It's a problem because a large TF would divide into groups to enable multiple events. Those groups may not need to be special mechanically (note that we don't actually know this) but they would need a cruiser leader by the narrative, as frigates lack group command facilities even for noncombat work. We have plenty of evidence this is the case even with noncombat groups.
Starfleet Ship Design Bureau ("To Boldly Go...")
- Thread starter UbeOne
- Start date
- Sci-Fi
Forgothrax
Not Going Gently
- Pronouns
- He/Him
I'd like a GM to confirm this is actually necessary and not just a way to put down the Prepler concept again. @anon_user @Iron Wolf @OneirosTheWriter ?
Enerael
We Shall Wake to Sanity
Aha! Now I understand.
I cant say that I like the idea of a single diplo TF so large being common enough to need that though, and exceptions, such as Beyond, would likely need more then pure P, so the few Rennies generalist stats wouldnt be that big a drawback I think.
Arent there diminishing return to bloating up TFs? Would make sense to me.
Last edited:
We've basically been forced to create massive task forces due to quantity of opposition. So the massively bloated task forces is currently a feature.
Forgothrax
Not Going Gently
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Any TF that requires as many hulls as Beyond is currently using almost certainly will require a stat spread, so using non-Preplers would be fine. Moreover, we wouldn't want to build that many specialists, because when the pendulum swings we wouldn't have an ideal use for them.
Enerael
We Shall Wake to Sanity
Opposed and unopposed TFs are different things in my head. If I say TF I mean unopposed unless mentioned otherwise.
Countering massive TFs with our own makes sense to me, I just dont want a dozen ships to attack a tag like Limited Interstellar Presence or Obsolete Technology to complete them in a year and then move on. Which, if there arent diminishing returns, would be the most efficient way to get rid of tags.
Or is that balanced by the cost of setting up a TF? I dont think so, but am not sure.
Yeah, P frigates, if we are to build P ships at all (I still say give them to FDS), seem vastly more useful.
Ahhh. Gotcha.
You're doing better than me then. I don't have a clear sense of whether quantity or quality is better in TF composition.
fasquardon
Enerael
We Shall Wake to Sanity
There was recently (relatively) a post from the Great Sharky One about a change in TF mechanics after Beyonds first trashing. There are tests with degrees of success, and the total number of those successes from all ships in the TF is its power/performance .
Last edited:
Forgothrax
Not Going Gently
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Something interesting I mocked up... A 1.2mt cruiser.
Presence Cruiser | Evasion Chance: 18.86% Warp Core Breach Chance: 36.50% | Parts: Starfleet Forgo 4 (2/17/2018, 6:30:11 PM)
C[5.05] S[5.08] H[3.03] L[5.09] P[9.97] D[7.10] | [127.33]br [105.52]sr | O[2.40] E[3.21] T[2.68] | [3 3/12]years
Power[137.03/139.59] Internal[1193.26/1200.00]Tactical[238.30/360.00]Operations[358.50/360.00] Hull[79.00/180.00]Engineering[208.50/300.00] Warp Core[118.96/180.00]
2326 Parts. T4 Replication should push the Presence over 10 and the savings on shields should cut SR costs to 105. So CSL5, H3, P10, D7. A decent combatant and science vessel with Presence emphasis. 3/4/3 crewing too which is nice. If we got some dispensation to slightly expand a few berths we could use 1mts for this.
Presence Cruiser | Evasion Chance: 18.86% Warp Core Breach Chance: 36.50% | Parts: Starfleet Forgo 4 (2/17/2018, 6:30:11 PM)
C[5.05] S[5.08] H[3.03] L[5.09] P[9.97] D[7.10] | [127.33]br [105.52]sr | O[2.40] E[3.21] T[2.68] | [3 3/12]years
Power[137.03/139.59] Internal[1193.26/1200.00]Tactical[238.30/360.00]Operations[358.50/360.00] Hull[79.00/180.00]Engineering[208.50/300.00] Warp Core[118.96/180.00]
2326 Parts. T4 Replication should push the Presence over 10 and the savings on shields should cut SR costs to 105. So CSL5, H3, P10, D7. A decent combatant and science vessel with Presence emphasis. 3/4/3 crewing too which is nice. If we got some dispensation to slightly expand a few berths we could use 1mts for this.
