A Call to Arms: Star Fleet Rules Preview

Jean said:
Shadow Queen, in the SFU the Defiant is in a different subset of the CAs. You might enjoy looking at the Starship Name Registry here: http://www.starfleetgames.com/documents/Starship_Name_Registry.pdf
What is the difference between the CA Heavy Cruisers e.g. 1700 Constitution, and the CA Heavy Cruisers e.g. 1615 Defiant? (Apart from the fact that other sources agree that 1700 is the Constitution, but depending on where else you look Defiant is either 1717 or 1764. :))
 
1717 is Defiance isnt it, not Defiant?

1764 as Defiant is an Enterprise episode and while referring to a TOS episode the original footage only showed a starship of the same class as Enterprise (presumbly using the model and using a side shot to hide the number) - so outside of and independant of the SFU canon and probably one of those moments that if SFU matched would cause a license issue and the 1764 in TOS was retrofitted post-divergaence from the SFU.

A good article here actually with original and remastered TOS footage.
http://stexpanded.wikia.com/wiki/USS_Defiant_(NCC-1764)
 
And depending on where you look, Yorktown is either 1717 or 1704. All of which means nobody can agree on ship registry numbers, and none of which explains the difference between the two lists of CA Heavy Cruisers in the SFU Starship Name Registry, which was my main question. ;) Possibly one batch are the refitted ships which should have the aft phasers?
 
AdrianH, I've asked the question to someone who should be able to give you an answer beyond my meager knowledge base. He should be able to answer after work and consultation with the rulebooks. :)

Jean
 
I racked my brain while at work yesterday and could not recall ever having heard the difference between the 1600 CAs and the 1700 CAs. Last night, I spent a couple of hours going through the SFB rule books (Section R), the old Nexus magazines, and every class history article ever written for Captains Log and could find no reference to a difference in class.

There were several differences between the older pre-warp cruisers (i.e., the 1000 series) and the Republic class cruisers (1300 series) that were converted to wap-powered heavy cruisers... but nothing else.

Looking at the complete starship registry, you can see that the heavy cruisers (CA), the command cruisers (CC), the heavy command cruises (CB), and even the advanced technology cruisers (CX) were all issued naval construction contracts (N.C.C.) in the 1700 series. I'd guess that more heavy cruisers were built than were numbers available in the 1700 series, so the first half of the 1600 series was co-opted and numbers 1600 through 1650 were used for CAs while 1650 through 1699 were used for NCAs.

Of course, until Steve Cole himself provides the answer, this is just a best guess estimate based on 30+ years of Star Fleet Universe history / backstory.
 
Scoutdad: Would be nice, on the other hand, if they could design and release a 1600-series alternative design... preferably one that looks a little more like the old CL design, but with a definite design progression to the 1700 series. Maybe, rather than a saucer, maybe a 1700 design but with an angular primary hull that looks part-way between the two designs?

Would also like to see an old CA upgrade released so we can have a greater variety of ships under the 1000 and 1300 CA banner (the only difference there might be build time, to be honest, so the same model might work).
 
My best guess (and it isn't much more than a guess :)) would be that the 1600-series CA was the design you saw in the Star Trek pilots, and like the Enterprise they all were eventually refitted. If you recall, the first Enterprise design had different engine, saucer (taller bridge) and sensor dish designs.
 
The 1600 series are virtually identical to the 1700 series, if not identical; so a seperate miniature isn't needed.
As for a transition model, while not out of the question as a new ship class later on - is not goign to happen with the 1600 series CAs. There's 30+ years of SFU history with illustrations of several of those units, approximate build dates, and scenarios using them. I don't think they'll change those at this late date.

The R series cruisers (Republic, etc) OTOH, have several external differences.
Enough so that ADB has stated that the original prototype of the CA with the promeninent weld lines on the secondary hull and warp nacelles might be used as a limited run version of those ships.

Which means I need to strip the decals off the one I painted and rename it the Rebublic. bummer... :(
 
Good points... I was kinda hoping for more difference, to be honest - something to show the progression from the Old CL style to the newer saucer shapes...

Scoutdad: Good... :P

(Me? Jealous? Nah...) :D

(Scoutdad: kidding m8... you really have my sympathy). :(
 
Okay, on the 1600/1700 question, I decided to ask SVC to make sure what was going on. His answer:

Externally, no difference. The Constitutions (1700s) were the last refinement of a design that had been done twice before (Republic, Constellation)

I hope that helps.
 
The point of the saucer-and-nacelle hulls was not to have an overtly "Terran" design heritage, the way the old CL does; but rather, to create a new, shared hull type which would be appropriate for the united Star Fleet.

The old CL was but one of many ship types in the original Terran fleet, serving alongside the planetary navies of the other founding members of the Federation (Vulcan, Andorian, Alpha-Centauran, Rigelian). The Fed POL also has an Earth heritage; the old Terran destroyer had the same external layout, but was substiantially different internally.

Originally, these ships were "sublight"; or rather, they had non-tactical warp (impulse) engines only. They could go around nine parsecs a day in transit, but had to slow to sub-light speeds when fighting. The key thing about the sublight Terran CL at this point was its sheer ruggedness; its hull incorporated a Rhodinium alloy which other member planets were slow to adopt, and its ability to incorporate new upgrades and advances was virtually unmatched within Federation space. (The other Terran ships were less successful; as time went on, they were gradually phased out of service.)

