Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
With the presence of the archer (its fabrication and part storage ability) means that a lower engineering scores not an issue (bar extraordinary circumstances).

We ideally want maximum defence, speed and firepower (auxilary facilities are semi redundant) that said... science and computing are probably the important ones (also redundant systems if possible)...

If we were building a do or die ship I'd suggest taking a page out of the imperial terran book and adding a second core but... (expensive and wasteful and not worth it until its a total war scenario where the federation could realistically bad end)
 
[ ] Duranium Alloy (200kt): 43 Defense. [6 Cost] [Canon: Constitution-class]

1.5 cost is a rounding error compared to the cost-benefit choices we'll need to make later.

Also, another thing I'm just realizing, this ship is going to be fast, not just on impulse but at warp - We picked all the performance options for the Warp 8 engine, necessitating a new nacelle model with even more performance, and if we go for a sprint configuration and get an option for a new deflector on top we might well be halfway to Warp 9.
 
Last edited:
So I'm thinking, thus far (yeah this is early days but whatever):
- Type-1 shields
- Type-2 thrusters
- Rapid launcher

That said, with this being a joint project with SanFran, we might need to be prepared for a lower degree of creative control than usual.
 
Wait a second. Starfleet are actually, legitimately requesting a ship with the primary purpose of tactical considerations? Starfleet want us to build, without mincing words or dissembling, a real and proper actual honest to god warship? Starfleet are giving us carte blanche to go as fucknuts warmonger wild as we possibly can?
This is the greatest day of my life.
And, of course,
[X] Duranium Alloy (200kt): 43 Defense. [6 Cost] [Canon: Constitution-class]
 
Last edited:
Depends on the ship size honestly (the rapid is 3 times the damage and burst but 5 times the cost*)

*If we go for a large hull just adding more launchers to accomplish the same outcomes an option (alternatively we photon torp the bank and make it a F*** everything it see's option and mount multiple rapid launchers)

That said... probably best to go maximum manueverability and speed if given we are behind on defensive and weapon tech still (less strain on defences if the enemy is missing)
 
Last edited:
Strunkriidiisk said:
That said, with this being a joint project with SanFran, we might need to be prepared for a lower degree of creative control than usual.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We are still the senior designer, so that should tip things a bit more in our favour than a 50:50 split would.

The main thing here is they're going to learn our thought processes (lamo) about starship design and probably pick up some design tricks/knowledge they might not have otherwise done so for years.

As such, we should probably expect their next ship after the Connie to be rather different from their present philosophy.
 
Strunkriidiisk said:
So I'm thinking, thus far (yeah this is early days but whatever):
- Type-1 shields
- Type-2 thrusters
- Rapid launcher
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm really feeling that we need to be pushing shield tech more at some point, but we might not be able to afford doing it now, yeah.

A single rapid launcher is at minimum the same burst output as two standard tubes, maybe 50% more. Two rapid launchers is 2x to 3x the same burst. Given we're fighting ships that are faster than most of our fleet and might have cloaking devices to help them flee, pushing out enough burst to kill or cripple in the first salvo is desirable - and 200ktons isn't really so high that I think we could get the same out of massed standard launchers.
 
Sayle said:
Well the vote is going one way. With that in mind I've updated the tech table in the informational with what you'll have access to during ship construction. For the sake of completeness I'll post the full table here and you'll get the individual stats when it comes to the decisionmaking points.

