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've found a happy medium between the Sojourner and the Expedition-it requires dropping presence to 3 and hull to 4 compare to the expedition, but it leaves a lot of room for refits, and is still very reliable. It does presume we go hard on researching weight savings in all three new sections, which probably means a long research time, but we can make up the difference in connie-bs until then(yes, I've come around to them, especially if we do this project).



This will be a front-loaded project in that it will take a long time initially, but the savings down the road with extremely efficient components would be worth the investment IMO
 
Actually, I've discovered by taking a single point of shield efficiency, I can raise presence back to 4 with only a .08% increase in unreliability(a tradeoff I'll take in a heartbeat). Here's the final version of the Sojourner/Expedition:

 
Quick poll of all of the shipbuilders: What are your thoughts on reliability, stats, cost, etc. for a new cruiser design?

Also, I added a reliability chart to the main sheet. It only goes down to 90% and 20 ships, but you should be able to get the idea. The chart is for chance of a failure across the fleet.
 
Driven by Apathy said:
140 br, 75 sr - a real bargain. Stats are C5 S5 H4 L4 P5 D5. And it reuses the Excelsior saucer and Constellation secondary, so the highest extra tech needed is a 2.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

This looks pretty good for a light cruiser.

Alot of the other proposals I've seen lately have, I feel, allowed the sr cost to rise too high. IMO a light cruiser should have an sr cost of under 80. As such, it's nice to see a design like this.

fasquardon
 
Well, his completely reuses parts and is about 400kt lighter than most of the other proposals. Mine has the advantage of introducing some pretty damn efficient new components, though it's more of a medium cruiser than a light cruiser as it's at the max possible for cruiser ATM.
 
tryrar said:
Actually, I've discovered by taking a single point of shield efficiency, I can raise presence back to 4 with only a .08% increase in unreliability(a tradeoff I'll take in a heartbeat). Here's the final version of the Sojourner/Expedition:
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Where are you getting the reused Saucer, Hull, and Module with 4 techs in them?
 
I was told that if we wanted to research weight savings in new components to put that in the sheet there. If that's wrong @OneirosTheWriter I'll figure out something different(probably go with my previous idea of only a new module)
 
fasquardon said:
This looks pretty good for a light cruiser.

Alot of the other proposals I've seen lately have, I feel, allowed the sr cost to rise too high. IMO a light cruiser should have an sr cost of under 80. As such, it's nice to see a design like this.

fasquardon
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
A lot of people are trying to build medium cruisers, hence the cost.

New Medium Cruiser Design:

C6 S5 H4 L5 P5 D6
180BR 110SR

Looking at the Excelsior stats, apparently I accidentally built a mini-Excelsior, but as a cruiser.
Same stats, cheaper, and smaller.
10 Extra techs, but 3 of those are for the Scale 2 hull.
 
It is getting kind of annoying how this entire thread is getting taken up by ship builds without context. Why should we care? What are you trying to demonstrate? What are you trying to convince us of?
 
tryrar said:
I was told that if we wanted to research weight savings in new components to put that in the sheet there. If that's wrong @OneirosTheWriter I'll figure out something different(probably go with my previous idea of only a new module)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
in 80% sure that is supposed to be filled if you are using an old component, not researching a new one.

also, i agree with @Briefvoice

what does flooding the thread with designs right now do?

we need to decide what role(s) we need filled and then come up with designs that fill those roles. using your time making designs that may serve no purpose is a waste of both your time and everyone else's
 
Last edited:
Briefvoice said:
It is getting kind of annoying how this entire thread is getting taken up by ship builds without context. Why should we care? What are you trying to demonstrate? What are you trying to convince us of?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well, all the ship builds has convinced me we'd be better served with a medium cruiser rather than going for the Rennie, as building a rennie in the sheet produces too many compromises for my liking. And it's not like a medium cruiser would hurt us too badly build wise, since we'll likely NEVER fill all our 2.5mt+ berths(my feeling is we should only really have 2-3 Excelsiors building at any one time)

Edit: but yeah guys, we might wanna start a private discussion posting all these shets and working out what is the best approach for next snakepit, since I think we can't afford to not start a new class this year with how things are heating up with the cardassians
 
Last edited:
The Rennie is far more cost efficient than the medium cruisers I've seen proposed. It likely has more upgrade space, and can be built simultaneously to a 2.5mt design in the case where resources are not a factor.
 
