Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 38

Thread: My CODA Akira-class Heavy Cruiser(CH)

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Hainburg, Germany
    Posts
    1,389
    Originally posted by NobAkimoto
    (note Jaegar specifically says shuttlebay, rather than "fighterbay".)
    And why should he? He called the ship a "gunship/battlecruiser/aircraft carrier" and aircraft carriers are usually carrying fighters. Sure, those are only two words, but to me they seem very indicative of what Mr. Jaeger had in mind.

    One thing that invalidates the whole thru-deck concept when it comes to fighters IMHO are the front shuttlebays (or rather launchbays). They just look too small to me to launch the fighters we have seen on DS9. Shuttles - yes, fighters - I think not. That's why in my game they aren't doors at all, but large windows of a "10 forward" type lounge.

    In the end I guess most of us can agree that the Akira-class is one great looking ship. As for the rest; maybe it would just be best to agree that we disagree. To each his own as the saying goes.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Bremen, Germany
    Posts
    1,924
    I do not think that the baydoors are too small for fighters. The fighters are only two person vessels, they are not oo large. Additionally assuming the saucer of the Akira is around 300m wide ( regarding the ship is 450m long ), the bay doors are around 80m wide. Additionally they cover three decks ( thus 15 m ) . I would think that is big enough.
    We came in peace, for all mankind - Apollo 11

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Cochran, Georgia, USA, Sol III, Alpha Quadrant, Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    455
    So... Will anyone else post their CODA Akira so we can see if you can cram that stuff into the hull?
    "Retreat?! Hell, we just got here!", annonymous American Marine, WWI

    "Gravity is a harsh mistress....", The Tick

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Baton Rouge, LA, USA
    Posts
    788

    Cool

    Originally posted by Antonsb214
    So... Will anyone else post their CODA Akira so we can see if you can cram that stuff into the hull?
    Without the information that Don has suggested might be in the Starships book, this is the closest I could come to Alex Jaeger's Akira-class using the CODA rules:

    HULL DATA
    CLASS AND TYPE: Akira-Class Heavy Cruiser
    YEAR LAUNCHED: 2368
    STRUCTURE: 35 (89 Spaces)
    SIZE/DECKS: 7/19
    LENGTH/HEIGHT/BEAM: 464.4/87.3/316.7
    COMPLEMENT: 500

    OPERATIONAL DATA
    TRANSPORTERS: 6/6/6
    CARGO UNITS: 70
    SHUTTLEBAY: Thru-Deck Saucer (6 Bays)
    SHUTTLECRAFT: 42 Size, Includes at least 12 Fighters
    TRACTOR BEAMS: 1 FV, 1 AV
    SEPARATION SYSTEM: None
    CLOAKING DEVICE: None
    SENSOR SYSTEM: Class 4E +4/+3/+2/+1/+0
    OPERATIONS SYSTEMS: Class 3D
    LIFE SUPPORT: Class 3D

    PROPULSION DATA
    IMPULSE SYSTEM: Class 7 .92c D
    WARP SYSTEM: Class 8 8/9.2/9.8 E

    TACTICAL DATA
    BEAM WEAPONS: Type X Phaser Arrays (x3) D
    PENETRATION: 5/5/4/0/0
    MISSILE WEAPONS: Type II Photon Torpedoes (x8) D
    PENETRATION: 7/7/7/7/7
    DEFLECTOR SHIELD: Class 6 D
    PROTECTION/THRESHOLD: 17/4

    MISCELLANEOUS DATA
    MANEUVER MODIFIERS: +2C +0H +3T
    STARSHIP TRAITS: None

    An error might have crept in here or there, but I hope not As you can see, I came nowhere near the 50 fighters carried indicated by Jaeger. To do that would mean dropping just about everything else. 42 spaces of shuttlecraft gives you only 21 Size 2 craft.

    Weapons were chosen based on the "half of what you see on the ship" estimate method. You can also tell that I bought into the suggestion that the Akira's multiple tubes were of a more basic variety. To get the same penetration value with Type VI's I would have had to purchase 5 launchers at 25 (for a cruiser) spaces as opposed to purchasing 8 Type II's for a cost of 16. I'm afraid that the Offense Value/Cost setup of table 9.11 doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but I'm quite willing to use it to get the ship that I want. Of course, we've already discussed this elsewhere and it has been pointed out that the system is designed to be used for creating RPG ships- not to be abused by wargamers.

