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
SynchronizedWritersBlock said:
Well, okay, for me, the total number of ships we fought over the two battles conformed rather closely with my expectations (GBZ garrison plus approximately the expected level of reinforcement plus Ashalla Pact surprise). If there had been more, then I would have been questioning how Hybor pulled them out which would have led to a re-adjustment of expectations in similar cases. If in some opinions the world-as-expected didn't match what we saw, then you would have to explain the logic that led to those expectations in detail to explore what was wrong with them.

I would add that choosing to target 45 Gabriel was, personally, not a calculated vote for me. I didn't have the information available to calculate with good certainty our chances of winning any battles we might fight; I was leaving the calculations to the characters on the field. I expected that if the enemy strength there was completely overwhelming, Nash would have chosen not to charge in. I voted for high aggression because it was the move that would give Hybor the most problems and put him under the most pressure, because it was the move that would relieve our defensive problems the best, and because it was the move that gave Nash the most latitude in tactical choices.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I might do an omake soon about what Hybor's actual plan was, and how you foiled it.
 
Leila Hann said:
I might do an omake soon about what Hybor's actual plan was, and how you foiled it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Given the way the Cardies started doing a lot better the instant he died, I can't help but think a significant component of his plan was "bleed our overlords white so that we can renegotiate the terms of our arrangement later".
 
Muer'ci said:
I would like to hear more about potential Kepler without going into that other thread ^^;
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


We don't have a consensus on the specifics. The Kepler design depends on a large number of tiny tradeoffs. Basically, the all-out statline would look like:

C2 S8 H2 L4 P5 D5, 105br, 90sr, 2/3/4, no rec space, 2.5y

However sacrificing any one of those stats except H would mean you could trade up, for example, for rec space, or decrease SR, or drop build time by a quarter, or drop hull size below 1mt, and so on. So the final design could range from C1 or C2, S7 or S8, H2, L3 or L4, P4 or P5, D4 or D5, 95 to 105 br, 75 to 90 sr, 2/3/3 to 2/3/4, 2.25 to 2.5y, weapons or no weapons, rec space or no rec space, and depends heavily on tradeoffs between those areas.
 
SynchronizedWritersBlock said:
We don't have a consensus on the specifics. The Kepler design depends on a large number of tiny tradeoffs. Basically, the all-out statline would look like:

C2 S8 H2 L4 P5 D5, 105br, 90sr, 2/3/4, no rec space, 2.5y

However sacrificing any one of those stats except H would mean you could trade up, for example, for rec space, or decrease SR, or drop build time by a quarter, or drop hull size below 1mt, and so on. So the final design could range from C1 or C2, S7 or S8, H2, L3 or L4, P4 or P5, D4 or D5, 95 to 105 br, 75 to 90 sr, 2/3/3 to 2/3/4, 2.25 to 2.5y, weapons or no weapons, rec space or no rec space, and depends heavily on tradeoffs between those areas.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Thank you.

E: S8 P5 is so hot tho
 
Last edited:
At the expense of breaking my "SDB is leaking" rule, I would kind of like to know what people here think of the big 105br 90sr 2.5 year no rec space 1.1mt C2 S8 H2 L4 P5 D5 design. Keeping in mind that no we cannot just stick rec space on it or any other tweak. It is literally as tuned as possible and any changes would require sacrificing stats. Are those the stats you want? Does it go too far to the cruiser side what with it being even bigger than the Rennie? Are things like weapons or rec spaces important keeping in mind that again, you sacrifice stats for narrative conveniences like that?
 
Last edited:
These ships are rated as long range = quite a while in the field so I don't like the idea of no rec space I would trade 1P or 1C for the rec space; this ship is not inteded to be a combatant and is more for investigating wierd things in space and should run away if anything bigger and nastier appears
 
chriswriter90 said:
Didn't stop us from using the Oberth in combat and the Kepler is better in every way.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

What they should be doing and what they actualy end up doing are of course completly different often enough. None the less they are intended as the next generation Oberth so demphasise combat and presence to give rec space and maybe a smaller vessel. We won't be spaming these vessels in the same way that Rennies are so I am not too concerned about construction costs.
 
SynchronizedWritersBlock said:
At the expense of breaking my "SDB is leaking" rule, I would kind of like to know what people here think of the big 105br 90sr 2.5 year no rec space 1.1mt C2 S8 H2 L4 P5 D5 design. Keeping in mind that no we cannot just stick rec space on it or any other tweak. It is literally as tuned as possible and any changes would require sacrificing stats. Are those the stats you want? Does it go too far to the cruiser side what with it being even bigger than the Rennie? Are things like weapons or rec spaces important keeping in mind that again, you sacrifice stats for narrative conveniences like that?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I'd be happy to drop either S, L, or D by 1. What do you mean by "things like weapons" though? I think it ought to have weapons, yes.
 
If they have no chance at recreation, I feel bad for the crew, whether it is reflected in the rules or not. So I am in favor of adding a Rec Space.

As for what to drop, I like this design SWB did back in July. (I don't know whether it is still viable, though.)

To summarize, it is:
C2 S7 L4 P5 D4, 95br, 75sr, 9q build, 2/3/4
 
Last edited:
Personal opinion - seeing as Keplers should be pulling out of fights after skirmish, I'm prepared to sacrifice some shields (L) to make the vessel more live-able (Rec Space) and if that causes a build time and/or price drop, that is just a bonus.

If dropping a point of L doesn't give enough room, then a point is S instead - it will still be a superior science responder.
 
I've actually slowly been convinced by the argument in favor of D5. There's a C2 S7 L4 P5 D5 design for 100br 90sr. e: Also a C2 S7 L4 P4 D6 design for 100br 85sr.

Goat said:
Personal opinion - seeing as Keplers should be pulling out of fights after skirmish, I'm prepared to sacrifice some shields (L) to make the vessel more live-able (Rec Space) and if that causes a build time and/or price drop, that is just a bonus.

If dropping a point of L doesn't give enough room, then a point is S instead - it will still be a superior science responder.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Scout-skirmish ships stay for the vanguard.
 
Last edited:
Gingganz said:
If they have no chance at recreation, I feel bad for the crew, whether it is reflected in the rules or not. So I am in favor of adding a Rec Space.

As for what to drop, I like this design SWB did back in July. (I don't know whether it is still viable, though.)

To summarize, it is:
C2 S7 L4 P5 D4, 95br, 75sr, 9q build, 2/3/4
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That design still exists and works under the newest sheet version. It's a fine 'baseline' with anything more requiring a bigger ship or more SR.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top