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
I'm in favour of the higher science, our limiting factor always appears to be crew (compare how often we expand academy/recruit drive vs lobby for more budget) so less crew for equivalent science is well worth it.

OneirosTheWriter said:
Okay, so yesterday was the wife's birthday, so I didn't exactly have much of a chance to post when I got home. I'll keep this vote open until tonight my time, about 10 hrs.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

You could just close it, the votes are all clear winners.
 
Last edited:
Chances are good we'll be SR-limited during a time of Kepler spam.

Briefvoice said:
S7 L3 P5 D5, 95br, 70sr, 9q build, 2/3/4, No Rec (Most economical)
S7 L4 P5 D4, 95br, 75sr, 9q build, 2/3/4, Rec (SWB's personal choice)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Out of my builds, I personally recommend one of these two. They're low build time, economical, and the choice between L4 D4 or L3 D5 is relevant.

The big S8 Keplers are a little too Bradley Fighting Vehicle for my tastes, and there's really no advantage to S8 L3 D4. S7 vs S8 is not really going to be a difference in event success.
 
Last edited:
nocarename said:
I vaguely recall that TNG showed young human children (tweens, I think?) doing calculus and similar feats of mental prowess.
Someone has to be working on how to teach things like that. How else are you going to keep beating the computers when they go rogue?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
In the grim darkness of the far future, humanity fights to retake the crown of chess master from the machines...
 
Just because we're not SWB doesn't mean we can't design ships...

Here. C2 S7 H3 L4 P5 D5, 100br/80sr, 2/3/4 crewing. 11 quarter build time is a drag, but it's competitive with SWB'S preferred at +5SR +2Q for +1 H/D.
 
At some point I'm going to have a weekend that isn't a complete loss and I'm going to use it to hook that spreadsheet up to a multidimensional integer knapsack solver.
 
TyrialFrost said:
If +1 science has little difference on a science ship, can we see a much cheaper S6 build?

And I still maintain that crew is overwhelming limiting factor on ship numbers.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It's not that +1 science has low returns as our events system has massively diminishing returns. Going from 5 to 6 gives a bigger return than 6 to 7 which gives a bigger return than 7 to 8. At 7 we're talking a blooded EC excelsior like the Sh'arien has been for most of the quest and the T'Mir. At 8 we're talking a veteran EC ship like the the Courageous and Sarek used to be. I think the difference between Blooded S7 and Veteran S8 EC hasn't been as noticeable as Blooded S7 and Green S6, and the difference between S6 EC and S5 non-EC even more noticeable still. Those are just points of comparison though, but the argument remains that there are considerable diminishing returns on more of any single stat.

I suggest making a copy of the ship build spreadsheet and playing with it a bit to get a handle on crew and SR. It's remarkable how quickly crew builds depending on what's being built.
 
Night said:
The Gaeni: the only people who end up having to detach the saucer to save the ship from what's gone wrong there.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
To be fair, I think there was at least one time Wesley's science project almost led to this.

TyrialFrost said:
I'm in favour of the higher science, our limiting factor always appears to be crew (compare how often we expand academy/recruit drive vs lobby for more budget) so less crew for equivalent science is well worth it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The main crew cost of a Kepler is the techs, and we have LOTS of techs. Having to build and crew a few more Keplers isn't as much of a handicap as the heavy Enlisted cost of building more Rennies or the Officer cost of building more Excelsiors.

nocarename said:
I vaguely recall that TNG showed young human children (tweens, I think?) doing calculus and similar feats of mental prowess.
Someone has to be working on how to teach things like that. How else are you going to keep beating the computers when they go rogue?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Hmyeah.

I'm imagining it as a combination of really good VI-assisted teaching programs, medical therapy that can detect and correct childhood mental issues like "crappy impulse control" and "disrupts classmates' learning," and having lots and lots of people with free time to help teach...
 
I'm liking the s7 d4 w/ rec build. It fits well in Starfleet's narrative, and I imagine it would make long term deployments like the T'Mir much more bearable for our crews.

For the amount of time we will be producing the Kepler design, I think we really need to take that extra SR and berthtime into the equation. This is especially true if we are planning to build a more combat oriented escort replacement for the Miranda at some point.

@SynchronizedWritersBlock what is the upgrade potential of the various designs? Are any particularly limited as far as refit space goes?
 
SynchronizedWritersBlock said:
It's not that +1 science has low returns as our events system has massively diminishing returns. Going from 5 to 6 gives a bigger return than 6 to 7 which gives a bigger return than 7 to 8. At 7 we're talking a blooded EC excelsior like the Sh'arien has been for most of the quest and the T'Mir. At 8 we're talking a veteran EC ship like the the Courageous and Sarek used to be. I think the difference between Blooded S7 and Veteran S8 EC hasn't been as noticeable as Blooded S7 and Green S6, and the difference between S6 EC and S5 non-EC even more noticeable still. Those are just points of comparison though, but the argument remains that there are considerable diminishing returns on more of any single stat.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


If the sweet spot for returns is n7 should starfleet be looking to field numerous n7 ships rather then expensive capital ships?
 
TyrialFrost said:
If the sweet spot for returns is n7 should starfleet be looking to field numerous n7 ships rather then expensive capital ships?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Our capital ship centric approach has always been highly inefficient. We chose it mostly because the Explorer Corps faces more difficult missions that they face with single ships, and Lone Ranger best supported that, and very good single capital ships like the Ambassador also supports that. But it's absolutely true that there's a sweet spot of efficiency somewhere in the frigate/cruiser weights that we would be better off building to than building the maximum ship every time. That also depends on cost and on what frequency of failure we're willing to accept.
 
I don't think Lone Ranger is mutually exclusive with Swarm or Combined Arms, though? Aside from the time investment anyway. If we wanted to, we could also pick up doctrinal improvements for our lighter units.
 
Well Medium DC for explorer events is at 12 so heavy explorers have use that way. Lone Ranger was a way to boost our EC ships, and corresponded with making the big ships better. Also the big ships are able to have high stats all around, though are more crew costly. And high stats help with passing event checks in general which helps with getting experience.

Edit:
Went back and looked at fleet doctrines, am I reading them wrong or is Lone Ranger the only one with a C reduction from the council?
 
Last edited:
Fleet doctrines are mutually exclusive, for they influence the ship composition of the fleet.

For instance, if we took the Swarm doctrine, we would be rolling in even more Miranda-As and Centaur-As than what we currently have. We would still have explorers for 5-year missions and capital ship roles, and cruisers to form the backbone, but we would be leaning more on our escorts.
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top