Remove ads

Department of Starship Design (Trek-ish)

Reader mode
Jalinth said:
I've spent like 15 minutes trying to figure out how to word this in a way that is unambiguously an honest question rather then hidden snark. I'm think I've failed, but please believe me that I am not trying to be snarky or anything.

Am I correct in thinking you were talking about where we needed the shuttles to return to the ship when we decided to leave the nebula? How would a higher warp speed made any difference there? If I'm thinking of the wrong thing, please let me know.

As best as I could tell there was no warp drive usage there at all. That was purely STL, as we had been going through the nebula at impulse speeds. There didn't seem to be enough room to flash to FTL without crashing through the clouds of the nebula.

Any distance that can we can cover via impulse is so short that even at warp 0 (The speed of light) a ship will cover that so fast that a higher warp factor won't really matter. I just don't see the extra warp speed coming up enough for it to be worth optimizing the hull for short distance sprints. It's just such a narrow focus that I don't see how it will make a situation better more often then it will hurt by having less equipment to do the tasks the shuttles are needed to do.

What I feel would have been to our benefit was more impulse speed. The fact one of the drives would be removed was one of the reasons I did not want to go with the 1b. As far as I can tell more impulse drives will be based on utility slots.

[Edit - It looks like I didn't address your other point. Frankly the shuttle is going to be the larger and more capable craft. The one that can do tasks beyond directly beside the ship. A warp shuttle can check out another planet with ease. A shuttlepod is going to take days, maybe weeks. Possibly hours if the fastest impulse speeds I've seen are accurate.]
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I was referring to the nebula, and while on further reflection the shuttles were using impulse given the short distance entailed and the need for stealth no warp was involved by the shuttles (which allows me to casually shift my goal posts and point out everything they accomplished could have been done by a shuttle pod with a cloak :V)

While my example in hindsight is bad, I think the point stands, and it's a point you seem to be unintentionally echoing. The point of the warp shuttle is to go places at warp and proceed to do things there. Anything else is better covered with a shuttle pod. If there is any urgency involved in the warp shuttle's deployment, then there is real value in the shuttle being faster. Whether it be in evacuating people as a warship lurks cloaked for extraction, evacuating people and material in harms way on a colony when the ship isn't directly in orbit, etc. If the use case for a shuttle is urgent, then the hemicircular might be sacrificing some capability but is undoubtedly the fastest to respond to the urgent situation. And while it's over valuing the use cases for the warp shuttle when the matter is urgent, I think that's fair because if things aren't urgent then it's likely going to be best a lot of the time to just bring the ship around for the shuttle pods to have at it as well.

Edit: At the end of the day, Utility Maximizer just seems liable to wind up with heavily overlapping capabilities between the two that wind up with one of the two being the odd man out. A shuttle expected to operate independently has different requirements than a glorified 8x8 truck.
 
Last edited:
Karugus said:
While my example in hindsight is bad, I think the point stands, and it's a point you seem to be unintentionally echoing. The point of the warp shuttle is to go places at warp and proceed to do things there. Anything else is better covered with a shuttle pod. If there is any urgency involved in the warp shuttle's deployment, then there is real value in the shuttle being faster. Whether it be in evacuating people as a warship lurks cloaked for extraction, evacuating people and material in harms way on a colony when the ship isn't directly in orbit, etc. If the use case for a shuttle is urgent, then the hemicircular might be sacrificing some capability but is undoubtedly the fastest to respond to the urgent situation. And while it's over valuing the use cases for the warp shuttle when the matter is urgent, I think that's fair because if things aren't urgent then it's likely going to be best a lot of the time to just bring the ship around for the shuttle pods to have at it as well.

Edit: At the end of the day, Utility Maximizer just seems liable to wind up with heavily overlapping capabilities between the two that wind up with one of the two being the odd man out. A shuttle expected to operate independently has different requirements than a glorified 8x8 truck.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The Type 1 shuttle has a maximum warp of 0.3. The Furious Wind is a Hemi hull, which seems to have the same basic tech level, has a cruise of 0.8 and max of 1.4. This suggests that shuttles are very slow compared to full sized ships. I'm not sure that going for a hemispherical hull is going to make much of a difference. Even with a warp 4 drive I have my doubts about the speed being significant.

