Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
[X] Four Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 42 Cost) [Very High Maneuverability]
Tactical vote

[X] Three Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 39.75 Cost) [Very High Manoeuvrability]
What I want.

The two Type-3s aren't terrible, especially if there are subsequent runs, but I'd rather shave cost for more ships.
 
landcollector said:
Eh, fuel is cheap imo compared to a possible combat loss of a hull from a lack of redundancy. It's disappointing to me that the double Type-3 option is winning because of my interest in said redundancy but oh well. It is what it is.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah, both good options. I wasn't actually thinking fuel in expense as much as 'fuel is something we need to haul around and can run out of before resupply'
 
Warning: thepsyborg has been removed from the thread temporarily under Rule 3
  • Staff Post
    • thepsyborg has been removed from the thread temporarily under rule 3
    It is unacceptable to talk to other SV users in the way they have in various posts in this argument


    please watch your tone in this thread
    More generally - please remember to be considerate with one another. Always keep in mind that you are talking to real people, and try to be kind.
     
  • Staff Post
    • [X] Four Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 42 Cost) [Very High Maneuverability]

    Redundancy and spreading the power load seem good reasons and once the Type-3 is in full production they can be retrofited in if needed and drop the cost of future runs.

    Also running below spec should massively reduce maintence requirements freeing up engineering resources and time.
     
    [X] Three Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 39.75 Cost) [Very High Manoeuvrability]
    [X] Four Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 42 Cost) [Very High Maneuverability]
     
    [X] Three Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 39.75 Cost) [Very High Manoeuvrability]
    [X] Two Type-3 Thrusters (33 -> 45.5 Cost) [Very High Manoeuvrability]
     
    Last edited:
    [X] Four Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 42 Cost) [Very High Maneuverability]

    I'm just imagining a ship in the middle of combat, EPS conduits to the phaser banks and torp launchers partially ruptured, shields rapidly failing, all that sort of thing. Knowing they are going down anyways, the engineers pull some bullshit and divert power to the inertial dampeners and kick all four thrusters to full power and fly, relishing the expressions of the Klingons as they go, "wait, they can go even faster?!"
     
    [X] Four Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 42 Cost) [Very High Maneuverability]

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

    changing for approval voting purposes
     
    darkstarling said:
    Yeah, both good options. I wasn't actually thinking fuel in expense as much as 'fuel is something we need to haul around and can run out of before resupply'
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    The fuel for thrusters is a very small amount of hydrogen. Thrusters are basically an open cycle fusion power plant attached to a particle accelerator that pushes the ship by shooting hydrogen atoms backwards at close enough to C that they end up giving the fuel more mass than it had in the tank.

    Hydrogen is readily available and you can just harvest it from the nearest gas giants using a transporter.

    Currently our design also dopes the reaction mass with warp plasma to push it into an even higher energy state.
     
    Last edited:
    Another contender for highest vote turnout. Baring any unexpected developments there's probably not going to be any significant deviation.

    Adhoc vote count started by Tank man on Oct 21, 2024 at 9:58 AM, finished with 519 posts and 163 votes.
    Click to expand...
     
    Between costs and the fact we've got room for 3 the current tactical consensus is 1x rapid fire and 2x regular for torpedoes, right? At least as far as the forward arc goes.

    Between our speed/manoeuvrability and angle of fire we should be able to get away with 3-4x phaser banks (3x saucer per TOS and 1x rear to deal with chasing ships), though my preference would probably be for 6-7x (6x saucer and 1x rear to deal with chasing ships)
     
    Tank man said:
    Between costs and the fact we've got room for 3 the current tactical consensus is 1x rapid fire and 2x regular for torpedoes, right? At least as far as the forward arc goes.

    Between our speed/manoeuvrability and angle of fire we should be able to get away with 3-4x phaser banks (3x saucer per TOS and 1x rear to deal with chasing ships), though my preference would probably be for 6-7x (6x saucer and 1x rear to deal with chasing ships)
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Cost budget is likely to force our hand in shying away from going that heavy on Phasers.
     
    Reader mode
    You must login or register to reply here.
    Remove ads
    Back
    Top