Remove ads

Department of Starship Design (Trek-ish)

Reader mode
Karugus said:
Besides, I'd be lying if I said part of me would feel bad to avoid using torpedoes as anything more than a tertiary weapon just because disruptors are currently better- and I suspect we're probably not too far away from better torpedoes.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Full broadside torps would be impressive. I'm certainly going to be voting to put a light forward torp armament on the ship. You are right that they have vastly dropped in importance with the disruptor program.

Karugus said:
Perfectly reasonable, I'll stick by my plan for now but I don't think there's anything wrong with yours. Just different priorities.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Agreed. I admit I can't wait to see the 80cm guns in the model. 80cm = 800mm = ~31.5 inches. Real world battleship guns topped out at about 18".
Rivenscryr said:
And now I'm wondering just what other factions have in terms of their vessels. How would a vessel like what we're building for Project Guardian compare against the galactic average?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That is the $1000 question. Tech-wise we are getting close to the galactic average. Tractor Beams are the only major tech we don't have at all, although the GalAvg shields were listed as Grade 3 to our basic shields. I'm guessing that's Grade 1 but I'm not sure. Our sensors are presumably only Grade 1 as well. In light of that I find myself hoping that we'll have the option to improve our sensors next turn. Of course better sensors might make it easier to penetrate our cloaks, which will encourage us to spend the MASSIVE cost of better cloaking tech.

I think far to much about what techs to take and am eagerly waiting for the options. I've got a ranked list typed up, although that is going to get some changes in light of what we are seeing here with this project. Computer tech has moved up my priority list.

Overall I suspect that we will do quite well against the average on a ship by ship basis. The QM has talked about how ships tend towards the smaller and we are building a 'cruiser' that is almost twice the size of what seemed to be a capital warship of an advanced polity (pre-apocalypse). I am hoping that one of our new ships will have a chance to tangle with someone during the event. A peaceful first contact would be BETTER, but seeing what this ship will be able to do is exciting.
 
So I'm trying to roughly breakdown the size of the grid relative to the base 32x32 offered by a 315 primary hull+nacelle.

Dorsal deck 1: 215
Dorsal deck 2: 108
Ventral deck 1: 140
Ventral deck 2: 61
Total: 524
32x32: 1024
~51% usable space roughly.

Compare that to the Furious Wind's ~40% and it doesn't seem that different- but we currently have no way of knowing how much space shields take up but we do know they wind up leaving us a smaller grid to work with. Obviously there's not much to do with this information currently, but it could help us in the future designing new ships by giving us a better idea of what space a given size of hull actually offers us to work with.

Rivenscryr said:
And now I'm wondering just what other factions have in terms of their vessels. How would a vessel like what we're building for Project Guardian compare against the galactic average?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We can probably consider the Torkan ship sizes as relatively representative for the average size of a hypothetical galactic standard warship. They still had warp nacelles even if they weren't properly installed, and that civilization was fairly old and fairly experienced fighting intense wars given the time loop aliens and the civil war.

The Torkan battlecruiser was around 240kt iirc- roughly the size of the Guardian's primary hull. Then we have a 70kt nacelle ring and our 3radials put together probably outmass a Torkan gunship. The big things we have are our cloaks and sheer size. Size lets us use both more efficient weaponry, and it lets us use cheaper weaponry, on top of obviously more weaponry. And cloaks effectively let us briefly double our already above average firepower. The other caveat to size is the arcane shield formulas only Jalinth seems to have mastered- from what little I understand it's not unreasonable to say doubling size correlates to quadrupling a shield's capabilities.

Combine that with our tendency for bespoke core technologies and it presents ships significantly more capable in general than their tech level suggests, and potentially terribly lethal in their specialty but are nonetheless still a significantly higher commitment than an equivalent 'average' ship for us.