Even with the hulls being the same shape, which is the plan that is getting more traction then my own, there is plenty of room to make the two shuttles quite distinct. I'm thinking the shuttlepod is for general cargo, while we can put more impulse engines and sensors into the Shuttle. It might be worth skipping the cloak on the shuttlepod to keep the price down. I see them as being assigned more to ships like the Iron Road then the Star Seeker.

I'll repeat my math on how much of a difference sprint speed can make. I'll admit that there are some cases where saving 10-15 minutes on crossing 60 AU will make a difference. But it's going to be pretty darn rare. I can't imagine this set of shuttles being able to go interstellar. The Iron Road tops out at Warp 3.8 sprint. That's 4.3 months to cross to another star system. The shuttle isn't going to be able to do that. Even if it could cruise at Warp 3.8 I don't see a shuttle having enough supplies to last 4 months.

The concept of a higher sprint speed COULD make sense. When you look at the math I feel that it just doesn't matter with our present tech level. I will state that I want to use the hemi-hull for our warship, but for that the sprint speed is just a minor bonus. I'm looking for the ability to put more weapons forward to take advantage of the Types 3s and 4s.

Jalinth said:
Finally this chart shows how long it takes to cross Sol at a given warp factor. I used 60 AU as the orbital radius of Neptune is about 30 AU. So this is the time it would take to go from Neptune to the Sun and then out as far as Neptune again. Here you can see that any ship is going to be able to maintain the sprint for long enough for the entire trip. The amount of time saved here is more significant at the lower speeds, unlike the previous case as ships can always sprint for the full duration. The difference between 2.6 and 2.8 is just over 10 minutes saved. In order to save 10 minutes over warp 5 you need to go up to warp ~6.5. Once again sacrificing anything for more sprint speed is pretty pointless unless it is an huge improvement.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
 
Last edited:
[X]Plan: Mixed Shuttle + Cargopod

Jalinth said:
The concept of a higher sprint speed COULD make sense. When you look at the math I feel that it just doesn't matter with our present tech level. I will state that I want to use the hemi-hull for our warship, but for that the sprint speed is just a minor bonus. I'm looking for the ability to put more weapons forward to take advantage of the Types 3s and 4s.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I suppose you have finally exorcised this devil's advocate with the power of math. In the interest of exploring different hull types and for the completely legitimate pursuit of hypothetical aesthetics, I'll back your plan.
 
Karugus said:
I suppose you have finally exorcised this devil's advocate with the power of math. In the interest of exploring different hull types and for the completely legitimate pursuit of hypothetical aesthetics, I'll back your plan.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
There will come a day when the math says that the option that will let the ship sprint faster and farther will make the difference. On that day I will not hesitate to back what the math tells me.

I'm really hoping that making a ship the same size as the Iron Road turns out to be the best option, because we haven't gotten new technology which should impact warp speeds. That will give us some nice clear numbers on what exactly the hull form does.

Fun observation - Warp 5 in the Star Trek TOS scale is about the same as Warp 7 in this settings scale. The 'dump everything into Warp factor and start with the fastest speed in the galaxy' plan? Warp 8 is equal to TOS Warp 6.35. So slower then the Vulcan ships in Star Trek: Enterprise.
 
Jalinth said:
Fun observation - Warp 5 in the Star Trek TOS scale is about the same as Warp 7 in this settings scale. The 'dump everything into Warp factor and start with the fastest speed in the galaxy' plan? Warp 8 is equal to TOS Warp 6.35. So slower than the Vulcan ships in Star Trek: Enterprise.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The problem with trying to use the Iron Road as comparison is I don't think we have any particular need or desire for the inline secondary hull. But I agree that the idea of making similar designs to test the impact of hull form is incredibly appealing.

Yeah, it seems a key feature that FTL is slower in this setting, especially since Warp 5 is slightly above galactic average iirc, let alone the full speed meme plan that would have given us some of the fastest FTL. I'm actually really curious what our civilization has been up to over the course of this turn. Given the Star Seeker should be heading back to Yenna for resupply around now, it's been what, maybe 15 Terran years since it launched? And I wouldn't be surprised if the Iron Roads were being designed and laid down before it was even launched. That's plenty of time for colonies to start being established on worlds identified by the Star Seeker and the beginning of an interstellar economy to form.
 
