Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
TehChron said:
Once again, what's needed is defense to survive the inevitable Klingon Alpha strikes from stealth. That means better shield coverage, and with less mass that means we can not only build more hulls but out Archers and Pharos setups will be able to more effectively get them back into action more quickly after the fighting finishes. You're never going to be able to dodge an ambush strike from stealth - that's the entire point of the tactic in the first place.

Folks need to understand that Starfleet simply doesn't have a doctrine built around first-strike initiative, which is where maximizing agility in a dogfight shines the most. Better defense means that the underpowered but wider coverage basis for our phaser banks can be brought to bear for superior clapback under the most likely engagement scenario.

That's why the thin-saucer is frankly a much better fit for the Federation's needs right now.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This seems like a repeated concern but it hasn't been actually evidenced anywhere in the past? The Klingon D6 and D7 aren't a menace to our ships because they sneakily cloak up to them, but because they just kick more ass than our ships do. The Newton with its narrow arcs performed fine against the Bird of Prey, which is actually the only Klingon ship that canonically has a cloak at this point. The D7 doesn't get a cloak until much later in the timeline(2260's).
NSMS said:
The advantage of the thin saucer is that it's got more freedom for impulse configuration, and possibly(?) (there's a post by Sayle stating that it's a fluff statement) gets cheaper shields. The half saucer actually has more internal space to use on systems than the thin saucer (though obviously less than the full), as its impulse is externally mounted- it just locks us into either 2 or 4 engines, which could mean wasted power/cost depending upon what other choices we make.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We are haing a revote specifically because the engine stats were changed and this isn't so true anymore. Three engines is maximum usable thrust only for the Type-3, the Type-2 needs the thrust from the fourth engine to get to the maximum useful thrust(well maybe we can design a lighter ship to fit three Type-2's, but I don't want one because I want a big engineering hull to try and fit torpedoes in).
 
DragoonPreston said:
[X] 140 Meter Half-Saucer (140,000 Tons)

Voting against "Canon with a paintjob", also this is the worst possible time to be making a Connie. We were explicitly told to make a warship. We were not told to make a workhorse that can go and do the Kirk thing. Next vote we can make the Connie and do it right.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
And yet the project name *is* Constitution. Hmmmmm. Oh well, since the total war design of a half saucer is winning this time call it the Chesapeake like has been previously suggested.

*grumbles at thin saucer losing*
 
DeltaV11.2 said:
We are haing a revote specifically because the engine stats were changed and this isn't so true anymore. Three engines is maximum usable thrust only for the Type-3, the Type-2 needs the thrust from the fourth engine to get to the maximum useful thrust(well maybe we can design a lighter ship to fit three Type-2's, but I don't want one because I want a big engineering hull to try and fit torpedoes in).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
3 Type 2's with the 20% bonus comes out to Average Thrust on 360kt so if we can design a ship that masses 180kt we can ekk out "Maneuverability: Very High".

That's potentially feasible with either of the lighter saucers assuming we skimp on drop the engineering section.
 
Horologer said:
I don't think you're reading my posts very carefully. The entire point is that if we stay under 180K tons, which I want to do, we can keep maximum maneuverability with either two Type-3s or three Type-2s.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Why stay under 180kt though? A fourth Type-2 isn't impossible to mount or expensive. The extra hull mass isn't that much cost. If anything it's a benefit because we get more defensive rating. Big will IMO translate into ability to use mature systems to achieve the same results. More advanced systems fit in smaller hulls but are worst from a cost/performance perspective. If we say that the performance benefit of say covariant shields is 1.75/1.4=1.25, then we could avoid the cost by building a 25% bigger ship, with 25% more thrusters. That is going to be cheaper than fitting covariant shields.
 
Remove ads
Candesce said:
That might be how they're killing many of our ships, but that's just because it's convenient.

Based on the description of how D6s have been fighting Sagarmathas, they can whoop our ass just fine in open battle, too.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah, but the point remains that this isn't a discussion about critical weaknesses of the Klingons to exploit, but weaknesses of the Federation fleet to cover for in order to even the odds.

