No, your max cruise is fixed at Warp 7 unless your max warp goes under that.
Linked contents
No, your max cruise is fixed at Warp 7 unless your max warp goes under that.
Strunkriidiisk
THE LEGEND
- Location
- Canada
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Technically nothing, but I imagine that would be an annoying form factor for Sayle to draw.
Our max cruise is ether halfway between our max warp and efficient cruise or 7, whatever is lower. If we go with a cruise configuration we should have an efficient cruise of 6.6. that means we need a max warp of 7.4 to get the highest maximum cruise speed out current nacelles can handle.
The cruise configuration by default has a maximum warp of 8.2, so if we go both mini-deflectors AND mini-reactor our max warp will be 7.2, with an maximum cruise of 6.9.
Basically neither option effects maximum cruise speed unless we take both, and even then the impact is marginal.
I personally would favor the blister deflector but the low-power warp core to keep size and cost down. Deflector feels like a bigger issue than core.
60,000 to 70,000 is not such a jump, but pushing it up to 95,000 tons feels like a big difference for not much increase in performance.
60,000 to 70,000 is not such a jump, but pushing it up to 95,000 tons feels like a big difference for not much increase in performance.
Last edited:
[ ] Blister Deflector (Mass: +10,000 Tons) (Cost: +2)
[ ] Standard Warp Core (Mass: +25,000 Tons) (Cost: +4)
We've likely got plenty of tonnage still left before we start nearing a point where a single type 3 might give worse than medium maneuverability. I don't think we should sacrifice warp speed on our new warp 8 ships, especially when the added bulk isn't going to prevent us from doing what people picked this saucer for.
[ ] Standard Warp Core (Mass: +25,000 Tons) (Cost: +4)
We've likely got plenty of tonnage still left before we start nearing a point where a single type 3 might give worse than medium maneuverability. I don't think we should sacrifice warp speed on our new warp 8 ships, especially when the added bulk isn't going to prevent us from doing what people picked this saucer for.
Still, I am flatly unwilling to shave off anywhere from 0.4 to a full 1.0 from this hull's max Sprint.
Assuming we don't go for it, would the low powered/short core still be available for future designs/by SanFran or any other Bureaus? That's going to be the main factor determining this for me, because she sheer utility in starship design that can be brought about by a shorter core would be a very, very hard trade off.
[ ] Inline Deflector (Maximum Warp: -0.4)
[ ] Low-Power Warp Core (Maximum Warp: -0.6)
Sure it won't have a very high maximum warp, but it's efficient cruise speed will still be warp 7 and we can give her a single type 3 thrusters, a single forward phaser, and a single forward rapid torp launcher and we have ourselves a discount patrol ship that punches well above it's weight.
And we keep it dirt cheap so they are built in large numbers. Flood the zone. Make sure everything Starfleet cares about is defended.
Seriously, with just a phaser and a rapid launcher these things can likely 2 on 1 a D7 without losses due to overwhelming maneuverability and burst damage, and at a third of the Excalibur's mass I bet there are no few docks capable of putting them out even if the Excalibur is beibg shoved out every dock capable of building it.
[ ] Low-Power Warp Core (Maximum Warp: -0.6)
Sure it won't have a very high maximum warp, but it's efficient cruise speed will still be warp 7 and we can give her a single type 3 thrusters, a single forward phaser, and a single forward rapid torp launcher and we have ourselves a discount patrol ship that punches well above it's weight.
And we keep it dirt cheap so they are built in large numbers. Flood the zone. Make sure everything Starfleet cares about is defended.
Seriously, with just a phaser and a rapid launcher these things can likely 2 on 1 a D7 without losses due to overwhelming maneuverability and burst damage, and at a third of the Excalibur's mass I bet there are no few docks capable of putting them out even if the Excalibur is beibg shoved out every dock capable of building it.
Last edited:
Annoying that picking both of these together puts us slightly above the threshold we'd need to hit Very High Manoeuvrability on a single Type-3 Impulse Thruster. Which I'm sure is deliberate, @Sayle you rapscallion.
So whilst the costs these by themselves are something I'd be tempted to live with, if we want to still hit M
H (and I'd prefer to), then it means buying an extra thruster too which is... annoying. Or more accurately, it's another 5 Cost, alongside the 6 Cost of the extra ship bits and shielding. Essentially it almost doubles the cost if we still want maximum zoom.
So do we give up Manoeuvrability: Very High, or 0.4 Max Warp Factor? Or eat another 11 Cost on the design, which will definitely seriously impact our rating?
So whilst the costs these by themselves are something I'd be tempted to live with, if we want to still hit M
H (and I'd prefer to), then it means buying an extra thruster too which is... annoying. Or more accurately, it's another 5 Cost, alongside the 6 Cost of the extra ship bits and shielding. Essentially it almost doubles the cost if we still want maximum zoom. So do we give up Manoeuvrability: Very High, or 0.4 Max Warp Factor? Or eat another 11 Cost on the design, which will definitely seriously impact our rating?
