Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
Bedpotato said:
I don't get the refusal to see the four type two engines as the steal they are? They bring Redundancy, high maneuverability, and are cheaper than the type three option, while giving us one extra module!
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The four type 2 option isn't cheap enough to justify vs not standardizing on the Type 3. The contest is basically "take three type 2s and save a nontrivial amount of cost" and "take Type Threes for logistical reasons+extra space." Going for four type two engines just doesn't have much of a benefit in comparison. I for one would prefer to squeeze out some cost savings now to get a rapid launcher in without having to knife-fight Finance over it, since we can do so without losing performance in the main mission ("run around and shoot Klingons").
 
landcollector said:
Sure, you can run them all at just 75%, but above that risks frame damage. Not a cheap or quick stint in spacedock.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Right, but does running them at 75% actually notably hinder the maneuverability?

Actually, is that bit about frame damage confirmed with Sayle?

[X] Four Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 42 Cost) [Very High Maneuverability]
 
Last edited:
[X] Four Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 42 Cost) [Very High Maneuverability]
[X] Three Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 39.75 Cost) [Very High Manoeuvrability]
Skippy said:
The most frustrating part of this quest sometimes is the lack of object permanence.

The entire reason we went for the half-saucer is because it could mount a lot of Type 2s in parallel, letting us move around more stuff and maintain Very High Manoeuvrability, save internal space in the saucer from mounting thrusters, and use the Type-2 rather than the Type-3 thruster to save money without compromising on space.

We've now not gone for a large secondary hull - but at least in fairness this had some tangible upside in terms of warp speed. Now we're contemplating losing a ton of internal space in the back of the ship to save a measly 2.25 Cost, or... going for the Type-3 again because it's shiny and we're underbudget, even though we have a lot of very expensive weapons to add which we would like to be able to spend more on, and our saucer choice means mounting Type-2s cost us nothing in terms of space.

It's surreal. It's like if you deliberately challenged the voters to undercut every single practical advantage of the Half-Saucer.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The information available to us changes with every update. We chose the half-saucer for a specific reason earlier, but in this update new information and new vote options have been given to us that might reasonably change people's decision. Otherwise, we wouldn't even have a vote this turn. It's not always best to stick to old plans.
 
Last edited:
I still think 4 is a ridiculous number but more space than 3 for less cost than the new generation hits enough positives I'll go for it.

[X] Four Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 42 Cost) [Very High Maneuverability]

Maybe we'll get some bizarro starship troopers design language on this viper.
 
landcollector said:
Sure, you can run them all at just 75%, but above that risks frame damage. Not a cheap or quick stint in spacedock.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yes, that means sudden extreme speed maneuverabilety to surprise an enemy and kill it instead of dying. Or extreme redundancy (This bird can loose one engine and is still full speed and maneuverable!)

Mechanis said:
The four type 2 option isn't cheap enough to justify vs not standardizing on the Type 3. The contest is basically "take three type 2s and save a nontrivial amount of cost" and "take Type Threes for logistical reasons+extra space." Going for four type two engines just doesn't have much of a benefit in comparison. I for one would prefer to squeeze out some cost savings now to get a rapid launcher in without having to knife-fight Finance over it, since we can do so without losing performance in the main mission ("run around and shoot Klingons").
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Conter point if an Impulse engine type three gets hit the ship is below normal speed, and basically dead! If the same happens to the quad type two she can keep just going no problem!
 
Also another point in favour of four engines beyond the space saving - the ability to put the ship into Emergency War Power Mode, even if it causes damage and is not normally ever used, may still be a useful ability to have in certain emergencies.

Like there are 100% times you want to run away from dangerous stellar phenomena, or just dangerous enemy ships. Even some damage from redlining everything is worth potentially losing the ship otherwise.


1729468536168.png ​
 
I would like to point out that if you think the 2.25 cost difference between three and four Type Two engines is trivial, the whole 3.5 cost difference between 4 type 2s and a pair of Type 3s is also trivial, whereas the difference between three Type 2s and the Type 3s is 5.75 Cost. AKA nearly a third of the rapid launcher I'd like to put on her.
 
We actually have an example of redlining the engines beyond what the inertial dampeners can handle.
Sayle said:
Examination of the wreckage of the Kzinti interceptor after the battle answered some questions about its maneuverability - in addition to overcharged inertial dampers, the crew were also in crash couches. This neatly explained their ability to withstand the high-gravity maneuvers that the interceptor demonstrated during combat, and the stress microfractures in the spaceframe put a distinct limit on how many times the ship would have been able to repeat the tricks. This prediction was borne out in the Battle of Shasht, when a Kzinti interceptor of the same type ruptured its spaceframe while carrying out a similar high-energy turn.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This would probably be a suicide move for one of our ships though as unless the crew and ship are equipped from the start to do this they're probably not surviving the end results.

On that note.
[X] Four Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 42 Cost) [Very High Maneuverability]
May they ride eternal, shiny and chrome.
 
Sayle said:
[ ] Electro-Ceramic Plating (200kt): 38 Defense. [4.5 Cost]
[ ] Duranium Alloy (200kt): 43 Defense. [6 Cost] [Canon: Constitution-class]
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

We had an entire update about the cost of 1.5.
But then meanwhile 3 normal torpedoes vs three rapid fire are 6.75 to 45.

The huge cost of prototype really makes arguments about cost savings difficult.
 
[X] Four Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 42 Cost) [Very High Maneuverability]
[X] Two Type-3 Thrusters (33 -> 45.5 Cost) [Very High Manoeuvrability]
 
We don't need a second shuttlebay. Not as much as we need to be able afford rapid launchers.
[X] Three Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 39.75 Cost) [Very High Manoeuvrability]

Alternatively, I wouldn't be upset to push this tech towards standard use.
[X] Two Type-3 Thrusters (33 -> 45.5 Cost) [Very High Manoeuvrability]
 
Or, in a nice shiny table since Y'all like those:
Type Two 4xVsType Two 3xCost difference: 2.25
Type Two 4xvsType Three 2xCost Difference: 3.5
Type Two 3xvsType Three 2xCost difference: 5.75
In summery: there's little difference in the cost saving of 4 Type 2s vs 2 Type 3s or 3 type 2s, but signifigant savings for 3 type 2s vs 2 Type 3s.
 
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]
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top