Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

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

I wasn't going to vote at all @thepsyborg but you going on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about the type 3 being worse in every way when IF THAT WAS TRUE it would not be an option, THEN MASS PINGING PEOPLE OVER IT, pushed me over the edge. GG
 
thepsyborg said:
I'm not expecting much result, but it worked on me at least once.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That post got a staff post in the thread. This was really not the right course of action. Also I am pretty certain that you tabulated the votes wrong.
DragoonPreston said:
I wasn't going to vote at all @thepsyborg but you going on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about the type 3 being worse in every way when IF THAT WAS TRUE it would not be an option, THEN MASS PINGING PEOPLE OVER IT, pushed me over the edge. GG
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's not an illegitimate option but it is one with limited upsides, mostly to deal with whatever our next design is and theoretical Type-4 thrusters.

In general I do think that 4/3 Type-2's are the best option on cost and that if that's your concern it's worth approval voting both given how the votes are working out but like, it's not the end of days.
 
Tank man said:
As someone with certain diagnoses I understand your trepidation, though I find your (and Mechanis) lack of likes/equivalent on posts that you agree with to be disheartening.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
...wait, people pay attention to who they're getting reactions from?

I'm not trying to be facetious, it genuinely never occurred to me that that would...be a thing people paid attention to.

I mean, I've done it, but certainly not with any expectation of influencing outcomes, mostly just because I was in a good mood that day and liked anybody with half an excuse to get a like. Yeah, I can do that, and try to do so more consistently. Thanks for telling me 🙇‍♂️
 
Last edited:
thepsyborg said:
...wait, people pay attention to who they're getting reactions from?

I'm not trying to be facetious, it genuinely never occurred to me that that would...be a thing people paid attention to.

Yeah, I can do that. Thanks for telling me 🙇‍♂️
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It is a form of engagement that drives numbers up, people on forums with likes are conditioned to like likes and seek out more of them.

If someone likes my posts repeatedly by basic psychology I will be predisposed to listen to them. Unless I've got a general negative disposition towards them, that is.
 
Hm. While I do think the Type-3s are better, I'm a-ok with the 4x Type 2s, so:

[X] Two Type-3 Thrusters (33 -> 45.5 Cost) [Very High Manoeuvrability]
[X] Four Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 42 Cost) [Very High Maneuverability]

It's a quest, so I'm trying my hardest to not be snippy, but I really do think we should be.. I know I'm not the best at letting things go.

But I really do think Sayle wouldn't leave us trap options. And getting upset over this defeats the point of the quest.
 
Tank man said:
As someone with certain diagnoses I understand your trepidation, though I find your (and Mechanis) lack of likes/equivalent on posts that you agree with to be disheartening.

You might recall the weapons vote for the Kea class, with Squishy's mass tagging making people who would otherwise be sympathetic/double voting square away at the opposite side.

More conducive is the mass liking of agreeing posts, and lines that support your argument in a 'fluffy' manner to others, as I have often done (you've copied the liking with the saucer vote last, iirc).

I will amend my vote, but in the future I'd like you and Mechanis to like posts agreeing with or even outright supporting your position. You'd be much better placed to influence votes if you did this.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I mean, I am stingy with my likes in general, and vocal enough that if I agree with a line of thinking or someone's post strongly enough to, you know, make that known, I will usually just, y'know, quote them or say "I agree with so and so" in a post.

Frankly, whilst I prefer the three engine option as a cost saving measure, I'm not going to be too put out if either of the other leading options win; it's just going to mean probably being a little more stingy with the phaser array than I'd like. Of course, since there doesn't seem to be any indication our phasers are going to be anything other than strictly secondary weapons to torpedoes until we can invent strips in probably like a good eighty to a hundred years from now quest time, there's not much point in bringing more than a bare minimum of the things anyway, so I suppose two banks fore and one aft will do. or even just one fore and aft.

I would have preferred to save some money here, since we can afford to do so without compromising on the ability to kill D6s and at least trade favorably with D7s, AKA the only capabilities any of us should be caring about, but the amount isn't so great that I feel the need to argue strongly about it.
Saving ~2-6 cost would be nice and in setting give something to placate Finance with, but if it doesn't happen it doesn't happen. If we were in any other situation I might feel the need to argue more strongly, but given that Covariant Shields and the Rapid Launcher are going to stab us right in the wallet because of how we kept putting them off for a nebulus "later" only for "Later" to be "Actually right now, because the Federation is staring down an existential war and we need to catch up to the Klingons in warfighting ability yesterday" it was only ever going to be mitigation anyway.
 
