This ships

[McKinstry]

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.

ADB has managed to stay in business with a sterling reputation for longer than most miniature gaming companies in part by sticking to a consistent vision for, I believe, 20+ years. I am not an SFB or FC gamer but as I understand it, this joint venture is about porting ACTA to the ADB SF universe and the modeling agreement is based on a simple conversion of cannon 2400 series models to the superior 2500 series with adjustments only to fix earlier mistakes or relative scale. Given the large number of cannon 2400/SFB models yet to be done, I would be stunned if ADB saw any advantage in changing their style at this point or at least until the full stable of existing designs are in production which for the Andromedans et al, should be years.

 

[Nerroth]

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.

As it happens, the ISC thing was addressed from a background perspective in Module Y3; it was noted that the early tactical warp drives the five pre-ISC planets developed were very difficult to adapt to new hull forms, which delayed the introduction of each larger class of warp-driven ship (since they all had different hull layouts). By the time the ISC fixed the problem decades later, they had already set out to make their unified hulls follow a relatively common hull layout; though the Y-era unified ships had only two "prongs", instead of the three-prong ships seen in the era of the Pacification.


But in terms of non-Alpha settings, the point I was getting at is that Omega is still missing certain types of units ("late-war" hulls, larger bases, transports and tugs etc) they'd need to be fully campaign compatible; while the LMC has a good range of civilian and military hulls already in SFB (if not yet in FC) that could be used to get them up and running fairly readily. Plus the Andromedan presence in the Cloud (and the eventual arrival of the Operation Unity task forces there) would allow for earlier cross-setting encounters than Omega (or M33, for that matter) would historically support.

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.

Given the long wait I'll have to see the ISC and Andromedans show up as it stands, I'm already pretty much resigned to an extended stay on the sidelines; but on the flip side, one might hope the current raft of issues will be resolved by the time things start to get more interesting...

 

[Nomad]

Well, it's been done before.

Iron Crown ditched their relatively believable space fighter range and went for whizzy fantasy-influenced 'new era' designs. Last I heard they were under new ownership and the whole range had been withdrawn.

Frankly consistency and technical rigor have never been strong points of canon Trek. Ship designs emerged from the studio's art department for the needs of individual episodes, without any rational design process.

That's one reason TNG, DS9, VOY and the first two seasons of Enterprise do not feature in my DVD collection. (The other is that they're badly-written, ill thought out, scientifically and historically illiterate emetically sentimental dross that lacked any memorable or even plausible human characters, let alone aliens*. But I'll let that pass).

The sorry saga of the "Klingon" Romulan Bird of Prey in ST:III, and the calamitous effects on continuity that flowed from it are a case in point. For that matter, the Romulans only had the ships the SFU calls KRs in the 1960's TV series because Roddenberry thought the original Rom BoP looked too much like a 1950's SF rocketship and refused to allow it's reuse. (Yes, as impulse-powered ships they could not have waylaid Enterprise. But they could not have crossed a 50-light year Neutral Zone, either).

The most cogent attempt to make sense of canon Trek ship evolution through the movie era and beyond was the old FASA game. And where are they now?


*IMHO. YMMV

 

[Ben2]

I think people are missing part of the reason Matt wants to add some more hulls.

The basic rulebook covers most of the hulls in the game for the Klingons, Feds, Roms, Gorn and Kzinti. Once you've got 4 D6s you really won't need any more, and most of the ship designs in SFB are variants of existing hulls. There are a handful of Klingon hull types not in the basic rules book (G2, E3, E5, E6, E7, F6, F5W, C6, B10) and most of those will be in the first supplement. The most popular 3 races will be Feds, Klingon and Romulans, so Matt will need some new ships to flog you to keep sales up. Introducing a couple of new hulls to each race per supplement keeps things fresh, keeps people buying ships and introduces more variety.

It isn't an accident that the races in the core rulebook, and in the SFB basic set and advanced mission, are the races that appear in the series and cartoons, and that from module R5 onwards there is something for every race in every R supplement. It keeps people buying.

However the technological parity between the races was something B5W reacted against by having races with a variety of tech levels.

Varying tech levels isn't something we'll see in ACTA:SFU to any great extent, but some new ships would certainly add variety, and if ported back to FC/SFB could give those players something to have fun with.

 

[Greg Smith]

That's one reason TNG, DS9, VOY and the first two seasons of Enterprise do not feature in my DVD collection. (The other is that they're badly-written, ill thought out, scientifically and historically illiterate emetically sentimental dross that lacked any memorable or even plausible human characters, let alone aliens*. But I'll let that pass).

Is TOS any better? I can certainly see those descriptions applying.

The sorry saga of the "Klingon" Romulan Bird of Prey in ST:III, and the calamitous effects on continuity that flowed from it are a case in point. For that matter, the Romulans only had the ships the SFU calls KRs in the TV series because Roddenberry thought the original Rom BoP looked too much like a 1950's SF rocketship and refused to allow it's reuse.

I have read that they didn't have access to the Romulan ship model. Alternatively that they simply wanted to show off the D7 model.

 

[ErikB]

I'd be talking about keeping the aesthetics the same but playing around with them more.

So, and I guess making these would step on some toes, something like:-

 

[Nomad]

Is TOS any better?

If I didn't think so, Greg, I would not be here.

I have read that they didn't have access to the Romulan ship model

I have read otherwise. One of The Great Bird's guiding principles for TOS was to break away from what he saw as hackneyed and stereotypical B-movie design, a la Destination Moon and When Worlds Collide; in his view, Wah Chang's BoP failed that test and was only used in The Balance of Terror due to a tight shooting schedule. There is a rumour that Roddenberry had the model destroyed afterward.

Unfortunately, what followed in the 70's and 80's was the friendship with Timothy Leary, drugs, orgies and a descent into New Age "philosophy" which informed his thinking on TNG. And after Roddenberry's death came the dead hand of Rick Berman...

 

[GalagaGalaxian]

I'd be talking about keeping the aesthetics the same but playing around with them more.

So how are those that different from these Star Fleet Universe ships that have existed for decades?

Other than the fact they're readily identifiable as being based on "Canon Trek" ships, they're pretty much similar. In fact that "TOS Kelvin" is very much a Saladin destroyer with an Engineering hull bolted onto it.

 

[ErikB]

So how are those that different from these Star Fleet Universe ships that have existed for decades?

They aren't. There are just more of them!

I guess there are only so many fed ships you can buy. But still, a bit of experimentation with configurations never hurt anyone.

--

I kinda like this one:-

 

[Nomad]

Dear God, what is that?

As said before, the SFU has been going - successfully - for thirty odd years, and the Mongoose license ties them to the existing designs. For eminently sensible commercial and legal reasons.

In your own games you may use whatever minis you want.

 

[GalagaGalaxian]

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree about that ship, its rather ugly from an aesthetic standpoint IMO. Also, the twin hull thing kinda intrudes on the Lyran's Catamaran style. It lacks a saucer, which defines Star Fleet federation ships, IMO. It ain't a flat top if there isn't a flat top!*

*Texas OCL is an arguable exception to this, and it still has a "saucer" of sorts at the front.

 

[Ben2]

Catamaran thing isn't too good.

A destroyer with an engineering hull has possibilities. Give it 14 shuttles and a little cargo, and drop the number of photons to 2 and add 2 special sensors, and have it as a survey or prospecting ship, or a research support ship.

Plenty of labs for processing data, and shuttles for going out and getting it, and it starts to gel together.

In times of was it loses 12 shuttles, gains 12 fighters and acts as a light carrier (though not a particularly tough or well protected one).

 

[ErikB]

But no one cares about the Lyrans! :0)

You could replace the boxy bit with a little saucer.

Or there is

Or

Clustering engines like that could be cool.

 

[Nomad]

@ Ben2;

Give her an extra engine and you have a Galactic Survey Cruiser!

