Da Boss said:
We are actively lobbying to expand the design of the ships.
This ships
- Thread starter Drahazar
- Start date
We are actively lobbying to expand the design of the ships.
Drahazar, we cannot do Borgs. They are certainly outside of our license.
I'm looking forward to more Orions and hoping we can see more of the Hydrans and finally the Inter-Stellar Concordium. They have ships that are similar in style, but different. I know that the "sameness" can prove difficult, but Matthew and Sandrine have already made differences in the ships that I can see. All the SFU players will tell you that I am "mini-challenged" when it comes to identification, so anything that differentiates among the ships helps me.
I'm looking forward to more Orions and hoping we can see more of the Hydrans and finally the Inter-Stellar Concordium. They have ships that are similar in style, but different. I know that the "sameness" can prove difficult, but Matthew and Sandrine have already made differences in the ships that I can see. All the SFU players will tell you that I am "mini-challenged" when it comes to identification, so anything that differentiates among the ships helps me.
Reynard
Emperor Mongoose
I assume if the game does well we may see more of the SFU models added in suppliments.
I have lots of minis from the FASA line when they had the Paramount license. The Excelsior is HUGE but the Enterprise mini has engine pylons true to the movie and, subsequently, bent from the wieght of the engine! The FASA rules were somewhat simpler that SFB but still... interesting.
So FASA got the Paramount license while (I think this is how it goes) ADB/Task Force Games got permission from the people who created the Federation and Klingon blueprints from the 1970s. That's the origin of the dreadnaught and the destroyer. (I HAVE THEM!!) I'd LOVE to hear from ADB to the history of the aquisition in case I'm wrong. I know Zocchi was in there too. Notice Paramount is took their license away.
I have a feeling the race ship designs look similar because it defines the race, more efficient to model similar ships and ADB may have been limited to what they could design by terms of contract. Not sure.
One thing ADB has always made clear, SFU is their universe not Paramount's vision. Klingons have ruddy skin and beards, Kzinti exist and Tellerites look like men in rubber pig masks.
I have lots of minis from the FASA line when they had the Paramount license. The Excelsior is HUGE but the Enterprise mini has engine pylons true to the movie and, subsequently, bent from the wieght of the engine! The FASA rules were somewhat simpler that SFB but still... interesting.
So FASA got the Paramount license while (I think this is how it goes) ADB/Task Force Games got permission from the people who created the Federation and Klingon blueprints from the 1970s. That's the origin of the dreadnaught and the destroyer. (I HAVE THEM!!) I'd LOVE to hear from ADB to the history of the aquisition in case I'm wrong. I know Zocchi was in there too. Notice Paramount is took their license away.
I have a feeling the race ship designs look similar because it defines the race, more efficient to model similar ships and ADB may have been limited to what they could design by terms of contract. Not sure.
One thing ADB has always made clear, SFU is their universe not Paramount's vision. Klingons have ruddy skin and beards, Kzinti exist and Tellerites look like men in rubber pig masks.
There have already been a few changes in the 2500 line; not least with the likes of the Romulan SparrowHawk, which is significantly altered (for the better, in my view) compared to its 2400-series original.
(And as this example of Xander Fulton's re-working of one of Sandrine's 3D previews for the FastHawk shows, the new Hawks do look good in green, too.)
I suspect that once the door opens for more of the "indigenous" SFU fleets to emerge in Starline 2500, the more scope there will be to take things in new directions; or, to put it another way, the further away things go from those designs most intimately tied to the TV show (or the Technical Manual), the less of a demand there would be for a given ship or fleet to be exactly how it was in older editions.
(Indeed, many of the empires in more distant parts of the SFU don't have any sort of mini or line-art representation at all; the rough outlines on their SSDs/Ship Cards offer a lot of scope in terms of how they might one day be implemented in Starline 2500, if any of them can be up for consideration.)
(And as this example of Xander Fulton's re-working of one of Sandrine's 3D previews for the FastHawk shows, the new Hawks do look good in green, too.)
I suspect that once the door opens for more of the "indigenous" SFU fleets to emerge in Starline 2500, the more scope there will be to take things in new directions; or, to put it another way, the further away things go from those designs most intimately tied to the TV show (or the Technical Manual), the less of a demand there would be for a given ship or fleet to be exactly how it was in older editions.
(Indeed, many of the empires in more distant parts of the SFU don't have any sort of mini or line-art representation at all; the rough outlines on their SSDs/Ship Cards offer a lot of scope in terms of how they might one day be implemented in Starline 2500, if any of them can be up for consideration.)
Reynard said:
Although many of these were very attractive, their copyright belongs to Paramount, so they are out of bounds to ADB and Mongoose.
