Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
Well, going by previous calculations regarding mass and engines, I believe 180,000 was something of a sweet spot in some fashion if we can manage it? So that would seem to argue for the underslung secondary hull.
 
[ ] Underslung Secondary Hull (180,000 Tons) [3 Forward Launchers Max] [+0.2 Sprint]

Do we have to use all three slots? If we bite the bullet and go two rapids would leaving the third slot empty gain us an internal space slot, like the integrated Hull but with a sprint boost?
 
Riggnarock said:
[ ] Underslung Secondary Hull (180,000 Tons) [3 Forward Launchers Max] [+0.2 Sprint]

Do we have to use all three slots? If we bite the bullet and go two rapids would leaving the third slot empty gain us an internal space slot, like the integrated Hull but with a sprint boost?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It'd probably leave us with some extra internal space, but I doubt it'd be enough for a full extra internal slot. Maybe enough to make an existing slot slightly better?
 
I should just ask.

@Sayle When we decide on weapons, could we get an option to have a mix of Photon Launchers and Rapid Launchers for the forward armament? As a compromise between all Photon launchers and multiple of the very expensive Rapid Launchers.

To the thread: I went back to check, and the Sagarmatha had two Photon Launchers. So three would still be a 50% increase in burst damage, not including our upgraded phasers.
 
[ ] Large Secondary Hull (190,000 Tons) [Canon: Constitution-class] [3 Forward Launchers Max]

More modules means more cruise.
Workshop, computer core, cargo, fuel
 
I want room for cargo bays and expanded medical labs for triage, so [ ] Large Secondary Hull (190,000 Tons) [Canon: Constitution-class].
 
@Sayle for prototype systems, when those become standard or mature would later ships have the decrease to cost when considered for construction?

For example suppose we use the prototype torpedoes and thus for the initial ship builds have the high cost, once those are considered standard would ships built after that point then use the lower standard cost and not the prototype? I am asking because this does mean if we do put prototype systems on (or standard that will hit mature) and design a ship worth building for an extended period of time that can extend how long the Federation would be willing to build it with the ship cost decreasing.

Obviously we still need to design a good ship that is worth building at the current cost but I can see if that cost reduction applies that it would be a factor in determining if later ships are made. Or another example would be a refit version of this ship if we go 1 prototype, 2 normal torpedoes would be to refit to 3 rapids once they hit standard or mature.

[ ] Large Secondary Hull (190,000 Tons) [Canon: Constitution-class] [3 Forward Launchers Max]
[ ] Underslung Secondary Hull (180,000 Tons) [3 Forward Launchers Max] [+0.2 Sprint]

I want the 3 launchers because we need a big punch on these ships, not sure what we can get for 10k tons in a trade off for .2 sprint
 
I suppose if we want to do some funny games with the numbers we could do the Integrated Secondary Hull and argue that only being able to fit two torps max (because of our own choices) made it not just tactically justifiable, but necessary to shell out for double rapids. Might result in us giving a good long look at which shield we take though.

Also gives us the hull shape that at a quick glance looks the most like that really nice Shangri-La class that got posted.
 
landcollector said:
There goes the possibility of 2 RFLs I guess. Disappointing imo.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Mmm, not necessarily. If we want more overall tonnage, the two-tube layout would likely make sense. I personally want enough firepower to start deleting hostile Klingon ships outright, but making more room for equipment and personnel to keep the ship in fighting shape after each engagement is absolutely a valid argument.
 
I think the option for three launchers is needed so we have flexibility between rapid and standard. Since we're going weird with the hull design, we may as well go all the way and try out one of those forward-slung engineering hulls, and save a little weight as well.
 
My question is if the underslung has space for what i consider critical auxiliary systems for a warship sensor, comp core, med bay and engineering.

So at least 4 slots total?
 
[ ] Underslung Secondary Hull (180,000 Tons) [3 Forward Launchers Max] [+0.2 Sprint]

sprintsprintsprintsprintsprint

I will take any and every option for sprint speed because this baby to hit Warp 9 just for the flex of pulling it off on a Warp 8 engine. The extra torpedo tube is nice as well I guess, I dunno :V
 
[X] Large Secondary Hull (190,000 Tons) [Canon: Constitution-class].
[X] Integrated Secondary Hull (200,000 Tons) [2 Forward Launcher Max]

It's a front line fighter , and the worthy challenge that every Klingon captain will be gunning for. I think we need to save space for at least one module to handle combat casualties or field medicine (Triage or Advanced Medical).

This is expected to be a long, bloody war. Think of the poor redshirts.
 
Last edited:
[ ] Integrated Secondary Hull (200,000 Tons) [2 Forward Launcher Max]

I like integrated the most. Not just the whole module part but also aesthetics.

But overall Probably fine with any of the options, but does anyone have an example of what the underslung might look like?
 
NSMS said:
We generally only get 3 slots to pick from, so probably not.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We generally don't get to vote for baseline sensors, either. And the Archer class only had a vote for the secondary computer core.

I think the question is if we get one or two secondary systems, and so have to pick between, e.g., triage and the engineering workshops outright, or if we will be able to get both at the cost of, say, advanced sensors and extended range.
 
Do remember anything over 180k will require 3 old engines or 2 new ones to achieve 2:1 thrust to mass for Very high, and the Half saucer forces us to have 2 or 4 engines
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top