Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
Fouredged Sword said:
If you want to get technical that's what a prototype is, ie something built for the first time, it just doesn't include a performance roll, but sometimes that happens.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
thepsyborg said:
Oh I mean it's definitely a prototype by the dictionary definition, just not the specific-quest-mechanics one.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Actually, no, I changed my mind; the Type 1B isn't a prototype any more than my computer is a prototype just because I couldn't find anybody on Reddit who'd used the same combination of CPU cooler and CPU before and confirmed that they worked together. If using two components with known specs to do their designed and tested function within their designed and tested specs is prototyping then I think you've broadened the term beyond all meaning.
 
thepsyborg said:
Actually, no, I changed my mind; the Type 1B isn't a prototype any more than my computer is a prototype just because I couldn't find anybody on Reddit who'd used the same combination of CPU cooler and CPU before and confirmed that they worked together. If using two components with known specs to do their designed and tested function within their designed and tested specs is prototyping then I think you've broadened the term beyond all meaning.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Sure, it's not prototyping. It is however needlessly complicating the design and the supply chain, necessitating that for anyone who wants the design, they have to order the auxiliary hardware from Andoria or construct the factory tooling to produce it from scratch, in order to feed this one class of ship.
 
Strunkriidiisk said:
Sure, it's not prototyping. It is however needlessly complicating the design and the supply chain, necessitating that for anyone who wants the design, they have to order the auxiliary hardware from Andoria or construct the factory tooling to produce it from scratch, in order to feed this one class of ship.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I would consider it a prototype because the components aren't probably exactly plug and play. Just a far less risky one than one that requires a roll.
 
I mean, there probably is a certain amount of fiddling required, just because I can't imagine that equipment manufactured by two entirely different species use the same power connectors and requirements, part diameters, control software, and so on.

But there's also another factor to consider, and that is that part of the reason why we're doing this at all, is to increase the level of standardization across the Federation and get more manufacturing for the stuff that we actually use ourselves spun up to lower costs; which a bespoke system would kinda go against.
 
Do keep in mind, just because we can spend up to 120 KT doesn't mean we should, the lower mass it is, the faster and more agile it'll be.

And a police cutter should be able to catch just about anything that doesn't warrant a Fleet Deployment.
 
Alectai said:
Do keep in mind, just because we can spend up to 120 KT doesn't mean we should, the lower mass it is, the faster and more agile it'll be.

And a police cutter should be able to catch just about anything that doesn't warrant a Fleet Deployment.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

If every option adds mass here, then I think we should take most of the smallest options yeah, like everything but the brig or something...
 
[X] Stick to the Type-1 Phasers. [120,000 Ton Max] [Tactical: Second Place]

I do admit I was thinking police ships would be more like 2-4 phasers, but the clarification that 1-2 phasers is considered adequate makes more sense. I don't think we need or want those higher yield phasers, it's been canvassed many times here, but bespoke, fiddly, expensive parts that probably will have a limited production run and have limited utility, is a bad idea. If we had Type-2 phasers it might be different, but we don't.

Besides, if there's concern about heavily armed pirates, you could always post multiple cutters and deploy them in tandem.
 
thepsyborg said:
Trading circa two points of utility for one point of tactical seems like a stupid choice.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This is just bizarre and objectively wrong, it's a 1-3 scale. There's no world where our ship with 100kt to what, 60 and 72kt doesn't manage a 2 on the utility anyways.

The 1B is not some prototype, and it's not saying 1 utility in exchange for 3 tactical… it's betting we can manage 3 Utility when we have 30kt more slack than the next design anyways rather than insisting we can't do it without 50kt of slack. Of course it looks like a bad option when you discard the actual criteria and start talking about having the worst utility as a matter of course.
 
Last edited:
Karugus said:
This is just bizarre and objectively wrong, it's a 1-3 scale. There's no world where our ship with 100kt to what, 60 and 72kt doesn't manage a 2 on the utility anyways.

The 1B is not some prototype, and it's not saying 1 utility in exchange for 3 tactical… it's betting we can manage 3 Utility when we have 30kt more slack than the next design anyways rather than insisting we can't do it without 50kt of slack. Of course it looks like a bad option when you discard the actual criteria and start talking about having the worst utility as a matter of course.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's a probable complicating factor when it comes to cost however. As noted it's a bespoke part combination rather than off-the shelf components, and any ship with it is going to end up noticeably heavier for the same amount of capability if we're still trying to win on utility. That could tip us over the line to being more expensive than the Denobulan design, at which point we're competing with them for winning in the market afterward and have failed our design brief.

Also 1B Phasers are just overkill. 2 type-1 phasers are sufficient to match or overpower any opponent the cutter is intended to face, and we have patrol warships (the Cygnuses) to deal with anything heavier. By the time 2 type-1s are no longer sufficient to deal with the things a cutter is supposed to be able to manage, the design should be long retired due to obsolescence.
 
[x] Stick to the Type-1 Phasers. [120,000 Ton Max] [Tactical: Second Place]

I feel like it would be very starfeleet to win this on utility functions, it also means the cops can do more than very rarely shoot at smugglers.
 
Strunkriidiisk said:
It's a probable complicating factor when it comes to cost however. As noted it's a bespoke part combination rather than off-the shelf components, and any ship with it is going to end up noticeably heavier for the same amount of capability if we're still trying to win on utility. That could tip us over the line to being more expensive than the Denobulan design, at which point we're competing with them for winning in the market afterward and have failed our design brief.

Also 1B Phasers are just overkill. 2 type-1 phasers are sufficient to match or overpower any opponent the cutter is intended to face, and we have patrol warships (the Cygnuses) to deal with anything heavier. By the time 2 type-1s are no longer sufficient to deal with the things a cutter is supposed to be able to manage, the design should be long retired due to obsolescence.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The problem is that the Type1 phasers are fundamentally the same as any phasers a civilian vessel is liable to mount at this point. A police cutter potentially having equivalent firepower to the civilian ships they're policing dramatically increases the chance of funny business occurring.

I don't disagree that bespoke parts are potentially problematic, but the risk of police cutters being drawn into fights where they don't have a meaningful firepower advantage is personally more concerning.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top