It's not exactly going to be zippy, not in the sense of the Excalibur (which going by the logic in the threadmarked post has the manoeuvrability of a ~90,000 tonne starship), but a ship that's going to spend most of its time transiting to for from the edges of the Federation and is likely to find itself alone or in very small unit combat needs to be able to keep other ships out of its dead zones and make use of the ship killers (torpedoes).
Linked contents
darkstarling
Brilliantly Crazed
- Location
- Columbus, Ohio
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Dumping phasers would be stupid, given that was the entire point of choosing our saucer. We have, in fact, effectively already saved on phasers because we made choices that make full coverage take fewer emitters, and that's what I hope we do.
But actually this is simply a matter of 'you asked for a war ship, you're getting a war ship, and this is how you do a war ship.' That those choices are the most expensive is something Starfleet Command will just have to deal with.
Chargone
Invisable operator
- Location
- New Zealand
You say that like they won't do that anyway.
Besides that, previously the actually meaningful trade off was engines vs torpedoes, but the options given this time seem to trivialise engine cost as well.
Does skimping on engines here even cover the cost of a single extra phaser? Unless the cost has come down a lot it sure doesn't cover an extra rapid fire torpedo laucher.
(Importantly, the fact that between rule changes and in setting events we have No Idea and thus can't plan ahead is part of why cost doesn't actually work as a balancing factor)
Last edited:
Cites, please. I don't recall this occurring.
My worry is that a single engine will not be enough
Things are changing rapidly over the next couple decades
When they do, its usually explicity called out
And given as most Starfleet vessels have at least 2, Im not seeing it being a major factor here
- Location
- Most likely California
[X] Central Engine [Cost: 91] (Maneuverability: Normal) [120% Standard]
Is it weird that, aesthetically, I now wish something else other than Command Configuration won the saucer vote?
I don't know, the side profile just seems off with how flat the saucer is, and much thinner it is compared to the engineering hull.
Is it weird that, aesthetically, I now wish something else other than Command Configuration won the saucer vote?
I don't know, the side profile just seems off with how flat the saucer is, and much thinner it is compared to the engineering hull.
Strunkriidiisk
THE LEGEND
- Location
- Canada
- Pronouns
- He/Him
You're not alone. Frankly I'm a little dissatisfied with how the visual design has turned out in general, but c'est la vie.
- Location
- Illinois
- Pronouns
- He/Him
This is an argument I'm much more open to, but I'd advance that this is only really true at heavy cruiser size of the Klingons. Which is a very valid point, since we just fought the Klingons and are likely to again, but most of the Romulan ships we end up seeing are quite heavy, ponderous warships, and while the Jem'Hadar attack ships are very fast, their battlecruisers and battleships are never implied to have much maneuverability at all. Similarly, the Cardassians don't seem to particularly build for maneuverability.
There's like one or two separate examples, but most of this catastrophising usually comes from the 'don't you dare fucking goldplate this'/'minimal engines forever' crowd.
[X] Dual Engines [Cost: 99] (Maneuverability: Maximum) [200% Standard]
I called for cutting costs early on things we could make up explicitly to avoid ending up here where we might end up cutting costs inappropriately on more valuable things. At which point everyone was cheerfully telling me all about how we would max out everything and costs didn't matter and surely the voters wouldn't baulk as the costs went up.
Endorfinator
Awkwardly Social
- Location
- California
- Pronouns
- He/Him
[X] Central Engine [Cost: 91] (Maneuverability: Normal) [120% Standard]
My dude, reevant citations:
Starfleet expects most engagements will be individual
I don't think it's fair to say anyone has been "catastrophising" in this vote so far.
Last edited:
- Location
- Seattle, Washington
[X] Central Engine [Cost: 91] (Maneuverability: Normal) [120% Standard]
So where will it's tonnage really fall?
Half as much, being equal in size to our Feddie? A third as much, being an upscaled D7? Somewhere in between?
I do appreciate being informed that Memory Alpha's tonnage aren't to be trusted though, I was wondering how we were gonna build up to a 4.5 million ton Galaxy class...
Honestly, I'm mostly voting on aesthetics. In this case I'm OK with the results.
Please, let's NOT start thinking about under-arming our combat ship.
We just got out of an existential war that came from not having enough gun! There no such thing as cost-savings when the alternative is extinction.
Actually, I think I might have to shout this one.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS COST-SAVINGS, WHEN THE ALTERNATIVE IS EXTINCTION.
---
I am now looking for a good class name to drive the above point home in-universe to Starfleet Command/Budgeting.
The closest I've found is Lazarus class, from the idea of Lazarus Taxa which survive extinction events, but it doesn't sit quite right.
Would love to hear ideas.
(Considered: Aegis/Shield class. Nice symmetry with the Excaliburs (sword/shield), but not blatant/pointed enough.)
(Maybe the Svalbard class, for the Svalbard Global Seed Vault? A little indirect, but has nice preservation connotations.)
Edit: uju32 makes an excellent case for the Federation class.
Last edited:
It's not a correct displacement, it's gross register tons which is a measure of volume. The modern value given for the Constitution-class, pre refit, is about 190,000 tonnes - which isn't too far off Star Trek volumetrics giving it a lower end mass of 236,300 tonnes.
190,000 tonnes would incidentally give it a density low enough to float on water.
The Romulan ships we have seen in this quest have not lacked for maneuverability
And they explicitly co-designed the D7. Furthermore, noone whose tactical doctrine involves the use of cloaking fields ever skimps on agility; its a strat that depends on speed and maneuverability
The vast majority of Jem-Hadar ships are very agile
Their BCs and BBs have much fewer appearances, and nothing suggests they are any slower than peer Starfeet ships
- Location
- EcksEcksEcksEcks
[X] Central Engine [Cost: 91] (Maneuverability: Normal) [120% Standard]
Oh for the love of Christ
People dont skimp on costs now; this is not something that can be upgraded in refits like the Kea
This ship is going to operate alone most of the time short of outright war
And we've been told that if we expect solo engagements, go maximum
And Starfleet expects solo engagements to be the norm
People dont skimp on costs now; this is not something that can be upgraded in refits like the Kea
This ship is going to operate alone most of the time short of outright war
And we've been told that if we expect solo engagements, go maximum
And Starfleet expects solo engagements to be the norm
Last edited:
Chargone
Invisable operator
- Location
- New Zealand
I'm honestly baffled that anyone is going for the cheaper option here. With the cost system being as non-fuctional as it is* and the price difference so small this Should be a no brainer for the higher agility option, as there's no Actual downside.
We're not getting an extra ship out of this no matter how badly you cripple it in the name of savings (and even if we Could, we'd be losing so much performance that the extra hull couldn't possibly make up for it), and less impulse power doesn't have any actual Benefits.
It's not like we're working with an actually fixed budget cap either.
*edit: which is somewhat less than it was previously, but once you get past the items where the cost is dictated by hull size, and any extra nacelles, nothing else costs enough to move the meter in comparison.
Edit edit: obviously both options here have significant cost (the secondary hull cost less!) but the Difference Between Them is insignificant.
We're not getting an extra ship out of this no matter how badly you cripple it in the name of savings (and even if we Could, we'd be losing so much performance that the extra hull couldn't possibly make up for it), and less impulse power doesn't have any actual Benefits.
It's not like we're working with an actually fixed budget cap either.
*edit: which is somewhat less than it was previously, but once you get past the items where the cost is dictated by hull size, and any extra nacelles, nothing else costs enough to move the meter in comparison.
Edit edit: obviously both options here have significant cost (the secondary hull cost less!) but the Difference Between Them is insignificant.
Last edited:
Strunkriidiisk
THE LEGEND
- Location
- Canada
- Pronouns
- He/Him
You can look around various fan archives, but otherwise it's a lot of guesswork. The canon K't'inga (and the D7, which is only smaller by a few metres and has the same dimensions) is slightly shorter than the Connie and more spindly, so one imagines it must mass at least a little less. Sayle pegs the canon Connie at around 200kt, so the K't'inga is probably in the 150-190 range.