Almost certainly not given the Constitution is likely to be designed as the next or second next project. Started construction 2239.
Linked contents
[X] Type-2 Impulse Thruster (Type-3: Theoretical -> Experimental, Size: Standard)
[X] Type-3 Impulse Thruster [Theoretical] (Three Success Rolls: Size -> Thrust -> Prototype Performance)
StriderInCosmos
Wanderer in the Worldsea
- Location
- Somewhere in... Terminal Dogma? I think?
The nacelles out of the way, we get to the... impulse thrusters... man, what I get for going to sleep...
Alright, I'm all for pushing the boundaries when it comes to just about every aspect of a ship's design. And boy, the thought of a brand new engine making us just zip around real-space makes me somewhat giddy at just the possibility. But with the way the current Theoretical-Experimental-Prototype pipeline is at the current moment, the idea of getting stuck with a subpar impulse engine line, for the long haul, just before we likely jump into the next truly big project makes me more anxious than I'd like for such an important component of how our ships work.
As I understand, there's a rework to the tech advancement system in the works with this decision as the testbed, but until the system is ironed out, I'm going to have to stick with the Type-2. It gives the concept of the Type-3 time to start cooking in the oven, and doesn't run the risk of hobbling this delightfully strange vessel we've finished the spaceframe for. Once the new tech advancement system is presented, and if it comes in time for this vote, the possibility stands on me changing my vote to include the Type-3.
[X] Type-2 Impulse Thruster (Type-3: Theoretical -> Experimental, Size: Standard)
Alright, I'm all for pushing the boundaries when it comes to just about every aspect of a ship's design. And boy, the thought of a brand new engine making us just zip around real-space makes me somewhat giddy at just the possibility. But with the way the current Theoretical-Experimental-Prototype pipeline is at the current moment, the idea of getting stuck with a subpar impulse engine line, for the long haul, just before we likely jump into the next truly big project makes me more anxious than I'd like for such an important component of how our ships work.
As I understand, there's a rework to the tech advancement system in the works with this decision as the testbed, but until the system is ironed out, I'm going to have to stick with the Type-2. It gives the concept of the Type-3 time to start cooking in the oven, and doesn't run the risk of hobbling this delightfully strange vessel we've finished the spaceframe for. Once the new tech advancement system is presented, and if it comes in time for this vote, the possibility stands on me changing my vote to include the Type-3.
[X] Type-2 Impulse Thruster (Type-3: Theoretical -> Experimental, Size: Standard)
- Pronouns
- He
[X] Type-3 Impulse Thruster [Theoretical] (Three Success Rolls: Size -> Thrust -> Prototype Performance)
- Location
- Alaska
[X] Type-2 Impulse Thruster (Type-3: Theoretical -> Experimental, Size: Standard)
I admit it would be deeply funny if type 3 won and the gamble paid off though. If it could turn fast enough to keep up with other ships it might be worth it to put a bunch of weapons in the bow. Maybe give it a nasty alpha strike with torpedos.
I admit it would be deeply funny if type 3 won and the gamble paid off though. If it could turn fast enough to keep up with other ships it might be worth it to put a bunch of weapons in the bow. Maybe give it a nasty alpha strike with torpedos.
Endorfinator
Awkwardly Social
- Location
- California
- Pronouns
- He/Him
[X] Type-2 Impulse Thruster (Type-3: Theoretical -> Experimental, Size: Standard)
StriderInCosmos
Wanderer in the Worldsea
- Location
- Somewhere in... Terminal Dogma? I think?
With discussions on how to rework the tech advancement process going around, I figure I'd throw my hat into the ring as well; depending on what kind of failure a given experimental system has, perhaps the option of refining/rerolling a single aspect of it (say, size or thrust in the case of the impulse thrusters) could crop up in ships as many as two or three designs down the line (or more, at Sayle's discretion). The choice could even be offered to do one or the other (do you try to make a smaller thruster with the same thrust work, or do you try to dial the thrust up to match the current size?).