It's deplorable that in the past illegal copies of them have been available from Shapeways.
If they make it into ACtA, you may prefer Hydran ships. Since they are designed by competing Guilds, their dreadnoughts, cruisers, destroyers and frigates all look quite different.
One point to remember is that the SFU is about more than just tactical ship-vs-ship fights. Ship designs have to work at a strategic level in the Federation and Empire game, too. That's why there are no civilian tugs or large passenger liners - their availability to set up bases and as troopships would unbalance F&E.
The Federation's heavy carrier had to be changed for the same reason. The original twin-engined design was unique, not related to any other Fed ship.
However, in F&E, everyone else can convert heavy carriers from their dreadnoughts. Not being able to put the Feds at a major disadvantage, so the design had to be changed to a three-engined ship modified from the Fed DN.
ADB ships may not always look 'cool' or be covered in random wings, fins, spikes or skulls, but they usually do make sense in engineering terms.
Agreed. That's one thing I do like - whilst I'm not head-over-heels with the aesthetic, I do like the fact that they all look like they've been designed to the same set of physics.
Babylon 5 has a much wider variety of hull designs because the physics involved vary - reaction engines without gravity (Narn/Drazi) leading to block-with-engine-on-back, whilst grav drives invariably tend to come with wings and fins (minbari and to a lesser degree brakiri and centauri)
An even better example would be HMS Exeter and HMS Hood - does anyone really want to claim that they are as similar as the Federation CA and BC? Better yet, how about the B-52, F-15 and Apache compared to the entire Klingon fleet? :lol:GalagaGalaxian said:
Captain Jonah
Mongoose
Not the same thing.
Why do all long range bombers look the same as each other (allowing for minor changes).
Why do all modern fighters look the same as each other. Why do modern warships have the same overall shape (allowing for turrets or vertical launch bays to change the silhouette a bit)
Because the design is most suitable to the task.
Once a power settles on a working design they will adjust it to suit changes in function but overall the design stays the same.
The Hydrans have a reason for ships being different.
For the Feds. They have settled on the saucer as being the best way to provide comfortable crew areas, a separate engineering section to move the dangerous areas away from the crew and warp nacelles far out from the hull to eliminate those dangers. All the fed ships are basically a saucer so the crew/work areas can be comfortably set out on a handful of wide decks with separate warp nacelles and if size justifies it an engineering sub hull. It’s a way of building ships the Federation are happy with so why would they change.
The Klingons build for speed and manoeuvrability, long slim ships. Crew comfort doesn't enter into the design process. The extended neck gives the weapons mounted there a vast arc of fire without the hull getting in the way. It may be more vulnerable to damage (a photon to the neck cuts the entire forward hull off) but they clearly see the reduced ability to take damage as being less important that the ability to move and fire across wide arcs.
The Kzinti build boxes with pods on. They work. Star ships don’t need to be streamlined so why not boxes in space.
The Gorn have those comfortable crew saucers but lock them into a solid (and thick) hull with the nacelles close to the hull. No long thin nacelle struts to be damaged, no thin hull sections to be shot through. Multiple decks and plenty of distance between those critical areas and the ships hull. It’s the way Gorns like to build ships; they suit the Gorn purpose for warships.
Each race has settled on a way of building ships and aside from the odd experiments or one offs each race will continue to build ships in that way. The feds are not going to suddenly build a wedge shaped hull with internal warp engines, why would they. The Klingons are not going to restrict their own fire arcs by building ships with huge crew saucers at the front which block the fire of all the weapons on the rear hull.
In engineering terms once you have a design that works why change it, cosmetic redesigns that do not improve performance are pointless and a waste of money and time especially in a war.
Yes it means all Fed ships look basically the same. For a variety of ship styles look to the other races, there are what 20+ SFB/FC races now and each has its own style of ships.
Why do all long range bombers look the same as each other (allowing for minor changes).
Why do all modern fighters look the same as each other. Why do modern warships have the same overall shape (allowing for turrets or vertical launch bays to change the silhouette a bit)
Because the design is most suitable to the task.
Once a power settles on a working design they will adjust it to suit changes in function but overall the design stays the same.
The Hydrans have a reason for ships being different.
For the Feds. They have settled on the saucer as being the best way to provide comfortable crew areas, a separate engineering section to move the dangerous areas away from the crew and warp nacelles far out from the hull to eliminate those dangers. All the fed ships are basically a saucer so the crew/work areas can be comfortably set out on a handful of wide decks with separate warp nacelles and if size justifies it an engineering sub hull. It’s a way of building ships the Federation are happy with so why would they change.
