Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
[X] Type-1 Shield System [Mature] [-25% Cost] [Cost: 3]
[X] 2 Phaser Banks, 2 Torpedo Launchers [Cost: 10]

Gotta to scrump somewhere unfortunately.
 
Last edited:
[X] +2 Phaser Banks (1 Fore, 1 Aft) [4 Phaser Banks, 2 Launchers] [Cost: 14]
[X] Type-1 Shield System [Mature] [-25% Cost] [Cost: 3]

The fancy shields are too expensive, but I think squeezing in a couple more phasers is worth the cost just for making it less of an easy target, it'll have a deterring effect on pirates/raiders.
 
You guys had to give it the new stuff so I say in-between load out will be the best. This ship will act like the second line in case of a emergency.
 
[X] +2 Phaser Banks (1 Fore, 1 Aft) [4 Phaser Banks, 2 Launchers] [Cost: 14]
[X] Type-1 Covariant Shield System [Prototype] [+25% Cost] [Cost: 8]

We are never going to be cheaper than the Newton, so we shouldn't try to be. But with advanced hull plating, impulse drives, and shields, we can have a better Tactical score in addition to having way more cargo and capabilities than the Newton. Enough to be a combat engineer rather than a combat liability.
 
TheShadowDeamon said:
Alright, here's my line of thinking:
The Klingon light ships (BOP equivalent) are incredibly nimble and are a good candidate to use Wolf pack tactics with. If we go for better shields instead of extra turrets then they'll be able to get into and STAY IN the massive blind spots. Nimble we are not and we won't be able to manoeuvre quickly enough to bring them into the weapon arch's. At which point it doesn't matter how good the shields are as the Klingons can stay there and fire away at until they eventually get through.
With extra turrets instead of better shields those blind spots won't exist and we will actually be able to fire back. I don't want to turn this into a Q-ship, this is what I think is actually needed to be able to defend the ship due to the layout.
As for the blind spot below the pod, I did wonder if the 5th turret could go on the bottom of the sphere but apparently that's where the sensor ring is. @Sayle could the 5th turret go behind the ring a few decks up? And as the turret design has them being inside the hull and being lifted out - could it then be on an extra long extending platform? A bit like if the NX-01 shuttle loading arm had a turret on the end of it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

A bit like this:


View: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kX4qQj0AlkjNaAynKHzqXnKLi325v6Nr/view?usp=drivesdk
 
[X] 2 Phaser Banks, 2 Torpedo Launchers [Cost: 10]
[X] Type-1 Shield System [Mature] [-25% Cost] [Cost: 3]

Gold plating the space LSV is a Bad Idea.
 
Last edited:
[X] +2 Phaser Banks (1 Fore, 1 Aft) [4 Phaser Banks, 2 Launchers] [Cost: 14]
[X] Type-1 Covariant Shield System [Prototype] [+25% Cost] [Cost: 8]
 
Helher said:
I genuinelly don't think we should spend more than this on tactical it will never be able to compete with the Newton on tactical anyways and the newton most likely will be produced as the more tactical oriented craft. Lets instead spend cost on potential boons to engineering
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I don't get the argument people are making about the Newton being better at combat somehow meaning we shouldn't make the Halley able to defend itself.

Compared to the Newton this is a priority target, one is a well armed engineering vessel, the other is a less well armed engineering vessel that's also a part of our logistics system.

For me the better the Newton is at combat the more this ship needs to be able to defend itself. If the Newton is good, people will choose not to fight it making our orb the prime target for pirates and the klingons.

Which are you going to attack the Newton, with its decent maneuverability and weapons.

Or this goofy orb with large blindspots that's visibly carrying large ammounts of cargo.
 
Last edited:
[X] +2 Phaser Banks (1 Fore, 1 Aft) [4 Phaser Banks, 2 Launchers] [Cost: 14]
[X] Type-1 Covariant Shield System [Prototype] [+25% Cost] [Cost: 8]

I think giving it the meaner alpha strike is worth the cost now that is has experimental thrusters. This could also give it a niche as a decoy ship. Something that really looks like a freighter , but can suddenly drop its cargo pod and turn to fire 3 phaser banks and a spread of torpedos at whatever raider was lured in by it.
 
[X] +2 Phaser Banks (1 Fore, 1 Aft) [4 Phaser Banks, 2 Launchers] [Cost: 14]
[X] Type-1 Covariant Shield System [Prototype] [+25% Cost] [Cost: 8]

Ideally I want atleast one of these, so voting for both.

Might drop one of them later if it's clear that both would get in.
 
You know... There is a funny way three orb ships can completely eliminate their blindspots if they have 4 phasers.

Fly in an triangle formation with their cargo pods pointed inward. The enemy can't fly into your blind spot if an allied ship is already sitting in it. The ships are turned so one of them can fire into any given arc at all times.
 
