Starfleet Design Bureau

[X] Five Torpedo Salvo (Cost 45.5 -> 65) [Second Tranche: 43.5 -> 59.5]

Six standard tubes would have been more fun, but Starfleet hulls seemingly aren't thicc enough.
 
I know for the impulse vote we got a marking on where we are wrt our expected budget, how's that looking now? Are we still below expected figures? Are we above?
 
I know for the impulse vote we got a marking on where we are wrt our expected budget, how's that looking now? Are we still below expected figures? Are we above?
Probably too early to say until we get most of the rest of the weapons fit done. Which is why I think we'll get the rear weapons last, since it'll be a choice between additional utility and additional ships that has decent arguments either way.
 
[X] Five Torpedo Salvo (Cost 45.5 -> 65) [Second Tranche: 43.5 -> 59.5]

Besides the Klingons, given the Enterprise regularly has to deal with BIG hostile things and sometimes gods, I'd think Kirk will thank us for the extra punch.
 
Hense why the numerical solution I proposed earlier involves more than a single metric, as more than a single metric is involved in that kind of limit.
So for example, if we say that the current phaser banks take 1 energy each, and the Warp 8 core has a baseline of 1 energy plus 0.5 per 100 ktons rounded up, then we arrive at most of our current ships having something in the ballpark of 2 phaser banks being able to fire; and we can infer that the non-upgraded Mark I phasers must have less power consumption and the Warp Seven engine less generation, without ever having to specify exactly what those numbers are. Simple, intuitive, and logical based on the Watsonian reasoning, and easy to modify in the future.
I think part of the problem isn't your idea, it's more the direction it pushes is different from where it seems the quest is going.
You and I are demonstrably more into hard crunch. Simulation style numbers. A wargame focus perhaps.
Much of the advice Sayle was getting us instead pushing towards the abstract. A bit more fluffy, a story telling focus.

I fondly remember weapon mount size damage bonuses from the Space Empires 4x games, which was similar to the first system Sayle proposed, then the size/damage chart next shown seems like the rules light version of it. (Unless they were both meant to be used together, in which case ignore my next comment)

It does a good job abstracting bigger ships more powerful, but the ability to make specialist combat ships with a metric other than size, defiant style, would be eliminated immediately.
 
Are we still below expected figures?
No, the two Type 3s pushed us above par:
The engines have put you over your expected budget, but making savings elsewhere with the advantages of high maneuverability might balance the scales.
And we aren't cheaping out on torpedoes.

We're going to need to make cuts when it comes to shields, I think. I would have preferred to make them to the engines, but that's not how things went.
 
Temptation to be the only dissenting vote again rising. /s

Frfr this thing needs to make things go boom.

[X] Five Torpedo Salvo (Cost 45.5 -> 65) [Second Tranche: 43.5 -> 59.5]
 
Replacing both of the standard torp launchers with Rapid Fire Launchers is a serious proposition for the Refit, I think. Like, the canonical Constitution II mounted two Rapid-Fire Launchers (we see them firing in The Undiscovered Country). It's not necessarily that out of scope.

At which point our frontal barrage becomes less "Calculated to be the superior of a D7 in simulations." and more "Get ready to meet God.".
 
I'm in favor of at least one aft tube, just because unlike phasers the main limit on how many torpedoes we can shoot is how many tubes we have (pointing the right way) and being able to shoot back in a stern chase is always a good thing if we can afford to add the ability, but am prepared to be argumed around.
I think part of the problem isn't your idea, it's more the direction it pushes is different from where it seems the quest is going.
You and I are demonstrably more into hard crunch. Simulation style numbers. A wargame focus perhaps.
Much of the advice Sayle was getting us instead pushing towards the abstract. A bit more fluffy, a story telling focus.