- Location
- Outside the Box
- Pronouns
- She/Her
Eh? As far as I know, when 2330s Construction Techniques finishes in 2324, all berths automatically recieve the 20% capacity bonus. When 2320s Construction Technique finished, (giving us +10% capacity,) there was no need to expand our berths or the option to do so. If we need to build a large number of ships after 2324, 1.2mt designs can be used in our many 1mt berths.
yeah but that design is "1.2mt" in that it's actually 1.3mt accounting for its nacelles
Forgothrax
Not Going Gently
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Finally worked out a Prennie design I'm happy with. Instead of my previous attempts which basically completely gutted the Rennie and made it unrecognizable from SWB and I's semiofficial Renfrig design, this variant makes about the same number of changes as the Centaur-A did when it was refit to the Centaur-B, and it maintains the original statline to some degree. It slims down -1OET and adds 20sr to the cost. I can chop an extra 5sr off the cost, but it does require 3 more part changes. Or if we accept D5 and a Nacelles swap, -10SR.
Prennie2 | Evasion Chance: 20.13% Warp Core Breach Chance: 36.50% | Parts: Starfleet Forgo 3 (12/25/2017, 8:30:33 PM)
C[5.00] S[3.05] H[4.10] L[5.01] P[8.03] D[6.36] | [112.79]br [96.56]sr | O[1.89] E[3.42] T[2.60] | [3 ]years
Power[127.39/127.87] Internal[1047.93/1050.00]Tactical[188.60/472.50]Operations[289.83/472.50] Hull[112.00/210.00]Engineering[190.50/472.50] Warp Core[112.00/210.00]
Prennie2 | Evasion Chance: 20.13% Warp Core Breach Chance: 36.50% | Parts: Starfleet Forgo 3 (12/25/2017, 8:30:33 PM)
C[5.00] S[3.05] H[4.10] L[5.01] P[8.03] D[6.36] | [112.79]br [96.56]sr | O[1.89] E[3.42] T[2.60] | [3 ]years
Power[127.39/127.87] Internal[1047.93/1050.00]Tactical[188.60/472.50]Operations[289.83/472.50] Hull[112.00/210.00]Engineering[190.50/472.50] Warp Core[112.00/210.00]
Last edited:
lbmaian
a thirsty squirrel
- Location
- USA
A thought:
The Betazoid Patrol Cruiser is a 20+ year old design, yet is a 1mt cruiser with P5. Unfortunately we voted not to refit it in a recent MWCD.
With the BDF becoming federalized, I wonder if we could get a faster and cheaper P-specialist cruiser refit than a Prennie. It surely wouldn't be as powerful, but since it's already optimized for presence, I'd imagine a P8 refit and possibly new builds could be cheaper. Plus, the BDF (or us, when they're federalized) could refit their 3 existing Patrol Cruisers for even better performance in diplo TFs.
AFAIK, it's not reverse-engineered in the ship designer, so that would need to be done first to verify.
Last edited:
Jenny
anonymous user
- Location
- maryland
- Pronouns
- She/Her
+1SLD +2P.
or +1 SL +2PD if you replace the nacelles with Centaur-A nacelles, for a refit cost of 25/40, total cost of 110/90
Or +1 CSLP +2 D if you replace the nacelles and upgrade the impulse engines, for a refit cost of 25/25 and new-build cost of 110/80
Last edited:
the closest i get to that using old parts(2205 for the newest is):
betazoid patrol cruiser
C[2.03] S[2.06] H[3.03] L[3.13] P[5.20] D[3.03] | [108.67]br [82.00]sr | O[1.63] E[2.88] T[1.62] | [2 10/12]years
lbmaian
a thirsty squirrel
- Location
- USA
Thanks anon_user!
Hmm, I was hoping for more. I wasn't expecting it to be as good as a Prennie, but -2C -1HLPD for being only 5br 10sr 1E cheaper is disappointing.
