Remove ads

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

Reader mode
We can certainly produce an excellent very heavy cruiser, but I don't think we want to.

The point of the project is to fill the generalist response role with large numbers of good responders. I think the initial target was sevens in response and combat stats, and that still seems a reasonable target to this day. That can be achieved with a 1500kt or 1800kt cruiser, or a 1800kt explorer. Any other frame sizes are probably not under consideration.

You raised the concern that we would want a T3 frame in the main thread, but the differences between the tiers of frame are very marginal outside of build time.
 
1.5Mt cruiser
C[7.41] S[7.21] H[4.05] L[7.17] P[7.44] D[7.72] | [159.97]br [118.12]sr | O[3.93] E[4.86] T[3.19] | [3 4/12]years
Power[180.47/207.26] Internal[1497.65/1500.00] Tactical[299.25/300.00] Operations[383.25/450.00] Hull[110.00/225.00] Engineering[283.25/450.00] Warp Core[191.90/225.00]

This is what a mostly 7's cruiser at our tech level will cost, a 120SR 4/5/4
 
in a T3 1500 frame the parts weight 1497.65 Power[180.47/207.26]
in a T1 1800 frame the parts weight 1611.10 Power[198.96/207.26]


C[7.47] S[7.31] H[4.07] L[7.22] P[7.48] D[7.78] | [171.31]br [120.30]sr | O[4.52] E[5.56] T[3.62] | [3 10/12]years
VS
C[7.41] S[7.21] H[4.05] L[7.17] P[7.44] D[7.72] | [159.97]br [118.12]sr | O[3.93] E[4.86] T[3.19] | [3 4/12]years

So i do not think going for the 1800 frame would be worth it.
 
sunrise said:
in a T3 1500 frame the parts weight 1497.65 Power[180.47/207.26]
in a T1 1800 frame the parts weight 1611.10 Power[198.96/207.26]


C[7.47] S[7.31] H[4.07] L[7.22] P[7.48] D[7.78] | [171.31]br [120.30]sr | O[4.52] E[5.56] T[3.62] | [3 10/12]years
VS
C[7.41] S[7.21] H[4.05] L[7.17] P[7.44] D[7.72] | [159.97]br [118.12]sr | O[3.93] E[4.86] T[3.19] | [3 4/12]years

So i do not think going for the 1800 frame would be worth it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Sci-Fi - Starfleet Ship Design Bureau ("To Boldly Go...") | Page 197 (just an example, note that this is pre-new-arrays so will need some adjustment)


The thing about the 1800 frame is it is indeed more capable for a higher cost. All-7s is about the minimum capability we want, beyond that extra capability has to be balanced with necessary cost, probably up to about all-8s with a few 9s. I'm not convinced of the trade-off myself, but designs should be aware of it instead of sticking to a set statline.
 
Last edited:
Are these guesses correct?
Tech unlocking subframes for cruisers:
Tactical: 2310s Cruiser Combat Package T2
Operations: 2310s Cruiser Science Package T2
Hull: 2310s Cruiser Engineering Package T2
Engineering: 2310s Cruiser Engineering Package T2
Warp: ???
 
faster build version
C[7.00] S[7.11] H[4.15] L[7.10] P[7.27] D[6.51] | [154.48]br [113.12]sr | O[3.90] E[4.97] T[3.43] | [2 8/12]years
Power[184.83/195.66] Internal[1492.80/1500.00] Tactical[293.25/300.00] Operations[419.00/450.00] Hull[145.00/225.00] Engineering[227.25/300.00] Warp Core[178.30/225.00]
 
Last edited:
sunrise said:
1.5Mt cruiser
C[7.41] S[7.21] H[4.05] L[7.17] P[7.44] D[7.72] | [159.97]br [118.12]sr | O[3.93] E[4.86] T[3.19] | [3 4/12]years
Power[180.47/207.26] Internal[1497.65/1500.00] Tactical[299.25/300.00] Operations[383.25/450.00] Hull[110.00/225.00] Engineering[283.25/450.00] Warp Core[191.90/225.00]

This is what a mostly 7's cruiser at our tech level will cost, a 120SR 4/5/4
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Forgocruise | Evasion Chance: 15.72% Warp Core Breach Chance: 36.50% | Parts: Starfleet Forgo 4 (2/17/2018, 6:30:11 PM)
C[8.03] S[8.00] H[4.04] L[8.01] P[8.02] D[6.86] | [157.97]br [119.51]sr | O[3.71] E[4.74] T[3.78] | [3 6/12]years
Power[177.78/179.00] Internal[1499.65/1500.00]Tactical[321.50/450.00]Operations[447.25/450.00] Hull[110.00/225.00]Engineering[219.00/450.00] Warp Core[171.90/225.00]

Requires T4 Replication to finish it off but hellooooo +1CSLP. Uses T3 Tac/Ops because I think squinting at research that we can swing those.
 