    The forward bay doors are plenty big enough for Starfleet Attack Fighters of the size estimated by Owen. The Akira-class is not a small ship. On Vanguard we use the forward doors for fighters and the rear doors for shuttles and fighter retrieval.

    As for Lancer's comments- he seems relatively happy aboard USS Vanguard which is definitely a Jaeger-style Akira!

    I really want to see what the official CODA Akira looks like, but I fear that it will be pretty much like the one at the top of this thread.
    Last edited by Cmdr Powers; 10-25-2002 at 12:54 PM.
    "The best diplomat I know is a fully activated phaser bank" -Montgomery Scott

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Baton Rouge, LA, USA
    Posts
    788

    Cool

    Okay, in checking my own figures I discovered that Anton has misread table 9.12. He has 3xType X phasers for his Akira-class (just like mine), but that only gives a Offense Value of 30 resulting in a Penetration of 5/5/4/0/0. Not 6/5/5/0/0. Sorry.
    "The best diplomat I know is a fully activated phaser bank" -Montgomery Scott

  6. #21
    Just as an aside, there's no way that the "Starfleet Attack Fighters" can be 30m in length. That would make them too big to even fit into a Galaxy class's main hangar deck, and their corresponding scaling with Danubes in "The Maquis" scale them closer to about 18m.(This is also derived from scaling their cockpit section to that of a Type VI shuttle craft.) 30m scaling goes more for Ro's craft in "Preemptive Strike."

    Despite this, the Akira class' shuttlebay doors on EITHER end can only support a wing span of 12.78 meters, which isn't nearly large enough for such a fighter.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Cochran, Georgia, USA, Sol III, Alpha Quadrant, Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    455
    Class and Type: Akira-Class Heavy Cruiser
    Year Launched: 2368

    Structure: 35
    Size/ Decks: 7/ 19
    Length/ Height/ Beam: 465m/ 88m / 316m
    Complement: 550

    Transporters: 4 personal, 4 cargo, 4 emergency
    Cargo Units: 58
    Shuttlebay: 3 saucersection(1 fore and 2 aft)
    Shuttlecraft: 21 size worth
    Tractor Beams: 1 fd, 1 fv, 1 ad

    Sensor Systems: Class 3 ( 3/2/1/0/0 ) (D)
    Operations Systems: Class 4 (E)
    Life Support: Class 4 (E)

    Impulse System: Class 8 (.95) (E)
    Warp System: Class 7.6 (7/8/9.6) (E)

    TACTICAL
    Phaser Arrays: Type X (x4)
    Penetration 6/5/5/0/0 (E)

    Photon Torpedoes: Type V (x5)
    Penetration 7/7/7/7/7 (E)

    Shields: Class 6 (D)
    Penetration/ Threshold 17/4

    Maneuver Mods: +1 C/ +2 H/ +2 T

    I think this comes up to 89 spaces. But this suits my idea of the Akira-class. It could carry a few fighters and it has the torpedoes to do some damage. It's a tough state-of-the-art tactical response ship. It's systems have been tested on the Galaxy and Nebula classes. It's function borders on being a warship. But it is designed to go up against the Borg. Uses a lot of torpedoes.

    This uses my own little house rule. Exchanging Cargo Units for Space at a 2:1 ratio. I figure a 24th Century ship wouldn't need to bring along that many real supplies as long as it has its replicators. It would be more efficient to use basic matter and recycling technology to lessen a ship's dependency on real supplies.
    Last edited by Antonsb214; 10-25-2002 at 10:42 PM.
    "Retreat?! Hell, we just got here!", annonymous American Marine, WWI

    "Gravity is a harsh mistress....", The Tick

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Brockville, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    4,394
    Originally posted by NobAkimoto
    Just as an aside, there's no way that the "Starfleet Attack Fighters" can be 30m in length. That would make them too big to even fit into a Galaxy class's main hangar deck...
    That's because the whole idea of 'fighters' in trek is totally ill-conceived.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Baton Rouge, LA, USA
    Posts
    788

    Cool

    My Peregrine-class Starfleet Attack Fighters are based on Owen's article. That Peregrine does fit through the Akira's three front doors! Go and check it out and see if you don't agree with Owen.

