Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
Wow that was fast
@Sayle
No choice to go 4 type 2 thrusters and have our shuttle bay sized module? I know when we first asked about getting the half saucer we were told it had to be in sets of two, so I kind of assumed it would be on the table
 
Last edited:
Ooof, rough, that's actually a choice now. 3 Type-2s hurts the internal space, 2 Type-2s doesn't hit max Mobility, and while 2 Type-3s are thebest of both worlds, they cost a hell of a lot.
 
Ngl the underslung secondary hull is growing on me. Digging how the ship looks so far.

[ ] Three Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 39.75 Cost) [Very High Manoeuvrability]
[ ] Two Type-3 Thrusters (33 -> 45.5 Cost) [Very High Manoeuvrability]

One of these. The prospect of having a race car for a new high end ship is tempting to me.
 
Okay I'm definitely voting for the two Type 3 thrusters. This is a warship, first and foremost, engines and weapons are where we should be putting our budget.

Between our higher speed, maneuverability, and wider firing arcs, this will be packing the maneuverability of a fighter into a starship frame. We'll be able to hit the Klingons and they can't hit back. Plus this will make up for some of the utility we sacrificed with the underslung hull.

So let's drop the money for this. I want our golden angel of battle.
 
Last edited:
What, new update already?

[ ] Two Type-3 Thrusters (33 -> 45.5 Cost) [Very High Manoeuvrability]

Thinking this is the way, it's only ~6 cost more than 3x T2s and with triple torp slots we can run all three standard to get good firepower while keeping costs down, plus salvaging some internal space for cruising utility modules.
 
Alectai said:
Ooof, rough, that's actually a choice now. 3 Type-2s hurts the internal space, 2 Type-2s doesn't hit max Mobility, and while 2 Type-3s are thebest of both worlds, they cost a hell of a lot.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Three Impulse engines also provides a measure of redundancy. If one engine is disabled or destroyed in an engagement you still have some degree of mobility (if not quite enough for comfort). With just two engines, the loss of one could effectively be a death sentence against a D6 or D7.
 
[ ] Three Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 39.75 Cost) [Very High Manoeuvrability]
[ ] Two Type-3 Thrusters (33 -> 45.5 Cost) [Very High Manoeuvrability]

Four times as much mass as the Selachii-class. But she dances just as well.
 
Sayle said:
[ ] Two Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 37.5 Cost) [Medium-High Maneuverability]
[ ] Three Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 39.75 Cost) [Very High Manoeuvrability]
[ ] Two Type-3 Thrusters (33 -> 45.5 Cost) [Very High Manoeuvrability]
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

As much as I would like to use the new Type-3s and really make this bird swoop with the best of them, cost is enough of a factor that my hand is staid for such an expense at the current moment.

At the same time, I can't help but wonder how much we really lose with a third Type-2. Obviously enough to be noted, but if we only lose out on a single internal module, then I think the trade-off is a fair enough deal. Besides, if we need to fit in an extra module after the war is over, we know what can go, as two Type-2s can do things well enough, or even be replaced by further matured Type-3s. So, 3 Type-2s has my vote.
 
darkstarling said:
Okay I'm definitely voting for the two Type 3 thrusters. This is a warship, first and foremost, engines and weapons are where we should be putting our budget.

Between our higher speed, maneuverability, and wider firing arcs, this will be packing the maneuverability of a fighter into a starship frame. We'll be able to hit the Klingons and they can't hit back. Plus this will make up for some of the utility we sacrificed with the underslung hull.

So let's drop the money for this. I want our golden angel of battle.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yes, but that leaves significantly less money on the table to use for rapid launchers should we spring for them. And cost is one of our primary concerns.
 
I don't think we need a shuttle bay. Workshop, fuel, cargo.

Or maybe slot a computer core if we don't get much cargo space.
 
The loss of internal space for the three Type-2 thrusters is painful, but I think we may have made our bed with that one. Given our previous design choices, I think it's just the flatly superior option.
 
Sayle said:
The final option is to use a pair of Type-3 thrusters. In terms of performance and space-saving this is the best of both worlds, meeting both your maximum possible thrust profiles and preserving the aft of the primary hull for other functions. The downside is cost, as you expect that even putting aside the upfront expenses in the first build order that the final models of the Type-3 will cost an additional 60% of the currently mature and streamlined Type-2s.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

We're going to want that extra module space, and we're also going to want to give our other next generation starships great manoeuvrability, both of which entail the type 3. We kinda have to go for this, for the sake of our next starships.

[ ] Two Type-3 Thrusters (33 -> 45.5 Cost) [Very High Manoeuvrability]
 
I mean, you say that, but three standards should still provide excellent damage without breaking the bank, and probably cost us less than even a single rapid given how overpriced they are right now.

We're already managing to be fairly economical thanks to how we went with nearly the minimal mass we could have with this design, I think we've got some wiggle room.
 
... On the one hand, it needs Very High due to the phaser nerf. On the other hand, if it's too expensive, it fails at the literal only purpose it has of being a cheap Klingon killer.

... Eh. It's only good for fighting anyway. Give it the Type 3's and sacrifice something else.

Edit: Actually, no. 3 Type 2's. Anything that doesn't help it kill Klingons is wasted space.
 
Last edited:
Roaming_Guardian said:
Yes, but that leaves significantly less money on the table to use for rapid launchers should we spring for them. And cost is one of our primary concerns.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Cost is absolutely one of our concerns, agreed. BUT we're going to have to spend money somewhere, and I think this is what we should spend the money on.

edit:

So to elaborate. Put our money in the engines and weapons, put some basic utility in the remaining slots, and call it the Defiant of the 2300s. Give it a medical bay if we've got the budget. Otherwise do without.
 
Last edited:
[X] Three Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 39.75 Cost) [Very High Manoeuvrability]
[ ] Two Type-3 Thrusters (33 -> 45.5 Cost) [Very High Manoeuvrability]

I'd personally be tempted to go for 3 Type-2s, and when we get the opportunity, we go for covariant shielding. We need economy, speed, firepower and durability. I have a feeling we won't be able to match the canon Constitution-class for firepower without exorbitant cost (rapid-fire launchers are so expensive I'm dubious they're viable, I was keen before but I've thought about it now), but if we can be drastically faster and more agile, and also have much stronger shields that makes us a far more viable combatant.

Edit: We need maximum firepower at minimum cost. Anything that interferes with that is undesirable. In some cases more firepower has been unnecessary, but we've made choices that have weakened our fleet. We need the extra budget this frees up to maximize shields and at minimum get 3 torpedo launchers, preferably 1 rapid-fire.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, 2 Type-3s is only a marginal increase in cost, and our savings should already be fairly impressive thanks to having the lowest mass possible for this design, which also means our Internal Space is currently at a premium, so I'm willing to invest some of that cost into our thrusters to claw back some of that space.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top