Doesn't that risk us ending up with cannon fodder hull like the Miranda?
-
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
- USA
...you want to avoid designing new ships, in a ship design quest?
Submarine tender is correct, if I'm reading you right. A separate logistics ship lets us make combat vessels with more bang for our buck at the cost of creating a vulnerability, in that our "submarines" won't last long if their tender can be tracked down and killed.
Our established specialty is already ships that are cheap for their size in exchange for being slow, so that's something of a doubling down on a strength in exchange for an additional weakness.
Mechanis
Confirmed Extremely Screwed
- Location
- Absconding with Alacrity
This plan would only take up 8 squares total; since it would only add a 2x2 refinery and take the computer to 2×4---you would still have plenty of room for some modest secondary functions depending on the precise arrangement of other systems (tritium or deuterium reactors don't take up extra room in terms of the actual reactor apparatus, they just add the need to carry a deuterium or tritium refinery which takes up a bit of extra room). It's even likely that, depending on how you end up arranging things, there will be enough room to cram in at least enough Aux power for low warp, even.
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
[X] Plan Halberd standard parts
chaotic-logic
possible impossibility
- Location
- unknown
[X] Plan Halberd standard parts
- Location
- USA
- Pronouns
- He/They
Holy heck, no. No this is so so SO wrong. Sorry.
We have several layers of exponentially-increasing effectiveness (per-ton, per-cost, and per-hull) with increased hull size. First off, there is no greater-than-linear cost increase as hull size goes up (at least up to the cap determined by availability of sufficiently large slips). Secondly, for a given number of tons and/or points of industry, dividing them amongst fewer hulls means fewer sets of aux sensors, shuttles, shuttlebays, and other fixed-cost components to be paid for, meaning fewer larger ships are literally cheaper per ton, too. Thirdly, bigger module grids are straight-up easier to fit all the good stuff in. Fourthly, the current state of polarized hull / EFF / Shield tech gives exponentially-scaling durability with hull mass. Fifthly, the battery discount rules mean bigger ships get dramatically more firepower per cost, and less-dramatically-but-still more per ton. Sixthly, the effects of points one, two, and three are increased still further by our general commitment to secondary capability and crew comfort and safety using up a bunch of space per hull for those extra things.
Meanwhile, the only capabiity that more, smaller ships have going for them is the obvious one: the ability to be in more places at once.
For any and every class of ship, we should be asking first "How few ships can we get away with building to satisfy this (current and projected) need?" and second "Given that few hulls, how large can we afford to make them?"
tl;dr always make the fewest, biggest ships you possibly can (subject to slip size and availability to build them); effectiveness scales WAY harder than cost as size goes up. Wolfpack swarms are a monumentally stupid waste on our techbase.
Last edited:
- Location
- USA
One thing I'd counter. 'Bare minimum hulls' is not a great thing to aim for. You always want extras to fill gaps in the event one of your ships is damaged, or your needs suddenly expand.
I'd also still argue that, while efficiencies of scale definitely matter, there is always an argument for keeping things cheap. Not every warship is a battleship, not every cargo ship is a super freighter, there are roles where size is not a benefit.
Eventually we will hit a point where we see downward pressure on ship size, where building bigger gets more and more complex and expensive. We just havent yet.
I'd also still argue that, while efficiencies of scale definitely matter, there is always an argument for keeping things cheap. Not every warship is a battleship, not every cargo ship is a super freighter, there are roles where size is not a benefit.
Eventually we will hit a point where we see downward pressure on ship size, where building bigger gets more and more complex and expensive. We just havent yet.
Last edited:
- Location
- his hidden lair
[X] Plan Halberd standard parts
-[X] Use a Tritium Reactor (+2×2 Refinery)
-[X] Use a Dual Core computer
I suspect during wartime a Star Seeker is going to be something of a fleet tanker. Big, relatively slow, with massive stockpiles of supplies while being too valuable to casually risk. Plus, it's probably going to be really hard to pin down and destroy a cloaked ship hiding in deep interstellar space given it can see enemies coming, and once cloaked there's very little to indicate precisely where that needle is in the haystack.
Edit: as for the pressures toward smaller ships, the hull is so much cheaper for our ships that we're probably better off retaining relatively large ships and using auxiliaries modules that don't cost meaningful amounts of industry to fill up the extra space and make the ship more multipurpose.
-[X] Use a Tritium Reactor (+2×2 Refinery)
-[X] Use a Dual Core computer
I suspect during wartime a Star Seeker is going to be something of a fleet tanker. Big, relatively slow, with massive stockpiles of supplies while being too valuable to casually risk. Plus, it's probably going to be really hard to pin down and destroy a cloaked ship hiding in deep interstellar space given it can see enemies coming, and once cloaked there's very little to indicate precisely where that needle is in the haystack.
Edit: as for the pressures toward smaller ships, the hull is so much cheaper for our ships that we're probably better off retaining relatively large ships and using auxiliaries modules that don't cost meaningful amounts of industry to fill up the extra space and make the ship more multipurpose.
Last edited:
And if we do the Vroom approch for the Furious wind I pitched those ships can relocate fast under cloak which makes pinning down a supported star Seeker even harder.
