Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
Sayle said:
"I can't help but notice you've designed a Star Destroyer."

"Look if it works, it works."
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Vulcan Observer: Why do these humans obsess over circular and triangular hull designs?

Vulcan Earth-Culture Specialist: My research and in-depth analysis of Human and Earth popular culture indicate that these shapes seem to be reminiscent of a well-loved human culinary item called "Pizza".

VO: They're designing their ships after food items?

VECS: Yes. These food items are made of a solidified powder-water mixture molded into flat, circular shapes much like the prominent feature of the UES Thunderchild. It is then slathered and topped with a sauce and as many cuts and pieces of protein and crop items as is physically possible, and then baked until sufficiently heated.

VO: Hmmm. This must be why they sought to fill their ship with as much weapon systems as they could.

VECS: Indeed. They are then sliced into triangular pieces and eaten as such.

VO: Triangular? Much like their upcoming design... Our new allies seem stranger and stranger the more we come to know them.

VECS: Truly. Samples of their entertainment media also indicate other potential samples of ship designs reminiscent of their culinary staples.

VO: Oh? There's more?

VECS: This one seems to be inspired by the "donut"...

 
Last edited:
Skippy said:
"Your bunk? Well as a brilliant ergonomic and space-saving measure, we actually use torpedo casings! It's only led to mishaps a few times. Just remember that some of them still have live manoeuvring thrusters."
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The maneuvering thrusters are actually a safety feature, if you get fired accidentally you can steer back to the ship.

Only a small chance of being shot down by our own phase cannons trying to intercept what they think is a malfunctioning live torpedo. :V
 
Tolack said:
Considering the price this ship is going to reach once nacelles are added...

Nacelles are around 3-5i right? So 33-35i for 2 torp 4 cannon or 46-48 for 3 torp 6 cannon.

If we compare a 35i with 48i, it's a ratio of 7:9.6. What's better then, 7 Arrows with max weapons, or 10 Arrows with moderate weapons?
Ship Cost (Estimate)35i48i
Ships per 336i9.67
Guns per 336i38.442
Torpedo tubes per 336i19.2 (9.6 forward, 9.6 back)21 (14 forward, 7 back)

One gives us a moderate increase in alpha strike ability and small increase in forward firepower, the other gives us a couple of extra ships, which increases the more we build of course.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

This is a good comparison, although one thing to note is that the aft deflector does not just give us an extra torpedo tube; it also means we can mount more than one cannon which is able to concentrate in a frontal fire arc. The difference in burst damage hence may not be a 2:3 ratio, it might be something more like 1:2 or more depending on how many optional cannons we go for.

That being said, it's possible that a ship this manoeuvrable would be capable of opening with a big salvo from her front tubes and cannon, then immediately turning and raking the enemy with her dorsal or even aft phase cannons.
 
abominable said:
Vulcan Observer: Why do these humans obsess over circular and triangular hull designs.

Vulcan Earth-Culture Specialist: My research and in-depth analysis of Human and Earth popular culture seem tp indicate that these shapes seem to be reminiscent of a well-loved human culinary item called "Pizza".

VO: They're designing their ships after food items?

VECS: Yes. These food items are made of a solidified powder-water mixture molded into flat, circular shapes much like the prominent feature of the UES Thunderchild. It is then slathered and topped with a sauce and as many cuts and pieces of protein and crop items as is physically possible, and then baked until sufficiently heated.

VO: Hmmm. This must be why they sought to fill their ship with as much weapon systems as they could.

VECS: Indeed. They are then sliced into triangular pieces and eaten as such.

VO: Triangular? Much like their upcoming design... Our new allies seem stranger and stranger the more we come to know them.

VECS: Truly. Samples of their entertainment media also indicate other potential samples of ship designs reminiscent of their culinary staples.

VO: Oh? There's more?

VECS: This one seems to be inspired by the "donut"...

Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Lucrehulks are just cool.

Actually I wonder if we could do one of those. It'd need nacelles too of course but that's basically a saucer with a cutout when you think about it. Which I guess is a stupid idea, may as well fill it.
 
Skippy said:
"Your bunk? Well as a brilliant ergonomic and space-saving measure, we actually use torpedo casings! It's only led to mishaps a few times. Just remember that some of them still have live manoeuvring thrusters."
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
"As an added benefit, if you die in your sleep we just need to sling a flag over the casing and you're ready to go!"
 
Nyvis said:
Lucrehulks are just cool.

