Linked contents
[X] Inline Deflector (Maximum Warp: -0.4)
[X] Standard Warp Core (Mass: +25,000 Tons) (Cost: +4)
Make it a doom hat so we can throw our hat into the ring.
Doom hat landing on your planet abducting your indigenous bovines for biology experiments.
[X] Standard Warp Core (Mass: +25,000 Tons) (Cost: +4)
Make it a doom hat so we can throw our hat into the ring.
Doom hat landing on your planet abducting your indigenous bovines for biology experiments.
Last edited:
[X] Inline Deflector (Maximum Warp: -0.4)
[X] Standard Warp Core (Mass: +25,000 Tons) (Cost: +4)
Not a fan of the trickier maintenance for the blister deflector. Also, sounds like it'd be pretty dang ugly.
Edit: no wait, that was for the bigger saucer.
Still prefer inline, though.
[X] Standard Warp Core (Mass: +25,000 Tons) (Cost: +4)
Edit: no wait, that was for the bigger saucer.
Still prefer inline, though.
Last edited:
Inline and blister are still head to head with 1 vote difference!
Maybe another point from the update to swing it? It is explained that the engineers are sure that they can work the landing gear around the blister. So even in the best case a ship with blister deflector has to be choosier with its landing spots.
Maybe another point from the update to swing it? It is explained that the engineers are sure that they can work the landing gear around the blister. So even in the best case a ship with blister deflector has to be choosier with its landing spots.
It feels like a stretch to take the only line in the update about the large deflector's bulk interacting with the potential landing system: "By maintaining the bulk of the deflector in the main hull the vertical space should be kept manageable for the landing system," and pull the idea that the ship will have restricted landing capabilities out of it.
The choice being offered seems pretty clear to me. We can have a full speed ship, or a slower, smaller, cheaper ship.
Last edited:
- Location
- Australia
I was worried about this too, so I asked last update. My guess is that the struts are going to be fairly different depending on the general design choices we made, especially when we could have chosen no engineering hull, an integrated engineering hull or a separate hull.
Last edited:
Yeah, it is a stretch. I am not denying it but people have voted for stranger reasons. It is meant to appeal to the crowd that want the ship to land.
The descriptions of both choices explicitly state how they won't prevent us from utilizing the advantages of the flat-bottom saucer. In-universe it's not going to be an issue, and out-of-universe I don't think Sayle is going to take back the ability to choose either of the options that were the reason for picking this saucer shape in the first place.
The ability to land (or mount vertical nacelles) is not at risk in this vote, and one shouldn't try to make it out like it is.
I want to point out that I did not lie.
The argument is not in bad faith either.
What I did was pointing out a problem that needs working around (pointed out in the update with solution). I contunied with the logical usecase that through the blister will not intefere with the ability to land it is interfering with the landing gear. As anyone who needed to build something or got told by a professional mechanic that something is no problem knows that it very much is inconvenient.
So will the blister prevent landing? No.
Will it be inconcenient? Very much yes.
Please do not accuse me of neighsaying.
[X] Inline Deflector (Maximum Warp: -0.4)
[X] Standard Warp Core (Mass: +25,000 Tons) (Cost: +4)
[X] Standard Warp Core (Mass: +25,000 Tons) (Cost: +4)
Depends on if you count the backup batteries as an extra deck. They only take up a smidge of an eighth deck and they aren't critical to the design.
- Location
- Australia
Thank you
I admit, I often am not sure about what all your doodads are, just that they look very cool and I can see them in different positions on different ships
KlavoHunter
THOU SHALT WORSHIP NO GODS ABOVE ENTERPRISE!
I really can't decide between trying to make an itty-bitty UFO, leaning into the role of the cheap, specialized ship that'll be stuck on planets for months on end, and will probably slip away into retirement after a solid few decades of quietly doing their jobs... or building the Darwin up into an Intrepid-esque Warp-8 Light Science Cruiser that can handle other tasks like expending the SFX budget with photon torpedoes and exploding Klingons/pirates
Details and and issues of that kind are generally far below the quite high level of abstraction we're designing these ships from, where those things just get done for us without necessitating further input or incurring further costs.
The need to keep large contiguous volumes empty to fit components and modules is obviously going to interfere with the turbolift shaft network as it has to wind it's way around them, but we've never had ships where that becomes an a problem large enough to be worth mentioning. Even when some of the art depicts shafts plunging straight through things like the warp core or having two disconnected networks for different sections. Ships that are so compact they're fluffed as not needed a turbolift system at all, yes, but never "inconveniences" from interior layouts that had any effect at all.
Maybe adding the blister would require an altered landing system to work around it. But if there would be any inconveniences big enough to actually matter to the ship at the level we're working at they would be specifically brought up, the same way not mounting an inline deflector on the 140m saucer was explicitly stated to need an EVA or shuttle to access in the update prior. There is nothing of that nature here though, and multiple statements about how whatever choices we make this update won't adversely effect capabilities we picked the flat-bottomed saucer for.
- Location
- Australia
It only changes max/sprint speed not cruise speed. So it cruises the galaxy just as fast either way (unless we take both and the max speed gets below the cruise speed)
Basically, it's strictly combat speed we are concerned with. And that's simultaneously the most and least important thing depending on your point of view and if you ever get into a fight. On top of that, this is Warp engagement/disengagement combat speed - our actual combat maneuvering speed is likely to be near top notch regardless (and technically, even better without the added mass of the blister)
These will be after the 4 year war, but also likely near the frontier during pirate problems. So honestly it could go either way.
I personally think having the engineering section is worth it for the extra science module, shuttle bay and sprint speed, but not the blister. I mean, the Inline still gives us Warp 7.6 as max, which means it's still faster than most everything around. And that's plenty fast to want to use a warp 8 engine, because the 7 wouldn't be able to cruise nearly as easily at those speeds.
Last edited:
Sprint speed is vitally important for a ship that's going to be plying the far frontiers of the Federation, brushing up against other powers and their ships as we all expand.
To put a cap on sprint speed like the short core and inline deflector do would cripple the starship. Especially when mass being a factor in shielding is concerned. Do we really want this to have less shields than the Newton-class? Or only marginally greater sprint speed?
To put a cap on sprint speed like the short core and inline deflector do would cripple the starship. Especially when mass being a factor in shielding is concerned. Do we really want this to have less shields than the Newton-class? Or only marginally greater sprint speed?
- Location
- Australia
But I mean, is it?
I think it's really obvious that the majority are pushing for landing to do science. It's not doing patrol on the border of the frontier, its doing science behind the border in locations we want to land people. It's helping colony worlds and prospective colony worlds. Or random mining/ science sites, but same story. We aren't going to put those on the Klingon border, and the Canon Constitution had a max warp of 7.8 to this things 7.6 (assuming we take inlines) so that hardly seems crippled comparatively.
This means that not only is this almost as fast as the original enterprise, if someone's going to jump this thing, chances are high that it is on a planet and/or away from the most dangerous border regions. If it's on the planet or defending the planet warp speed doesn't matter anyway. And if it's not, I don't think it's that bad being single digit percentage slower than the famous explorer in emergency situations.
0.2 slower for a dedicated science ship hardly feels that bad in those circumstances. It only feels worse compared to our extra speedy extra sprinty Excalibur.
Last edited:
It's doing science patrol on the frontier, because the frontier is where we want to land people. Very much not behind the border.
The Federation is currently creating "flag-planting colonies," which has very strong implications regarding the nature of its borders and how they are being extended.
0t4n1z3r019
Member of the HAFPTG
- Location
- Philippines
[X] Blister Deflector (Mass: +10,000 Tons) (Cost: +2)
[X] Standard Warp Core (Mass: +25,000 Tons) (Cost: +4)
[X] Standard Warp Core (Mass: +25,000 Tons) (Cost: +4)