Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 140

Thread: Fun with Greyscale III

  1. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by C. Huth
    The first one, mainly. But both. I don't get the attraction of the design,
    Not all designs need be attractive, they need to be functional. Remember, I'm taking the point of view of a starfleet appropriations committee and what THEY would do in building the Federation Fleet of each period - making sense of what we've been thrown out from a variety of sources.

    The consolation isn't meant to be a 'gee whiz cool ship', it's meant to be a specific-role performer. Look at American Hospital ships, for instance, and you'll find converted frigates, cruisers, and small TANKERS. Same sort of logic here.

    i don't grok how it's supposed to reflect any design lineages, and... and...
    Again, doesn't have to. Not every ship the Federation fields will fit into a notable design lineage. A lot will be attempts that fail, for some reason, or have a specific purpose for the time period.

    Remember, Kirk's fleet is about 750 ships in the 'regulars', with only twelve heavy cruisers of the Constitution class. There's going to be a LOT of 'not nearly as pretty' ships out there in that time period (with most of the previous generation of ships already outdated) - workhorses, and even outright dogs.

    For every Enterprise, expect a few Cochranes and Consolations!

    *shrug* i dunno man, i just don't get it. Are you simply collecting notable fan designs, or implying that they're part of the same fleet?
    Implying nothing. I'm saying, for the purposes of the guides I'm making, they ARE of the same fleet.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,011
    Okay, but I think most of us won't want to use ugly ships in their campaigns, so what is the point in doing them? You are talking about functionality, however in official Trek, functionality was always achieved without negatively affecting the design.

    How many more classes do you want to make? It can't be economically wise to design a new class for every kind of job that has to be done. Either already existing classes/vessels will be modified as required, or multiple-purpose classes will be designed.
    “Worried? I’m scared to death. But I’ll be damned if I’m going to let them change the way I live my life.” - Joseph Sisko - Paradise Lost

  3. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Ergi
    Okay, but I think most of us won't want to use ugly ships in their campaigns, so what is the point in doing them? You are talking about functionality, however in official Trek, functionality was always achieved without negatively affecting the design.
    Oh yes it was. Ignoring the fact that FASA, etc, are official designs, keep in mind that TNG, DS9, etc, have quite a few 'dog' designs of their own to speak off - so much so that you can't determine their functionality at all. ^_^

    That's not really a defense, though. I did want to include the 'most well known' of designs in this compilation, and I'm starting to hit the lower-rungs here - such as the Spacedock guide, etc, and it's showing at times.

    And, surprisingly, I'm still pretty well modelling the US fleet of WWII-Korea , which is what TOS itself was modelled after.

    How many more classes do you want to make? It can't be economically wise to design a new class for every kind of job that has to be done. Either already existing classes/vessels will be modified as required, or multiple-purpose classes will be designed.
    Other than carriers, though, TOS is very nearly wrapped up. (That's why there's so many of them right now, I'm wrapping up book #2). I'll likely clean up a few more of the designs sent up here (I /am/ looking for feedback), so don't thikn I'm taking offense. I do like to explain the choices I made, and see if they're agreeable.

    Oh, and, for the record, I don't expect many CODA campaigns to have the crew stationed aboard the USS Sucks Ass, but I do expect their ships to have to rescue the USS Sucks Ass from time to time.

  4. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by TFVanguard
    Not all designs need be attractive, they need to be functional.
    Except, in this case, being attractive is their function...
    Portfolio | Blog Currently Running: Call of Cthulhu, Star Trek GUMSHOE Currently Playing: DramaSystem, Swords & Wizardry

  5. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by C. Huth
    Except, in this case, being attractive is their function...
    In my view.. it's a secondary function... :>

  6. #21
    USS Wolverine Class Cruiser


  7. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UT, USA
    Posts
    2,090
    Maybe it's me, but I actually like the look of the shovel-head ships. Especially the Dreadnought version...
    Former Decipher RPG Net Rep

    "Doug, at the keyboard, his fingers bleeding" (with thanks to Moriarti)

    In D&D3E, Abyssal is not the language of evil vacuum cleaners.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Canyon, TX, USA, Sol III
    Posts
    1,783
    I think it's you. There's something about them that just doesn't sit well with me.
    Patrick Goodman -- Tilting at Windmills

    "I dare you to do better." -- Captain Christopher Pike

    Beyond the Final Frontier: CODA Star Trek RPG Support

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Montana!
    Posts
    98
    So I'm assuming that these last three designs were based off of three SFB style ships? The NDN I've heard of, but not seen. The "Wolverine" appears to be styled after the Fast Cruiser, but I'm not getting the tug's SFB reference.

