The most frustrating part of this quest sometimes is the lack of object permanence.
The entire reason we went for the half-saucer is because it could mount a lot of Type 2s in parallel, letting us move around more stuff and maintain Very High Manoeuvrability, save internal space in the saucer from mounting thrusters, and use the Type-2 rather than the Type-3 thruster to save money without compromising on space.
We've now not gone for a large secondary hull - but at least in fairness this had some tangible upside in terms of warp speed. Now we're contemplating losing a ton of internal space in the back of the ship to save a measly 2.25 Cost, or... going for the Type-3 again because it's shiny and we're underbudget, even though we have a lot of very expensive weapons to add which we would like to be able to spend more on, and our saucer choice means mounting Type-2s cost us nothing in terms of space.
It's surreal. It's like if you deliberately challenged the voters to undercut every single practical advantage of the Half-Saucer.
I mean, I get that. But there's also that the double T3s gets us basically every benefit of the quad T2s, but also advances the tech rollout to make them less expensive in the future for just a measly 3.5 Cost more?
If this was between the original options for 3x T2 vs 2x T3, I could see the Cost argument being a bigger deal since it's a question of do we want internal space or a larger -~6 cost. The 4x T2 just doesn't feel like it offers enough cost decrease IMO to be worth delaying advancement and standardization Cost reductions of the T3, in favor of sticking with an overkill amount of mature engines trending towards being on their way out.
Yeah, ultimately I think I'm gonna go for the 3 type 2s and I think just having a smaller module slot is worth sucking up for it. The rapid fire torpedoes are so expensive and at least one is mandatory, it's worth scrimping a bit to be able to afford it.
[ ] Three Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 39.75 Cost) [Very High Manoeuvrability]
edit: Changed my vote because getting use out of the type 3s now will reduce their cost for further runs of ships which are likely to be made during war-time and that feels like a good investment.
[X] Two Type-3 Thrusters (33 -> 45.5 Cost) [Very High Manoeuvrability]
i'm hesitant to go for type 3 to save space, because that feels like spending money to be able to spend more money, this is going to be a warship, we want the cost to be low enough that we can build a lot of them.
I'm actually considering the Three Type-2s. It's outright stated that 3 is the maximum amount of thrust the frame can actually handle, and adding a fourth Thruster won't actually increase the Ship's manoeuvrability.
The only purpose a Fourth would have is preventing slight decrease in space that the amidships thurster would take up, which as I read the example,
While you may still be able to fit some useful auxiliary modules there, something the size of a shuttlebay will be decidedly off the menu.
Unless there's a level beyond very high (I doubt it's worth the cost of the extra type 2 drive...)
As the update straight up says that 3 type 2s at full powers the most the frame can handle... Unless we get an option to nix a internal module for structural reinforcement that forth thrusters just for redundancy and if pushed to max will tear the ship apart.
If we get the reinforce option though... THEN it will be worth considering it
Also... If that is an option this ship may actually need seatbelts
Sayle has basically outright told us that it will get out of prototype after the first run. After that it will be
9 cost for 4 type 2's or 10 cost for 2 type 3's.
I would be extremely surprised if we just do one run, but either way the type 3's will be more expensive, though by a smaller amount.
This will then bring us down to arguments of redundancy with extra engines (and theoretically a big red "ignore the safety margins on the space frame" button) or progression of technology.
Note that while type 3's are currently prototype cost they do not have a prototype roll.
I'm still for the type 2's for the initial costs I think, but I wouldn't be angry if it lost to the type 3's.
I would be if the two or three engines for type two won though.
So while 4 type 2s are rather unintuitive in the efficiency of cost it offers a number of benefits for the ship.
First it offers the ability of redundancy, if we lose one engine or even two? We're still fast as hell and able to move. This makes the ship harder to pin down and thus harder to put down.
Second it offers longevity options. Eventually the Type 2s will get outdated, when it does it will be an easy refit to cram one type three into the space of two type 2s. This offers a clear upgrade path for the ship into the future in terms of impulse for limited cost compared to a completely new ship when type 2s eventually stop getting made.
Thirdly it offers the ability of in case of emergency press the big red button. In this case it'd less us do Kzin level insane maneuvers. Not something done lightly, but in an emergency it might make the difference between victory and defeat.
