Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
Sayle said:
tbh I vacillate between engines in pairs only and thinking "does it really hurt to have a midline engine too if it's 3 engines or more?" and I suspect my answer changes depending on if 3 engines will max it out and a fourth engine would be useless because that makes the choices less meaningful if one is Better with a capital B, but also if one forces you to take a useless engine if you want max performance.

There's no rush on the vote. Also I'm going to kill the table earlier because it's just confusing people. I think this whole thing is probably why I used to not give concrete values to stuff beforehand, because it let me tweak as the process continued. In this case though I'm not going to snatch the information back mid-design.

EDIT: But since people have the info I can't exactly bitch at you for using it. I can bitch at me for giving it to you. I'll repost the update with clarified values and restart the vote from there.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Personally, I'd be fine with the pace of the quest slowing down for a few updates if you need to tweak numbers around on the backend.

I also agree the quest and questers don't seem as angry/adversarial when we have less information.
 
[X] 140 Meter Saucer (200,000 Tons)
[X] 140 Meter Thin Saucer (140,000 Tons) [Canon: Constitution-class]
 
[X] 140 Meter Thin Saucer (140,000 Tons) [Canon: Constitution-class]

Reduced cost on our shield systems means we might be able to afford going to Covariant shields now (they *should* have progressed along the development pipeline, so they aren't pure prototypes, AFAIK), which is a definite plus.
 
I am still of the opinion the 'canon' saucer is the best choice, not only is it the size of the TMP Enterprise refit (meaning it gives us more room to play with as far as modules go) if the basic logic still holds true we'll be able to go even bigger in the future with a rebuild.

It also means we'll be able to mount a decent engineering hull (most likely ~83,500 tonnes assuming the Kea mass logic holds true, so still firmly within the 250,000 tonne leeway we've got), preventing a saucer mounted deflector from compromising the tactical fit of the design.
 
[X] 140 Meter Saucer (200,000 Tons)
[X] 140 Meter Thin Saucer (140,000 Tons) [Canon: Constitution-class]
 
[X] 140 Meter Half-Saucer (140,000 Tons)

Entire reason for redoing the vote was that people had voted for thin saucer under false pretenses (the initial expectation that we would need 3 drives, rather than 4; the half-saucer is just better if we need 4- it mounts them more space-efficiently, leaves inline deflector and thus inline engineering hull on the table without totally crippling our offense [though it would still impinge on it somehat] for the large handful who want that, and has more space and especially more forward-edge-facing space than the thin saucer so it can probably mount more torpedo tubes period), so I'm a little surprised to see thin full saucer jumping way out in the lead again.

But not very surprised. It was always futile to dream of either swaying or outnumbering the aesthetics crowd in general, much less on Kirk's Enterprise of all designs.

Edit: And as I'm posting the half-saucer makes a bit of a comeback! 🤞Okay, I guess I'll continue hoping, for now XD
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top