Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
[X] Two Type-3 Thrusters (33 -> 45.5 Cost) [Very High Manoeuvrability]

2.5 Cost for a Tech increase. Seems worthwhile.
 
[X] Two Type-3 Thrusters (33 -> 45.5 Cost) [Very High Maneuverability]

We're gonna serve up another SDB special to Starfleet that costs the moon but delivers a planet, I can feel it
 
[X] Four Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 42 Cost) [Very High Maneuverability]
[X] Three Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 39.75 Cost) [Very High Manoeuvrability]

Changing to do approval voting I really don't want to go for the type 3 , better to go for the old reliable
 
[N/A] Three Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 39.75 Cost) [Very High Manoeuvrability]

I'd prefer to cheap out on the sublight engines, even at the cost of module space. I believe it would be better to save the high costs for weapons and shields.

Edit: Changed vote down thread.
 
Last edited:
[] Four Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 42 Cost) [Very High Maneuverability]
Changing my vote.

Edit: And changed my mind again actually
[X] Two Type-3 Thrusters (33 -> 45.5 Cost) [Very High Maneuverability]
 
With some significant trepidation:

@Compellor @RighteousRancor @dhasenan @Mechanis @Model DC.14F @beleester @TheShadowDeamon @Strunkriidiisk @Derek58 @Aerrow Shadow @Parzival95 @UbeOne @Sarpedon @Chiperninerm @MS-21H 'Hawke' @LordEdric @BDelver @liberty614 @Chipsy_21 @LazyLayabout

You are currently voting for two or three Type 2 thrusters, presumably at least partially on cost grounds. Please consider approval-voting four Type 2 thrusters, as it is close enough to remain plausibly in contention, and is still a cost savings (if admittedly a smaller one) versus the currently-leading two Type 3s, which are presently wasting budget for absolutely no benefit.

As it would be unkind of me to request approval-voting for my option without any willingness to reciprocate, I am also changing my own vote to include an approval vote for three Type 2s in exchange.

[X] Four Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 42 Cost) [Very High Maneuverability]
[X] Three Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 39.75 Cost) [Very High Manoeuvrability]

And with significantly more trepidation:

@Phalfpipe @Tank man @StriderInCosmos @Lohjak @CuriousRaptor @DeltaV11.2 @robofin117 @Tempest Warden @DualFront @Ego_Discite @triumph8w @JamesShazbond @Roaming_Guardian @Ambit @Curufinwe @LawsOfRobotics

You are currently approval-voting both of the currently-leading options (two Type 3 and four Type 2 thrusters), and are virtually certain to have one of your choices win. Consider expressing a preference for one or the other. (If you genuinely don't care and would be equally happy with either, then carry on with my apologies for the ping.)

Finally:
@NavySeel
You are currently voting for two Type 3s, explicitly on the basis of not wasting internal space. However, the benefit of the half-saucer configuration (and a major reason we voted for it) is that symmetrically paired engines are mounted externally, and do not take up any internal space. Therefore, four Type 2s offers identical performance, identical internal space, superior redundancy, and lower cost. Please consider changing your vote? 🙏Whoops just saw your latest post, sorry.
 
thepsyborg said:
You are currently approval-voting both of the currently-leading options (two Type 3 and four Type 2 thrusters), and are virtually certain to have one of your choices win. Consider expressing a preference for one or the other. (If you genuinely don't care and would be equally happy with either, then carry on with my apologies for the ping.)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm kind of worried that there's going to be a turnaround for 3 Type 2's when I'm asleep or not looking, so I'm wary of doing that. My main concern is not killing our internal space further.
 
thepsyborg said:
With some significant trepidation:

@Compellor @RighteousRancor @dhasenan @Mechanis @Model DC.14F @beleester @TheShadowDeamon @Strunkriidiisk @Derek58 @Aerrow Shadow @Parzival95 @UbeOne @Sarpedon @Chiperninerm @MS-21H 'Hawke' @LordEdric @BDelver @liberty614 @Chipsy_21 @LazyLayabout

You are currently voting for two or three Type 2 thrusters, presumably at least partially on cost grounds. Please consider approval-voting four Type 2 thrusters, as it is close enough to remain plausibly in contention, and is still a cost savings (if admittedly a smaller one) versus the currently-leading two Type 3s, which are presently wasting budget for absolutely no benefit.