It's going to *have* to punch up massively because your design idea leaves this hull flatly unable to run away from any sort of hostile ship in the modern era.
As I recall, Maneuverability is a linear factor, so slightly above threshold just means slightly below Very High Maneuverability. It's really not worth sacrificing anything to avoid.
We stick a sticker on the inside of the bridge viewport to help simplify the captain's tactical decisions.
"This side towards enemy."
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
We need a full size deflector so the ship can bully any spatial distortions it runs into.
NavySeel
"I don't know what I'm doing."
- Location
- Places
People would get confused and keep flying the ship upside down clearly, it'd mess up our formations.
TheShadowDeamon
Mighty Dragon
Do I understand this correctly? The secondary hull would be underslung the main hull- more like an extension stuck onto the back of the deflector blister?
[ ] Blister Deflector (Mass: +10,000 Tons) (Cost: +2)
[ ] Standard Warp Core (Mass: +25,000 Tons) (Cost: +4)
Yes it's an extra 30K Tons weight and +6 cost, but there's no way in HELL!! this thing is limited to only warp 7. If we wanted to do a lightweight "budget explorer" at those speeds we might as well save even more on cost by using a refurbished horizontal core from a recent decommissioned legacy fleet ship.
[ ] Blister Deflector (Mass: +10,000 Tons) (Cost: +2)
[ ] Standard Warp Core (Mass: +25,000 Tons) (Cost: +4)
Yes it's an extra 30K Tons weight and +6 cost, but there's no way in HELL!! this thing is limited to only warp 7. If we wanted to do a lightweight "budget explorer" at those speeds we might as well save even more on cost by using a refurbished horizontal core from a recent decommissioned legacy fleet ship.
Ok, hear me out, wild idea - Double secondary hulls for maximum hydroponics labs. We can call it the Fig Newton, with names referring to early 21st century snack foods.
- Location
- Outside the Box
- Pronouns
- She/Her
There's nothing cheap about any ship using the rapid fire torpedo launchers. Even just one of those is super expensive at 12 Cost. (Twice the amount we might spend here.) And I think it's hard to justify equipping a rapid fire launcher on a ship that'll be permanately stuck behind the rest of our future Warp 8 fleet.
I'm thinking split the difference. We really can't afford to break the bank here, and frankly given how the Excalibur is Ludicrously fast this ship with a slight loss of sprint isn't going to kill it. 8.2 was the absolute slowest Warp factor the Excalibur had, even assuming there's no next gen nacelles on prototype as long as we don't do both, we'd still be matching the Kea which leaves a D6 in the dust and likely can make a D7 work for it. And if they are sending d7s after these instead of Excaliburs I'd to question the Romulans who got ahold of the Klingon's newest mainline cruiser, because that's ooc as hell.
This also means if a d7 does decide to focus the ship it can not only likely play keep away in warp for some time but also in real space because of ludicrous maneuverability combined with damn good shields. It'll also be hopefully cheap enough we have many of them for colonization efforts and possibly hospital ships.
In Short, these things aren't going to need the Excalibur plaid speed, we can afford one reduction in speed to defray cost easily.
This also means if a d7 does decide to focus the ship it can not only likely play keep away in warp for some time but also in real space because of ludicrous maneuverability combined with damn good shields. It'll also be hopefully cheap enough we have many of them for colonization efforts and possibly hospital ships.
In Short, these things aren't going to need the Excalibur plaid speed, we can afford one reduction in speed to defray cost easily.
They all have the same maximum cruise, so it can keep up with the fleet just fine. The only thing it can't do is sprint.
We're still going to be able to chose between the landing capabilities and vertical nacelles with these options, and in return for a cost increase of 6 we'll be able to actually take advantage of our warp 8 engine, possibly also increasing the number of modules we can put into it.
[ ] Blister Deflector (Mass: +10,000 Tons) (Cost: +2)
[ ] Standard Warp Core (Mass: +25,000 Tons) (Cost: +4)
[ ] Blister Deflector (Mass: +10,000 Tons) (Cost: +2)
[ ] Standard Warp Core (Mass: +25,000 Tons) (Cost: +4)
TheShadowDeamon
Mighty Dragon
I might've considered them if they were only -0.2 each, but not at the current massive cost of -1.0.
Indeed, this has great potential for a Frigate/Destroyer class Delta hull ship. If we could make it at only 5 decks deep like the Defiant it would be worth it.
Assuming we go with cruise focused nacelles, don't have prototype gen 4 nacelles (which will explicitly be improved on the warp 8 engine substantially via the votes) in the offing, if we only take one cost decrease option our absolute lowest warp factor in sprint is the same as the Kea's at 7.6. Which is fast enough to make a D6 wonder where the hell you went and likely fast enough even a d7 would need to work for it. Combined with our shields which we paid out for heavily we're still leveraging in case this thing gets jumped. I think a small cost defrayal now can pay dividends later. Both in terms of utility and production metrics.
