I agree that brittle armor is a very bad thing. Problem is, with two success checks on the Electro-Ceramic, it might end up being glorified ditanium anyway.
Linked contents
- Location
- Outside the Box
- Pronouns
- She/Her
[ ] 1: Electro-Ceramic Hull Composite (-20% Mass) [Experimental] (Two Success Checks: Cost/Defense)
Canon Starfleet moved away from armored hulls in favor of shields. But the two can work together to form a better defense. I know two prototype rolls are risky, but this can lead to a path where we could potentially improve our durability without sacrificing mass to do so. E: Also, we didn't get any prototype options for Project Khufu. So I'm itching to push the tech envelope forward once again.
Canon Starfleet moved away from armored hulls in favor of shields. But the two can work together to form a better defense. I know two prototype rolls are risky, but this can lead to a path where we could potentially improve our durability without sacrificing mass to do so. E: Also, we didn't get any prototype options for Project Khufu. So I'm itching to push the tech envelope forward once again.
Last edited:
Empress_Boog
Grand Empress
I agree, but we have to prototype it at some point, otherwise we will never advance in the "tech tree" for the armor. Like I said though I wouldn't mind the Tritanium either but we should take the other soon then.
The ditanium looks to be a bad option simply because shields have been shown to not protect against every use case scenario
Hmm... you know what this means? The ship's Warp performance isn't part of our success metrics!
Single-nacelle team, it's your time to shine! UFS Lollipop is a go!
[ ] 0: Large Saucer (380,000 Tons)
[ ] 1: Ditanium Hull Plating (-20% Mass) (-20% Defensive Rating)
[ ] 1: Electro-Ceramic Hull Composite (-20% Mass) [Experimental] (Two Success Checks: Cost/Defense)
Either of the mass saving options is good for me
[ ] 1: Ditanium Hull Plating (-20% Mass) (-20% Defensive Rating)
[ ] 1: Electro-Ceramic Hull Composite (-20% Mass) [Experimental] (Two Success Checks: Cost/Defense)
Either of the mass saving options is good for me
Also, I will point out Star Trek 6's setpiece/climax battle and the hull damage Enty-A sustained even before the shields got hammered down to fucked status/inactive. And that was with shield tech roughly a century more advanced than what we have atm.
- Location
- Lake Wobegon
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
[ ] 1: Electro-Ceramic Hull Composite (-20% Mass) [Experimental] (Two Success Checks: Cost/Defense)
Consider that this option is what gets us the smooth lines and gleaming white hulls of the TOS and early films era and finally moves us out of the greebly gunmetal gray of Enterprise.
Consider that this option is what gets us the smooth lines and gleaming white hulls of the TOS and early films era and finally moves us out of the greebly gunmetal gray of Enterprise.
StriderInCosmos
Wanderer in the Worldsea
- Location
- Somewhere in... Terminal Dogma? I think?
Alright, flagship time, baby.
I'm inclined to go with the large saucer. With these vessels going out into the unknown alone for long stretches of time, they'll need both the space to carry with them the components that allow them To Boldly Go and do so, so many things and the weapons capabilities to fend off potentially powerful military vessels that are hostile to them. However, with something so big...
We're going to need to move away from tritanium, I think. With only three thruster slots coming for the primary hull at its largest and little idea of when exactly thruster advancements might come, we'll need to do whatever we can to ensure that the vessel won't be trudging through non-warp space. Thus, I'm largely ambivalent with going for ditanium, as queasy as lowering the defense score of such a vessel makes me, which means we may well have to be brave and experiment with the electro-ceramic composite. Two experiment rolls are dicey, but may well net us the best of both worlds, so that will be my primary choice when voting opens.
I'm inclined to go with the large saucer. With these vessels going out into the unknown alone for long stretches of time, they'll need both the space to carry with them the components that allow them To Boldly Go and do so, so many things and the weapons capabilities to fend off potentially powerful military vessels that are hostile to them. However, with something so big...
We're going to need to move away from tritanium, I think. With only three thruster slots coming for the primary hull at its largest and little idea of when exactly thruster advancements might come, we'll need to do whatever we can to ensure that the vessel won't be trudging through non-warp space. Thus, I'm largely ambivalent with going for ditanium, as queasy as lowering the defense score of such a vessel makes me, which means we may well have to be brave and experiment with the electro-ceramic composite. Two experiment rolls are dicey, but may well net us the best of both worlds, so that will be my primary choice when voting opens.
Endorfinator
Awkwardly Social
- Pronouns
- He/Him
I'm not sure I'm happy about the return to the original quest's ranking system. I really appreciated the more quantifiable thing we had going on here.
