This ships
- Thread starter Drahazar
- Start date
Pah. Realism always ruins stuff like this.
It's the same with science fiction tanks. The main gun is generally made a size that looks 'cool' rather than one vaguely in scale with the vehicle compared to current tanks, because there's no awkward sod asking questions like "so how many shells do you expect to carry for that thing, then?"
Although I have to say I think a lot of modern fighters do look rather cool.
It's the same with science fiction tanks. The main gun is generally made a size that looks 'cool' rather than one vaguely in scale with the vehicle compared to current tanks, because there's no awkward sod asking questions like "so how many shells do you expect to carry for that thing, then?"
Although I have to say I think a lot of modern fighters do look rather cool.
Captain Jonah
Mongoose
Hello. Mr Awkward Sod here. So Mr COughSpaceMarineCough player, given that the gun in that tank looks to be big enough to fire a space marine out of how many shells does it carry.
Erm 6.
6, that’s not many, why 6. :?
Erm well the battles only last 6 turns
The ACTA-SF models compete on a number of levels, looking cool is just one of them. There is also the way the ships fight, the style of combat they encourage. You may think the Klinks look stylish but if your idea of battle is close to 1” and let em have it with all guns you may find that stylish fleet is defeated, a lot. :wink:
Yes warships are not sold on looks, they are sold on function, fire power, range, capabilities etc.
Models can be sold on looks, hey the Feds have that classic TREK look that will catch the eye of passing people, the Fed/Klingon match up is THE iconic Star Trek image.
But people also want things to make a little sense, well me anyway. Adding new ship designs is good, but they should make sense. The Feds are not suddenly going to field a D6 look a like, the Klingons are not going to field a brick is space etc. :roll:
Style is fine, cool is fine, but lets have them make sense. Just because its Science Fiction is no reason to throw the Science bit away. :wink: :lol:
Erm 6.
6, that’s not many, why 6. :?
Erm well the battles only last 6 turns
The ACTA-SF models compete on a number of levels, looking cool is just one of them. There is also the way the ships fight, the style of combat they encourage. You may think the Klinks look stylish but if your idea of battle is close to 1” and let em have it with all guns you may find that stylish fleet is defeated, a lot. :wink:
Yes warships are not sold on looks, they are sold on function, fire power, range, capabilities etc.
Models can be sold on looks, hey the Feds have that classic TREK look that will catch the eye of passing people, the Fed/Klingon match up is THE iconic Star Trek image.
But people also want things to make a little sense, well me anyway. Adding new ship designs is good, but they should make sense. The Feds are not suddenly going to field a D6 look a like, the Klingons are not going to field a brick is space etc. :roll:
Style is fine, cool is fine, but lets have them make sense. Just because its Science Fiction is no reason to throw the Science bit away. :wink: :lol:
I am not sure ships can't be both cool and follow the aeastetic already established:
Examples:
Klingon fleet
http://www.moddb.com/mods/star-trek-armada-ii-future-wars/downloads/klingon-fleet
Federation Fleet
http://www.moddb.com/mods/star-trek-armada-ii-future-wars/downloads/federation-fleet
Examples:
Klingon fleet
http://www.moddb.com/mods/star-trek-armada-ii-future-wars/downloads/klingon-fleet
Federation Fleet
http://www.moddb.com/mods/star-trek-armada-ii-future-wars/downloads/federation-fleet
Keeper Nilbog
Mongoose
Like the Klinks - did they do Gorn 
locarno24 said:
To be fair, no one has yet designed a sci-fi tank that looks as cool as a Challenger 2.
By and large I think I'd rather the ships remain looking like they are designed Form Follows Function, not Form Follows Fantasy (even though obviously it is a fantasy, but bear with me).
So painting a bird on the bottom of your ships wings is fine, but moulding feathers and a beak is right out (Beyond painting guides so you don't have to paint the bird freehand natch).
Beyond that though, I'd be more than happy to see ships designed principally to look cool, rather than for, like, fluff or gameplay reasons.
If the upcoming miniature line for Victory at Sea 2.0 decided to, say, re-do the Yorktown-class carriers to have all sorts of ahistorical bits and pieces to (supposedly) make them look "cool", the entire point of the line would be lost; what most people would want there is not detail for the sake of detail, but detail which properly represents the real ships as they served in the Second World War.
Yes, the SFU is a fictional universe, but it's one which has been built up over three decades with more than a little eye towards how the engineering restrictions, physical elements (to include the way in which various trans-light mechanics work), logistical concerns, and (not so) good old-fashioned politics each play important roles in the ways in which each empire goes about its business.
Yes, there should be scope for things to be re-imagined; as I noted earlier, I'm definitely in the camp supporting the changes made to the various Hawk-series Romulan ships, to give one example. However, trying to add in new design features just for the sake if it, without consideration for the way in which the wider universe works, is not something I'd be too thrileld to see; and quite frankly, were the efforts put in over many years by a lot of people so easily dismissed like that, it would feel like a slap in the face to those who have committed their time and effort towards making the setting vibrant enough for Mongoose to want to buy into it in the first place.
