Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
uju32 said:
At the cost of falling behind in shield tech fleet wide.
Nah.
Penny wise pound foolish.

Time is the one thing you dont really get back.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm not willing to vote for Heavy Covariant at the current price, and I was already uncertain between Heavy Normal and Standard Covariant. This is just deciding it for me.
 
Mechanis said:
The Type 1 heavy is mostly competing with the similar strength and cost standard covariant as a cost saving measure (it is, in fairness, slightly cheaper, edit: and leaves the possibility of refitting to a large Covariant later) but yes, it is definitely the third-place penny-pinching option.

As mentioned, I believe that we both can and should take the large Covariants, but a standard Covariant is definitely my preferred compromise pick, given the practically negligable extra cost in the long run.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We ended up in the current strategic situation in part because of a reluctance to spend money to accelerate technological development that might have been showing up organically.
And that given an appearance of vulnerability to foreign actors.

I'd like to think I learn to avoid the same mistakes.

I'll be voting for both Standard and Large Covariants.
Large is preferred, but Standard is my fallback.
 
[ ] Standard Covariant [36 Shields] --- (Cost 79.25 -> 104.75) --- [Second Tranche: 73.25 -> 93.75]
Our current shield tech is OLD and needs to be updated ASAP. Standard covarient is a good strength while still not being difficult to justify to the Admirality Board. Plus the 11 cost drop for the 2nd batch is a very nice cost reduction.
 
Yeah, I'm not willing to go Heavy Standard for a marginal cost reduction and a promise that maybe hypothetically 30 years from now we can upgrade it to Heavy Covariant. A tiny cost increase compared to Heavy Standard for the same result but actually advancing our shield tech is a fair trade though. Even Heavy Covariant is defensible if we're willing to gamble on having one less ship in exchange for likely overmatching every encounter against a D7 comfortably.
 
Since the canon Connie went heavy standard, their actual shield power was about 40ish, since they went with the +10% shield power option in their warp core instead of the +20% impulse like we did. That means to match canon shield strength we need to take heavy covariant.
 
Last edited:
The canon Connie was 84 cost, and is apparently significantly weaker since we stuck the most powerful engines in the known alpha quandrant and double the canon connie's alpha strike on our boat.

A Heavy Type-1 SDB Connie would be something like 14% more expensive than the canon connie.
 
landcollector said:
Betting on refits is a gamble I'm reluctant to go with.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Also this. If you want large Covariants, vote for them. this is not the time for "lol we can do it later." this exact line of thinking is why we're in the tactical hole that causes the early war scenario in the first place!
Future capability is worthless as deterrent or actual warfighting ability now, which is what we need.
 
Deltamaster said:
People have been justifying the ludicrous costs of the designs (pick the shiny1111!) with the idea of the federation economy being in a better position due to our fidelling... The problem is that better economy or no this thing is shaping up to be either marginally more expensive (0.75 is we chose the standard shields*)

*Which isn't gonna happen as the vote base has collectively ignored the brief of most boom for least cash and made a ship that's is most likely gonna cost a least 25-33% MORE than a canon connie...
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Eh, other than the impulse thruster thing and the extra aft weapons we're doing OK. That being said I didn't even have time to edit my vote so it would count after the moratorium, by the time I was awake and checked this the whole vote cycle had gone by.
 
Cold Dust said:
[ ] Type-1 Heavy [36 Shields] --- (Cost 79.25 -> 97.25) --- [Second Tranche: 73.25 -> 91.25]

Why is everyone suddenly splurging in fripperies? We designed this thing to chase down and eliminate enemy warships on a reasonable budget. It needs to be budget conscious because we need a lot of them, immediately. If things stabilize, then next design we can pursue some shiny military technology, but the bird's flown, we can't reasonably get it all now.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
1) Shields are not fripperies.

2) We designed this thing to kill a cutting-edge enemy capital ship.
That requires a capital ship design of our own.
It was never going to be cheap.
Theres a reason why Starfleet emphasized capability over cost.
 
Cold Dust said:
[ ] Type-1 Heavy [36 Shields] --- (Cost 79.25 -> 97.25) --- [Second Tranche: 73.25 -> 91.25]

Why is everyone suddenly splurging in fripperies? We designed this thing to chase down and eliminate enemy warships on a reasonable budget. It needs to be budget conscious because we need a lot of them, immediately. If things stabilize, then next design we can pursue some shiny military technology, but the bird's flown, we can't reasonably get it all now.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Going to a single aft weapon is where we should have saved budget. As it is though going with the strongest shield means less likely for the hull to take damage and less time needed in docks so I favor the heavy covariant.
 
Alectai said:
Nah, not worth taking a bigger cost overlay today because 30 years from now it'll pay out. We need fast and effective today. Standard or Light Covariant, depending on if we want to trust in our high agility to come close to cost-matching the canon Connie, or match the canon Connie's shield strength with all the other perks we built in at a 10% cost increase from the canon spaceframe.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Do we have stats for the canon Connie? I'm curious how we compare.
 
Looking into it and using my previous assumptions, we could probably get 11.22 heavy covariant Connie's in the first batch. Assuming we get half way through another same sized batch before the war breaks out, that'd be 16-17 starships ready for war with heavy covariant.
 
uju32 said:
We designed this thing to kill a cutting-edge enemy capital ship.
Theres a reason why Starfleet emphasized capability over cost.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

True... But we could have pinched pennies where relevant, why people went for the type 3s when 3 type 2s did the same thing for a fraction the cost I am still baffles over (prototyping can come after the war)
 
Mechanis said:
Also this. If you want large Covariants, vote for them. this is not the time for "lol we can do it later." this exact line of thinking is why we're in the tactical hole that causes the early war scenario in the first place!
Future capability is worthless as deterrent or actual warfighting ability now, which is what we need.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
No, we're in the tactical hole because we skimped on tactical capabilities for a bunch of ships in a row. Type-1 heavy shields are hardly skimping on tactical, and they provide the same raw protection as covariant standards. Given that we're likely to be pumping out a ton of these ships, building in room for refit between wars makes a lot of sense.
 
Alectai said:
Yeah, I'm not willing to go Heavy Standard for a marginal cost reduction and a promise that maybe hypothetically 30 years from now we can upgrade it to Heavy Covariant. A tiny cost increase compared to Heavy Standard for the same result but actually advancing our shield tech is a fair trade though. Even Heavy Covariant is defensible if we're willing to gamble on having one less ship in exchange for likely overmatching every encounter against a D7 comfortably.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Thing is, this isn't a 'tiny' cost increase. It's a full 20 more (well, 19.5) for the first tranche compared to Heavy Standard, and 12 after that. That's likely multiple extra ships in the first tranche alone. As for taking on a D7, the canon Connie was around evenly matched with one. This ship has far more teeth and better manuevability than the canon Connie, and with Heavy Normal only very slightly worse shields (since they took the shield boost).

We've been told to keep the cost down as much as possible. This is a place we need to remember that.
 
[ ] Type-1 Standard [27 Shields] --- (Cost 79.25 -> 84.75) --- [Second Tranche: 73.25 -> 78.75]

Its good enough, this is a crash building program and it gets us functionally at the cost of the OG Connie with the first buy, all subsequent ones will be less expensive so we can just spray these out like a firehose. People refused to cut costs so if we want to actually make these in job lots well......
 
As someone who did vote for the Type 3s my thought process wasn't cost savings but space savings, which I think will still serve us well in module selection.
 
Yeah, I think the space savings we get from the Type-3s combined with our smaller Warp Reactor will lead to us still having as much secondary functionality as the canon Connie despite having technically less available internal space (Due to going half-saucer and underslung hull)
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top