ACTA SF Ship appearance discussion

[TJHairball]

I need to reply to that because size should not be the only difference.

If just the D5 was on the table, can you tell if it is a D5 or a D7 quickly and easily? Sure if both are there you can tell that the larger one is the D7, but with just one ship and no other references, I think there should be enough design differences so you could know it was the D5 and not the D7.

The differences need not be radical but something like a different shaped command pod or a 33% narrower main hull would be enough. All the other design features would be the same but something other than size should make the D5 different than the D7.

The same applies for the Lyran CL and CA.

I will say that, since I only have the one Klingon box so far, and three of the ships are the exact same size and hull shape with only details distinguishing them (the C7, D6, and D7). It's close enough that it's hard to tell them apart from across the table, in spite of the fact that I've painted them.

I'm probably going to need to do some more painting to help bring out the details that distinguish them, thinking about it, but right now, we have to look twice to make sure we're looking at the right ship.

 

[Sgt_G]

The problem is that the D6, D7, and C7 -ARE- basically the same ship with technological improvements over the decades. There's no easy way to get around that fact, and if they were somehow made too different, they wouldn't be the sisters that they are. I think Sandrine did a wonderful job of making them different enough to make it reasonably obvious which is which.

 

[katadder]

and thats part of the problem. unless you label the ships they look too similar because they almost are.
they didnt have to be but thats what was decided years ago, which probably saved ADB money on making them as few minor details and done.
today though with computer designing these ships could have been so much differant.

 

[Da Boss]

Is there not much info on the old CL's history in the ACtA:SF rulebook, then?
Who knows; perhaps these alternate settings might end up finding a life of their own should they be given a chance to shine?

First of all thanks for the excellent info - a most interesting read

My main reason for asking was that it has been said that the Federation hulls have to be the same in order to fulfill licensing - but the Texas class obviously shows this may not be the case?

If we could have some clarification on why this ship is allowed to look radically different and others can not, I feel that would be helpful. The fluff is there but apparently thats not enough to justify such things as fluff can always be written to explain anty design changes from a given form.

I really like the idea of exploring these past or future eras - especially if the chance to create new designs is taken, which apparently is possible given the example of the Texas Class.

 

[Sgt_G]

ADB made the D6 & D7 as sister-ships long before they thought of doing minis. It had nothing to do with saving money on sculpturing.

 

[Nomad]

On the D6/D7...

The Klingon D7 is the ship that opposed Enterprise in the TOS episodes 'Elaan of Troyius' and 'Day of The Dove'. Later, stock shots of this model were used in the episode 'The Enterprise Incident', establishing that Klingon ships of this design - externally indistinguishable - were also used by the Romulans.

When SFB was being written, it was decided that the Klingons would not have sold 'top of the range' ships to the Romulans, but rather an older and less capable version.

So the D6 was created. Looks the same on the outside, less power, fewer phasers and shorter-ranged disruptors on the inside. These were the ships seen in Romulan service - refitted with cloaking technology and plasma weapons - but they still served in their original configuration as light cruisers with the Klingons themselves.

On the model issue...

One beauty of casting in metal is that together with the base miniature you can cast sprues of additional parts.

So, why not cast the base hull of each ship similar to its SFU original, with a sprue of detailing parts - observation decks, sensor masts, hydroponics bays, whatever - that the buyer may choose to attach to the model to individualise it, or leave off.

 

[Ryueokami]

So, why not cast the base hull of each ship similar to its SFU original, with a sprue of detailing parts - observation decks, sensor masts, hydroponics bays, whatever - that the buyer may choose to attach to the model to individualise it, or leave off.

that idea i also posted on 2 threads by now (although fornmulated differently.....same idea there)

 

[Da Boss]

sounds good to me - plastic would be my material of choice but metal might work although didn;t MGP have poroblems doing sensor discs?

A full conversion pack of extra bits (engines, guns, sensors etc) has been suggested on a number of occassions on both forums

 

[Nomad]

sounds good to me - plastic would be my material of choice but metal might work although didn;t MGP have poroblems doing sensor discs?

Mongoose had difficulty casting Kzinti sensor dishes in resin. Now that the switch to metal has been made, I wonder if that could be revisited?

The problem with casting in plastic is that it requires precision high-pressure tooling, which is very expensive - think £10,000+ for each mould.

Battlefront introduced plastic sprues for some of their WW2 vehicles a few years ago, replacing pewter parts. The plastic running gear, machine guns et.c were lighter, more sharply detailed and tougher than the metal bits they replaced.

However, it only made financial sense to use them for a few popular models, and only for parts that were common across several similar vehicles - variants of US Sherman tanks, German Pz IVs and both countries' halftracks.

For ACtA ships, extra metal parts could be cast as an extension to the miniature itself, as part of the same process, the only additional cost being the metal itself.

Kitbashing miniatures has a long and honourable history in the SFU...

 

[Nerroth]

For my part, my current line of thinking is that there are three levels of pre-existing SFU design, in terms of what stage they are at, and where they can likely go:

*The hulls which are directly drawn from the various source materials (both on-screen and in the Star Fleet Technical Manual); the Fed CA, the "Franz Joseph" designs (as and when they appear in Starline 2500), the Klingon D7/Romulan KR, etc.

*The units which were created for use in the SFU, but which themselves have established a long-standing presence in game and/or miniature form; the Fed NCL, Klingon D5 et al.

*The ships from eras or settings which have either not been given much in the way of "legacy" art, or which have no miniatures to speak of; the early Vulcan and Andorian ships, most of the non-Alpha empires, and what have you.

Categories 1 and 2 are the ones that, by theur nature, are the most hotly-contested; not least because they are the ones most heavily integrated into the established logistical networks operated in the likes of the strategic game Federation and Empire. (F&E is mostly oriented towards the General War; though there are a handful of scenarios for earlier or later conflicts, such as the Four Powers War and the ISC Pacification Campaign.)

But even then, there have been at least some changes, albeit more subtle ones. The SparrowHawk and FireHawk are good examples of this; indeed, the FastHawk had never been given an official miniature before, and I think the design turned out great. And even with the more iconic "category 1" minis, the versions we see are not quite the same either; I've seen complaints on this forum that the D7 is not the same as the TV model, which is ironic considering Mongoose were more keen to make it look different. (But then, even a change like that made to the Fed dreadnought's secondary hull has been justified as being part of the conversion process to make the DNG; which could leave the door open to a "classic" Franz Joseph DN to be done for a 2500-series edition of Squadron Box #91.)


The thing is, though, that the very nature of most category 3 designs means that exploring them would have to wait until more of the Main Era was fleshed out first. Ships like the old Vulcans and Andorians, and the rest of the warp-refitted Terrans, would only really work if a proper, separate Early Years setting was put together for ACtA:SF at some future point. (If you look over towards Victory at Sea 2.0, I'd imagine that doing pre-dreadnought minis would only work if/when the bulk of the WW2-era fleets are up and running first, and would also depend on whether or not there will be a VaS 2.0 edition of a rulebook exploring the pre-dreadnought era.)

As I said, to get there, the "hump" (of dealing with the more contentious designs) would have to be dealt with first, before the door would be more widely open for something truly new in miniature terms; and even then, it would only work if people are willing to treat each new setting on its own terms, and not use them as a means of trying to shoehorn new designs into the Main Era.

 

[Sgt_G]

RE: Kzinti ears ... I like the new sensor dishes and hope they keep them just as the last imagery posted (except I want a minor adjustment to the Frigate so the hat isn't so very big). I don't see any reason to go back to the round dishes, especially if they have to be glued on instead of case as part of the ship.