Actually I wonder if we could do one of those. It'd need nacelles too of course but that's basically a saucer with a cutout when you think about it. Which I guess is a stupid idea, may as well fill it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

No arguments there. The idea that the central hull can actually detach and serve as a landing craft-slash-mobile command center is just awesomely practical.

Imagine if a lucrehulk can project a warp bubble and allow other non-warp ships to ride inside its rings. Would Trekkie lore and science allow something like that?
 
Nyvis said:
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.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
A lot of this vote is the weapons, yes. But even besides the maneuverability costs it looks like there's also a bit of internal space up for debate right now.

Sayle said:
Putting the deflector in the nose would also deny you a mounting point for the nacelles, forcing you into a port and starboard mount that will further limit internal space in the aft sections.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
 
abominable said:
No arguments there. The idea that the central hull can actually detach and serve as a landing craft-slash-mobile command center is just awesomely practical.

Imagine if a lucrehulk can project a warp bubble and allow other non-warp ships to ride inside its rings. Would Trekkie lore and science allow something like that?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
If it doesn't, we can just throw technobabble at it until it does!
 
With the Aft Deflector, we could go 3 Torpedo Tubes and only 2 Cannons, for a total of 35 Industry. Skip the extra Phaser Cannons and spend essentially 5 extra Industry for a 50% increase in Torpedo firepower.
 
Tolack said:
Considering the price this ship is going to reach once nacelles are added...

Nacelles are around 3-5i right? So 33-35i for 2 torp 4 cannon or 46-48 for 3 torp 6 cannon.

If we compare a 35i with 48i, it's a ratio of 7:9.6. What's better then, 7 Arrows with max weapons, or 10 Arrows with moderate weapons?
Ship Cost (Estimate)35i48i
Ships per 336i9.67
Guns per 336i38.442
Torpedo tubes per 336i19.2 (9.6 forward, 9.6 back)21 (14 forward, 7 back)

One gives us a moderate increase in alpha strike ability and small increase in forward firepower, the other gives us a couple of extra ships, which increases the more we build of course.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
the costs presented in the vote are for the completed project, but not accounting for the optional weapons
 
Personally I say forward with all extra cannons. I don't think the extra one base cannon is worth the 8 industry even with the possibility of an extra tube.
 
Derpmind said:
With the Aft Deflector, we could go 3 Torpedo Tubes and only 2 Cannons, for a total of 35 Industry. Skip the extra Phaser Cannons and spend essentially 5 extra Industry for a 50% increase in Torpedo firepower.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Eh, maybe I want more torpedos sure, but the sheer value of the 30 industry with two tubes and four cannons is winning me over this round I think.

Might be a little more if there are engine options, because we will definitely want to max those.
 
inirlan said:
They literally said "all costs included except the optional weapons"
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You're right, so I've redone the comparison.
Tolack said:
Ship Cost30i43i
Ships per 300i14.3310
Guns per 300i57.3260
Torpedo tubes per 300i28.66 (14.33 forward, 14.33 back)30 (20 forward, 10 back)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
While it's close enough that I'll be happy with either, I'm leaning towards numbers.

[X] Forward Deflector (Industry 2 -> 24) [2 Torpedo Tubes] [1 Cannon + 3 Optional]
 
Last edited:
Skippy said:
"Remember Ensign, be careful when you use the bathroom on Deck 2, the toilet also doubles as a torpedo launcher. Don't worry, the instructional manual is quite straight forward, the main thing is to be careful when you flush."

"Also remember, there are a dozen different auxiliary antimatter storage areas around the ship, so try to be careful about what you lean on, and make sure you've filled out those forms for notifying next-of-kin."

"Your bunk? Well as a brilliant ergonomic and space-saving measure, we actually use torpedo casings! It's only led to mishaps a few times. Just remember that some of them still have live manoeuvring thrusters."
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

"Presenting the Type-1 Multi-Utility Pod! Capable of serving as sleeping bunk, shower, toilet, escape pod, boarding pod AND torpedo, not necessarily in that order! Powered by Yoyodyne thrusters and power plant!"

- Yoyodyne Sales Representative
 
Tolack said:
While it's close enough that I'll be happy with either, I'm leaning towards numbers.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
same, because while these are going to be more survivable than the good old Stingray they're still light ships in a pre-shield era, maximum maneuverability or no.

also lower cost means being able to hammer them out faster
 
The project really needs to keep as close to the cost of the Stingray as possible to meet its assigned objectives. Some bloating is unfortunate but unavoidable, but anything heading north of 30 Industry is a fail-state on those grounds.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top