Nova Class, my version

Printable View

07-11-2003, 04:29 PM
Publius

1 Attachment(s)

Nova Class, my version

Per a requrest from another thread, I'm posting my version of the Nova and Nova upgrade in Spacedock terms. While the version in the SRM is a fine design, I decided to redo the stats for the Nova Class in my own campaign because of the deckplans I drew for it, specifying for example where warp cores and computer cores are found and how many Photon Torpedoes she carries, as well as including details from semi-canon sources (like the Starship Spotter which lists its weaponry as Type X Phasers rather than the Type VIII in the SRM).

On a related note, I'll be using the Spacedock rules for any Starship Combat that come up my PBeM game, although I'm by no means this is certain to happen any time soon given the stately pace of the average PBeM. Nevertheless, I will be posting some observations about integrating the Spacedock rules into the otherwise CODA-based game we're playing as the combats happen and modifications need to be made. Any comments others have are welcome in advance.
07-12-2003, 06:36 AM
Assassin

Nice Work!

Bur I think that the Structure Integrity Field is very strong for a ship of this size.
Has the security uprating for the communications a special meaning? Otherwise I would tune it down somewhat.

But hey, its your ship.....:D
07-12-2003, 07:32 AM
Publius

I made the Structural Integrity Field stronger than usual for this size vessel because she can make planetfall. It is probably easier on a Nova than a (much) larger Intrepid, but I figured that they would still go on the side of caution in this. The Intrepid (Size 6) has a 6 and the Defiant (same size) a 7 in the SRM (but the SIF is mentioned as being important to keep the ship together at high warp, but it is still 2 levels higher), so I thought it was more in line with those vessels that have planetfall capacity.

Re: Security rating. Honestly, I don't know why I made it so strong; I did this version of the ship some time ago and only posted it because of the request. I did tweak some other numbers, but this one slipped past me to be honest. Having the security that high doesn't seem particularly 'right' to me at the present moment, although it could be justified if the Uprated vessel were used for courier missions (the Warp 8 max Nova would be useless in that capacity) or something. Maybe any ship with Holocommunications Ability and Holoemmitters on every deck (because of the higher EMH in the uprated) should have greater security to prevent hacking into the system? Overall, it makes the system something like 6 SU more expensive, but I do get your point that it still doesn't overly fit. If I do a major overhaul of the ship's stats, I probably should revisit this, otherwise it isn't particularly problematic.
07-23-2003, 11:11 AM
krijger

Publius, do you have a 'printable' version of your nova deckplans?
[preferably pdf, gifs are so printer/system dependent]

Also when looking over your stats I noticed that you indicated the 'ventral engineering phaser' as a phaser, while I found sources identifying it as a tractor beam. Yet I prefer your explanation.

However I think that some of the fire arcs are wrong when looking at the model. The aft engineering phasers fire more to the sides then to the bottom.
Also some of the saucers phasers are majorly blocked by the nacelles.

Thijs
07-23-2003, 05:05 PM
Publius

Quote:

Originally posted by krijger
Publius, do you have a 'printable' version of your nova deckplans? [preferably pdf, gifs are so printer/system dependent]

Ummm, why isn't the one there printable? I've not had any problems with printing, nor have I heard anyone else had any. I save them as Gifs because Gifs are (a) smaller for what I am doing and (b) don't cause gradations of color like jpegs do. PDFs are a bit too large, and I never like the granulation that always seems to affect them. As I recall, someone put together a pdf version a while back, anyone remember that?

Quote:

Originally posted by krijger
Also when looking over your stats I noticed that you indicated the 'ventral engineering phaser' as a phaser, while I found sources identifying it as a tractor beam. Yet I prefer your explanation.

The Fact files screwed that one up big time, plainly mislabelling the strip. That is indeed a Phaser Array and not a Tractor Beam.

Quote:

Originally posted by krijger
However I think that some of the fire arcs are wrong when looking at the model. The aft engineering phasers fire more to the sides then to the bottom.
Also some of the saucers phasers are majorly blocked by the nacelles.

Thijs

Sure, I'd go with that on reflection, what fix do you suggest? Looking at them, I probably meant to type that they were dorsal rather than ventral, or it was a cut & paste issue (as in I cut and pasted from somewhere else, but forgot to double check that changes needed to get made); either way it is a screw up on my part. To be honest, I get my dorsal and ventral all screwed up most of the time, so it is just as likely that both possibilites were part of the reason I flubbed it here. It shouldn't be 360-degree either, more like ~270-ish with an arc shadow behind the nacelles. You are probably right about the blockage as well, but any problems with the exterior of the vessel need to go to Paramount :) (If you do, please complain about the lack of a hard-dock on the thing too would you? That bugs me about a lot of their designs made during that era)