Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
[X] Ventral Banks (2 Phaser Banks) (Cost 65 -> 73) [Second Tranche: 62 -> 70]

This feels so wrong, but if I'm trying to apply some good old fashioned Cthia, I think maybe this is the most logical choice. We've made a couple decisions to increase costs for various reasons, we've still got shields to go, we need to save some $$$. This thing's MO is starting to get near "obligate predator", it might have to make do without full phaser coverage. Uncomfortable, but... <Shrugs> Logical.
 
Last edited:
Endorfinator said:
But we aren't over budget! We just spent more on engines then we were expected to but we haven't gone "over budget" on the entire ship. Additional cost cutting measure could still see this ship come on or under project budget.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Sayle's posted upthead we're already overbudget.

Sayle said:
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.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

So-. Personally I think we should try to argue "what do we need" rather than caring about cost.
 
Skippy said:
Yeah regrettably I may be in the same boat.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

In my SFB experience, the main benefit of chase armament is point defense against fighters and drones. You have them not so you can put extra damage on target, but because having them may mean the difference between beating a Hydran or Kzinti ship and getting an interstellar prostate exam from fusion beams and/or drone warheads. Klingons do use drones in SFB but they also use disruptors instead, which makes for an interesting tactical setup (disruptors fire faster and are more accurate at range but are less versatile and hit less hard than photons, so Klingon ships basically try to dance at medium range and hope a Fed ship can't get close and do horrible things to them - especially if the Fed ship can do a high-energy turn up close, so they can overrun the Klingon ship, taking the blows on their good shields, then do a 180-degree snap-turn and empty multiple overloaded photons into the fragile rear shields of a Klingon warship, which also spends much more of its internal space 'efficiently' on combat-related equipment and thus is more vulnerable to being crippled from internal damage).

Since nobody has invented drones yet (please let us or the Klingons invent drones, they're fun and give interesting tactical options) and we haven't seen many runabouts, this is a distinctly less important priority.
 
Last edited:
I mean based on the number of decision points left, if it's one year = one vote, the class will enter production by like 2233-2235-ish?

Which honestly given the Four Year War starts only a little bit later, feels like the minimum time needed to have built enough ships. Like if anything we might ideally want to avoid having the proverbial clock "tick" a year forward on the next few votes.
 
Bedpotato said:
I hate this so much, I knew the speed freaks would waste all the money on the type three and then get stingy on weapons and shields. Can we not just go all in and let it be? I reiterate Warship with no other needs. (We can leave the empty space for a post war refit once the klingons got beaten back.)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Can you not be so aggro about the engines vote? I think you should note that many of the people arguing against the top-end shields including me argued against the type-3 engine for similar cost reasons.
 
Last edited:
Bedpotato said:
I hate this so much, I knew the speed freaks would waste all the money on the type three and then get stingy on weapons and shields. Can we not just go all in and let it be? I reiterate Warship with no other needs. (We can leave the empty space for a post war refit once the klingons got beaten back.)


Kirk is born 2233, So yes he exists, as for Connie's being to early, the came only in the early 2240s So a few years earlier brought thanks to radically different timeline!
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Heck, we even had our Kodos the Executioner incident - even our improved infrastructure and cargo orbs couldn't save the colony.

As for cutting costs on weaponry, I remind you that we did shell out for the best torpedo load out. But the phasers aren't where this ship's damage is.

As for the type 3 engines, I still think that having two engines to worry about instead of four is worth the cost.

MJ12 Commando said:
In my SFB experience, the main benefit of chase armament is point defense against fighters and drones. You have them not so you can put extra damage on target, but because having them may mean the difference between beating a Hydran or Kzinti ship and getting an interstellar prostate exam from fusion beams and/or drone warheads.

Since nobody has invented drones yet (please let us invent drones, they're fun and give interesting tactical options) and we haven't seen many runabouts, this is a distinctly less important priority.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I did really like the remote piloted fighters from Andromeda. Good narrative potential - they can save the day but also can be blown up without killing cast.
 
Skippy said:
I mean based on the number of decision points left, if it's one year = one vote, the class will enter production by like 2233-2235-ish?

Which honestly given the Four Year War starts only a little bit later, feels like the minimum time needed to have built enough ships. Like if anything we might ideally want to avoid having the proverbial clock "tick" a year forward on the next few votes.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Check the dates on the most recent votes. We've had two votes per year in 2228 and 2229.
 
MJ12 Commando said:
In my SFB experience, the main benefit of chase armament is point defense against fighters and drones. You have them not so you can put extra damage on target, but because having them may mean the difference between beating a Hydran or Kzinti ship and getting an interstellar prostate exam from fusion beams and/or drone warheads.

Since nobody has invented drones yet (please let us invent drones, they're fun and give interesting tactical options) and we haven't seen many runabouts, this is a distinctly less important priority.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The point of chase armament is that ships at warp don't have shields, and if you can be faster at your opponent at max warp (which given how much we've put into sprint we plausibly can be), then you can pluasibly avoid their torpedoes whilst wrecking their face with your own. We see this demonstrated with the Archer class versus Birds of Prey.

