Comparison with FASA ship class sizes & CODA/Spacedock sizes?

[Roger Stenning]

OK, maybe I'm thick, or not as observant as I once was, but I cannot find a table that helps copmpare the old Roman Ship sizes from FASA ST:TCS, and the Decipher CODA (and now Spacedock) ship sizes - anyone got a pointer, or better yet, a table of comparisons for me?

Thanks in advance!

[RaconteurX]

FASA had stats for Roman galleys? Cool! I bet those galeotti (that's galley slaves, for those of you without a good Latin dictionary) could hit almost .00001 impulse at top speed.

[Owen E Oulton]

FASA'a ship sizes were based solely on mass.

<table><tr><td>Class ------</td><td>Mass (x1000 metric tonnes)</td></tr><tr><td>I</td><td>0 - 5</td></tr><tr><td>II</td><td>5 - 15</td></tr><tr><td>III</td><td>15 - 25</td></tr><tr><td>IV</td><td>25 - 40</td></tr><tr><td>V</td><td>40 - 60</td></tr><tr><td>VI</td><td>60 - 80</td></tr><tr><td>VII</td><td>80 - 100</td></tr><tr><td>VIII</td><td>100 - 120</td></tr><tr><td>IX</td><td>120 - 140</td></tr><tr><td>X</td><td>140 - 160</td></tr><tr><td>XI</td><td>160 - 180</td></tr><tr><td>XII</td><td>180 - 210</td></tr><tr><td>XIII</td><td>240 - 300</td></tr><tr><td>XIV</td><td>300 - 350</td></tr><tr><td>XV</td><td>350 - 400</td></tr><tr><td>XVI</td><td>400 - 450</td></tr><tr><td>XVII</td><td>450 - 500</td></tr><tr><td>XVIII</td><td>450 - 500</td></tr><tr><td>XIX</td><td>500 - 600</td></tr><tr><td>XX</td><td>600 - 700</td></tr></table>

Of course, the masses assigned to ships were dependanty on the masses of the components as given in their rules, so you'd have to find a ratio between how much a FASA ship would mass and how much the ship would mass as designed using CODA or Spacedock rules, adjust and cross-reference. (Are you sure you meant Spacedock, which is an adjunct to the ICON rules, or Starships, which is a part of the CODA system?)

FASA Class I would be Spacedock Sizes 1, 2 and the lower end of Size 3.
Class II and III and IV fall within Size 2.
Class IV and V would be Size 3.
Class VI through the lower 2/3 of Class XII are Size 4.
The upper 1/3 of Class VII through XVIII are Size 5.
Class XIX and XX fall into the lower end of Size 6.

(BTW, there's a typo in the SD Size table - the lower end of Size 6 is 500,000 tonnes, not 300,000. Also, the FASA chart omits the notation that the figures are in thousands of metric tonnes.)

[Roger Stenning]

Thanks, Owen - very concise

[tonyg]

Another thing about the FASA design rules is that Engines were probably the single most important component for determining the mass/size of a vessel. In FASA a 120k mt ship is likely to have engines massing 100k mt.

[Roger Stenning]

I also noticed that engines tend to be the most heavy items on the lists; it's why I decided on a four nacelle ship using smaller engines overall; the result is a fairly powerful ship, with lesser in the way of engine mass as compared to other similar sized ships.

[tonyg]

A 4-naceel ship? That is sort of a no-no, according to the Trek ship design guidelines--especially in the 23rd century. In addtion, none of the starship design rules for the various games are set up to handle a 4 engine ship.


Even if you ignore that, you won't get much of a benefit in FASA, Spacedock f CODA, as far as design effciency, or mass goes.

[TFVanguard]

Originally posted by tonyg
[B]A 4-naceel ship? That is sort of a no-no, according to the Trek ship design guidelines--especially in the 23rd century. In addtion, none of the starship design rules for the various games are set up to handle a 4 engine ship.

Well, the USS Constellation Exploration Cruiser is a TMP-era design, (and pre-Excelsior, if you go by its NCC 1974 call-number). That's clearly got 4 warp engines strapped to its butt, without much of a hull in front of it. And those are full-scale 'Connie' engines.

TOS-era, it may be pushing it a bit, but I don't see why a four-engine system wouldn't work with a smaller (SFB-style?) warp engine to push it along. I would add some increased difficulty for the Engineering department to keep things straight as well.

[Tas II]

Hmmm...

I seem to remember that the only no-no was three-engine designs. Some techno-babble excuse for an unstable warp-field or somesuch. The only bit of info is in my very ancient starfleet chronology book with the USS Tritium being listed as a VERY expensive R&D flop.

Cheers,

Tas

[TFVanguard]

I seem to remember that the only no-no was three-engine designs. Some techno-babble excuse for an unstable warp-field or somesuch. The only bit of info is in my very ancient starfleet chronology book with the USS Tritium being listed as a VERY expensive R&D flop.

Ah, you're referring to Rodenberry's infamous 'rules' which seemed to exist solely to discount the Technical Manual and a lot of other works, despite their being official and 'canon' shortly before. (These always struck me a completely petty.) These rules were 'made' at the time of TMP...

Rule #1: Warp Engines must be in pairs. No single, triple, etc warp engines are possible.

Problem, the Saladin, Hermes, and Federation classes show up on computer displays in most of the 'origial-era' flims, indicating that the ships were, indeed, built.

This is the main reason why there's a fan 'retcon' stating that the warp fields tended to get unstable. It works, and keeps the 'rule' in line. Except for the fact that it wouldn't explain why we see single and triple naccelle ships come the time of TNG. (Well, those warp engines work /differently/...)

