Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
The canonical Constitution apparently mounted a single rapid launcher along with some ventral phasers, so that gives us an idea of what defines Fairly Okay here.

That being said, multiple regular torp launchers are more cost-effective. But there is the consideration that if we pick it now, we make it cheaper for a Warp 8 escort class that could really benefit from the rapid launcher, and will likely not have space for more than two regular tubes. Also this is more subjective, but I sort of don't like the idea of our Connie having less advanced weapons than her canon counterpart.

LOLROFL said:
Thruster Numbers have been updated, Type 2's are now Average Thrust for 100kt while Type 3's cap out at 150kt Average Thrust.

This makes the Half Saucer a lot more appealing since "Very High" on a 200kt ship would require 4 Type 2's to attain 400kt even with the Warp 8 Engine's 20% Impulse Bonus.

Also means that 4 Type 2's after the bonus cap out at being able to provide "Maneuverability: Very High" to a 240kt ship since 4 would give Average Thrust to a 480kt ship.

Still not a fan of the Type 3's for this ship as you'd still need 3 to get more than 400kt.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yeah this makes me feel it's fairly definitive that the Half-Saucer with four impulse engines and a big 80kT-100kT secondary hull gets us the best blend of space for extra cruiser-tastic endurance and self-repair capability, and really good agility.

[X] 140 Meter Half-Saucer (140,000 Tons) [4 Midline Decks] [8 Decks]

That being said, the canonical Constitution hull is really pretty so if it wins I won't be that sad.
 
Fouredged Sword said:
It would be better to mount 4 standard tubes than 1 rapid, and 6 standard over 2 rapid. I want a triple digit salvo, but I am not opposed to to turning the front of the ship into a shotgun of explosives to get it to happen.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm not opposed to the idea of 6 standard launchers, but it seems unlikely that we'll get the option regardless of our hull choice. Realistically we'll probably get 2-3 frontal tubes maximum, and they'll have to be rapid launchers if we want to more than double our current capabilities.

We should be able to get 2 phasers no matter what, so with 2 tubes we end up with a frontal burst/sustain of 72/48 or 108/60-144/72 for standard and rapid tubes, depending on roll. For reference, our current best firepower is the Pharos at 50/50 with much better coverage but much worse maneuverability.

landcollector said:
Just a heads up, that chart you are referencing is out of date. The most recent one is on Page 1116 and needs threadmarked by
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That chart was updated today, so it seems to be fairly up to date. I'm pretty sure it said 150k last night.
 
landcollector said:
Just a heads up, that chart you are referencing is out of date. The most recent one is on Page 1116 and needs threadmarked by @Sayle .
Each type 2 Impulse engine gives us 150kT thrust.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

If you look at the edit times on the posts, the main informational post was last edited today, and the one on page 1116 was last edited yesterday. So it seems that the lower thrust values in the main tech info post are the more up-to-date ones.

It would be useful for @Sayle to post about this and officially confirm via QM post, but I imagine he will when he's not busy. Overall, honestly I think this is a reasonable change, If we want the very high manoeuvrability then we should need to design a bit harder towards it. The fact that it's even possible at all for a capital ship to hit Very Hight is actually pretty shocking if we look back, and still at quite a low fraction of the overall cost and not needing prototype technology.
 
Not really related to the present discussion, but found some STO concept art for the Confederation alternative universe across a range of times.

Might be of some interest to @Mechanis if we ever end up having a multi-universe incident (that's bigger than the standard prime and mirror deal).

Funnily enough one of them is for a Connie.

Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
 
Oh, hell. Yeah, I don't think we can pass up a decently sized Engineering deck without the forward deflector limiting our torpedo tubes, and we REALLY cannot afford to limit our torpedo tubes. Thus we're gonna be over 180kt, need 4 engines, and the half-saucer mounts them more space-efficiently and, being thicker, has more internal volume anyway, particularly on the forward-facing edges.

Changing my vote again:

[X] 140 Meter Half-Saucer (140,000 Tons) [4 Midline Decks] [8 Decks]

Changing the entire basis (many) people are voting on mid-vote should really, REALLY call for a threadmarked announcement and a complete restart of the vote beginning at the threadmark @Sayle PLEASE

that said
Skippy said:
Overall, honestly I think this is a reasonable change
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I agree. Unreasonably timed, but quite reasonable in and of itself.
 
Last edited:
Skippy said:
If you look at the edit times on the posts, the main informational post was last edited today, and the one on Page 1116 was edited yesterday. The lower thrust values are the more recent and up-to-date ones.

