Starfleet Design Bureau

I'm torn on this one so I have a question. People have repeatedly said the new meta is one on one duels in deep space, not fleet actions. Can we get some citations? Because if so that would help decide.
 
VOTE
[X] Dual Engines [Cost: 99] (Maneuverability: Maximum) [200% Standard]


Full send

I woud have been happy with three impulse drives
But if the QM is pushing a binary choice, then go Maximum
Normal is too low, and the price premium is relatively minimal; just 8 points of cost between Normal and Maximum
 
Last edited:
VOTE
[X] Dual Engines [Cost: 99] (Maneuverability: Maximum) [200% Standard]


Full send

I woud have been happy with three impulse drives
But if the QM is pushing a binary choice, then go Maximum
Norma is too low, and the price premium is relatively minimal; just 8 points of cost
Um, the choice is 1 impulse drive or 2 impulse drives. 3 would be beyond maximum, not a middle ground option
 
I'm torn on this one so I have a question. People have repeatedly said the new meta is one on one duels in deep space, not fleet actions. Can we get some citations? Because if so that would help decide.
Here:
For Starfleet the war had been a trial by fire against a superior opponent with difficult lessons. The front-heavy armaments which had been increasingly favoured for starships of all types had shown serious weaknesses against more maneuverable Klingon craft, and much of the war had turned on the question of strategic range and speed. Had the fleet been operating at a higher warp factor then lines of defense and strongpoints could have been established much further forward and the loss of Arcadia could have been prevented entirely.

That said, the usefulness of the high-cost and high-performance Excalibur-class could not be overstated. The war had thoroughly discredited a once-popular viewpoint that the future was to be found in light cruisers which could be inexpensively built to carry out the myriad of duties needed in the ever-expanding Federation and then consolidated in the event of warfare. While there was still a place for specialist vessels, military theory in the coming years would be more focused on how to deal with the long-range deployments and individual engagements necessitated by deep interstellar warfare.

With such heavy considerations and indeed such heavy costs, it was a much-needed dose of sunshine when the Attenborough launched shortly after the conclusion of the treaty, a ship very much designed for the ideals that so much blood had been shed to defend. With the end of darkness came the dawn, and an admittedly tattered but resolute Federation emerged from the conflict determined that never again would it be pushed to the brink of destruction.
 
With the math the GM has shown us about maneuverability, a Normal-maneuverability Federation will have entire swarms of D7s casually sitting in her blind spot. Hard pass! FULL SEND!
[X] Dual Engines [Cost: 99] (Maneuverability: Maximum) [200% Standard]
 
Given D7s are 100kt and the Federation is 300kt I'm pretty sure even at Maximum maneuverability we would still be looking at our multi-target damage.

[X] Central Engine [Cost: 91] (Maneuverability: Normal) [120% Standard]
 
Last edited:
[X] Dual Engines [Cost: 99] (Maneuverability: Maximum) [200% Standard]

This is the option that lets us remain a power one on one

Thank you. So yeah, that sells it for me. We need to be able to fight one on one, which will only help us when ships get bigger and the Federation is smaller than the competition AND fast for its size.
 
[X] Dual Engines [Cost: 99] (Maneuverability: Maximum) [200% Standard]
This is a combat craft, having a higher manoeuvrability will be a key measure for increased survivability.
 
Um, the choice is 1 impulse drive or 2 impulse drives. 3 would be beyond maximum, not a middle ground option
The original choices we were throwing around here, based on the olg Tech table, was a minimum of two and maximum of four
Based on our size of 300kt
2 = Medium Maneuvrabi = 10 points
3= High Maneuverability = 15 points
4= Extra High Manuverabiity = 20 points

Each impulse drive cost 5 points

Instead, here we are given binary choices,
Central Drive = 12 points
Dual Drive = 20 points = 10 points per engine

There has been a tech change
So the parameters have changed
I was planning on spending 15 pts in the old system;
 
[x] Central Engine [Cost: 91] (Maneuverability: Normal) [120% Standard]

We have the Excalibur for high single target torpedo damage. This is a capital ship fleet anchor, with a huge amount of space to mount phasers to cover blind spots. In fact, we took a hull form to maximize phaser mountings. Standard maneuver is fine.
 
Given D7s are 100kt and the Federation is 300kt I'm pretty sure even at Maximum maneuverability we would still be looking at our multi-target damage.

