Under- and over-powered ships...

Printable View

08-21-2002, 08:26 PM
Siroth

Under- and over-powered ships...

Hi

I'm new to the board, though I've played LUG trek for years. The Spacedock rules are excellent with lots of brilliant details, but I must confess surprise to see some of the write-ups for certain ships.

For example, the Saber class surprised me. Somehow it doesn't look particularly powerful for a ship that is supposedly the successor of the 'failed' Defiant project.

Similarly, the Akira class is a monster of a ship! According to SRM1 it was commissioned in 2368, late enough introduce many anti-Borg elements into the ship, but even so the Fleet Data states that it began way back in 2350, long before anyone ever heard of the Borg. Assuming how long ago the basics were apparently designed, one wouldn't assume it was built to be a warship, yet the sheer amount of fire-power on the ship is awesome! How is that Starfleet designed a ship that allowed so many weapons on it at that time? That surprised me a bit, particularly since the write-up of the Akira in the Price of Freedom sourcebook is far more conventional. I mean, the Akira can compete with the Sovereign and Prometheus, perhaps even the Negh'Var, when it comes to raining death on the enemy, but only in the Spacedock version...

Compared to that I was surprised to find the Saber class less powerful than the Defiant.

Now, I'd like to point out this is not intended as criticism as much as it is intended to be taken as genuine interest in the reasons for the designing the ships that way. Okay people?
08-22-2002, 07:03 AM
Capt.Hunter

Well, many of the problems with the Defiant were that she was over-powered, so possibly the Sabre (British spelling - I refuse to accept the contradiction in terms that is "US English" :) ) was an attempt to incorporate many of the same design rationales (small, easily produced, low crew, powerful for its size) but to cut back the cutting-edge tech in order to produce a vessel that could really fit in with other fleet elements, and reduce the problems of the Defiant.
08-23-2002, 09:41 PM
NobAkimoto

Going from simple registeries the Sabre class predates the Defiant.(Btw it's spelled "Sabre" class. The homage is I think to the F-86, rather than the French word for sword(sabel which is adaped to "saber" in US english, with "sabre" being a specific type of cavalry sword.)

I think the SRM said something close to it, but the perimeter action vessels weren't particuarly designed against the Borg in particular per-see but more for a fleet wide modernization.

The trio(Akira, Sabre, and Steamrunner) would probably be better off being originally designed during the Cardassian War(Y'know, the very first one.) as an attempt to make fast penetration vessels which were shelved and later built again in response to the Borg.(The Sovereign may also have been part of this general lineage or project types, the Galaxy class project started a little before the 2350's, so possibly the whole project had 4 ship types, with the Sovereign being an active study-model for a combat oriented Galaxy.)

Also though keep in mind that contrary to what some of the figures in SD might represent, the Sabre has roughly the same volume as the Miranda, and approximately 4 times the internal volume of a Defiant. One would think that it was probably designed more as a replacement for the former, rather than a fix for the latter.
08-24-2002, 02:46 AM
Dan Gurden

Quote:

Originally posted by NobAkimoto
Going from simple registeries the Sabre class predates the Defiant.(Btw it's spelled "Sabre" class. The homage is I think to the F-86, rather than the French word for sword(sabel which is adaped to "saber" in US english, with "sabre" being a specific type of cavalry sword.)

Different Strokes, Different Folks... Its exactly the same basis for the name source, even if it was the F-86... Based on the french word for Sword. So the Americanised english complaint of us Europeans is still valid.

For myself I still spell it Saber... When handwriting it... But no matter how many times I tell my PC that I an British and use British english it still picks up the British spelling for Americanisation... Damn Microsoft! ;)

I think this situation calls for the alternate 'You say Tomato and I'll say Tomato' situation... Lets call the whole thing off...
08-24-2002, 01:11 PM
qerlin

"But no matter how many times I tell my PC that I an British and use British english it still picks up the British spelling for Americanisation... Damn Microsoft!"

Just in case that's actually the case, can't you just set English/UK as your default language in your word processor? WordPerfect'll do it; I'm assuming Word will too...

If you were joking, disregard...
08-25-2002, 02:50 AM
Dan Gurden

Quote:

Originally posted by qerlin
"But no matter how many times I tell my PC that I an British and use British english it still picks up the British spelling for Americanisation... Damn Microsoft!"

Just in case that's actually the case, can't you just set English/UK as your default language in your word processor? WordPerfect'll do it; I'm assuming Word will too...

If you were joking, disregard...

That was the first thing I did. And it had absolutely no effect on the Americanisations.

Its a good thing that I know I can spell (most of the time), as all the red underlines make my documents look error-ridden...