I agree with this.
The result of two bad rolls on the prototyping for Electro-Ceramic is basically equivalent to it we took ditanium. Possibly exchanging some defence for cost, which is fine, it's not the end of the world.
This seems like a we either win or at least break even - and on a good roll, we'll have this hull type available on future projects.
Strunkriidiisk
THE LEGEND
- Location
- Canada
- Pronouns
- He/Him
If I'm inferring correctly, I suspect the dice breakdown on the electro-ceramic is something like:
2 failures - ditanium-equivalent
1 success, 1 failure - probably equivalent to current tritanium in terms of defence while retaining mass savings (i.e. as advertised in the option)
2 successes - better protection than current tritanium even at reduced mass
The benefits and/or drawbacks might be more esoteric than a simple linear +/- armour toughness, but the principle should remain much the same.
2 failures - ditanium-equivalent
1 success, 1 failure - probably equivalent to current tritanium in terms of defence while retaining mass savings (i.e. as advertised in the option)
2 successes - better protection than current tritanium even at reduced mass
The benefits and/or drawbacks might be more esoteric than a simple linear +/- armour toughness, but the principle should remain much the same.
Last edited:
Battlebridge might be incoming next ship generation.
[ ] 1: Electro-Ceramic Hull Composite (-20% Mass) [Experimental] (Two Success Checks: Cost/Defense)
I think we should do this. If I'm reading right then we save mass no matter what. 0 successes means it's expensive ditanium. 1 success might mean it's the same as ditanium but a new tech gets advanced, if we get 1 success the other way then it's a bit expensive but we'll also get good defense. If we get 2 it's a complete win.
[ ] 1: Electro-Ceramic Hull Composite (-20% Mass) [Experimental] (Two Success Checks: Cost/Defense)
I think we should do this. If I'm reading right then we save mass no matter what. 0 successes means it's expensive ditanium. 1 success might mean it's the same as ditanium but a new tech gets advanced, if we get 1 success the other way then it's a bit expensive but we'll also get good defense. If we get 2 it's a complete win.
Last edited:
- Location
- SEAsia
- Pronouns
- Thou
This was supposed to be the best opportunity to drop the Boldly Go line!
[JK] 1 : Transparent Aluminum as an experimental stealth hull design. The USS stealth jellyfish is a go! Crew are advised to wear cloths at all times while aboard.
Ambit
Help me
- Location
- Third Circle of Hell
I mean, the option is labelled (Two Success Checks: Cost/Defense). We might see something like ditanium defense-wise but more expensive as a worst case scenario.
Last edited:
- Location
- Illinois
- Pronouns
- He/Him
I think we should take the experimental hull. Hull technology is a key technology, and so will advance no matter what, but this will still get the tech out to the rest of the fleet much sooner than we could otherwise expect. It would probably take at least two ship cycles otherwise. It also has potentially huge savings in total mass, as well as an improvement on defense. An explorer that's going to be low production is a good ship to test a few new technologies on.
I appreciate that it'd be more work, but it'd be neat if we could do more than one material on a ship. I am imagining small nacelle/large secondary hull where the nacelle gets all the life support and the electro-ceramic hull (for hopefully extra protection) but the secondary hull with its not-necessary for life gets the cheaper diterium because it's not strictly needed to keep people alive.
That way we'd also save on resources if the E-C hull turns out to be a bust.
That way we'd also save on resources if the E-C hull turns out to be a bust.
0t4n1z3r019
Member of the HAFPTG
- Location
- Philippines
The electro-ceramic hull composites is a prototype that we need to use to allow our tech to move up one tier, and it's a 50/50 on the rolls, so we can take one success and a one failed roll.
At best, we have a fully functional new hull composite, and at worst, it's just ditanium with extra steps.
At best, we have a fully functional new hull composite, and at worst, it's just ditanium with extra steps.
10ebbor10
DON'T PANIC
- Location
- Present
I kind of want to do something different, doctrinally.
Make a small, reliable and affordable explorer, rather than a do-everything flagship. That way you could have whole exploratory expeditions, rather than singular hero-ships on 5 year missions.
But I'm not sure we have the design freedom to do that.
Make a small, reliable and affordable explorer, rather than a do-everything flagship. That way you could have whole exploratory expeditions, rather than singular hero-ships on 5 year missions.
But I'm not sure we have the design freedom to do that.
- Location
- SEAsia
- Pronouns
- Thou
I think one of the purposes was to act as a "spare" in case the main one is... unavailable?
Yeah, you definitely don't want that kind of scenario.