Finally this would allow us to have maximum space at a lesser cost than the type 3s, at least until the type 3s get more standard, and once they do, the slotting in via refit is easily done. The extra slot could be more phasers, more engineering, some sort of specialty gear we'd deem useful to design. Whatever it is it'd give us more options for less cost than dual type 3s.
Of course a fourth redundant thruster could be installed to redistribute the engines back to port and starboard, again preserving the internal space. Your inner designer hurts a little at the waste, but it's still less expensive than upgrading to the Type-3s.
So I decided to John Madden things a bit to see what the three-impulse situation might look like. Based on the size of the thruster (in yellow) I think at minimum we would still have room for three auxiliary modules - the small one forward of the thruster, the space in the secondary hull, and either one or two in the forward section. That space forward of the neck might have room for a module too, but I'm not sure.
Based on the vertical view of the hull, I think this might be the actuall spot the engines go in (assuming we don't go for the 3 type-2s ofc):
Which would in fact give us quite a bit of space to work with in the rear
Is there an option to trade a internal module for adding extra hull reinforcement later on? As that COULD make the frame able to handle the extra power the 4th thruster adds, as ATM the cap for safety is 3 and 4 just adds redundancy and hits a soft cap.
Tldr:Make the ship S rank as far as maneuvering goes
I mean, I get that. But there's also that the double T3s gets us basically every benefit of the quad T2s, but also advances the tech rollout to make them less expensive in the future for just a measly 3.5 Cost more?
If this was between the original options for 3x T2 vs 2x T3, I could see the Cost argument being a bigger deal since it's a question of do we want internal space or a larger -~6 cost. The 4x T2 just doesn't feel like it offers enough cost decrease IMO to be worth delaying advancement and standardization Cost reductions of the T3, in favor of sticking with an overkill amount of mature engines trending towards being on their way out.
The tech rollout is 2235 though. So like maybe it gets us non-prototype Type-3 for the next design, but it would only be just barely. There's 6 more design phases in this project so we're probably not getting done until at least 2232. Now doing it now will likely advance the Type-4 somewhat, but IDK if that's worth much.
Finally this would allow us to have maximum space at a lesser cost than the type 3s, at least until the type 3s get more standard, and once they do, the slotting in via refit is easily done. The extra slot could be more phasers, more engineering, some sort of specialty gear we'd deem useful to design. Whatever it is it'd give us more options for less cost than dual type 3s.
Based on the vertical view of the hull, I think this might be the actuall spot the engines go in (assuming we don't go for the 3 type-2s ofc):
Which would in fact give us quite a bit of space to work with in the rear
...absolutely nothing in the linked post contradicts (or even loosely addresses) my position, namely that:
Yes, this is the same project to virtually the same design brief as the canon Connie and will probably end up doing all, or at least most, of the same missions; canon-Connie-the-imagined-Explorer has not been pushed back to post-war because this is that project, and there's no other guaranteed Explorer project immediately post-war*
but
Sayle's good enough at listening to the thread that it's nonetheless extremely plausible that we'll get an Explorer project (or more likely a science- or diplomatic-vessel project that we can turn into being an Explorer project via long-established precedent of minor bureaucratic malfeasance) substantially sooner than the canon Excelsior-class.
* This is the point that the linked post did address, but I've never actually disagreed with you on this point.
I mean, Sayles post was prompted directly by people going "This is not the real Connie, that will be a later", so like, the optics of going "Ah right, but Nevertheless" is kind of annoying, if that makes any sense? Sometimes you gotta learn to take the hint, etc. etc..
Now fine, if at some point when we next get a project for a Science ship, and people want to redesignate it as an "explorer" in their heads, then fair enough, I guess? If this convinces voters to not underarm it like we did the Kea, then you know what, I will promise to shut up and not be snippy about it.
I think this is kind of a distinct thing from building another Constitution/Excelsior, which I would quite happily bet $100 dollars now will not happen, but like... the 23rd century equivalent of an Intrepid class, a sort of mini-explorer/punchy Science ship? Yeah I can happily get behind that. Hope that's a compromise position we can agree on.
Tis why I asked about having 4 type two's. Sayle was pretty awesome in adding them instantly.
The only reason I would ever not pick them is if he says they would lose the type three prototype cost within the first run.