Jalinth said:
Agreed. I admit I can't wait to see the 80cm guns in the model. 80cm = 800mm = ~31.5 inches. Real world battleship guns topped out at about 18".
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Big Honkin' Space Guns. On a similar topic, all this staring at the grid makes me really want to be able to add a T4b battery at 1A if we get a chance to put finishing touches towards the end. More big guns, and the spot just seems perfect for them.
 
Last edited:
Karugus said:
So I'm trying to roughly breakdown the size of the grid relative to the base 32x32 offered by a 315 primary hull+nacelle.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Thank you for that.
Karugus said:
The other caveat to size is the arcane shield formulas only Jalinth seems to have mastered- from what little I understand it's not unreasonable to say doubling size correlates to quadrupling a shield's capabilities.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's actually pretty simple. It just requires a bunch of steps. Here is a chart for a bunch of hull sizes with polarized hulls and EFF. I also included a chart. Fun fact, the Star Seeker could have had a 550kton hull for a 660kton mass.
MassENDPower ReqShield Defense
5011711
100181336
120231546
150271954
180322396
2003525105
2504532180
3005338212
3506244310
3906849340
4006950345
4508057480
4808460504
5008763609
5509669672
60010475832
650114821026
700122881098
750131941310
8001381001380
8501491071639
9001561131872
9501651191980
10001731252249

The following chart has a line to see when the shields exceed the mass, and then double the mass of the ship. Both are hosted on discord, so will vanish in about a week but should get the idea across until then.
 
Last edited:
I am intrigued by this talk of torpedo broadsides.

[X] Plan All Good Things in Moderation
-[X] Place Type 2 batteries at 2a, 2c, and 4.

Also, I think this is pretty good coverage in its own right.
 
Jalinth said:
It's actually pretty simple. It just requires a bunch of steps. Here is a chart for a bunch of hull sizes with polarized hulls and EFF. I also included a chart. Fun fact, the Star Seeker could have had a 550kton hull for a 660kton mass.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I can't wait to see how conicular hull's bonus endurance impacts the shield strength. Given the shield break point doubles between 480kt and 650kt I suspect the Star Seeker's eventual successor Explorer/Battleship probably will aim for that sort of tonnage. Especially since by that time we should hopefully have exotic power sources. Triple T4c and 5 T4b (or their successors) with no power resource sounds hilariously lethal

On a much less far sighted note- this breakdown for shields leads me to favor a 200kt frigate over a 180kt one. While you don't have a 180kt listed, I imagine the polarized hull break point alone makes it firmly more efficient for shields. Hell, 250kt looks appealing, but I'm desperately trying to fight the natural urge towards big designs for something we need to be easy to build and field.
 
TeaMug said:
I am intrigued by this talk of torpedo broadsides.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Giving 1C-1B over to torpedo launchers on the dorsal hull would give each flank 9 launchers. If those torpedoes can alter course enough to engage fore or aft- that's 2(63) BD to really make sure anyone who's not us has a bad day when this 'cruiser' uncloaks. That's probably the most ambitious proposal for broadside torpedoes that's still feasible.

I'm not going to pretend it's an efficient use of space. But it is a very cheap way to use space if we don't have anything better specifically in mind. If we want to be frugal while still getting coverage and making the Guardian more lethal, it's at least worth considering.
 
Last edited:
Karugus said:
Giving 1C-1B over to torpedo launchers on the dorsal hull would give each flank 9 launchers. If those torpedoes can alter course enough to engage fore or aft- that's 2(63) BD to really make sure anyone who's not us has a bad day when this 'cruiser' uncloaks. That's probably the most ambitious proposal for broadside torpedoes that's still feasible.

I'm not going to pretend it's an efficient use of space. But it is a very cheap way to use space if we don't have anything better specifically in mind. If we want to be frugal while still getting coverage and making the Guardian more lethal, it's at least worth considering.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
maybe not on this ship but when we get a development action for our next gen torpedoes we could make a model that can be fired off bore so we can do missle broadsides
 
9 torps each side sounds cool. I bet we cap at more like 4-per though.