It would be useful for @Sayle to post about this and officially confirm via QM post, but I imagine he will when he's not busy. Overall, honestly I think this is a reasonable change, If we want the very high manoeuvrability then we should need to design a bit harder towards it. The fact that it's even possible at all for a capital ship to hit Very Hight is actually pretty shocking if we look back, and still at quite a low fraction of the overall cost and not needing prototype technology.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
*grumbles* Then what was the point of that chart on page 1116? I'm getting irritated.
 
Skippy said:
If you look at the edit times on the posts, the main informational post was last edited today, and the one on page 1116 was last edited yesterday. So it seems that the lower thrust values in the main tech info post are the more up-to-date ones.

It would be useful for @Sayle to post about this and officially confirm via QM post, but I imagine he will when he's not busy. Overall, honestly I think this is a reasonable change, If we want the very high manoeuvrability then we should need to design a bit harder towards it. The fact that it's even possible at all for a capital ship to hit Very Hight is actually pretty shocking if we look back, and still at quite a low fraction of the overall cost and not needing prototype technology.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It's a very unfriendly change mid vote
 
Lohjak said:
For reference, our current best firepower is the Pharos at 50/50 with much better coverage but much worse maneuverability.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I should hope so, the Pharos is a space station.

The best comparison might be the Sagarmatha, which will have somewhat less defense than the Constitution and much less agility and firepower. We know the Sagarmatha currently loses to D6s (if slowly), which is a problem, because while higher phaser DPS and more agility should be enough to beat D6s, what we need the Constitution to be able to take in a fight are the D7s. I think we need more than just the improved phaser DPS to manage that, and a single Rapid launcher can't promise that - we could get a low roll on the prototype.
 
Last edited:
Is there a reason the thread is angling specifically for Very High maneuverability? I'm sure someone outlined the reasoning somewhere, but I can't find it.
 
Wootius said:
@Sayle

Parts changing mid vote kinda kicks the wind out of our sails.

Can we get a table with the number of impulse engines each hull(saucer and engineering if possible) part is gonna support and the thrust values of engines after the warp 8 core boost if it isn't already applied.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The problem is the parts sheet has no history, but the mass rebalance and I don't know what meant I was faced with 150kt as the thrust value when I restarted so that's what I took. But looking back that's clearly not accurate, so it's hard to say what the actual value is meant to be. My logic is that it makes no sense for a single standard engine to give you better-than-normal performance on anything over a certain weight, which currently it basically does. It's the same logic as to why shields got better and the hull costs all normalised. You haven't gotten to that part of the process yet and the metric that more engines equal better performance is still in play.

The only rule so far is that the half-saucer has to mount two or more engines.
 
Horologer said:
Is there a reason the thread is angling specifically for Very High maneuverability?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Because our weapon systems are much more expensive than impulse drives, and having the highest maneuverability possible means we can get away with mounting fewer guns (and significantly increase our ability to land torpedoes).

Also some defense synergy in making our ship a hard target, again relatively cheaply.
 
IIRC the issue with the 150kT thrust figure being too high partly stems from the way the mass values for many of the ships were adjusted. In one or more ships everything wasn't adjusted quite the same way and it produced inconsistencies. But also in fairness it just intuitively seemed a bit too easy to reach Very High.


I would also just add here, as a note for everyone to consider, @Sayle has returned to this Quest after recovering from a period of serious illness. Understandably, some information got lost/forgotten in the interim, and this is quite a stats-heavy game to run.

As much as we can all agree this is slightly annoying, I'd like to gently ask everyone to be considerate and keep things in proportion here?
 
My thoughts right now are 2 type-2 with the covariant shields to try and max defense because I am concerned about the D7 given the D6 has older disruptors which are on par of our new phasers. That and the rapid launcher for torpedoes.
 
[X] 140 Meter Saucer (140,000 Tons) [2 Midline Decks] [9 Decks] [Canon: Constitution-class]

Pushing for Flat Connie is go.
Let's get that inline engineering hull and parallel nacelles kids!
(especially since, with the 140m hull, that would end up even more evocative of the Thunderchild and for in universe reasons I want to evoke that. I'm sure the Klingons at least heard about how Warspite went out, and I think building something that is alarmingly close to a successor design in configuration might make a few individuals over on Qo'nos a little more cautious.
 
@Sayle Could we please have the vote extended? The changes to the thruster power changes a lot of people's reasoning for voting for one choice or another. Also,
Sayle said:
The only rule so far is that the half-saucer has to mount two or more engines.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You said earlier that the half-saucer has to have an even number of engines. Is that still the case?
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top