[Proposed] Century-class Specifications

Archived discussions of all specifications which have been approved and put into use by the Research & Development Department

Moderator: Clement

KejalBuris
Petty Officer 3rd Class
Petty Officer 3rd Class
Posts: 78
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 2:54 am
Contact:

Re: [Proposed] Century-class Specifications

Post by KejalBuris » Thu Jan 31, 2013 6:12 pm

While I'm not as vehement as Artim in this case, but I have to agree. I'm going to just sort of jump in here on this with my view on the situation.

This vessel is listed as 715x282x104. The Sovereign Ship-of-the-Line is 675x260x96 for comparison. Whether this thing is an explorer vessel, a main battle ship, or whatever role it is, it needs to be armed and armored properly for a vessel of its size. This is a capitol ship and it deserves that much respect. In any kind of a combat situation, this will be a target, even more than flagships, generally. It needs to have some serious teeth, and be able to bare them quickly.

One extra phaser and 2 rapid-fire turrets does not, to me, seem enough to justify four million extra cubic meters. We need two more turrets at least, and maybe two or three extra burst-fire launchers. We are talking about the lives of about 700 people. And, loath though I am to admit it, the total lack of starfighters doesn't give me confidence either when the vessel itself is somewhat under-protected. I suggest an 8-strong fighter wing - fighter class to be determined by CO.

User avatar
Blackcat
Chief Petty Officer
Chief Petty Officer
Posts: 203
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 9:57 pm

Re: [Proposed] Century-class Specifications

Post by Blackcat » Thu Jan 31, 2013 6:38 pm

The main problem I see is that after the Dominion War, it was clearly stated that the fleet was going in the direction of smaller, more capable ship as opposed to Goliaths like the Sovereign. As a ship of the line, it does have scientific capabilities, and tactical, but it is "Multi-Purpose" like the cruisers and explorers of yesteryear. That means it is a jack of all trades, a master of none. We don't need bigger ships, we need better ones. The Sovvie is practically a brand new class, all things considered, so is the Prommie. We don't need another Goliath, we need more Davids.

Ships of the line are sent out rather than science/research/surveyors a lot of the time when there is suspected danger, simply because they have a better chance of protecting themselves. Pure science... vessels are not "manned up" with weapons and armor because of the various treaties, they can go where a more heavily armed/armored vessel can't go without raising the hackles of a potential enemy.

The other end of the coin is... That's what escorts like the defiant are made for, they go out with other ships to provide backup and support.

Let's not fall into the trap that a lot of the other fleets fell into and go strictly for cool factor. "It's bigger, it's gotta be better." just isn't going to fly with starfleet command, because they are going to say "Look, you want this one ship that takes the same amount of resources that it takes to build 5 or 6 intrepids, and would take four times as long to build. Not happening."
nnn >^o.o^< nnn
ImageImage

User avatar
Blackcat
Chief Petty Officer
Chief Petty Officer
Posts: 203
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 9:57 pm

Re: [Proposed] Century-class Specifications

Post by Blackcat » Thu Jan 31, 2013 6:44 pm

KejalBuris wrote:...the total lack of starfighters doesn't give me confidence either when the vessel itself is somewhat under-protected. I suggest an 8-strong fighter wing - fighter class to be determined by CO.
Ships of the line do not have fighters or marines.
nnn >^o.o^< nnn
ImageImage

User avatar
Artim Sequoia
Crewman Recruit
Crewman Recruit
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 5:24 am
Location: Minnesota
Contact:

Re: [Proposed] Century-class Specifications

Post by Artim Sequoia » Thu Jan 31, 2013 6:50 pm

Blackcat wrote:
KejalBuris wrote:...the total lack of starfighters doesn't give me confidence either when the vessel itself is somewhat under-protected. I suggest an 8-strong fighter wing - fighter class to be determined by CO.
Ships of the line do not have fighters or marines.
In the end it should be up to the CO as to whether or not they have fighters and/or marines. Some CO's operate a little differently. In a few of my commands over the years I have either partially or completely replaced the Starfleet Security/Tactical department with Marines.
Image
Lieutenant Commander Artim Sequoia, PhD
Chief Science Officer
USS Dauntless

User avatar
Artim Sequoia
Crewman Recruit
Crewman Recruit
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 5:24 am
Location: Minnesota
Contact:

