Remove ads

To Boldly Go... (a Starfleet quest)

Linked contents
To Boldly Go... (a Starfleet quest) Starfleet Ship Design Bureau, Refit ("To Boldly Go...")
Reader mode
We have working Renaissance designs that can be researched by 2309 if we start it next snake pit. Unless waiting one more year is enough to bring the research time down to two years, I think we should get this started asap.

Holding off for another 3 years in order to shave 1 year from the design process feels wrong to me.
 
MS-21H 'Hawke' said:
I have a thought about making the Constitution-B Refits easier; Can we just take some Connies out of Mothball and do the refits on them?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It would be difficult to lighten the hulls on those ships, I imagine.

Also, if we have Connies in mothball, why not restrict ourselves to implementing some automation, since the Connie A is a superior ship?

Briefvoice said:
Yeah. I mean, I'm a little biased to the Constitution-B because my omake got it, but last vote I admitted I didn't have much of a case due to how quickly it seemed we were going after the Renaissance. Now it's looking like 2319 before we get the first wave of Renaissance ships after the prototype is built. That's a long time to go without some kind of stop gap ship, especially if we're going to spend possibly decades in a low level conflict with the Cardassians where we have to have ships on the border with enough Shield power to take some hits.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I also think the Connie B is a good investment. It economizes on sr, which is badly needed, while producing ships that are quite rugged for their cost.

If I'd had my way a couple votes back, we'd be building a fleet around Connie Bs, Constellation As and Excelsiors.

I have to say, I find it funny how big a thing the Renaissance class is in this quest.

fasquardon
 
aledeth said:
We have working Renaissance designs that can be researched by 2309 if we start it next snake pit. Unless waiting one more year is enough to bring the research time down to two years, I think we should get this started asap.

Holding off for another 3 years in order to shave 1 year from the design process feels wrong to me.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Reliability, man, reliability. We lose reliability from not doing the general research.

Also, doing it next snake pit when we've got a bunch of techs popping one quarter later is silly.
 
aledeth said:
We have working Renaissance designs that can be researched by 2309 if we start it next snake pit. Unless waiting one more year is enough to bring the research time down to two years, I think we should get this started asap.

Holding off for another 3 years in order to shave 1 year from the design process feels wrong to me.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Have you looked at the updated ship build spreadsheet? If you haven't, the issue is that there have been significant revisions that introduce unreliability (in the form of potential accidents per year) the more "fudge technologies" you have to use in the ship design. A lot of us are looking at that and being suddenly unsure about using a lot of fudge technologies and getting a buggy, likely-to-have-accidents ship in return. So it's not about time savings but about greater reliability.
 
fasquardon said:
It would be difficult to lighten the hulls on those ships, I imagine.

Also, if we have Connies in mothball, why not restrict ourselves to implementing some automation, since the Connie A is a superior ship?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well, I thought about that too, but the issue THERE is that it'd be a technically outdated ship, while the Connie-B is good for over 20 years(possibly longer if we can sqeeze anouther refit or two out of the Starfleet Engineering of the 2320s-2330s and possibly later)


fasquardon said:
I also think the Connie B is a good investment. It economizes on sr, which is badly needed, while producing ships that are quite rugged for their cost.

If I'd had my way a couple votes back, we'd be building a fleet around Connie Bs, Constellation As and Excelsiors.

I have to say, I find it funny how big a thing the Renaissance class is in this quest.

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

I want the Connie-B too, if for nothing else than to be a good and rugged Light Cruiser, when it looks like we need them. at the 2330s? We see if we can sqeeze a refit out of it, but if not, it dies with a service history second only to the canon Excelsior and the B'rel.
 
Briefvoice said:
Have you looked at the updated ship build spreadsheet? If you haven't, the issue is that there have been significant revisions that introduce unreliability (in the form of potential accidents per year) the more "fudge technologies" you have to use in the ship design. A lot of us are looking at that and being suddenly unsure about using a lot of fudge technologies and getting a buggy, likely-to-have-accidents ship in return. So it's not about time savings but about greater reliability.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
How much more unreliable would the Renaissance be if we started it in the next snakepit compared to waiting a little?
 
Derek58 said:
How much more unreliable would the Renaissance be if we started it in the next snakepit compared to waiting a little?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We're currently looking at a 2.1% or so chance per ship per turn of "Hilarious breakdown chance". Per ship.

Can't really tell what effect the upgrades would have because global tech values aren't an editable field ATM. Looks like just finishing this next turn would probably shave a percent or so down.
 
pheonix89 said:
We're currently looking at a 2.1% or so chance per ship per turn of "Hilarious breakdown chance". Per ship.

Can't really tell what effect the upgrades would have because global tech values aren't an editable field ATM. Looks like just finishing this next turn would probably shave a percent or so down.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That's incredibly low. I don't see much point in waiting based on that alone.
 
Derek58 said:
That's incredibly low. I don't see much point in waiting based on that alone.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
taking 2.1% while we have more reliable alternatives is stupid.

we have a reliable ship just waiting for dev time, the Connie-B, and it would have a morale value to it!

and to top it off, we aren't shoving it back into the Explorer/Heavy Cruiser niche, we're redesigning it for the 'Light Cruiser' Role!
 
pheonix89 said:
You did catch per ship, right? Let's say we build 10 rennies. Oh look, now its in the ballpark of 20% chance of a hilarious disaster. Yearly.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I did, and that's a risk I'm willing to take.

