If need be we could do a Selachii successor, a slightly thicker arrowhead with the 4-deck vertical warpcore and inline Nacelles and better phaser coverage (which was the main weakness of the design). That should be cheap enough if we need something to pad out ship count with.You have to be built to have a future. Refits can always up arm it if it needs it, like going from 4 forward tubes to two RFLs.
Personally, I'm expecting a lot of complaints about why we have so few ships in the next war again. This thing is on track to be 33% more expensive than the Excalibur before any nacelle shenanigans.
Linked contents
We should hopefully have a lull before a war though, since we just fought the Klingons to a standstill, and now we're through that uphill bit of not being able to properly refit warp 7 hulls it'll be a lot easier since all our warp 8 designs can be easily upgraded for warp 9 cores. We have further incentive to refit designs, and our numbers will start to build up, we can afford to build bigger and more expensive designs because they'll hand around longer.You have to be built to have a future. Refits can always up arm it if it needs it, like going from 4 forward tubes to two RFLs.
Personally, I'm expecting a lot of complaints about why we have so few ships in the next war again. This thing is on track to be 33% more expensive than the Excalibur before any nacelle shenanigans.
I suspect we won't make many of these, but they'll perform well and hopefully demonstrate the positive synergies of spending a bit more, and Starfleet can always spam the cheaper Miranda-class ships, which presumably are still full warp 8 designs with modern weapons and shields.
Last edited:
We cannot afford to goldplate our designs, true, and there is a need to remember that we need to preserve space for other functions means we cant simply stuff the hull full of weapons at the expense of everything else
Still, a ship design has to justify its primary reason to exist in the first pace. Underarming a tactical/multirole cruiser would be failing that fundamental test. And ending up with a configuration where you are both more expensive than the Miranda and much worse of a combatant than the Excalibur is not going to win any fans with a procurement bureau
Still, a ship design has to justify its primary reason to exist in the first pace. Underarming a tactical/multirole cruiser would be failing that fundamental test. And ending up with a configuration where you are both more expensive than the Miranda and much worse of a combatant than the Excalibur is not going to win any fans with a procurement bureau
Strunkriidiisk
THE LEGEND
- Location
- Canada
- Pronouns
- He/Him
My take is: this ship should not be less armed than the Excalibur, in either phasers or torpedoes. The Callie armament is thus our floor - so the ship should not have a forward torpedo launch capacity of less than 5 shots. 2 RFLs seem frankly more reasonable to fit than a whole mess of single-chamber launchers.
Agreed as far as the torpedo launchers are concerned (should probably try and squeeze in a rear RFL if possible, if not 2x standards), we need to keep in mind that a 300° coverage is likely to be preferable, given what the Kea was capable of, which does lend itself to ~8x phasers.
Two engines(10), two nacelles(free), 4+2 tubes(13.5), and 7 phasers(28) get us to 107 first round costs vs 91.25 for the Excaliburs.
An 2+RFL and 2 aft is 21, bringing us to 114.5. Now we need torpedo boat speed just in case, so three engines. 119.4. Hey, 4x nacelles gets us .5 Max Warp. ??? for costs, but I'd bet at least 15 for a extra pair. Maybe 130-135. That's how you get 50% more expensive then an Excalibur and tactically the only functional difference is more HP.
Devil, gold plating is thy name. We need a big boat that can bite, not an attempt at an Excelsior 50 years early.
An 2+RFL and 2 aft is 21, bringing us to 114.5. Now we need torpedo boat speed just in case, so three engines. 119.4. Hey, 4x nacelles gets us .5 Max Warp. ??? for costs, but I'd bet at least 15 for a extra pair. Maybe 130-135. That's how you get 50% more expensive then an Excalibur and tactically the only functional difference is more HP.
Devil, gold plating is thy name. We need a big boat that can bite, not an attempt at an Excelsior 50 years early.
Last edited:
Onionjones
The LCAF's best social general
- Location
- Tharkad
We're probably not going to have a war for a while - as long as its at least as good as an Excalibur we should be fine.
I think module space is probably more important for longevity, and we should be ok on that
Maneuverability I don't see being too important
I think module space is probably more important for longevity, and we should be ok on that
Maneuverability I don't see being too important
Last edited:
darkstarling
Brilliantly Crazed
- Location
- Columbus, Ohio
- Pronouns
- He/Him
When it comes to phaser layout, just remember that we chose this saucer specifically for ease of coverage. So we should damn well get our full coverage.
In this equation though, the largest cost drivers are the additional phaser armament and the tonnage. There's no real way to deliver on a ship with more durability than an Excalibur and with broader armament coverage without increasing costs. I argued for standard shields to try and control durability costs, but that didn't win. Cost control shouldn't be ignored at this point, but trying to cut costs on armament will just result in a ship that is still expensive, but now also cannot actually execute the desired role.Two engines(10), two nacelles(free), 4+2 tubes(13.5), and 7 phasers(28) get us to 107 first round costs vs 91.25 for the Excaliburs.
