darkstarling
Brilliantly Crazed
- Location
- Columbus, Ohio
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Still early to vote.
Linked contents
Hmm, the only way I would vote for the Roll bars is either we don't stuff it full of torpedoes, or we stuff the already planned torpedoes into it and use the space in the regular hull instead either for more or larger modules.
Please cease with the petty sniping. We get it, you don't like going more than min Cost for everything.
On the other hand we DID go for 240% thrust, so really we have some thrust to spare if we did add more mass.
And it would look cool.
darkstarling
Brilliantly Crazed
- Location
- Columbus, Ohio
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Yeah I'm thinking that too. I just don't TRUST us. But...
@Sayle, if we choose the roll bars will we have the option to mount torpedoes there INSTEAD of the main hull and get some extra module out of it?
edit: to make sure we pre-emptively deal with this nonsense, I'd make it a vote option if it's allowed. Standard launchers, extra rollbar launchers, ONLY rollbar launchers and extra module or two.
Last edited:
If we only take the new prototype torpedos it should "only" be 20 cost extra to mount four more launchers.
It'd be so nice to shove all our launchers into the rollbar to free up hull space, though...
So I wanted to take this as a jumping-off point since it seems to encapsulate the main bone of contention here.
Let's be honest guys, we've already designed a dreadnought. Compromising now isn't going to function as a magic wand which will somehow transform our design into an affordable workhorse cruiser. It will simply make it worse at fighting, after we've already gone to the expense of building a thoroughbred platform with incredibly costly features you only include on a heavy hitter, from heavy shielding to quad nacelles to eke out extra cruising speed.
Where we are now is simply a logical result of the we've taken consistently throughout the design process. We may as well design a good dreadnought which can trade sufficiently effectively against Klingon ships that it justifies its immense cost, instead of a sub-par one that can't. This is our equivalent of an F-22 fighter or a Seawolf class attack submarine, whether we like it or not, so let's embrace it. This will also likely lead to earlier obsolescence as the Excelsior arrives, but if this design does a good enough job at deterring Klingons for a few decades, it's still a success.
The Miranda is a perfectly capable and powerful design as a workhorse line cruiser for its day, with sheer reliability and versatility that saw it extend its service life right into the 23rd century with multiple refits. Whilst it rankles a bit that we have finally gotten our shot at knocking the Miranda off of its perch and flubbed it, there's no point in denial. If we'd wanted to design a hypothetical heavy cruiser which was designed to replace the canonical Miranda despite costing more, we would have needed to make different decisions at literally every stage in this project, and I'm still not sure we'd have succeeded.
Or to take things back a step, if the quest wanted to design the Quest's answer to the the Miranda, probably a better start would have been to have actually picked Project Miranda.
We should add the roll bar, but turn the entire thing into a little strip of park, with grass and shrubs under a transparent aluminum outer surface. Make it a 10 meter wide 100 meter long park that the crew can relax in.
Wide the path back and forth around line of sight breaking shrubbery and we could create a space that provides the illusion of space without others near by that I think a starship could really use.
Wide the path back and forth around line of sight breaking shrubbery and we could create a space that provides the illusion of space without others near by that I think a starship could really use.
Last edited:
Yeah, that sounds like it could work.
If we could trust that the vote would work out that way, which I'm not inclined to do.
Especially with the dozens of posts arguing in favor of 3+ fore torpedoes and 2+ aft.
- Location
- USA
- Pronouns
- He/They
Of course, everyone is going to read the "if you fill these mounts with additional weapons, you will run hard into cost issues" warning as TOO EXPENSIVE, STOP GOLDBRICKING and kneejerk vote against it, when it was explicitly spelled out that the new mounting points take priority over any hull-mount possibilities and thus logically we don't have to fill every mount.
Rollbars aren't "+4 torpedoes and their associated price tag". Rollbars are "+4 torpedoes' worth of module space for literally free."
But the kneejerk panic-voters are gonna dogpile this absolutely heaven-sent possibility of boosting our peacetime effectiveness into oblivion.
Edit: Idea not possible after QM clarification.
Last edited:
darkstarling
Brilliantly Crazed
- Location
- Columbus, Ohio
- Pronouns
- He/Him
We'd need to make it a vote option, which actually does make sense since it's something you'd need to fundamentally account for in your designs. But if it was a vote option I'd choose it.