Last edited:
Forgothrax said:
Requires T4 Replication to finish it off but hellooooo +1CSLP. Uses T3 Tac/Ops because I think squinting at research that we can swing those.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

2330s Industrial Replicators finishes no sooner than 2326, and that's with it being constantly boosted. But! It's being researched by a generic team, so if it really is this essential, then we can replace the skill 1 generic team with a Starship Construction team to speed it along. Yoyodine is finishing its 2320s Core Efficiency this year, so if we put it on the replicator tech next year... it'll finish in 2324 with one extra boost.

This is basically exactly what I was hoping for. That design is ridiculous compared to the Excelsior-A, and I'd never have noticed the T4 Replicators thing by myself. Just uh... where's T3 Tac/Ops? The tech tree is big and I can't find it. :confused:
 
That 3.5 yr build time does hurt though. Even if it is a shorter build time than an Excelsior, and that we do get build time reductions. OTOH, a build time exactly halfway between a Renaissance and an Excelsior does strike me as fortuitous :p
 
Last edited:
Derpmind said:
2330s Industrial Replicators finishes no sooner than 2326, and that's with it being constantly boosted. But! It's being researched by a generic team, so if it really is this essential, then we can replace the skill 1 generic team with a Starship Construction team to speed it along. Yoyodine is finishing its 2320s Core Efficiency this year, so if we put it on the replicator tech next year... it'll finish in 2324 with one extra boost.

This is basically exactly what I was hoping for. That design is ridiculous compared to the Excelsior-A, and I'd never have noticed the T4 Replicators thing by myself. Just uh... where's T3 Tac/Ops? The tech tree is big and I can't find it. :confused:
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Under cruiser design:
2320s Cruiser Science Package T3 Ops
2320s Cruiser Combat Package T3 Tactical
 
Forgothrax said:
Forgocruise | Evasion Chance: 15.72% Warp Core Breach Chance: 36.50% | Parts: Starfleet Forgo 4 (2/17/2018, 6:30:11 PM)
C[8.03] S[8.00] H[4.04] L[8.01] P[8.02] D[6.86] | [157.97]br [119.51]sr | O[3.71] E[4.74] T[3.78] | [3 6/12]years
Power[177.78/179.00] Internal[1499.65/1500.00]Tactical[321.50/450.00]Operations[447.25/450.00] Hull[110.00/225.00]Engineering[219.00/450.00] Warp Core[171.90/225.00]

Requires T4 Replication to finish it off but hellooooo +1CSLP. Uses T3 Tac/Ops because I think squinting at research that we can swing those.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Can you provide a link with your partslist, mine does not include T4 replicators.
 
Had an idea how modules could work without them being overpowered.
This is for the next modules unlocked the 450t ones.
Modules should have a theme and impact the ship fitted with them.
Examples are:
Hospital module: +1S +3P, ship can act as a hospital ship and gets a bonus vs large scale medical events.
Engineering module: +1P +3D, ship can be used to build starbases, colonies and other construction projects.
Research center modules +4S, ???
Armored Fleet command module: +1H +1L +2P, gives a bonus when this ship leads a taskforce/fleet, maybe a reroll on the first failure each year where there is no reroll from a other source.
Or a +1 on the first roll involving multiple ships
Combat module: +2S +2C. militarization increases by one for each of this version build.

A single design could be make and build with any module but modules can only be changed as part of a 1y refit.
Modules should give whole stats to make variations useful,so no +1.5P modules.
This will allow us to design a single base ship for the next gen engineering/hospital ship and upgrade both of those as well at the same time if we want to make those with the ship designer.
The listed stats are an example for relative power and need to be balanced.
Does anyone have suggestions for more modules?
 
Last edited:
It's not a 450kt module. All the modules had their weights divided by 3.

The Miranda Rollbar (previously "150kt module") is 50kt. The 300kt placeholder module is actually 100kt. The 450kt placeholder module is actually 150kt. Unfortunately, the default parts lists don't have this change.
 
We really need a updated default parts list, as the missing years, replicators and survey sensors make it hard to design new ships and plan research without making mistakes.
 
The light explorer(1800t)
Made to see what a light explorer stat line would look like with current tech, i think is build time is to high and cost to much SR but it needs less research as we have a lot of explorer subframes already and some explorer only bonuses(like +5PP per ship build).
light explorer
C[8.16] S[7.99] H[4.01] L[9.10] P[8.12] D[8.79] | [185.09]br [147.52]sr | O[3.59] E[3.60] T[3.38] | [3 10/12]years
Power[219.82/231.66] Internal[1798.90/1800.00] Tactical[408.00/450.00] Operations[434.75/450.00] Hull[137.00/270.00] Engineering[333.75/360.00] Warp Core[215.40/270.00]
Build with a T3 core, can be made once T4 replicators are done:
C8S8H4L9P8D9 190BR 150SR O4E4T4