Patrol Cruiser P-Fit: C3 S3 H3 L4 P7 D4 at 110br 85sr O-2 E-3 T-3 3yr cruiser (25br 35sr refit cost)
Patrol Cruiser P-Fit+: C3 S3 H3 L4 P7 D5 at 110br 90sr O-2 E-3 T-3 3yr cruiser (25br 40sr refit cost)
Prennie (Rennie variant): C3 S3 H3 L5 P10 D6 at 115br 110sr O-2 E-4 T-3 3yr cruiser (unknown refit cost, but not designed for refit anyway)
Prennie2 (Rennie variant): C5 S3 H4 L5 P8 D6 at 115br 100sr O-2 E-4 T-3 3yr cruiser (unknown refit cost, but not designed for refit anyway)
Prepler (Kepler variant): C2 S5 H2 L4 P11 D5 at 100br 95sr O-2 E-3 T-3 2.5yr frigate (unknown refit cost, but not designed for refit anyway)
Still wish we voted for such a refit, as it would've been kinda "free" and they would've been more useful in diplo TFs. Indeed, I hope that refit is still on the cards.
edit: added first version of Prennie, although QMs indicated may not be a valid design what with not using a cruiser frame and achieving such high P
Hmm, I was hoping for more. I wasn't expecting it to be as good as a Prennie, but -2C -1HLPD for being only 5br 10sr 1E cheaper is disappointing.
Patrol Cruiser P-Fit: C3 S3 H3 L4 P7 D4 at 110br 85sr O-2 E-3 T-3 3yr cruiser (25br 35sr refit cost)
Patrol Cruiser P-Fit+: C3 S3 H3 L4 P7 D5 at 110br 90sr O-2 E-3 T-3 3yr cruiser (25br 40sr refit cost)
Prennie (Rennie variant): C3 S3 H3 L5 P10 D6 at 115br 110sr O-2 E-4 T-3 3yr cruiser (unknown refit cost, but not designed for refit anyway)
Prennie2 (Rennie variant): C5 S3 H4 L5 P8 D6 at 115br 100sr O-2 E-4 T-3 3yr cruiser (unknown refit cost, but not designed for refit anyway)
Prepler (Kepler variant): C2 S5 H2 L4 P11 D5 at 100br 95sr O-2 E-3 T-3 2.5yr frigate (unknown refit cost, but not designed for refit anyway)
Still wish we voted for such a refit, as it would've been kinda "free" and they would've been more useful in diplo TFs. Indeed, I hope that refit is still on the cards.
edit: added first version of Prennie, although QMs indicated may not be a valid design what with not using a cruiser frame and achieving such high P
Last edited:
Enerael
We Shall Wake to Sanity
Why the "not designed for refit" tag? Is Kepler exceptionally unrefitable or something?
If so, why? Every ship we have will be refitted at least twice before we retire them.
I think he means no plans to refit existing ships to this variant.
lbmaian
a thirsty squirrel
- Location
- USA
They're designed as variants rather than as general refits for existing ships. They're intended for new builds. It's conceivable that you could refit an existing ship to a variant, but it's definitely not going to be optimized for that case - the actual refit costs are probably really high (and questionable whether a 1 year refit would make sense for them).
A P8 refit is possible in 2228-2230, with a T4 computer core, T3 diplomatic packages and/or T4 replicators.
patroler full refit
C[3.20] S[4.05] H[3.00] L[4.04] P[7.00] D[6.60] | [107.71]br [86.90]sr | O[1.94] E[2.70] T[1.99] | [3 5/12]years
Refit is 50br, 50sr as it replaces all components that can be replaced and uses 2224 tech.
I do like this.
Just for the sake of comparison, what would the Rennie refit look like if it were aimed at being a combat/generalist cruiser?
fasquardon
Enerael
We Shall Wake to Sanity
+2C,1H,2D but +5br, -5sr, +1O,1T over the old one.
Decent. They would desperately need a Kepler for scouting if they adopt this though.
Which reminds me, was there a competition for that new Starfleet Swarmer? I would expect one, but cant find it.
Last edited: