Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
[X] Large Warp Core (11 Deck) [Cost: 39.5] (Efficient Cruise: 6 -> 6.8)

Keep in mind, our newer ships could already happily go warp 7 before, the Speed isn't the neat part here. (Though if we end up going to be abe to go over warp 7 outside of sprint, Then speed will be a big deal)
The neat part is hitting that efficiently, and thus effectively the Range Boost even without extra antimatter tanks or support stations.
 
Last edited:
darkstarling said:
[X] Large Warp Core (11 Deck) [Cost: 39.5] (Efficient Cruise: 6 -> 6.8)


Ships losing engines and weapon systems, for example, is a relatively common occurrence. Anything that disables a ship without causing a core breach.

Like, consider Chang vs Enterprise. Definitely mass casualties, but the Enterprise took a lot of direct hits - including a through-and-through on the Saucer section - and was still moving and fighting.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The Enterprise there is a relatively large heavy cruiser as well, and is actually a bit more durable than our Excalibur.

I also don't think that wounded ships really survive the same way in fleet engagements. In duels between individual ships, sure, they have to try to beat each other to death through shields and hull and maneuver. But the Battle of Andoria, the largest space battle in our recorded history, was in total perhaps fifteen minutes long and both fleets were prepared to secure kills on wounded vessels; us with our formation of overlapping fields of fire and the Klingons with their reaction force of D7's. Lopsided battles are even worse, with the Battle of K-5 being over in a few minutes.

I'm sure that expanded medical will provide utility, but I doubt that it'll be useful for post-battle recovery. Ships just die really, really fast in fleet battles, so unless your side wins and you're functional for most of it someone is probably going to murder you.
 
[X] Large Warp Core (11 Deck) [Cost: 39.5] (Efficient Cruise: 6 -> 6.8)

We will drive Starfleet into the arms of the future to embrace BIG CHONK starships kicking and screaming.
 
Huh, wonder if we will get a something like the Cheyenne layout as an option, instead of a secondary hull (we should not do that for this design though. A proper secondary hull is more useful.)

something like this:
 
zac1 said:
That didnt happen in star trek? I will admit I didnt watch every episode of star trek in general so I guess it might have happened once or twice.

But I figured a singularity core would be nice to have because those things dont need fuel, being a black hole.

Although when those things lose containment then there are issues. Things explode into a collapsing blackhole and explode in plasma wave.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Timescape, where some higher dimensional beings mistake a Romulan singularity core for a black hole and lay eggs in it. Fractures time across a big chunk of space. That's the kind of mistake you only let happen once.
 
Last edited:
darkstarling said:
Timescape, where some higher dimensional beings mistake a Romulan singularity core for a black hole and lay eggs in it. Fractures time across a big chunk of space. That's the kind of mistake you only let happen once.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Or Q make sure this doesnt happen often, maybe to make stuff happen, since the whole issue was likely handled by the main cast, or, the romulans fixed that issue and instead of crippling their entire fleet to go with antimatter cores when they had singularity ones they instead developed a technological method to prevent that from happening.
 
Compared to the Excalibur's efficient cruise of 6.2 (238 LY/Year), an efficient cruise of 7.4 (405 LY/Year) is a solid 1.7x range increase..
 
Derpmind said:
Even if we don't follow it up with anything else, going up almost a full point of warp factor is a huge upgrade.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah 6.8 for our normal cruise is just big compared to our older designs

Kea 5.2 EC, 6.4MC, 7.6 MW
Archer 5.2 EC, 6.2MC, 7.2 MW
Excalibur 6.2 EC, 7MC, 8.6 MW
Attenborough- 6.2 EC, 7MC, 8.2 MW
Federation- 6.8 EC

Looking back at the past few designs federation being close to the max cruise of our first 2 warp 8 ships is something
 
Last edited:
[X] Large Warp Core (11 Deck) [Cost: 39.5] (Efficient Cruise: 6 -> 6.8)

Archduke said:
Huh, wonder if we will get a something like the Cheyenne layout as an option, instead of a secondary hull (we should not do that for this design though. A proper secondary hull is more useful.)

something like this:
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That idea is a secondary hull. An 11 decks tall in line secondary hull to be specific. Just strap a brick to the back of the starship.
 
[X] Small Warp Core (4 Deck) [Cost: 31.5] (Maximum Warp: 8 -> 7.4)

I wanted that inline secondary hull badly. But it seems this is not to be. I shall still drop a vote on it if only for it to be on the board

[X] Standard Warp Core (7 Deck) [Cost 35.5]

If I can't have my inline hull, I at least want to avoid having a neck. And this will also provide a non-specific survivability buff, which is very nice for a warship.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top