As it would be unkind of me to request approval-voting for my option without any willingness to reciprocate, I am also changing my own vote to include an approval vote for three Type 2s in exchange.

[X] Four Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 42 Cost) [Very High Maneuverability]
[X] Three Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 39.75 Cost) [Very High Manoeuvrability]

And with significantly more trepidation:

@Phalfpipe @Tank man @StriderInCosmos @Lohjak @CuriousRaptor @DeltaV11.2 @robofin117 @Tempest Warden @DualFront @Ego_Discite @triumph8w @JamesShazbond @Roaming_Guardian @Ambit @Curufinwe @LawsOfRobotics

You are currently approval-voting both of the currently-leading options (two Type 3 and four Type 2 thrusters), and are virtually certain to have one of your choices win. Consider expressing a preference for one or the other. (If you genuinely don't care and would be equally happy with either, then carry on with my apologies for the ping.)

Finally:
@NavySeel
You are currently voting for two Type 3s, explicitly on the basis of not wasting internal space. However, the benefit of the half-saucer configuration (and a major reason we voted for it) is that symmetrically paired engines are mounted externally, and do not take up any internal space. Therefore, four Type 2s offers identical performance, identical internal space, superior redundancy, and lower cost. Please consider changing your vote? 🙏Whoops just saw your latest post, sorry.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
...I'm going to be honest, I've been wrestling with whether to do four Type 2s, or two Type 3s.
You've now decisively pushed me into not changing my vote from two Type 3s.
 
thepsyborg said:
And with significantly more trepidation:

@Phalfpipe @Tank man @StriderInCosmos @Lohjak @CuriousRaptor @DeltaV11.2 @robofin117 @Tempest Warden @DualFront @Ego_Discite @triumph8w @JamesShazbond @Roaming_Guardian @Ambit @Curufinwe @LawsOfRobotics

You are currently approval-voting both of the currently-leading options (two Type 3 and four Type 2 thrusters), and are virtually certain to have one of your choices win. Consider expressing a preference for one or the other. (If you genuinely don't care and would be equally happy with either, then carry on with my apologies for the ping.)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I fail to understand why you needed to tag me, or anyone else for that matter, on this.
 
I'm tentatively rooting for 4 type 2 because a theoretical 25% WEP makes me giggle.

Can you imagine Kirk ordering Sulu to engage War Emergency Power.
The Enterprise crew in bomber jackets and aviators as they top gun an entire fucking cruiser around Klingon Birds of Prey.
 
thepsyborg said:
With some significant trepidation:

@Compellor @RighteousRancor @dhasenan @Mechanis @Model DC.14F @beleester @TheShadowDeamon @Strunkriidiisk @Derek58 @Aerrow Shadow @Parzival95 @UbeOne @Sarpedon @Chiperninerm @MS-21H 'Hawke' @LordEdric @BDelver @liberty614 @Chipsy_21 @LazyLayabout

You are currently voting for two or three Type 2 thrusters, presumably at least partially on cost grounds. Please consider approval-voting four Type 2 thrusters, as it is close enough to remain plausibly in contention, and is still a cost savings (if admittedly a smaller one) versus the currently-leading two Type 3s, which are presently wasting budget for absolutely no benefit.

As it would be unkind of me to request approval-voting for my option without any willingness to reciprocate, I am also changing my own vote to include an approval vote for three Type 2s in exchange.

