Remove ads

Department of Starship Design (Trek-ish)

Reader mode
Jalinth said:
My only concern with putting torpedoes in nose 2 is that prime space for some of the really large stuff we need to place. I put my two tubes in the ventral slots because other than a tiny cargo hold there's not much that can fit down there.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I don't like it, but you're probably right. I'm hoping all the crappy 1x2 aux computers and any aux sensors can utilize most of the more awkward space but it's probably better to reduce the risk of wasted space altogether
 
Last edited:
Rockeye said:
Is there going to be much room left for non-weapon systems?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Post in thread 'Department of Starship Design (Trek-ish)' Department of Starship Design (Trek-ish) Sci-Fi

That's my most recent of many posts on the topic. There's a spreadsheet there that breaks down a slightly optimistic read of what we're going to be able to fit. Thanks to the confined space of some parts of the hull we aren't going to have that full amount to play with. But tentatively speaking we should have a semi reasonable amount of non-combat capability.
 
Rockeye said:
Is there going to be much room left for non-weapon systems?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Jalinth's thrown up a spread sheet to try and model all of this, and the complicated answer is basically 'yes- but we're probably not getting everything we'd like'. Part of the problem is we're modeling spaces as interchangeable, 'we had 551 spaces with nothing installed, we should have 10 spaces after we put everything in including non-weapon systems' but every module is measured in dimensions, not discrete spaces. It's likely we can not fill up every single space on the ship that we theoretically have to work with, because there's only so many small modules we can cram into awkward spaces.

As things stand ideally we'll have; a medical suite rivaling the Star Seeker's; redundant teleporters, labs, workshops, medbays, etc; a matter printer and a large workshop to use it; and probably all 10 aux sensors for the best sensor (and ideally survey) suite in the fleet. We might have to downgrade to a single large workshop and maybe drop a med lab to make it all fit- but we shouldn't be outright lacking anything even in a worst case scenario.
 
Last edited:
Our torpedo based doctrine makes me want a large number of tubes, but our new energy weapons mean it's less important than it used to be. I don't care as much about non combat stuff, as this is a warship, but I'm not an expert with these design mechanics so I'll trust the more experienced players on that.
 
Jalinth said:
Edit - Current running details for the ship.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Can i just say that both the SD and BD are pretty nuts, considering the starseeker at launch had 18 SD and 63 BD.
And even with the retrofits, i don't think it cracks 100 BD.

This is a warship all right, that overall tactical score is going to be beautiful.

Edit:
[X] Plan: Two Tubes are enough for me

Mostly because the torps didn't keep with the energy weapons and i don't see us upgrading our torps at least this turn considering concerns with power and runtime and the amount of R&D that will likely take up.
This still gives our ship the ability to fire some at warp, and they can be retrofitted later on with new torps even if the impact won't be to large.
 
Last edited:
[X] Plan Two fore, one aft

I want at least one aft tube to deal with people being cheeky buggers at us, mainly, and also for utility purposes in terms of being able to launch probes in all directions (especially while running away from exciting things we want to launch probes at).
 
Silversun17 said:
[X] Plan 4 tubes
-[X] Place Torpedo tubes in Nose 1 and Ventral 4 for a total of 4 tubes
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'll caution against using Ventral 4 for torpedoes as a 3x5 space is a very useful spot for various modules, you could fit a 2x4 of which there's several kinds, or the 3x5 large workshop, or a pair of 2x2 reactors+1x2 computer, etc. Where we place these torpedo tubes could very well mean the difference between having to cut out an entire module just from wasted space. Placing them in spots where we could only fit 1x2 computers or 1x1 aux sensors helps us make the most out of our limited space budget.
 
Last edited:
[X] Plan Two fore, one aft

We need fore tubes for warp chase shenanigans when we're doing the chasing; if we're being chased- by somebody scary enough we can't just concede the chase and take them in a straight fight- we're neither quick enough nor can we mount a heavy enough aft salvo to matter at all. For the fore salvo, I think two tubes is about all that's reasonable until the eventual secondary computer core refit frees up some space (for, I hope, 4-6 more- in hopes of a torpedo tech upgrade a turn or two after that.)