    http://www.coldnorth.com/owen/game/s...ps/fighter.htm
    "The best diplomat I know is a fully activated phaser bank" -Montgomery Scott

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Baton Rouge, LA, USA
    Posts
    788

    Cool

    Originally posted by Phantom
    That's because the whole idea of 'fighters' in trek is totally ill-conceived.
    Nah, just occasionally hard to deal with.
    "The best diplomat I know is a fully activated phaser bank" -Montgomery Scott

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    11S MS 9888 1055
    Posts
    3,221
    why don't we all just stick with Spacedock . . . I find it far more detailed.

    DeviantArt Slacker MAL Support US Servicemembers
    "The Federation needs men like you, doctor. Men of conscience. Men of principle. Men who can sleep at night... You're also the reason Section Thirty-one exists -- someone has to protect men like you from a universe that doesn't share your sense of right and wrong." Sloan, Section Thirty-One

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Baton Rouge, LA, USA
    Posts
    788

    Cool

    Originally posted by JALU3
    why don't we all just stick with Spacedock . . . I find it far more detailed.
    And you can really make a Jaeger Akira with it!!

    But, its kinda fun to see how much you can cram into CODA.
    "The best diplomat I know is a fully activated phaser bank" -Montgomery Scott

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Hainburg, Germany
    Posts
    1,389
    Originally posted by JALU3
    why don't we all just stick with Spacedock . . . I find it far more detailed.
    For designing spaceships I agree, but from a roleplaying POV I would rather use Coda as it is easier to use.


    But there is one other thing about fighters and carriers I noticed while trying to draw a plan of the USS Galahad's hangar deck (Akira with standard shuttlebay, i.e. not thru-deck):
    Those fighters take up a lot of space. Even at 20m length and with the wings folded up a fighter - based on the Peregrine's shape- uses up twice as much space as a Type 7 or 8 shuttle. Add to that the increased area you need to move the fighters around the hangar bay to bring them into launch position or for maintenance and the difference becomes even more visible.

    I think there is a good reason Coda rules that shuttlebays come equiped with Shuttlecraft, instead of saying for example "a number of craft of size 1 or 2 with a total size of X".
    While equating a fighter with a shuttle for purposes of shuttlebay capacity makes things easy it sure ain't realisitc if you ask me.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Bremen, Germany
    Posts
    1,924
    Originally posted by JALU3
    why don't we all just stick with Spacedock . . . I find it far more detailed.
    That is actually the reason why I do not like it. I certainly see the quality of the work, its great, but for playing purposes its to much afford. I like the CODA system far more ( note only the starship contrsuction ) easier, but still with a good load of realism, more than in the old ICON system.
    We came in peace, for all mankind - Apollo 11

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Baton Rouge, LA, USA
    Posts
    788

    Cool

    Originally posted by Lancer
    But there is one other thing about fighters and carriers I noticed while trying to draw a plan of the USS Galahad's hangar deck (Akira with standard shuttlebay, i.e. not thru-deck):
    Those fighters take up a lot of space. Even at 20m length and with the wings folded up a fighter - based on the Peregrine's shape- uses up twice as much space as a Type 7 or 8 shuttle. Add to that the increased area you need to move the fighters around the hangar bay to bring them into launch position or for maintenance and the difference becomes even more visible.

    I think there is a good reason Coda rules that shuttlebays come equiped with Shuttlecraft, instead of saying for example "a number of craft of size 1 or 2 with a total size of X".
    While equating a fighter with a shuttle for purposes of shuttlebay capacity makes things easy it sure ain't realisitc if you ask me.
    The only way you wouldn't equate a shuttlecraft with a fighter is if you believe that fighters are totally independent of larger spacecraft- which is absurd. Of course, this gets us back into the arguments about whether carriers exist at all.

    Concerning the space, using Owen Oulten's size Peregrines, you can fit at least 12 SAF's in those hangars. And don't forget that there is storage room to the sides in the maintenance bays and under the deck, aft.

    You've been sketching decks, Andreas? Show me please! I'm very interested in seeing how you think an Akira is layed out- even if its the non-carrier variety.
    "The best diplomat I know is a fully activated phaser bank" -Montgomery Scott

Posting Permissions

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