[X] Four Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 42 Cost) [Very High Maneuverability]
[X] Three Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 39.75 Cost) [Very High Manoeuvrability]

And with significantly more trepidation:

@Phalfpipe @Tank man @StriderInCosmos @Lohjak @CuriousRaptor @DeltaV11.2 @robofin117 @Tempest Warden @DualFront @Ego_Discite @triumph8w @JamesShazbond @Roaming_Guardian @Ambit @Curufinwe @LawsOfRobotics

You are currently approval-voting both of the currently-leading options (two Type 3 and four Type 2 thrusters), and are virtually certain to have one of your choices win. Consider expressing a preference for one or the other. (If you genuinely don't care and would be equally happy with either, then carry on with my apologies for the ping.)

Finally:
@NavySeel
You are currently voting for two Type 3s, explicitly on the basis of not wasting internal space. However, the benefit of the half-saucer configuration (and a major reason we voted for it) is that symmetrically paired engines are mounted externally, and do not take up any internal space. Therefore, four Type 2s offers identical performance, identical internal space, superior redundancy, and lower cost. Please consider changing your vote? 🙏Whoops just saw your latest post, sorry.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Please don't mass ping people. It never works out and generally just annoys people.
 
thepsyborg said:
The folks voting for three Type 2s, I get. I don't share their opinion, but I get it.

The folks voting for two Type 2s, I...can comprehend, at least. It is the cheapest option, and it still has okay performance, even if it's a tiny savings for a sizable performance hit.

But I really have to wonder if the folks voting for two Type 3s have ever had anyone explain to them- in small words with many examples and maybe a demonstration using colored blocks- the concepts of "greater than" and "less than". Because the two Type 3s are a (very, very rare) objectively bad choice. Compared to four Type 2's, they have the same maneuverability, the same internal space, less redundancy, more cost for the first run (you know, the ones we might actually have by the time the war starts), and slightly more cost for future production runs.

They're either tied or worse on every metric. I would be amazed if anyone voted for them. I am completely at a loss to explain about half of the questers voting for them. This isn't even a vote with aesthetic or nostalgic appeal involved! It's against all sense, reason, and sanity! Worse, it's blatantly and obviously so!

What the hell!!?

Edit: I suppose the Type 3s do push them towards standardization, meaning they'll be cheaper for the next ship that uses them...you know, after the war. And while that's at least a coherent argument, if you're that convinced that we've got the war in the bag, and can afford to make bad choices now for a postwar payoff, then I must question your literacy rather than your numeracy.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
... you get more flies with honey than vinegar. I was debating approval-voting 4 Type 2's, but I'm sure not doing that now.
 
thepsyborg said:
With some significant trepidation:
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
As someone with certain diagnoses I understand your trepidation, though I find your (and Mechanis) lack of likes/equivalent on posts that you agree with to be disheartening.

You might recall the weapons vote for the Kea class, with Squishy's mass tagging making people who would otherwise be sympathetic/double voting square away at the opposite side.

More conducive is the mass liking of agreeing posts, and lines that support your argument in a 'fluffy' manner to others, as I have often done (you've copied the liking with the saucer vote last, iirc).

I will amend my vote, but in the future I'd like you and Mechanis to like posts agreeing with or even outright supporting your position. You'd be much better placed to influence votes if you did this.
 
Last edited:
Besides the two Type-2s, there's no option I really dislike (and those seem to be in dead last anyways). I've done enough strategic voting for the year in real life, I'm sure as hell not gonna do it in a Star Trek tabletop game. If y'all are taking it that seriously, go for a short walk, make something special for dinner, pet a cat, anything that isn't stressing over this starship. You wanna throw your ideas out there, absolutely go for it, but I'm just here to have fun and bounce ideas off people who like the same stuff I like - if you don't like my vote, that's between you and your god(s), leave me out of it.
 
I want to clarify that I care nothing for cost.

I think there engines would just look awesome and really unique.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top