Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
Oh I missed something.

but the extra material would require more engine investment to keep the ship manoeuvrable
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

This is in fact a vote about manoeuvrability. Or at least the cost of it. Which means there's potentially a hidden cost to the aft deflector in addition to the stated cost, if we need more engines to get the same speed out of it.

I think we have to be consistent, we picked arrowhead for the speed and lower cost and we should keep to that design philosophy if we want a coherently planned ship.
 
Shard said:
Wow, this light cruiser is already going to be 1/4 to 1/3 of the price of the Dreadnought already. Going to exceed Stingray's price soon!

I think Aft deflector might be the right choice here, given the focus on maneuver.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I do believe that's an estimate for the total cost, so it should not get too much worse.
 
If we're getting our torpedo launchers then I think we should go cheap. Cost efficiency means more ships means more launchers fielded overall.
 
I'm willing to go forward deflector since it seems we can squeeze in two torpedo tubes and four phase cannons.

That's a pretty good armament for a ship this size,and a definite upgrade from the stingray with only 3 older model phase cannons.

Especially if we max maneuver.
 
Last edited:
A forward deflector would still allow for up to 4 cannons. If they're all forward firing that's a very respectable payload.

If it's 2 potential forward mounts and 1 potential aft mount... it's still okay with 2 of those shiny torpedo tubes.
 
How much is a single torpedo launcher? Because right now we have 24 industry for 2 tubes and 1 cannon vs 32 for 2 tubes and 2 cannon but the 2nd option can fit in a 3rd tube for an unknown cost
 
Hm, it looks like both options keep the high maneuverability? Two tubes forward and paying for two more guns on the cheap options seems like a win for me. It costs closer to an NX than I like but I bet the tactical rating will be good. If it's 4 per gun that puts us at 32, 6 per gun is 36.
 
I vote the forward deflector. It's less weaponry, but it comes with a higher speed/maneuverability and a cheaper build cost- both of which are important here.
 
Sayle said:
Yes, all costs included except the optional weapons. No hidden costs with extra engines, those are accounted for.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
So the forward deflector with the three optional phase cannons would be 30.

That's a little more expensive than the Stingray sure, but also fare more capable, more than worth just 5 industry.

While we want cheap this is also meant to be an upgrade so only 5 extra is well worth it to me.
 
Last edited:
Basically the option is paying 8 industry for one cannon and the opportunity to pay more to add one more cannon and torpedo if we're maxing weapons. That's 6 whole point of not guns paid for the extra slots. I just don't think the calculus is worth it if we already got 2 torpedoes out of it.
 
Sayle said:
[ ] Forward Deflector (Industry 2 -> 24) [2 Torpedo Tubes] [1 Cannon + 3 Optional]
[ ] Aft Deflector (Industry 2 -> 32) [2 Torpedo Tubes +1 Optional] [2 Cannons + 4 Optional]
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Hmm.

Last time, our torps cost 3 each, and the phasers 2.
So a max agressiveness build would be :

Forward 30 industry for 2 torps and 4 cannon
Aft deflector : 43 industry for 3 torps and 6 cannon

So, it seems like the aft deflector design really suffers unless you go for max weaponization.
 
Last edited:
I'd say the low number of Cannons for the Forward Deflector Variant is, all things considered, forgivable given it has enough maneuver to consistently apply it's weapons, even a low number of them. That, and our torps are presently of much higher performance than our cannons.
 
Roaming_Guardian said:
Every Photon tube is three industry. Atomics are two.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Okay so then if we go with the 2nd option and a 3rd tube cost goes up to 35 for 3 tubes and 2 cannons vs 24 for 2 tubes and 1 cannon. I am leaning towards the 2nd because that is a bit under 12 industry per tube and photonics pack a major punch for us. If you want to do a per weapon cost then option 2 comes out to 7 industry per weapon vs 8 industry per weapon for option 1. If you go max equip
30 industry 6 weapons- 5 industry each
43 industry 9 weapons a bit under 5 industry each (and cheaper on industry per tube)

Shard said:
I'd say the low number of Cannons for the Forward Deflector Variant is, all things considered, forgivable given it has enough maneuver to consistently apply it's weapons, even a low number of them. That, and our torps are presently of much higher performance than our cannons.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah but the other option lets us pack in a 3rd torp giving it a really strong alpha strike.
 
Sayle said:
Cannons are 2, Torpedoes are 3. I just put the wrong values in the vote last time. Nobody seemed to notice, so win for me.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

4 guns and 2 tubes for 30 industry is a steal. I want it.

11 cost to get an extra tube is not worth it.

[ ] Forward Deflector (Industry 2 -> 24) [2 Torpedo Tubes] [1 Cannon + 3 Optional]

 
Basically the question is do we want something with approx 30 Industry final cost or something around 40. Since neither expanded weapon configurations are actually "optional" if we want to have enough gun.
 
Do these industry costs include the warp nacelles?
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top