Perhaps worth noting for our design is that it's going to be the first beneficiary of our warp core design, one which we selected three size reduction options plus warp speed increase option. It's going to have quite a lot more space than expected as a result.
Probably got fixed once the outlier got pointed out, there are a ton of numbers that the QM has to keep a track of so the old Max Sustained Damage number from my previous quote was probably a mistake.
I think at this point we should just wait for the Tactical Section vote to figure out what damage numbers look like.
Since it doesn't look like my favoured option is likely to win, time to approval vote.
[X] Four Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 42 Cost) [Very High Maneuverability]
[X] Three Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 39.75 Cost) [Very High Manoeuvrability]
I like 4 type 2 better for two reasons. Obviously, cost reduction is great, but I also think redundancy is also great. If any of the other designs lose a side engine, they become imbalanced and go into a spiral. This one just goes down to medium maneuverability by still running 2 type 2.
Perhaps worth noting for our design is that it's going to be the first beneficiary of our warp core design, one which we selected three size reduction options plus warp speed increase option. It's going to have quite a lot more space than expected as a result.
Seriously, we're in a lot of trouble because we made the best warp core we possibly could at the cost of early introduction/compatibility with older ships, this thing better be amazing.
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)
Torpedoes yes. For phasers there's no real reason to bring more than four banks at most, because we can only fire two at any time. So two covering the fore and one or two covering the aft are all it actually needs to maximize firepower, especially since the high manuverability means that "blind spots" are significantly less of an issue.
It's not like we have to worry about cloak ambushs or anything, the Klingons won't have cloaking devices for another thirty years, unless the spanking we gave the Romulans earlier resulted in them doing that alliance sooner.
As mentioned, the fact we can only fire two at a time means bringing more than a small number of them is pointless- weapons we can't fire are just a waste of time, mass and money.
nope. They don't have capacitors, so you can't charge one bank whilst firing a different one, and are still limited by total EPS grid throughput. I have campaigned long and hard for some kind of mitigation method for the two phaser limit based on its Watsonian reasoning, but been told this is entirely a Doyleist restriction put in place to maintain the "Low budget TV Show with two digit animation budget" Aesthetic™ and will not be changing prior to the development of Phaser Strips, so essentially not fast enough to be relevant anytime soon.
Not sure why people like slapping on a bunch of cheap engines instead of just getting a couple of good ones. We throw 4x type twos at the end of their production life, and we're basically locking in already outdated technology.
Edit: I get that people like it because its 'cheaper' but you can go broke saving money. What I mean is, saving money at the detriment of your actual purchase /purchasing power, is never a good trade. If this was CURRENTLY wartime, I would be in favor of the T2's, but its pre-war, and we gotta get the factories pumping out those T3 speedybois.
I can't help but feel that there must be something wrong with equipment balance, if people are seriously considering using outdated equipment instead of the more modern version designed for that exact purpose. Or, perhaps more likely, we're missing something. I suspect that there is some sort of false economy involved here.
I can't help but feel that there must be something wrong with equipment balance, if people are seriously considering using outdated equipment instead of the more modern version designed for the exact same purpose. Or, perhaps more likely, we're missing something. I suspect that there is some sort of false economy involved here.
Mass isn't a factor. Fuel is not a factor. The thrusters are a component and don't involve other systems. The Type-3 becomes cheaper the more you use it because it accelerates the technology becoming more mature.
Not sure why people like slapping on a bunch of cheap engines instead of just getting a couple of good ones. We throw 4x type twos at the end of their production life, and we're basically locking in already outdated technology.
Edit: I get that people like it because its 'cheaper' but you can go broke saving money. What I mean is, saving money at the detriment of your actual purchase /purchasing power, is never a good trade. If this was CURRENTLY wartime, I would be in favor of the T2's, but its pre-war, and we gotta get the factories pumping out those T3 speedybois.
I can't help but feel that there must be something wrong with equipment balance, if people are seriously considering using outdated equipment instead of the more modern version designed for that exact purpose. Or, perhaps more likely, we're missing something. I suspect that there is some sort of false economy involved here.