An 2+RFL and 2 aft is 21, bringing us to 114.5. Now we need torpedo boat speed just in case, so three engines. 119.4. Hey, 4x nacelles gets us .5 Max Warp. ??? for costs, but I'd bet at least 15 for a extra pair. Maybe 130-135. That's how you get 50% more expensive then an Excalibur and tactically the only functional difference is more HP.
Devil, gold plating is thy name. We need a big boat that can bite, not an attempt at an Excelsior 50 years early.
If we put two engines and the Excalibur's armament package on this ship, it is still more expensive by a good 10%, but it's no better armed and tactically much weaker due to low speed combined with the limited coverage.
If two type3 impulses gets us High Manuverabilty, we won't need a third, 1 of the aft RFL can probably be 2 aft phasers instead, and the nacelles... well, if we can get a warp 7 cruise without extra nacelles, we can skip on those.
So yeah, it'll still be an expensive boat, but that was kind of the obvious conclusion since it'll be one of the biggest we've built.
Current cost is 55.5Two engines(10), two nacelles(free), 4+2 tubes(13.5), and 7 phasers(28) get us to 107 first round costs vs 91.25 for the Excaliburs.
An 2+RFL and 2 aft is 21, bringing us to 114.5. Now we need torpedo boat speed just in case, so three engines. 119.4. Hey, 4x nacelles gets us .5 Max Warp. ??? for costs, but I'd bet at least 15 for a extra pair. Maybe 130-135. That's how you get 50% more expensive then an Excalibur and tactically the only functional difference is more HP.
Devil, gold plating is thy name. We need a big boat that can bite, not an attempt at an Excelsior 50 years early.
2x RFL + 1x standard forward = 7 torpedo salvo forward = 26.25(pre-2260), 20.25(post-2260)
2x standard aft = 2 torpedo salvo = 4.5
7x Phaser = 21 (post-2250 )
3x Type-3 Impulse Thrusters = 15(pre-2260), 11.75(post-2260)
Thats 66.75 before 2260, and 58.5 after 2260
Total is 122.25 before 2260, and 114 after 2260
Before cost-reductions due to efficiency of production
No idea about nacelles
For comparison, Excalibur was 97.25 at first production, and 91.25 at second tranche
So worst case, we are paying around 22 percent for a ship thats 40 to 70 per cent bigger, and much more capable
In absolute terms, the cost delta is 20ish cost
EDIT
If you want to cut costs further heree, you replace one of the two RFLs with a standard launcher
Costs us 2x torpedoes, but drops initial costs by 9.75 and leaves it with Excalibur firepower and the option of a future refit for additional RFLs in the 2275 Refit
Last edited:
Horologer
Incertae sedis
- Location
- a risen sea
This ship is supposed to be the bulwark to the Excalibur's hunter-killer. It needs good shields to absorb damage, and good coverage so it can't be outmaneuvered.
Since Starfleet needs to fill out a depleted fleet, it also needs to have reasonable costs. The logical places to reduce costs are maneuverability and burst damage. Those are nice to have, but they aren't this ship's primary role.
Since Starfleet needs to fill out a depleted fleet, it also needs to have reasonable costs. The logical places to reduce costs are maneuverability and burst damage. Those are nice to have, but they aren't this ship's primary role.
I'm not sure I agree. Our shields are a noted weakness, especially given the Klingons' superior weaponry. If it matched the Excaliburs' armaments, it still has, what, ~3x the shield strength? That alone makes it an absolute terror. It's not much of a stretch to give it 2 forward RFLs, and at least 2 aft singles, or maybe an aft RFL, plus some extra phaser emitters for better coverage, and a third thruster or whatever to give it superb agility.Two engines(10), two nacelles(free), 4+2 tubes(13.5), and 7 phasers(28) get us to 107 first round costs vs 91.25 for the Excaliburs.
An 2+RFL and 2 aft is 21, bringing us to 114.5. Now we need torpedo boat speed just in case, so three engines. 119.4. Hey, 4x nacelles gets us .5 Max Warp. ??? for costs, but I'd bet at least 15 for a extra pair. Maybe 130-135. That's how you get 50% more expensive then an Excalibur and tactically the only functional difference is more HP.
Devil, gold plating is thy name. We need a big boat that can bite, not an attempt at an Excelsior 50 years early.
Agility, durability and firepower have positive synergy with each other, raise one and the whole ship becomes scarier. Raising the firepower by a notch and the shield strength by 2-3 notches, and this is a whole new animal for the Klingons, Gorn, Tholians or Romulans to contend with. And have we ever regretted making our ships deadlier? Has it ever backfired on us, spending that extra $$$? At the very least, a few of these on our more troubled borders will seriously deter anyone, as they may come to expect every Federation ship to have stupid amounts of heavy shielding, decent phaser coverage, the ability to fire withering barrages of photon torpedoes as an entree and ballet dance with grace while doing it.
If all else fails, it'd be a useful exercise if the costs are too high to justify its combat capabilities in the post-mortem, help us make better future decisions.
