Chicago New Heavy Cruiser conversion

[Greg Smith]

So, I'm not particularly fond of the Chicago design. I think it needs a decent secondary hull, so I thought I'd go ahead and try and convert one.

First I cut off the sensor dish on a NCA saucer. Then I filed flat the two nacelle supports from the NCA. I took a dreadnought secondary hull - firstly because the size seemed to fit the bigger saucer, secondly because I have several spare - and filed flat the middle bump at the top if the neck. With a dot of paint on the remaining two bumps, I drilled holes to join the saucer.

The I pinned the nacelles to the dreadnought hull - with them running parallel it left a bit of a gap.
That gap will need filling along with the holes in the top of the saucer where the nacelles were designed to go.

 

[archon96]

The point of the war era ships was to have a class's of ships that could be built alot faster and cheaper. Having the drive section adds to the cost and construction time of the vessel. What you get with these ships are sleak warships with the same firepower as there sister ships that have a drive section. Also the war era stuff seems to have much better arcs on the phasers.

 

[Ben2]

You could quite easily make a pocket dreadnought adding the systems in the engineering hull of the dreadnought to the NCAs stats.

Certainly would be an interesting kit bash.

 

[Greg Smith]

The point of the war era ships was to have a class's of ships that could be built alot faster and cheaper. Having the drive section adds to the cost and construction time of the vessel. What you get with these ships are sleak warships with the same firepower as there sister ships that have a drive section. Also the war era stuff seems to have much better arcs on the phasers.

I understand that that is the background. It doesn't change the fact that I don't think the design says 'Heavy Cruiser'.

That said I like the war destroyer and new fast cruiser.

 

[H]

The point of the war era ships was to have a class's of ships that could be built alot faster and cheaper. Having the drive section adds to the cost and construction time of the vessel. What you get with these ships are sleak warships with the same firepower as there sister ships that have a drive section. Also the war era stuff seems to have much better arcs on the phasers.

I understand that that is the background. It doesn't change the fact that I don't think the design says 'Heavy Cruiser'.

That said I like the war destroyer and new fast cruiser.

Easy Tiger, you'll have your door kicked in if you keep this up.

 

[Greg Smith]

I know, I'm breaking the Star Fleet Universe is paramount rule! :twisted:

 

[H]

I know, I'm breaking the Star Fleet Universe is paramount rule! :twisted:

EEEEEP, I'm sure you can't say star fleet and Paramount in the same post for fear of breaking the world, GAHHHHH i said em both too....

 

[Greg Smith]

The finished result. It is a slightly odd looking bird with a long neck.

 

[Rambler]

Nice work.

I see what you mean about the neck. Giving any thought to shaving it down a little?

 

[Greg Smith]

Yes I think so. The NCA's secondary hull adds to the height. It might be a better looking ship if it used the saucer from the New Light Cruiser - but the heavy cruiser's secondary hull provides a nice flat mount.

I think I may just take the top third off the Dreadnought's neck for the next one. It will mean I have to pin it.

It did occur to me to do a new fast cruiser in the same way and remove the neck completely. But I think that would essentially be Voyager.

 

[Rambler]

Okay just speaking for myself. As long as you are using 2500 models to kitbash alternate designs for SFU Offical Ships and not Stating up something new and trying to sell it. I do not see why you could not play with making a New Fast Cruiser regardless how close it may come to anything that may or may not have been seen somewhere else.

You know if you take that neck on the NCA down to say a third of its heighth and use putty to wided the neck it sytarts to look another ships as well. Instead of calling that a NCA you might want to call it I don't know a alternate Battlecruiser design... as long as tyou are calling it a BC and using ACTASF BC stats.

 

[Zarathustra Suicune]

I like it, I'm now tempted to get the Fleet reinforcements squadron box as one reason I did not like it was that all the ships looked basically the same except the dreadnought, only problem is that the dreadnought model has now grown on me
Will I need that 3rd Kirov hull?....

 

[Greg Smith]

Kirov is a great ship, but 3? Personally I decided 2 are enough.

 

[Ben2]

If you plan on playing huge games then 3 Kirovs and two DNGs is enough. I plan on adding a BB and 1-2 Franz Joseph DNs when they come out, but battlecruisers are pretty much the optimum command unit to me. While DNGs can now keep up with CAs/BCs since lumbering bit the dust, it's a pricey unit to be using more than two of in a 2000 point fleet.

However you get another dreadnought in everything.

Maybe we should have a dreadnought kitbash thread, stat up some ships you can make from the DN kit and submit them as ideas. I've already got one made up where you ditch the engines on the engineering hull because I haven't got round to popping them on yet. I'm wondering if going through my resin junk pile I could get a DN saucer, saucer engine and BC hull and whether that would go together better.

We'll certainly end up with so many that we need to do something with them.