But, again, this really is only scratching the surface of what the SFU has to offer; and, again, this is still drawing mainly on the fleets with the kind of legacy from the source material which makes changes-for-the-sake-of-changes the most contentious (both in its own right and in how it risks tripping up the boundaries of the licence).
There is more out there; and if/when it comes, there will be the chance for people to come forward and make their case as to how things should be design-wise.
(Which, I might add, is a lot more open than the design process would be for the ship minis in A Call to Arms: Noble Armada...)
Omega has too much material in it to be fully covered in one module; the Lesser Magellanic Cloud (as it stands) could be done more or less in one go, though whether or not the Triangulum Galaxy may also be so would depend on what shape any would-be formally published module might take (should there ever be one).
Athough, I really wish I shared your confidence in seeing any of the above added to ACtA:SF...
Yes, the SFU is a fictional universe, but it's one which has been built up over three decades with more than a little eye towards how the engineering restrictions, physical elements (to include the way in which various trans-light mechanics work), logistical concerns, and (not so) good old-fashioned politics each play important roles in the ways in which each empire goes about its business.
Yes, there should be scope for things to be re-imagined; as I noted earlier, I'm definitely in the camp supporting the changes made to the various Hawk-series Romulan ships, to give one example. However, trying to add in new design features just for the sake if it, without consideration for the way in which the wider universe works, is not something I'd be too thrileld to see; and quite frankly, were the efforts put in over many years by a lot of people so easily dismissed like that, it would feel like a slap in the face to those who have committed their time and effort towards making the setting vibrant enough for Mongoose to want to buy into it in the first place.
But, again, this really is only scratching the surface of what the SFU has to offer; and, again, this is still drawing mainly on the fleets with the kind of legacy from the source material which makes changes-for-the-sake-of-changes the most contentious (both in its own right and in how it risks tripping up the boundaries of the licence).
There is more out there; and if/when it comes, there will be the chance for people to come forward and make their case as to how things should be design-wise.
(Which, I might add, is a lot more open than the design process would be for the ship minis in A Call to Arms: Noble Armada...)
Myrm said:It'll be a few years down the line, but you know its going to happenbillclo said:
Too good an opportunity to miss out on with the original IP on the established game base.
Omega has too much material in it to be fully covered in one module; the Lesser Magellanic Cloud (as it stands) could be done more or less in one go, though whether or not the Triangulum Galaxy may also be so would depend on what shape any would-be formally published module might take (should there ever be one).
Athough, I really wish I shared your confidence in seeing any of the above added to ACtA:SF...
Nerroth said:
I was being moderately flippant inmy second comment - on the serious side, if ACtA takes off and there is a rage for new and different miniatures to go into the game then Omega items is a good place to go - because its all novel stuff specific to SFU and with no original Trek material involved, Omega does not have the same historical limits on ship types because you are never going to get the problem of having people demanding 'not-next-generation' ships and risking the SFU licenses. Ship variety at no risk to the license. To some extent the Hydrans and Lyrans and ISC fall into the same IP slot but they to tend to be a little samey in the same way the Feds and Klingons have been accused of - Hydrans less than other. If you want a real varied fleet, you need to wait for WYNs to appear.
However, yes with the best will in the world any of the above are a way off with Omega being the bottom of the list.
GalagaGalaxian
Mongoose
Da Boss said:
See, I think those look barely more varied than the current Star Fleet Klingons (most of them are just enlarged or modified Vor'Chas or Negh'Vars with extra bits stuck on and slightly different shaped wings). Plus, I've always preferred the classic Movie/TOS Klingon look (which is to say the D7/K'tinga, the BoP will always be a Romulan ship in my mind since that is who the villains in STIII:SfS were originally supposed to be).
Captain Jonah
Mongoose
Nomad said:
Welcome to the awkward squad. Annoying munchkins, muppets and games that claim to be Sci fi but ignore the Sci bit since the mid 1970s :twisted:
Captain Jonah said:
Amen guys. Give me plausible. The word historic is a bit silly in a science fiction context but plausible is, in my opinion, way more important than 'cool' although the two are not mutually exclusive. My favorite looking ship is Excelsior but if I want one, I can accept having to add it myself.
tneva82 said:
back to cos they look cool and each ships is markably different - and hence also from a commercial POV more likely to sell to people as its different.
I think its clear there are two very different opinions on this and we can agree to differ each knowing that we are right :wink:
Da Boss said:
Each is different? Apart from the wedge shape ships that would look more at home in Kzintzi fleet they are no more different than different ADB designs. Upscaled versions of each other basically...
Now if you want Kzinzi themed ships in your federation fair enough. Myself I prefer aesthetics to look like they belong to same party. US fighters are distinguishable from Russian planes. Similary I would expect Federation ships look like Federation ships and not white Kzinzis
Da Boss said:Well if you can't see the differences again we see things very differently.
re the Kzinti - seriously - the present Kzinti models are IMO absolutely horrible and the sleek, cool ships in the Fed picture are in no way related. But agin different strokes and all that
I did ask about modifying the War class warships to something more lean and menacing (angled downwards drone booms, re-shape the forward head to look longer and more predatory, etc, and you'd have thought I had dropped a turd in the punchbowl or something. Total silence on the issue. Not one soul would buck Steve's vision.
Similar threads
