Remove ads

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

Reader mode
fasquardon said:
I've never seen the Constie as a battle line cruiser. To me the Constie is the cheap garrison cruiser, so refits that make it C2 in favour of pushing up event response stats don't bother me. Especially as a big reason to roll out a refit for the Constie is to get more return on the experience of the Constie crews, so more of the stats that let them gain XP seems a solid design choice.

Heck, with the +1 to response rolls that cruisers get, some of the Constie-B designs that are being proposed are actually ships I'd consider building a couple more of.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Problem is that sometimes C-checks are made when a S/P roll is failed. Sometimes a responder has to handle a C-check, too, even for Interior events. Crippling a responder intentionally doesn't sit well with me.

fasquardon said:
I can't read the app sheets, so I have to ask: how much crew does this Miranda B take?

I am liking that refit cost and statline though. With a refit like that available, I'd say it's worth keeping all of our Mirandas (though some might be kept in mothballs until we can refit them).

fasquardon
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It's 1/2/2 (so +1T). Any refits made to the Miranda will have +1T, unfortunately.
 
Forgothrax said:
Problem is that sometimes C-checks are made when a S/P roll is failed. Sometimes a responder has to handle a C-check, too, even for Interior events. Crippling a responder intentionally doesn't sit well with me.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

On the other hand, if S and P are higher, there's less likelihood that C will be needed. When talking about back-bone ships like the Rennie, there's definitely a case to be made for not skimping on C. But with cheap ships, I have trouble seeing how we can get a useful ship without prioritizing some stats over others.

Now, the priority stats don't HAVE to be S, P and D. But making a Contie B that had high C, S and D (for example) seems to be sub-optimal to me, due to the fragility of its old hull.

Of course, the other choice, besides making the Constie B a garrison cruiser is to make them taskforce specialists. I'm pretty sure our taskforce hunger would comfortably devour our entire Constie fleet and still have room for more.

Forgothrax said:
It's 1/2/2 (so +1T). Any refits made to the Miranda will have +1T, unfortunately.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yeah, turning our Mirandas into pocket Centaurs seems fine to me. Even the most expensive refits take less time and resources than building a new Centaur from scratch.

Much as I love the idea of the 1/1/1 crew Miranda, it seems that's too combat focused to be politically possible, and the Centaur-equivalent Miranda-B would be more useful in peacetime anyhow.

fasquardon
 
fasquardon said:
Much as I love the idea of the 1/1/1 crew Miranda, it seems that's too combat focused to be politically possible, and the Centaur-equivalent Miranda-B would be more useful in peacetime anyhow.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Minirandas are cute little ships, but not ideal even for combat. Their whole point is fitting into small member berths and rapid production in wartime.

We can do much better if we want a vanguard frigate.
 
Okay, can I get a run-down of what Betazoid Cruiser refit options the thread likes?

Also, I'm trying to look over the Amarkian build sheet some more, and I'm hoping to get a handle on what the suggested costs for a Riala-B refit will be, and what a next-gen Amarkian battlecruiser will have?

Although I imagine that may require asking Vebayst to implement a special weapons part type in the app...
 
Enerael said:
Minirandas are cute little ships, but not ideal even for combat. Their whole point is fitting into small member berths and rapid production in wartime.

We can do much better if we want a vanguard frigate.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Well, sure. The problem is, to build this better vanguard frigate, we'd need to build whole hulls, rather than refit old hulls into something that will serve.

What is the current leading design for the next-gen vanguard frigate? The JAFFA design?

fasquardon
 
OneirosTheWriter said:
Okay, can I get a run-down of what Betazoid Cruiser refit options the thread likes?

Also, I'm trying to look over the Amarkian build sheet some more, and I'm hoping to get a handle on what the suggested costs for a Riala-B refit will be, and what a next-gen Amarkian battlecruiser will have?

Although I imagine that may require asking Vebayst to implement a special weapons part type in the app...
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Do all part types follow the same algorithms? I'm wondering if it's possible to have the app be able to add its own part types.
 
fasquardon said:
What is the current leading design for the next-gen vanguard frigate? The JAFFA design?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It is unclear if we will be able to build and use the JAFFA, considering that they are meant to function with a mothership, which we dont have.

Anyway, we want something like this:
SynchronizedWritersBlock said:
Shooting Star (Comet Variant) 2327-Future [942k t, 21.8% ev]
C6 S4 H4 L7 P2 D5
Cost [95br, 70sr, 2.25y], Crew [O-2, E-3, T-3]
Refit Cost [Unknown]
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It is an old design though, and probably not compatible with the PA changes.

There is also the "Atomic" Kepler refit introduced in an omake a bit back, but I believe that was a joke. We are not disguising our warships as Keplers, and tough is better then killy for vanguard frigates, since cruisers shoot more often. Vanguard frigate should be a tank to cruisers DPS basically.
 
Last edited:
fasquardon said:
Well, sure. The problem is, to build this better vanguard frigate, we'd need to build whole hulls, rather than refit old hulls into something that will serve.

