- Location
- Australia
Sayle said explicitly on this one it would be two or four for this frame - it never even occurred to me to check the old ones for precedent. Thank you for the info
Linked contents
- Location
- USA
- Pronouns
- He/They
oh, for sure; I don't think it's inherently impossible or anything, just that we're most of the way through designing this half saucer for paired engines, and the unexpected last-minute option of adding a centerline one now (without a long and expensive redesign) is gonna involve some suboptimal positioning.
Valid. I don't agree, but that's a totally sound line of reasoning.
EDIT:
I'm skeptical about this, as previously stated. Given that the central thruster would explicitly require a different internal 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 refitting triple Type 2s to be harder, more expensive, less beneficial, and thus less likely.
Last edited:
Mechanis
Confirmed Extremely Screwed
- Location
- Absconding with Alacrity
In fairness, I myself only realized that because I did the Cygnus model today and thus had to go "is that doohickey in the middle there an engine or a greeble" and actually read the relavent post.
2 Type 3's will eventually be cheaper than 4 Type 2's once they become a mature technology like the Type 2's have.
The Type 2's themselves have also gone through an upgrade back when we were designing the Selachii so the Type 3's may end up outperforming the Type 2's in all metrics sometime in the far future if we get the option to upgrade them (the Selachii which is under 50kt needed 2 upgraded Type 2's to reach "Maneuverability: Very High" so the OG Type 2's likely couldn't manage Maneuverability: Medium for a 100kt ship like the current ones can).
The issue is that we need ships NOW so the future benefits of the Type 3's just aren't as much of a factor compared to cost savings NOW.
It is entirely possible that if the ship does well enough in the future that it would be worth it to refit it with 2 Type 3's in place of the more numerous Type 2's but that requires that we design a ship that is both good enough and numerous enough to justify a refit.
Given the fact that the Kea received a refit thanks to having plenty of space to swap things around and an S Ranking in Science if we manage to get this thing up to an S Rank in Tactical while keeping it affordable enough to allow for multiple orders even during wartime it'll be a shoe in for getting a refit.
The Type 2's themselves have also gone through an upgrade back when we were designing the Selachii so the Type 3's may end up outperforming the Type 2's in all metrics sometime in the far future if we get the option to upgrade them (the Selachii which is under 50kt needed 2 upgraded Type 2's to reach "Maneuverability: Very High" so the OG Type 2's likely couldn't manage Maneuverability: Medium for a 100kt ship like the current ones can).
The issue is that we need ships NOW so the future benefits of the Type 3's just aren't as much of a factor compared to cost savings NOW.
It is entirely possible that if the ship does well enough in the future that it would be worth it to refit it with 2 Type 3's in place of the more numerous Type 2's but that requires that we design a ship that is both good enough and numerous enough to justify a refit.
Given the fact that the Kea received a refit thanks to having plenty of space to swap things around and an S Ranking in Science if we manage to get this thing up to an S Rank in Tactical while keeping it affordable enough to allow for multiple orders even during wartime it'll be a shoe in for getting a refit.
Last edited:
- Location
- USA
- Pronouns
- He/They
yeah, that's far enough in the future to be firmly post-war and thus firmly post-me-caring-about-it-right-now. They're still more expensive than the four Type 2s at Standard, and that's as far into the future as I'm even willing to consider atm.
Mechanis
Confirmed Extremely Screwed
- Location
- Absconding with Alacrity
anyway, while I'm not sure what the phaser options are going to look like, I think that a rapid launcher in the neck and two standard tubes in the saucer would be good? If we get an option to cram a third standard tube into the aft that would be nice, but that's strictly a nice-to-have given the level of Zoom this thing is going to have. It might not quite spin like a top but I imagine that regardless of engine configuration it's going to make more than a few Klingons go a little wild-eyed and "it's how fast‽‽‽"
Whilst not a 1:1 comparison the Iowa-class battleships cost $100m each, a significant part of the us defence budget during the war, we should expect to make similar investments for this heavy cruiser project, or at least those of the Alaska-class, which was a significant fraction of the $100m each.
[X] Two Type-3 Thrusters (33 -> 45.5 Cost) [Very High Manoeuvrability]
- Location
- USA
- Pronouns
- He/They
Rule 3: Be Civil
The folks voting for three Type 2s, I get. I don't share their opinion, but I get it.
The folks voting for two Type 2s, I...can comprehend, at least. It is the cheapest option, and it still has okay performance, even if it's a tiny savings for a sizable performance hit.
But I really have to wonder if the folks voting for two Type 3s have ever had anyone explain to them- in small words with many examples and maybe a demonstration using colored blocks- the concepts of "greater than" and "less than". Because the two Type 3s are a (very, very rare) objectively bad choice. Compared to four Type 2's, they have the same maneuverability, the same internal space, less redundancy, more cost for the first run (you know, the ones we might actually have by the time the war starts), and slightly more cost for future production runs.
They're either tied or worse on every metric. I would be amazed if anyone voted for them. I am completely at a loss to explain about half of the questers voting for them. This isn't even a vote with aesthetic or nostalgic appeal involved! It's against all sense, reason, and sanity! Worse, it's blatantly and obviously so!
