Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
Kartr_Kana said:
We're not going to spend anything on phasers, QM already said nothing going forward is going to impact cost for this design.

We'll make our next ship a monster combat ship, no expense spared then. This thing just needs to not be useless in a fight and that is achieved with phasers and 2 engines.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Already answered this. Just because we don't vote for costs doesn't mean armament won't be implemented on a similar budget for both options. Which means coverage to compensate for lower mobility is phasers not being deployed in the firing arc.

Nyvis said:
I never claimed otherwise?

When I say phasers have cost, I mean that we don't get extra free ones to throw in to cover for lower mobility. We get the same amount of weapon budget for a less mobile ship, which in practice means less firepower in our firing arc.

In fact, I can argue this because there will not be further cost adjustments. We won't be able to spend more to have the same frontal firepower plus coverage. We'll spend the same amount but spread it our more to compensate for lower mobility.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
 
[X] 2 Impulse Thrusters [Maneuverability: Slow] (Final Cost: A-)

I'm happy with a phaser boat that makes a good escort when called up. Lower cost should mean more ships, which means a higher change of having another one on hand to help fill out a larger fleet action.
 
Maneuverability has multiple tactical uses, and for some reason the only one being discussed is phaser coverage.
As the QM pointed out, you need it for torpedoes to the point it's not even worth putting them on without a decent amount. And the spike damage from torpedoes combined with the phasers is huge. Not having this drastically reduces combat ability.

To be clear: this isn't just a vote for maneuverability, it's a vote for if we think a combat ship should have torpedoes.

But you also need maneuverability for evasive action, not just offense. Whether it be to dodge torpedoes, traverse spacial phenomenons or keep the damaged portion of your ship faced away from the enemy. (And yes it's nice we can shoot all directions, but that doesn't stop us being more vulnerable from certain directions defensively)

You also need it for fleet maneuvers. I'm not talking dog fighting here, though it would include it, I'm talking things like choosing the range and angle of engagement, picking how long to take fire for before withdrawing and guarding damaged ships.

No torpedoes and no maneuverability does not make a viable war ship, second line of defense or not. They can't defend a target with a weapon set up designed to just excel at defending themselves from a wide angle, they need the ability to actually hunt and destroy. At best these guys would be a meat shield defending our new logistics bases if they plunk themselves directly between the attackers and the base... Assuming attackers didn't simply circle around them and go straight to the station uncontested because of the lack of maneuverability.


We've been asked to make a science ship that can also act as a secondary line in battle. If we were going to undergun it in the name of finance, we should have picked the ship with no guns and gone all the way.

It's going to be an amazing science ship. We've succeeded wildly there I think. But picking poor maneuverability and no torpedoes feels like failing the design brief.
 
Last edited:
[X] 3 Impulse Thrusters [Maneuverability: Average] (Final Cost: C+)

Losing so many tiers in cost for a single extra impulse hurts, but I am far more worried about the ship being able to actually maneuver in tactical situations. Which is the secondary purpose of the ship.
 
landcollector said:
I don't think anyone sane was expecting this hull to get into dogfights with BoPs and win. I guess here's to hoping we don't have to replace too many hulls and crew because of losing maneuver wars to negative space wedgies and other stellar phenomena (not saying Avg would eliminate that hazard entirely, but would certainly mitigate it more) since the A- Cost option has a beyond insurmountable lead at this point.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm certainly not opposed to making ships more survivable, but if adding time for the ship to turn matters, they're already too close. Ideally we'll cram enough sensors, computing power and lab space aboard this design that they can keep a healthy distance from poorly understood space phenomena.
 
[X] 3 Impulse Thrusters [Maneuverability: Average] (Final Cost: C+)

I'm going Average because while this ship is primarily a Science Vessel, we have given it some teeth to defend itself and operate in a combat situation. Decent Maneuverability will hopefully help in this.
 
Reading the project tower review post the light cruiser profile, as well as to provide scientific facilities (and whatever secondaries we fit in there that are associated with it, like medical) is to have a useful armament so that in times of hostility it could be an effective combatant.

This does not necessarily imply that it is intended to take it into fleet actions (though obviously where misfortune and fortune present themselves that will happen - the battlecruisers were never meant to be part of the battle line, after all), keep in mind the Curiosity (which this ship is replacing) was compared to the Cygnus in having a similar mass but not being able to carry out the same rear line duties as the Cygnus owing to lack of armament/other factors.

What this does tell me is that the primary use case for this ship during war times will likely be on the rear lines, where (as far as I'm aware) largest threats will be singular raiders, or possibly small raiding parties (in the case of the Klingons). Low/slow manouverability is perfectly fine for this sort of role, in my opinion, combined with the advantages we'd get from the increase in hull numbers that result from it (namely extra coverage/hulls to put on those duties).

For the constituent vessels of Starfleet, that evaluation has highlighted some lessons that need learning. It did not escape the notice of Starfleet that during the Federation-Kzinti War they had a stable of starships that could not contribute, having been judged tactically vulnerable. The Curiosity-class, minimally armed as it is, nonetheless masses the same as the Cygnus-class which proved a useful rear-line combatant during the war. The feeling is that the lesson of the Curiosity is that specialised starships should be low-mass and minimally armed (and therefore make up less of the fleet's total tonnage) or higher-mass and more generally capable, but should not straddle the line between the two extremes.

Given the aging equipment on the Curiosity there is already an appetite for a successor. The question is what shape that successor should take. On one hand a frigate-sized vessel that strips out extraneous capability could fit a decent amount of scientific equipment aboard. On the other, a light cruiser that deliberately fits a useful armament could then be an effective combatant during future states of hostility.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Emphasis mine.
 
Last edited:
I kinda think we should keep this ship cheap, nearly all of our ships so far have been high cost.
 
[X] 3 Impulse Thrusters [Maneuverability: Average] (Final Cost: C+)

This might be the wrong decision, but I'd rather spend an average amount for a good ship then spend a little on a slow ship.
 
dermenscha said:
[X] 3 Impulse Thrusters [Maneuverability: Average] (Final Cost: C+)

This might be the wrong decision, but I'd rather spend an average amount for a good ship then spend a little on a slow ship.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Briefvoice said:
FYI, the QM said "slow" is a mistake and it's supposed to be "low" maneuverability, but the votes started before it could be corrected.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Basically, as I understand it (the battle scenes we've had don't really stick to my mind), it's not moving like the Enterprise D at the end of Picard, nor the Defiant during the Dominion War but it'll still going to be more capable/mobile than the Enterprise/Discovery at the Battle Near Xahea, even with the two impulse engine only option.
 
[X] 3 Impulse Thrusters [Maneuverability: Average] (Final Cost: C+)

As far as I'm concerned, this ship is aiming to, on a purely tactical level, replace the Cygnus class cruisers. Also, it's worth noting, this still leaves the ship cheaper than the Selachiis. They've got Cost: C-, while a 3-engine Galileo will still have C+ despite the greater size.

Hopefully, we'll get some sort of impulse engine prototype next project, because higher thrust would be very useful.
 
inirlan said:
Isn't the cost rating a relative rating for its size, class and tech level rather than an absolute indicator of cost?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The scores are relative to the design. A C- is the lowest score we can get if all rolls are bad and we take all the negative options for that stat. An A+ is likewise the highest score we can normally get, with S as a special case if we manage to break QM expectations.

It's score based on what Starfleet will feel about the performance, not a specific performance. A ship with a C can be better than a ship with an A if the ship with the C is expected to be categorically better than the A ship.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top