Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
Godwinson said:
Consider, however, the gods-defying speed that is Five Type-3 Thrusters. The entire rear half of the ship? Engine. My inertia? Undamped. My torpedoes? Already in their targets. Have you ever wanted to break the lightspeed barrier before you powered up your nacelles? Vote Five Type-3 Thrusters and not only will you, but you'll go back in time to vote for it again.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Meanwhile, in a temporally displaced office Temporal Agent Smith screams, "FUCKING!!! MARTIANS!!!!"
 
Chargone said:
An actual dead end we would have had to have thrown it out and started over (leaving us even further behind in the mean time) rather than just course correcting as we actually did.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
WE WOULD HAVE GIVEN THE OPTION. Like- maybe not quite outright in a vacuum all else being equal- but definitely given our massive advantage in sublight thruster tech making it relatively trivial to keep even the narrowest-arc phasers on target, and possible to do so even with our last-gen thrusters- we would absolutely have been better off* throwing out our phasers entirely and starting over, had we been given that option. We were not. Course correcting was the closest thing to "throwing them out and starting over" that we had the option of.

*or, at least, our primary combatants would have been better off against peer opponents. The wide-angle developmental branch of the phaser tech tree does, in fact, see off a lot of pirates from harassing a lot of our second- and third-line ships for pretty damn cheap. That ain't nothing. It is however a lot less useful than "keeping the Klingons out of <Federation species homeworld> orbitals and hoping they're less inclined to cobalt bombs than the Romulans were last time around".
 
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure even when we discussed it, we wanted both.

There are use cases for wide angle, lower power guns. There are use cases for fixed, high power guns.

Until the shift to missiles, most large ships got both because it made them much more flexible.


We had to pick between power and ease of use, we chose ease of use.
 
[X] Four Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 42 Cost) [Very High Maneuverability]

For reasons of cost, redundancy, and the possibility of having a BIG RED BUTTON.

[X] Five Type-2 Thrusters and Five Type-3 Thrusters (33 -> 76 Cost) [Yes Maneuverability]

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

I like redundancy, but I also like to put us on the newer type of engines.
 
[X] Two Type-3 Thrusters (33 -> 45.5 Cost) [Very High Maneuverability]

I don't see 3.3 Cost for needing literally double the volume of engines as worth it, and the sooner we adopt the Type 3 the sooner it becomes a mature system.
 
[X] Three Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 39.75 Cost) [Very High Manoeuvrability]
[X] Four Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 42 Cost) [Very High Maneuverability]
[X] Two Type-3 Thrusters (33 -> 45.5 Cost) [Very High Manoeuvrability]

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

Feel comfortable going for just this now. Honestly, either is fine, but I prefer the four nacelle aesthetic.
 
[X] Three Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 39.75 Cost) [Very High Manoeuvrability]

Are we really going to ruin our cost effectiveness for a little bit of aft space? Especially when we already get some from the aft side of the underslung hull?
 
[X] Four Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 42 Cost) [Very High Maneuverability]
[X] Two Type-3 Thrusters (33 -> 45.5 Cost) [Very High Maneuverability]
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top