Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
an observation on the quest mechanics, given the nature of the argument I think it's fair to say that the cost/Infrastructure split is not particularly intuitive. Given the present debate seems to hinge on two opposite takes on what a low rating for this ship implies.
 
StriderInCosmos said:
We'd need some sort of mission pod, methinks, for it to seal the deal. And there's no reason a mission pod-like structure couldn't be added to later 'Flights' of Galileos. Maybe to the neck, perhaps, if there's any free space after this design.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Mission pod might have been possible with the Small saucer option. Alas that that option missed the boat by five-ish votes.

Endorfinator said:
Also the Cygnus' role wasn't "rear line combatant", it was forced into that role because it was hilariously outdated. Why are we settling for matching a ship that was deemed irrelevant a decade ago?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Matching? 150% of the single target firepower rating and 300% the multi-target rating is "matching"? On something who's primary role is science and secondary role is a secondline combat vessel no less.
 
Endorfinator said:
Also the Cygnus' role wasn't "rear line combatant", it was forced into that role because it was hilariously outdated. Why are we settling for matching a ship that was deemed irrelevant a decade ago?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

So that the Galileo can be also be a barely-relevant rear line combatant in a war in a decade or two's time, of course. Obviously speedy obsolescence is the goal here.

This is cost-efficient, despite not being any cheaper, and shows we have a deep understanding of the design brief, despite the brief being Starfleet screaming, crying and shitting itself whilst asking us to please for the love of god build a decently armed ship which can serve as an effective combatant in a pinch.

random_npc said:
an observation on the quest mechanics, given the nature of the argument I think it's fair to say that the cost/Infrastructure split is not particularly intuitive. Given the present debate seems to hinge on two opposite takes on what a low rating for this ship implies.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

This situation was the result of somewhat unique circumstances since Sayle committed to the total cost not increasing past the Impulse engine phase. It's not exactly typical. There's only really one take - we have explicit and detailed answers from the QM on what this means for the ship. Cost does not increase, Infrastructure is not relevant except in blocking other projects using a lot of weapons production, etc..
 
I'd be down for a small, fast diplomatic courier. Really just dump all the speed we can into it.
 
Skippy said:
For a ship that which is meant to be fairly small and basically mostly engine, a single nacelle design could be fun.

Just something whose whole profile screams "speed".
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Mount the nacelle pylon to a lateral axal so it can spin! Let's find out what happens when the nacelle is orbiting the ship fast enough to look like a helicopter blade while at warp!

Might do nothing!
Might cause horrible things to happen to the ship!
Might also Go Faster! Possibly fast enough to punch into the Mirror Universe or Fluidic Space or Gre'Thor or something like that!

(It will never ceace amusing me that Gre'Thor is canonically a real place you can physically travel to, and occasionally fight your way out of after Dying Ingloriously.)
 
Endorfinator said:
We've shown great cost restraint so far, it's time to go ham if you ask me. This is the last thing that will change the ships cost, everything else is just allocation of space.

Also the Cygnus' role wasn't "rear line combatant", it was forced into that role because it was hilariously outdated. Why are we settling for matching a ship that was deemed irrelevant a decade ago?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

This . . . doesn't change the COST in anyway, just the INFRASTRUCTURE, which is purely for parallel building of munitions armed ships, it won't change how many are built at all.

Edit: I kinda want @Sayle to just put an info post or link to said post up at this point with quest WOG (Don't fucking argue it!) on this debate, cause this has been 12 hours of bitter ignorance and spite against quotes and stated facts.
 
Last edited:
Yeah


It's like

I keep seeing people going on about costs are "torpedoes aren't worth the cost" and I am just

There is no cost

At Absolute worst we might lose an Aux slot, on a ship that's probably going to have more than one to lose anyway because it's YUGE.