What is the current leading design for the next-gen vanguard frigate? The JAFFA design?

fasquardon
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Nah, Jaffa is again restricted by berth size limitations of member nations. SWB has some frigate designs kicking around that basically match a baseline Excelsior in combat stats if we wanted them.
 
OneirosTheWriter said:
Okay, can I get a run-down of what Betazoid Cruiser refit options the thread likes?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
There have been 4 designs for the refit:

sunrise said:
30SR +1E
C[3.05] S[4.02] H[3.07] L[4.03] P[7.21] D[6.34] | [112.47]br [86.26]sr | O[2.25] E[3.23] T[2.35] | [3 3/12]years
refit cost
40br 35sr
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Forgothrax said:
Some alternative Betazoid cruiser refits.

TBG Ship Designer
C3 S4 H3 L4 P7 D6. 40/35 refit cost, +1O. Vs Sunrise's most recent design, costs -1E for same stats. Also has a new build cost of 80SR vs 90sr.

TBG Ship Designer
This one has a 45/40 refit cost for the same stats, but crews at 2/3/3 instead of 3/3/3. Idk if the Betazoids want to pay resources for crew but this is an option. Also has 80SR new build cost.

TBG Ship Designer
Minimalist design. C3 S3 H3 L3 P7 D5. 25/20 refit cost, no increase in crew.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

My design is probably easier to upgrade later because it uses T2 M nacelles but Forgothrax design has the same stats but uses less crew and has T1 L nacelles.
If we are allowed to build more Forgothrax design is the logical option as building more of those cost 10SR less then the one i designed.
 
Last edited:
I'd like to ask if there isn't a way to get a higher P out of the refit than 7. I've bumbled around with the design a little, so I think the answer's no?
 
P7 still makes it one of the best P ships currently in Federation service.

I know the designers are playing around with P10+ designs, but none of those are approved for construction yet.
 
Derpmind said:
I'd like to ask if there isn't a way to get a higher P out of the refit than 7. I've bumbled around with the design a little, so I think the answer's no?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The answer is yes, but the refit cost balloons as the computer core needs to be upgraded (very high SR part), another H Diplomacy part is needed, rec space is upgraded, more power is needed so we have to use more expensive power supply, and we lose a point of S (so CSH3 L4 P8 D6). It's probably possible within the 40/35 constraint but we'd lose other stats in so doing. If all the Betazoids want is +++P ++D everything else go hang, sure, but I do think another point of L for durability and additional S to allow for self defense against science anomalies is wise. If there's interest I'll do a study on it.

Edit: It ends up CSHL3 P8 D6. Not impressed.
 
Last edited:
Out of curiosity, would it make sense to delay the new heavy cruiser until it can be built with isolinear computers, given the crew crunch we're facing for the next decade?

While yes, this is partly because it favors the cruiser I helped design, it also seems like the crew crunch would be a factor in general for when we can realistically introduce new ship classes between now and the mid-2330s.
 
The Sandman said:
Out of curiosity, would it make sense to delay the new heavy cruiser until it can be built with isolinear computers, given the crew crunch we're facing for the next decade?

While yes, this is partly because it favors the cruiser I helped design, it also seems like the crew crunch would be a factor in general for when we can realistically introduce new ship classes between now and the mid-2330s.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Given the delay between design and fleet service, I would expect that the crew crunch would be over by then.
 
Assuming that federalisation is completed by the time the last batch of original 4 plus 1 crew complement finish retraining then things should be back to normal by 2329.
 
The Sandman said:
Out of curiosity, would it make sense to delay the new heavy cruiser until it can be built with isolinear computers, given the crew crunch we're facing for the next decade?

While yes, this is partly because it favors the cruiser I helped design, it also seems like the crew crunch would be a factor in general for when we can realistically introduce new ship classes between now and the mid-2330s.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Iirc our crew situation stabilizes by 2333. Prototyping should be done by 31 and new ships will crew around 33-34. All should be well.

We also have a fairly serious capability gap where we don't have a good generalist in production between the CB/Comet and the Amby. I hesitate to wait for Iso.
 
Last edited:
The Sandman said:
Out of curiosity, would it make sense to delay the new heavy cruiser until it can be built with isolinear computers, given the crew crunch we're facing for the next decade?

While yes, this is partly because it favors the cruiser I helped design, it also seems like the crew crunch would be a factor in general for when we can realistically introduce new ship classes between now and the mid-2330s.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Keep in mind the delay. If we start a ship project in 2326 during a crew crunch, the prototype might finish in 2331-2332 after the crunch, and the first wave in 2334...

Since we have never been able to predict our resource shortage accurately that far out, it's not really worth thinking about too closely.

I would worry more about the diplomatic frigate we're about to authorize.
 
I wonder if the fanciest-of-furniture Diplo-Kepler becomes the origin of the plush beige TNG look. Xenopsych studies on pan-species inviting environments and so on.

Surely, nothing beats the feel of soft carpet underneath your feet for impressing visiting dignitaries.
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top