Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 21

Thread: [CODA] Akira Revisit

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Ottawa, Ontario Canada
    Posts
    937

    [CODA] Akira Revisit

    I've gone and tweaked the Akira and I present it for your viewing pleaseure.

    AKIRA CLASS HEAVY CRUISER

    PRODUCTION DATA

    Origin: UFP
    Class and Type: Akira-Class Heavy Cruiser
    Year Commissioned: 2368

    HULL DATA

    Structure: 35
    Size/Decks: 7/26
    Length/Height/Beam: 464/87/316
    Complement: 500

    OPERATIONAL DATA

    Atmosphere Capable: No
    Cargo Units: 70
    Life Support: Class 4 (E)
    Operations Systems: Class 3 (D)
    Sensor Systems: Class 4 (+4/E)
    Seperation System: None
    Shuttlebay: 2 a
    Shuttlecraft: 21 Size worth
    Tractor Beams: 1 fv, 1av
    Transporters: 6 standard, 6 cargo, 6 emergency

    PROPULSION DATA

    Impulse System: FIG-7 (.95c) (E)
    Warp System: LF-35 (6/9.2/9.8) (D)

    TACTICAL DATA

    Phasers: Type X (x5) (E)
    Penetration: 6/6/6/0/0
    Torpedo Launchers: Mark 95 DF (x4) (E)
    Quantum Penetration: 8/8/8/8/8
    Deflector Shield: FSQ-7 (CC)
    Protection/Threshold: 17/4

    MISCELLANEOUS DATA

    Manuever Modifiers: +2C, +1H, +3T
    Traits: None
    Last edited by IceGiant; 07-26-2003 at 07:03 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Brockville, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    4,394
    Looks good. Shouldn't the commissioning date be 2368?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Ottawa, Ontario Canada
    Posts
    937
    Doh!! Good catch Phantom, thanks

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Omaha,NE
    Posts
    238
    You also need to explain how you've managet to get 21 size worth of shuttlecraft from only 2 shuttlebays...

    -Chris
    "Was entstanden ist, das muss vergehen. Was vergangen, auferstehn." -Klopstock & Mahler

    "Only liberals really think. Only liberals are intellectual. Only liberals understand the needs of their fellows." How much viciousness lay concealed in that word! Odrade thought. How much secret ego demanding to feel superior. - Heretics of Dune

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Ottawa, Ontario Canada
    Posts
    937
    Easy, I paid the points for it but don't agree that I need a shuttlebay for each "complement" of shuttles. I use the number of shuttlebays to represent the number of actual doors/entrances for shuttles. If you don't like that aspect just add the 1f to the shuttlebay listing. It's an aesthetics thing for me.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Brockville, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    4,394
    Just an idea, would it not make more sense to have one bay fore and another aft? That would give it more of a "through deck" assault carrier look. Launch sorties from the front, retrieve from the aft, re fit/arm in between.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Ottawa, Ontario Canada
    Posts
    937
    It would Phantom if I thought that the akira was a thru deck ship. I've looked at all the scematics I can find and I don't see a set of doors in the front that I can recognize. So my version just has the 2 very plainly visible doors in the rear. Just my take on it though.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Brockville, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    4,394
    Originally posted by IceGiant
    It would Phantom if I thought that the akira was a thru deck ship. I've looked at all the scematics I can find and I don't see a set of doors in the front that I can recognize. So my version just has the 2 very plainly visible doors in the rear. Just my take on it though.
    Hey NP. To tell the truth I never really bought into the whole carrier/fighter thing anyway. The later battles made me cringe every time they refered to them. I just don't see "fighters" as being part of the Trek idiom. Beside the way the SF fighters are described they sound much more like assualt craft then attack fighters...Which is an idea I can handle.

    Very good design.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Ottawa, Ontario Canada
    Posts
    937
    Originally posted by Phantom
    Hey NP. To tell the truth I never really bought into the whole carrier/fighter thing anyway. The later battles made me cringe every time they refered to them. I just don't see "fighters" as being part of the Trek idiom. Beside the way the SF fighters are described they sound much more like assualt craft then attack fighters...Which is an idea I can handle.