And better capability to survive a favored tactic isn't really a bad thing. When fighting from disadvantage, you by default need to plan around your opponent in order to take advantage...And Klingon's have no reason to resort to an open battle barring a flex unless otherwise forced into it.
thepsyborg said:
Weapon can't be charged in cloak. You absolutely can, if you're on the ball, it's just hella hard. And peak maneuverability is how you do it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Better defenses have a lower ceiling for surviving a strike than being able to duck and weave through a torpedo spread and disruptor follow up with a wider margin for error to boot. That's a self evident fact.

Wider margins for survivability mean better attrition, which means more ships get patched back into fighting shape by Starfleets outrageously good logistical setup in this Quests AU. I've been harping on this for the past week for a reason - Starfleet is principally built around being able to leverage slugging matches through its ability to move material within its borders. There's no reason not to leverage that, when the very concept of being buried under material is in stark contrast to the decisive battle combat doctrine that the Klingons favor so heavily.
 
Last edited:
TehChron said:
Yeah, but the point remains that this isn't a discussion about critical weaknesses of the Klingons to exploit, but weaknesses of the Federation fleet to cover for in order to even the odds.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
And the existing Federation heavy cruiser - which we've already committed to being tougher than, and will be significantly tougher than if we go to prototype shields - already survives a full alpha from a Klingon D6.

It just has no ability to punish said D6, so the Klingons get to hang around and finish the job.

Starfleet's weakness is our anemic weapons fits, not our defenses.
 
Last edited:
Horologer said:
I don't think you're reading my posts very carefully. The entire point is that if we stay under 180K tons, which I want to do, we can keep maximum maneuverability with either two Type-3s or three Type-2s.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Fair enough. I'll be voting for a fat engineering hull in hopes of being able to mount an additional torpedo tube there- especially if the accursed thin saucer wins- so going over 180kt is likely.
Horologer said:
Has Sayle actually stated that the half-saucer has more internal space? I don't see anything indicating that's the case.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
There is some reason to suspect that the thicker half-saucer has slightly more module space than the thin full-saucer (or, perhaps, that the thin full-saucer gets an extra large module and the thick half-saucer gets a few extra small modules), but nothing definitive, no.

However.

Multiple engine mounts on the half-saucer don't interfere with internal module space. Engine mounts on the full saucer do. We're planning on at least three engines, possibly four. Even if it doesn't start out with more module space, the half-saucer is definitely going to end up with more after thrusters are accounted for.
 
Last edited:
Mechanis said:
anyway,
@Sayle





it's so tiny

S M O L

"Don't talk to me or my son ever again."
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The Constable is the only single-nacelle ship that I will accept. It's... reasonable.
TehChron said:
Yeah, but the point remains that this isn't a discussion about critical weaknesses of the Klingons to exploit, but weaknesses of the Federation fleet to cover for in order to even the odds.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The explicit weakness of the Federation fleet is that it has nothing that can win a straight-up fight against a D7(or actually the D6). This is textual. You're basically imagining a weakness.
 
landcollector said:
And yet the project name *is* Constitution. Hmmmmm. Oh well, since the total war design of a half saucer is winning this time call it the Chesapeake like has been previously suggested.

*grumbles at thin saucer losing*
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
So? When we decided on the ship moniker we went with UFS despite the many calls for USS as its the Canon. We are a divergent timeline afterall. I think making some unique choices is fun.
 
TehChron said:
Once again, what's needed is defense to survive the inevitable Klingon Alpha strikes from stealth. That means better shield coverage, and with less mass that means we can not only build more hulls but out Archers and Pharos setups will be able to more effectively get them back into action more quickly after the fighting finishes. You're never going to be able to dodge an ambush strike from stealth - that's the entire point of the tactic in the first place.

Folks need to understand that Starfleet simply doesn't have a doctrine built around first-strike initiative, which is where maximizing agility in a dogfight shines the most. Better defense means that the underpowered but wider coverage basis for our phaser banks can be brought to bear for superior clapback under the most likely engagement scenario.

