"Starships" Questions

[Tobian]

I'm not too sure about adjusting according to the size. A small ship is more manouverable, but has less powerful shields, a large ship is less manouverable, but has much stronger shields. This is not reflected in their ratings (as it was in ICON) but then if you think about it - it is. So if a shuttle and a starship had the same rating of shields - then they would be both equally hard to hit - the big one because it had much bigger shields, and the little one because it was more manouverable too... Just my thought.

With regards to science ships.. Perhaps you could have a science ship purchase additional sensors. I.e. the maximum you can take it too is +5 - but perhaps is you purchased it again it could be +6 and again +7 - this would then accuratelly reflect the lack of weapons, because the science ship would be so chocked full of sensor arrays it would have no space for weapons! You would then also buy edges which increased the range or reliability of the ship, or maybe even created special case edges, such as +2 to a specific type of phenomenon (Life form, mineral, subspace phenomenon etc.)

[Gabe Mitchell]

First off, great work on Starships, Don. I'm quite impressed with the content and the like. I do, however, have a question.

In my thread below concerning designing a new starship class for the post-Dominion era, I had been pondering basing the design off the Prometheus-class starship, just enlarging it for some additional space for upgraded capabilities. However, last night I ran through the numbers for the space cost, and I found what seems to be a fairly large discrepancy.

According to my calculations (which, I admit, might be off some), I came up with 123 space required for the Prometheus-class, yet according to the size chart, the Prometheus-class should only have 99 space maximum. Am I missing something that would lower the cost, or is it just one of those glitches that accidentally made it by the Decipher editors?

[JDHMorgan]

I know this might sound like munchkinsim, but what are the advantages of designing a battleship or dreadnought. I was comparing the cost of a heavy explorer (Starfleet) to a battleship (Romulan). The only cost saving on a large warship is the reduction in cost of the deflector shield. The heavy explorer, however, gets that reduction and a reduction on the beam weapon cost. They have the same possible maneuver ratings, the same damage track for determining which system gets damaged in combat. With these advantages, I can see why Starfleet doesn't build large warships. My question then, is why does everyone else.

P.S. What about battle cruisers, they only get the cost reduction on missile weapons. Do they also use the warship damage track, or just the regular damage track. If that's the case, heavy cruisers will rock.

[Sea Tyger]

Originally posted by JDHMorgan
With these advantages, I can see why Starfleet doesn't build large warships. My question then, is why does everyone else.

P.S. What about battle cruisers, they only get the cost reduction on missile weapons. Do they also use the warship damage track, or just the regular damage track. If that's the case, heavy cruisers will rock.

Looking at it from a meta-gaming perspective, you're right...it's very easy to build a heavily-gunned warship for less cost (depending on the ship type...heavy cruiser is the most "versatile" in weapons costs). However, you can't look at this system from a meta-gaming perspective and have it work in a Trek setting.

Starfleet isn't about warships. Even in the most militant views (say, FASA Trek), Starfleet primarily focused on multi-purpose vessels as the mainstay of the fleet. Heavy Cruisers, while well armed and able to handle themselves against all but the heaviest threats, were still more explorer than warship.

Yes, there were destroyers (and the Excelsior was classified a battleship), but the frigate was the largest "warship" Starfleet kept in its arsenal.

If you're playing purely with the abstract value of points, then you're right...but if you take the ship design system and put into a Starfleet perspective (explorers first, diplomats second, soldiers third), then it's not appropriate for the fleet to build "battleships" and "battle cruisers." Leave that to the Klingons and Romulans.

Of course, this is just my opinion.

[JonA]

Originally posted by Sea Tyger
Looking at it from a meta-gaming perspective, you're right...it's very easy to build a heavily-gunned warship for less cost (depending on the ship type...heavy cruiser is the most "versatile" in weapons costs). However, you can't look at this system from a meta-gaming perspective and have it work in a Trek setting.

Starfleet isn't about warships. Even in the most militant views (say, FASA Trek), Starfleet primarily focused on multi-purpose vessels as the mainstay of the fleet. Heavy Cruisers, while well armed and able to handle themselves against all but the heaviest threats, were still more explorer than warship.

Yes, there were destroyers (and the Excelsior was classified a battleship), but the frigate was the largest "warship" Starfleet kept in its arsenal.

If you're playing purely with the abstract value of points, then you're right...but if you take the ship design system and put into a Starfleet perspective (explorers first, diplomats second, soldiers third), then it's not appropriate for the fleet to build "battleships" and "battle cruisers." Leave that to the Klingons and Romulans.

Of course, this is just my opinion.

And the Defiant was..?

[Sea Tyger]

Originally posted by JonA
And the Defiant was..?

A directed response to a very real and specific threat. I didn't say Starfleet couldn't make warships (and the Defiant-class isn't a battleship or dreadnought, which was the original question), I just said that it wasn't appropriate to the Starfleet design thought process.

[JonA]

Originally posted by Sea Tyger
A directed response to a very real and specific threat. I didn't say Starfleet couldn't make warships (and the Defiant-class isn't a battleship or dreadnought, which was the original question), I just said that it wasn't appropriate to the Starfleet design thought process.

Fair enough. I stand corrected.

Although the munckin side of me has always liked it when the good guys (Starfleet) put their effort into bigger toys.

I just loved the Akira, Steamrunner, Sabre, Norway, Defiant etc stuff. Made Starfleet more "real"* for me.

*I use the term loosely

[Sea Tyger]

Originally posted by JonA

I just loved the Akira, Steamrunner, Sabre, Norway, Defiant etc stuff. Made Starfleet more "real"* for me.

*I use the term loosely

Oh, trust me, I loved them too...in the same way I loved the Northampton, Andor and Wilkerson designs from FASA. They're just too cool...

[JonA]

Originally posted by Sea Tyger
Oh, trust me, I loved them too...in the same way I loved the Northampton, Andor and Wilkerson designs from FASA. They're just too cool...

FASA was before my time - just.

Don't recall those designs.

[Alex Pryde]

Originally posted by JonA
And the Defiant was..?

According to Ben Sisko:
"Officially, Starfleet classifies her as an escort."

[Tobian]

Yeah I have to agree with Sea Tyger here. You can't perscribe metagaming to any sense of the TV series' portrayal of the Federation. - The Defiant is classed as an escort vessel - yes we all know it's a 'warship' and that was the implication BUT yes it was a direct response to a direct threat.

I also have to point out here that as well as having more emphasis on peace and diplomatic utility on the ship, they are also designed to be more functional. If you look at a klingon ship on the shows - they have a large spaceframe with a relativelly small internal area (for comfort) their accomodations are basic - it's a flat out battleship. However despite a number of tasty combat facilities - cloak - powerful disruptors etc - they don't have allot of the other features of Federation ships. Yes you can argue that allot of the internal volume of a Starfleet ship is taken up with padding - of the comfort kind - but there's allot more:

Phasers - they may not be as powerful as disruports point for point BUT they are designed from the principle of flexibility - much like the hand weapon variant - they can be used to tunnel through a planet crust - bounced around in several directions to help combat sensor blindness ( such as in nemisis and several incarnations of the show) - their phase can be altered easilly, to help go through shields better and with the Type X plus models they have superb targeting accuracy and miltivector accuracy - Yes a Klingon disruptor is powerful, but it's basically one massive canon - yes the games rules don't account for it but I can see how it could have a very minimal firing ark.

Deflector array - the Federation deflector array is a powerful instrument. it's huge and highly configurable. I can't see a klingon ship fighting it's way out of the nexus (not that I can imagine a Klingon ship leaving spacedock without weapons mind you! ) - again this isn't really something shown in game mechanics (for simplicity) but generally they have simply much more flexibility - the Romulans and Klingons will have simpler more functional equiptment.

Crew - If you look at the crew compliment of an average Klingon ship - more than half of them will be sitting on their asses, waiting till that big cannon takes out their enemy's shields, so they can transport over - it's a briliant tactic (assuming you can get their shields down!) but if you look at the breakdown of a Federation crew, even on the smallest of vessels you have a huge army of people who can do things OTHER than fighting. In general this combined with a more open friendly (relativelly, it's still quasi military) and supportive nature, these highly skilled and divergent people often come up with remarkably different solutions to solving their problems. Not every enemy you can defeat with an energy weapon - sometimes you have to use your head. Yes it would be a steriotype to say all Klingons are combat specialists with no science training, but the chances are those people would be the majority.. I can't see a Klingon general applying his aptitudes for tactics and quick thinking to figure out the precise frequency of a string singularity life form, so that it didn't rip your ship to shreds, trying to say hello

it has to be said as well, especially if using the Klingon example - Yes their ships can be highly automated, and are a testimtent to that functionality, but we've yet to see anyone have self repairing ships! (except aliens of the week) - yes the Klingon is better at hitting, but the Federation is better at taking damage - and then repairing it!

[JDHMorgan]

Maybe I was a little vague. Or maybe the munchkinism is all that got thru. What I was doing was setting up some new classes for threat vessels (e.g. Romulans or Klingons [rogue] or Cardassians). They use vessels such as the battle cruiser, battleship, dreadnought. I was trying to find ways to make them better combatants. Some of the systems are excellent. I love the larger beam and missile weapons available to the Klingons. I just thought, there ought to be a better way to show why these classes were preferred for some aggressive species. I guess what I could do is make a heavy explorer, and just call it something else.

P.S. All I was trying to say, was that a battle cruiser should make mincemeat out of a heavy cruiser.

[Tobian]

Hmm I'm not sure I agree here. I get your point, perhaps they SHOULD, but if you take out the game aspect for a moment and compare similar (TOS era) ships - you have the Constitution class; the Romulan bird of prey; the Klingon D7 (I think)

In the show those three vessels are fairly much an even match. They are all around the same 'size', however the Federation vessel has a larger internal volume, and is generall larger. So that said those vesels made by the Romulans and Klingons are much better at space combat because they have more space devoted to it, even though they are smaller they pack as much punch.