The GSC already exists in SFB/FC, pretty much exactly as you describe but based on a heavy cruiser hull. In SFB it has a wartime carrier role, too.

But no one cares about the Lyrans!

You clearly have not encountered Scoutdad. Yet.

 

[Greg Smith]

Is TOS any better?

If I didn't think so, Greg, I would not be here.

Ok, we'll have to agree to disagree on that. I personally find ToS to have some of the worst examples of science and the least consistent tech/trek-nology. But it does have some of the best episodes.

I have read that they didn't have access to the Romulan ship model

I have read otherwise.

Can you give me a source, please.

 

[AdrianH]

That's one reason TNG, DS9, VOY and the first two seasons of Enterprise do not feature in my DVD collection. (The other is that they're badly-written, ill thought out, scientifically and historically illiterate emetically sentimental dross that lacked any memorable or even plausible human characters, let alone aliens*. But I'll let that pass).

Is TOS any better? I can certainly see those descriptions applying.

All versions of Trek had scientific blunders. A ship moving faster than light and firing an energy weapon ahead without running into its own beam, for example. And given the placement of its impulse engine and the thin warp pylons, the first thing which should happen when Enterprise fires its impulse engine is that it goes into an inverse loop; the next thing that should happen is that the warp engines fall off. (Some of this was fixed in TNG, where FTL combat happened only rarely and only involved torpedoes, and the new Enterprise's impulse engine was located half way down the neck.)

A long time ago I found the "TNG Technical Manual" in a bookshop. Leafing through it, I found the line "Star Trek has always prided itself on its scientific and technical consistency". When I'd finished laughing I bought it as a Trek joke book, and on that basis I was not disappointed.

The sorry saga of the "Klingon" Romulan Bird of Prey in ST:III, and the calamitous effects on continuity that flowed from it are a case in point. For that matter, the Romulans only had the ships the SFU calls KRs in the TV series because Roddenberry thought the original Rom BoP looked too much like a 1950's SF rocketship and refused to allow it's reuse.

I have read that they didn't have access to the Romulan ship model. Alternatively that they simply wanted to show off the D7 model.

Some theories are given here. Among them are:
. The Bird of Prey was lost, damaged or destroyed, leaving little option but to use the D7 for The Enterprise Incident
. The producers wanted to showcase the D7 as much as possible amongst others as a courtesy to AMT/Ertl (who actually paid for the D7 model)
. The builder of the Bird of Prey, Wah Ming Chang, was in conflict with the prop-makers' union; not being a member himself, he wasn't allowed to build anything for the show, and when the union found out he'd built the model for Balance of Terror, they only agreed to drop charges if he wasn't paid for it. Desilu returned the model unpaid, and Chang himself smashed it.

There's no mention of Roddenberry vetoing the Bird of Prey design, but Designing the Starship Enterprise - By Matt Jefferies confirms that he wanted no resemblance to a 1960's rocket ship for the Enterprise.

 

[scoutdad]

But no one cares about the Lyrans!

You clearly have not encountered Scoutdad. Yet.

Hi! Pleased to meet you.
Some of do indeed care about the Lyrans.
In fact, I've been enjoying them in the newest round of play-testing.

 

[Captain Jonah]

None of you play Gorn and yet you admit to enjoying the Lyran.

You sir are a very Strange Man :wink: :lol:

 

[scoutdad]

I have been told that many times.
Usually by my opponent as I try something toitally bizarre and pull off an inexplicable win! :lol:

 

[Greg Smith]

A long time ago I found the "TNG Technical Manual" in a bookshop. Leafing through it, I found the line "Star Trek has always prided itself on its scientific and technical consistency". When I'd finished laughing ...

TNG is a least slightly more technically consistent than ToS. Although it has to be pointed out, ToS was around before man landed on the moon.

Some theories are given here.

I have heard of all those.

I hadn't read that it looked like a rocket ship, so they didn't use it. I wondered where that had come from.