[X] Central Engine [Cost: 91] (Maneuverability: Normal) [120% Standard]
We will not be fighting D7s for very long
Just as we built Callies in response to the D6, so will they buid in response to the Callie
Dont make your decisions based on a design that was publicly outclassed by a cruiser designed in the 2220s
 
Norma is too low, and the price premium is relatively minimal; just 8 points of cost
It's also paying a cost in internal space. This isn't a half-saucer where impulse engines don't cost internal space. We'd be giving up functionality for better one-on-one combat, when the ship's primary role is fleet combat and its secondary role is peacetime capability. This option doesn't help with the Federation's primary or secondary roles.
With the math the GM has shown us about maneuverability, a Normal-maneuverability Federation will have entire swarms of D7s casually sitting in her blind spot. Hard pass! FULL SEND!
[X] Dual Engines [Cost: 99] (Maneuverability: Maximum) [200% Standard]
What makes you think we're going to even have a blind spot on this ship? The entire point of this design is to project a full sphere of phaser coverage. So we won't let there be any blind spots, especially with the saucer shape we took earlier.
 
Last edited:
[X] Dual Engines [Cost: 99] (Maneuverability: Maximum) [200% Standard]

Despite the rules changing almost every time we make a decision, ensuring that an attempt to act on information given is incorrect, we have seen, repeatedly, that with the technology we have, that without manouverability as high as we can manage our torpedoes and shields aren't good enough against large enemies, and our phasors aren't good enough against large enemies at all. That said, even with maximum manouverability, multiple smaller enemies can coordinate to get into blind spots anyway (and we Will have blind spots, federation ship shapes and the fact that we never actually get the option of putting them in all the places necessary to make up for that (not to mention the cost of doing so) ensure it) so phaser coverage is needed for dealing with that situation... But we can't actually get Enough coverage if we ignore manouverability...

Basically every time we try to skip manouverability, torpeo output, or phaser coverage either events transpire or the rules change so that it was the wrong choice.

There is no trade off between these three factors. You take all of them as high as you can manage or you're fucked the moment a fight happens because it Will be the sort of fight that takes advantage of the gaps you left with your "trade off".

Edit: ok slight correction: "you're fucked" isn't necessarily the individual ship blowing up, it's us getting another round of "you did the wrong thing".

Edit again: for reference, I can't recall actually having a problem with any of the times the issue was "stuff that happened in universe after the design process was completed".
 
Last edited:
[x] Central Engine [Cost: 91] (Maneuverability: Normal) [120% Standard]

We have the Excalibur for high single target torpedo damage. This is a capital ship fleet anchor, with a huge amount of space to mount phasers to cover blind spots. In fact, we took a hull form to maximize phaser mountings. Standard maneuver is fine.
I quote:
Alternatively you could mount a pair of engine clusters on port and starboard, which would push the spaceframe to its maximum tolerances. While a ship of this size will never maneuver like the Excalibur, it would provide enough thrust and attitude control to engage most heavy cruisers in the warbook with equal agility. It's not the worst capability to have, though you never know what the future holds. If the steady inflation in size holds true, the Federation will be punching up on the mass scale in the second half of her service life.
This is not about turning it into a torpedo boat, its about making sure it can engage its peers with equal agility
 
lol. What makes you think we're going to even have a blindspot on this ship? The entire point is for the ship to project a full sphere of phaser coverage. There will not be any blind spots, especially with the saucer shape we took earlier.
So, Captain Derpmind of the House of Klaa, would you prefer to assail the Federation dreadnought from the front, where you can eat massed photon torpedoes while getting phasered?

Would you prefer to attack it from the rear, where you're also eating photon torpedoes while getting phasered?

Or - hear me out - would you prefer to strike from the port/starboard arcs, where there's no such thing as a port/starboard torpedo tube? Where you're only exposed to phaser fire, and none of those nasty, mean ol' photon torpedoes???
 
It's also paying a cost in internal space. This isn't a half-saucer where impulse engines don't cost internal space. We'd be giving up functionality for better one-on-one combat, when the ship's primary role is fleet combat and its secondary role is peacetime capability. This option doesn't help with the Federation's primary or secondary roles.
Is it?
The options dont make it as much of a thing
And we were panning on putting 3x drives on this ship; two is actually space-saving

And the QM made sure to point out that size inflation is an ongoing trend
So in this ship's ifespan it will need that agility
100% is the standard level of maneuverability for a ship at its given size. And we're already exceeding that at 120%.
We were planning on more than that with 3x Impulse drives
If I understand this properly, 120% is still less than our original discussions
 
Back
Top