Basically, all you can point to is a flaw in the TOS-era engines that lead to instability, which might explain such a hefty design switch to the TMP era warp engines. (Which would then eliminate this particular rule).

Rule #2: Warp Engines must have 50 percent line of sight on one another.

This rule seems to exist solely to eliminate the Ptolmey class of container/tug, which loses its 'line of sight' if a container is put into place. (A number of other fan-designs go bye-bye here too.)

Problem here is that we see the SS Aurora with connie-style warp engines that can't see one-another at all. We also get designs from TAS with 'blinded' warp engines. And, of course, we get the Oberth class with the same problem.

Again, when you get to TNG, there are numerous ships with 'blinded' warp engines - most notably the USS Voyager and then, going retro, the USS Enterprise NX-01.

Can't justify this rule in the slightest, and there's no retconning it.

There were a couple of other rules as well, though they didn't get nearly as much attention. But, as you see, the 'rules' really do seem kinda nonsensical and petty when you look at them - and realize that their entire point seemed to be to eliminate Franz Joseph's work.

[tonyg]

Originally posted by TFVanguard
Well, the USS Constellation Exploration Cruiser is a TMP-era design, (and pre-Excelsior, if you go by its NCC 1974 call-number). That's clearly got 4 warp engines strapped to its butt, without much of a hull in front of it. And those are full-scale 'Connie' engines.

TOS-era, it may be pushing it a bit, but I don't see why a four-engine system wouldn't work with a smaller (SFB-style?) warp engine to push it along. I would add some increased difficulty for the Engineering department to keep things straight as well.

Yeah, the Contstellation class does have 4 engines (by TNG era the rules for design were somewhat different-warp coils had to be in pairs). Technically, many TNG era warp engines, including those of the Galaxy class, have two warp coils in one casing. So even a 4 engine ship would have two nacelles.


As to you design, are you building it in SPACEDOCK, CODA or FASA? In the first two games, engines no longer take up the majority of a ship's mass. In FASA the design rules only work for single and dual engines, (the same is ture to a lesser extend with the other games, that's why the Constellation warp performace numbers aren't the same as on the charts).


Secondly, the four small engine concept might run into some common sense design difficulties. Neither SIZE nor SHIP CLASS increase in a linear fashion. That iswhy the egines get progressively more massive in FASA, to move larger ships. Odds are, if the total mass of your four engines is signficantly less than a comparable signle odf dual engine, performance will probably be proportialy lower.

Sort of like what hapens if you put 4 mortocycle engines on a Tractor Trailer.

If ythe smaller engines could do the job more efficiently that larger engines, then that is what starfleet would use.

[tonyg]

Originally posted by TFVanguard
Ah, you're referring to Rodenberry's infamous 'rules' which seemed to exist solely to discount the Technical Manual and a lot of other works, despite their being official and 'canon' shortly before. (These always struck me a completely petty.) These rules were 'made' at the time of TMP...

Rule #1: Warp Engines must be in pairs. No single, triple, etc warp engines are possible.

Problem, the Saladin, Hermes, and Federation classes show up on computer displays in most of the 'origial-era' flims, indicating that the ships were, indeed, built.

The big problem with 3 and 4 nacelle ships is that none on the Star Trek RPGs have rules for building such ships. While it isn't too difficult to come up with something for CODA, the old FASA design rules would need a major overhaul, as so many engine stats (Speed, Power Output, Stress Charts, Move Point Ratio) all varied based upon number of engines and ship class (size).




As far as I can tell, the Saladin, Hermes and Federation class ships orginate from Franz Joseph's TM, and do not appear in ANY Star Trek episode or film. The FJ TM was never considered "cannon". At the time it was written, TREK was a cancelled TV show, and the TM was just a way to make a few bucks off of a dead show. No one was checking it over to see if it conflicted with or contradticed anything. FJ had a free hand to use his imagination to fill in any percieved "blank areas"==not like today where Paramount checks over everything.

Roddenberry dislike over the TM appears to be due no to the TM content, but to it's liscence, which allowed other products (the Star Fleet Battle Manual, followed by Star Fleet Battles, and Prime Directive) to be made that GR and Paramount had no control over (and worse, didn't made any money from).

[TFVanguard]

[B]The big problem with 3 and 4 nacelle ships is that none on the Star Trek RPGs have rules for building such ships. While it isn't too difficult to come up with something for CODA, the old FASA design rules would need a major overhaul, as so many engine stats (Speed, Power Output, Stress Charts, Move Point Ratio) all varied based upon number of engines and ship class (size).

Well, I've seen it done for engines from Daeadlus through Voyager, even with FASA. I don't think it will be too much of a problem - though I really need to get a hold of the construction manual - or a PDF of it - soon.

As far as I can tell, the Saladin, Hermes and Federation class ships orginate from Franz Joseph's TM, and do not appear in ANY Star Trek episode or film.

All four 'new' ship classes appear in computer displays through all the 'original cast' feature films. In addition, the Entete and Revere are mentioned in dialog in TMP. It was the official licensed work for a very long time - until retconned.

It's not the same as the USS Federation showing up on screen, but it's clear that, at the time of the movies' production, that it was to be a definitive reference.

Roddenberry dislike over the TM appears to be due no to the TM content, but to it's liscence.

From what I've been reading, a lot of it had more to do with Rodenberry wanting to 're-invent' Star Trek significantly. Remember, he DID lose control through most of the movies (which is why Star Trek II through VI is supposedly 'non-canon', according to him), and regained it with TNG. It's a LOT more about Rodenberry wanting to secure /his/ franchise than anything else - at least from what I've been reading.

(Look up information on 'The God Thing', and you'll see pretty clearly what I'm talking about.)