Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Alternative Design/Stats -- Bradbury-Class Starship

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    31

    Alternative Design/Stats -- Bradbury-Class Starship

    At tmutant's suggestion in my thread below about designing a new class of Federation starship, I went to http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/ to check out the Advanced Starship Design Bureau, looking at the Bradbury-class starship for use in a post-Dominion era campaign, as a potential testbed for a quantum slipstream drive.

    However, looking at what they had, I noticed it came into conflict with the stats Sea Tyger posted here some time back on the forums. While I liked Sea Tyger's take on the Bradbury-class, I figured perhaps it wouldn't hurt to take a stab at it myself, and stat up the variant shown in the Advanced Starship Design Bureau as best as I could. So, without further ado...

    ==============================

    Bradbury-Class Heavy Cruiser; Commissioned: 2362

    Hull Data


    Structure: 45 (+5 structure)
    Size/Decks: 8/20
    Length/Height/Beam: 600/84/210
    Complement: 450

    Tactical Data

    Phasers: Type X (1 fd, 1 fv, 1 av) (D)
    Penetration: 5/5/4/0/0
    Torpedo Launchers: Mk 90 DF (2 fv, 1 av) (D)
    Penetration: 5/5/5/5/5
    Deflector Shield: FSQ (D)
    Protection/Threshold: 17/4

    Propulsion Data

    Impulse System: FIG-5 (x2) (.92c) (D)
    Warp System: LF-44 (x2) (6/9.5/9.7) (D)

    Operational Data

    Atmosphere Capable: No
    Cargo Units: 120
    Life Support: Class 3 (D)
    Operations System: Class 3 (D)
    Sensor System: Class 4 (+4/E)
    Separation System: No
    Shuttlebay: 1 ad
    Shuttlecraft: 8 size worth
    Tractor Beams: 1 ad, 1 av
    Transporters: 6 standard, 6 emergency, 6 cargo

    Miscellaneous Data

    Maneuver Modifiers: +2C, +1H, +2T
    Traits: Prototype (+1 warp reliability [x2]); Design Defect (torpedoes: -1 missile penetration)

    ==============================

    There are, if you compare, several differences between my stats and Sea Tyger's, notably the size difference (which means that atmospheric landing is no longer an option unless you use Unique System or something of that kin to allow it), as well as the lack of a separation system, so I'll explain my reasons below:

    1) Size/Atmosphere Capable Changes: The stats at the ASDB showed the Bradbury-class to be a heavy cruiser rather than a heavy frigate, and given their interpretation of the length/height/beam dimensions, required some changing. The length meant an increase from size 6 to size 8 (although perhaps I might could make a case for a size 7 spaceframe, given the height and beam dimensions fit within the parameters set in Starships). Even so, the change in size removes the possibility of atmospheric landing capability, and so I removed it.

    2) Separation System: Looking at the 3D images, as well as the layout of the Bradbury-class as interpreted by the ASDB, I have some difficulty trying to figure out how a separation system would function on the Bradbury-class spaceframe, unless it has something to do with having a separate warp system and impulse system, since the ASDB Bradbury interpretation makes the ship one of redundancies (notably, the twin navigational deflectors on the ventral side of the spaceframe). Rather than try to figure out a logical way for it to work (since I'm not really a fan of single-nacelle ships), I decided to just say no to having a separation system.

    Those two factors aside, I think the design is still fairly workable. The structure is higher than normal, but I used 5 space to up the structure by the same amount. Even with 3 Type X phaser arrays and 3 Mk 90 DF torpedo launchers, as well as twin impulse/warp systems and some additional cargo space, my total space cost is 107 of 119 available, which means there's 12 space to play with.

    Hopefully you'll like this variant stats interpretation. I think I've done all the calculations correctly on this (unlike my poor Odyssey-class design that I'm still trying to iron out all the problems in my thread below), but I admit there might be a mistake here or there. By all means, however, enjoy.