    One the note of the "spade" saucer section, I can only offer this. Of all the wonky, stupid designs ADB came up with for their Federation ships, the spade was one of their worst choices.

    With that said, the way you portrayed it was decent, and reasonably "better" than ADB's design, but it still falls into the UGH category. I can only suggest that it was likely that such a design change was rare, and likely involved only a short run of ships. So, for that to be true, I would suggest keeping...as is... the Wolverine class and the Compactat class, but revamping the Deslandres. The former two could easily to obvious upgrading of the same ship, while the latter involved a completely new design layout for the ship.

    So don't get me wrong, as I think they are all designed well, its just that I feel the spade look was probably a rare flash-in-the-pan sort of look that probably only found life due to one Admiral's push for it. The cruiser would be the first to have the look, and the "battleship" would be the second and final adaption of the design. After that, for whatever reason, the design was tabled and never used again...save for maybe some prototype design drawings.

    That's all I can suggest or comment on. Otherwise, the ships you're making are quite interesting and a pleasure to enjoy. Keep up the good work.

  10. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Grimace
    So I'm assuming that these last three designs were based off of three SFB style ships? The NDN I've heard of, but not seen. The "Wolverine" appears to be styled after the Fast Cruiser, but I'm not getting the tug's SFB reference.
    From what I've been able to find, the four 'spear-head' designs were basically the FJ designs given new 'saucers'. The SSDs I found don't look much different than the regular saucers, so I'm assuming that there was an asthetic choice or something more minor I haven't yet discovered...

    I can only suggest that it was likely that such a design change was rare, and likely involved only a short run of ships. So, for that to be true, I would suggest keeping...as is...
    I'm not looking at is a 'design change', and more a variant, similar to how we get cruiser variants in the modern navy - usually as a result of a different engineering team or dockyard. I might go this route - having these ships all built at the Centauri shipyards or something... still, I want the dramatically different primary hull to have a REASON for its difference.

    I've considered a 'new' impulse deck, maybe a hardened IPI system or something (for CODA), but haven't decided. The Archenar is the next grade up, so I'm still waffling. I'll have a decision by today, though.

    Each of the ships get one small run, with the Destroyer version (to be posted in a minute) having the most built, at 10.

  11. #26
    USS Udaloy Dirt-digger... erm... Destroyer

    Last of the set. The miniature for this has it as a cruiser, but, since it's just the FJ destroyer with a new 'saucer', I'm making this a destroyer variant and having done with it.


  12. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by PGoodman13
    I think it's you. There's something about them that just doesn't sit well with me.
    Voyager maybe

    I look at the arrow head saucer and think that it's a little to advanced for the time frame.
    Phoenix...

    "I'm not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity,
    but maybe we should just remove all the safety lables and let nature take it's course"

    "A Place For Everything & Nothing In It's Place"

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UT, USA
    Posts
    2,090
    I think you're right, Phoenix. In fact, the designs might look better on the "E-A"/"Refit" style hulls...
    Former Decipher RPG Net Rep

    "Doug, at the keyboard, his fingers bleeding" (with thanks to Moriarti)

    In D&D3E, Abyssal is not the language of evil vacuum cleaners.

  14. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenix
    Voyager maybe

    I look at the arrow head saucer and think that it's a little to advanced for the time frame.
    If it was more like Voyager, then, yeah, I would agree. As it is, I can technically see it as a variant, hence its inclusion. The fact that they're around, and the Voyager-types are around a century later, makes me wonder if this wasn't an overall design concept kept - but in low numbers - for some time.

    I was going to just have these refit to the 'regular saucer' types come TMP era.. but now I wonder if there isn't a 'movie arrowhead' design that leads eventually to the Intrepid class sometime.

  15. #30
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Canyon, TX, USA, Sol III
    Posts
    1,783
    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenix
    Voyager maybe

    I look at the arrow head saucer and think that it's a little to advanced for the time frame.
    Possibly, but I like the Sovereign class, which also has the wedge-shaped saucer section.
    Patrick Goodman -- Tilting at Windmills

    "I dare you to do better." -- Captain Christopher Pike

    Beyond the Final Frontier: CODA Star Trek RPG Support

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •