Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
I'm liking the idea more I think about it, though obviously it still needs refinement.
Putting in older, mature tech is fast and can be done anywhere. It can be repaired anywhere.
You want prototype shields? That's not colony work, but if you only have a little tech that pushed average complexity up a bit, they can probably work around it if necessary. It might even be what pushes the tech to be standardised.

We could bang out a ship made of nothing but mature tech, it would be fast and made everywhere. The fastest method to build up numbers. Mature doesn't mean outdated, and with the wait time for parts out on the rim, much easier to maintain and repair.

A ship filled with prototype tech and highly advanced labs? Slow to build, big ship yards with engineers learning as they go. Specialists coming to help with the tricky parts. But still, every region has a Pharos, and they have the skills and tech needed for repair and maintenance.

But experimental tech? Theoretical tech? That's basically being hand made at the most advanced facilities, slowly.

Suddenly the level of advancement of your patrol ship matters a lot more for how its going to be treated fleet wide.
 
uju32 said:
Im guessing the loss of Arcadia is somwhat along the lines of losing Singapore in WW2
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It probably wasn't, Singapore was an incredibly good strategic position and important fleet base. Arcadia clearly was not, it was a population center of a member nation. But considering it lacks anything like major antimatter production, it kind of feels like it might be a recent member. Any of the core worlds obviously does have local production after all, so it kind of implies it hadn't developed to that point yet.

So if we look at it like that, it is perhaps a bit more like the fall of Manila in the Philippines, a place one absolutely would want to return to and liberate.
 
Last edited:
One possibility for cost is to give us some number of points to spend on "this particular ship class is better than the norm at this thing in some way (without eating some other penalty)" options (which would be presented along side the regular choices) and then have any left over at the end go into the cost rating the same way science points go into the science rating. The thing is, this pool would need to be able to be usable at every step (or at least most of them) so if it gets spent on the phasers it's not available for the science labs or the like, if it gets used on an somehow better shields it's not available for making the warp drive better, and so on.
Then have the other options be either whatever the accepted minimum for that thing is, or be better but come with a penalty to something else, or more specialised (phaser cycles faster but hits less hard per shot, or the reverse, for example)
So, for eample, standard shields, shields which are 20% better but require that the power systems be layed out in such a way that the impulse engines are 10% weaker (or the phasers cycle more slowly, or whatever), or shields which are 15% better but eat some reasonable chunk of the "cool tricks" budget).

The other thing is that it's not really clear how, or if, cost translates into any change in production numbers (presumably it does). Having that be more obvious might help.

The main problem with the current cost model, to my mind, is that all the big ticket items are functionally non-optional by way of the feedback making the things they govern all seem to be pass/fail choices independent of their interaction with the rest of the design... And why would we ever intentionally choose to fail?
 
Last edited:
Golgotha said:
I'm chortling at the thought of the most glorious Klingon commanders in their new triumphant d7's being on merchant guard duty because everything else - just dies-. The level of outrage they must feel. The pressure to just push more and more and more forwards because supplies are running out.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Just remember, some of those Captains are happy to have battles with competent opposition. So they're very happy to get assignments that have a high chance of facing an Excalibur.
Sayle said:
I've kind of come to the conclusion that I can't please everyone.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well, you're pleasing me even when the other Posters outvote me. And I'm sure others will say the same thing. So, don't worry about pleasing me all of the time, and instead focus on what makes you happy. That seems to be doing well at pleasing most Posters on this Thread of yours.
 
Chargone said:
The other thing is that it's not really clear how, or if, cost translates into any change in production numbers (presumably it does). Having that be more obvious might help.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Something like,

"we have 1,000 industry/year, Starfleet is currently making 3 Excaliburs, 2 Newtons, 2 Darwins and refitting 2 Keas. Future tranches of Excaliburs and Newtons are planned.

Demand for all these designs is high, priority would likely be given to either a science or engineering cruiser for future tranches and/or designs that implement increased firepower and shielding."

That way we balance Starfleet's own knowledge and intel with our own knowledge of prime canon, means we can anticipate and sayle can guide us.

We know Starfleet can make mistakes and won't know about out of context problems, we also have a vague idea of future events (Borg, Dominion), combined we still may or may not succeed in making a good choice as things are in flux, so still lots of fun.

Forgive poor writing on mobile, hope that makes sense.

Edit phone mangled message multiple times I really hate this Chihuahua computer
 
Last edited:
Sayle said:
Like right now the main pain point seems to be that the only 'cost' that matters is weaponry related. I'd like to change that. Don't know how yet, whether mass-related or introducing another step in the system like warp core size, but those will be things to consider. I don't mind experimenting and discarding things that don't work or prove unpopular.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Warp core size and sophistication seems like a very reasonable consideration for cost, yeah. I can see that becoming the key factor in establishing cost ("do you want to spend mass to make it less complicated? Do you want to spend complexity to increase output? Do you want to go for a simpler, more compact model at the expense of speed and systems power?" etc) with everything else just dancing around the cost of the beating heart of the ship.

Zimmerwald1915 said:
What if you were to model the Federation Congress's politics and its effects on the Starfleet budge--

*is threadbanned*
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

ngl, I'd follow that quest.

"The Federation is a utopia built upon the Pillar of Eden, beset by the myriad woes and vices of the world. She is a paradise worthy of sustaining and expanding...if you can."

Knock-down, drag out fights between voters whether curing a plague on a non-member world is worth exposing our med-tech to a rival state known for its bioweapon use, long-running debates on whether subsidized lunches for children should apply to a species where their young mature physically far faster than they do mentally ("they're capable of breeding before they learn social skills, you have to keep them in smallish packs or else they cannibalize hatchlings smaller than them"), comedically falling for the latest Romulan trick because 'this time they really seem to mean it' only for it to backfire on them somehow....
 
ScyBlade said:
Just remember, some of those Captains are happy to have battles with competent opposition. So they're very happy to get assignments that have a high chance of facing an Excalibur.

Well, you're pleasing me even when the other Posters outvote me. And I'm sure others will say the same thing. So, don't worry about pleasing me all of the time, and instead focus on what makes you happy. That seems to be doing well at pleasing most Posters on this Thread of yours.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Some of them are hoping to get a chance to fight an Excalibur, but they'll spend the trip bored and most of them don't get the chance. Especially because Excalibur captains, not being subject to Klingon testosterone poisoning, won't actually jump a caravan with an escort if they can help it. BUT THE HOPE!

Well, Tellarite captains probably pick fights with D7s sometimes just to shake things up. Which is actually good strategically, even if it's bad for the chain of command, because they can't actually guarantee escorted convoys are safe.
 
Cold Dust said:
Unless Sayle wishes to redo the design system, which probably does need some adjustment tbh, frigates just aren't viable. You have to pay so much for the warp drive that it's simply more economical to make the ship bigger, enjoy the fruits of stronger shields and extra torpedo tubes, slap on an extra thruster or 2 for better agility and put some modules (warp 8 engineering support cruiser anyone... I haven't been posting obsessively about this, have I... 😇)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

My proposal is tie ship class with of number ie needed to hit max or high maneuver ability threshold.
1 ie - frigates
2 ie - cruiser
3 ie - battle cruiser
4 ie - battleship
4+ ie - dreadnought
This way has we get better ie we get naturally bigger for the classes and they all keep viability.
 
Sayle said:
No, with the present formula a heavy Covariant Galaxy-class at 5mt would have 512 shield points.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Even so... That, is a meaty ship. I'm amazed the T'Ong even bothered to take a potshot at the Enterprise-D. Especially as I don't think the Galaxy-class would still be using shields as weak as ours. No wonder Picard and Riker didn't even react, just sorta shrugged. The T'Ong is probably something like a refit D7. (TnG, Emissary, Season 2 Episode 20)
 
Sayle said:
No, with the present formula a heavy Covariant Galaxy-class at 5mt would have 512 shield points.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Ah, I see what I was doing wrong though I'm not sure that exactly fits.

The Galaxy-class is 4,960,000 tonnes, dividing that by a thousand and then multiplying by 0.25 gives 1,240 (I checked the logic against the Excalibur, with the multiplication being by 0.2 instead, and it works out), doing the reverse for your given shield points gives a mass of 2,048,000 tonnes (again, using the Excalibur shield value to test it in reverse this works out).

Unless something is completely flying over my head here.
 
Tank man said:
Ah, I see what I was doing wrong though I'm not sure that exactly fits.

