Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
Iridium Flare said:
Aside from the whole 'not getting hit' part, sure.
But that's why I'm advocating for funky nacelles. So we can do science crimes and have a solid forward armament at the same time.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It wouldn't be a solid armament, it would be one lonely torpedo launcher.

If we go for half saucer we can hope to cram 2 in there without twisting ourselves into knots over the nacelles and that's where our real firepower will come from. It's not like half saucer is particularly bad for mobility either, with all the rear space for engines it has.

We just upgraded our torpedoes by prototyping the new ones on our battleship and it went great, I really want to maximize the upside from that, and I think they're going to be a more valuable weapon on a light cruiser than cannons if we want to compensate for the durable shields we're facing.

I also think that it's conceptually neat to keep the stingray's shape as we replace it. I love me some consistency.
 
Last edited:
Iridium Flare said:
Aside from the whole 'not getting hit' part, sure.
But that's why I'm advocating for funky nacelles. So we can do science crimes and have a solid forward armament at the same time.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Not getting hit is great. But the Stingray is already very maneuverable and it dies more than anything else we have.

Maybe we can improve that but I'm not convinced just avoiding everything is entirely viable.

We should definitely try to make it as maneuverable as we can sure, but I'd rather give it atleast some chance of taking a hit.
 
Nyvis said:
It wouldn't be "more torps" it would be "any torps at all". There's no point to maneuvrability if you have nothing to aim at the enemy.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
If we're envisioning these Sharks as pure escorts for NXs and Bulwarks, we could leave putting torpedoes on target to the heavier ships while the escorts fill space with phaser fire.

But this track doesn't seem correct to me. NXs and especially Bulwarks already cover their phaser firing arcs, and NXs in particular have less than comprehensive torpedo coverage. And torpedoes pack a lot more bang for the buck. I think we want Sharks as solid torpedo platforms, which means half-saucer.
 
If we're going to come in anywhere close to what Starfleet budgeted we're going to have to make some harsh compromises. That said an Arrowhead with underslung deflector dish for one forward torpedo tube might be adequate firepower with more forward-concentrated phase cannons and all the maneuverability.

How much would it add to the budget to sling the deflector dish underneath the ship's "bow?" Would it require a full secondary hull or just a corridor connecting it to the ship?
 
Shard said:
I really want an Arrowhead just for the aesthetic, but maneuverability without be able to exploit it seems like a massive issue.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
There are ways to mitigate that. We just have to plan ahead, and then stick to the plan.
Nyvis said:
It wouldn't be a solid armament, it would be one lonely torpedo launcher.

If we go for half saucer we can hope to cram 2 in there without twisting ourselves into knots over the nacelles and that's where our real firepower will come from. It's not like half saucer is particularly bad for mobility either, with all the rear space for engines it has.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
One launcher is if we undersling the deflector. New nacelles would, quote, 'alleviate some of the problems', said problems being 'minimal torpedo space'. If we try to minmax it, we may be able to fit as many as three.
 
Cavalier said:
How much would it add to the budget to sling the deflector dish underneath the ship's "bow?" Would it require a full secondary hull or just a corridor connecting it to the ship?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This is essentially what we tried with Bulwark, and it turned out not meaningfully different from an inline deflector. Particularly when they're three decks high.
 
Last edited:
Shard said:
I really want an Arrowhead just for the aesthetic, but maneuverability without be able to exploit it seems like a massive issue.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Nonesense. There is plenty more many maneuverability can do. And the Arrowhead configuration is pretty explicity that it only is limiting forward torpedo launchers. We would still have port, starboard, and stern torpedos. And with superior maneuverability the fact that they wouldn't be forward facing would be less of an issue because of it.
 
[ ] Arrowhead. Aim for a cheap light cruiser. (Industry: 2)

We can get it one torpedo, and that will be enough.
 
Yeah I want to go all in on torpedos which means Half Saucer. I do also want to make it as maneuverable as possible sure.

