Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
[] Two Type-2 Thrusters and One Type-3 Thruster (33 -> 43.75 Cost) [Very High Manoeuvrability]
may I suggest this as a compromise? We get the best of both worlds use of type 3 at a significant lower cost while retaining high maneuverability
 
[X] Three Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 39.75 Cost) [Very High Manoeuvrability]
[X] Four Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 42 Cost) [Very High Maneuverability]

i simply dont think type 3 worth it on this one
 
killerofa23 said:
[] Two Type-2 Thrusters and One Type-3 Thruster (33 -> 43.75 Cost) [Very High Manoeuvrability]
may I suggest this as a compromise? We get the best of both worlds use of type 3 at a significant lower cost while retaining high maneuverability
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Doesn't work for anybody who wants to keep the rear space open.
 
If we put on enough thrusters, will that boost efforts to devlop better inertial dampers to make full use of the Thrusters?
 
In principle, 1 type 3 thruster and 1 type 2 thruster would have superior cost savings and advance tech and also have very high maneuverability, but it would be somewhat. Awkward.
 
BeepSmile said:
If we put on enough thrusters, will that boost efforts to devlop better inertial dampers to make full use of the Thrusters?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
There's also diminishing returns on engine power, to double your speed requires 4x the energy to achieve that speed in the first place. Maybe it's just not worth it for all the structural reinforcement and SIF.
 
Last edited:
Honestly, while I'm still surprised to see the Type 3s have taken the lead despite the previous consensus to take Type 2s, I'm happy that both leading options mean we keep a big module in the back. The extra 3.5 Cost is annoying, but I am less worried about that now that we know we can mix and match torpedoes - I was worried about paying for two RFLs.

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

Voting to save space at all costs here.

Mechanis said:
They hit as hard as our torpedoes because we walked back from the "wide arc with weaker beam" paradigm we originally had chosen---on the assumption that we would be able to bring 4-5+ of them to bear into single arcs if we configured a ship appropriately---to the "Narrow arc with stronger beam" paradigm; except that because we didn't just pick that in the first place we've effectively ended up with the worst of both worlds. It'll probably take a Mark III or proper Type Three phaser to get them back to just being where the narrow arc Type Two design would have been at adoption, missing out on any refinement that might have otherwise taken place over that development period and likely adding a cost and complexity tax we would not have otherwise had.

So yes, we can pretty definitively say that the wide arc phasers were an evolutionary dead end and with the benefit of hindsight we should have taken the narrow arc Type Two design.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Honestly I doubt we've paid any cost/complexity tax versus if we'd started with the narrow phasers. (And I say that having voted for them.) Like I can categorically state that isn't how Sayle does things. They're intended to be equal development paths.

Looking at our phasers, they've got 25% less firepower but 66% more coverage, and that does not seem a terrible tradeoff to me when torps can make up the difference in point damage? Especially in terms of cost.

Like, for the same cost as the canon Connie's three frontal banks, we can cover more frontal space and have some aft coverage, or skip aft and save 4 Cost. And by massing torps we will beat her MSD and AS values, for only like, 4.5 more cost.
 
It's kinda weird that we don't have smaller versions of existing thrusters. The ideal vote would obviously be:

[] Two type 2 thrusters and two half type 2 thrusters

Even if those cost a bit extra to develop, I doubt it'd break the bank as much and would be useful on all kinds of smaller designs.
 
Nyvis said:
It's kinda weird that we don't have smaller versions of existing thrusters. The ideal vote would obviously be:

[] Two type 2 thrusters and two half type 2 thrusters

Even if those cost a bit extra to develop, I doubt it'd break the bank as much and would be useful on all kinds of smaller designs.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The qm is not all knowing they can't possibly think up every possible option and put it in.
 
Nyvis said:
It's kinda weird that we don't have smaller versions of existing thrusters. The ideal vote would obviously be:

[] Two type 2 thrusters and two half type 2 thrusters

Even if those cost a bit extra to develop, I doubt it'd break the bank as much and would be useful on all kinds of smaller designs.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
In all honesty, I really like the choices we had this time around. All of them have strong arguing points.
Yes, even just two type 2's. Drop some maneuverability and in return maintain space AND be in a strong position for three rapid fire torpedoes? The savings are over half an entire rapid fire tube after all. And in all honesty, medium-high maneuverability is pretty damned good! This choice plus current technology shields instead of prototype, and we have maximum, absolutely devastating D7 destroying firepower for about the same cost as what we are building now!

But I, like many others, are enamored with maximum maneuverability and tough shields. A powerful tactical ship, not just a torpedo platform. To the point I'm willing to sacrifice firepower for it.

But to reiterate, yeah, I really like the choices we had this time around.
 
Last edited:
Im pretty sure Sayle will put on the update that Sanfran came to moderate the debate given how heated things got in quest with some close votes.
 
Yeah, like honestly as heated as this has gotten, I can see the merits in all the choices so even if the three type 2s is losing I don't care enough to change my vote to swing for one of the others, I'll be happy with any of the outcomes here.
 
Cold Dust said:
There's also diminishing returns on engine power, to double your speed requires 4x the energy to achieve that speed in the first place. Maybe it's just not worth it for all the structural reinforcement and SIF.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You're right. At a certain point we're gonna have to do the thing:

Get the deflector dish involved!

(This is actually great because it means that our ships can get to the FUN bit of space quickly, but because they ate using the deflector dish to hold off the eldritch being/poke the wobbly bit of space/restart time, they can't go fast enough to just escape).
 
[X] Two Type-3 Thrusters (33 -> 45.5 Cost) [Very High Maneuverability]

I'm highly sceptical of the idea to use four type 2s instead. Whatever cost savings we gain would probably be lost by additional expenses for shielding and fuel.
 
[X] Three Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 39.75 Cost) [Very High Manoeuvrability]
[X] Four Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 42 Cost) [Very High Maneuverability]
 
Th3Saints said:
Im pretty sure Sayle will put on the update that Sanfran came to moderate the debate given how heated things got in quest with some close votes.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Shouting matches in the meetings, external moderation from San Fran, a design compromise outside the original brief that attracted even more controversy, meetings with the nightmare-harried budget office, office pranks involving uselessly expensive designs, the Targ Incident...

You could write a whole season of office drama with this stuff.

Driven by Apathy said:
[X] Two Type-3 Thrusters (33 -> 45.5 Cost) [Very High Maneuverability]

I'm highly sceptical of the idea to use four type 2s instead. Whatever cost savings we gain would probably be lost by additional expenses for shielding and fuel.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Oh, didn't even think of the fuel consumption.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top