The Galaxy-class is 4,960,000 tonnes, dividing that by a thousand and then multiplying by 0.25 gives 1,240 (I checked the logic against the Excalibur, with the multiplication being by 0.2 instead, and it works out), doing the reverse for your given shield points gives a mass of 2,048,000 tonnes (again, using the Excalibur shield value to test it in reverse this works out).

Unless something is completely flying over my head here.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The present formula have ships not gain additional shielding after 4.1 mil tons.
 
Tank man said:
Oh, I'd forgotten about that.

That would still leave it with 1,025 shields, though (treating the mass as effectively 4.1 million tonnes)?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well, efficiency also drops so by the time you're at 4.1 mil tonnes you're 50% efficient so with Heavy Covariant you actually have like 25 (Heavy Cov) x 41 hkts (hkts = 100 kts) x 0.5 efficiency = 512.5 Shield points

Presumably ships like Borg Cubes are 100% efficient throughout..
 
Last edited:
Shard said:
Well, efficiency also drops so by the time you're at 4.1 mil tonnes you're 50% efficient so with Heavy Covariant you actually have like 25 (Heavy Cov) x 41 hkts (hkts = 100 kts) x 0.5 efficiency = 512.5 Shield points

Presumably ships like Borg Cubes are 100% efficient throughout..
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I guess that's what I get for just taking the surface level of things…

I wonder if starbase grade shield emitters suffer from the same problem or if the sheer size/mass they can be puts it up to say 41 million tonnes (with the curve playing out the same, just on a larger scale).
If we do work on a spacedock style starbase that could be a rather annoying limiting factor given the most conservative mass estimate I've seen for the movie era/small one is 58 million tonnes.
 
Tank man said:
I guess that's what I get for just taking the surface level of things…

I wonder if starbase grade shield emitters suffer from the same problem or if the sheer size/mass they can be puts it up to say 41 million tonnes (with the curve playing out the same, just on a larger scale).
If we do work on a spacedock style starbase that could be a rather annoying limiting factor given the most conservative mass estimate I've seen for the movie era/small one is 58 million tonnes.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
To be honest looking at the stats it kinda looks like Starbases have a flat 100% efficiency rating.

But then the rules for shields and all weren't actually written up when we designed the Pharos-class.
 
manamyst said:
The Pharoas does not have shields
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Oh yeah, forgot about that: "Tactically there is no way to mount a shield with enough power or coverage to defend a starbase, but there are power obfuscation systems that make precise targeting of individual components essentially impossible for an attacker."

Hopefully that's something that will have been addressed when it comes to our next starbase design, whenever it is.
 
Th3Saints said:
My proposal is tie ship class with of number ie needed to hit max or high maneuver ability threshold.
1 ie - frigates
2 ie - cruiser
3 ie - battle cruiser
4 ie - battleship
4+ ie - dreadnought
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This takes all the joy and excitement out of having gambled super hard and won on getting the theoretical Type-3 thrusters out early without gutting their performance.
 
this is likely just my opinion but obsessing over budget, and minimalizing tactical systems on a number our ships for ALL THE SCIENCE, feels like this bit us hard.
 
Last edited:
Looking at how shields scale, it seems like smaller starbases and stuff like the Phaser Satellites are probably the correct way forward in terms of defending planets. A defensive starbase only need pay for armor, phasers and shields, all of which scale quite variably with size. So you essentially wind up picking whichever point gets you the most amount of total tactical capability per unit cost, which is probably going to be very much on the smaller side.

E: so if Starbases do suffer from shield scaling it's definitely going on the smaller side of things.
 
Last edited:
Joyful_Overkill said:
this is likely just my opinion but obsessing over budget, and minimalizing tactical systems on a number our ships for ALL THE SCIENCE, feels like this bit us hard.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Again it would have not mattered if we put more guns on the recent ships, the Navy command was fundamentally not looking for ships that were too expensive to there eyes, like they saw the Archer as too expensive but because just how good it was doing its job and that logistics really like them and really needed a new ship is the really the only reasons why that such a big number of them was made.
 
Last edited:
Kinda sad we couldn't use the detachable cargo container on the archer and fill it with torpedo launchers/phaser banks as a Q-ship. Lots of empty space that could be used in there. I do hope we get the option to include something like that on the next GP/utility cruiser.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top