ComponentImplementationCostReal CostEffectivenessUnknownsIf TakenImplementation Schedule
Type-1 Shield GridMature (-25% Cost)86+40% DefenseTech Matured
Type-1 Covariant Shield GridPrototype (+25% Cost)1215+75% Defense?Effectiveness+Tech ImplementationStandard: 2235
Electro-Ceramic HullMature (-25% Cost)32.25+40% DefenseTech Matured
Duratanium Alloy HullStandard33+60% DefenseMature: 2260
Type-2 Impulse ThrusterMature (-25% Cost)32.25150,000 Tons Standard ThrustTech Matured
Type-3 Impulse ThrusterPrototype (+25% Cost)56.25200,000 Tons Standard Thrust+Tech ImplementationStandard: 2235
Type-1 Photon LauncherMature (-25% Cost)32.256 Average/18 BurstTech Matured
Type-1 Rapid LauncherPrototype (+25% Cost)121512/18 Average [36/54 Burst]Salvo Size+Tech ImplementationStandard: 2240
Type-2 Phaser BankStandard4418 DamageMature: 2250
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Could you put this up as informational or something until it's no longer relevant, if that's ok? It will save me a lot of regular searching :p

Slightly confused we got the new hull to standard, but not the thrusters? Either way, thank you for the table.
 
Iridium Flare said:
Wait a second. Starfleet are actually, legitimately requesting a ship with the primary purpose of tactical considerations? Starfleet want us to build, without mincing words or dissembling, a real and proper actual honest to god warship? Starfleet are giving us carte blanche to go as fucknuts warmonger wild as we possibly can?
This is the greatest day of my life.
And, of course,
[ ] Duranium Alloy (200kt): 43 Defense. [6 Cost] [Canon: Constitution-class]
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
TOS era was much more willing to design ships with high tactical than TNG era and we did design warships earlier in the quest (might have been the previous thread though).

Golgotha said:
Could you put this up as informational or something until it's no longer relevant, if that's ok? It will save me a lot of regular searching

Slightly confused we got the new hull to standard, but not the thrusters? Either way, thank you for the table.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It is on the info tab about tech
 
Candesce said:
I'm really feeling that we need to be pushing shield tech more at some point, but we might not be able to afford doing it now, yeah.

A single rapid launcher is at minimum the same burst output as two standard tubes, maybe 50% more. Two rapid launchers is 2x to 3x the same burst. Given we're fighting ships that are faster than most of our fleet and might have cloaking devices to help them flee, pushing out enough burst to kill or cripple in the first salvo is desirable - and 200ktons isn't really so high that I think we could get the same out of massed standard launchers.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well, if we aren't able to mount enough rapid launchers to offset then we should go for the improved shields.
 
Void Stalker said:
TOS era was much more willing to design ships with high tactical than TNG era and we did design warships earlier in the quest (might have been the previous thread though).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I know, but there was always a great degree of bellyaching about it, something something 'the federation is a nation of peace'. Well, now there's no excuse not to si vis pacem all up and down this shindig.
 
Sayle said:
But before even the first structural elements are planned you need to decide what you are going to build the ship out of. Electro-Ceramic is a proven hull material that is in use for every ship but the Archer, but that same ship pioneered the use of Duranium Alloy. With the microfracture problem resolved, Project Constitution could now use it to full effect for that extra bit of protection. That saved budget could be used to cover most of a phaser bank or engine assembly, but that saving could be paid for in blood down the line. The choice, as ever, is yours.

[ ] Electro-Ceramic Plating (200kt): 38 Defense. [4.5 Cost]
[ ] Duranium Alloy (200kt): 43 Defense. [6 Cost] [Canon: Constitution-class]
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

If we could get an extra engine for the same cost as Duranium alloy armor upgrade, that seems like an obvious choice. Doubling our maneuverability by going from one engine to two is going to give the ships a lot more survivability than a minor ~13% increase in defense. Actually, it's less than a 13% increase, shields count towards defense too.

Is this true though? Are engines really only 1.5 cost? That would be a very pleasant surprise.

[ ] Electro-Ceramic Plating (200kt): 38 Defense. [4.5 Cost]
 
TOS hadn't yet forgotten the lessons of the past (and depending on how much blood is spilled in the 4 year war this may hopefully be avoided)
 
So I thought the entire point of taking technology in it's experimental phase with our new tech system was to speed it's implementation, because once it's built on an entire production run it's by definition no longer a prototype on the next design.
Otherwise there is no way to progress our tech overall faster then cannon, only get it on a singular ship slightly earlier at great cost? But if we don't take it at the prototype stage, it does permanently slow our progression, because it's not being used?
That seems like nothing but disadvantages that permanently cripple our tech.

