Remove ads

Starfleet Ship Design Bureau ("To Boldly Go...")

Reader mode
Sightsear said:
Thank you!


Thanks, but until you have a lower reliability counter-part up, I can't really use it. If your giving me something to show off, could you make 95% counterpart to this ship? I think a less extreme contrast than the pair I have would be interesting.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I posted a third too, now.
 
Sightsear said:
Thank you!


Thanks, but until you have a lower reliability counter-part up, I can't really use it. If your giving me something to show off, could you make 95% counterpart to this ship? I think a less extreme contrast than the pair I have would be interesting.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Does this work:

It's a bit thrown together, but note the much shorter research time.
 
@Nix s options
C7 S7 H5 L7 P6 D8 97.97% Reliability
C8 S7 H5 L7 P7 D8 94.72% Reliability
C8 S8 H5 L9 P8 D9 84.49% Reliability

high vs med, +1C +0S +0H +0L +1P +1D
high vs low, +1C +1S +0H +2L +2P +2D

The SR was 30 lower on the high low reliability build, but otherwise BR/SR remained identical.

@sebsmith 's in a way is better, because it focuses on just one stat, shields, which simplifies the comparison. In exchange for 3% reliability, a (geez) 11S instead of 8S. Huh. I'd be tempted by that option.

What would a major repair cost, assuming it happens at least once during the lifetime of the vessel, actually run?
 
Last edited:
Nix said:
I posted a third too, now.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yep, just noticed that. Again, thanks. I'll cover the differences between these ships in the other thread in a bit. Got em posted though, for anyone who's crazy enough to try and hash it out themselves.

Actually, should the Daring take much longer to research compared to the others? I think you only go to fudge factor five on a lot of those techs, but?...
 
huh, the swarmers seem decent ships, at least if used in large enough numbers to compensate for there frailty.
 
OneirosTheWriter said:
Refits at the moment are largely based around comparing what the ship design was and what an equivalent modern design could be and seeing how expensive the replaced components would be. At the moment it doesn't have a huge amount of rigour, but as we start building designs based off the spreadsheet I do intend to create a refit version of the spreadsheet that can be used to automate these things.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Awesome, looking forward to it!

Like I said before, it'll at least double the amount of ship designing we can realistically make concrete.
 
lbmaian said:
Awesome, looking forward to it!

Like I said before, it'll at least double the amount of ship designing we can realistically make concrete.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Refits are another incentive to not make maxed ships. While another point may be squeezed out, leaving 2-4% means that in the future, there'll be space for multiple refits.
 
What determines the tonnage of the ship with respect to fitting in berths - weight cap or weight cost? I don't see how it can be the former, since the Excelsior with total scale of 8 has a weight cap of 2400 rather than its stated tonnage of 2300kt.

Also, I'm trying to figure out where the global tech values are coming from:
Why are cruiser weight mods 0.01 lower than the escort weight mods, when both cruiser and escort all have -1% weight stats researched?
Why is cruiser battle dmg core breach risk 485 vs 490 of the others?

OneirosTheWriter said:
[+2% to Warp Core Power Output]
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm not seeing what this is supposed to impact when comparing the latest spreadsheet with yesterday's version of it. Is that supposed to affect "Warp Core Power Improvement" (which currently has -0.02 from "Ship Operating System I (1% warp core power improvement)")?
 
Last edited:
lbmaian said:
What determines the tonnage of the ship with respect to fitting in berths - weight cap or weight cost? I don't see how it can be the former, since the Excelsior with total scale of 8 is has a weight cap of 2400 rather than its stated tonnage of 2300kt.

Also, I'm trying to figure out where the global tech values are coming from:
Why are cruiser weight mods 0.01 lower than the escort weight mods, when both cruiser and escort all have -1% weight stats researched?
Why is cruiser battle dmg core breach risk 485 vs 490 of the others?


I'm not seeing what this is supposed to impact when comparing the latest spreadsheet with yesterday's version of it. Is that supposed to affect "Warp Core Power Improvement" (which currently has -0.02 from "Ship Operating System I (1% warp core power improvement)")?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm assuming it's the cap. The excelsior might have not used all of its weight cap.

I'd like to know what maps to what too.
 
I think the tonnage is determined by the weight cost, not the weight cap.

Edit: I used the weight cost in stating the tonnage of the affiliate ships.
 