I think without the small hull mass two type three's were previously insufficient to get max maneuverability, which is why it's become an option at all.
Or we go 2 current 1 rapid torpedo launcher and let refits after the rapids become standard occur to keep costs down. Meanwhile taking type 3 now means future ships of this class will be cheaper. Or we can go 2 type 2s for still a good manuverability level and really be cheap
I am going to go and just say now that I 100% do not believe we will be able to mix-and-match two different kinds of torpedo launchers on the same ship. Personally I strongly favour two RFLs, it adds enough firepower and we have saved enough in other areas/are richer than the canon Federation that I think we can afford it. But let's save that argument for later.
Honestly I think sacrificing the manoeuvrability of this ship when we have designed so much towards it and it makes it a much better combatant for an incredibly low cost (less than one phaser bank) would be like, the worst thing we can do.
The tech rollout is 2235 though. So like maybe it gets us non-prototype Type-3 for the next design, but it would only be just barely. There's 6 more design phases in this project so we're probably not getting done until at least 2232. Now doing it now will likely advance the Type-4 somewhat, but IDK if that's worth much.
The Type-2's will be cheaper even with standard Type-3's. 5*2 > 2.25*4.
True enough, but eventually Type 2s will get phased out and type 3s become standard. Even then it has a future at least in terms of impulse, the engines, if this ship lasts at all will get replaced eventually, and frankly the vessel is likely to have the same issue as the Archer if it's good enough. That it keeps going until the original parts stop getting made and Starfleet can't make an excuse to upkeep them anymore. Given how close type 3s are to being standard that is sooner rather than later for impulse.
I am going to go and just say now that I 100% do not believe we will be able to mix-and-match two different kinds of torpedo launchers on the same ship.
If you look at the damage stats for the Archer despite using "Banks" in the passage I quoted the "Max Sustained Damage" on the Archer isn't even 12 (each Type 2 does 6 damage so 2 together should do 12) whereas the older Kea when running with 2 Banks can hit a 12 damage Max Sustain Damage.
That implies that the Archer's "Bank" is a single Phaser rather than 2 like the Kea.
Edit:
This is why I asked for clarification, there is a huge difference in damage between our Phaser Banks capping out at 18 damage or 36 damage between two Phasers.
i'm hesitant to go for type 3 to save space, because that feels like spending money to be able to spend more money, this is going to be a warship, we want the cost to be low enough that we can build a lot of them.
Modules (which is what we'd be saving space for) don't actually cost us anything except space in the hull, their price has consistently been below the quest's level of abstraction
Is there an option to trade a internal module for adding extra hull reinforcement later on? As that COULD make the frame able to handle the extra power the 4th thruster adds, as ATM the cap for safety is 3 and 4 just adds redundancy and hits a soft cap.
Tldr:Make the ship S rank as far as maneuvering goes
There are two limiting factors: first, the combination of physical hull strength + structural integrity field strength that determines how much acceleration the ship can take without breaking up, and second, the inertial compensation strength that determines how much acceleration the ship can take without reducing its fragile internal components and still-more-fragile resident squishy meatbags to pulp.
It's generally a safe assumption that all but the very largest ships are already physically strong enough to survive any amount of acceleration that their inertial compensation can handle; reinforcing it further would just mean the ship frame could survive more thrust, but the people and machinery on board would still be pretty much fucked.
I'm leaning towards three Type-2's; keeping her under-cost lets us up-gun her later, and anything we would have put where the third engine goes can cut into the shuttlebay (Normally, I'd want a *larger* shuttlebay, but for something this focused on combat, I think cutting into the shuttlebay is perfectly acceptable)
Was that recently? Quantums and photons are different types of ammunition and can be used by the same launcher, IIRC. But if we really can mix and match then mea culpa, I was wrong and that vote becomes a very forgone conclusion.
Was that recently? Quantums and photons are different types of ammunition and can be used by the same launcher, IIRC. But if we really can mix and match then mea culpa I guess.
@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.
I am going to go and just say now that I 100% do not believe we will be able to mix-and-match two different kinds of torpedo launchers on the same ship.
Was that recently? Quantums and photons are different types of ammunition and can be used by the same launcher, IIRC. But if we really can mix and match then mea culpa, I was wrong and that vote becomes a very forgone conclusion.