So fun fact about the iron road I think we can fit about 10 to 12 type 2 turrets into the empty space on that ship alongside slather on the type one point defense.

We could fit 16 turrets but we need space for the aux reactors and sheilds.


Edit: that's without touching the cargo space by the way.
 
Right. We're starting the update now...
Adhoc vote count started by Mechanis on Apr 25, 2024 at 12:53 PM, finished with 55 posts and 14 votes.
  • [X]Plan: Mixed Shuttle + Cargopod
    -[X] Type 2a Shuttlecraft: Default Equipment: 2x Transporter Pad, 1x Impulse Engine, Warp Drive, Shields
    --[X] 2a Hull: Coniculiar (5 weapon slots, 6 System slots)
    -[X] Type 2b Shuttlepod: Default Equipment: 1x Transporter Pad, 1x Impulse Engine, Shields
    --[X] 2b Hull: Ovoid (2 weapon slots, 6 system slots)
    [X]Plan: Utility Maximizer
    -[X] Type 2a Shuttlecraft: Default Equipment: 2x Transporter Pad, 1x Impulse Engine, Warp Drive, Shields
    --[X] 2a Hull: Ovoid (4 Weapon slots, 7 System Slots)
    -[X] Type 2b Shuttlepod: Default Equipment: 1x Transporter Pad, 1x Impulse Engine, Shields
    --[X] 2b Hull: Ovoid (2 weapon slots, 6 system slots)
    [X]Plan: I just like wings okay?
    -[X] Type 2a Shuttlecraft: Default Equipment: 2x Transporter Pad, 1x Impulse Engine, Warp Drive, Shields
    --[x] 2a Hull: Hemicircular (6 weapon slots, 5 System slots)
    -[X] Type 2b Shuttlepod: Default Equipment: 1x Transporter Pad, 1x Impulse Engine, Shields
    --[X] 2b Hull: Ovoid (2 weapon slots, 6 system slots)
Click to expand...
 
The shuttles will have better energy armament, of that I have little doubt. However those ships have 5 torpedo tubes. This is not going to happen on a shuttle.

The Furious Wind class has a sustained damage of 1.8 thanks to 9 lasers. We do not know what the Type 1s can output, but I feel good about them doing at least the same amount of damage as the old particle guns. I expect more, but this is a floor. Assuming we match the 2 weapons of the cancelled Type 1b program that will give the shuttle 2 damage.

If my dreams of refitting the Furious Winds with the same Type 1s then obviously the numbers are going to shift rapidly.
 
Silversun17 said:
So on the main shuttle how about two type 1s a d a torpedo launchers. Leave the last two weapon slots empty for future refits.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Depends on whether a spinal type 3 is an option and its price and performance compared to torpedoes.

But a pair of type 1s + a big alpha strike weapon seem like a fine plan to have before we know any details.
 
Remove ads
Turn 3: Type Two Shuttles, 2/2
  • Threadmarks
    • Plan: Mixed Shuttle & Cargopod
    The decision is made to many the new Type 2a a direct successor to the Type One, with an identical hullform. The newer Type 2b Shuttlepods, however, will be built as ovular ships to maximize internal volume.
    The Type 2a will be equipped with shields, a modern warp engine, a single Impulse engine, and two transporter pads by default. This will cost a total of 1.68 Civilian Industry per shuttle with no other additions.
    For weapons, there are four principle options: firstly, the new warp drive would allow a single ship-grade Type One Disruptor beam to be fitted to the craft's nose. This would, however, add a hefty 3 Military Industry to the pricetag. Alternatively, smaller, shuttle-scaled versions of the Type Three Disruptor Beam or Type Four Disruptor Cannon could be fitted, as either a heavy #d mount or a light #e mount. The heavier mounts would cost 0.2 Military Industry and 0.12 Military Industry each, respectively; while the lighter mounts would cost only 0.1 and 0.05 Military Industry, respectively. Finally, a single Photonic Torpedo Launcher could be mounted to the ship, for a price of 1 Military Industry for the tube itself and necessary fire control systems, and an additional 0.1 Military Industry for the attendant torpedo magazines, which would hold four torpedoes per purchase.

