Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
Let me try one more time

Central Drive raises the current cost to 91 points
Weapons are going to cost us at least 50 points: 30ish points for torpedoes, and 20ish points for full-coverage phasers
That means that we are spending at least (91 + 50) = 140 points for the Federation, minimum

8 points for Dual Drive and Maximum Maneuver is a 5-6% increase in total cost for a significant increase in combat ability
It seems like a no-brainer cost-wise
 
Last edited:
[X] Dual Engines [Cost: 99] (Maneuverability: Maximum) [200% Standard]

Victory is always the first casualty when price triumphs over effectiveness in regard to what is valued in a weapon. Remember the mistakes of the Saladin in its attempt to chase affordability.
 
I also have to warn that you lot aiming for affordability at the cost of performance have done this song and dance multiple times. And we were punished for your decision each time.
 
Fouredged Sword said:
We are ALWAYS punished for something. There is no ideal set of options. If we are expensive Starfleet will complain about the cost. If we cut costs Starfleet will complain about the loss of capability.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Honestly, Starfleet enjoys complaining. Just ask Miles O'brian, who will eventually be tasked to maintain all of the halfassed shit we've thrown together over the years.
 
[X] Dual Engines [Cost: 99] (Maneuverability: Maximum) [200% Standard]

SPEEDSPEEDSPEEDSPEEDSPEED
 
[X] Central Engine [Cost: 91] (Maneuverability: Normal) [120% Standard]

The "it's just a few points" mentality has repeatedly lead to massive price tags. This ship doesn't need maximum maneuverability; better-than-average is just fine. Especially since its primary armament will be phasers.
 
Its worth remembering all the complaints during the Four Year War about our performance
That Starfleet would not pay for good enough ships

Well, now Starfleet is explicity willing to pay for capability; it woud be funny if we became the roadblock
We have been given the opportunity to do this, and I dont see the point of advocating for what are basically penny-pinching decisions in return for major reductions in capabiity

This is what the project says:
In any case, the choice is a binary one. If phasers will be the main source of damage for the ship, then a better-than-standard engine output is all it needs to engage both peer opponents and any smaller vessels during fleet actions. If you expect a torpedo ship or one-on-one engagements are the more likely outcome, then you may want to absorb the extra cost of the engines to maximise on-target time.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This is Starfleeet's thinking:
War Conclusions said:
For Starfleet the war had been a trial by fire against a superior opponent with difficult lessons. The front-heavy armaments which had been increasingly favoured for starships of all types had shown serious weaknesses against more maneuverable Klingon craft, and much of the war had turned on the question of strategic range and speed. Had the fleet been operating at a higher warp factor then lines of defense and strongpoints could have been established much further forward and the loss of Arcadia could have been prevented entirely.

That said, the usefulness of the high-cost and high-performance Excalibur-class could not be overstated. The war had thoroughly discredited a once-popular viewpoint that the future was to be found in light cruisers which could be inexpensively built to carry out the myriad of duties needed in the ever-expanding Federation and then consolidated in the event of warfare. While there was still a place for specialist vessels, military theory in the coming years would be more focused on how to deal with the long-range deployments and individual engagements necessitated by deep interstellar warfare.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

8 points on a 140+ point ship project is like 5% increased cost
Its a minor consideration on a project this size, and it significantly improves the capability of this ship in combat, and thus its ability to survive solo engagements
 
Last edited:
Dual engines is a pretty minor price increase, for a noticeable boost in capability and potentially longevity. 8 points on a ship that's likely to be pushing 130 or so after weapons? Not a massive cost. Doubling our speed? That keeps the ship relevant in combat engagements for longer as engine tech improves, boosts combat capability in all but a small number of combat encounters, and is likely to reduce casualty rates (escaping space wedgies, taking fewer hits, etc). We've tried the primary phaser-approach before, which is what the central enginer pushes us towards, and it didn't work out as well as we hoped due to phaser mechanics (only two can fire at once). More manueverability lets us keep our phasers on target with fewer mounts (so a cost-saving there, if you want to look at it that way), and makes it easier to put torps (which aren't fire-rate limited in the same way) on target.

TL;DR, the cost savings from central engines just don't seem worth it in this particular case. Not for a primary-combat vessel.
 
Last edited:
NSMS said:
Dual engines is a pretty minor price increase, for a noticeable boost in capability and potentially longevity.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It will only be a noticeable boost in capability and longevity if we also splurge on torpedo tubes.

And even then, versus the vast majority of expected targets we won't benefit from either - only ships of more than 150kt or worse than standard agility are subject to full value of torpedo fire.

Nobody nearby builds anything that needs that much gun to kill, so all that "increased capability" is going to mean in practice is that we'll have a fair sight fewer ships doing day-to-day shit, and significantly fewer numbers in time of war.
 
Horologer said:
[X] Central Engine [Cost: 91] (Maneuverability: Normal) [120% Standard]

The "it's just a few points" mentality has repeatedly lead to massive price tags. This ship doesn't need maximum maneuverability; better-than-average is just fine. Especially since its primary armament will be phasers.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Starfleet did not ask us to watch costs
They asked for capability as a priority, not costs; if we wanted the costs project we would hav voted for the Miranda Project
We should not be policing their pockets

And no, its primary armament is not phasers. In the current meta, torpedoes are still much heavier hitters
Thas why our only phaser boat, the Kea, got modules rippped out to install torpedoes when war came
Phasers provide coverage, not kill
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top