The way I see it is that in a general sense the written designation of the 'type' of a starship is really just semantics from the point of view of designation; it denotes it's primary function, not it's capabilities.

If you take a Klingon bird of prey and face it off against a Galaxy class, chances are, unless the Galaxy class has a cripling disadvantage (such as in Generations, when Lursor and B'etor have a spy in their midst ) it WILL win against the Bird of prey - why? Well that's obvious: the Galaxy class is bigger, with more advanced technology, better weapons and shields and is 60 years newer. Yes that is an unfair example from your point of view, but it's still true: not all things are created equal and not all things come at each other in the same context, and this is more true of Startrek than allot of things! Just because you say something is of XYZ type doesn't mean it has an advantage over the other, it just means it's weighted in a certain area.

However flip this argument on it's head: The Galaxy class ship WAS destroyed by a bird of Prey.. Why?: because the klingons used their experience, tactics and craftiness to win. The cloaking device can be a decided advantage in any combat scenario.

If you look at each of the three main races that the Federation will face: The Klingons, Romulans and Cardassians (rinse and repeat with other races) - they are combat oriented so their ships have far more bang for their buck than a standard Starfleet vessel: The Romulans and klingons have cloaking devices. The Cardassians have monotanium armour and spiral wave disruptors. With the exception of the Romulans the Klingons and Cardassians generally host smaller ships: So one on one chances are the average decent sized Federation heavy cruiser / explorer type would fair a better chance... One on one! Cardassians and Klingons rarelly fight with one ship! They churn out cheap and cheerful designs by their hundreds. You're right: On average such ships SHOULD take down comparable sized non combative ships BECAUSE they are combat oriented, but by and large Federation ships are larger, with better shields, and they are a highly tactically clever species. Tactics in war is ALWAYS the decisive factor - look at how many wars in history have been won by tactics over brute strength!

If you're looking for in-game reasons to make 'warships' better than 'diplomacy' vessels - they it is that tactical decisiveness that will win out. A Klingon bird of Prey has combat veterans on board, with, most likelly, higher abilities in using ships weapons and in combat catics; which in a metagame sense means they will act first in combat turns and they can take risks and do more damage with their combat manouvers (such as taking the close range edge and boost their damage at short ranges) - I've played the combat system in Coda and it all tends to weight around who has the best combat skills, not the best weapons, because your damage is only good if you can HIT!

[Scott M. Macek]

Another thing to consider as the terms used by each government to define spacecraft. In Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, the Klingons refer to the Enterprise as a "Federation Battle Cruiser" while Starfleet designates it as a Heavy Cruiser. Why? Because the Klingons are preoccupied with battle and the Federation is preoccupied with maintaining their peacekeeping image (nevermind that the Enterprise at full strength and complement could've handed the Bird-of-Prey it's buttocks). The Sovereign class would be referred to by every race BUT the Federation as a Battleship of some sort because it can kick butt and take names (it was designed with the Borg in mind, after all). Just because you are designing a ship to fill a certain niche in the Starships book, doesn't mean that the government that built it would consider it such. If you build a Klingon explorer with the intent that it will be a Klingon Battleship, then it's going to be a Battleship with Explorer tendencies... or it that an Explorer with Battleship tendencies? Anyway, build the ship the way you want, following the rules you want and then name and classify it however you want. It's YOUR game. Have fun with it.

[strict31]

Originally posted by JDHMorgan
With these advantages, I can see why Starfleet doesn't build large warships. My question then, is why does everyone else.

Been reading through the responses, noting how they've talked mainly about the numbers behind this issue. But there's another reason.

First of all, I'm sure JDH didn't mean "everyone else"...I mean, we got the Romulans, the Dominion...the Borg...I don't think there are too many more of the "usual suspects" who go for size over substance so to speak.

But I mean, think about it for a second, it totally makes sense for some of these powers to build ships of overwhelmeing and impressive size. Remember in 1977 when that star destroyer rumbled across the screen with its vast bulk going on and on and on...? If you're old enough to remember sitting in a theater with that on the screen, imagine for a moment how it must have felt for Princess Leia and her crew to see the same thing...RIGHT OUTSIDE her little blockade runner...

Or think about the Death Star. Big, slow. Low mobility. But this is not just a tactical weapon. it is also a weapon of terror. Of imposition. of unstated dominance.

Building a massive starship is not necessarily a matter of functionality or maximization of size and structure and space; of numbers...these empires have a reason. amethod in the madness. They want to be imposing. To intimidate the opponent, to remove hope of resistance from the planet they're orbiting. Of course the Federation has no such desire. The Klingons might, but they're also a bit more practical about killing and combat. The Cardassians are into intimidation, but they do it more with the strength and vastness of their military society (well, pre-Dominion War, that is). And being a military society, they, too are practical when it comes to war.

Wars are won through more than just strength of arms. if you can convince your enemy of the futility of even raising a hand against you, then you've already killed their hope.

Since there's noting even close to this in the numbers of the game, there is no real reason to make a huge ship.


Strictly Speaking