It seems like people are determined to pinch non-existent pennies for various reasons that don't actually apply, though, so I'll just sigh at the wasted opportunity and hold some I-Told-You-Sos in reserve when we have to replace this again in a decade or so because we were asked for a ship that can be a good Frontliner in a war and good at Doing Science out of one, Could have done so (on the cheap to boot!), and did only the latter Because Reasons.
 
Last edited:
It's just really annoying, because we had a golden opportunity to bulk up the Starfleet with cheap, powerful middleweight cruisers--exactly the kind of thing that would be a godsend in the face of the Klingon Empire of this time period, who are almost certainly going to get into at least a modest spat with the Federation (Hells, it almost kicked off in gorram '61, but they backed down after some skirmishing)---and we squandered it.

Well, I'll just sigh and break out the salt when we're putting the successor design together.

Edit: because we're never going to get an opportunity like this one was again, where Starfleet is about to sextuple its recruiting pool, has loads of spare industrial capacity, with no major loads expected for at least another decade, and a hull that's very nearly as cheap as possible about to enter production. This confluence of factors is just straight up never going to reoccur, and the missed opportunity is just painful.
 
Last edited:
Endorfinator said:
Maybe we can swing a retrofit in the lead up to the war.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Torpedoes are explicitly a thing we cannot add in retrofits, per word of QM, if a ship isn't designed with torpedoes from day one we don't get to add them in later. Which is one reason why everyone not taking them annoys me so much- with only phasers this just isn't able to hack it in the kind of pitched combat we can expect from our next expected opponents--to whit, the Klingon Empire--can and will try to force, restricting it solely to escort duty, when we could have had a cruiser that can stand on the line against the likes of the K'Tinga for zero extra cost.
 
Mechanis said:
Torpedoes are explicitly a thing we cannot add in retrofits, per word of QM, if a ship isn't designed with torpedoes from day one we don't get to add them in later. Which is one reason why everyone not taking them annoys me so much- with only phasers this just isn't able to hack it in the kind of pitched combat we can expect from our next expected opponents--to whit, the Klingon Empire--can and will try to force, restricting it solely to escort duty, when we could have had a cruiser that can stand on the line against the likes of the K'Tinga for zero extra cost.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

IIRC, in this quest, they need antimatter taps, which is not a quick retrofit at all.
 
Mechanis said:
Yeah


It's like

I keep seeing people going on about costs are "torpedoes aren't worth the cost" and I am just

There is no cost

At Absolute worst we might lose an Aux slot, on a ship that's probably going to have more than one to lose anyway because it's YUGE.


It seems like people are determined to pinch non-existent pennies for various reasons that don't actually apply, though, so I'll just sigh at the wasted opportunity and hold some I-Told-You-Sos in reserve when we have to replace this again in a decade or so because we were asked for a ship that can be a good Frontliner in a war and good at Doing Science out of one, Could have done so (on the cheap to boot!), and did only the latter Because Reasons.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Because Reasons is a pretty rough way to dismiss any counterpoint you don't like.

For me I've stated numerous times my position, agreeing that we have the industrial capacity to fit them on, and disagreeing it's worth it.

I argued repetitively and repeatedly in the previous vote, much like you are doing, that we needed at least average maneuverability to be worth putting torpedoes on. That please, seriously, we should have better maneuverability. That this should be a better combat ship.

The vote lost, and then the subject of torpedoes came up.

And my view remains the same. That a ship with low maneuverability gets minimal use out of torpedoes, and rather than have them I would prefer the high chance of an extra science module. I say that knowing it's not an exact 1-1 but there's a hell of a lot of overlap and my chances are much better to have more science.

You can read my comment history and see exactly why I feel this - and none of it is because I think we can't afford it. The closest I came was a correction where I pointed out that they weren't cost efficient, but that we could totally afford them. And that remains true. Cost efficiency isn't the same as affordability, otherwise my personal computer would have cost a lot less.

So don't dismiss the other view as poor reading comprehension and ignorance. They just have a different opinion with the same facts.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top