    A Cloaking Device could also be fitted, which would require 0.5 Military Industry, and the hull could be made Polarized for an additional 0.05 Military Industry.
    For other systems, the ship could be fitted with a Sleeper Cabin so that crews on extended missions don't have to camp in the cargo bay, which would not add to the ship's cost substantially, but would reduce the overall space available for other systems, an enhanced sensor suite which would increase the per-shuttle Science rating modestly for 0.4 Civilian Industry, up to three additional Impulse engines for 0.12 Civilian Industry each, up to two additional Transporter Pads for 0.03 Civilian Industry each, and the new Emergency Force Fields for an additional 0.08 Civilian Industry.


    The Type 2b Shuttlepod, on the other hand, is too small to power a full ship-scale weapon or practically mount a torpedo launcher, but could be fitted with the same shuttle-grade versions of the Type Three and Four Disruptors if desired. A Cloaking Device could be fitted as well for an additional 0.04 Military Industry over the base cost of 0.4 Civilian Industry. This would also have the distinction of being the smallest cloaking device ever constructed as a mass production model rather than a laboratory model. A Warp Drive could be fitted for an additional 0.08 Civilian Industry, and up to two additional Impulse engines could be fitted for 0.06 Civilian Industry each in that case, though only one may be supported without the larger reactor required for the warp drive. The hull could be made polarizable for an extra 0.03 Military Industry, and finally a single additional transporter pad could be fitted for an additional 0.03 Civilian Industry.

    Note: Shuttlepods will come in lots of 2, with the combined cost rounded to the nearest tenth.
    Type 2a Shuttlecraft:
    Default Equipment: 2x Transporter Pad, 1x Impulse Engine, Warp Drive, Shields
    5 Weapon slots, 6 System slots
    Base Cost: 1.68 (1.7) CI
    Weapons:
    [ ]Type 1 Disruptor Beam (3 slots) (+3 MI)
    [ ] Type 3d Disruptor Beam (2 slots) (+0.2 MI)
    [ ] Type 3e Disruptor Beam (1 Slot) (+0.1 MI)
    [ ] Type 4d Disruptor Cannon (2 slots) (+0.12 MI)
    [ ] Type 4e Disruptor Cannon (1 Slot) (+0.05 MI)
    [ ] Torpedo Launcher (2 Slots, Requires Torpedo Magazine) (+1 MI)​

    Systems:
    [ ]Torpedo Magazine (1 Slot, holds 4 Torpedos) (+0.1 MI)
    [ ] Cloaking Device (2 Slots) (+0.5 MI)
    [ ] Enhanced Sensors (2 Slots) (+0.4 CI)
    [ ] Additional Impulse Engine (1 Slot) (+0.12 CI, max 3)
    [ ] Additional Transporter Pad (1 Slot) (+0.03 CI, max 2)
    [ ] Sleeper Cabin (3 slots) (No extra cost)
    [ ] Emergency Force Fields (2 Slots) (+0.08 CI)
    [ ] Polarized Hull (1 Slot) (+0.05 MI)​
    Type 2b Shuttlepod:
    Default Equipment: 1x Transporter Pad, 1x Impulse Engine, Shields
    2 Weapon slots, 6 System slots
    Base Cost: 0.4 (1 for lot of 2 pods) CI
    Weapons:
    Type 3d Disruptor (2 slots) (+0.2 MI)
    Type 3e Disruptor (1 Slot) (+0.1 MI)
    Type 4d Disruptor (2 slots) (+0.12 MI)
    Type 4e Disruptor (1 Slot) (+0.05 MI)​

    Systems:
    Cloak (2 slots) (+0.04 MI)
    Warp Drive (3 slots) (+0.08 CI)
    Second Transporter Pad (1 Slot) (+0.03 CI)
    Impulse Engine (1 Slot) (+0.06 each, max 1 without Warp Drive, max 2 if Warp Drive is also taken)
    Polarized Hull (1 Slot) (+0.03 MI)​
    Please Vote By Plan ​
    One Hour Moratorium ​
     
  • Threadmarks
    • Remove ads
    Scale correction
  • Informational
    • Also, I was a great big dummy who mathed my math wrong earlier when figures were provided; I went back and redid them properly:

    Code: 
    Type One Shuttle dimensions
Length 28.5 Meters
Height: 6.73 Meters
Width: 6.73 Meters

Star Seeker
Length: 828.5 Meters
Height: 367.4 Meters
Width: 348.4 Meters
Nacelle Ring Diameter: 440.3 Meters