Re: [Proposed] Century-class Specifications

Post by Artim Sequoia » Thu Jan 31, 2013 6:59 pm

Blackcat wrote:The main problem I see is that after the Dominion War, it was clearly stated that the fleet was going in the direction of smaller, more capable ship as opposed to Goliaths like the Sovereign. As a ship of the line, it does have scientific capabilities, and tactical, but it is "Multi-Purpose" like the cruisers and explorers of yesteryear. That means it is a jack of all trades, a master of none. We don't need bigger ships, we need better ones. The Sovvie is practically a brand new class, all things considered, so is the Prommie. We don't need another Goliath, we need more Davids.
In your opinion we need more "Davids" which I disagree with.
Blackcat wrote:Ships of the line are sent out rather than science/research/surveyors a lot of the time when there is suspected danger, simply because they have a better chance of protecting themselves. Pure science... vessels are not "manned up" with weapons and armor because of the various treaties, they can go where a more heavily armed/armored vessel can't go without raising the hackles of a potential enemy.

The other end of the coin is... That's what escorts like the defiant are made for, they go out with other ships to provide backup and support.
You need to have both. Standard armed Science vessels are needed for the treaty areas while a heavily armed Science vessel is needed for more deep exploration where the ships of the line do not have the facilities. Of course escorts can be sent along but that doesn't mean that the Science vessel should be vulnerable.
Blackcat wrote:Let's not fall into the trap that a lot of the other fleets fell into and go strictly for cool factor. "It's bigger, it's gotta be better." just isn't going to fly with starfleet command, because they are going to say "Look, you want this one ship that takes the same amount of resources that it takes to build 5 or 6 intrepids, and would take four times as long to build. Not happening."
Starfleet Command can change. It's actually a blast to simm at the SFC Admiralty level and improve things.
Image
Lieutenant Commander Artim Sequoia, PhD
Chief Science Officer
USS Dauntless

Clement
Director of Fleet Resources
Director of Fleet Resources
Posts: 93
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 3:05 am

Re: [Proposed] Century-class Specifications

Post by Clement » Thu Jan 31, 2013 7:03 pm

I must agree with Commodore Toras Selos. The purpose of this forum is to engage in constructive development of starship and technology designs that have been put forward for use in the Eleventh "Pegasus" Fleet community. Having had my fair share of experience in Research & Development with at least two simming communities, I feel confident saying there is a great deal which must be considered when adapting any design for simming. We each have our own ideas of what best falls within the vision Gene Roddenberry established for the Star Trek universe and just because those ideas do not always line up doesn't mean they aren't still valid perspectives.

That said...

I feel the Century-class as it currently stands is more than well-equipped to handle most realistic situations encountered by Federation explorers. With all due respect to Lieutenant Commander Kejal Buris, the Galaxy-class has no torpedo turrets, two fewer torpedo launchers, and four fewer phaser arrays even though it is just over twice the proposed volume of the Century-class. Canon Trek has established the Galaxy-class starship as a sound design quite capable of handling itself in a variety of situations while still providing support for the multitude of civilians living aboard ship. This leads me to the understanding that a vessel half the volume with greater armament would have little trouble ensuring the safety of its crew.

If the question is distinguishing the Century-class from the Sovereign-class under the current classification system, then perhaps it would be best to pursue a mission profile of Explorer with greater scientific capabilities and a slightly reduced armament as suggested by Rear Admiral Emily Quinn.
Rear Admiral D’era Virtam
Pegasus Fleet Director of Resources
pfdr@pegasusfleet.net

User avatar
Alex
Pegasus Fleet CO
Pegasus Fleet CO
Posts: 638
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 1:04 am
Location: Indiana, US
Contact:

Re: [Proposed] Century-class Specifications

Post by Alex » Fri Feb 01, 2013 3:35 am

Artim Sequoia wrote:Well I think you should tender your resignation as Chief of R&D if you're that incompetent.
Then let me rephrase that since I don't like being called incompetent. I don't have a problem with a ship that is able to take care of itself. When I said that some changes should be made to make this class an Explorer, then I mean things like adding more science labs, and possibly balancing the phaser count to use a few more of the older arrays to make room for additional sensor pallets. I did not mean strip it of all of it's weapons and defenses so it would feel more at home hiding in the corner. It's not my intention to make a ship that size under powered.

However, I am a firm believer in balance. I've seen too many other ship specifications that make the ship the best at everything. Multirole ships like the Ships-of-the-Line are meant to be jack of all trades but master of none. Destroyers and Corvettes are going to be built around defense and patrols while Cruisers and Carriers are designed to bring more punishment. Explorers should be made to, well, explore. They should have science and sensor capabilities above other aspects.