Last edited:
lbmaian said:
What determines the tonnage of the ship with respect to fitting in berths - weight cap or weight cost? I don't see how it can be the former, since the Excelsior with total scale of 8 is has a weight cap of 2400 rather than its stated tonnage of 2300kt.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Weight cost.

lbmaian said:
I'm not seeing what this is supposed to impact when comparing the latest spreadsheet with yesterday's version of it. Is that supposed to affect "Warp Core Power Improvement" (which currently has -0.02 from "Ship Operating System I (1% warp core power improvement)")?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Hm. That 1% apparently hadn't been applied, shifted it to 0.97.

lbmaian said:
Also, I'm trying to figure out where the global tech values are coming from:
Why are cruiser weight mods 0.01 lower than the escort weight mods, when both cruiser and escort all have -1% weight stats researched?
Why is cruiser battle dmg core breach risk 485 vs 490 of the others?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Not sure, we'll have to rebuild the research bonuses.
 
OneirosTheWriter said:
Okay, have split off base tech values for the stats from the ship class based ones and went through the research post to match things up.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Thanks, that looks easier to grok (and update!). At first, I thought all that black was a bug :p

Oh, shouldn't reliability also be split between "base" and "type"?
Base Warp Core Reliability: 20 / 20 Warp Core Safety Design I (Reduced chance of Warp Core Breach and reduce crew loss in the event of ship destroyed, improved reliability by 2%)
Type Warp Core Reliability: 15 / 15 Cruiser Reliability I (+1 Reliabilty)

Interesting that Battle Dmg Core Breach Risk can very between ship types. Though maybe its like saucer/scale/modules scale multipliers, and isn't actually controlled by any tech.
 
Remove ads
Constellation-A
  • Threadmarks
    • Okay, so I've tried to estimate how the Constellation refit works and what a refit would look like at 2304 tech (the official refit), 2308 tech, and 2311 tech. (I clearly have too much time on my hands right now :oops:)​

    I started with trying to roughly extrapolate global tech values of 2284 and force the escort/cruiser scale bracket to 2 since the Constellation is 700mt. Then I recreated the base Constellation design with this:
    C3 S2 H2 L2 P2 D3; Cost [70br, 40sr, 3 years], ~97%* reliability
    * Note: By GM fiat, reliability of existing designs is effectively 100%

    I then assumed that all refits must have the same BR cost and cannot exceed a weight cost of 700mt, and that the refit fudge factors must be a superset of the base Constellation design's fudge factors. Also kept the escort/cruiser scale bracket at 2.

    I reconstructed the official Constellation-A refit, using global tech values of 2304.
    C4 S3 H2 L2 P2 D4; Cost [70br, 45sr, 3 years], ~98.5% reliability

    Then I tried creating an improved Constellation-A refit using 2308 global tech values. Variants produced:
    C4 S3 H2 L3 P3 D5; Cost [70br, 55sr, 3 years], ~98.5% reliability
    C4 S3 H3 L3 P3 D4; Cost [70br, 55sr, 3 years], ~98.5% reliability
    C4 S3 H2 L3 P4 D5; Cost [70br, 60sr, 3 years], ~98.5% reliability

    Finally, I estimated what global tech values for 2311 with the following:
    Note: I'm assuming cruiser techs aren't going to be researched because of the Renaissance design research project.

    San Francisco Fleet Yards: Starship Construction
    0 / 20 Hull Armour Material Science I (-2% to Hull Weight)
    0 / 20 Hull Integrity Grids I (-1% to Hull Power Cost)
    0 / 20 Frame Weight Improvements I (-2% to Frame Weight) [interpreted as decrement "designed frame weight savings" by 0.02]

    Vulcan Science Academy: Sensors
    9 / 20 Light-Weight Sensor Redundancy I (Increases Science Reliability by +1)

    Starfleet Science Academy: Computing
    22 / 30 Targeting Computer II (2% weapon weight reduction)
    22 / 30 Ship Main Computer Core II (1% Science weight/power savings)
    27 / 30 Ship Operating System II (1% warp core power improvement)

    Daystrom Institute: Shields
    19 / 20 Emitter Simplification I (improve Weight:SR ratio of Shield) [interpreted as decrement by 0.025]
    10 / 20 Shield Reliability I (+1% reliability for shields)
    19 / 20 Emitter Designs I (-2% to Defence Weight)
    13 / 20 Exotic Material Efficiency I (improve Weight:SR ratio of Defence) [interpreted as decrement by 0.025]