That's why the thin-saucer is frankly a much better fit for the Federation's needs right now.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

But there is not actually any mechanical difference between the defences or shielding of the thin saucer and the half-saucer? The thin saucer isn't tougher or more protective in; it simply will have to trade slightly more space to fit in the same number of engines. Like I'm not that invested here, honestly I slightly prefer the aesthetics of the Connie's saucer.

But reading through the pages of vote debate I've missed really feels like we have entered the Making Stuff Up Zone as people get more and more entrenched in the argument and search for justifications. To be clear, this isn't to single you out especially: I'm absolutely certain this is going on with the Half-Saucer stans as well. Your post was simply the first one I saw after leaving my mentat-coma-trance of memorised statistics about the torpedo-equipped Kea.

Honestly I feel more like re-doing the vote was a mistake if it generates a ton of rancour.
 
landcollector said:
And yet the project name *is* Constitution. Hmmmmm. Oh well, since the total war design of a half saucer is winning this time call it the Chesapeake like has been previously suggested.

*grumbles at thin saucer losing*
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

And I am more than a bit annoyed by this. We're told conflicting things, 1 We're making a workhorse to do the Kirk thing, 2 we need a cut all the cost warship cause the Klingons are scarry and have lots of guns...

Just really awkward conflicting messages here.
 
I really liked the vote better when it was a contest between the canon-sized full saucer and the thicker full-saucer. Retconning it makes it feel like it stole the vote from the full-saucer options.
 
landcollector said:
You act like we've never done unique choices in the thread before when that clearly isn't the case.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah.

Our divergent choices are how we got into our current position. Congratulations! Our choices matter!

And it's not like this is an utterly terrible position to be in, either. It's not currently good, but I think we can get out of it, we've just got a particularly narrow criteria for this ship in particular.
 
DeltaV11.2 said:
Why stay under 180kt though? A fourth Type-2 isn't impossible to mount or expensive. The extra hull mass isn't that much cost. If anything it's a benefit because we get more defensive rating. Big will IMO translate into ability to use mature systems to achieve the same results. More advanced systems fit in smaller hulls but are worst from a cost/performance perspective. If we say that the performance benefit of say covariant shields is 1.75/1.4=1.25, then we could avoid the cost by building a 25% bigger ship, with 25% more thrusters. That is going to be cheaper than fitting covariant shields.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Because the more massive the ship, the more expensive defensive systems will be. And this ship doesn't need to be big. It just needs to be heavily armed and relatively cheap.
 
I also detest the fact we're being told this is the Enterprise and in the same breath being told we have to make it a monorole warship that will be completely incapable of being the Enterprise. Frankly I'm wondering if I should just drop the quest until we're done with this, because I'm becoming more and more bitter over how things have been going since the Phaser nerf.
 
Horologer said:
I don't think you're reading my posts very carefully. The entire point is that if we stay under 180K tons, which I want to do, we can keep maximum maneuverability with either two Type-3s or three Type-2s.


Has Sayle actually stated that the half-saucer has more internal space? I don't see anything indicating that's the case.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yup:
The second option is your old friend the half-saucer. Using the same deck plan but directly bisecting it provides a vertical surface ideal for the installation of additional impulse engines without impinging on the traditional neck or engineering spaces.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'd actually misremembered it slightly- it's talking about additional impulse engines, when I thought it was referring to all- but so long as we go for more than minimum impulse this reads like it'll give us more space.
 
Mechanis said:
SNIP
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Makes me think of a pit droid for some reason.

I want to fish for that primary+ hull. That or a backside deflector nub (or tiny inline secondary with nub) ala the saber.
[X] 140 Meter Saucer (200,000 Tons)

Since it's so far behind in the voting though I'll also vote for this.
[X] 140 Meter Thin Saucer (140,000 Tons) [Canon: Constitution-class]

I haven't kept up with the thread today but last I recall 3 of the cheap engines make this design plenty zippy (if not maximally zippy) and 4 engines just feels excessive. It may not mechanically take up space or add mass but this is mostly a feels vote for me.
 