[X] Four Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 42 Cost) [Very High Maneuverability]

Redundancy for either impulse engines getting fucked while in the heat of combat, and if redlined, can give us some emergency speed.

And red makes fings go fasta!!!
 
Tank man said:
It is a form of engagement that drives numbers up, people on forums with likes are conditioned to like likes and seek out more of them.

If someone likes my posts repeatedly by basic psychology I will be predisposed to listen to them. Unless I've got a general negative disposition towards them, that is.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Tbh I don't really pay attention to it all that much unless it's an author (and the post is in a thread of the author) or someone I've spoken directly to.
 
Last edited:
NavySeel said:
I mean at that point we may as well go the whole way and use four.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
No, see, the point is to be a compromise between the higher cost of Type-3 Thrusters and the reduced module space of having three thrusters. The only way to get that back would be...

...by Jove!

[X] Three Type-3 Thrusters (33 -> 51.75 Cost) [Very High Manoeuvrability]
[X] Five Type-3 Thrusters (33 -> 64.25 Cost) [Very High Manoeuvrability]
 
DragoonPreston said:
[x] Two Type-3 Thrusters (33 -> 45.5 Cost) [Very High Manoeuvrability]

I wasn't going to vote at all @thepsyborg but you going on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about the type 3 being worse in every way when IF THAT WAS TRUE it would not be an option, THEN MASS PINGING PEOPLE OVER IT, pushed me over the edge. GG
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The Type-3s are a long term improvement, as they make using type 3s cheaper faster and generally push tech forward a bit. Once they become mature tech they'll be significantly better than the Type-2s and even once they're standard they're only slightly less efficient when space isn't a factor (that is, for ships that are half-saucers, for full saucers the space savings can be significant even now). Right now though, as I understand it we're eating the prototype cost.

The larger problem is that between the Warp 8 engine being fully incompatible and our previous projects somewhat skewing away from tactical capabilities means that the Federation is in a weak military position, one that the Klingons have noticed and are moving to exploit. The long-term benefits of a Type-3 engine doesn't matter if we take more damage from the war than those benefits would be worth. That being said, the cost difference isn't much either, so it's hard to say.

(That being said, 100% agreed that the mass pinging was wrong and it's totally fine to keep the vote as a pure spite choice)
 
If I might make a case for four Type-2 thrusters, they provide the following ancillary (and admittedly very small) benefit, in theory. If things are truly dire and our shipyards need to start cutting corners for emergency production, simply not installing two thrusters is much more doable than with the Type-3s, which as symmetrical thrust are both load-bearing.
 
So I had this question cross my mind, so I thought I'd toss it to the thread to get your ideas too, and maybe give us something else to discuss a bit than another knife fight over components with the levels we reached. I don't really expect it to change anything this time, even I'm still voting for a version of VH Maneuverability, but it might be something to take into consideration for future designs depending on the conclusions reached.

So since practically the very start of this design, it feels like it's been pretty axiomatic that we will be pushing this to the absolute max for Maneuverability so it can do good with it's torpedoes. Even a lot of the arguments for the now-deleted initial saucer vote were focused on how many of each engine were needed to reach that coveted 200% benchmark. For very understandable reasons, since that would give a notable fighting edge to these ships in the combat they will be seeing. But thinking back on how much we've ended up warping every other aspect of this design from the start in service of pushing one particular very variable stat to the highest level possible as a sort of default position, it's made me start to question how much Maneuverability is actually the requirement for what we're wanting these to do?

Our most recent experience with making a slower "combatant" was the Kea, but even with 2 Type-2s a Kea this design ain't. And the Kea still would have been reliably bring tubes to bear against at least other heavy cruisers that would need the extra firepower, which was apparently good enough capability for Starfleet to issue them a tube in their first refit. Plus our new T2M2 phaser bank has reached the level of instantaneous damage of a single torpedo, while still retaining the ability for significant "off-bore" through keeping a wider arc of fire off the bow and avoiding the need to as precisely bring the entire ship to bear for a shot, not even mentioning the possibility of mounting other banks further off centerline as well. With a general assumption that in most cases extreme maneuverability comes at the cost of mass and bulk that can help absorb damage, and our phasers reaching the point where they punch like a photon while being much less difficult to point at a target, how nessecary do we think it is for our ships to be able to put a photon torp on every dragster frigate?

or
TL;DR: Do we think any more than Medium-High/High Maneuverability is required for a future design to be able to reliably aim torpedoes at the targets that really need the extra boom?
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top