    Very good design.
    Agreed my friend and thank you.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Manhattan High Security Detention Center
    Posts
    720
    I just don't see "fighters" as being part of the Trek idiom. Beside the way the SF fighters are described they sound much more like assualt craft then attack fighters...Which is an idea I can handle.
    tripple amen to that.

    About the design- The 2 only major changes I can see is that the ablative armor has been removed and the phasers have been upgraded. I thought that the original design was very well balanced in that the awesome torpedo strength more than compensated for the weaker phasers. But that's just me.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Mount Holly NC
    Posts
    751
    Originally posted by Snake_Plissken
    tripple amen to that.

    About the design- The 2 only major changes I can see is that the ablative armor has been removed and the phasers have been upgraded. I thought that the original design was very well balanced in that the awesome torpedo strength more than compensated for the weaker phasers. But that's just me.
    Agreed. I always think of Akira as similar to a Navy missile cruiser, with a single 5 inch cannon, and 48 (or more) vertical launch missile bays.

    That said, it's a good take on the ship. Maybe call it a variation on the basic design with less armor and more phaser power to make it more offensively powerful.
    tmutant

    Founder of the Evil Gamemasters Support Group. No, Really.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Ottawa, Ontario Canada
    Posts
    937
    Originally posted by Snake_Plissken
    tripple amen to that.

    About the design- The 2 only major changes I can see is that the ablative armor has been removed and the phasers have been upgraded. I thought that the original design was very well balanced in that the awesome torpedo strength more than compensated for the weaker phasers. But that's just me.
    Well here's my reasoning. Ablative armor is said to be brutally hard to make and is in limited supply even after the war. (I would imagine they wouldn't be in any big rush after the war). I just can't see putting that much ablative armor on a ship that size. You could coat like what 3 defiants worth. Second the phasers. I'm having problems with a heavt cruiser that has the phaser power of a refit constitution from 100 years ago!! I could see removing one of the phasers at least making it equal to a excelsior in phaser power. I guess it all depends on how you look at heavy cruisers and the perimiter defence ships.

    In my view the Akira IS the big guns for the PD fleet. It's torpedo strength is only equal to an excelsiors. (not including the quantum factor) I just think that a ship designed to protect the borders should have a reasonable chance of facing down a D'deridex without having to use torpedoes to get the job done. Becuase the shows have shown us that starfleet would rather use phasers to get more precise shots then bludgeon them with torpedoes.

    And maybe it is my tendency to overpower the ships I work on.

    I appreciate the input though. So thank you too all, keep up the good work.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Manhattan High Security Detention Center
    Posts
    720
    The Excelsior in Starship is WAY overarmed, let's not forget that. I think someone (can't remeber who) redid acceptable versions of both the Ambassador and the Excelsior. Me I'd use those as a reference.

    Also, you focus on the weaker phasers when you should be thinking about the ungodly powerful torpedo power of the Akira. And let's not forget its "fighter" complement (on some designs I guess ?!) Maybe you're thinking too much in '1 vs 1' terms- and let's not forget that surely the Romulan fleet is not made of everything but D'Deridexes- although TNG and DS9 would make us think that. Also, Akira is more maneuvrable than the D'Deridex, who needs to get really close to its target to deliver the full potential of its weapons.

    Because the shows have shown us that starfleet would rather use phasers to get more precise shots then bludgeon them with torpedoes.
    mmmh a lot of people tend to confuse Starfleet's pacifism for passivity. In most TNG shows you often had the usual Enterprise-D Vs. D'Deridex type of 'cold-war' showdown where neither sides really wants to start a full-scale war. That's why Picard often shows restraint, and that's where the 'Starfleet prefers phasers' thing comes from. In cases of clear aggression, like a group of Romulan ships crossing the Neutral Zone to actively attack a Federation target I really can't pitcure the Federation commanders going "gee let's try to hurt them but not too much because the last thing we want is for them to get really mad at us" while the enemy is trying its level best to blow them to smithereens.

