Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
[X] External Nacelles [Warp 3.8 Cruise]

Both configs don't make it any slower than the Thunderchild, but the Thunderchild is going to be a minority of our fleet in the first place and we've got some other faster ships that this will end up escorting too. Letting packs of just Selachii or Selachii escorting a few NXs be able to move around that much more quickly is going to have a bigger impact on the broader conflict IMO.

If we don't end up putting that extra gun on it for whatever reason, no skin off my back that's not why I'm voting for this.
 
Last edited:
NavySeel said:
You are repeatedly contradicting yourself on gun placement, in what seems to be every post.

First the Stingray was superior because its guns weren't all on the front because it had better coverage.

Next the aft gun would be bad on this ship, so apparently coverage is useless.

Now you are simultaneously saying that the rear gun, which provided coverage, on the stingray was a bad idea, while also saying we should have added the 3 extra guns, that wouldn't have added to the maximum amount on target.

Those guns would have only added coverage.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
1 bow mount, 1 port mount, 1 starboard mount (which is what I thought the Stingray had, because it's the most logical), would give: 3 forward, 2 port or starboard, and 2 Aft. Which is far better than just having 1 aft, 2 forward and 2 per side.

If I remember correctly the extra 3 guns would have been mirrors of the existing guns. Which I assumed meant 2 bow mounta, 2 port and 2 starboard mounta. Which would have given 6 guns forward, 4 guns port, 4 guns starboard and 4 guns aft.

Now if the placement was less logical than that it would obviously change my calculus. However as long as side mounted guns can give rear coverage as needed, I see little need for aft mounts, unless they don't impact the rest of the guns we get.

Does that clear things up for you at all?


SaltyWaffles said:
Actually, that is very much not a rule for warship design. Quite the opposite. Many an example throughout even the past century of warships that tried to cram as much firepower as possible onto the smallest hull resulted in disaster and impracticality. As it turns out, there are plenty of other considerations that have to be made, such as freeboard, weight distribution, fire control, hull integrity, space/weight for future upgrades or equipment, and increased vulnerability from having more explosives exposed to enemy fire.

There are good reasons why battleships stopped putting torpedoes on their decks--they were unlikely to make good use of them, added a bunch of weight, and created a huge liability in the form of very powerful explosives directly exposed to enemy fire.

Even in the age of sail, this was the case. Putting maximum cannon on your ship was impractical because it made your ship slower, more sluggish, and more prone to structural damage if it was more than the structure could handle.

===

The Stingray's weapons placement was intended as an antipiracy/anti-raider role. Weapons coverage meant more than burst damage, because the expectation was making it harder to ambush or overwhelm with numbers from pirates. Having no weapons aft might have seemed fine if you assumed that no pirates would field ships fast enough or numerous enough to exploit that weakness, but the Stingrays were meant to operate alone, so you can't make that assumption.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Note I said "as many as the engineers will allow" not as many as possible. Also there are far fewer constraints on our weapon fit in space. Mostly power and where to put them, maybe some fire Control issues. Thankfully displacement, metacentric height and the like aren't an issue in the void.

Coverage and focus could have been achieved with a more logical array. Placing side mounts at the outer edge of the half saucer would have allowed fore and aft coverage for example.
 
[X] Internal Nacelles (-Optional Aft Cannon, Defense Rating 10 -> 12) [Warp 3.6 Cruise]

I'm gonna be entirely honest: I just think internal will look cooler.
 
[X] External Nacelles [Warp 3.8 Cruise]

2 Defense isn't enough to make a difference. Tincan is tincan. Protection is killing before being killed.
 
[X] Internal Nacelles (-Optional Aft Cannon, Defense Rating 10 -> 12) [Warp 3.6 Cruise]

I'm willing to lose the aft turret in exchange for equal durability; Coverage doesn't seem as important as Defense on a maneuverability-focused build.
 
[X] Internal Nacelles (-Optional Aft Cannon, Defense Rating 10 -> 12) [Warp 3.6 Cruise]

I'm really excited to see what the finished ship looks like.
 
uju32 said:
If we have Selachii in numbers, you're either going to see the Stingrays relegated to Thunderchild escort, where their lower strategic speed doesnt matter, or we will begin to scrap them. Militaries dont have an infinite budget, and if the same running cost is between a Stingray and a Selachii thats almost twice as powerful and faster to boot, the Stingray goes to the breakers.

Or at best, into reserve.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I seriously doubt were going to start scrapping stingrays, sure we don't have unlimited budget but we have a lot of places where they could come in useful.

Earth is barely scraping its manpower in terms of starfleet, and there are probably ridiculous amounts of volunteers.

