Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
Compellor said:
If we really want to go with high-maneuverability, it seems like the only obvious downside of 4 thrusters is that it looks a bit funny. There could be unanticipated downsides, but that's the fun of the quest. For those saying the cost savings is negligible, I think there's a decent chance it makes the difference between having say, 11 instead of 10 ships in the first batch.
Personally I'm fine with medium.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
A single RFL is 16 cost. I don't think the 2 cost difference is gonna be the deciding factor here.

[X] Four Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 42 Cost) [Very High Maneuverability]
[X] Two Type-3 Thrusters (33 -> 45.5 Cost) [Very High Manoeuvrability]
 
[X] Three Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 39.75 Cost) [Very High Manoeuvrability]
we know the torpedoes are going to be a massive point cost, so let's go for the cheapier, bulkier choice here while still getting the high manoeurvability.
 
Compellor said:
If we really want to go with high-maneuverability, it seems like the only obvious downside of 4 thrusters is that it looks a bit funny. There could be unanticipated downsides, but that's the fun of the quest. For those saying the cost savings is negligible, I think there's a decent chance it makes the difference between having say, 11 instead of 10 ships in the first batch.
Personally I'm fine with medium.

[X] Two Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 37.5 Cost) [Medium-High Maneuverability]
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Did you want to vote for the 4 type two's? Or did you make an argument for four and then still choose two?
 
[X] Four Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 42 Cost) [Very High Maneuverability]
[X] Two Type-3 Thrusters (33 -> 45.5 Cost) [Very High Manoeuvrability]

We are definitely going to want the extra engineering or fuel the slot provides. One lets us fix battle damage easier, meaning less ships are likely to die in prolonged combat and the other lets us go farther and faster on less adding strategic and tactical utility. Either way that is more than worth a bump in cost imo.
 
[X] Three Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 39.75 Cost) [Very High Manoeuvrability]
[X] Four Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 42 Cost) [Very High Maneuverability]
 
Last edited:
[X] Three Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 39.75 Cost) [Very High Manoeuvrability]
[X] Two Type-3 Thrusters (33 -> 45.5 Cost) [Very High Manoeuvrability]

Either take the cheap VH Manoeuvrability or pay for the tech increase.
 
Last edited:
[X] Three Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 39.75 Cost) [Very High Manoeuvrability]
[X] Four Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 42 Cost) [Very High Maneuverability]
Skippy said:
It feels like it's a foregone conclusion that people will want the RFL + two regular torps in that case, so I guess maybe the actual decision comes rather to include a single aft torp launcher as a sting in the tail for stuff like BoPs, or trust in the SPEED FORCE to obviate the need for an aft armament.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Aft torps aren't for BoPs, they're for doing firing passes and then shooting aft photons into the unfortunate victim. We thought about doing this on the Selachii with an aft phaser, but that was just a phaser not an entire torpedo launcher.
 
The volume we lost to the three engines is not free. If it costs us part or all of a module, especially a shuttlebay, then that functionally means a worse Engineering score for the ship, and as well as making the ship less useful overall, it makes it worse as a warship. Being able to repair damage and have good endurance is incredibly important for a battlecruiser, wars are won by logistics as much as weapons!

2.25 Cost for a gaining a module is just a steal. We took this hull type specifically so we could mount extra Type-2 engines without losing valuable interior space, let's not squander that for a pittance.
 
[X] Three Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 39.75 Cost) [Very High Manoeuvrability]

I think 3 is enough even if one gets knocked out you still have 2 more and that medium to high maneuvrability
 
[X] Four Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 42 Cost) [Very High Maneuverability]
[X] Two Type-3 Thrusters (33 -> 45.5 Cost) [Very High Manoeuvrability]
 
[X] Three Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 39.75 Cost) [Very High Manoeuvrability]
[X] Four Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 42 Cost) [Very High Maneuverability]

The best options as 3 is cheapest soft good option and with the extra thruster we hit soft cap and sacrificing cost for internal space for module (and if we can wizard a solution can break that cap)

Not to mention the redundancy factor
 
Last edited:
I don't get the refusal to see the four type two engines as the steal they are? They bring Redundancy, high maneuverabilety, and are cheaper than the type three option, while giving us one extra module!

Edit: Also three thrusters is harder to refit with the type threes in the future! Take four and that problem is allready solved!
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top