Linked contents
I figured we got the starfleet side of this and don't have visibility on the civilian side. It's happening in the background by someone else or Yoyodyne is using this to subsidize development. They'll refine whatever they get here (stuff that would make sense on a hauler) and then try some of the other options for a next Gen civilian engine prototype they can bring to market. Maybe a reading fail on my part.
Based entirely on the adding a net negative decreases the average I'm voting
[X] Standard Length
I like efficient cruise but with max cruise being sustainable for long periods (possibly entire runs) I don't want to lose ground there.
- Location
- The Void
[X] Standard Length
Chargone
Invisable operator
- Location
- New Zealand
For individual ships (and their crews), the argument is mostly between max cruise and sprint, and which is more important varies by mission profile and role. For the fleet as a whole, though, (and the people making decisions and assigning resources and assets) increased efficient cruise is simply far more beneficial over all.
As a result we should usually take a boost to efficient cruise over a boost to sprint when we have to pick one or the other.
However, that's not to say increased sprint isn't desirable, nor that Losing (rather than just not gaining) X sprint to gain <X efficient cruise (and seemingly also losing Max cruise) is a good or acceptable tradeoff absent other factors.
I feel like you're agreeing that a higher cruise is better since warships also spend most of their time cruising...
Warp 6.2 is 238c
Warp 6.8 is 314c
24.2% decrease
Using best case scenarios
Cruise for Standard is Warp 5.2 is 140.6c
Cruise for Extended is Warp 5.6 is 175.6c
20% decrease
Maximum for Standard is Warp 7.4 is 405c
Maximum for Extended is Warp 6.8 is 314c
22% decrease
However Cruise is going to be the default mode for the vast majority of the vessels lifetime. And is going to have the largest impact on the logistical and strategic situations Starfleet faces.
Cruise favors strategic thinking, maximum favors tactical thinking. An army marches on its belly.
That implies that one ship is more important than the entire system. If you need to shift vessels from the Romulan front to a new front (like the Klingon front) cruise is going to be more important than sprint, since the fleet can't sprint from the Romulan front to the Klingon front.
One ship being able to flee a Klingon ship, isn't more important than the entire fleet being able to shift in time to stop the Klingon fleet a month or two earlier.
The math was done here Starfleet Design Bureau Sci-Fi . For a non-specialized Extended Nacelles( the Sagarmatha - new extended nacelles row) we lose ~9% in 12 hour response times vs ( Sagarmatha - current nacelles), actually gain in 3 day response times vs ( Sagarmatha - current nacelles), and also gain almost 50% operational range vs ( Sagarmatha - current nacelles).
Cruise is king.
- Location
- USA
[X] Standard Length
Might as well call it. Hopefully we can claw back some cruise capability on the Stabilizer and ship configurations.
Chargone
Invisable operator
- Location
- New Zealand
Can't sprint in those situations, but can, and probably should, travel at max cruise. Max cruise is pretty consistently the half way point between efficient cruise and sprint. When sprint goes down, so does max cruise Unless efficient cruise also goes up by at least the same amount. As efficient cruise is going up by less than sprint is going down, max cruise (the speed that's relevant to "high priority and emergency travel" rather than "regular travel where logistical efficiency is much more important than actual speed" or "immediate tactical considerations only") is Also going down.
Last edited:
[X] Standard Length
True, but we're talking about Warp 6.3 (250c) vs Warp 6.2 (238c) in a best case vs best case, for High Cruise, or about a 5% decrease vs a 20% decrease in standard cruise.
StriderInCosmos
Wanderer in the Worldsea
- Location
- Somewhere in... Terminal Dogma? I think?
All told, looking at past projects at least, we're usually able to get a guaranteed 0.2 to 0.4 increase in cruise capabilities depending on both the size of the ship and the Cruise configuration option. It's certainly not as big a boost as 0.6 in whatever configuration we put it into, but we're still bumping up the numbers across the board if (frankly when) standard length wins and we decide on a cruise configuration utilizing the nacelle.
No, I do not.
It is like in a war. There is a saying, that war is mostly boredom punctuated by sheer terror, but the terror moments are when people die.
Here, while even military ships spend most time at cruise speeds, the time they spend at max cruise or outright max speeds is when people die and ships get destroyed. Thus improving ship performance for the time maximum performance is not needed is great for standard situations, but is liable to kill people in a crisis.
Last edited:
- Pronouns
- He
[X] Standard Length
Ah but higher cruise means you can concentrate more vessels into a threatened region, and win the fight instead of running away or dying.
Cruise is strategic, max is tactical.
But it doesn't matter for this vote. Standard length is winning by over 2 to 1.
No.
Max cruise is strategic, max is tactical.
Because if you need to concentrate more vessels in a threatened region, you order them to go there at maximal sustainable speed.
This is max cruise. Max cruise is lowered by choosing longer nacelles as well.
Last edited:
- Location
- in between
[X] Standard Length
Yeah, in my mind this is a choice between speed and range. Long nacelles major advantage is that it gives our ships a much longer endurance. Exploration ships go further with high efficient cruise. Ship ranges are increased.
But we lose out on tactical in that ships are less flexible to suddenly be somewhere else in an emergency.
But we lose out on tactical in that ships are less flexible to suddenly be somewhere else in an emergency.