I'm just waiting for Jalinth to pop in and say "OK guys, that's all the guns we can fit. The rest of our hull volume has to be entirely filled with reactors, or we won't have enough power."
 
Last edited:
Silversun17 said:
maybe not on this ship but when we get a development action for our next gen torpedoes we could make a model that can be fired off bore so we can do missle broadsides
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We don't actually know if torpedoes can or can't be fired off bore, just that aft torpedo launchers can't fire on the same targets as fore torpedo launchers. There's a difference between pulling a 180 and pulling a 90-110.
 
Roaming_Guardian said:
I mean it IS a warship. We can afford to have a more spartan interior than the long range explorers.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
While this is true, it needs to have a secondary function anyways to justify it's expense according to the initial vote and the Star Seeker didn't really waste space on unnecessary things so much as just not use all of it's space. Crew lounges are worded a bit weirdly because they just increase by 1x1s rather than dimensions afaik- but a single crew lounge would only take 8 out of our 524 spaces by that metric. If it does increase it's dimensions, then we almost certainly can't afford a 8x8 crew lounge taking up 64 of our 524 spaces.

The big thing is I don't think we're going to put a matter printer on it (it takes up 24 spaces, about 4.6% of our entire grid), and we'll probably have only one or two workshops. I'm not going to try and put hard numbers on aux modules (lol at how that turned out for me last time) but we'll have plenty of runtime for non-combat uses and the small lab is hilariously efficient, the medium lab is a joke, and the large lab is solid. A large lab with some supporting specialized small labs should be plenty combined with maxed aux sensors and remaining less than or around ~8% of the hull

Edit: I looked at the Iron Road's crew lounges and now I'm certain my original 8 slot estimate was correct for the Guardian. At which point a single crew lounge is a reasonable investment for the ship. As a ship that will primarily remain on station rather than in constant transit or far from civilization- it really doesn't need any more than that.
 
Last edited:
Karugus said:
The big thing is I don't think we're going to put a matter printer on it (it takes up 24 spaces, about 4.6% of our entire grid), and we'll probably have only one or two workshops. I'm not going to try and put hard numbers on aux modules (lol at how that turned out for me last time) but we'll have plenty of runtime for non-combat uses and the small lab is hilariously efficient, the medium lab is a joke, and the large lab is solid. A large lab with some supporting specialized small labs should be plenty combined with maxed aux sensors and remaining less than or around ~8% of the hull
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I think we will really much want lots of workshops and stuff like matter printers on it.
Mostly because that is going to be needed for maintenance and some basic repairs after combat.

Otherwise you will have to just reserve a lot of space to store spare parts.
 
Last edited:
Skjadir said:
I think we will really much want lots of workshops and stuff like matter printers on it.
Mostly because that is going to be needed for maintenance and some basic repairs after combat.

Otherwise you will have to just reserve a lot of space to store spare parts.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Where do you expect this thing to be operating around if there's not going to be maintenance infrastructure nearby? Mechanis has implied the Stellar Union is very leery of going abroad looking for monsters to slay because of the various wars that ended in catastrophic bombardment- that means for the time being these are not going to be operating far from home waters.

I'm not saying no workshops- they are definitely important but this is fundamentally a high performance warship meant to protect our space rather than to go abroad and project power. It can afford to be near resupply, and to go back to docks for repair and maintenance if need be. Likewise shields drastically reduce combat wear and tear as a matter of course. Theres no reason to put a Matter Replicator when we can spend half the space on cargo bays and get better results for our purposes, save on costs, and allow for more relevant and valuable uses for the space. Using cargo for spare parts is a complete non-problem.

This is not an Explorer that needs to be able to operate alone for decades, nor a freighter intended to serve as a source of seed industry for a developing colony. A matter printer isn't going to help us all that much here.
 