MS-21H 'Hawke' said:
taking 2.1% while we have more reliable alternatives is stupid.

we have a reliable ship just waiting for dev time, the Connie-B, and it would have a morale value to it!

and to top it off, we aren't shoving it back into the Explorer/Heavy Cruiser niche, we're redesigning it for the 'Light Cruiser' Role!
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Ok, how reliable is the Constitution refit?

What morale value? Where has Oneirous confirmed this?

As a stopgap until the better Renaissance is completed. The only thing better about the Constitution refit is that we can start building them sooner, and they cost 1 less Enlisted crew but 1 more Tech compared to the Renaissance.
 
Last edited:
MS-21H 'Hawke' said:
Well, I thought about that too, but the issue THERE is that it'd be a technically outdated ship, while the Connie-B is good for over 20 years(possibly longer if we can sqeeze anouther refit or two out of the Starfleet Engineering of the 2320s-2330s and possibly later).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

When the refit option was given they claimed another refit was absolutely impossible, and there would be nothing more they could do. Of course, Starfleet engineers always claim that right before they do the impossible. ;)

So in the 2330's I assume we'll turn the Constitution class into an Escort. :lol:rofl::lol
 
Derek58 said:
I did, and that's a risk I'm willing to take.

Ok, how reliable is the Constitution refit?

What morale value? Where has Oneirous confirmed this?

As a stopgap until the better Renaissance is completed.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It's more reliable than a ship being built 14 years before it's meant to.

Morale value may not come into it, but I thought that the sight of the Old 'Bird' of the federation coming back in a big way would have some effect.

and if you force this through, the Renaissance will NOT be better.

A catastrophy risk that high indicative of a failed design.
 
Briefvoice said:
Have you looked at the updated ship build spreadsheet? If you haven't, the issue is that there have been significant revisions that introduce unreliability (in the form of potential accidents per year) the more "fudge technologies" you have to use in the ship design. A lot of us are looking at that and being suddenly unsure about using a lot of fudge technologies and getting a buggy, likely-to-have-accidents ship in return. So it's not about time savings but about greater reliability.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I posted my Rennie variant in response to the one you did a few pages ago. Has a 2.18% chance of shenanigans per year, and I consider anything better than 3% to be good enough at the moment.

Hilarious ship problems are half of what Trek deals with after all.
MS-21H 'Hawke' said:
Well, I thought about that too, but the issue THERE is that it'd be a technically outdated ship, while the Connie-B is good for over 20 years(possibly longer if we can sqeeze anouther refit or two out of the Starfleet Engineering of the 2320s-2330s and possibly later)




I want the Connie-B too, if for nothing else than to be a good and rugged Light Cruiser, when it looks like we need them. at the 2330s? We see if we can sqeeze a refit out of it, but if not, it dies with a service history second only to the canon Excelsior and the B'rel.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The description of the Connie refit does rather explicitly say that this is as far as the design can go, so we'd be getting a bit less that 20 years from them if we started the project next year.
 
pheonix89 said:
You did catch per ship, right? Let's say we build 10 rennies. Oh look, now its in the ballpark of 20% chance of a hilarious disaster. Yearly.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Keep in mind, it's less "hilarious disaster, lose this ship" and more "hilarious disaster, have an event based around this ship". Honestly, having decent science scores on any 'at risk' ship should actually mitigate risks nicely, since it will give them good odds on just, fixing it themselves?

"We're falling into the planet's gravity well!"
"Our transtabilizer array has been mis-aligned!"
"I can fix this, but I need engineering to build me a REALLY BIG HAMMER!"
"Problem solved, moving on to the next episode!"
"Where did thag hammer go, anyway?"
 
i'm delurking to say... 5% is the rate of false positive for the standard HIV test.. that's high enough for doctors to say you still have a 75% chance of not having HIV... stats are weird. halving that rate is... huge. really huge. (the specifics of why are due to populations of ppl w/ hiv vs ppl w/o hiv... but this ties into why stats usually try for 95% confidence)

let's say you have 10 rennies, each w/ 2% fail rate. that means each turn you're rolling a d50 for each and hoping you dont roll a nat 1. not bad per turn right? do that 4 more times and suddenly you're rolling 40 d50s. suddenly, with 10 rennies you're likely to have one 'interesting event' per year. if you get the 1% fail rate, you can have a fleet of 20 before you can expect 1 ship failing per year.
 
I've got to admit, I'm very sceptical about reviving a 66 years old design as a "stopgap measure".

Especially since the refit-proposal for the Constitution-B excplicitly mentions that it will be a dead end.

Are you sure it wouldn't be wiser to just build a few more Centaur-Bs until the Rennaissance class becomes available? Unlike the Connie, the Centaur should almost certainly still be good for further refits during the 2330s and beyond.
 
Last edited:
MS-21H 'Hawke' said:
It's more reliable than a ship being built 14 years before it's meant to.

Morale value may not come into it, but I thought that the sight of the Old 'Bird' of the federation coming back in a big way would have some effect.

and if you force this through, the Renaissance will NOT be better.

A catastrophy risk that high indicative of a failed design.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Show me proof of how reliable the Constitution refit is if you think a 2.1% chance of non-fatal disaster on the Renaissance is stupid.

Again, show me proof of this morale bonus, not just you saying there's one.

And for the third time, show me proof that the Renaissance won't be the given stats in the list. The example of the Ambassador design that Oneiros gave shows that if we don't have the techs researched to get it at its default stats, they'll be added to the project.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top