- Location
- USA
- Pronouns
- He/They
Oh, yeah, in any practical terms, there's absolutely going to be reasons to do more than the minimum number and/or smaller than the maximum size (depending on circumstances- they're related, but usually not entirely equivalent)- sometimes even by large margins! By no means am I trying to advocate an extremist CHONKERS ONLY policy here lol
But before margin for spares, for losses, for future need, for the unexpected, the core of your logic- the basic fundamental calculus of "how can I maximize overall capability of the fleet on these resources", is always going to drive you to the biggest hull you can justify once all those practical considerations kick in.
At least for this generation of tech and for these size shipyards.
Last edited:
- Location
- Canada
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Here is a draft layout. It fits all the utility stuff we need, and gives us pretty decent firepower. Unless we remove the side torpedoes I don't see any way to get a 2x3 3b or 4b in the side, so I went with a battery of type A. 3a or 4a works. I missed putting 1 of the 6 type 1 twin batteries I've got planned, but there is room.
We could remove the torps and put a 3b in there but that feels like it would be a fair amount of extra work. Unless I've screwed up there is enough power to run all the combat systems, thanks to the pair of Aux reactors that Mechanis mentioned. Backups are good.
6 2x Type 1 Disruptor
2 Type 2 Disruptor
2 2x Type 3a Disruptor
1 Small Science Lab
6 Aux Sensors
1 Standard Workshop
1 Medium Cargo Bay
1 Small Transporter Bay
1 Small Medical Bay
1 Crew Lounge
47.8 SD, 155 BD (With Cloak), 19.4 PD.
We could remove the torps and put a 3b in there but that feels like it would be a fair amount of extra work. Unless I've screwed up there is enough power to run all the combat systems, thanks to the pair of Aux reactors that Mechanis mentioned. Backups are good.
6 2x Type 1 Disruptor
2 Type 2 Disruptor
2 2x Type 3a Disruptor
1 Small Science Lab
6 Aux Sensors
1 Standard Workshop
1 Medium Cargo Bay
1 Small Transporter Bay
1 Small Medical Bay
1 Crew Lounge
47.8 SD, 155 BD (With Cloak), 19.4 PD.
Last edited:
Why not put the 3 a under the deflector, move whatever a is to the 2x2 slot and drop some engines into the back of the secondary hull?
- Location
- his hidden lair
Dropping two aux sensors would let you fit an additional torpedo tube in each blister, and I'd ere on the side of this thing being a pursuit predator capable of running something down at Warp if we can't mount our heavier guns. Considering this thing has atrocious science, losing aux sensors wouldn't be the end of the word.
I don't think putting in a 3b would be that difficult, but I don't dislike your plan if it isn't feasible. Do you not have any interest in additional engines to make up for its increase in mass?
Last edited:
Idea for the blisters: 4 torpedo tubes fed by the 2x2 magaizine, 2 4a batteries, two engines and that leaves use four slots for aux sensors or type 1s
- Location
- in between
I'd rather shift things around to squeeze in a 3b. Feels wrong to not give this thing a proper Doom Beam after all the work we put in to make it so doomy. We can replace the 3a batteries with 4as instead, and shift the aux sensor aft to make room underneath the deflector.
- Location
- his hidden lair
4 torpedo tubes require 4x2 magazine space.
One of reasons I'm wanting to go cannons over beams on this hull is that we can vail cannons aka retract them and symbolically seal the gun port shutters when in friendly territory.
In that case we don't have the 4 free slots in the secondary hull but can still fit in the tubes, engines and cannons.
In that case we don't have the 4 free slots in the secondary hull but can still fit in the tubes, engines and cannons.
- Location
- his hidden lair
None of our cannons are particularly suited for smaller ships though. A triple 4a battery isn't particularly impressive, and the 2 while useful is bulky and wouldn't retract like you are suggesting.
Besides, this is space we're talking about. The only time anyone is going to be close enough to see it visually it's either going to be in port, or up to something they really shouldn't be doing.
- Location
- Canada
- Pronouns
- He/Him
3b needs 2x3 space on an edge. The only places that you can fit that is pointing straight aft out the tail, removing the side torps, or moving the deflector and computer. The first seems silly, the second is possible but a fair amount of extra work for the yarddogs, and the third seems highly unlikely.
Using a 3a instead of a 3b mount saves 8 spaces and gives the same burst damage. A touch less SD, a tiny bit of PD. Costs more power, but I've accounted for that. 4 smaller doom beams still feels pretty darn doomy to me.
We can use a 3x Type 4a instead. 2 less BD and SD, no PD and uses some less power. Which means we could mount another pair of T1, which would give back the 4 SD and BD, along with even more PD.
More engines would be good, but I didn't have them on my plan while I was working things out. I only remembered them after I uploaded the image. I'll look at how to shift things around to get more in there... actually we might be able to put a thruster at the top of the checks. There are 2 free squares there.
You mean the very top and very bottom of the main grid?
- Location
- Canada
- Pronouns
- He/Him
No. The side hull 'cheeks'. There are two empty spaces above the line with the X for the aux sensor and the 3a disruptor mount. There is a side hull on each side of the ship.