But being too light to take a hit and having elss torpedos puts me off arrowhead entirely.

Also I like the Stingray's successor keeping it's basic design philosophy, I really like the shape of that ship.
 
Zimmerwald1915 said:
If we're envisioning these Sharks as pure escorts for NXs and Bulwarks, we could leave putting torpedoes on target to the heavier ships while the escorts fill space with phaser fire.

But this track doesn't seem correct to me. NXs and especially Bulwarks already cover their phaser firing arcs, and NXs in particular have less than comprehensive torpedo coverage. And torpedoes pack a lot more bang for the buck. I think we want Sharks as solid torpedo platforms, which means half-saucer.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I'm envisioning those as flanking from behind a battleship (or a NX in a smaller fleet) ramming through an enemy formation and slamming torpedoes into targets weakened by the bigger ship's omnidirectional fire. Our enemies have focused on taking down our flagships when we put them in front so I think that's an opportunity.

As you say, our bigger ships have good phaser coverage. But on a smaller ship I don't think we're going to mass enough phasers to compete with warbirds' shields. A Torpedo volley packs a lot more immediate punch and gives us a chance to disengage after firing to save the ship. Phasers are better on bigger bricks that can stand and fire.
 
[ ] Half-saucer. Aim for a capable medium cruiser. (Industry: 4)

The Stingray may be going to the rear lines. But in it's place, we shall deploy, the bigger, the badder: Manta Ray.
 
I would love to give this thing stone tools-related names

Flint.
Knapper.
Arrowhead.
Quern.
Spearhead.
Needle.
Hammerstone.
Scraper.
Microlith.

And so on.
Especially with vertical nacelles. This thing would be incomprehensibly weird and naming scheme will baffle Vulcans even more.
 
NavySeel said:
Enough for what? To take down the shields... maybe but to have anychance to knock out a warbird in one Volley, I seriously doubt it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You're assuming a single ship in vacuum. We're building to churn these out. It's going to have a wolfpack.
Granted, we are then trying to out-wolfpack the Romulans, who are masters of wolfpack, but given the hypermaneuverability they'll presumably be able to react in time to warbirds decloaking and then shove a torp or two down their throat.
 
Mulisa said:
[ ] Half-saucer. Aim for a capable medium cruiser. (Industry: 4)

The Stingray may be going to the rear lines. But in it's place, we shall deploy, the bigger, the badder: Manta Ray.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I would really enjoy it if we can keep the naming scheme!

Iridium Flare said:
You're assuming a single ship in vacuum. We're building to churn these out. It's going to have a wolfpack.
Granted, we are then trying to out-wolfpack the Romulans, who are masters of wolfpack, but given the hypermaneuverability they'll presumably be able to react in time to warbirds decloaking and then shove a torp or two down their throat.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The update clearly states we're having to go 1 to 1 with opposing ships. I don't think we can handwave this away in our design. I also think having 2 front torpedoes would go a very long way to bridging that gap, and the industry cost difference is pretty minor.
 
If we don't use it here, we'll never use it.

But that aside, a cheap ultra maneuverable ship with one torpedo forward and one aft sounds fantastic.

NavySeel said:
Enough for what? To take down the shields... maybe, but to have any chance to knock out a warbird in one volley? I seriously doubt it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It being cheap means larger wolfpacks.

Phasers to bring down the shields, Torpedoes to capitalize on the opening.

One is all it needs for that.
 
Enthusiast#117 said:
It being cheap means larger wolfpacks.

Phasers to bring down the shields, Torpedoes to capitalize on the opening.

One is all it needs for that.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

We're having to go 1 to 1 with our enemies with Stingrays, which are light cruisers and use simpler to build technologies than the experiment that will be the prototype nacelles needed to even get one torpedo launcher out of the arrowhead. We're not going to be swarming warbirds.