Same with the rapid fire launchers too, only way to get them cheaper (cheap enough we can stick them on escorts) is to start up a production line for them for the heavy cruiser.
Same with the rapid fire launchers too, only way to get them cheaper (cheap enough we can stick them on escorts) is to start up a production line for them for the heavy cruiser.
Everyone voting for 4 type 2s - please take note. This is important. We definitely ought to use the type 3 now, unless we want to cripple our own tech development.
Cripple is a bit of an overstatement here. The engines are still going to be developed and become standard equipment if slower. Voting for the type 2s is trying to eke out some savings and redundancy here that can offset higher weapons and possibly shield expenses.
That does seem to be the general consensus at the moment, given the cost profiles. We really need to drive it down for the next set of ships we and SanFran make.
Not sure why people like slapping on a bunch of cheap engines instead of just getting a couple of good ones. We throw 4x type twos at the end of their production life, and we're basically locking in already outdated technology.
This is a ship we need a lot of, and the four engine option is cheaper, and some people seem to think that we won't get a shuttlebay or something with the actual cheap option (three type 2s) because that was the example used for "large module you won't be able to put in the back of the saucer", nevermind that this is one of the biggest ships we've ever built, rivaling or even exceeding the Kea in terms of internal volume. (Remember the Kea? that thing that had like, the most module options of any ship we've done to date? that Kea?)
But yeah, the difference in costs here vs the outright painful 15 cost for the rapid launcher since we've been putting those off, and the extra cost of the Covariant Shields to compensate for not getting the shield improvement with Warp 8 that canon got, is just... basically negligable regardless. I wanted the trio of Type Twos mainly for in universe political reasons as something we could have pointed to and said "look, we actually did think about costs here" when the twitchy guy from Finance comes by to rant about how much this thing is going to cost.
Preliminary checks on the impulse thrusters are good, with a projected footprint well within margins. Only time will tell if the thrust and initial shakedowns go just as well, but at least there isn't an immediate disaster. The Halley is now hypothetically mobile, but it will just be going out into danger if it has no means to defend itself, and that's your next job.
Cripple is a bit of an overstatement here. The engines are still going to be developed and become standard equipment if slower. Voting for the type 2s is trying to eke out some savings and redundancy here that can offset higher weapons and possibly shield expenses.
If the cost difference was something like 3 vs 15, I'd kind of see your point. It's not, though. The savings are miniscule compared to the disadvantages.
I must caution that IMHO going with the type 2s would be a serious mistake for which we'd pay dearly.
Mate, we voted in the half saucer because among other things it can support a larger number of older thrusters to achieve the same performance as with the newer ones, and without sacrificing as much internal space besides. Why should we vote against that principle?
If the cost difference was something like 3 vs 15, I'd kind of see your point. It's not, though. The savings are miniscule compared to the disadvantages.
I must caution that IMHO going with the type 2s would be a serious mistake for which we'd pay dearly.
Why? Like there is a case for advancing the Type 3, but it's only going to be by a couple of years at most. And I doubt we will need the thrust of a theoretical Type 4 for a long time yet, the Type 3 can already push some seriously heavy ships if we were to mount more of them.
EDIT: In general it seems silly that you asked four questions, were told that they were equivalent on all but the one that doesn't apply to this ship, only future ones, and have declared that it would be some huge, serious disaster to choose the Type 2. All while the Type 3 is winning anyways!
And if the cost difference was something like 3 vs 15, I'd kind of see your point. It's not, though. The savings are miniscule compared to the disadvantages.
I must caution that IMHO going with the type 2s would be a serious mistake for which we'd pay dearly.
The idea that we're going to pay dearly just because we don't immediately go for the Type 3's is downright fearmonger worthy, they're going to mature as a tech regardless of whether we pick them now or not.
