They also built a second Excelsior-A and now have two Excelsiors.
Starfleet Ship Design Bureau ("To Boldly Go...")
- Thread starter UbeOne
- Start date
- Sci-Fi
They also built a second Excelsior-A and now have two Excelsiors.
lbmaian
a thirsty squirrel
- Location
- USA
Actually, with the phaser array restrictions, their new capital and cruiser designs may not use phaser arrays at all.
Instead, they could be using photonic lances, but those aren't modeled in the ship designer.
Maybe it's time for another try with modeling the Audacious and Constrictor classes and their photonic lances, now that the subframe bug has been fixed in the webapp?
They did want to build another in a MWCO vote, but it required 10pp and pitted us against the Caitian government that wanted to focus on economic recovery rather than military efforts, and we declined. But I think they did end up building two Excelsiors overall anyway.
Ok, so they have two Ex-As then. Missed the production of the second unit.
It leaves them in an odd space in the current fleet warfare model, where their swarmers contend scout, skirmish and vanguard, before their Excelsiors and Fatherships weigh into heavy metal.
The Apiata at least have the Little Queenships counting as cruisers.
It leaves them in an odd space in the current fleet warfare model, where their swarmers contend scout, skirmish and vanguard, before their Excelsiors and Fatherships weigh into heavy metal.
The Apiata at least have the Little Queenships counting as cruisers.
- Location
- Illinois
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Do the Apiata deploy Little Queenships in vanguard? That feels fairly risky for such key units.
The Apiata have an interesting model where Stingers don't depart the battle even if they're skirmishers. So they do double duty and get a lot more power out of a smaller fleet, but attrit far far faster and fade easily in the late stages.
Enerael
We Shall Wake to Sanity
That sounds very inefficient. Variant refits are probably be a good idea, but motherships at least are not just a matter of a few parts, but an overall hull design and doctrine.
Considering that SDB is the most qualified to make variants its own designs, maybe members could order some in exchange for PP?
Last edited:
lbmaian
a thirsty squirrel
- Location
- USA
Source for this.
I also recall something about (Little) Queenships both receiving and dishing out damage only 25% of normal, but that might have predated the combat phase system, where the equivalent is Stingers participating in the heavy metal phase and thus indirectly shielding Queenships.
- Location
- Australia
Speaking of photonic lances - out of curiosity, how difficult would it be to amend the Ship design app to include an additional part type...?
lbmaian
a thirsty squirrel
- Location
- USA
Not super-hard and also not trivial. Also depends on whether a new subsystem is needed.
Some of the problem is that schema is partially derived from an imported parts list csv, but this can be worked around (and should anyway, spreadsheet version should no longer be depended on in any way). edit: Also need to ensure everything is backwards compatible.
Shouldn't take longer than a day or so, given formulas (how they affect stats & costs) and sample parts.
Last edited:
- Location
- Australia
I was thinking this might be a useful addition for "Special Weapons", like the Cardie Spiral Disruptors, or Photonic Lances, so they are used in supplement to the normal phaser banks. Might be easier to balance them.
Alternatively, we just add them as a separate high-effect part for the Amarkia and Seyek to use in designs. "Array-Boosted Photonic Lances", giving a new lease on life to what was thought to be a technological dead-end.
Alternatively, we just add them as a separate high-effect part for the Amarkia and Seyek to use in designs. "Array-Boosted Photonic Lances", giving a new lease on life to what was thought to be a technological dead-end.
lbmaian
a thirsty squirrel
- Location
- USA
Is this supposed to be a standard part in that it has standard qty & scale-based effect & costs and sum up to the total? Or is a multiplier ala phaser arrays and burst torps? How is this supposed to interact with phaser arrays and burst torp toggles? Is this a new subsystem or part of the tactical frame?
- Location
- Australia
It would be standard parts, just used to enable esoteric weapon types Starfleet normally stays away from - though could also represent phaser cannons.
lbmaian
a thirsty squirrel
- Location
- USA
How do the phaser arrays and burst torpedo toggles interact with this? Or on a side note, should phaser arrays and burst torpedoes be modeled as new parts (effectively doubling the number of phaser and torpedo parts).
Do you have a sample example part?
BTW, you should be able to prototype this on the spreadsheet version by copy/pasting a parts row and then modifying the formulas (in "Part & Frame Classifications", "Stat & Cost Formulas", and "Stat & Cost Intermediate Constants and Formulas). It'll probably ruin the snapshot tables, but that's fine for prototyping formulas and parts.
- Location
- Australia
It would ignore toggle settings. I'm going to go with no on modelling phaser arrays or burst torpedoes as separate parts - it has good points, but I think its outweighed by the extra work.
No sample part yet.
No sample part yet.
older parts are required for parting out designs from races with lower tech levels
It'd only take me 10 minutes to part out arrays and burst torps, mostly since we'd only apply them to T3+ for phasers and T2+ for torpedoes.