Umm, are you basing that upgradability on anything other than your feelings? Nobody is stating that the medium crusiers are more cost efficient, it's just that it's a lot easier to make a larger cruiser more reliable-remember that the more fudge factors you put into a design the less reliable it is.
 
Honestly all further designs should be 1mt so that we can mass build them from our most common yard
 
tryrar said:
Well, all the ship builds has convinced me we'd be better served with a medium cruiser rather than going for the Rennie, as building a rennie in the sheet produces too many compromises for my liking. And it's not like a medium cruiser would hurt us too badly build wise, since we'll likely NEVER fill all our 2.5mt+ berths(my feeling is we should only really have 2-3 Excelsiors building at any one time)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I feel completely the opposite. We should have at least one Excelsior coming out per year, and in some years have two come out. That means 5 berths, maybe six, filled.

Yeangst said:
Only thing is that the Centaur is already 800kt, so I can't see our new light cruiser staying under 1mt
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The Renaissance is under 1mt. That's the whole point of it.
 
The issue is the best I can come up with for a 1mt cruiser that has the stats of a rennie has a reliability of 96.11%. With no power or extra space for refits. For a frontline vessel. Thanks to the ship reliability chart someone posted on the worksheet(thanks to whoever did that!), if we build say, 10 of them reliability plummets to 66% across the fleet. Honestly, it appears the Rennies have at least level 2 in all techs relevant to light cruisers(or ships in general) to do what they do in such a small package, and we'd need an extra 5-6 years of research at least before we can do it-5-6 years we don't have anymore thanks to the cardassians.
Briefvoice said:
I feel completely the opposite. We should have at least one Excelsior coming out per year, and in some years have two come out. That means 5 berths, maybe six, filled.



The Renaissance is under 1mt. That's the whole point of it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We can't make a 1mt cruiser that's acceptably reliable. We don't want our new ships breaking down every other quarter after all!
 
tryrar said:
We can't make a 1mt cruiser that's acceptably reliable. We don't want our new ships breaking down every other quarter after all!
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Doesn't that 66% chance indicate the odds of a single Rennie breakdown per year? In which case, we should see a breakdown a little less than every other year, with good odds that it won't be out of service for longer than a single quarter, if not less, plus bonus rp?
 
Sightsear said:
Doesn't that 66% chance indicate the odds of a single Rennie breakdown per year? In which case, we should see a breakdown a little less than every other year, with good odds that it won't be out of service for longer than a single quarter, if not less, plus bonus rp?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Nah, I think the yearly chance for a single ship is like 2.1% if we start it really soon.

And as Oneiros explained, the event has a pretty decent chance of being beneficial, or just inconvenient. We just need to make sure the Hull and Warp Core are the most reliable components.
OneirosTheWriter said:
Once a ship has had one trigger, I look at the reliability values attached to each one and pick one part of the ship to have an incident randomly, weighted according to the individual reliability. Once I've got the part of the ship that went silly, I make a roll for severity . 1-4 = Funny incident, 5-9 = Problem, 10 = Ship Threatening Problem.

Only Warp Core and Hull severe results can accidentally a ship. Most "problem" ones mean, in mechanical terms, you lose use of the ship for a turn or two. Funny Incidents can even generate rp/pp.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
 
Last edited:
33% odds that one out of 10 rennies breaks down a year is unacceptably high right now. Especially since I can't get a version that has a 100% reliable warp core or hull.

Derek58 said:
Nah, I think the yearly chance for a single ship is like 2.1% if we start it really soon.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
3.89% actually. And that 66% is for across a fleet of Rennies. Basically, while w emight go years without a breakdown, it has a higher chace of breakdown per year, especially if we have large numbers of them, than I'm personally comfortable with( and remember, I was hard for the rennie before I started tinkering with the sheet!). We can do a medium cruiser which is better in every way and extremely reliable, can actually be refitted, plus giving us 3 new components to play with, at the cost of needing to build them in our larger berths(as well as more resources). I'd say that's worth it.
 
And again, whatever project that we do choose to go with, what do we do in the meantime? We need Starships and we need them now
 
tryrar said:
The issue is the best I can come up with for a 1mt cruiser that has the stats of a rennie has a reliability of 96.11%.
We can't make a 1mt cruiser that's acceptably reliable. We don't want our new ships breaking down every other quarter after all!
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It's one roll per year, not per turn. So a 1-in-20 chance per year. If it happens, there's a 1-4 chance the mishap is just something funny that gives an event and maybe even provides resources. I'm fine with 96% chance of a free event.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top