Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
Well, that sucks. Full Saucer won and, in my view, that is just dumb. Yes, I get it, full weapons cover, but do we really need that? We have escorts who will be watching several of our ships' flanks which may well off-set those very same issues of not having a full firing arc.

Anywho, done with me being peeved that Arrowhead didn't win (as I do like pointy ship design... and blocky... real life ships and Halo ships have always been my go-to for spaceship designs...), moving on to this new discussion.

Forward or Secondary, that is the question. Do we sacrifice forward firing arcs or do we lean into standard ST design? (Personally, I would've loved it if we just did Arrowhead as that would've 1. given a clear distinction between uses and 2. would've worked with warships in general. But I digress.) I feel like sacrificing forward firing arcs would not be good, and thus I think we should do secondary. While it pains me to say so, the decisions of everyone else requires me to think so.

And I like your ideas, people talking about alternate torpedo placement designs. I have another suggestion, if you're willing to hear it... slap turrets on this thing. Like seriously, slap on turrets with weapons not connected directly to the hull. Give those things computer-operated cannons and targeting computers and you're golden. Personally, I'd like for them to be kinetics, but I wouldn't mind them being energy. (My preference of kinetic weapons is due to Halo, IRL, and railguns. Today we've made railguns and I don't see Star Trek's UE not being able to make their own and slap said RGs onto a turret on their newest warship.

As for torpedo placement, I'm thinking ventral. Slap some RGs or other weapons on the Dorsal while having a bunch of torpedoes on the bottom ready to make someone's day worse.
Strunkriidiisk said:
Part of the appeal of the quest for me (and presumably the rest of the anti-OG-design crew) is seeing divergent designs as a result of our choices. If I wanted to just see a canon-compliant design for, say, the NX I could just look up screenshots from ENT. Just rehashing the same elements feels like a waste of the medium.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I like this quest because... it's ship design, who doesn't like ship design? I'm more for designing a ship that works for the situation we need it for than designing it based on Star Trek canon. If we need a warship, take an arrowhead hull, its (optional?) secondary hull that sticks close to the primary, tucked in nacelles, and slap some turrets on it and boom! Warship. I know Star Trek from having watched TOS reruns when I was younger and watching Lower Decks and a few lore videos.

Seriously, I don't get people wanting to stick so close to canon. This quest is us designing ships that are either better than canon or diverge from canon. If you want canon just... watch one of the shows or movies.
 
Last edited:
I can go with either tbh. Cost is a huge factor and firepower will be one as well. Leaning just a little more towards firepower.

[x] Secondary Hull Deflector (13 -> 19 Industry)
 
Strunkriidiisk said:
Part of the appeal of the quest for me (and presumably the rest of the anti-OG-design crew) is seeing divergent designs as a result of our choices. If I wanted to just see a canon-compliant design for, say, the NX I could just look up screenshots from ENT. Just rehashing the same elements feels like a waste of the medium.

[X] Forward Saucer Deflector (13 -> 15 Industry)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yeah this is pretty accurate, so far it's kinda feeling like the quest is saying, "see here's how the canon options are Miles better than the alternative". Not really conducive to something named Starfleet Design Bureau, I kinda came in expecting a larger divergence from canon, and we are getting that at least in the retrospectives; but not in the ship designs themselves it kinda feels for a few of them so far we've largely just made canon ships.

[X] Forward Saucer Deflector (13 -> 15 Industry
 
Last edited:
[X] Secondary Hull Deflector (13 -> 19 Industry)

As pained as I am to say it, I'd prefer going for firepower. I'd go with Forward Deflector if people were able to convince me (like actually convince me with compelling arguments, not tell me it's the best option), so if you can you can.
 
[X] Forward Saucer Deflector (13 -> 15 Industry)

Yeah, it's a shame we're sacrificing firepower, but we need to keep it affordable enough to build more than one, even if its slightly less capable.
 
Nyvis said:
On that thought... Traditional design is front and aft torpedo launchers but what's stopping us from making broadside torpedo launchers? That should make it much easier to clear the front deflector.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It's much easier to align your ship in its axis of movement. Ships on attack runs are much more likely to come in from the front or the rear because you should be moving too, and most of your firepower is probably concentrated in those arcs anyway because again it's easier to put them on target. There's also the element that like seaborne vessels, starships also respond to commands from its captain rather than acting like a fighter pilot who does what they want. That means there are likely to be prolonged periods of forward travel because that's where the engines push the ship to go and most commanders need time to assess the battlespace. Also very much applies to groups where collisions become a concern.