They become Standard tech for our next ship regardless of whether we pick them now or not and as I pointed out before if we do a good enough of a job with designing this ship it'll qualify for a refit which would be the ideal time to swap the Type 2's for Type 3's.
If the cost difference was something like 3 vs 15, I'd kind of see your point. It's not, though. The savings are miniscule compared to the disadvantages.
I must caution that IMHO going with the type 2s would be a serious mistake for which we'd pay dearly.
Eh, not really. They'd be a logistical headache after the war, assuming there is an after, but, well, refits are a thing and the particular design we picked would actually have an easier time of that since the engines are slapped onto the back of the saucer and therefore far easier to swap than they might have been otherwise.
Why? Like there is a case for advancing the Type 3, but it's only going to be by a couple of years at most. And I doubt we will need the thrust of a theoretical Type 4 for a long time yet, the Type 3 can already push some seriously heavy ships if we were to mount more of them.
EDIT: In general it seems silly that you asked four questions, were told that they were equivalent on all but the one that doesn't apply to this ship, only future ones, and have declared that it would be some huge, serious disaster to choose the Type 2. All while the Type 3 is winning anyways!
Do keep in mind that we got thruster nerfed, the Type Three is actually only as good as the Type Two used to be (150 ktons of median mass, vs the 200 ktons it was originally), so significant increases in ship size aren't happening and neither are significant improvements in performance for small ships. which is annoying considering that was why we pushed for the Type Three early in the first place, but whatever.
edit: just watch as we develop the Type Four early and then get nerfed again so we maintain the exact same per engine performance but more expensive, lel
[X] Two Type-3 Thrusters (33 -> 45.5 Cost) [Very High Manoeuvrability]
The Type-3 thrusters are allocated to the port and starboard of the main saucer, where the two engines will put out the equivalent thrust of three Type-2 engines without taking up as much space. While the initial run of the project will have to deal with increased costs, the second tranche will have the advantage of a more refined production line and correspondingly lower costs for the technology akin to a quartet of Type-2s.
With the sublight engines done, you turn your attention towards the warp drive. The new Warp 8 engine is still undergoing some final testing and tweaks, but the developers are completely confident that their final specs and overall footprint are reliable, so you're going off their numbers. The drive is innately capable of efficiently producing power up to warp factor six, and the internals of the Type-3 Nacelle are more than capable of doing their job - albeit at a reduced efficiency. Reduced or not, you're still getting an appreciable boost to your cruise speed speed, with the mechanics of the nacelle and warp coils struggling to accommodate the higher levels of plasma energy than they were designed for but still managing to pull out half of their expected performance improvement over standard.
What has been limited is your maximum cruise, which has run up against the hard reality of warp coil metallurgy. Even with reduced plasma turbulence and the multitude of small improvements to the regulation of the warp transfer conduit, there's no way for the materials to perform at levels higher than Warp 7 without beginning to accrue wear and tear. It's still faster than any other ship can cruise, but it does make maximum warp more of a notable leap over maximum cruise.
But until a new breakthrough in materials science gets you better warp coils, it's what you're stuck with. As it stands you have three choices for how to configure the nacelles, each with different benefits. The first is the classical cruise configuration, with the nacelles positioned closer together to improve warp field stability. The improvement to efficient cruise and standard range is not to be underestimated, with Warp 6.6 still exceeding the maximum cruise of any other ship in service.
The second option is a little more unorthodox, with the compact vertical shape of the design for its mass opening up the possibility for a set of linear nacelles located along the center of mass, just below the rim of the saucer section. This would provide both warp field stability and gently stretch the bubble into more of an ovoid. The efficient cruise still matches maximum cruise in the Kea and Newton classes, but it gets a little bit extra sprint.
Finally there is there is the sprint configuration, aiming to squeeze as much performance as possible out of the new warp engines. Warp 8.6 is halfway to Warp 9, compounding the natural improvement to the underslung hull's warp geometry to go as fast as possible. Being able to cover nearly a light year in the twelve hours the nacelles could handle before risking serious damage is not to be sneered at.