    Edit: I changed the missile penetration values, as Sea Tyger pointed out that the combat system doesn't differentiate between separate firing arcs. Thanks for the heads up, Sea Tyger.
    Last edited by Gabe Mitchell; 08-28-2003 at 01:47 PM.
    "Of course, that's just my opinion... I could be wrong." -- Dennis Miller

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Bewdley (Nr Birmingham), UK
    Posts
    1,530
    An excellent design.

    Nice concept for a starship too.

    In the words of G'Kar in B5 when admiring Marcus' Minbari Pike.

    "I like it".
    We have all your working biros and we're not afraid to use them.

    Leave a box of used postit notes and a box of paperclips inside the filling cabinet and things won't get nasty.

    Yours,

    The Office Gremlins

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Salinas, Calif., USA (a Chiefs fan in an unholy land)
    Posts
    3,379
    Just a couple of notes:

    1. I based my Bradbury-class exclusively on the stats that Steve Long presented in Spacedock (as I did for all of the 24th Century Starfleet conversions). I do know that some of Steve's stats seem to deviate from those posted on other websites.

    2. I use a different system for determining the number of beam arrays on a starship, based primarily on coverage (720 degrees of arc = 1 Coda beam array). Now, I tweak that as necessary to meet my expectations of a ship, but physical coverage (based on imagery or Spacedock stats) is my primary measure. If anyone wants an explanation of my calculations for beam coverage, feel free to message me off-line.

    I noticed that you split missile weapon penetration values. The combat system doesn't pay attention to a ship's facing (and, to be honest, torpedoes are self-guided devices, and don't care about facing either), so all missile weapon OVs are added together to make a single missile weapon penetration value (same for beam weapons). The only time when this isn't the case is for weapon penetration values for separated sections of a ship (as noted in the Galaxy-class or Prometheus-class statistics).

    So, your missile weapon penetration should be 5/5/5/5/5, for a combined OV of 27 and the torpedo design defect.

    Aside from that, it's an excellent design. Good work.
    Davy Jones

    "Frightened? My dear, you are looking at a man who has laughed in the face of death, sneered at doom, and chuckled at catastrophe! I was petrified."
    -- The Wizard of Oz

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    31
    Written by Sea Tyger:

    I noticed that you split missile weapon penetration values. The combat system doesn't pay attention to a ship's facing (and, to be honest, torpedoes are self-guided devices, and don't care about facing either), so all missile weapon OVs are added together to make a single missile weapon penetration value (same for beam weapons). The only time when this isn't the case is for weapon penetration values for separated sections of a ship (as noted in the Galaxy-class or Prometheus-class statistics).
    Ah. Part of my reason for that was that your description (I think it was your description, anyway... might have been from ASDB) said something about a problem with the aft ventral torpedo firing arc and that being the reason for high attrition during the Dominion War. I was trying to reflect that, and didn't really look close enough to determine whether you could actually split the missile penetration values like that. Now I know... and knowing, as they say on GI Joe, is half the battle.

    Pity I can't get Spacedock, though, if nothing else just to look through it. Since it's in a .zip format, I can't view it... blame the county library for not having a WinZip utility to unzip files.
    Last edited by Gabe Mitchell; 08-28-2003 at 01:54 PM.
    "Of course, that's just my opinion... I could be wrong." -- Dennis Miller

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Salinas, Calif., USA (a Chiefs fan in an unholy land)
    Posts
    3,379
    Yeah, that was probably from my description (which I adapted from the Spacedock description of the ship, of course). It was simply an RPG explanation for the Design Defect flaw.

    You're making me want to find some more generic ship drawings and build more stats....
    Davy Jones

    "Frightened? My dear, you are looking at a man who has laughed in the face of death, sneered at doom, and chuckled at catastrophe! I was petrified."
    -- The Wizard of Oz

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    31


    Actually, I'm about to start statting up the Asgard-class starship from the ASDB (it looks mostly like the Intrepid-class, but with some minor differences with the warp nacelles and such), just for the sheer heck of it. At some point, I'll likely re-stat the Odyssey-class starship I'm working on in the thread below and make it an explorer version of the Prometheus-class.
    "Of course, that's just my opinion... I could be wrong." -- Dennis Miller

Posting Permissions

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