Linked contents
- Location
- Most likely California
The description/Flavor text for the Three Type-2 thrusters states that the spaceframe can only handle the thrust of 3 Type-2 Thrusters. Adding the fourth is only for the thruster layout symmetry, the Manoeuvrability will be Very High whether we choose 3 or 4 Type-2 thrusters
I'm like 99% sure there will still be a module, albeit limited to a smaller one. The description says we can still fit an auxiliary modules there, just that something large like a Shuttlebay is 'off the menu'. I get the argument for why something a larger module like a Fabrication Workshop on the Archer would be worth the extra 2.25 cost, but I just feel that a slight cost saving may be useful down the line, especially since we can probably still fit something like a +2 Engineering Workshop still.
Last edited:
- Location
- America
Only as long asthe WEP is linked to a big red button on the captain's console.
- Location
- United States
[X] Two Type-3 Thrusters (33 -> 45.5 Cost) [Very High Manoeuvrability]
Last edited:
Basically there is a spot on the inner back surface of the half saucer where thrusters can safely be mounted basically entirely external to the hull. It's not on the centerline of the ship though, so they can only be mounted in pairs.
To get a third, but not a fourth, thrusters means mounting a thruster mostly internal on secondary hull.
But mounting 4 allows us to just mount 2 fully externally on each side.
To be fair, The climax combat scene in ST6 has the torps of Chang's prototype BoP doing hull damage even through Enty-A's shields. Whether that's due to the shields beginning to wear down from extended punishment or the BoP's torps being much harder hitting protoypes as well, is left to discussion of viewers.
- Location
- England
Honestly... 3 type 2s is the cheapest option if we want to max weapon budget, 4 is for if anyone can pitch an idea on how to juryrig a structural hull boost and dampening system to break the soft cap on maneuverability (make the ship literally the most maneuverable thing in space).Also redundancy and extra module room...
2 type 3s let's us standardise logistics chains .. which would help if the engines have none replicable parts (that an archer can't projectile vomit out during a after battle repair) also boosts maturing rate
Tldr: 3 type 2s are cheapest, 2 type 3s are best logistics and 4 type 2 are mystery can-we-break-the-scale option (needs a lotta good write-ins and qm okaying them)
Question I suppose is if it's worth gambling now or leaving it till after we aren't at such a risky venture...
2 type 3s let's us standardise logistics chains .. which would help if the engines have none replicable parts (that an archer can't projectile vomit out during a after battle repair) also boosts maturing rate
Tldr: 3 type 2s are cheapest, 2 type 3s are best logistics and 4 type 2 are mystery can-we-break-the-scale option (needs a lotta good write-ins and qm okaying them)
Question I suppose is if it's worth gambling now or leaving it till after we aren't at such a risky venture...
Last edited:
- Location
- Hollister
[X] Three Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 39.75 Cost) [Very High Manoeuvrability]
The thing that didn't make sense to me was why the centerline point can't be used to safely mount externally as well.
- Location
- USA
- Pronouns
- He/They
Paired engines on the sides can be mounted externally on the aft face of the half-saucer; they still have volume, yes, but they don't occupy internal space. Since the half-saucer was only ever intended for symmetrically-paired engines, the layout of its structural framing is such that shoving a third centerline engine into it* requires positioning it mostly-internally, in order to mount it to the frame properly, which obviously takes up quite a bit of internal space.
Presumably this is at least theoretically fixable, at the cost of completely redesigning the structural frame of the ship, and we absolutely cannot spare those- what, two years?- of development time.
*An option which we did not really expect to even exist, having voted for the half-saucer largely back when we expected it to hard require even numbers of thrusters, rather than merely having a awkward but objectively pretty mild amount of suboptimal positioning involved. Sayle's being unexpectedly generous in allowing the possibility at all.
Last edited:
My understanding of trek shield technology is that weapons and shields are in a constant battle of penetration and resistance that happens even within a single encounter where weapons are constantly modulating trying to find a modularity that penetrates the shields and the shields are trying to shift modularity so the weapons can't find the right way to punch through.