I for one think I'll vote for 2 fore RFLs, 1 aft RFL, decent phaser spread, 3 impulse drives and quad nacelles. Go for Gold. If it can cover more territory, it can fill in for more ships and be disproportionately effective given its cost. If it can destroy most anything that threatens it without dying or suffering heavy damage, our costs go down, our enemy loses hulls and crews while we do not.
Last edited:
Starfleet's explicit military assessment is that the post-war meta is solo operations
This ship is designed to anchor fleets and task forces in time of war and major operations, but for the vast majority of its operations it will be operating solo where both maneuverability and firepower matter
Economizing on its armament is pound-foolish; the marginal cost is pretty small compared to the increased utility
There's a stronger case for accepting sub-Excalibur maneuverability, but even that has its limits
My opinion, at least
This ship is designed to anchor fleets and task forces in time of war and major operations, but for the vast majority of its operations it will be operating solo where both maneuverability and firepower matter
Economizing on its armament is pound-foolish; the marginal cost is pretty small compared to the increased utility
There's a stronger case for accepting sub-Excalibur maneuverability, but even that has its limits
My opinion, at least
Last edited:
As the brief said, mass needs to be justified, burst damage (especially since this ship is meant to operate solo - and will probably be by itself in the outbreak of war, plying across the Federation) is an easily measurable metric for Starfleet to assess as being good relative to mass. It also has tangible military benefits, part of the reason this class exists.
Manouverability, whilst of a lesser concern during fleet actions owing to its role, is another important area. As well as solo operations we will have to content that in a post-Excalibur world todays medium manouverability will be tomorrows low.
Last edited:
Archduke
Don't Take Geology Puns For Granite
- Location
- Texas
Honestly for torpedoes I don't think we should settle for less than 2 RFL fore and aft, and most likely push for a bit more forward. I do wonder if we can put some tubes at off angles to engage multiple targets.
No comment on phasers other than make sure we have full coverage.
No comment on phasers other than make sure we have full coverage.
Chargone
Invisable operator
- Location
- New Zealand
Off angle launchers apparently can't fire at warp, if I remember rightly, consequently we end up not being allowed them, and in practice wouldn't want them unless we had no more space for on axis launchers with unreasonable amounts of budget left over. 2xRF fore and 1xRF aft is already eating into available space quite a bit and quite expensive. (Worth it, mind you).
Fortunately, we have phasers, which can't fire at warp Anyway, and this ship in particular is intended to mount quite a few more than we normally bother with for greater coverage in fleet engagements.
Last edited:
Of relevance:
-Cheap is out, high performance platforms are in despite increased cost if the capabiity is worth it
-Strategic speed and range is a critical advantage in ship design
-Front focused armaments have serious weaknesses against high maneuver opponents, and that focus should be scaled back
-Long-range patrols and individual engagements are the current meta
The working conclusions of Starfleet are starkThe Four Years War Part Six said:
-Cheap is out, high performance platforms are in despite increased cost if the capabiity is worth it
-Strategic speed and range is a critical advantage in ship design
-Front focused armaments have serious weaknesses against high maneuver opponents, and that focus should be scaled back
-Long-range patrols and individual engagements are the current meta
Last edited:
Horologer
Incertae sedis
- Location
- a risen sea
It's not mass itself that needs to be justified. It's cost. The update before last was very explicit that Starfleet needs raw hulls– half the fleet is gone and it needs replacing ASAP. If this ship is too expensive, Starfleet is going to sigh wistfully, think of what might have been, and order a limited run. Then it'll go back to building to Mirandas to fill out the roster. It doesn't matter how efficient a design is pound-for-pound if the resources for it just aren't available.
And I'm not worried about this ship's ability to 1v1. Even in the Mirror Universe where we give it abysmal torpedo damage and awful maneuverability, it could still win duels by simply tanking hits while it blasts its enemies apart with repeated phaser salvos.
The only limiting factor is dilithium, if we make a ship that isn't worth the dilithium that goes into its warp core that's on us.
darkstarling
Brilliantly Crazed
- Location
- Columbus, Ohio
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Yep, which is why we're going to need to pay a lot of attention to our modules and getting really good synergies going. We cannot afford to be scattershot, whatever we do we must be GOOD AT IT to justify the cost.
Or we need to make this ship able to do something useful that cannot be done by Miranda-class or our existing fleet roster.
Horologer
Incertae sedis
- Location
- a risen sea
Dilithium is a limiting factor, but it's not the only one. If it was the only limiting factor, Starfleet would just tell us to design the largest possible ship a single warp core could support. There are other bottlenecks: specialist man-hours spent in design, shipyard time (and space) necessary for construction, other strategic resources necessary for building, logistics costs, and so forth: the kind of stuff that the generic Cost metric represents.
"Could" is not "will". Given the severe limitations on Phaser Burst damage, It is entirely possible for such a Federation Hull to die before its target does if said target has notably superior burst capacity. And Starfleet is likely not going to build enough hulls for it to accept virtual 1:1 trades where, yes, the target is dead before the Federation hull, but the Federation is half-mauled or worse and has to spend numerous months getting pieced back together at a major shipyard.