This is the refit used in the member fleet yards spreadsheet. But there was talk of other refits at that time did they choose this one?
in the web app i end up 0.10D higher as the webapp has other stats for the T-1 M nacelles.
patrol cruisers-A in webapp
Can we build more patrol cruisers or are the 3 that are build now all that there will be?
Last edited:
A possible refit at 25BR/20SR for the patrol cruiser-A and 25BR/25SR for the 2 that have not been refitted.
I would keep the 2 cruiser that not have been refitted part of the betazed fleet till we refit them and do this refit once T4 replicators are ready.
patrol-cruiser-B
C[3.17] S[3.04] H[3.07] L[4.06] P[7.09] D[7.05] | [104.20]br [71.09]sr | O[1.71] E[2.37] T[1.96] | [3]years
This is done by replacing its current weapons with a pair of L phaser arrays to make room for more replicators and a swap to a L sized nacelle.
Together with a upgrade of the main deflector allows the refit to have S3 and remove the research lab.
Finally the sickbay, Matter/anti matter stores and warp core parts are upgraded.
It keeps the diplomatic packages and computer core at T1 as upgrading those are 10SR each.
I would keep the 2 cruiser that not have been refitted part of the betazed fleet till we refit them and do this refit once T4 replicators are ready.
patrol-cruiser-B
C[3.17] S[3.04] H[3.07] L[4.06] P[7.09] D[7.05] | [104.20]br [71.09]sr | O[1.71] E[2.37] T[1.96] | [3]years
This is done by replacing its current weapons with a pair of L phaser arrays to make room for more replicators and a swap to a L sized nacelle.
Together with a upgrade of the main deflector allows the refit to have S3 and remove the research lab.
Finally the sickbay, Matter/anti matter stores and warp core parts are upgraded.
It keeps the diplomatic packages and computer core at T1 as upgrading those are 10SR each.
Last edited:
A event response frigate on the same hull of the P frigate i proposed(2326 tech)
heavy event frigate
C[5.04] S[6.06] H[4.17] L[5.05] P[7.32] D[8.20] | [117.58]br [99.05]sr | O[1.94] E[3.02] T[2.94] | [2 11/12]years
Automate the hull to get the E below 3 and this is a good event responder, only 6 months longer to build and 25SR more but +1C, +2S +1H +3P compared to the comet.
heavy event frigate
C[5.04] S[6.06] H[4.17] L[5.05] P[7.32] D[8.20] | [117.58]br [99.05]sr | O[1.94] E[3.02] T[2.94] | [2 11/12]years
Automate the hull to get the E below 3 and this is a good event responder, only 6 months longer to build and 25SR more but +1C, +2S +1H +3P compared to the comet.
A 2324 kepler refit that only uses 2/2/2 crew:
low crew kepler 2324 variant
C[2.08] S[3.26] H[2.23] L[5.04] P[9.06] D[6.30] | [101.83]br [94.01]sr | O[1.08] E[1.97] T[1.94] | [2 5/12]years
low crew kepler 2324 variant
C[2.08] S[3.26] H[2.23] L[5.04] P[9.06] D[6.30] | [101.83]br [94.01]sr | O[1.08] E[1.97] T[1.94] | [2 5/12]years
Last edited:
Forgothrax
Not Going Gently
- Pronouns
- He/Him
TBG Ship Designer
My preferred design. S5 so it can still do Kepler science (better than anything else except Oberth and Excelsior/Amby), P10 for Max diplomancing.
Prepler | Evasion Chance: 21.86% Warp Core Breach Chance: 36.50% | Parts: SWB 1.25 Iso + 1050kt Cruiser (3/19/2018, 10:54:00 PM)
C[2.00] S[5.03] H[2.15] L[4.05] P[10.14] D[5.18] | [99.85]br [92.37]sr | O[1.35] E[2.57] T[2.92] | [2 5/12]years
Power[126.03/129.82] Internal[898.55/900.00]Tactical[109.55/225.00]Operations[392.20/405.00] Hull[33.00/135.00]Engineering[125.00/315.00] Warp Core[103.80/225.00]
My preferred design. S5 so it can still do Kepler science (better than anything else except Oberth and Excelsior/Amby), P10 for Max diplomancing.
Prepler | Evasion Chance: 21.86% Warp Core Breach Chance: 36.50% | Parts: SWB 1.25 Iso + 1050kt Cruiser (3/19/2018, 10:54:00 PM)
C[2.00] S[5.03] H[2.15] L[4.05] P[10.14] D[5.18] | [99.85]br [92.37]sr | O[1.35] E[2.57] T[2.92] | [2 5/12]years
Power[126.03/129.82] Internal[898.55/900.00]Tactical[109.55/225.00]Operations[392.20/405.00] Hull[33.00/135.00]Engineering[125.00/315.00] Warp Core[103.80/225.00]
- Location
- Outside the Box
- Pronouns
- She/Her
How much P can fit on a cruiser platform? A cruiser can fit more of the other stats to not be as specialized as a P frigate, and might also reach higher P. Plus, we won't need to spam P specialists like we're doing with our Keplers, since they'll be for task forces instead of garisoning our many sectors.