Starfleet Design Bureau

The Type 2 Mark II becomes available to us for our first Warp 8 design:

Now, there's a lot of technobabble there, but the way I read it our upgrades to the EPS conduits that allow the Mark II to function are in fact dependent on using a Warp 8 Engine, because older engines don't produce the higher electroplasma temperatures required.
Damn, there goes that idea.

I guess the warp 8 Newton/engineering support cruiser, with 2-4 points of cargo, with our latest heavy weapons is the only way to go (I do sincerely apologize for the crazy amount of times I've brought this up, I just really, really think we need this).

It would seem to address 3 of our problems.

Firstly it'd give us a new warp 8 platform deploying our latest weapons and shields and bringing them to where they'd be needed, fast. Either for conventional warfare, or anti-piracy operations, both valuable judging by what I've been reading.

Secondly it'd let us retire and replace the Cygnus which is a very weak vessel.

Thirdly it'd let us supplement the Newton-class and to a lesser degree Archer-class in providing technical support to outposts, bases and colonies, which would seem to help prop up and reinforce the Federation's technical infrastructure, which can use as much reinforcing as we can apply, since that means better-defended worlds, more ships, more research facilities, faster-growing and stronger colonies etc.
 
Last edited:
Damn, there goes that idea.

I guess the warp 8 Newton/engineering support cruiser, with 2-4 points of cargo, with our latest heavy weapons is the only way to go (I do sincerely apologize for the crazy amount of times I've brought this up, I just really, really think we need this).

It would seem to address 3 of our problems.

Firstly it'd give us a new warp 8 platform deploying our latest weapons and shields and bringing them to where they'd be needed, fast. Either for conventional warfare, or anti-piracy operations, both valuable judging by what I've been reading.

Secondly it'd let us retire and replace the Cygnus which is a very weak vessel.

Thirdly it'd let us supplement the Newton-class and to a lesser degree Archer-class in providing technical support to outposts, bases and colonies, which would seem to help prop up and reinforce the Federation's technical infrastructure, which can use as much reinforcing as we can apply, since that means better-defended worlds, more ships, more research facilities, faster-growing and stronger colonies etc.
We need a patrol craft not a combat engineer, it must be CHEAP (or at least as cheap as possible while still being a patrol craft). Our whole issue rn is that we designed expensive ships which then led to them not getting mass produced which led to everything becoming to stretched out for the size of the fleet we have to effectively protect it. What we really really REALLY need rn is a no fills protection craft like the constable, we don't need engineers we have the archers and the Newtons who while a bit old we know last quite a while. They can wait for the next a design series, what can't wait is a protection ship. We were already having major pirate issues before the conflict and woth our fleet gonna get bodied that gonna give pirates more wiggle room, so we needed to make a anti-pirate ship. Perhaps we can give it some basic cargo so it can act as a currier for important packages.
 
If we can get an internal patrol ship with vertical nacelles you have my vote. I really really really want to do one. A little bit of cargo capacity is good for a rounded-out skill set, we don't need bulk cargo.
 
We need a patrol craft not a combat engineer, it must be CHEAP (or at least as cheap as possible while still being a patrol craft). Our whole issue rn is that we designed expensive ships which then led to them not getting mass produced which led to everything becoming to stretched out for the size of the fleet we have to effectively protect it. What we really really REALLY need rn is a no fills protection craft like the constable, we don't need engineers we have the archers and the Newtons who while a bit old we know last quite a while. They can wait for the next a design series, what can't wait is a protection ship. We were already having major pirate issues before the conflict and woth our fleet gonna get bodied that gonna give pirates more wiggle room, so we needed to make a anti-pirate ship. Perhaps we can give it some basic cargo so it can act as a currier for important packages.
The constable is a Joke and wholly unsuited to being a warship. It's the equivalent of a Police car when we need at minimum a MBT or better. The Constable and even the Saladin are not ideal for our purposes, not any longer. Something akin to a bigger Selachi is probably the smallest viable product acceptable. Anything smaller lacks room for a competitive warp core, and other weapons and defenses.
 
I've been thinking about it, and I'm thinking the Klingons likely have some kind of Warp Core variant that's quite a bit smaller, cheaper, but also has much lesser 'maximum tonnage' so to say. Similarly for their Nacelles. Similar for the rest of their technological base.

Otherwise their fleet is just horrifically, horrifyingly, absurdly inefficient in terms of cost to output.
 
We need a patrol craft not a combat engineer, it must be CHEAP (or at least as cheap as possible while still being a patrol craft). Our whole issue rn is that we designed expensive ships which then led to them not getting mass produced which led to everything becoming to stretched out for the size of the fleet we have to effectively protect it. What we really really REALLY need rn is a no fills protection craft like the constable, we don't need engineers we have the archers and the Newtons who while a bit old we know last quite a while. They can wait for the next a design series, what can't wait is a protection ship. We were already having major pirate issues before the conflict and woth our fleet gonna get bodied that gonna give pirates more wiggle room, so we needed to make a anti-pirate ship. Perhaps we can give it some basic cargo so it can act as a currier for important packages.
The quest mechanics do not admit some sort of no frills patrol craft that trades away other capabilities for tactical power and cost. Modules don't cost anything. Tonnage does cost, but tonnage is also the way we get combat durability so trading it away just dumps tactical capabilities. In most ways heavier ships are a better usage of budget for tactical capability. We just have to design ships that have reasonable tactical capabilities and hope Starfleet uses them.
 
We need a patrol craft not a combat engineer, it must be CHEAP (or at least as cheap as possible while still being a patrol craft). Our whole issue rn is that we designed expensive ships which then led to them not getting mass produced which led to everything becoming to stretched out for the size of the fleet we have to effectively protect it. What we really really REALLY need rn is a no fills protection craft like the constable, we don't need engineers we have the archers and the Newtons who while a bit old we know last quite a while. They can wait for the next a design series, what can't wait is a protection ship. We were already having major pirate issues before the conflict and woth our fleet gonna get bodied that gonna give pirates more wiggle room, so we needed to make a anti-pirate ship. Perhaps we can give it some basic cargo so it can act as a currier for important packages.
I guess my point is, in order to be potent under the system here the ship has to be fairly big. Mass is cheap and is a very good way of making our ships a lot more powerful, we just have to slap an extra thruster or 2 on to maintain our agility advantage, and we can even potentially go for cheaper and more efficient shields if it's big enough, and retain durability. If it's big, even if we sacrifice a couple modules for combat utility (a good idea at this point) we'll still have quite a few modules to play with. I'm proposing we kill 3 birds with 1 stone; our engineering support ships have been around for a long time, as you pointed out, so there's obviously a heavy demand for them.

That demand is so great we're keeping antiquated ships around to satisfy it, so we'll phase out our weakest fleet elements that presently cannot participate against peer threats and replace them with new, strong, powerful cruisers, maybe even with more firepower than the Excalibur-class (for all we know new weapons technology is right around the corner. In the past we've been conservative and I've voted that way, I think we should consider pushing forwards, hard, on new technologies. After all, we know we survive the Klingon war, so we've got a bit of breathing room right afterwards to invest in rapid technological advance and come out with a decisive military advantage).

Secondly these new ships will be capable of warp 8, so they'll be fast to respond to threats, able to evade the enemy more often, generally cover a lot of ground very fast, be ideal for anti-piracy operations which is apparently a renewed concern, and that peak speed will enable offensive as opposed to purely defensive action (penetrating enemy territory for raids, attacks against enemy bases or ships and then escaping before the enemy can respond). We don't need to use those offensive capabilities, but it'll make our neighbours think twice if they know we have cruisers that can take on their best warships and can get into their territory, and potentially outrun their fastest combat ships.

Thirdly their supplemental role as engineering support/light transport ships is, again, in high demand. Having a ship able to get to you at a leisurely warp ~6.6 or maybe even higher without strain is vastly superior to the Cygnus' cruise of warp 5.2 or the Newtons' cruise of warp 5.6. They'll do better at providing light transport and colonial support than a pre-Federation antique. This will further increase the speed and strength of our development and maybe even shore up our weak borders.

It's dicey putting the Archer-class near the front lines, this hypothetical engineering support cruiser won't suffer the same issues. It can't replace the Archer-class, but it can supplement it, filling the same role as the Newton-class but better. If it's ambushed while helping set defense satellites, then the Klingons better have brought 3 D7s to the party, because either they're not leaving, or their ships are never going to work the same after we're done wailing on them with torpedo barrages and phaser blasts.

The rewards are manifold.

Naturally we'll sacrifice modules if it yields us more torpedo launchers or other advantages. I'm totally open to a ship that can fire as many as 8 torpedoes forwards and 4 aft, provided the costs aren't excessive (I'm worried about not having enough numbers).
 
Last edited:
We need a patrol craft not a combat engineer, it must be CHEAP (or at least as cheap as possible while still being a patrol craft).
Doesn't exist, can't exist, won't exist.
Our whole issue rn is that we designed expensive ships which then led to them not getting mass produced which led to everything becoming to stretched out for the size of the fleet we have to effectively protect it.
Two-thirds of our issue rn is that the Federation skimped on Starfleet's budget allocation. The other third is a bunch of minor stuff added together, with internal Klingon politics being the biggest contributor.
What we really really REALLY need rn is a no fills protection craft like the constable,
No. Useless waste of money.
we don't need engineers we have the archers and the Newtons who while a bit old we know last quite a while.
No, we need our archers and newtons to not suck in a fight, and also at least twice as many of them.

We keep telling you. Light patrol craft are bad. Cheap patrol craft don't exist and can't be made to exist on our techbase. Cheap-ish patrol craft are not actually cheap, and are also dogshit. And even then we'd need literally hundreds of them.

We could build a hundred hypothetical Warp 8 Newtons for half the price of the four or five hundred Constable-II-class Speedbumps you're advocating for.

Space is big- really, unimaginably, mind-bogglingly big- and it has no chokepoints. Regardless of any game balance considerations between potential starship archetypes, fixed defenses are unavoidably completely fucking stupid; defeating them in detail is so easy a caveman could do it. Space is just too goddamned big to build enough of them to matter. Starships permanently assigned somewhere count as fixed defenses.

(You can put fixed defenses around your major shipyards, sure, those are few enough and specific enough that "the enemy's got to come here to shut 'em down" counts as enough of a chokepoint to be worth putting obstacles in. But you cannot put enough fixed defenses to matter around all, or even a significant fraction of, your worlds or your people.)

I dunno how many times we've got to repeat ourselves here for it to sink in. No. It won't work. It can't work. It is a bad. idea. period.
 
Hey bud, I get you're very passionate about this, so am I, but it is just a game. No need for that kind of language. We are ultimately just trying to have fun.

Edit: I do agree with your technical, tactical and strategic assessment though. I'm not as hardcore about this as some people, you've turned up info or analyses I haven't a few times before... Was checking out our ship roster under the informational tab, seems we have a lack of science vessels more than engineering ships, though I'm not sure we have greater demand for them as compared to internal technical and logistic support (logistics well-covered by Archer-class, but I stand by the need for a better Newton-class to finally phase out the Cygnus and maybe even remove the need for the Selachii-class). Reckon there's synergy in making a heavily armed science cruiser, an upscaled version of the project Darwin? Slightly bigger for more shield strength and labs, maybe a couple more torpedo tubes... Could provide strong force on our borders where we're more likely to run into hostiles.
 
Last edited:
We need a patrol craft not a combat engineer, it must be CHEAP (or at least as cheap as possible while still being a patrol craft).
This is an impossible combination. The systems that make for an effective patrol craft are the most expensive ones that we have to deal with. A patroller needs to be fast and/or enduring enough that it doesn't leave exploitable gaps, needs a sufficient armament to see off what (in this era) can be anything from converted freighter 'technicals' to Orion pirates to Klingon warships (as well as the defences to take a hit if anyone gets fresh), and needs a powerful sensor suite to extend its ability to actually police anything beyond immediate surroundings. The only one of those that's cheap is the sensors, which as auxiliary modules are effectively free, but none of the others are easy removals. Less than two nacelles, and the ship's warp capability is compromised. The deflector design we have is five decks minimum (for non-compromised effect) and the warp core is eight, which put a practical floor on how small we can make the ship and have it be effective (hull and shields aren't the most expensive components, but they are noticeable). Taking off weapons means the ship can't interdict anything more serious than civilians or the most obsolete of other warships.
 
Reckon there's synergy in making a heavily armed science cruiser, an upscaled version of the project Darwin? Slightly bigger for more shield strength and labs, maybe a couple more torpedo tubes... Could provide strong force on our borders where we're more likely to run into hostiles.
Eventually, sure, but we're doing a(n admittedly light but nonetheless quite dangerous) Warp 8 science ship right now and also the Kea refit kinda kicks ass actually? Whereas the Newtons are pretty iffy overall and the Archers are...incredible at their job, but also incredibly overspecialized, so there's a lot more room for a bigger badder engineering cruiser, at least in the next few decades.

Edit:
No need for that kind of language.
...okay, I rewrote that post twice to make sure anything that (as far as I could tell) even looked like it might be a personal attack or insult was cleared out of it. Having been caught entirely off-guard by one temp threadban for unacceptable language already, I would love any more specific feedback you can offer on what exactly was unacceptable there, since I am clearly a complete fucking social incompetent and need all the help I can get. PMs are fine if it'd be off-topic for the thread conversation.

I genuinely don't know if there can possibly exist a way to say "it's not possible, even if it were possible it wouldn't be affordable, even if it were affordable it wouldn't be good, and the reasons for all three of these points have been explained multiple times by multiple people, please stop?" without being at least a little rude? But I really, truly tried as hard as I could figure out how to minimize that rudeness, I swear.

You cannot stop arguing against a really, truly bad idea in a quest thread, because leaving it un-objected-to risks giving casual readers the impression it's an idea worth considering, an idea that might plausibly work, and god forbid they might vote for it. But there's only so many times you can explain over and over again the same reasons why it's a bad idea before the tedium just gets...exhausting. Hence the begging to stop.
 
Last edited:
Mechanically speaking the most cost effective combat ship we can build is unironically a literal gold plated 200~400kt behemoth. Bigger is better.
 
Reckon there's synergy in making a heavily armed science cruiser, an upscaled version of the project Darwin?
It's vanishingly unlikely, but I'd go in for a full keel-up refit of the Kea - give it those torpedoes, replace the warp core, and refit the science facilities to fill in for whatever the Darwin can't do.
 
Last edited:
Yep. Until and unless Sayle gives us some more options on how we build warp drives and their infrastructure, escorts and frigates are off the table.

Modules are free, hulls are free, and our engines are massively overpowered. Build as big as we possibly can, slap on the 2 phasers fore and aft that can actually be used, and the only real debate is how many torpedoes and which class of shield.
 
For a really small hull we could probably flip a half saucer so the wider parts were forward to give more torpedo slots. Have a Darwin style engineering hull running the entire length of the ship for the warp core and deflector. The back side compartments would be oddly shaped but to save RFL money on the smallest ships it could be an (ugly) option. You'd still have to accept the shield health/hull health being small but if you wanted a federation BoP that could glass cannon some D6s odd solutions might be needed.
 
So I was curious how cost scales in real life, so I looked up how much some famous WWII ships cost.

Iowa class battleships, at about 50k tons cost about 100 million.

Fletcher class destroyers, at about 2k tons cost about 6 million.

So about 17 times the cost for 25x the size, which surprised me by being sublinear.

...but, well, also the 25x size difference is something we are not seeing here, our small ships are like half the size, so of course we are not going to see them in huge numbers.
 
The quest mechanics do not admit some sort of no frills patrol craft that trades away other capabilities for tactical power and cost. Modules don't cost anything. Tonnage does cost, but tonnage is also the way we get combat durability so trading it away just dumps tactical capabilities. In most ways heavier ships are a better usage of budget for tactical capability. We just have to design ships that have reasonable tactical capabilities and hope Starfleet uses them.
Summing up nicely why the Darwin isn't really suitable for the kind of militarization many people are pushing for. By robbing it of module space in favor of torpedos, we risk ending up with a ship that doesn't excel at anything, rather than with a capable science ship with a very respectable armament.

