Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
[X] Four Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 42 Cost) [Very High Maneuverability]
[X] Two Type-3 Thrusters (33 -> 45.5 Cost) [Very High Manoeuvrability]

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. Core structural elements extend from amidships to give the ship a round-knife aesthetic, with space available for an aft-shuttle bay, the top of the warp core, or whatever else you think might be useful to fill that area. This will commit you to a minimum of two impulse engines, although if you elect to use the Type-3 thruster prototypes you can see the potential in adding a small auxiliary drive along the midline of the ship, though the costs for such a compact version compatible with the same power systems will probably cost as much as a full-sized engine. The Type-2, however, would commit you to either two or four engines with no in-between.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Why is three Type-2s even an option?

Anyway, we've been saving up thus far, time to start splashing out.
 
Last edited:
Sayle said:
Alternatively the installation of an extra Type-2 engine directly amidships will give the project as much thrust as the spaceframe can handle. The extra space involved will certainly impinge on the area and sacrifice internal volume you could otherwise have used, but the tactical considerations may be worth the cost. 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...
I think people are focusing on the 'shuttlebay' part of this statement too much. Sayle is saying 'don't expect to put a high-volume module here' and using shuttlebays (notably very large) as an example.
 
Mechanis said:
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.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
At least in my case, it's not about cost but redundancy. Losing a Type-3 to battle damage means the ship will lose, if it hasn't already, the maneuver war and can be picked apart without much recourse.
 
[X] Three Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 39.75 Cost) [Very High Manoeuvrability]

[X] Two Type-3 Thrusters (33 -> 45.5 Cost) [Very High Manoeuvrability]

3 type-2s are the cheap option for max gains. I fully expect that when the type-3s become more standardized, there will be a refit to 2 type-3s in order to simplify logistics and gain space for fun stuff to add to the Connie. So, to me, it's either a choice between trying to be economical here and wait for a refit or simply paying the price for the type-3s right here and now. Since the bigger space likely wouldn't go to tactical systems, but auxiliary ones, like engineering and science, firmly in the "nice to have but not demanded" category for this initial design, trying to preserve space at all costs with 4 type-2s seems to me not worth the price.
 
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]
 
One of the most competitive votes I've seen in ages for three different options.
Nice to see.
As an upside, I don't think any of these options are bad, just pushing the setting sliders in slightly different directions.
 
landcollector said:
At least in my case, it's not about cost but redundancy. Losing a Type-3 to battle damage means the ship will lose, if it hasn't already, the maneuver war and can be picked apart without much recourse.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I mean, I went for a trio of Type Twos, because if you're losing impulse engines you're generally seconds from exploding anyway. Because that means your shields are down, and you're about to have a close range demonstration of matter-antimatter annihilation. It's just not really worth the extra cost for four type twos or the Type Threes, in my opinion.
 
Mechanis said:
I mean, I went for a trio of Type Twos, because if you're losing impulse engines you're generally seconds from exploding anyway. Because that means your shields are down, and you're about to have a close range demonstration of matter-antimatter annihilation. It's just not really worth the extra cost for four type twos or the Type Threes, in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I would disagree. Tons of times on the show we see systems like phasers or sensors get knocked out even when the shields are up due to power surges or bleed through.

Trek Shields arent an impervious bubble that keeps the ship inside perfectly safe.
 
[X] Two Type-3 Thrusters (33 -> 45.5 Cost) [Very High Maneuverability]
 
Last edited:
[X] Four Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 42 Cost) [Very High Maneuverability]

Everything I have seen happening in the background of this quest suggests that Starfleet will develop in sensible ways with what we give them. I don't see why, if we give them a ship with more thrust than it's dampeners can take, they won't push development of better inertial dampeners ASAP.
 
[X] Two Type-3 Thrusters (33 -> 45.5 Cost) [Very High Manoeuvrability]

We already voted for almost the least possible internal space, I'd rather not waste it.
 
...if the total program cost of two type 3s- buying, building, maintaining, and supporting in service- was actually cheaper than four Type 2s- that is, if "standardizing on the Type 3" were actually a net savings for Starfleet- then it would be cheaper. Instead it is very explicitly not, and equally explicitly won't be even post maturity.

Like do people actually think Sayle's stupid? Do they think Starfleet Design Bureau doesn't have access to lifetime cost metrics rather than just initial purchase price? Do they think Starfleet is so stupid that they're only looking at sticker price rather than total cost of ownership?

Look, giving us a cheaper cost for something is absolutely not an excuse for "haha, suckers, the more expensive one was actually cheaper, sucks to be you!" Saying it's a better deal actually does just mean it's a better deal! For fuck's sake!

And therefore I would really, really, really love for people to stoppit. Pleeeeeeeeease.
Cathon Grimeye said:
I fully expect that when the type-3s become more standardized, there will be a refit to 2 type-3s in order to simplify logistics and gain space for fun stuff to add to the Connie.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Given that the central thruster would explicitly require a very different structural layout of the aft saucer section, I would expect quad Type 2s to be trivially-easily refitted to dual Type 3 when and if that actually does become logistically beneficial, and triple Type 2s to be a more expensive, less beneficial, and therefore far less likely refit over simply retiring and replacing the class.
 
[X] Four Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 42 Cost) [Very High Maneuverability]

I'd love for emergency power maneuvers to be an available option. Even if not, having backups is very nice and this apparently somehow takes up less space than 3x engines (which IMO doesn't really make sense, but whatever)
 
[X] Four Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 42 Cost) [Very High Maneuverability]
 
Roaming_Guardian said:
I would disagree. Tons of times on the show we see systems like phasers or sensors get knocked out even when the shields are up due to power surges or bleed through.

Trek Shields arent an impervious bubble that keeps the ship inside perfectly safe.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Er. that is explicitly what shields do? They prevent you from taking damage from phasers or torpedos (or, you know, other things, like inconvenient coronal mass ejections) as long as they're intact. This is why Dominion Phased Poleron beams were so goddamn terrifying, they went right through shields like they weren't even there.

Edit: And the Borg were terrifying because they had weapons that could just smash down your shields without even slowing down and rip half your hull off after and could analyze your shield frequency in real time, so they could beam right through them or shoot you without even interacting.

Anything that can damage a ship without having to smash down its shields first or that is strong enough to do so in one hit is considered a HUGE DEAL in setting.
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top