The other use-case is that against a cloaked/stealthy ambusher who also does not have shields up and is approaching from behind to avoid our main armament, even a single torpedo can also really complicate their day. Torpedoes have a wide angle of fire and are capable of homing on a target, so they're actually somewhat better than phasers for this use-case.

At 2.25 Cost, it's also not a lot extra to spend. But I'm not sure if it adds enough, or is just in the "nice to have" column.
 
I think part of this vote is the slowly dawning realisation that we've probably been putting too many phasers on all along.

Like, I still want more. I really do. But I think this ship design with the direct comparison to canon has shown that a few phasers is all we really need.

Actually with that in mind I'm a little surprised at aren't actually really far past canon in general phaser technology.
 
darkstarling said:
I did really like the remote piloted fighters from Andromeda. Good narrative potential - they can save the day but also can be blown up without killing cast.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

SFB drones are guided torpedoes, in a real world naval analogy. Or, in the analogy where Starfleet ships are basically jet fighters which can hover and have battleship armor, they're more like air to air missiles. Hit hard, don't require power (so you can fit a lot of them on a ship), fire fast, but you run out of ammo quick and if you fire a few of them they basically just tie up enemy phasers, but if you fire a lot of them they can be defeated by countermeasures or the other guy going defensive, so they're an interesting weapon to use.
 
MJ12 Commando said:
SFB drones are guided torpedoes, in a real world naval analogy. Or, in the analogy where Starfleet ships are basically jet fighters which can hover and have battleship armor, they're more like air to air missiles. Hit hard, don't require power (so you can fit a lot of them on a ship), fire fast, but you run out of ammo quick and if you fire a few of them they basically just tie up enemy phasers, but if you fire a lot of them they can be defeated by countermeasures or the other guy going defensive, so they're an interesting weapon to use.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Wouldn't they just get swept out of the sky by space burst photon torpedoes? They can't have basically anything in terms of armor or shields, so basically anything should knock them out.
 
Fouredged Sword said:
Wouldn't they just get swept out of the sky by space burst photon torpedoes? They can't have basically anything in terms of armor or shields, so basically anything should knock them out.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Photon torpedoes don't have blast radii that big, and if you're using heavy weapons defensively on the other guy's drones, you are probably not going to win the engagement because you're sacrificing so much of your offensive power.
 
OldGlory76 said:
Because if we're making a few tranches of this vessel we need a class theme with plenty of potential names to pick from. And Earth has plenty of rivers to pick from. The UFS Thames, the UFS Potomac, etc.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Chesapeake is a bay and estuary, not just another river. Should add more options.

DeltaV11.2 said:
It's a terrible history joke on my part. I'll fess up later if nobody calls me on what it is soon.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
USS Chesapeake has already been mentioned to be a sister ship to USS Constitution.
 
Either way I don't think we need full coverage phasers. Drones have never really been a part of space combat in Star Trek and fighters only ever show up in DS9.

Wait forgot Discovery existed. Eh do we really want to acknowledge that wreck of a show?
 
DeltaV11.2 said:
Can you not be so aggro about the engines vote? I think you should note that many of the people arguing against the top-end shields including me argued against the type-3 engine for similar fost reasons.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I am angry because suddenly we don't have enough money to get a full weapons loadout, because people wanted the type three engines instead of the far cheaper type twos that could have done the same job compared to the type threes while either being vastly cheaper, or still cheaper while extremly redundant. And now people say we don't need phasers.

You know what they are right light standard shields and no future weapons are the best solution to stay cheep and build more of them who cares if half get slaughtered by the Klingons.

[] No Phasers
 
Last edited:
Bedpotato said:
I am angry because suddenly we don't have enough money to get a full weapons loadout, because people wanted the type three engines instead of the far cheaper type twos that could have done the same job compared to the type threes while either being vastly cheaper, or still cheaper while extremly redundant. And now people say we don't need phasers. You know what you are right light tandard sjield and no future weapons
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Our manouverability will comfortably allow us to take the same (3) or less (2) phasers compared to the cannon Connie, and we've got a far heavier forward torpedo armament even without that.
 
Bedpotato said:
I am angry because suddenly we don't have enough money to get a full weapons loadout, because people wanted the type three engines instead of the far cheaper type twos that could have done the same job compared to the type threes while either being vastly cheaper, or still cheaper while extremly redundant. And now people say we don't need phasers.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It does seem like the engine mafia only cares about going as fast as possible, damn letting it do anything besides fight what's directly in front of it.
 
Bedpotato said:
I am angry because suddenly we don't have enough money to get a full weapons loadout, because people wanted the type three engines instead of the far cheaper type twos that could have done the same job compared to the type threes while either being vastly cheaper, or still cheaper while extremly redundant. And now people say we don't need phasers.

You know what they are right light standard shields and no future weapons are the best solution to stay cheep and build more of them who cares if half get slaughtered by the Klingons.

[] No Phasers
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Bruh, the price difference for the type two engines would have gotten us maybe two more phaser banks and we aren't set to have less phasers than the canon ship even with the minimum option here, this is just the forward phasers so far
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top