    Yoyodyne Propulsion Systems: Warp Tech
    16 / 40 Chelok-Am Dilithium Treatment (Dilithium Efficency II) (Warp Core Weight:SR ratio reduced by 0.1)
    29 / 40 Improved Thermal Shroud (Warp Core Construction II) (Warp Core Weight reduced by 2%)
    16 / 60 Improved Injector Throttling (Warp Core Scaling II) (Warp Core Min Multiplier reduced by .5/1/2)
    16 / 40 K19 Main Engineering System Module (Warp Core Damage Failsafe Design II) (Reduced chance of Warp Core Breach and reduce crew loss in the event of ship destroyed)
    16 / 40 Light-Weight Coolant Redundancy (Warp Core Operation Safety Design II) (Improved reliability by 2%)

    Spock: Xenopsychology
    35 / 40 Xeno Architecture II (2% weight/power savings for Presence)
    18 / 20 Presence Reliability Research I (Presence Reliability improved by 2%)
    and created a better Constellation-A refit. Variants produced:
    C4 S3 H3 L3 P3 D5; Cost [70br, 50sr, 3 years], ~98.5% reliability
    C4 S3 H3 L3 P3 D5; Cost [70br, 45sr, 3 years], ~97.5% reliability
    C4 S3 H3 L3 P4 D5; Cost [70br, 50sr, 3 years], ~97.5% reliability



    So in conclusion, if this process produces refit stats similar to what Oneiros would produce, and if there can be further refits of the Constellation with later tech, then 2311+ refits of the Constellation could be quite appealing.

    edit: clarification
     
    Last edited:
  • Threadmarks
    • Excelsior-A
  • Threadmarks
    • Using the same process and same rules, did the same thing with Excelsior refit for 2308 and 2311 (excluded 2304 since there is no official refit option yet).

    Base Excelsior using roughly extrapolated global tech values of 2287:
    C6 S5 H4 L5 P5 D6; Cost [230br 150sr, 4 years], ~96.5%* reliability
    * Note: By GM fiat, reliability of existing designs is effectively 100%

    Excelsior-A using global tech values of 2308:
    Constrained by the weight cost of 2300kt, so abusing shields in this sole variant:
    C7 S6 H5 L8 P5 D6; Cost [230br 150sr, 4 years], ~98.5% reliability

    Excelsior-A using estimated global tech values of 2311:
    Basically used same estimated ship design techs as in previous post, except included tier 1 explorer ship design techs (which are currently 1 research year away from completion).
    Unfortunately, the decrease in warp core power multiplier here results in both a warp core level that's underpowered (relative to 2308) and the next level that's overpowered and too weighty. So a couple variants:
    C7 S6 H5 L6 P6 D7; Cost [230br 140sr, 4 years], ~98.5% reliability (lower sr cost than base)
    C7 S6 H4 L10 P6 D7; Cost [230br 170sr, 4 years], ~97.5% reliability
    C7 S6 H5 L10 P6 D6; Cost [230br 170sr, 4 years], ~98% reliability

    edit: Due to shield bug discovered in Sci-Fi - Starfleet Ship Design Bureau ("To Boldly Go...") | Page 18, the designs with L>S are invalidated.
    New best replacement designs (sorry no replacement imgs):
    2308: C7 S6 H5 L7 P5 D6; Cost [230br 150sr, 4 years], ~98.5% reliability
    2311: C7 S6 H5 L6 P6 D7; Cost [230br 140sr, 4 years], ~98.5% reliability (unchanged)
    2311: C8 S6 H4 L8 P6 D6; Cost [230br 160sr, 4 years], ~98.5% reliability
    2311: C7 S7 H4 L8 P6 D6; Cost [230br 160sr, 4 years], ~98.5% reliability
    2311: C7 S7 H4 L7 P6 D7; Cost [230br 160sr, 4 years], ~98.5% reliability

     
    Last edited:
  • Threadmarks
    • Also, the shield power calculation changed, breaking the Kepler.

    For the Kepler-α, shields had to be reduced to 2.

    I'll see what I can do while leaving reliability above 98.

    Edit:
    Looks like deflector base power usage went from .88 to .96.
     
    Last edited:
    Yeah there were a couple errors in the global tech values table, and Oneiros had to regenerate it. The one probably affecting you is the "deflector base pwr usage" (aka "base shield power use") being changed from 0.88 to 0.96.
     
    Reader mode
    You must login or register to reply here.
    Remove ads
    Back
    Top