The Klingons build for speed and manoeuvrability, long slim ships. Crew comfort doesn't enter into the design process. The extended neck gives the weapons mounted there a vast arc of fire without the hull getting in the way. It may be more vulnerable to damage (a photon to the neck cuts the entire forward hull off) but they clearly see the reduced ability to take damage as being less important that the ability to move and fire across wide arcs.
The Kzinti build boxes with pods on. They work. Star ships don’t need to be streamlined so why not boxes in space.
The Gorn have those comfortable crew saucers but lock them into a solid (and thick) hull with the nacelles close to the hull. No long thin nacelle struts to be damaged, no thin hull sections to be shot through. Multiple decks and plenty of distance between those critical areas and the ships hull. It’s the way Gorns like to build ships; they suit the Gorn purpose for warships.
Each race has settled on a way of building ships and aside from the odd experiments or one offs each race will continue to build ships in that way. The feds are not going to suddenly build a wedge shaped hull with internal warp engines, why would they. The Klingons are not going to restrict their own fire arcs by building ships with huge crew saucers at the front which block the fire of all the weapons on the rear hull.
In engineering terms once you have a design that works why change it, cosmetic redesigns that do not improve performance are pointless and a waste of money and time especially in a war.
Yes it means all Fed ships look basically the same. For a variety of ship styles look to the other races, there are what 20+ SFB/FC races now and each has its own style of ships.
wtf, i have posted a rply to this several times, and it keeps not appearing?!
anyhow, as i said. This is a game, what about cool factor. real established engineering principles don't exist .you can get more variations on an existing design philosophy with ease. Look at not in this licence feds. Akira, oberth, Miranda, Intrepid, even the steamrunner. All based upon saucer and 2 nacelles, yet different enough. Surely the Klingons could have been the same, new "bridge areas" and hull configurations are easily possible.
and I have to say, BOP aside, modern klingons the Negh'var and Vor'cha, follow the basic design principles of the D7, so how anyone can say they are all messed up seems odd. Main hull, wingtip nacelles, long neck and forward bridge type bit.
anyhow, as i said. This is a game, what about cool factor. real established engineering principles don't exist .you can get more variations on an existing design philosophy with ease. Look at not in this licence feds. Akira, oberth, Miranda, Intrepid, even the steamrunner. All based upon saucer and 2 nacelles, yet different enough. Surely the Klingons could have been the same, new "bridge areas" and hull configurations are easily possible.
and I have to say, BOP aside, modern klingons the Negh'var and Vor'cha, follow the basic design principles of the D7, so how anyone can say they are all messed up seems odd. Main hull, wingtip nacelles, long neck and forward bridge type bit.
tneva82 said:H said:
Cool factor is in the eye of the beholder. For some it's cool if ships makes sense logically
not sure their is logic in making the same ship in multiple scales though, all your machining processes/fabrication would need to change anyway, so why not make a new ship more specific to it's intended role, or upgraded? if it was logocal to just upscale, the UK's new overpriced wastes of money carriers would just have been upscaled from the old mini ones, instead of a new design entirely. or ford focus would be an upscaled fiesta, and the mondeo upscaled again. Admitedly, this is what BMW and Audi seem to do!
H said:
For one: It's tried and designed system. Why change it? Just for appearance sake? Introduce more bugs and errors just for sake of appearances?-)
Also just 'cause it's scaled up doesn't mean it can't share components if basics are still same. This is HUGE help in logistical side of things(and in the end wars are won by logistics. Ergo this is HUGE consideration. If you can make your logistics more efficient by basing new ships on old ones you are at distinct advantage over somebody who designs things with no consideration of logistics. So the other side just needs to be lot smarter and preferably have LOT more production capability in order to stand a chance!).
What that means is that all cruisers (Federation, Klingon, Romulan) should look the same; all frigates (Federation, Klingon, Romulan) should look the same; but a frigate should still look different to a battlecruiser.Captain Jonah said:
So the basis for a Klingon design is a broad engineering section with warp nacelles on the tips, a long neck and a bulbous command/weapons section. Within that basic definition there are all sorts of possibilities if you just change the shapes of the engineering section, wings and command/weapons section. The Vor'Cha, Negh'Var and Raptor are markedly different from the D7 but fit the same specification. They're also out of licence, of course, but you get the idea - change the shapes and sizes of the components and you get a different ship which still fits in with the fleet.
I sometimes wonder if the problem is that in TOS, from which the licence is derived, all Klingon ships look the same because they only have one. The very concept of Klingons having different designs didn't show up until the films and later series, and is therefore a violation of the licence. :lol: (By contrast, the Romulans were seen to have two distinct designs, which is why it's alright for SFU to have two distinct sets of Romulan ships, the Hawks and Eagles.)
Captain Jonah said:
Because they are not a range of exciting sci-fi models.
Similar threads