However, @Happerry makes a good point about running away from things besides enemy ships, in that we'll really really really want to be able to launch a probe at the negative space wedgie while running away from it. Two fore one aft it is.
 
Last edited:
thepsyborg said:
However, @Happerry makes a good point about running away from things besides enemy ships, in that we'll really really really want to be able to launch a probe at the negative space wedgie while running away from it. Two fore one aft it is.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
My counter point is that is a pretty niche use for enough space for another aux reactor. If we really need to send a probe aft there happens to be that nice shuttlebay pointing aft. Which is almost certainly going to have a couple of those shuttles that people elected to give a torpedo tube to. If that fails you can just throw an entire shuttle or shuttle pod out the back. Star Seeker used an unmanned shuttle for destructive 'probing' so it shouldn't be hard. If that fails, I can see just dropping a probe out the back doors.
 
thepsyborg said:
RIGHT. GOOD INFO.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yep! While I wasn't in support of putting a torpedo launcher on the Type 2 Shuttle I will admit that the science score on them is pretty darn high. They also look pretty darn neat.
Mechanis said:
Each Shuttlecraft requires 2.2 Civilian Industry & 1.8 Military Industry and adds 2 to the ship's Science score, 1 to the ship's Engineering score, and 0.5 to the ship's Tactical score.
Each pair of Shuttlepods costs 1 Civilian Industry & 0.2 Military Industry and adds 0.5 to the ship's Science score, 1 to the ship's Engineering score, and 0.1 to the ship's Tactical score.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Sadly the mechanics of the older shuttles was cut from the info post, unlike a lot of the other older gen stuff that was just put into a spoiler.
 
You know, there's one possibility we missed back in the weapons development post that I'm honestly amazed didn't get more attention: Fixed mounts soft-locking Cost to --- and Size to "Min", which takes five pluses of each to break. The ability to get four "free" pluses of Cost and Size by just not blowing the cap like we did on the Type 3 (to admittedly awesome effect) is, potentially, REALLY RIDICULOUSLY DAMN GOOD.