Iron Road Class
Length: 532.4 Meters
Height: 140 Meters
Width: 280.2 Meters
Nacelle Ring Diameter: 261.25 Meters

Furious Wind Class
Length: 184.6 Meters
Height: 142.7 Meters
Width: 58.6 Meters
Nacelle Ring Diameter: 147.1 Meters

Gold Road Class
Length: 265.2 Meters
Height: 100.5 Meters
Width: 113.8 Meters
Nacelle Ring Diameter: 151.1 Meters
     
  • Informational
    • Remove ads
    @Mechanis Any chance we could get the rest of the stats for the new weapons? How does a Type 1 full size compare to the other options? Right now we are just just guessing.

    Will unused slots be used for cargo space?

    Shuttle Base Cost: 1.68 (1.7) CI
    Shuttlepod Base Cost: 0.4 (1 for lot of 2 pods) CI

    [] Plan: Blank Sheet
    -[] Type 2a Shuttlecraft: Default Equipment: 2x Transporter Pad, 1x Impulse Engine, Warp Drive, Shields
    --[] Weapons: 5 Weapon slots
    ---[ ] Type 1 Disruptor Beam (3 slots) (+3 MI)
    ---[ ] Type 3d Disruptor Beam (2 slots) (+0.2 MI) (Shuttlecraft)
    ---[ ] Type 3e Disruptor Beam (1 Slot) (+0.1 MI) (Shuttlecraft)
    ---[ ] Type 4d Disruptor Cannon (2 slots) (+0.12 MI) (Shuttlecraft)
    ---[ ] Type 4e Disruptor Cannon (1 Slot) (+0.05 MI) (Shuttlecraft)
    ---[ ] Torpedo Launcher (2 Slots, Requires Torpedo Magazine) (+1 MI)
    --[] Systems: 6 System slots
    ---[ ] Torpedo Magazine (1 Slot, holds 4 Torpedos) (+0.1 MI)
    ---[ ] Cloaking Device (2 Slots) (+0.5 MI)
    ---[ ] Enhanced Sensors (2 Slots) (+0.4 CI)
    ---[ ] Additional Impulse Engine (1 Slot) (+0.12 CI, max 3)
    ---[ ] Additional Transporter Pad (1 Slot) (+0.03 CI, max 2)
    ---[ ] Sleeper Cabin (3 slots) (No extra cost)
    ---[ ] Emergency Force Fields (2 Slots) (+0.08 CI)
    ---[ ] Polarized Hull (1 Slot) (+0.05 MI)
    -[] Type 2b Shuttlepod: Default Equipment: 1x Transporter Pad, 1x Impulse Engine, Shields
    --[] Weapons: 2 Weapon slots
    ---[ ] Type 3d Disruptor (2 slots) (+0.2 MI) (Shuttlepod)
    ---[ ] Type 3e Disruptor (1 Slot) (+0.1 MI) (Shuttlepod)
    ---[ ] Type 4d Disruptor (2 slots) (+0.12 MI) (Shuttlepod)
    ---[ ] Type 4e Disruptor (1 Slot) (+0.05 MI) (Shuttlepod)
    --[ ] Systems: 6 System slots
    ---[ ] Cloak (2 slots) (+0.04 MI)
    ---[ ] Warp Drive (3 slots) (+0.08 CI)
    ---[ ] Second Transporter Pad (1 Slot) (+0.03 CI)
    ---[ ] Impulse Engine (1 Slot) (+0.06 each, max 1 without Warp Drive, max 2 if Warp Drive is also taken)
    ---[ ] Polarized Hull (1 Slot) (+0.03 MI)
     
    [] Plan Combat Shuttle
    -[] Type 2a Shuttlecraft:
    --[] Weapons:
    ---[ ] Type 3e Disruptor Beam (1 Slot) (+0.1 MI)
    ---[ ] Type 4e Disruptor Cannon (1 Slot) (+0.05 MI) X2
    ---[ ] Torpedo Launcher (2 Slots, Requires Torpedo Magazine) (+1 MI)
    --[] Systems:
    ---[ ]Torpedo Magazine (1 Slot, holds 4 Torpedos) (+0.1 MI)
    ---[ ] Cloaking Device (2 Slots) (+0.5 MI)
    ---[ ] Additional Impulse Engine (1 Slot) (+0.12 CI, max 3) X2
    ---[ ] Polarized Hull (1 Slot) (+0.05 MI)

    A shuttle designed to be able to fight. Dedicates the vast majority of space to either weapons or other systems useful in combat. Great for situations like last time, where it can offer an edge for isolated ships like the Star Seeker when facing hostiles. However, will be of little use to civilian ships which do not require smallcraft with that level of firepower.

