Linked contents
[X] Standard Nacelle Supports (Aesthetic) [No Bonus/Malus]
[] Rollbar Nacelle Supports (Aesthetic) [No Bonus/Malus]
Honestly, the argument I saw a little back that if we don't take the extra torpedoes this ship is going to be stuck with a light cruiser's armament seems silly to me. I guess some people had gotten the idea that we could fit 3-4 forward tubes in the hull for even more juicy alpha strikes, but that was apparently never the case and the in-universe designers didn't seem think that amount would be necessary for the role these ships will be in if they're only fitting two. This isn't us cutting half the firepower to pinch pennies this late in an expensive design, it's us choosing to not double the forward torp count in order to remain within the upper bounds of a cruiser classification like we were asked to make.
And yeah the cost of the extra launchers might not be that much compared to the total ship. But I don't think any of the previous votes we took were "this is a major cost increase" ones besides the shields maybe, and here we are still: already nearing the upper boundary of heavy cruiser before we're even finished with the movement systems just from the cumulative effect of taking all those minor extra costs that weren't all that much in the moment for more performance. Arguments of "it's only a small percentage of the total hull cost" don't really land as well with me when there's a whole lot of votes adding their own small amount.
[] Rollbar Nacelle Supports (Aesthetic) [No Bonus/Malus]
Honestly, the argument I saw a little back that if we don't take the extra torpedoes this ship is going to be stuck with a light cruiser's armament seems silly to me. I guess some people had gotten the idea that we could fit 3-4 forward tubes in the hull for even more juicy alpha strikes, but that was apparently never the case and the in-universe designers didn't seem think that amount would be necessary for the role these ships will be in if they're only fitting two. This isn't us cutting half the firepower to pinch pennies this late in an expensive design, it's us choosing to not double the forward torp count in order to remain within the upper bounds of a cruiser classification like we were asked to make.
And yeah the cost of the extra launchers might not be that much compared to the total ship. But I don't think any of the previous votes we took were "this is a major cost increase" ones besides the shields maybe, and here we are still: already nearing the upper boundary of heavy cruiser before we're even finished with the movement systems just from the cumulative effect of taking all those minor extra costs that weren't all that much in the moment for more performance. Arguments of "it's only a small percentage of the total hull cost" don't really land as well with me when there's a whole lot of votes adding their own small amount.
Last edited:
[X] Rollbar Nacelle Supports (+2 Fore/Aft Torpedo Mounts)
- Pronouns
- Fae/Faer
[X] Rollbar Nacelle Supports (Aesthetic) [No Bonus/Malus]
[X] Rollbar Nacelle Supports (+2 Fore/Aft Torpedo Mounts)
[X] Rollbar Nacelle Supports (+2 Fore/Aft Torpedo Mounts)
The wording in the update is here:
Notably, at no point does the update does it indicate that taking the final step into being a modern-day dreadnought would necessarily be bad. In fact, it basically notes that the design is most of the way there already due to sheer cost, and this would be the "final straw". It notes that this will be the final nail in the coffin for any hopes of replacing the Miranda as Starfleet's 23rd century line cruiser, but like... that prospect realistically sailed away a long time ago, this is just leaning into it.
To make things clearer for any reading comprehension issues here, what the update is saying is that the voters have already pushed this design within a straw's distance of being a dreadnought. We cannot realistically push the toothpaste back into the tube and make this into a cheap line cruiser, not without totally tanking the armament. That chance went several votes ago, and we should make our choices based on the reality we now face.
We made out bed here. Turns out, it's dreadnought-shaped. I think it's better to lie in it rather than lying on the floor and hoping it will miraculously turn into a cruiser.
Strunkriidiisk
THE LEGEND
- Location
- Canada
- Pronouns
- He/Him
You know what, I'm gonna say something that might be a little controversial, and is certainly petty.
Stop calling it a dreadnought.
'Dreadnought' is a meaningless term in this case. This design is not shaping up to be a paradigm changer - if anything that was the Excalibur - so there's no reason to use the historical term. It also lacks the typical feature of sci-fi dreads, which is a giant spinal cannon (and is unlikely to have one, because that actually is excessive and doesn't really fit Star Trek/Starfleet's aesthetic besides). The prospective design is a battleship - just call it a battleship.
Stop calling it a dreadnought.
'Dreadnought' is a meaningless term in this case. This design is not shaping up to be a paradigm changer - if anything that was the Excalibur - so there's no reason to use the historical term. It also lacks the typical feature of sci-fi dreads, which is a giant spinal cannon (and is unlikely to have one, because that actually is excessive and doesn't really fit Star Trek/Starfleet's aesthetic besides). The prospective design is a battleship - just call it a battleship.
[X] Rollbar Nacelle Supports (Aesthetic) [No Bonus/Malus]
I can't argue with your logic. My desire is to increase firepower and utility, but it seems we can't do that now. Increasing firepower now will likely have negative consequences and mean we can't have enough of our ship. Despite my feelings I will alter my vote. Easier to think now I'm not on caffeine withdrawal, anyway.
This isnt about maxing out the weapons loadout; thats something we're doing anyway.
Its about slapping on an additional backpack of weapons and explicitly going outside the remit of the Project. And worse, not even doing it properly; if you wanted to build a dreadnought you'd have started at the very beginning by taking a bigger hull
Its worth remembering that we do not determine policy, we just implement it
Starfleet is generally handsoff enough that we get a free hand; when they go out of their way to ask for something, you listen to those requirements. Ships that dont meet their requiremnts dont get built
See the Radiant's 4-ship run
And they asked for a heavy cruiser, not a dreadnought, because the primary need is for replacement cruisers for the more than seventy cruisers being retired by 2255, rising to more than a hundred by 2280
A heavily armed heavy cruiser is within the requirements; a dreadnought is not
The QM said thats a module for four launchers
In adopting it, you are committing to that course of action, or committing to uncomfortable questions with the procurement board
It comes off as very disorganized, with no clear vision for this in the first place
Thats my two cents
If you want a dreadnought, build one from the beginning after convincing Starfleet of the need
This haphazard attempt to overload a heavy cruiser design is not going to come with enough capability to convince Starfleet to buy it in the numbers where it makes sense.
We dont need another Radiant.
Not to mention that, in sabotaging its deployment in numbers, we would possibly sabotage the speed of adoption of the prototype technologies we want to put on the ship
Which will have fleetwide consequences for decades
I want to build a capital ship, but thats the Excelsior, after we shake out some of the new techs
Not this ship
I have said this before myself and agree with it wholeheartedly - this is just a bigger ship armed with the same weapons as our regular ship, not a new design based around larger calibres or super-firing turrets or anything. But then people pointed to the "dreadnought" bit of the update, so, if we want to describe it in those terms. If battleship is preferable then I don't mind - I've previously said "battlecruiser" which I think is fitting given the high cruise speed.
We chose incredibly expensive quad nacelles for a marginal cruising speed increase, which for a ship of this size basically only makes sense on primary combatants that can justify that cost by killing more stuff in greater time. We doubled the impulse engines, which you only really makes sense for being better at fighting and running down other ships. There are many incredibly expensive decisions which have pushed this away from being the Kea. Mk II.
It is useful to be able to actually accept reality and face facts. We are here due to our decisions and nothing else. Better a good battleship than an overpriced heavy cruiser.
You were told to build a cruiser.
This update says that a torpedo ready roll bar is likely to make it not a cruiser because it's too expensive.
I'm not interested in accepting mission failure because the sunk cost fallacy seems to have bit you in the ass.
Follow the mission, and take that good idea fairy elsewhere.
If that gives you an "under-armed" design, then learn your lesson and next time, perhaps we can actually cut costs elsewhere - the nacelles or the chassis, perhaps - so we don't have "insufficient armament".
Last edited:
Archduke
Don't Take Geology Puns For Granite
- Location
- Texas
This isn't just the Kea replacement, it's more the Newton replacement. The Newton is arguably San Fran's most capable design, with and got crunched pretty hard during the 4YW being our fleet anchor. It was also capable in rapid response to many issues that various federation members suffered.
This was the design of it's generation, and the hole that needs to be filled in our roster. Not a battleship.
This was the design of it's generation, and the hole that needs to be filled in our roster. Not a battleship.
The problem with that there IS actually precedent and historical reference for the hypothetical Rollbar-Torpedo Feddie to be Considered a Dreadnought, especially if they only build a few.
That precedent and historical reference is the Thunderchild, the Dreadnought of the Earth-Romulan War. It wasn't a game changer. What it was was our largest and heaviest armed vessel that was put into limited production for a need, which would match the hypothetical Rollbar!Torpedo Feddie.
- Location
- United States
[x] Rollbar Nacelle Supports (Aesthetic) [No Bonus/Malus]
I want the rollbar in general and don't care which of the options is chosen. For all I know Starfleet can just refit the extra mounts if they think it's needed in the future. But will just vote for the aesthetic option.
I want the rollbar in general and don't care which of the options is chosen. For all I know Starfleet can just refit the extra mounts if they think it's needed in the future. But will just vote for the aesthetic option.
If the rollbar meant "mission failure" we would flatly not be given it as a choice because @Sayle is not an idiot and makes the same good-faith assumption about his voters. Have a bit of sense.
The update clearly says that we are within a final straw of a dreadnought already. If we don't add the final straw, it does not magically turn it into a cheap cost-effective cruiser. It's still a battleship, just minus a straw's worth of cost, and a not of firepower that can help justify that price-tag.
And to be clear: I came back in during the engines vote, and would not have voted for half of this stuff. But given the quest has decided to build a battleship, they need to make it work.
Also, the brief is not a suicide-pact. If we've gone beyond it, then we've gone beyond it, but it's much better to produce a good ship than a terrible one which tries to conform to the brief. And trying after eight votes of pursuing one vision to suddenly change course out of panic is even worse.
slybrarian
Creature of Fable
- Location
- A Far and Sunless Land
- Pronouns
- He/Him
[X] Standard Nacelle Supports (Aesthetic) [No Bonus/Malus]
KleverKil'Vanya
Ortillery Operator
So I think you might have missed the part that says, quite explicitly, that adding those extra torpedo mounts fails the design mandate of a Heavy Line Cruiser, which is what we are asked to build, therefore NOT adding the torpedos on the roll bar means we are considered still inside the design mandate. I truly don't know where you are getting the idea that just chucking our assigned design to make a Battleship/Dreadnought is 'better' ?
[X] Standard Nacelle Supports (Aesthetic) [No Bonus/Malus]
[X] Rollbar Nacelle Supports (Aesthetic) [No Bonus/Malus]
[X] Rollbar Nacelle Supports (Aesthetic) [No Bonus/Malus]
Hey, +2 Scoops is a very definite benefit!
We already have on-paper quite a lot of firepower. 32+72=104 alpha, and 32+24=56 sustained. We gain a considerable amount more single-target firepower adding the rollbar, about 40%, and that translates into about 20% more capability in a head-to-head fight against a theoretical cruiser opponent, at an additional 7% cost. It doesn't translate into much if any multi-target capability. So one issue is of how we weigh single and multi target engagements. The other issue is that we already broadly outmatch any current warship, and we probably outmatch any prospective combatant. So in a duel, this ship may already be overkill.
Having said all that, it is still the case that this is a pretty inefficient place to try and make up cost savings. So it might be better to just go screw it and fit the torpedoes to try and build a heavier class of warship.
The question is if we think that our line heavy cruiser is going to be a good, desirable ship as expensive as it is. Or at least good enough to have a place. Fitting the torpedoes will make for a better warship- the question is if Starfleet will want such a warship at that point.
Then we will have the option to mount two less aft launchers on the hull or something I'd imagine. Sayle does not actually structure votes like this, or ever force us into a maximal aft torpedo armament, so this is a moot point.
I can't really argue with that, in all fairness, but that is how this Quest approaches every single Project it undertakes.
Designing a ship pretty consistently to be very expensive but very capable, and then suddenly panicking based on misreading the update is even more disorganised, I think. It's likely to produce an inherently compromised design which is neither a good battleship, nor an affordable heavy line cruiser. The quad nacelles and other expensive features have already stopped this ship from being cheap enough to be the Kea Mk. II.
Personally I would personally have preferred to design a cheaper ship from the outset, but like, it's better to recognise where we are and make the best of it, rather than compromising the whole design into something it simply can't be. This will never be cheap enough to be a good cheap heavy line cruiser. That is the simple consequence of the decisions voters have made.
as if two of the cheap prototype launchers extra make any difference in the cost of this ship. The train for cheap large numbers is long gone.[X] Standard Nacelle Supports (Aesthetic) [No Bonus/Malus]
[X] Rollbar Nacelle Supports (Aesthetic) [No Bonus/Malus]
If the war was ongoing, I would be slamming that torpedo roll bar. If it gave module space, it would be strongly considering it despite the connotations.
But I want this built in quantity.
So approval voting for the moment, and I'll hope someone posts rollbar pictures so I can decide which I personally prefer later
Where do you get your 60% number from? The new torps are litteraly cheaper than the Rapid fire ones?
Oh, so you want to do it but cheapean out because somehow its bad? Starfleet saying what they want and what they need is something very different. And it litteraly doubles the possible Torpedo Alpha strike ability of the ship for no extra cost you know?