What the hell!!?
Edit: I suppose the Type 3s do push them towards standardization, meaning they'll be cheaper for the next ship that uses them...you know, after the war. And while that's at least a coherent argument, if you're that convinced that we've got the war in the bag, and can afford to make bad choices now for a postwar payoff, then I must question your literacy rather than your numeracy.
The folks voting for two Type 2s, I...can comprehend, at least. It is the cheapest option, and it still has okay performance, even if it's a tiny savings for a sizable performance hit.
But I really have to wonder if the folks voting for two Type 3s have ever had anyone explain to them- in small words with many examples and maybe a demonstration using colored blocks- the concepts of "greater than" and "less than". Because the two Type 3s are a (very, very rare) objectively bad choice. Compared to four Type 2's, they have the same maneuverability, the same internal space, less redundancy, more cost for the first run (you know, the ones we might actually have by the time the war starts), and slightly more cost for future production runs.
They're either tied or worse on every metric. I would be amazed if anyone voted for them. I am completely at a loss to explain about half of the questers voting for them. This isn't even a vote with aesthetic or nostalgic appeal involved! It's against all sense, reason, and sanity! Worse, it's blatantly and obviously so!
What the hell!!?
Edit: I suppose the Type 3s do push them towards standardization, meaning they'll be cheaper for the next ship that uses them...you know, after the war. And while that's at least a coherent argument, if you're that convinced that we've got the war in the bag, and can afford to make bad choices now for a postwar payoff, then I must question your literacy rather than your numeracy.
Last edited:
- Location
- Actually pretty lost
It's people who think eating the 5.75 to get the thruster tech progression is worth it. It might not be all that impactful to get the Type 3 itself out slightly faster, but it means faster Type 4s etc. in the future too. It's not an unreasonable choice.
...Having said that, this probably isn't the ship to be prioritising long term interests like that on.
[X] Three Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 39.75 Cost) [Very High Manoeuvrability]
If you're trying to get them to abandon that vote, you've probably achieved the opposite.
darkstarling
Brilliantly Crazed
- Location
- Columbus, Ohio
- Pronouns
- He/Him
[X] Two Type-3 Thrusters (33 -> 45.5 Cost) [Very High Maneuverability]
Basically, having more engines makes maintenance exponentially more complicated. Especially in high stress situations like combat. More things to break, more maintenance shifts, more everything. And having to source twice as many engines for every starship is going to be a massive hassle too.
By the time Type 3's become mature likely most of the ships will have been decomissioned. Certainly we will not be building new ones. Also the Type 2 didn't get an upgrade, we made a specific, bespoke engine for the Selachii.
But we see pretty much every combat in Star Trek crew members being tossed about, exploding panels, and damage reports even when shields are up(actually it is rare for shields to totally collapse, largely because that means the ship is about to be destroyed).
Voyager actually had its warp drive disabled at one point while still having like 85% shield integrity, so even the most important components of the ship are subject to potential damage with intact shields.
- Location
- california
[X] Three Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 39.75 Cost) [Very High Manoeuvrability]
chaotic-logic
possible impossibility
- Location
- unknown
[X] Three Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 39.75 Cost) [Very High Manoeuvrability]
[X] Two Type-3 Thrusters (33 -> 45.5 Cost) [Very High Maneuverability]
[X] Two Type-3 Thrusters (33 -> 45.5 Cost) [Very High Maneuverability]
- Location
- USA
- Pronouns
- He/They
Actually, no! Literally every single thing you just said was wrong!
Having shiny new high-tech engines that your engineering chiefs don't have twenty years of experience with makes maintenance exponentially more complicated, especially in high-stress situations like combat! New things to break, more surprise breakdowns and unscheduled maintenance shifts, more everything. And having to source twice as complicated of engines for every starship is going to be a massive hassle, too!
Last edited:
Going for T3s is a way of maxing out maneuverability and sacrificing cost instead of either mass or volume. It's valid.
[X] Four Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 42 Cost) [Very High Maneuverability]
I personally want the extra battle redundancy. This is probably the second worst option overall otherwise, but I don't care.
[X] Four Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 42 Cost) [Very High Maneuverability]
I personally want the extra battle redundancy. This is probably the second worst option overall otherwise, but I don't care.
[X] Four Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 42 Cost) [Very High Maneuverability]
For 3 reasons.
1- we have been sacking internal space for saving systematically on the hull phase anymore it's going to impact the performance has a warship.
2- cheaper and adds redundancy to a ship we are sending literally to the teeth of the enemies best. Also gives a clear refit for when the inertia reduction tech advances to go for 4 T3.
3- i want Ludicrous Speed to be a a legit SF command
For 3 reasons.
1- we have been sacking internal space for saving systematically on the hull phase anymore it's going to impact the performance has a warship.
2- cheaper and adds redundancy to a ship we are sending literally to the teeth of the enemies best. Also gives a clear refit for when the inertia reduction tech advances to go for 4 T3.
3- i want Ludicrous Speed to be a a legit SF command