I fondly remember weapon mount size damage bonuses from the Space Empires 4x games, which was similar to the first system Sayle proposed, then the size/damage chart next shown seems like the rules light version of it. (Unless they were both meant to be used together, in which case ignore my next comment)

It does a good job abstracting bigger ships more powerful, but the ability to make specialist combat ships with a metric other than size, defiant style, would be eliminated immediately.
I think part of this is just a different perspective on what crunch is for in a quest like this; which I have always held as being a GM tool to ease keeping the story parts consistent, so you don't have a ship casually exploding Klingon warbirds in one scene and then fighting a desperate losing battle against a single Bird of Prey in another, to use an extreme example, without some kind of flip-the-table N-factor involved (the BoP having the ship's shield frequency, for example, thereby compromising its defenses).
It's a tool for maintenance of Suspension of Disbelief and immersion, not some kind of omnipotent god.
 
I'm in favor of at least one aft tube, just because unlike phasers the main limit on how many torpedoes we can shoot is how many tubes we have (pointing the right way) and being able to shoot back in a stern chase is always a good thing if we can afford to add the ability, but am prepared to be argumed around.

I think part of this is just a different perspective on what crunch is for in a quest like this; which I have always held as being a GM tool to ease keeping the story parts consistent, so you don't have a ship casually exploding Klingon warbirds in one scene and then fighting a desperate losing battle against a single Bird of Prey in another, to use an extreme example, without some kind of flip-the-table N-factor involved (the BoP having the ship's shield frequency, for example, thereby compromising its defenses).
It's a tool for maintenance of Suspension of Disbelief and immersion, not some kind of omnipotent god.
I am not sure anything CAN stern chase this ship, at least in the near term. We have made it about as fast as a ship can be made. The only time something can stay behind her is if she wants to let it stay behind her.

Otherwise she can punch to warp and simply leave, even if she turns around a few light minutes away and comes back torpedo tubes armed.
 
I know for the impulse vote we got a marking on where we are wrt our expected budget, how's that looking now? Are we still below expected figures? Are we above?

The reality is I don't see the point of saying "above budget" because by using the two Type-3s you definitionally put a lot of cash up forward in the name of tech advancement and design longevity and I don't think that by doing anything but going minimal on everything you can possible bring that back to par - at which point what was the point of taking the better engines? I think you just have to accept that you've moved into a higher price point and now the debate is around using the stuff you bought efficiently and not breaking the bank.

It seems to me your chance to try and keep the budget to a cost-effective level will be phaser coverage, aft torpedoes(?) and shield systems.
 
Last edited:
An aft launcher seems not unreasonable to me, although budgetwise it's sort of annoying.

Torpedoes seem to have a roughly 180 degree firing arc, they can track, and they're extra-effective on unshielded vessels - like a Bird of Prey that is in silent running mode and has snuck up on us. (Cloaking may not actually exist at this point in the TL, but various forms of pseudo-cloak will do.) That and two Phaser Banks facing the front, and we're done.

On the other hand... the canonical Enterprise did not necessarily need it, we're even more manoeuvrable, and we're looking for savings. An aft torp launcher is not that expensive, only 2.25 Cost, but it all adds up I suppose. If it wasn't for the engines I'd say "screw it", but as things stand...

...tricky.
 
[X] Five Torpedo Salvo (Cost 45.5 -> 65) [Second Tranche: 43.5 -> 59.5]

I've long since accepted that this is its own ship. But it's my headcanon, or copium, that the true analogue to the canon Consitution class has been delayed due to butterflies. And that our next big boy explorer class is something like a cross between a pumped-up canon Constitution and the Excelsior.

Our explorer ships need to have the firepower to hold their own even in situations where they're alone.

On a less serious note, I was thinking about potential timeline shenanigans. Like a situation where a young Jean-Luc Picard ends up on Kirk's Enterprise. Which made me imagine how the young Picard would be characterized had he been on TOS. My idea is that he'd be a young enthusiastic man speaking broken French with an exaggerated fake accent. And that this would be justified as him working off of fragmented and often outright incorrect historical records of things from before the Third World War.
 
Back
Top