Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
The Treasury cannot bear the expense. We still have 30+ cost of torpedoes and 30+ cost of phasers to go.

[ ] Sprint Nacelles (Maximum Warp: Warp 8 -> 8.4) (Mass: 220kt -> 260kt) [Cost: 67]
 
[X] Quad Nacelles (Maximum Cruise: Warp 7 -> 7.4) (Mass: 220kt -> 300kt) [Cost: 79]

The extra beef in those nacelles will feed the shields and hull, and it's nice to properly break the warp 7 cruise barrier, even if it's a bit of a kludge.
 
Last edited:
Ship is veering nicely into chonky territory. There might be enough space to fit a pair of nacelles below the saucer. I'm getting a stately battleship feel from it.

Void Stalker said:
Shield strength I get because of how shield strength is calculated, but where does the increased phaser power come from? Because we are not adding more hull space for weapons to be mounted and nacelles are not a power source, the warp core is which we already picked out. The extra tonnage would be the nacelles and we are not adding phasers to the nacelles so in terms of weapons this choice should not have any impacts on how many we can mount.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It might be best to ignore where the mass is distributed as far as shield, hull strength, and phasers are concerned. The 'more mass gives us more phaser power' is trying to address a mechanics issue without getting lost in the weeds. We've got reasoning that can justify it but ultimately it's to let us try out a system patch.
 
LOLROFL said:
After this we've still got weapons and thrusters to consider for costs, assuming something like 2 Type 3 Thrusters (5*2=10), 8 Phasers (8*4=32) and 3 RFLs (2 front 1 back 12*3=36) we're looking at roughly doubling our costs even with the quad nacelle option (10+32+36=78).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
2x RFL + 3x Standard = 30.75 [2x rapids + 1x standard in the front, plus 2x standard in the rear]
8x Phasers = 8x3x0.75 = 24 [Phasers are Mature in 2250, so cost drops by 25%]
3x Impulse Thrusters = 15

30.75+24+15 = 69.75

That puts the estimated final cost for the first tranche, before production efficiency discounts
  • Twin nacelle, 260kt = 67 + 69.75 = 136.75 (131.75 if you omit one thruster)
  • Quad nacelle, 300k = 79 + 69.75 = 148.75

Void Stalker said:
Shield strength I get because of how shield strength is calculated, but where does the increased phaser power come from? Because we are not adding more hull space for weapons to be mounted and nacelles are not a power source, the warp core is which we already picked out. The extra tonnage would be the nacelles and we are not adding phasers to the nacelles so in terms of weapons this choice should not have any impacts on how many we can mount.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Both shield strength and phaser power scale off ship mass

How it works with quad nacelles, I dont know; perhaps the additional nacelles translate to improved lensing capabiity for our phaser banks, or just allow us to support/install better EPS power transmission ducts and cooling for the quads, which the phasers also benefit from

What I do know is whats stated here, with a graph
forums.sufficientvelocity.com

Starfleet Design Bureau Sci-Fi

Design starships from Enterprise onwards, dealing with production capabilities and internal layouts to meet the demands of Starfleet as Earth takes the galactic stage. With art!
forums.sufficientvelocity.com forums.sufficientvelocity.com

 
Last edited:
Void Stalker said:
Shield strength I get because of how shield strength is calculated, but where does the increased phaser power come from? Because we are not adding more hull space for weapons to be mounted and nacelles are not a power source, the warp core is which we already picked out. The extra tonnage would be the nacelles and we are not adding phasers to the nacelles so in terms of weapons this choice should not have any impacts on how many we can mount.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Phaser strength. Not how many we can mount. How much damage phasers can do per hit is dependant on total tonnage according to the Phaser chart.
 
[X] Quad Nacelles (Maximum Cruise: Warp 7 -> 7.4) (Mass: 220kt -> 300kt) [Cost: 79]
There was a lot of good points raised about the higher shields, hull "health" and phaser power, I've changed my mind to this. The increase of 0.4 to max cruise is also very nice.
TBH, with out current nacelles limited to a max cruise of 7.0 and getting an efficient cruise of mid-high 6's, anything that can push the max cruise a bit higher is probably worth it. Especially as Sayle mentioned earlier that we're designing the gen 4 nacelle after this and the speeds will jump up again. If we don't want this to be redundant in only a decade it needs the extra help to keep up.
 
[X] Quad Nacelles (Maximum Cruise: Warp 7 -> 7.4) (Mass: 220kt -> 300kt) [Cost: 79]

We don't need many of these ships, so I'm more than ok with spending the extra to make this the tankiest and most tactically-fast ship we can manage. (And I think it'll look really cool, too.)
 
Last edited:
[X] Quad Nacelles (Maximum Cruise: Warp 7 -> 7.4) (Mass: 220kt -> 300kt) [Cost: 79]

I said this is the correct setup for the reasons I discussed earlier, but suffice it to say our efficient cruise range is already enough and sprint speed is only so-so useful for something like this, while the quick response range is much better
 
[X] Quad Nacelles (Maximum Cruise: Warp 7 -> 7.4) (Mass: 220kt -> 300kt) [Cost: 79]

Edit: When coupled with the mass increase I'm willing to accept the cost. If it was just speed I'd be more on the fence.

If we get the choice for 1RFL and 5 standards I'll take that over the 2RFL and 3 standards. Right now I'd also be fine with 6 phasers and 2 impulse engines. The Excalibur ran at 97.25/91.25 cost for the first and second production runs.
 
Last edited:
[X] Quad Nacelles (Maximum Cruise: Warp 7 -> 7.4) (Mass: 220kt -> 300kt) [Cost: 79]

I'mma be honest, I'm voting on vibes. I think it'd look cool. An all-nighter after getting started on a majority of my projects again is not conducive to a thoughtful discussion or defense.
 
VOTE
[X] Quad Nacelles (Maximum Cruise: Warp 7 -> 7.4) (Mass: 220kt -> 300kt) [Cost: 79]


Like I already argued, an extra twelve points of cost for increased strategic response capability on a ship thats going to cost well north of a hundred points is well worth it in the current meta, which is one where solo engagements predominate
And the additional mass translates to both more powerful shields and phasers, which makes it more survivable

Also, as we are giving this ship a cargo bay, that strategic response speed will be critical in peacetime for emergency response and fast delivery of time-sensitive supplies
 
The Treasury cannot bear the expense.

[X] Cruise Nacelles (Efficient Cruise: Warp 6.8 -> 7) (Mass: 220kt -> 260kt) [Cost: 67]
[X] Sprint Nacelles (Maximum Warp: Warp 8 -> 8.4) (Mass: 220kt -> 260kt) [Cost: 67]
 
[X] Cruise Nacelles (Efficient Cruise: Warp 6.8 -> 7) (Mass: 220kt -> 260kt) [Cost: 67]

Let's not double the cost of refits when the next gen of nacelles comes along.
 
[X] Quad Nacelles (Maximum Cruise: Warp 7 -> 7.4) (Mass: 220kt -> 300kt) [Cost: 79]

Maybe I am mis-remembering but doesn't having more Nacelles also increase our HP a bit? Like we can lose one and still limp back home safely after the fights.
 
[X] Quad Nacelles (Maximum Cruise: Warp 7 -> 7.4) (Mass: 220kt -> 300kt) [Cost: 79]

This is still designed to function as a war ship, and its role is to be the heavy who gets there. I'm still modeling this on a dnd Paladin. And that means strategic speed - a heavy war horse, neither a race horse like the Excalibur nor work horse like those cruise nacelles.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top