    []Plan Civil Utility Pod:
    -[]Type 2b Shuttlepod:
    --[]Weapons:
    ---[] Type 3e Disruptor (1 Slot) (+0.1 MI) X2
    --[] Systems:
    ---[]Warp Drive (3 slots) (+0.08 CI)
    ---[]Second Transporter Pad (1 Slot) (+0.03 CI)
    ---[]Impulse Engine (1 Slot) (+0.06 each, max 1 without Warp Drive, max 2 if Warp Drive is also taken)X2

    The exact opposite of the combat shuttle. Eschews pretty much all combat ability and survivability in favour of speed and utility. Great for getting things done on freighters and other civilian ships. Great for getting yourself killed on combat ships.

    I came up with these plans in like ten seconds, they probably suck.
     
    I've made a spreadsheet to help folks track things. I'll make a note of the cost of the Type 1 shuttles in a couple minutes. Just make a copy and you can use it for yourself.

    docs.google.com

    Shuttles and Shuttlepods

    docs.google.com docs.google.com

    Edit - Here is the price for a Type 1. I don't think we want these new shuttles to be much more expensive.
    Mechanis said:
    Each shuttle costs 2 CI and 1 MI to manufacture
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
     
    Last edited:
    Given the Conicular's lateral accelerators probably favor beams over cannons, we may want to focus on a beam armament for what it's worth.
    Silversun17 said:
    So fun fact about the iron road I think we can fit about 10 to 12 type 2 turrets into the empty space on that ship alongside slather on the type one point defense.

    We could fit 16 turrets but we need space for the aux reactors and shields


    Edit: that's without touching the cargo space by the way.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    I hadn't really considered a militarized refit for the Iron Road directly as opposed to a similar tonnage cruiser, but I suppose if we're willing to pay the additional military industry to refit it with disruptors and a shield, it wouldn't be a bad second line cruiser. I don't know if we really want to try and create one that consumes cargo space for more military capability given that despite the armaments the Iron Road is really committed to being a cargo vessel. We certainly don't need a flight deck capable of operating 10 shuttles on a warship.

    The one thing I'd wait on for an Iron Road refit is tractor beams. The ability to tow our torpedo boats is probably really important for the purposes of actually garrisoning and controlling the SU's space as it expands.
    Mechanis said:
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    I can't take that Type 1 seriously. It's so tiny. What's done is done, but I dare say it's successor can probably afford to put on some pounds :V
     
    Last edited:
    To answer some of your questions, a full ship scale Type One would be significantly more powerful than any of the shjttle grade weapons (though the Type 3d comes close, because you made those things ridiculous doombeams) but of course as it notes, you'd be paying for a ship scale weapon.

    unused slots will just be not used, the cargo bay is the same regardless of what else you put on the things. though in some cases adding things may increase the eventual dimensions somewhat.
    Karugus said:
    I hadn't really considered a militarized refit for the Iron Road directly as opposed to a similar tonnage cruiser, but I suppose if we're willing to pay the additional military industry to refit it with disruptors and a shield, it wouldn't be a bad second line cruiser. I don't know if we really want to try and create one that consumes cargo space for more military capability given that despite the armaments the Iron Road is really committed to being a cargo vessel. We certainly don't need a flight deck capable of operating 10 shuttles on a warship.

    The one thing I'd wait on for an Iron Road refit is tractor beams. The ability to tow our torpedo boats is probably really important for the purposes of actually garrisoning and controlling the SU's space as it expands.

    I can't take that Type 1 seriously. It's so tiny. What's done is done, but I dare say it's successor can probably afford to put on some pounds :V
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Keep in mind that being that small means you will be getting batteries of the things, potentially fairly large ones, on... Probably most ships you build. One doesn't seem impressive; six or even more might look rather more impressive.
     
    Reader mode
    You must login or register to reply here.
    Remove ads
    Back
    Top