The age of the small warship is probably not right now. The Selachii not faring particularly well during recent events is just more evidence for that. On the other hand, I'm not fully convinced a 400.000 ton Behemoth is really the best option either - not as long as the phaser limitation remains in play.

In fact, I rather suspect the Excalibur may be very close to the current sweet spot. As technology advances, this may change, but for now...
 
In fact, I rather suspect the Excalibur may be very close to the current sweet spot.
I think the breakpoint has to do with the kind of peer combatants we're likely to encounter, which means if anything the Excalibur might have overshot a bit, given its performance against D7s.

(Much better to overshoot than undershoot, of course. And we still managed a C+ cost rating.)

But the Excalibur isn't going to be the only ship we build for a while, and since D7s are still going to be a minority of the hostile ships we encounter, there's room for something a chunk cheaper that can still tangle with D6s in our lineup. And in general all our ships should be tough enough to fight Birds of Prey.
 
So essentially what I'm hearing is less fixed costs, more mass-based costs.
If you want us making more frigates, costs that scale with mass without capability also increasing with mass would help, yes. Part of what's leading towards the pressure for larger ships is that our Impulse thrusters are the only part of the ship that's really true for, and they don't represent that much of the cost.

Phasers too, possibly, if they don't scale with mass - part of the problem is that I don't think we've got the best grasp of how much better the Mark II phasers are doing in practice, so we've been looking at torpedoes as our primary armament instead, and those kind of scale with mass in that small ships get very limited mounting points for them.
 
Last edited:
So essentially what I'm hearing is less fixed costs, more mass-based costs.
Not quite; that's a common but not far from universal opinion- I would be surprised if it were a majority.

What I'm saying is if you want to encourage lighter, specialized ships and/or pure warships, less fixed costs, more mass-based costs. I at least do not want that; that does not sound like Starfleet to me, and in general I stand by this earlier bit:
the answer (imo) isn't to rework the mechanics so a Selachii-replacement makes sense; that takes all the value out of risking and winning our massive gamble on the theoretical Type 3 thrusters. The answer is to realize it's now practical to build way bigger ships and if we go light shields they'll still be acceptably tough (because yuge) and won't be insanely expensive, either. Postwar, after the Darwin? Reclassify the Darwin and Newton to "frigate" and everything else in inventory to "light cruiser", give me a 275-300kt Warp 8 "medium cruiser" for internal duties (and maybe stick the Kea-II saucer on a new engineering hull and build couple dozen more of 'em [and a handful more Excaliburs]), and when the Type 4 nacelle comes out give me a 400kt demigod for our first dedicated flagship explorer, even if we only get six or eight or ten of 'em.
I like that the current system encourages relatively large multirole ships. This is good. This is working as intended.
 
Last edited:
So essentially what I'm hearing is less fixed costs, more mass-based costs.
If smaller ships are desired, yeah. Otherwise the high cost of the warp engine and nacelles will rather logically push a ship to be as large as allowable by their liminations.

(Phaser limitations not withstanding, being probably the only factor r.n that's in favor of smaller ships.)
 
So essentially what I'm hearing is less fixed costs, more mass-based costs.
I think the current mechanics are good. We don't need or want endless detail on everything. If the current mechanics and technology favor ships no smaller than the Darwin, that fits just fine with the current era/development of Starfleet tech.

Switching mechanics out for something more complicated both takes more work from you and makes it more difficult for the players to consider options. And a lot of us are perfectly fine with designing ships that aren't an optimally efficient frigate.
 
Last edited:
I was just thinking about it, but phasers and EPS grids. Is there a way around those limitations? Specifically, if phasers are like directly attached to the warp core, might those phasers 'not count' against the number of phasers that can fire at one time? Because if so, then maybe smaller ships might use a phaser heavy paradigm, allowing them to potentially skimp on torpedoes, providing more module space and thus noncombat usefulness.
 
Back
Top