Wow we're excited aren't we. Too early.
I mean, I think it's pretty explicitly laid out that the extra cost comes from the four extra torpedo launchers this thing can fit:
But, if we can take the rollbar and put all of our torpedos in there instead of in the hull, we can save hull space for modules. So if there's no extra cost associated with doing that, it's clearly the best choice.
- Location
- Outside the Box
- Pronouns
- She/Her
You can't ask someone to "cease with the petty sniping" in the same breath you yourself engage in petty sniping. That's not the way to deescalate anything.
Please stop painting people who disagree with you (and suspect your math is entirely wrong) as "zero-reading-comprehension" I beg of you.
darkstarling
Brilliantly Crazed
- Location
- Columbus, Ohio
- Pronouns
- He/Him
@landcollector @Derpmind @thepsyborg I know it's still the 23rd century, but interpersonal conflict isn't in the script 
edit: Wait, we would have Tellarites in the design bureau wouldn't we. Carry on then.
edit: Wait, we would have Tellarites in the design bureau wouldn't we. Carry on then.
Thanks for the explanation
For the record, I voted for the mid-size saucer, not the small one that won; the 170kt one, not the 140kt one
I was aiming for a roughy 320kt ship, and Id be happier with that mass-volume budget
That said, I dont think reversing that decision now is a good idea
And to be honest, Im not really fond of the rollbar's esthetics, but thats just me
As long as we have space for at least one aft torpedo as well, I dont think we need extra torpedoes
Id love to have them if we could, and Im very much a big ship guy temperamentally, but I dont think I can vote for increasing mass at this late point in the design cycle just to add more torpedoes
If we'd wanted them, we should have budgeted for them from the beginning
And I think someone raised a reasonable point about our remit being a heavy cruiser, not a dreadnought
It does lock us into either going with RFLs or Prototypes for the torps
But to be honest, I think most voters were leaning that way anyway, so it doesnt really change anything
IMO
- Location
- USA
- Pronouns
- He/They
Nah, adding more weapon slots and filling them with weapons is what will put cost over the line.
...yeah, that was a bit over the line. Apologies. So edited.
I note you didn't say anything about the "kneejerk panic-voters" characterization, though
- Location
- USA
[ ] Rollbar Nacelle Supports (+2 Fore/Aft Torpedo Mounts)
We picked the quad nacelles, might as well go all in on large scale instead of trying to do an inbetween ship, then again we could also use the freed up space on the main hull for more modules. Though I would want the new prototype torpedo launchers and not the type 1 rapid
We picked the quad nacelles, might as well go all in on large scale instead of trying to do an inbetween ship, then again we could also use the freed up space on the main hull for more modules. Though I would want the new prototype torpedo launchers and not the type 1 rapid
Horologer
Incertae sedis
- Location
- a risen sea
The update says it's adding the torpedo mounts that incurs the cost, which sounds to me like it's the space for the weapons rather than the weapons themselves.
Doubling the alpha strike firepower of our incredibly expensive dreadnought which exists only to murder flotillas of Klingon ships is the opposite of gold-plating. It's the only way we can actually make the ship be cost-effective enough to justify its outrageous size, shielding, and the four incredibly expensive nacelles.
Like, carrying weapons to kill enemy ships is the only reason for this ship to exist. Not maximising our firepower when we've made paid through the nose for an expensive platform that can fit lots of weapons does not thereby it more economic, it just means that it is neither economic nor well-armed for its size! This is Naval Design 101.
Like, carrying weapons to kill enemy ships is the only reason for this ship to exist. Not maximising our firepower when we've made paid through the nose for an expensive platform that can fit lots of weapons does not thereby it more economic, it just means that it is neither economic nor well-armed for its size! This is Naval Design 101.
Last edited:
More hyperbole imo. With the advent of Typ-IV torps, we can almost equal an Exacilbur's fore facing Alpha strike with just 2 launchers at less Cost. Maybe one RFL aft facing for best alpha using just 1 slot, plus however many Phasers the thread wants.
I can see how it might be viewed that way, but I am only stating what I feel to be the Truth. Wootius has made negative posts multiple times when a recent vote has gone for the higher Cost option.
darkstarling
Brilliantly Crazed
- Location
- Columbus, Ohio
- Pronouns
- He/Him
A fine argument, though I disagree with it. But it's STILL TOO EARLY! Tshh... Andorian hotheads.