Starting in the Y60s (Y1 being the year of First Contact) the Federation adapted the W-series of tactical warp technology; refitting their sublight fleets with more powerful engines allowing them to fight at low warp speeds, adding in the first wave of warp-class weapons (phasers, photons etc) and incorporating the kind of modern technolgies (such as transporters) that tactical warp made feasible. As it happened, Earth did pioneer tactical warp in the UFP; the very first W-era ship was a Terran CL. However, to avoid the risk of political fallout from this effort (which raised the spectre of Terran domination among the other members) the WCLs were offered as being under "Federation", not "Earth" service.

Two decades later, the time came for the Y-era; the first generation of ships built from the keel up to integrate tactical warp technology. This saw the onset of the first saucer-and-nacelle ships of the Star Fleet; designed from the outset to supersede the old planetary fleets (which instead became the National Guards of each major planet). At this point, the Federation could have plumped for a "new" CL; but there were so many Terran-hull light cruisers in service (and they were so readily able to be converted into Y-technology) that it was decided to simply upgrade the WCLs to YCLs rather than phase them out.

And forty years after that, when the time came for the first "modern" ships, it was still more cost-effectie to turn those YCLs into CLs than commission a brand new set of light cruisers.

Only by the dawn of the General War did Star Fleet turn to the Kearsarge-class new light cruiser as a replacement design, and only then because the cut-down nature of the NCL made it cheap enough to field in vast numbers.


Actually, there was a limited run of OCAs built in the Y120s; brand-new (at the time) hull based on a stretched OCL. (The old Terran heavy cruisers had a totally different hull type.) The class was intended as a design competitor to the Constitution-class CA; they were solid ships, but were passed over in favour of their saucer-and-nacelle counterparts. They were the only new class derived from the CL template built in the Alpha Octant.
 
Bflacon there is a Heavy Cruise version of the old Texas Class CL. Only 2 were built as a back up plan for the Connie's both were lost before the General War started. They basically were stretched a d bedded up versions of the Old Light Cruiser.
 
Yup. They were Alfred the Great and Theodoric the Great. Alfred was destroyed in an ambush by Romulans at the same time as the events in the TOS episode Balance of Terror. (Alfred and Enterprise were at different ends of the chain of warning stations the Federation put up.)
 
Jean said:
Shadow Queen, in the SFU the Defiant is in a different subset of the CAs. You might enjoy looking at the Starship Name Registry here: http://www.starfleetgames.com/documents/Starship_Name_Registry.pdf

Jean

Reading this makes me want to collect a Wyn pre-fish ship fleet.

I imagine at some point we'll get the minor powers in a supplement (Wyn, LDR, Vudar) and you can fight them against Orions or whatever.

It might be fun to put together a highly limited Tholian fleet as well, basically harking back to the point when the biggest ship they had was a destroyer.
 
Rambler said:
Bflacon there is a Heavy Cruise version of the old Texas Class CL. Only 2 were built as a back up plan for the Connie's both were lost before the General War started. They basically were stretched a d bedded up versions of the Old Light Cruiser.

Done well I would actually really like to see this as a miniature, but then I do really like the old CLs.

Could the model double for the Omega sector Auroran CA? Would that make it more likely to be done?
 
There is a miniature for the Federation OCA in the 2400 line; here's how my yet-to-be-painted-properly OCA looks compared to a few other 2400-series ships. Plus, you can actually see one of the ships (in shiny Adam Turner 3D art form) on the cover art of Captain's Log #43.

And I would definitely recommend using the OCA mini as a stand-in for the Federal Republic CLA; in fact, I listed the OCA as such in the provisional Master Ship Chart for the playtest FC Omega Ship Cards.

(I wrote the text-related aspects of the Omega Playtest Rulebook for FC; though Rick Smith is the man to thank for the graphical aspect of that file, not least the great ship outlines on the playtest Ship Cards themsleves.)
 
Nerroth said:
There is a miniature for the Federation OCA in the 2400 line; here's how my yet-to-be-painted-properly OCA looks compared to a few other 2400-series ships. Plus, you can actually see one of the ships (in shiny Adam Turner 3D art form) on the cover art of Captain's Log #43.
(Underlines added by me to show links - I wish the forum did that automatically! I didn't even see two of the links until I'd started this reply.)

That looks like a New Fast Cruiser behind the OCA and it appears to have panelling lines on the saucer. Is that also a Starline 2400 model, and do the lines follow the outline of the saucer? For that matter, does the Starline 2400 Federation CA have panelling lines on its saucer?
 
AdrianH said:
Nerroth said:
There is a miniature for the Federation OCA in the 2400 line; here's how my yet-to-be-painted-properly OCA looks compared to a few other 2400-series ships. Plus, you can actually see one of the ships (in shiny Adam Turner 3D art form) on the cover art of Captain's Log #43.
(Underlines added by me to show links - I wish the forum did that automatically! I didn't even see two of the links until I'd started this reply.)

Agreed.

That looks like a New Fast Cruiser behind the OCA and it appears to have panelling lines on the saucer. Is that also a Starline 2400 model, and do the lines follow the outline of the saucer?

It is; the (quite faint) lines are only in the recessed areas of the saucer, and radiate out from the centre.

(One thing about the 2400 NCF is that the engines are the same length as the 15-box ones on other Fed cruisers; so technically you could simply leave the third engine aside and end up with the NLF. However, the 2500 NCF will have its engines adjusted to scale properly, so you would have to kitbash a set of new 15-boxers to turn it into the basis of a fast war cruiser; let alone what kind of work might be needed depending on how many pieces the ship will be cast in.)

For that matter, does the Starline 2400 Federation CA have panelling lines on its saucer?

No, but the 2400 CC does.
 
Back
Top