Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
Shard said:
I wonder if pushing thruster design along with also picking superior thrusters with our warp core option have been.. nonsynergistic. I mean in the sense of 'more maneuverability than is usable'. Which is unique among the parts in that one can't have 'wasted' hull durability or shield strength or whatnot, but we can have 'wasted' thruster output.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
For the most part, I'd say no. Generally it just seems to have meant we can get higher or max maneuverability with fewer engines, even if we do have some wasted output.
 
Shard said:
I wonder if pushing thruster design along with also picking superior thrusters with our warp core option have been.. nonsynergistic. I mean in the sense of 'more maneuverability than is usable'. Which is unique among the parts in that one can't have 'wasted' hull durability or shield strength or whatnot, but we can have 'wasted' thruster output.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I wouldn't really say so. Excess manoeuvrability means we've got more of a margin for weight, both in the basic design and in any refits/rebuilds that would increase the mass of the ship considerably.
 
Tank man said:
Keep in mind, we don't get the whole story (as it'd take Sayle too long for something too minor) about the service history of a class, just the greatest (and worst) hits.
Given the capabilities of an Orion pirate ship it'd make sense to emphasise killing one over the more mundane battles with regular raiders and other such ships that don't necessarily result in a clean kill.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Not least because the number of high quality Orion ships is finite, unlike the Tholians and Gorn.
 
Tank man said:
True.

Tholians are one to watch out for, I'd say. Most depictions show them as at least broadly multiversal, we've pulled out or own tricks but they can quire easily do so too.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah, I'm genuinely curious what it's going to be like if we go up against a multiversal power. Even weakly multiversal, like they're in contact with each other but not (usually) able to cross over. There are a number of ways that could be a challenge for us, from having an vast library of designs that work at their current tech base to 'save scumming' our strategy because someone, somewhere, saw us try that already.
 
Current tally
Adhoc vote count started by uju32 on Jan 15, 2025 at 11:50 AM, finished with 444 posts and 121 votes.
Click to expand...
 
Shard said:
I wonder if pushing thruster design along with also picking superior thrusters with our warp core option have been.. nonsynergistic. I mean in the sense of 'more maneuverability than is usable'. Which is unique among the parts in that one can't have 'wasted' hull durability or shield strength or whatnot, but we can have 'wasted' thruster output.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Interestingly enough some of the other Warp Core options actually made up for the potentially slightly less efficient nacelles compared to OTL. The current nacelle design has no charge up cycle or any uncontrollable fluctuations, at the cost of I believe some cruise speed. But obviously by having a more advanced warp core, one is making up the difference and perhaps a little more via more capability.

As for the ships, there is actually another way of dealing with powerful engines, which is to build big. One would likely have to use more efficient shields, but then one could greatly bulk up the spacecraft and the far more potent engines make that affordable. But so far that's not been the route taken, instead all the designs have tended more towards high capability compact designs. Still it is an option one could take if one wanted, where one built vastly larger colossal ships at still pretty reasonable budgets, with some what lower maneuverability and probably no more shields then their smaller counterparts. Presumably such designs would use high coverage to maintain defensive ability and use the far more expansive module space to be great at perhaps two elements instead of one to justify their existence.

At least that's how I'd roughly guess you could make it work.
 
Tank man said:
If things tie again I'd like to petition Sayle to make a mass/bulk increasing decision. We can get both, both it adds another 20k to the ship and bulges out the engineering hull in such a way that refits are going to be more difficult (to accommodate both parts).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'd recommend being heavily cautious about rewarding ties, or giving unique outcomes for tied votes. While it's very rare, this can encourage people to attempt to deliberately force tied votes, sometimes repeatedly editing their vote to keep a tie going. And in a contentious vote like this one, it can take only a tiny number of people doing so to result in great frustration for everyone.
 
Derpmind said:
I'd recommend being heavily cautious about rewarding ties, or giving unique outcomes for tied votes. While it's very rare, this can encourage people to attempt to deliberately force tied votes, sometimes repeatedly editing their vote to keep a tie going. And in a contentious vote like this one, it can take only a tiny number of people doing so to result in great frustration for everyone.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
also combining this vote wouldnt have the benefits of one or the other since it'll become small.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top