So there's quite a lot of reasons why not to do that. Broadsides only really work if the enemy is at such a range that their motion is going to keep them in the same relative arc regardless of what direction they pick. Or where ships are so lacking in maneuverability that you have to assume that after the initial engagement the same sides are going to be facing each other and it's purely a question of who can mount the most weapons on that axis.
 
Sayle said:
It's much easier to align your ship in its axis of movement. Ships on attack runs are much more likely to come in from the front or the rear because you should be moving too, and most of your firepower is probably concentrated in those arcs anyway because again it's easier to put them on target. There's also the element that like seaborne vessels, starships also respond to commands from its captain rather than acting like a fighter pilot who does what they want. That means there are likely to be prolonged periods of forward travel because that's where the engines push the ship to go and most commanders need time to assess the battlespace. Also very much applies to groups where collisions become a concern.

So there's quite a lot of reasons why not to do that. Broadsides only really work if the enemy is at such a range that their motion is going to keep them in the same relative arc regardless of what direction they pick.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Oh yeah, thoughts on how viable my idea of strapping a few turreted Railguns onto the ship would be? I'm really wanting to slap a few turrets onto this ship. If it's not viable, then I guess I'll look for other things. If it is, well oh boy, my plans are coming together nicely.
 
Last edited:
Turrets, like @CubicAppalac brings up, might solve the displaced torpedo tube problem. However, they would present a more vulnerable target than simply inset launchers, so that would be the trade-off.
 
Zimmerwald1915 said:
Utterly useless, considering that navigational deflectors exist to prevent kinetic impacts by small impactors and are quite good at their jobs.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

This. Star Trek weapons are 30+ megatons and more at this stage. Railguns aren't doing crap at this stage.

What we want are the point defense phaser cannons from nu!Trek ships. They were popup turrets basically.
 
[X] Forward Saucer Deflector (13 -> 15 Industry)

Just pondering the idea of "what use is a Dreadnought" that isn't simply a bigger NX, or a "linebreaker" against an enemy that very conspicuously does the exact opposite of fight in a line of battle. And it occurs to me there is a tactical niche that it would be quite useful at, albeit something distinct from just being the biggest, baddest warship around. And that's to facilitate operations by other ships, acting as a force multiplier rather than just a singular element of added firepower.

Imagine something more like a mobile starbase. Its all-around firepower provides the fleet a shield it can gather around, where disabled ships can be defended more effectively and ambushes more readily countered. Extra cargo space, machine shops, and medical facilities can sustain a task group out on the frontier for longer periods of time. It isn't going to defeat an enemy fleet single-handedly, but rather ensure that in every encounter our task groups have a host of advantages on the defensive, and has more intangible advantages dealing with the "friction of war" that comes from many minor problems adding up over time. If you will the Federation will win the war by being an endurance athlete rather than a sprinter, so sustainment is critical.

This mind would probably favor a secondary hull, but I'm still leaning against that just to speed production along at a critical time. The concept could perhaps be revisited for post-war vessels.
 
Zimmerwald1915 said:
Utterly useless, considering that navigational deflectors exist to prevent kinetic impacts by small impactors (at warp, no less) and are quite good at their jobs.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well, there goes that idea of just placing a bunch of railguns on turrets. That, however, doesn't remove the idea of putting a bunch of energy weapons on turrets or as others have said, torpedoes.

However, I do see the drawbacks. A lucky hit on a turret could see it just get ripped of the hull, making that weapon useless. So I think a combination of how we usually design our weapons onto the ships and adding turrets would be good.
 
Last edited:
Cavalier said:
[X] Forward Saucer Deflector (13 -> 15 Industry)

Just pondering the idea of "what use is a Dreadnought" that isn't simply a bigger NX, or a "linebreaker" against an enemy that very conspicuously does the exact opposite of fight in a line of battle. And it occurs to me there is a tactical niche that it would be quite useful at, albeit something distinct from just being the biggest, baddest warship around. And that's to facilitate operations by other ships, acting as a force multiplier rather than just a singular element of added firepower.

Imagine something more like a mobile starbase. Its all-around firepower provides the fleet a shield it can gather around, where disabled ships can be defended more effectively and ambushes more readily countered. Extra cargo space, machine shops, and medical facilities can sustain a task group out on the frontier for longer periods of time. It isn't going to defeat an enemy fleet single-handedly, but rather ensure that in every encounter our task groups have a host of advantages on the defensive, and has more intangible advantages dealing with the "friction of war" that comes from many minor problems adding up over time. If you will the Federation will win the war by being an endurance athlete rather than a sprinter, so sustainment is critical.

This mind would probably favor a secondary hull, but I'm still leaning against that just to speed production along at a critical time. The concept could perhaps be revisited for post-war vessels.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Kind of like a carrier? This could lead to carrier tactics down the line if we pursue this idea after the war
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top