[X] 2 Phaser Banks, 2 Torpedo Launchers [Cost: 10]
[X] Type-1 Covariant Shield System [Prototype] [+25% Cost] [Cost: 8]

For science! To boldly experiment where no man has experimented before!
 
Phalfpipe said:
[X] +2 Phaser Banks (1 Fore, 1 Aft) [4 Phaser Banks, 2 Launchers] [Cost: 14]
[X] Type-1 Covariant Shield System [Prototype] [+25% Cost] [Cost: 8]

I think giving it the meaner alpha strike is worth the cost now that is has experimental thrusters. This could also give it a niche as a decoy ship. Something that really looks like a freighter , but can suddenly drop its cargo pod and turn to fire 3 phaser banks and a spread of torpedos at whatever raider was lured in by it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
More phasers adds to sustain fire, but you can't fire all three banks at once. You can fire one phaser bank at a time. More phasers means you are able to more frequently fire a bank at something even if they are faster than you.
 
[X] +2 Phaser Banks (1 Fore, 1 Aft) [4 Phaser Banks, 2 Launchers] [Cost: 14]
[X] Type-1 Shield System [Mature] [-25% Cost] [Cost: 3]

The extra phasers are more useful than the stronger shields against the more likely profile of a raider. And I don't think that the full option will help if the Halley comes up against any sort of light cruiser. Something with the ability to get its full phaser firepower and some torpedoes into one arc is always going to come out on top by virtue of that.
Fouredged Sword said:
More phasers adds to sustain fire, but you can't fire all three banks at once. You can fire one phaser bank at a time. More phasers means you are able to more frequently fire a bank at something even if they are faster than you.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Two Banks, but yes. Pretty sure that the spherical hull is inhibiting our ability to do that in most arcs though.
 
Last edited:
Also I am not worried overly about the cargo pod blind spot. It is an off axis blind spot. We can move a ship entirely out of it simply by rolling without having to move the relative position of our ships. Meanwhile they have to race around our ship in a big circle while turning on a dime to stay inside it.

Basically for an enemy to exploit it they would have to have a crushing maneuverability advantage. It's not a blind spot they can just sit in and shoot us.

DeltaV11.2 said:
[X] +2 Phaser Banks (1 Fore, 1 Aft) [4 Phaser Banks, 2 Launchers] [Cost: 14]
[X] Type-1 Shield System [Mature] [-25% Cost] [Cost: 3]

The extra phasers are more useful than the stronger shields against the more likely profile of a raider. And I don't think that the full option will help if the Halley comes up against any sort of light cruiser. Something with the ability to get its full phaser firepower and some torpedoes into one arc is always going to come out on top by virtue of that.

Two Banks, but yes. Pretty sure that the spherical hull is inhibiting our ability to do that in most arcs though.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
No, two phasers. A phaser bank is 2 phasers. We can only fire one phaser bank at a time.

We simplified that because we always put 2 phasers in any arc we put phasers.
 
Last edited:
You know if the blind spot caused by the cargo bay becomes a big enough of a problem Starfleet may end up designing a custom cargo pod designed to be used by the Halley during wartime equipped with a phaser covering the blind spot and a fusion reactor to power it, it would eat into the available space the cargo pod has to offer but better a smaller delivery package than a delivery had to be abandoned while the Halley fled for its life or a delivery that's been destroyed along with the Halley that was supposed to deliver it.
 
Something to consider about cost is that this ship offers something that nobody else (civilian side) will be able to do for decades, high speed bulk cargo. Even though it'll always end up costing more than the Newton it might end up built in higher numbers, especially if other federal agencies like the Science Council, want in on the high speed high bulk goodness and help fund some of them with the knowledge they'll get guaranteed slots.

KarmaA said:
Going too skimpy either shortchanges our next platform on shielding advancement or else leaves us with too weak a slap to discourage hostiles. We're too slow to run so we might as well throw a sensible amount of gun redundancy or coverage at it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
An incredibly persuasive argument, you've won me over.

Funnily enough there was another incredibly highly armed support/engineering equivalent ship in a Cold War against an opponent with 'cloaking', the Fort Victoria-class were to be given a full Sea Wolf VLS fit to protect the ASW ships they were meant to tend to.

[X] +2 Phaser Banks (1 Fore, 1 Aft) [4 Phaser Banks, 2 Launchers] [Cost: 14]
[X] Type-1 Covariant Shield System [Prototype] [+25% Cost] [Cost: 8]
 
[X] +2 Phaser Banks (1 Fore, 1 Aft) [4 Phaser Banks, 2 Launchers] [Cost: 14]
[X] Type-1 Shield System [Mature] [-25% Cost] [Cost: 3]

Defray some of the added costs by using proven tech, as it's a rear line vessel.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top