Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
[X] 6 Phaser Banks, 2 Forward Torpedo Launchers

if I am understanding this right, the issue with the D- infrastructure cost is that if we're crash building ships for a war we will have issues mass building this ship, but its not an issue during peace time. I am 100% fine with that, this is not the ship we would be crash building in a war, its the ship we have a bunch at the start of the war to buy us time to crash build the ships better at murder.

Also i find it hilarious that the federation ship of the line science cruiser just happens to be absolutely bristling with guns.
 
NSMS said:
By class I meant 'battleship', 'cruiser', 'frigatte', etc, rather than 'Constitution', 'Galaxy', etc. My bad, sorry for not being clear.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Ah, I suppose so, though that wasn't my understanding. If so, that doesn't change the calculus so much though, since you're still comparing CLs to CLs and not CLs to CAs.

A B rated CL is still very good compared to most CLs after all. Having it be extremely low cost on the civilian front and average on the military side also means it can be kept in production for longer alongside newer designs.

Which is another reason to stay away from a failing grade. In 10 years we may have something we really want to pump out that competes for resources. A Galileo that doesn't have a D rating for military infrastructure means it's more likely to be kept in production alongside newer designs, especially since it doesn't strain the civilian side.

Gear said:
[X] 6 Phaser Banks
That's all we need for this ship.

Also, look what I got today.

View: https://imgur.com/a/qmWHTMG
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Jealous! Those are on my wishlist. I loved getting them from the library as a kid.
 
[X] 6 Phaser Banks, 2 Forward Torpedo Launchers

The Cygnus class is being replaced in part because it was basically useless as a warship. So military capability is a major consideration behind the design, as much as science, especially with tensions with the Klingons building. The extra firepower will be useful against targets like Starbases and other infrastructure, any Klingon capital ships like the D7 or predecessors. They have never relied entirely on Bird-of-Preys, after all. And we might face enemies with radically different tactical doctrines that concentrate on shields and durability and firepower where being able to mass torpedoes to overwhelm them will be critical.

The opportunity costs are minimal enough like, even the Miranda has torps. Any Starfleet ship expected to engage in combat does, and these are explicitly of that type.
 
Last edited:
Tylonius said:
Skippy has been around the block enough times to know that mass-tagging people is considered highly rude, especially when you're doing it to lecture people who aren't voting the way you want. Also the idea that people lack information he does is presumptive in the extreme. We're all capable of reading the thread and coming to our own ideas, just because we don't change our votes when new information is presented doesn't mean we somehow missed it or are too stupid to realize what the information means.

I don't care about having torps of the ship, and don't think sacrificing a module slot is worth it to have them. The ship is armed enough with 6 phasers for a rear-line combatant and I want everything else to be focused on Science.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Horologer said:
In addition to what others have said: some people are just going to make their vote and then bounce from the thread until the next update. I find it a little annoying, both as a QM and as a voter who follows the thread closely, but I also accept that it's something people should be allowed to do. Not everyone has the time or inclination to read through a fast-moving thread.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

This was what motivated me to try and inform people, given that I know most voters do exactly this, and these people were voting before the big-round up post which started to clear up the cost misconceptions. Given the literally dozens of times this has come up after the initial Q&A with Sayle, including literally just now, the idea that it's unreasonable or somehow rude to expect that a casual reader might not be aware of this quite counterintuitive thing does not really track.

Personally I'd hate for someone to find out later that the ship could have gone up more than entire ranking for no real cost, and feel awful that they voted without knowing. If that's wrong and I've just annoyed some people, then I'm sorry. But I knew how gutted I'd be in that situation, and I don't think it's either a big deal or a wrong decision.

Kartr_Kana said:
Having it be extremely low cost on the civilian front and average on the military side also means it can be kept in production for longer alongside newer designs.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

So, sorry to sound like a broken record, but this not true; the number of ships we build and the timeframe we build them across is roughly the same torpedoes or not, as per QM.

There is not a meaningful cost decrease from not having torpedoes. Our torpedo launcher production lines are will run at less capacity, but this does does not provide a tangible benefit we can actualise unless we're building another capital ship, which we aren't.
 