Even in the case that were using up all our maintenance I feel like we'd be better off giving the stingrays to say the Denobulans who we just liberated and I'm sure would love something for defence, even if its not top of the line.

On a related note putting Stingrays in what should be our main battlefleet with the Thunderchild seems like a massive mistake to me.

I don't even mean in the sense of speed, that fleet should have the best ships possible.
 
Isn't the slowest ship in the fleet the refit stingray? Fairly certain that's at 3.4, so even internal nacelles are a speed boost for our escorts.

Edit: oh wait people noticed that.

[X] Internal Nacelles (-Optional Aft Cannon, Defense Rating 10 -> 12) [Warp 3.6 Cruise]
 
[X] Internal Nacelles (-Optional Aft Cannon, Defense Rating 10 -> 12) [Warp 3.6 Cruise]

Internal Nacelles provide extra defence, and the cruising speed is fine given that our fleet cruises at 3.4.

A Warp Cruise of 3.6 is identical to the Thunderchild.

The aft cannon is not worth it given that this ship fights by getting all its guns in target and being hyper-manouvereable.

Kartr_Kana said:
Definitely need the cruise option so that this white elephant can keep up with the heavier ships in the fleet.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Kartr_Kana said:
And yes, I have noted that the higher cruise speed is the only thing this really brings over an upgraded Stingray.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

This ship has the firepower of two Stingrays and a higher cruise factor in any nacelle configuration. It is pound for pound, the most powerfully armed ship we've ever built in terms of alpha strike and max sustained damage, exceeding even the Thunderchild.

This isn't an assertion, it's a mathematical fact.

Almost rerything you have been saying over the last two pages is factually wrong. Please chill out and take a break.
 
Last edited:
[X] Internal Nacelles (-Optional Aft Cannon, Defense Rating 10 -> 12) [Warp 3.6 Cruise]

I'm willing to lose the aft cannon and a little bit of cruise speed for the same Defense as the Stingray.
 
[X] Internal Nacelles (-Optional Aft Cannon, Defense Rating 10 -> 12) [Warp 3.6 Cruise]

I'm okay with the reduced improvement in cruise speed over the Stingray, even if it would be nice.

Also, typo patrol:
Sayle said:
The last major structural element to decide on is the nacelles, because there have been some interesting suggestions. While the initial plan was to mount the nacelles to the wingtips of the delta-body, a proposal has been made that they could instead be installed internally. The outer edges of the ship and its unique geometry means that you can have the buzzard collectors on the leading edge and the trailing end of the nacelles sticking out the back.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm pretty sure the bolded word should be "Bussard"? Did autocorrupt decloak and attack the update?
 
[X] Internal Nacelles (-Optional Aft Cannon, Defense Rating 10 -> 12) [Warp 3.6 Cruise]

UES Flying RatPidgeon let's go!

I think defense matters more here, as already thread and rethread in the thread by several people with a similar opinion. I'd also think that it'd look more gorgeous.

...

It's a valid consideration!
 
Lightwhispers said:
I'm pretty sure the bolded word should be "Bussard"? Did autocorrupt decloak and attack the update?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Autocorrupt lurks out in the vastness of space, in the darkest corners of the void...watching...waiting for the best time to stroke...oh no! It's here! Tactical Alert! Evasive Maneuvers! Polarize the hull plating, charge the phase cannons, and load the torpedoes! All hands, prepare for combat!
 
[X] Internal Nacelles (-Optional Aft Cannon, Defense Rating 10 -> 12) [Warp 3.6 Cruise]
 
Lightwhispers said:
[X] Internal Nacelles (-Optional Aft Cannon, Defense Rating 10 -> 12) [Warp 3.6 Cruise]

I'm okay with the reduced improvement in cruise speed over the Stingray, even if it would be nice.

Also, typo patrol:

I'm pretty sure the bolded word should be "Bussard"? Did autocorrupt decloak and attack the update?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

One of the main processes needed to defend the ship is funnelling any oncoming Space Buzzards into the warp engines, otherwise they land on the hull and start harvesting it to build their nests with.
 
[X] Internal Nacelles (-Optional Aft Cannon, Defense Rating 10 -> 12) [Warp 3.6 Cruise]
Tough little ship.
 
[X] Internal Nacelles (-Optional Aft Cannon, Defense Rating 10 -> 12) [Warp 3.6 Cruise]

If people are dead-set on naming it the Hummingbird-class, might I suggest we use the Nahuatl term for the hummingbird, huitzil, instead of the English in this case? Later bird names would presumably be in English, but the class name being in Nahuatl would make the logic being proposed more obvious.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top