But the end result is that shields are variably effective more or less randomly based on how well the attacker guesses at what weapon setting will penetrate. A lucky shot can more or less ignore the shields.
- Location
- Australia
I think it was also limited to type 3 engines originally too. It really was an added expansion choice.
I think there was an entire novel about this actually. They ran into a race with seriously powerful shields they couldn't damage, when they realised it was because they were running a singular powerful frequency rather than a harmony they shot straight through it.
Last edited:
Endorfinator
Awkwardly Social
- Location
- California
- Pronouns
- He/Him
[X] Two Type-3 Thrusters (33 -> 45.5 Cost) [Very High Manoeuvrability]
Also as a general note approval voting should be used when your preferred choice is Trailing and you want to make sure one of the leading options isn't going to win.
When you vote for both winning options it's kinda useless. Choose the one you actually want to win.
Also as a general note approval voting should be used when your preferred choice is Trailing and you want to make sure one of the leading options isn't going to win.
When you vote for both winning options it's kinda useless. Choose the one you actually want to win.
Last edited:
- Location
- USA
Sayle already was asked and said we could
[X] Two Type-3 Thrusters (33 -> 45.5 Cost) [Very High Maneuverability]
Indeed, if this ship is any good against the D7, there is almost certainly going to be a second batch ordered at the outbreak of the 4 years war, which should reduce production costs significantly for the Type-3 Impulse system. That should carry over to the Rapid Fire Photon and any other new techs that we incorporate in the firs pre-war batch of hulls.
So expensive peacetime Batch One units and much cheaper War Emergency Batch Two hulls.
Sayle explicitly mentioned we could when asked about it earlier, using the Sovereign-class as an example.
- Location
- Australia
[X] Four Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 42 Cost) [Very High Maneuverability]
I guess we go with 4 T2 thrusters for slight cost savings while keeping some internal space, then refitting the thrusters to 2 T3 post-war. If the war was going to be longer than 4 years I'd vote for two T3 since in a few years they'll be cheaper than four T2s, but if I understand things correctly then four T2s will be cheaper for the duration of the war, which is when production will be its most important. That said, I wont complain if three T2s win since it's cheaper and the internal space lost is near-negligible.
I guess we go with 4 T2 thrusters for slight cost savings while keeping some internal space, then refitting the thrusters to 2 T3 post-war. If the war was going to be longer than 4 years I'd vote for two T3 since in a few years they'll be cheaper than four T2s, but if I understand things correctly then four T2s will be cheaper for the duration of the war, which is when production will be its most important. That said, I wont complain if three T2s win since it's cheaper and the internal space lost is near-negligible.
Mechanis
Confirmed Extremely Screwed
- Location
- Absconding with Alacrity
i would like to point out, seeing as how I literally just did it, that the Cygnus-you know, the last thing we did with a half saucer-had three engines, and the last time we did a half saucer with an even number of engines was waaaaayyy back before the Federation even existed, with the Stingray. If anything, we have more recent precident for triple engine designs on a half saucer than a twin or quad.
I voted for the triple engine design because that way if Finance starts making distressed noises at the cost of the rapid launcher I'd like to put on it, we have something to point at to say we did, in fact, consider costs.
- Location
- SEAsia
- Pronouns
- Thou
We get the Type-3's and THIS is how it's gonna feel like:
View: https://youtu.be/Hj_ez8SOUVQ?si=dGT14C8ocU5wPy1-
[X] Three Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 39.75 Cost) [Very High Manoeuvrability]
THIS I'm ok with pinching pennies on, largely because this ain't going to be a proto-Galaxy. We're building a beat stick that go FAST AS FUK BOI!!!
That and we can likely refit post war to replace two of the engines with Type-3s and reclaim the space when we might need the room for activities other than Klingon Murder.
THIS I'm ok with pinching pennies on, largely because this ain't going to be a proto-Galaxy. We're building a beat stick that go FAST AS FUK BOI!!!
That and we can likely refit post war to replace two of the engines with Type-3s and reclaim the space when we might need the room for activities other than Klingon Murder.