On my first read on this ship, it felt to me like a multirole vessel. My research tended to support that notion. But thinking about it further, and knowing how lacking we are in true explorer type vessels, that's why I suggested the change. I think we should have a better long range explorer. We need a ship that can take care of itself, but still needs to be able to do the job it was sent out to do. Ships like the Oberth and the Nova are, in my opinion at least, short range survey ships. They can get away with being smaller and less armed. The Century would have armament more in line with the Sovereign, but would far outclass the latter ship when it comes to science capabilities.

However, I will not support a science vessel with more weapons then our largest cruiser. Like Blackcat said, giant super ships that can do everything are impractical, and in my opinion, a little boring. Being a little outgunned brings drama, and makes the stories more exciting. I have been in poorly run simms in the past that had heavily overpowered ships. The only way to create any drama is to have an even more heavily overpowered enemy, an enemy that other simms wouldn't be able to enjoy since no other ship would stand a chance. We are already dealing with speculative fiction, but I feel you can only strain disbelief for so long before it is no longer interesting.
Fleet Admiral Emily Quinn
Commanding Officer
11th 'Pegasus' Fleet

Fleet Captain Liarra Von
Commanding Officer
Starbase 332

Confusedfire
Chief Petty Officer
Chief Petty Officer
Posts: 201
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2012 8:10 pm

Re: [Proposed] Century-class Specifications

Post by Confusedfire » Fri Feb 01, 2013 10:40 pm

Artim Sequoia wrote:Well I think you should tender your resignation as Chief of R&D if you're that incompetent.
I believe that was unnecessary also I believe that when it comes down to it when you have to resort to name calling then you don't have a valid argument.

I think the Century Class specs are sound and I see little purpose to this argument or debate. Alexandra did a good job given that this is a non-canon ship to begin with and a rare find.
Captain Neela Izal
Commanding Officer TF37
Commanding Officer SB-812

"Spot this is down...down is good!"

- LCDR Data

User avatar
Joe_Rhimer
Master Chief Petty Officer
Master Chief Petty Officer
Posts: 334
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 12:52 am
Location: Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Contact:

Re: [Proposed] Century-class Specifications

Post by Joe_Rhimer » Fri Feb 01, 2013 11:06 pm

I'm behind the specs as is, given the size of the ship and it's general purpose need. It fits well in the ship-of-the-line category, and should be well suited to many types of games. Well done, boss lady :) I know you've been fighting this one for a while.

Thanks to all who gave well thought out and non-aggressive feedback. Having well thought out, mature debates on these matters are what make our fleet great.

Thanks!
-Aaron
Image
Image

User avatar
Scarlett Pickern
Crewman Recruit
Crewman Recruit
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 12:52 am

Re: [Proposed] Century-class Specifications

Post by Scarlett Pickern » Sat Feb 02, 2013 12:18 am

Alright. I'm going to most likely end up with some enemies, but I must have my say.

Calling someone incompetent is far from name calling, imo. But, I know like with allot of things, you all will never agree with me. Just skimming the specs, it is a fairly well-rounded ship. But I'm not exactly knowledgeable when it comes to how Trek Engineering works. When it comes to the Sovereign, the ship is decently armed and is quite well rounded on its own. As technologies proceed, things would be streamlined, more could go into smaller. Simply take a look at our real life technologies that can do more, with allot less. It stands to reason that ships could very well be "overpowered" in later years. In deep exploration, you never really know what you're going into. While a majority of the time, what would be faced could be handled by standard armament. But if you take out armament and put other non-defensive systems in, you're creating a chink in the armor. A science vessel could quite easily be made to have more than a couple teeth.

Technology grows and expands exponentially. Keeping Science Vessels well protected, as much as a cruiser, is quite feasible. However, like so many places, sciences are generally looked at as peace loving hippies. Is it truly wrong for someone in science to want their crew well protected? For long explorations, you wouldn't send a science vessel and an escort. You would send -one- science vessel somewhere that if they got into trouble where they needed help, they would most likely be taken down before help could arrive. You prepare your ships for possibilities that you hope they never have to use. But not all species out there has a great love of Starfleet. And don't give a crap about whether a science vessel could defend itself or not. Or -any- long exploration vessel for that matter.
Scarlett Pickern
Executive Officer
USS Dauntless/Pegasus Fleet

Post Reply

Return to “Approved Specifications”