Edit removed the slow build version because explorers can not have modules.
Cheaper faster to build version:
cheaper light explorer
C[8.10] S[7.95] H[4.47] L[8.11] P[8.03] D[7.06] | [173.69]br [138.65]sr | O[3.64] E[3.96] T[3.18] | [3 2/12]years
Power[209.42/215.25] Internal[1684.85/1800.00] Tactical[353.25/360.00] Operations[436.75/450.00] Hull[176.00/180.00] Engineering[254.75/270.00] Warp Core[194.10/270.00]
-1L -2D but 8/12 years less build time and 10 BR/SR cheaper.
H size naccelles give this model +1D for 20SR
 
Last edited:
since build time rounds to quarters 4/12 and 6/12 build time ships take the same time
SR140
C[8.10] S[8.04] H[4.36] L[8.12] P[8.20] D[9.02] | [183.38]br [139.18]sr | O[3.63] E[3.69] T[3.22] | [3 6/12]years
Power[207.62/229.94] Internal[1781.85/1800.00] Tactical[359.25/360.00] Operations[436.75/450.00] Hull[167.00/180.00] Engineering[343.75/360.00] Warp Core[205.10/360.00]
Becomes the new cheap edition. Buildable in 2325
Edit found a way to get the 2325 SR140 version to D9 making the others not worth building.

H5 version
C[8.10] S[8.04] H[5.03] L[8.12] P[8.20] D[8.64] | [182.38]br [138.90]sr | O[3.64] E[3.96] T[3.15] | [3 6/12]years
Power[208.36/229.94] Internal[1771.85/1800.00] Tactical[359.25/360.00] Operations[436.75/450.00] Hull[176.00/180.00] Engineering[324.75/360.00] Warp Core[205.10/360.00]
Might get D9 if upgraded to T4 replicators
 
Last edited:
Forgothrax said:
Requires T4 Replication to finish it off but hellooooo +1CSLP. Uses T3 Tac/Ops because I think squinting at research that we can swing those.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The need 2320s Cruiser Science Package and 2320s Cruiser Combat Package
For the cruiser design made me think about why are where going for cruisers.
WIth the light explorers starting at 1800 and us researching frigates at 1200 the gap where a cruiser make sense is shrinking.
It might be better to completely stop researching cruisers and rely on light explorers for the task force leader role to save us having to research cruiser tech.
The rennie-A can be used in the roll of cheap cruiser in the years to come and light explorers need no research for them as the new packages are researched for the big 5YM ships anyway.
The 5PP per explorer build will be enough to buy more SR/BR mines to pay the additional cost of a LE design.
 
sunrise said:
For the cruiser design made me think about why are where going for cruisers.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
They have their own strengths, if at a significant crew cost. Faster build times, less sr, and better performance then explorers. We can afford the crew costs now that we arent spamming Rennies.

The main reason is probably that we completely suck at the vanguard phase of battle though.

A balanced fleet is a good fleet.

sunrise said:
The 5PP per explorer build will be enough to buy more SR/BR mines to pay the additional cost of a LE design.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We always buy sr mines immediately, its not a question of them being afforable, but available.
 
Last edited:
But are those advantages great enough that the boosts from techs we can get because we do not do cruiser research?
There are other ways we can use the PP to get more SR, like getting a budget increase or more research team for mining tech.
Had a look at our current research projects and if we go without cruisers we can start special mining this year.
And are ship roles not by size instead of class so a 1800t explorer would be comparable to a cruiser of the same weight in vanguard?
Edit: We might start building rennies again once the refit available.
 
Last edited:
sunrise said:
And are ship roles not by size instead of class so a 1800t explorer would be comparable to a cruiser of the same weight in vanguard?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

For the same weight, comparing a cruiser and a capital, my understanding is that typically the cruiser will have more stats and crew, but lower SR and build time. In addition, for any design we have had access to so far, cruisers enter the battlefield in the Vanguard phase, while capitals do not enter until the Heavy Metal Phase.

sunrise said:
Edit: We might start building rennies again once the refit available.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

We haven't stopped building Renaissance class cruisers yet - if you look at the build plan there is always at least one under construction.
 
sunrise said:
And are ship roles not by size instead of class so a 1800t explorer would be comparable to a cruiser of the same weight in vanguard?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
There was speculation regarding this from some players, but no confirmation from the GMs.

If I were them, I would try to not invalidate cruisers as a concept, so I highly doubt that they will confirm this. Because we would build LEs and large frigates only in a heartbeat if we werent penalized for it I would bet.

So we have to assume that only cruisers can cruise, currently.
 
Last edited:
Talking about cruisers is the rennie-A refit for the existing T2 1050 Frigate frame or are we using the fact it gets refited to move it to the T1 1000 cruiser frame?
Edit the rennie-a as a responder:
rennie-A
C[5.01] S[5.00] H[4.19] L[5.04] P[6.02] D[6.70] | [112.45]br [89.75]sr | O[1.96] E[3.37] T[2.93] | [3 ]years
Power[131.54/131.57] Internal[1044.50/1050.00] Tactical[161.50/472.50] Operations[300.10/472.50] Hull[112.00/210.00] Engineering[190.50/472.50] Warp Core[125.40/210.00]
This refit only keeps the Hull, SIF, fuel/matter stores and nacelles the same and replaces all other parts.
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top