For example:
We can get thisand thiswith these downsidesfor this
Power +++++
Fire Rate +
Stun		Cost ---
Size MIN
Power +++++ +++++ +
Fire Rate ++
Stun		Energy Draw ++Cost ---
Size MIN
Power +++++
Fire Rate +++++ +++
Stun		Energy Draw ++Cost ---
Size MIN
Power +++++ +++++ ++++
Fire Rate ++
Accuracy ++		Runtime Draw -
Energy Draw NONE
Emergency Power = normal Energy Draw		Cost +++++ +++
Size MIN
Power +++++ +++
Fire Rate +++++ +++
Accuracy ++		Runtime Draw -
Energy Draw NONE
Emergency Power = normal Energy Draw		Cost +++++ +++
Size MIN
Bespoke Fixed Medium Beam (Cost +, Size - before soft-lock)
High-Capacity Cooling Loop (Cost +, Size +, Power ++)
Secondary Cooling Loop (Cost +, Size +, Power +++, Fire Rate +)
Electrolaser Shunt (Size+, Stun)
and still another point of Size to blow but nothing to do with it that doesn't also break Cost- going from Bespoke to Scalable and adding Reinforced Emitter comes out identical stats without the chance for "greater than the sum of their parts" ships
Bespoke Fixed Small Beam (Cost -, Size --, Power -- before soft-lock)
High-Capacity Cooling Loop (Cost +, Size +, Power ++)
Secondary Cooling Loop (Cost +, Size +, Power +++, Fire Rate +)
Reinforced Emitter (Cost +, Power ++)
High-Cap Power Feed (Cost ++, Power ++, Energy Draw ++, x1.5 rndup all other bonuses to Power (7*1.5=10.5=11) and Fire Rate (1*1.5=1.5=2))
Electrolaser Shunt (Size+, Stun) once again, got Size to spare, might as well
Power: +++++ +++++ + all other bonuses after multi, ++ Dedicated Reactor, -- Size Small
Bespoke Fixed Small Beam (Cost -, Size --, Power -- before soft-lock)
Rapid Cooling Loop (Cost +, Size +, Fire Rate ++)
Secondary Cooling Loop (Cost +, Size +, Power +, Fire Rate +++)
Reinforced Emitter (Cost +, Power ++)
High-Cap Power Feed (Cost ++, Power ++, Energy Draw ++, x1.5 rndup all other bonuses to Power (3*1.5=4.5=5) and Fire Rate (5*1.5=7.5=8))
Electrolaser Shunt (Size+, Stun) once again, got Size to spare, might as well
Power: +++++ +++++ + all other bonuses after multi, ++ Dedicated Reactor, -- Size Small
and if we blow Cost but stick to Size things get REALLY ridiculous
Bespoke Fixed Small Beam (Cost -, Size --, Power -- before soft-lock), High-Capacity Cooling Loop (Cost +, Size +, Power ++),
High-Capacity Cooling Loop (Cost +, Size +, Power ++)
Secondary Cooling Loop (Cost +, Size +, Power +++, Fire Rate +)
Reinforced Emitter (Cost +, Power ++)
Dedicated Computer Module (Cost +, Size +, Accuracy ++, Runtime Draw -)
Compression Chamber (Cost +, Size +, Power ++)
Dedicated Reactor (Cost ++++, Size ++, Power ++, Energy Draw NULL, Emergency Power = normal Energy Draw, x1.5 rndup all other bonuses to Power (9*1.5=13.5=14) and Fire Rate (1*1.5=1.5=2))
Power: +++++ +++++ ++++ all other bonuses after multi, ++ Dedicated Reactor, -- Size Small
Bespoke Fixed Small Beam (Cost -, Size --, Power -- before soft-lock), High-Capacity Cooling Loop (Cost +, Size +, Power ++),
Rapid Cooling Loop (Cost +, Size +, Fire Rate ++)
Secondary Cooling Loop (Cost +, Size +, Power +, Fire Rate +++)
Reinforced Emitter (Cost +, Power ++)
Dedicated Computer Module (Cost +, Size +, Accuracy ++, Runtime Draw -)
Compression Chamber (Cost +, Size +, Power ++)
Dedicated Reactor (Cost ++++, Size ++, Power ++, Energy Draw NULL, Emergency Power = normal Energy Draw, x1.5 rndup all other bonuses to Power (5*1.5=7.5=8) and Fire Rate (5*1.5=7.5=8))
Power: +++++ +++ other bonuses after multi, ++ Dedicated Reactor, -- Size Small
I didn't do any exact math for cannons because I don't know what they'd get out of Bespoke. Beams, it was pretty easy to figure out what the differences between the Type 1 and Type 3 options were. Cannons, some of it was differences from Standardized to Scalable, some of it was Turreted to Recessed, and I didn't have a Bespoke example of either mount to work from.

Beams, for the record, got the following from Bespoke (relative to Standardized):
  • + Power from High-Capacity Cooling Systems
  • + Fire Rate from Rapid Cooling Systems
  • + Power from High-Capacity Power Feed
  • + Power from Dedicated Reactor
  • + Accuracy from Dedicated Computer Module
  • - Size (to + from ++) of Secondary Cooling Loop
  • + Synergy (Power or Fire Rate) of Secondary Cooling Loop + High-Cap or Rapid Cooling Loop
  • Chance for ships with many Bespoke systems to be more than the sum of their parts.
TL;DR: Tiny bespoke beams are stupidly good even before you consider that being tiny lets you max out Battery discounts at sane hull sizes.
Would not help our Runtime issues much though lmao.

Edit: Here's a copy of the spreadsheet I was working from.
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top