Last edited:
Karugus said:
Where do you expect this thing to be operating around if there's not going to be maintenance infrastructure nearby? Mechanis has implied the Stellar Union is very leery of going abroad looking for monsters to slay because of the various wars that ended in catastrophic bombardment- that means for the time being these are not going to be operating far from home waters.

I'm not saying no workshops- they are definitely important but this is fundamentally a high performance warship meant to protect our space rather than to go abroad and project power. It can afford to be near resupply, and to go back to docks for repair and maintenance if need be. Likewise shields drastically reduce combat wear and tear as a matter of course. Theres no reason to put a Matter Replicator when we can spend half the space on cargo bays and get better results for our purposes, save on costs, and allow for more relevant and valuable uses for the space. Using cargo for spare parts is a complete non-problem.

This is not an Explorer that needs to be able to operate alone for decades, nor a freighter intended to serve as a source of seed industry for a developing colony. A matter printer isn't going to help us all that much here.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I am expecting them to patrol not just the home system, but also nearby systems and (new) colonies.

Add it that the ship likely has a rather slow warp speed and I expect it to be on trips without maintenance infrastructure (doubts that a new colony has the industry for that as an example or the small outposts) for weeks to month at a time.

I think star seeker had/has a warp speed of 2.8 (?).
This ship is likely slower (?) and looking over the warp tables on the wiki for a bit of references which at least for the lower warp speeds seem to agree that at warp 3 a trip of 5 light year is 2 months of travel time and warp 2 for the same distance about 6 months.

So from my side at least I expect to travel something between 2 and 6 month just for moving between the closest nearby systems.
Edit: just saw that we have in Quest info for warp speed and that is a good bit slower.
That turns the warp 3 trip for 5 light years into a ~225 day trip and for warp 2 that is 450 days.
So yeah expect them to see lots of time without maintainance infrastructure if they ever leave the system.

And for combat it is pretty much the difference between we can make repairs in the field to a lot of potential battle damage vs have to move back to the shipyards for repairs or maybe even getting the ship back to a shipyard for more extensive repairs at all.
 
Last edited:
At our current Warp speeds where even nearby stars are weeks or months away, patrols beyond the heliopause are utterly impractical. Especially with how small our fleet is.

For at least the next several decades, I do not forsee warships venturing beyond the 'shoals' of the deep black without a specific reason. Transferring between systems to establish new garrisons sure, but not just wandering deep space hoping a threat passes into sensor range.

They do not need to be able to effect major repairs by themselves as things stand. Because if they get fucked up enough that they NEED a matter printer to fix themselves, odds are our industry is either close by enough to make that a non-issue, or we have been removed from the board as an independent power.
 
Roaming_Guardian said:
At our current Warp speeds where even nearby stars are weeks or months away, patrols beyond the heliopause are utterly impractical. Especially with how small our fleet is.

For at least the next several decades, I do not forsee warships venturing beyond the 'shoals' of the deep black without a specific reason. Transferring between systems to establish new garrisons sure, but not just wandering deep space hoping a threat passes into sensor range.

They do not need to be able to effect major repairs by themselves as things stand. Because if they get fucked up enough that they NEED a matter printer to fix themselves, odds are our industry is either close by enough to make that a non-issue, or we have been removed from the board as an independent power.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Its not about them wandering in deep space, i just expect them to transferred between systems a good bit and not just station in the home system for the next decade or two.
Also that the system they are deployed in don't have the infrastructure to maintain them, either being a new colony or a (smaller) outpost that they think needs projection.
 
Skjadir said:
Its not about them wandering in deep space, i just expect them to transferred between systems a good bit and not just station in the home system for the next decade or two.
Also that the system they are deployed in don't have the infrastructure to maintain them, either being a new colony or a (smaller) outpost that they think needs projection.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The Star Seeker at least is expected to go up to 5 years without yard time. And that's just the recommendation, not necessarily it's absolute limit before malfunctions overwhelm self repair. More than long enough for any reasonable garrison posting.