It's a way to make daring and falling short with this class potentially lead into at least somewhat unique designs in the future for sub-systems.
It's a way to make daring and falling short with this class potentially lead into at least somewhat unique designs in the future for sub-systems.
I think because that would push engineering too far away from the centerline of the ship. Engineering needs to connect to a lot of stuff like the deflector and I suspect things are easier if the connection is relatively straight.
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
The sphere with the deflector in the center and nacelles on either side makes it look very silly from the front. I love it.
[X] Type-3 Impulse Thruster [Theoretical] (Three Success Rolls: Size -> Thrust -> Prototype Performance)
[X] Type-3 Impulse Thruster [Theoretical] (Three Success Rolls: Size -> Thrust -> Prototype Performance)
This is pretty big from a tactical standpoint.
Being able to "comfortably maneuver" on a single regular engine suggests that this thing will have baseline "Maneuverability: Medium" with it getting downgraded to "Medium-Low" like the Sagarmatha when equipped with a fully loaded cargo pod.
For reference, the Saladin which had "Maneuverability: Medium" got an A- tactical rating on a comparable mass range (180kt vs 113kt + 43kt + nacelle mass?) when equipped with only 3 Phasers for 54% coverage and 2 Torpedo launchers.
Regardless of whether we gamble with the Prototype engines or play it safe this thing should have respectable maneuverability and that makes giving this thing a decent tactical score relatively easy barring the weapons budget being extremely tight.
Personally, I've come around to the idea of permanent debuffs to components? It's going to be different compared to how the thread uses to use prototypes, but not in a bad way I feel.
It's basically making us ask: "Do we think the current design needs any improvement at all from rushing out next gen tech right now bad enough that we're willing to gamble future performance?"
As for the critical tech issue, a simple way to solve that I feel would be to lean into the part of it being critical, and just have Starfleet not consider it for use at all until it's developed to the point where there's no chance for it to be permanently messed up with a bad roll.
Last edited:
Endorfinator
Awkwardly Social
- Location
- California
- Pronouns
- He/Him
I like the idea of an unsuccessful prototype roll resulting in the prototype being pushed behind by a ship design or two. If we mess something up totally then it takes a lot of time to fix and revise it into something workable.
- Location
- USA
Why would Starfleet keep using a bad system would be the question.
Presumably because by the time that it's getting used in a full class all the production lines and logistics chains for it's components are all set up for that version and they don't want to rework the entire thing depending on how much needs to be changed.
Especially if it's also fluffed as not just "a bad system" but instead "simply didn't meet our high expectations of what we thought it could do at the time."
I'm in favour of this, possibly with whatever positives we managed to eke out also being reset to what would otherwise be the standard for the module. We can gamble on doing great, but if we don't we have to wait for longer than we otherwise would for the bog standard.
Another thing to consider is San Francisco pushing ahead in some aspects and locking us into a paradigm that hey consider favourable for their design style but which we would consider negative for ours, and having to work with that.
Eh, this feels bad to me. The closest I could support would be the prototype allowed to reroll every design taking the best result.
Basically a roll to check if Starfleet has fixed the various issues yet.
A part then tends towards better functionality, but we could get stuck with a bad part rolling badly for multiple ships.
Last edited:
Enthusiast#117
This is not the Profile you are looking for
- Location
- United States
[X] Type-3 Impulse Thruster [Theoretical] (Three Success Rolls: Size -> Thrust -> Prototype Performance)
I haven't used this, but there's a method of "lower the DC each time" to imply progress towards fixing it.
That's not really viable with a d6 roll. There just isn't much room to lower DCs before it's just automatic.
Last edited:
NavySeel
"I don't know what I'm doing."
- Location
- Places
I'm not sure what you mean by this, if you mean delaying the final version... then I don't see us ever voting to take a prototype ever again.
The same with failed rolls giving permanent debuffs.
All the drawbacks people are suggesting just seem to be things that would kill the idea of ever prototyping anything again in this quest for me.