Horologer said:
Because the more massive the ship, the more expensive defensive systems will be. And this ship doesn't need to be big. It just needs to be heavily armed and relatively cheap.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
But defensive systems are not a major cost driver for the ship. Our more expensive hull plating is only "you get part of one extra phaser". And bigger hull = more defense. It's an explicit thing that each generation of tech is less cost-effective. So within the limits of the design, we should greed it up for tonnage.
KarmaA said:
Since it's so far behind in the voting though I'll also vote for this. I haven't kept up with the thread today but last I recall 3 of the cheap engines make this design plenty zippy (if not maximally zippy) and 4 engines just feels excessive. It may not mechanically take up space or add mass but this is mostly a feels vote for me.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We're having a revote because things were changed so 4 engines is not excessive. If we want to use the cheap, non-prototype engines and not have a small ship, we need 4.
 
Candesce said:
And the existing federation heavy cruiser - which we've already committed to being tougher than, and will be significantly tougher than if we go to prototype shields - already survives a full alpha from a Klingon D6.

It just has no ability to punish said D6, so the Klingons get to hang around and finish the job.

Starfleet's weakness is our anemic weapons fits, not our defenses.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah, which means we need defenses to compensate for that by dragging out the fights long enough that those weapons can accumulate damage in situations where thats feasible. Maneuverability helps with that - somewhat. It also assumes that a hypothetical D7 doesn't have an improved weapons suite that changes said calculus. We are, to some degree, flying blind. Didn't the Romulans unexpectedly develop a better Warp Drive earlier than in canon in this AU?

DeltaV11.2 said:
The explicit weakness of the Federation fleet is that it has nothing that can win a straight-up fight against a D7(or actually the D6). This is textual. You're basically imagining a weakness.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
No, I'm not? I'm addressing a weakness beyond the white room scenario that Starfleet already loses because its capable of being addressed. Even beyond the statline, there's other considerations.

Skippy said:
But there is not actually any mechanical difference between the defences or shielding of the thin saucer and the half-saucer? The thin saucer isn't tougher or more protective in; it simply will have to trade slightly more space to fit in the same number of engines. Like I'm not that invested here, honestly I slightly prefer the aesthetics of the Connie's saucer.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We were informed that there were cost savings to be had in applying the same shield coverage to the thin saucer over the half saucer. That bleeds into advantages of either more systems that can be put in, or more hulls that can be built in the period leading up to the conflict. Price is absolutely mechanically meaningful when it and tonnage are one of the factors in play for the terms of the initial request. If we can get hulls of sufficient survivability, and our weapons systems would be largely the same barring the what other space is left after the torpedo tubes are installed or how they're arranged, then the critical issue is how many of said ships we can get out to cover Federation territory to meet the Klingon's own numbers where needed.

Thats attrition. I categorically refuse to believe that the Klingons have the capacity to match Starfleets current ability to keep ships supplied and maintained while on deployment. It doesn't even matter if the early phases of the war are stalemates or near-losses. That's a meat grinder that the Klingon warmachine isn't going to be equipped to outlast us in.

Mission killing or even just forcing a need for maintenance upon Klingon warbirds and BoP will be sufficient for us to have time to produce more hulls and more metal to overcome the raw dps disadvantage we face. Another factor assisted by making these ships cheaper to produce.

It snowballs.
 
Last edited:
DragoonPreston said:
And I am more than a bit annoyed by this. We're told conflicting things, 1 We're making a workhorse to do the Kirk thing, 2 we need a cut all the cost warship cause the Klingons are scarry and have lots of guns...

Just really awkward conflicting messages here.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
What's confusing?

The design requirements are for a pure warship. The context tells us that we want a pure warship. Why would Starfleet in this alternate universe care about a class of ships from a different timeline?

Like, this is the most warship warship we've been asked to design since the dreadnought project. At no point has the word "workhorse" been brought up. This is supposed to make up for the rest of our fleet being completely incapable of combating the Klingon's next-generation warship, and nothing else.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top