At our current speeds, you do not make interstellar voyages unless you need too. These ships will almost certainly be sticking close to home for their entire careers. Barring interstellar war or a refit to a faster warp engine.
 
So looking back at the Star Seeker, a matter printer costs 2 CI. At that price, I think we should include one.

It's cheaper than a single gun.

I don't think these ships will be used except to garrison the home system, at least for a long while. However, if we find that we do need to reach out and hurt someone, a matter printer will mean that we don't have to worry (nearly so much) about a ship becoming irreparably damaged and unable to return home.

I don't want or expect to send these ships off to war, but I do want to make sure that we can.
 
Karugus said:
While you don't have a 180kt listed, I imagine the polarized hull break point alone makes it firmly more efficient for shields.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I've got 120kt and 180kt listed now.
TeaMug said:
I'm just waiting for Jalinth to pop in and say "OK guys, that's all the guns we can fit. The rest of our hull volume has to be entirely filled with reactors, or we won't have enough power."
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I haven't run the space numbers, but with what Karugus did I can check it out.

Karugus said:
The big thing is I don't think we're going to put a matter printer on it (it takes up 24 spaces, about 4.6% of our entire grid), and we'll probably have only one or two workshops.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Roaming_Guardian said:
They do not need to be able to effect major repairs by themselves as things stand. Because if they get fucked up enough that they NEED a matter printer to fix themselves, odds are our industry is either close by enough to make that a non-issue, or we have been removed from the board as an independent power.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The matter printer is such a game changer in the ability to self repair damage that I can not imagine rejecting putting one into a ship that has even a vague chance of operating outside of the home system. The level of repairs it allows is very significant and it is proven to even allow underway refits. There is a reason that even WWII destroyers had small machine shops and Battleships were pretty impressive and they were never that far from a friendly port or a repair ship. At 10 knots (a reasonable cruising speed) you can go from Japan to New York City in about 2 months. There will be a lot of much closer ports in a real scenario. That's still far shorter then any interstellar trip is going to be for the foreseeable future.

I can not stress enough how important it is to be able to self repair. Ignore the 5 year mission duration. Without the matter printer it's pretty clear the Star Seeker would never have made it out of the nebula. In the event of combat operations the matter printer vastly reduces the need to include an Iron Road set up as a repair ship for a formation. You can just deal with the battle damage. We might not be looking to start a fight, but these are going to be our only real offensive tools. They need to be able to do that.

Folks talk about the ability to cloak and spend long periods of time lurking while harassing hostiles. That requires operational endurance, which the matter printer helps with. If you run out of key part X or even out of torpedoes you can slowly print more. If we end up wasting space on a battery of side firing torps and NOT put in a printer? That just feels incredibly counter-productive.

If we were building a system defense boat to replace the Furious Wind I'd be fine with dropping the printer. But these ships are going to be what we send to other systems. The whole point of choosing the larger hull was to be able to go farther. It seems pretty clear we are going to have colonies before we replace these ships. Those colonies may well not have much infrastructure, or that infrastructure may have been damaged/destroyed by the time our fleet responds to liberate/avenge it. Logistical independence is huge. Self repair is huge. To call back a previous statement by Karugus I'd rather drop the DOOMBEAM then drop the matter printer.

Lessons learned from the Star Seeker mission is going to feature the Matter Printer quite heavily. "Our first space combat showed that self-repair was essential to getting the crew home. However we think you'll be fine without that."
Mechanis said:
The latter would require more resources, limiting your ability to refit existing craft simultaneous with initial construction runs, but would be more powerful combatants with greater operation range, and possess more room for secondary functions such as the ability to conduct large-scale repairs independently.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Heck as you can see here the ability to conduct large-scale repairs independently is listed as one of the reasons to go for a large ship. The Matter Printer is vastly more efficient then using the same space for storing spare parts.
 
[X] Plan All Good Things in Moderation
-[X] Place Type 2 batteries at 2a, 2c, and 4.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top