Please do correct me guys, I woke up at 3am and read the thread, and my brain still isn't turned on.
 
Last edited:
Sayle said:
This is a cooperative project with San Francisco, with your teams liaising with each other to increase pace and reduce delivery time
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
With this in mind, I suspect we'll probably shave a year or two off of the design process (compared to Archer) so we could see her rolling off the lines starting 2233-2234, leaving just about enough time for us to get most of the way through design for some mob cruisers/escorts (us and SanFran, ideally, so Starfleet can get more choice) too.
 
Tank man said:
@Sayle Does Starfleet Intelligence have any information for us and SanFran regarding the suspected capabilities of present and next generation Klingon starships?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

You have no information about what shape a new Klingon warship will be like. However the D6 uses twin disruptor beams on par with the new Mark II Phaser as of two decades ago, along with a bow disruptor cannon. Defenses strong enough to hold off a Sagarmatha while burning through its shields with superior weapons. Advancements could be more powerful beam weapons or added torpedo systems, as well as stronger shields and armor.
 
Last edited:
Golgotha said:
So I thought the entire point of taking technology in it's experimental phase with our new tech system was to speed it's implementation, because once it's built it's by definition no longer a prototype.
Otherwise there is no way to progress our tech overall faster then cannon, only get it on a singular ship slightly earlier at great cost? But if we don't take it at the prototype stage, it does permanently slow our progression, because it's not being used?
That seems like nothing but disadvantages that permanently cripple our tech.

Please do correct me guys, I woke up at 3am and read the thread, and my brain still isn't turned on.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
As it was (can't recall if it was changed), taking prototype options gives us the potential of a better option now in exchange for the piece being undercooked and thus worse within its original era.
 
AlexScribler said:
Is this true though? Are engines really only 1.5 cost? That would be a very pleasant surprise.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Type 2 Impulse Thrusters are 2.25 Cost. Three of them would probably give us High Maneuverability, and two of them Medium-High; either way, we care more about their mass budget than their Cost budget. We've only got 200 ktons to work with, given the Federation doesn't have enough docks to build ships bigger than that at the pace we need.

Sayle said:
Unfortunately it would struggle in the high-tempo campaigns of the Four Years War due to its top speed and inability to face the fearsome Klingon D7 - a ship which had the unfortunate habit of outpacing Starfleet and the firepower to turn every engagement into an unequal fight.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
For the record, the Newton - which was a good enough tactical cruiser for the pre-Four Year War era, and could tangle with D6s while being woefully insufficient to face D7s - had a Defense Rating of 23, and two forward torpedo launchers (and much weaker phasers).

.. The Sagarmatha had a Defense Rating of 54. If that's what the D6 has, the D7 is going to be much meaner.

Strunkriidiisk said:
As it was (can't recall if it was changed)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It was changed. Prototypes now cost significantly more than the increased capability they grant and can have various faults that get worked out in the Production form; in exchange, prototypes on successful ship hulls advance our technology faster.
 
Last edited:
Candesce said:
Type 2 Impulse Thrusters are 2.25 Cost. Three of them would probably give us High Maneuverability, and two of them Medium-High; either way, we care more about their mass budget than their Cost budget. We've only got 200 ktons to work with, given the Federation doesn't have enough docks to build ships bigger than that at the pace we need.


For the record, the Newton - which was a good enough tactical cruiser for the pre-Four Year War era, and could tangle with D6s while being woefully insufficient to face D7s - had a Defense Rating of 23, and two forward torpedo launchers (and much weaker phasers).

.. The Sagarmatha had a Defense Rating of 54. If that's what the D6 has, the D7 is going to be much meaner.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Rather I should say equal to a slugging match with a Sagarmatha, because its damage output was so much higher. I'll edit to clarify.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top