    And maybe it is my tendency to overpower the ships I work on.
    You're not alone, believe me. It's a tendency that is usually, I find, much more pronounced among RPGers who are designing vehicles than among wargamers (although the latter have their fair share of min/maxers and munchkins). Wargamers often have to keep an eye on balancing their forces, and know that everything comes with a price. For instance, if the _insert power here_ had nothing but whole fleets of super powerful ships then that would be no fun because they would conquer all, now wouldn't they? Sea Tyger and I are almost done with our Romulan Way of D'era starships-CODA conversion and on average the Romulan designs are quite strong... BUT you have to keep in mind that the Romulan Empire share direct borders with 2 very powerful enemy powers (3 if you count the Taurhai) As for individual ship designs, you have a well armored and well armed ship, but the penalty is that its unmaneuvrable or slow. You can have smaller ships that are quite fast but have only limited armaments and so on.

    Also too few people seem to use the negative traits when designing ships. I think they give a good dose of 'color' to a design. All fleets should have its share of turkeys... or at least of ships with a few flaws! That's one thing I really liked about S.Long's SRMs.

    You could also have have a 'supership' that is fast, maneuvrable, with excellent protection and armaments but which ends up being extremely rare because it is very expensive/dificult to field in large numbers. Often you're better off with a larger fleet of balanced ships than with a small fleet of superships- especially with the CODA system where smaller crafts with medium armaments can destroy a single ship's shields in no time.
    Last edited by Snake_Plissken; 07-26-2003 at 12:22 PM.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Ottawa, Ontario Canada
    Posts
    937
    I guess I think the 1 on 1 way because in most of the the TV series and CODA games it realy would be just your 1 ship. I guess I base alot of my modern designs against the Galaxy class and the Nebula. SHips able to handle themselves "solo". And the excelsior of course

    It also probably stems from my pretty much non-experience with the space combat and seeing how it works. In most people's series they are not going to be flying around in formations. Heavy cruisers and explorers in my mind especially would be the kind of ships assigned to patrol an area alone. Which is how most games would be (I believe anyways).

    I guess in the end I look at my ship designs from the PC campaign view than a tactical battles viewpoint.

    But you've given me much too think about grasshopper.
    Last edited by IceGiant; 07-26-2003 at 01:22 PM.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Ottawa, Ontario Canada
    Posts
    937
    Now to make it more what Alex jaeger envisioned as a Gunship/Battleship/Carrier it would look like this:

    PRODUCTION DATA

    Origin: UFP
    Class and Type: Akira-Class Heavy Cruiser
    Year Commissioned: 2368

    HULL DATA

    Structure: 35
    Size/Decks: 7/26
    Length/Height/Beam: 464/87/316
    Complement: 500

    OPERATIONAL DATA

    Atmosphere Capable: No
    Cargo Units: 70
    Life Support: Class 4 (E)
    Operations Systems: Class 3 (D)
    Sensor Systems: Class 4 (+4/E)
    Seperation System: None
    Shuttlebay: 1f, 2 a
    Shuttlecraft: 21 Size worth
    Tractor Beams: 1 fv, 1av
    Transporters: 4 standard, 4 cargo, 4 emergency

    PROPULSION DATA

    Impulse System: FIG-7 (.95c) (E)
    Warp System: LF-35 (6/9.2/9.8) (D)

    TACTICAL DATA

    Phasers: Type X (x3) (E)
    Penetration: 5/5/4/0/0
    Torpedo Launchers: Mark 95 DF (x6) (E)
    Torpedo Penetration: 9/9/9/9/9
    Deflector Shield: FSQ-7 (CC)
    Protection/Threshold: 17/4

    MISCELLANEOUS DATA

    Manuever Modifiers: +2C, +1H, +3T
    Traits: None

    I would have added the 7th launcher but ran out of spaces.

Posting Permissions

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