Zimmerwald1915 said:
In the context of large fleet actions devolving into wolfpack-vs.-escort duels, to be clear. Not in one-v-one meeting engagements.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Oh yeah clearly it's not a bunch of solo engagements. But we're not going to swarm warbirds with light cruisers. If we were going down further into building sub-cruiser ships maybe but that's not an option with our tech base.

inirlan said:
I mean, if we want cheap and cheerful then going for a single torpedo tube is perfectly fine.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Even if one torpedo tube was fine I'd rather pay 2 more industry now and have it not be reliant on prototype nacelles for a mass produced ship.

That said once you accept that point you may as well go for 2 torpedos on the half saucer design and mass fire more efficiently. Even if the ship ends up 50% more expensive, if it has twice the torpedo volley that's easily worth it and I don't think the difference will be that big once you factor in the prototype needs to even get 1 torpedo out of the arrowhead.
 
Last edited:
Two lines of argument that I saw in here is:
  1. Having more torpedoes as an alpha strike, then finish with pulsed phase cannons.
  2. whittling the enemy with the pulsed phase cannons then destroying it with torpedoes.
Both have good arguments, but we need to pick one eventually.
 
Last edited:
Nyvis said:
The update clearly states we're having to go 1 to 1 with opposing ships. I don't think we can handwave this away in our design. I also think having 2 front torpedoes would go a very long way to bridging that gap, and the industry cost difference is pretty minor.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The update states that we're quite simply unable to make a warship that can go toe-to-toe, and that we're going to have to make some hard decisions. The only numeric ratio stated was that Stingrays need to outnumber Warbirds 2-to-1 to be confident of victory.
I am advocating for a minmaxed Arrowhead with two to three torpedo tubes and supermaneuverability, which is implied to be possible if we select the appropriate design options.
I am okay with a Manta Ray as a Stingray successor, but Arrowhead was denied last time around and I'd prefer to see it at least present in our design principles.
 
Iridium Flare said:
The update states that we're quite simply unable to make a warship that can go toe-to-toe, and that we're going to have to make some hard decisions. The only numeric ratio stated was that Stingrays need to outnumber Warbirds 2-to-1 to be confident of victory.
I am advocating for a minmaxed Arrowhead with two to three torpedo tubes and supermaneuverability, which is implied to be possible if we select the appropriate design options.
I am okay with a Manta Ray as a Stingray successor, but Arrowhead was denied last time around and I'd prefer to see it at least present in our design principles.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We're already being told it's unlikely we'll get a single torpedo tube in the Arrowhead - where are you getting the logic that we'll be able to cram two or more in?
 
0t4n1z3r019 said:
Two lines of argument that I saw in here is:
  1. Having more torpedoes as an alpha strike, then finish with pulsed phase cannons.
  2. whittling the enemy with the pulsed phase cannons then destroying it with torpedoes.
Both have good arguments, but we need to pick one eventually.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I think we have to think in term of fleet engagement rather than duels. In a normal engagement, the capital ship leading our fleet will be able to fire its cannons in multiple directions to soften enemy shields, so it's more a case of picking the target it hit to finish them off with an opportunistic torpedo volley than opening with it.

Iridium Flare said:
The update states that we're quite simply unable to make a warship that can go toe-to-toe, and that we're going to have to make some hard decisions. The only numeric ratio stated was that Stingrays need to outnumber Warbirds 2-to-1 to be confident of victory.
I am advocating for a minmaxed Arrowhead with two to three torpedo tubes and supermaneuverability, which is implied to be possible if we select the appropriate design options.
I am okay with a Manta Ray as a Stingray successor, but Arrowhead was denied last time around and I'd prefer to see it at least present in our design principles.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It's clearly stated the arrowhead will have no frontal torpedo without the prototype nacelles and one with it. I want to make the choices that maximize torpedo per industry rather than just minimize the cost of individual hulls but end up with less overall firepower because they all have one frontal tube instead of 2. I'd also really like to avoid the experimental nacelles for a mass produced design we don't have the time to iterate on.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top