Last edited:
[X] 6 Phaser Banks, 2 Forward Torpedo Launchers

Okay, I'm convinced on account of the opportunity cost being quite low. I still don't think the torpedos will be useful most of the time, since from what we've been told they're likely to simply miss in 1 vs 1 ship combat (or when fighting multiple smaller opponents). But they could admittedly be quite useful in the context of a larger battle including heavier ships on both sides, and that does matter.
 
Skippy said:
This is, explicitly not true, the number of ships we build and the timeframe we build them across is roughly the same torpedoes or not, as per QM.

There is no cost decrease.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Either the Industry cost will never matter ever, making it meaningless, or it does have meaning. Even if right now it might not have much of an impact, that's not always going to be true.
 
Cavalier said:
The opportunity costs are minimal enough like, even the Miranda has torps. Any Starfleet ship expected to engage in combat does, and these are explicitly of that type.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The Miranda is also a larger vessel than the Constitution by internal volume (and maybe mass).

Skippy said:
So, sorry to sound like a broken record, but this not true; the number of ships we build and the timeframe we build them across is roughly the same torpedoes or not, as per QM.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Sure, for the first production run and assuming there's no sudden change of priorities. In 10 years time when we've built an Explorer/battlecruiser, a heavy cruiser and are building a new combat torpedo boat, the infrastructure cost of Galileo may very well determine if it gets a second or third tranche.
 
Having lobbied hard against someone (who was doing a great job of lobbying themselves) and then seeing them realize after the vote that they'd misunderstood a key point was a bit brutal for both of us. I had thought they just placed a different personal value for the costs and benefits when they likely would have voted with me if the misunderstanding had been cleared up.

The number of pages of discussion for this vote is more than anyone casual should reasonably be expected to parse so a TLDR while possibly annoying is helpful, like a newspaper correction but put on the front page.
 
Derpmind said:
Either the Industry cost will never matter ever, making it meaningless, or it does have meaning. Even if right now it might not have much of an impact, that's not always going to be true.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Industry cost does have a meaning, it's just that in peacetime (and since we're not going to be fitting out another heavily armed class as these ships come online) unless we're going for something ridiculous it'll always be able to keep up with demand.
Wartime, where we're rapidly expending torpedoes as fast as they can be shipped off, phasers are getting used and wearing out at a great rate, is when it does matter, where shaving off some extra cost for a new class of ships we've got building/fitting out means that existing ships can still be adequately resupplied and their worn systems replaced.
 
Derpmind said:
Either the Industry cost will never matter ever, making it meaningless, or it does have meaning. Even if right now it might not have much of an impact, that's not always going to be true.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

No, it is never going to matter in the context of where we are right now.

Again, according to the QM, the only circumstances in which we would face production shortfalls of weapons would if we trying to produce another Thunderchild-scale capital ship whilst we're still building the Gailleo. This means would have to be our next ship class.

Our next ship class is not going to be a dreadnought, both because it would be a bad investment for multiple reasons right now, and also because we've seen the options for our next ships, and it's not one of them.

We last had this exact discussion... two or three pages ago.
 
Endorfinator said:
I'd really like to go past canon so we can play around with post-Voyager stuff like quantum slipstream.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well, canon does presently take us up to 2400, and whilst it's never shown up elsewhere (to my knowledge) Prodigy does have two ships that make use of QSSD.

Star Trek Online, if you chop off the fat easily has enough content within it to give an at least 80 year era.
 
OldGlory76 said:
Seeing that this is the option with the best cost/tactical ratio it only seems logical to pick it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

So at the risk of being repetitive for others in the thread: there is no cost increase for picking the torpedoes, except an opportunity cost that we cannot pick the Thunderchild Mk. II: Photonic Boogaloo for our next design project, which we were not going to do anyway. The cost of the ship, number of ships we build, etc., stay identical whether we have torpedoes or not. They simply greatly increase our Tactical score and the capabilities of the ship in its intended role, for negligible cost.

To see Sayle's answers confirming this and for more details generally, please look to my post which has a roundup and someone very kindly decided to gild.
 
[ ] Secondary capability, medium range, decently armed. (Light Cruiser: ~400k)
Consider that 6 phasers will get us full coverage and I would consider "decently armed". If we were to also choose the 2 photons, that could be considered "well/heavily armed". It is for this reason I've voted for no photons.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top