. I don't think that's a coincidence. I'm pretty sure battery rules are pretty unfavorable for Fixed and Turrets alike.
And a minimally recessed doom beam is going to be much bigger, and unable to get the Fire Control Computer upgrade that may or may not be hard carrying the T4
- Location
- his hidden lair
So continues the trend of my plans to fail by one vote lol. I suppose the role of loyal opposition is honor enough 
I still am going to stand by a 4b aft gun battery though. We just need 6 spaces and can turn off a radial for runtime and and power. The broadsides are at least going to have some overlap with the radials depending on their position, but the rear will only have the Type 2s and some T1s.
I still am going to stand by a 4b aft gun battery though. We just need 6 spaces and can turn off a radial for runtime and and power. The broadsides are at least going to have some overlap with the radials depending on their position, but the rear will only have the Type 2s and some T1s.
Last edited:
Helps to have someone to bounce ideas off of. You and Jarelth were influences on that plan I made that won back during the weapon devlopment turns.So continues the trend of my plans to fail by one vote lol. I suppose the role of loyal opposition is honor enough
Turn 3: Project Guardian, Weapons 5/7 (Aft batteries)
Mechanis
Confirmed Extremely Screwed
- Location
- Absconding with Alacrity
By a narrow margin, it is decided not to add any secondary batteries along the ship's broadside. The final matter before deciding on point-defense distribution and torpedoes is the matter of aft weaponry- Mostly restricted to lighter Type 3a batteries. Firstly, the dorsal hull could mount a pair of Type 4a batteries at either 1 or 2; the latter may also carry a larger Type 4b, but this would somewhat restrict the fire arc of two of the ship's aft dorsal turrets. A single Type 4a battery could also be mounted at 3. The ventral hull, meanwhile, could carry up to 8 batteries of light Type 4a guns, paired at 4, 6, and 7 or singletons at 5 and 8. Of course, there are good arguments for simply leaving the aft turret array to cover this and saving various budgets for arrays of Type One disruptors next stage…
Type 4b:
[ ] (Write-in plan)
The dorsal hull may mount a maximum of 5 type 4a batteries, with pairs at 1 and 2 and a single at 3. Location 2 may also mount a single Type 4b; this will disallow mounting a pair of Type 4a batteries there and will likely interfere with the aft turret array due to necessary width and height of the casement for the larger guns. The ventral hull may carry up to 8 batteries of Type 4a guns, pairs at 4, 6 & 7 and singles at 5 & 8.
Please Vote By Plan
One Hour Moratorium
A/N: -1 stage, because previous votes have removed the need to give a shot at aft-specific turrets et cetera.
I'm thinking put cannons on 2 and 3. Leave the rest for torpedos and point defense.
[ ] Plan 3 batteries
-[ ] use type 4a batteries to fill slots 2 and 3
[ ] Plan 3 batteries
-[ ] use type 4a batteries to fill slots 2 and 3
- Location
- Canada
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Frankly our continued discussions have been making the others plans stronger.So continues the trend of my plans to fail by one vote lol. I suppose the role of loyal opposition is honor enough
I still am going to stand by a 4b aft gun battery though. We just need 6 spaces and can turn off a radial for runtime and and power. The broadsides are at least going to have some overlap with the radials depending on their position, but the rear will only have the Type 2s and some T1s.
This feels like a deal killer to me. We've got 4 T2 mounts that can point aft, going for a T4b that will hurt their performance doesn't feel like it's worth the cost. Maybe a couple T4a mounts? I'm not sure that's worth the cost. We are really short on spaces, especially if we want a light torp battery up front. I'm inclined to rely on the T2s and spend more resources on T1 mounts.
[]Plan: The turrets will do the job.
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
With a cloak I am willing to sacrifice firepower in the aft to leave room for torps and lots of Type 1s. However it feels cheap to add a couple 4a on the top and bottom for fighting retreats.
[] Plan The brave Guardian bravely ran away
-[] Type 4a on dorsal hull at location 3
-[] Type 4a on ventral hull at location 5
[] Plan The brave Guardian bravely ran away
-[] Type 4a on dorsal hull at location 3
-[] Type 4a on ventral hull at location 5
- Location
- Canada
- Pronouns
- He/Him
With the assumption the fore and aft weapons will not be firing that just barely works, with enough room for 10 PD mounts 2 torps, and the assorted utility stuff from my previous list. Anything more then that is going to start cutting into our chances of having this ship being able to do anything except blow stuff up.
Very much true.
[X]Plan: The turrets will do the job.
[X] Plan The brave Guardian bravely ran away
Last edited:
- Location
- Canada
- Pronouns
- He/Him
[X] Plan: The turrets will do the job.
For anyone thinking about more then the two 4a mounts I'm asking that you run all the relevant numbers before doing so. The single 4b kinda barely fits, but it's going to hurt the arcs of the turrets so... again I don't think it's worth it.
Edit - Looking at the numbers more closely I think the pair of T4a are a better option. A bit less room and cost, more damage, and the extra resources used can be accounted for by not firing them and the forward guns at the same time.
For anyone thinking about more then the two 4a mounts I'm asking that you run all the relevant numbers before doing so. The single 4b kinda barely fits, but it's going to hurt the arcs of the turrets so... again I don't think it's worth it.
Edit - Looking at the numbers more closely I think the pair of T4a are a better option. A bit less room and cost, more damage, and the extra resources used can be accounted for by not firing them and the forward guns at the same time.
Last edited:
[X] Plan 3 batteries
-[x] use type 4a batteries to fill slots 2 and 3
Not much more firepower then the two batteries plan but the triangle shape this creates is as Much style choice as using three batteries is a firepower one.
-[x] use type 4a batteries to fill slots 2 and 3
Not much more firepower then the two batteries plan but the triangle shape this creates is as Much style choice as using three batteries is a firepower one.
- Location
- his hidden lair
[X] Plan The brave Guardian bravely ran away
I agree the T4b limiting the turret arcs is a deal breaker, but if we don't need separate power/runtime for them, two T4a batteries is incredibly cheap. 4 measly spaces and ~20 MI for 36 BD before cloak means we can quickly swat any flies in our rear arc.
I agree the T4b limiting the turret arcs is a deal breaker, but if we don't need separate power/runtime for them, two T4a batteries is incredibly cheap. 4 measly spaces and ~20 MI for 36 BD before cloak means we can quickly swat any flies in our rear arc.
- Location
- USA
[X] Plan The brave Guardian bravely ran away
Are there any objections to also fitting a single aft torpedo tube with this?
Are there any objections to also fitting a single aft torpedo tube with this?
Mechanis
Confirmed Extremely Screwed
- Location
- Absconding with Alacrity
no, that's specifically for putting a battery of Type 4b cannons aft- the way the geometry worked out, if you do that, the necessary casement will moderately obstruct two of the aft dorsal turrets. Broadside batteries would not have interfered at all with the turrets, because they'd be mounted lower or higher depending on exactly where you put them. (Or more accurately, the gun decks would have been level with the turret wells, not the actual turrets, for things on the same "level", Or between the turrets, as appropriate.)
Last edited:
- Location
- Canada
- Pronouns
- He/Him
I have to admit that I do like the mental image of T4a hex packs opening up on some poor fool.
VERY strong objections. They are going to do very little damage and consume a bunch of space. Even the idea of putting a couple on the front is mostly on the off chance of utility work. A single T1 mount is going to output a LOT more BD then a torp. At 1 space instead of 4.
Our current torpedoes just do not stand up to the level of our new beam weapons. I'm not really making an objection to the T4a pair because they are going to output 10x the burst damage of a torp for the same amount of space.
Last edited: