Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
darkstarling said:
Cost is absolutely one of our concerns, agreed. BUT we're going to have to spend money somewhere, and I think this is what we should spend the money on.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

One could make an argument that weapons and shields are where we want to be spending our time and energy first and foremost, but maneuverability makes for a solid second consideration, at the very least.
 
This ship is going to be as much a political statement from the Federation as it is a physical ship and that message is 'Don't make me come over there....'

Cost is no object when survival is on the line, so a pair of Type-3's is the most logical. It's expensive, but it gives you more room for weapons or support systems.
 
If we take the 3 Type 2s, hopefully we can reconfigure [some other space] into an undersized shuttlebay, and then put an undersized version what ever would have been in [some other space] in by the engines.

Edit: As explained below, we already have a shuttle bay, so this is more about 'additional shuttle capacity'
 
Last edited:
darkstarling said:
Cost is absolutely one of our concerns, agreed. BUT we're going to have to spend money somewhere, and I think this is what we should spend the money on.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Personally, I want to triple down on our upgraded hull with maximized maneuverability and the prototype shields. And it's easier to justify upgrading our shields if we stick to the three Type-2s.
 
As for a shuttle bay, it seems we've already got a fairly small one installed on the secondary hull, so unless that's getting stripped out for an oddly placed thruster, I don't quite know how that all works out.
 
Underslung looks nice so far. Of course, the nacelle position and attachment method will significantly affect the final appearance.

Anyway, two type 2 thrusters is right out, but the choice between three type 2s and two type 3s is kinda painful... So many good arguments for both...
 
Do we really need two forward phasers? If we can only fire one at a time, we can just have two rapid launchers, a forward phaser, and a rear phaser for swatting Orion pirates.
 
To make a choice here I'd- saying "I" because I'm probably the only one confused here- probably need info on the scaling of costs, how much is too much?
 
StriderInCosmos said:
As much as I would like to use the new Type-3s and really make this bird swoop with the best of them, cost is enough of a factor that my hand is staid for such an expense at the current moment.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Interesting note: the Type 3 Impulse currently becomes standard in 2235, at which point it drops to 5 cost from 6.25. Building a ship using it as a prototype should, under the existing rules as I understand them, speed that process up.

So, like, the cost savings of the triple Type 2 design are a bit smaller than they look at first glance.
 
I'd say go with the 3 Type 2's, while losing an internal module to it is a bit disappointing, most internal modules are 'nice to have's that do things like boost the Engineering, Science or Range scores, all of which aren't part of our design brief.

So our options boil down to:
2 Type 2: We keep the extra module but we are measurably worse at our main mission
3 Type 2: We're a bit less flexible, but being cheaper means we have more to spend on weapons, not to mention the deign brief explicitly put low cost above extra capabilities
2 Type 3: We keep the flexibility at a much higher cost, meaning we either skimp on the weapons, or the ship is going to be harder to mass produce both of which are against our brief
 
Alectai said:
I mean, you say that, but three standards should still provide excellent damage without breaking the bank, and probably cost us less than even a single rapid given how overpriced they are right now.

We're already managing to be fairly economical thanks to how we went with nearly the minimal mass we could have with this design, I think we've got some wiggle room.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We also can do 1 rapid with 2 standard, which while the first run of ships will be more expensive would make later runs cheaper and open up refits or a new pattern using 3 rapids, getting that tech to standard and mature quicker will be nice.

[ ] Two Type-3 Thrusters (33 -> 45.5 Cost) [Very High Manoeuvrability]
Not too much more expensive than 3 type 2 and does not use as much space (and given we picked the smallest hull we want to preserve space). The other side effect is that the next ship we design this might be standard tech with no cost increase and also decrease the cost of later build runs of the current design making it even more competitive long term
 
StriderInCosmos said:
One could make an argument that weapons and shields are where we want to be spending our time and energy first and foremost, but maneuverability makes for a solid second consideration, at the very least.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I think shields are another thing we can save money on actually. We got the hull, we've got maneuver, unless we get a great prototype option for the shields we should stick with the well tested technology. Instead we put our money in the engines and the rapid fire photon launchers.

Mr. Idiot said:
To make a choice here I'd+- saying I because I'm probably the only one confused here- probably need info on the scaling of costs, how much is too much?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Agreed. @Sayle What is our budget for this project beyond 'not too much'?
 
Sayle said:
While you may still be able to fit some useful auxiliary modules there, something the size of a shuttlebay will be decidedly off the menu.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Also something to consider. We may not get something as large as a shuttlebay with a third Type-2, but we'll still likely have space for other internal modules.
 
[ ] Two Type-3 Thrusters (33 -> 45.5 Cost) [Very High Manoeuvrability]

A case could be made for the low-tech thrusters if we had gone with with a different spaceframe... but for what we went with, this is the correct choice. We have limited internal volume, so we need to use it efficiently, and our hull shape is optimized for forward facing firepower, so we need to be maneuverable to bring that firepower to bear.

Cutting costs here would be a serious mistake, IMHO.
 
[X] Two Type-3 Thrusters (33 -> 45.5 Cost) [Very High Manoeuvrability]

The rest of the galaxy: Ship combat is a slow and stratigic affair. A meeting of minds, knowing your enemy, and mastering yourself.
SDB: HIGHWAY. TO. THE. DANGER-ZONE!
 
Last edited:
Oh hey, 4 type 2 impulse thrusters lets us have the internal space and saves almost a whole phaser bank's worth of cash over the type 3.

SCORE!

[ ] Four Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 42 Cost) [Very High Maneuverability]
 
Last edited:
One issue that I would raise is that they Type-3 is still a prototype equipment. If we fail the prototype roll and get lower performance that could be at least somewhat painfuk.
 
I'm leaning a bit towards the 2 type 3s - we sacrificed a bit of space to get the higher sprint warp speed, I want to leave a bit more room in the interior, and given we've gone pretty light-weight the ship is going to be generally cheap enough that we can spend a bit on the top tier engines.

Still, not really averse to the 3 type 2s. Whatever it takes to make this thing dance.
 
Hey hey, we can do the [ ] Four Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 42 Cost) [Very High Maneuverability] now! Open up some module space for whatever suits our fancy later. (At a price, admittedly...)
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top