|
|
Post by Brad R. Torgersen on Aug 6, 2015 18:23:01 GMT -7
|
|
|
|
Post by Gorn on Aug 7, 2015 9:21:29 GMT -7
Didn't someone make these in resin on a much smaller scale than the original FASA metal one, which had a disk the same size as Enterprise?
I want them in smaller version; they are only destroyers!
|
|
|
|
Post by kaisernathan1701 on Feb 21, 2016 21:03:14 GMT -7
Can I make your redraw in a different style of Ship Schematics from yours?
|
|
|
|
Post by rabid on Feb 23, 2016 11:53:52 GMT -7
Very cool! It looks great and also i've always loved your redraws! You mentioned the oversized design theme of the Baker a few times in your blog. One reason for this might be the Naval design of the time contemporary with the game, for example the Spruance Class destroyer is at least as large (hell it's the same hull) as the Bunker Hill class cruiser I served on. www.destroyerhistory.org/coldwar/spruanceclass/The only real difference is in combat capability, it's the same hull. I'm not sure if that's because the cruiser was shrinking or if the destroyer was getting larger...most post WWII Destroyer designs are very close to modern cruiser size. Just wondering, apologies in advance as this has no doubt been mentioned before. |
|
zaarin7
Lieutenant
I'm up for Vassal/Skype gameing.
Posts: 150 
|
Post by zaarin7 on Feb 24, 2016 6:56:27 GMT -7
The Bunker Hill Class were an outgrowth of the Spruance Class. The last true cruiser design the USN did was the cancelled nuclear strike cruiser of the 1970's.
BTW rabid TY for your service.
I've thought the game Baker class was a screw up on FASA's part since the game came out in the 1980's.
|
|
|
|
Post by tinker on Feb 25, 2016 13:31:56 GMT -7
The Baker is an excellent Destroyer - nice work, sir!
A side note: The Baker miniature was about the same size as the Enterprise and the background material had the Baker being designed originally as a research cruiser, but after it was laid down, it was converted to a destroyer. I noticed in your write-up you said you really liked the looks of the original - but you redrew it anyway. Any reason other than "it looked like a cruiser"?
Size it not always definitive of a ship's class. The D-18 Destroyer is substantially larger and heaver than the D-32 Cruiser (as an example).
The Durrett is tiny for a cruiser and the Tangent is large for a Destroyer as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by rabid on Feb 27, 2016 2:44:40 GMT -7
The Bunker Hill Class were an outgrowth of the Spruance Class. The last true cruiser design the USN did was the cancelled nuclear strike cruiser of the 1970's. BTW rabid TY for your service. I've thought the game Baker class was a screw up on FASA's part since the game came out in the 1980's. Yeah I remember the nuclear cruisers, the USS Long Beach (we 'helped' her score the largest maritime drug bust of the era--7 tons of cocaine! to help the old girl retire gracefully). She was one ugly baby from the main deck up, using the same superstructure design as some of the nuclear carriers but it looked like E.T. in a canoe. There's no way I can square the size choices with the modern navy, the frigates screw it all up. So from time to time I wonder where they got the ideas but can't come up with anything. Tinker that's cool, I forgot that it was a cruiser at one point but now I remember it. Like a lot of folks I have a hard time reconciling the relative mass associated with the different size classes, i.e. the d-18 may be larger than the D-32 but the cruiser has higher mass. I know from experience that some ships can be more tightly packed with equipment than others, but where does the extra mass go in smaller class ships that appear to be exponentially bigger? Are they just exercises in wasted space? Also if the Enterprise, which is usually depicted with spacious corridors, is Class X or bigger it must be more tightly compressed than the Baker. IDK, maybe the wings just give the appearance of it being so much larger. How much of that extended secondary hull behind the saucer is usable space? |
|
zaarin7
Lieutenant
I'm up for Vassal/Skype gameing.
Posts: 150
|
Post by zaarin7 on Feb 27, 2016 7:07:32 GMT -7
I don't really think you can go by corridor width from the TV shows as that was driven by the needs of room for the equipment.
Long Beach was the last cruiser we built. The last cruiser seriously designed was the CGSN from 1976.
|
|
|
|
Post by tinker on Feb 27, 2016 21:12:09 GMT -7
Like a lot of folks I have a hard time reconciling the relative mass associated with the different size classes, i.e. the d-18 may be larger than the D-32 but the cruiser has higher mass. The D-32 is a Class VII cruiser. The D-18 is a Class IX destroyer. |
|
zaarin7
Lieutenant
I'm up for Vassal/Skype gameing.
Posts: 150
|
Post by zaarin7 on Feb 28, 2016 7:03:51 GMT -7
If politics could cause all the USN Frigates that magically became Cruisers back in the early 1970's (IIRC) I'm quite certain politics could cause ship name classifications to not logically match the size class. In Babylon 5 Earthforce had to call the Omega a 'destroyer' so they could get enough built. When in fact the ship was the size of a battlecruiser or dreadnought in that games terms.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gorn on Feb 28, 2016 16:24:24 GMT -7
Does anyone remember who made them in small scale resin?
|
|
|
|
Post by kaisernathan1701 on Feb 28, 2016 18:46:08 GMT -7
darkrazor on here mel-1071 i think on ebay
|
|
|
|
Post by rabid on Mar 5, 2016 5:49:42 GMT -7
Like a lot of folks I have a hard time reconciling the relative mass associated with the different size classes, i.e. the d-18 may be larger than the D-32 but the cruiser has higher mass. The D-32 is a Class VII cruiser. The D-18 is a Class IX destroyer. Whoops! It's not like i wasn't on a web-page where I could have just referenced that. So what makes a cruiser vs. a destroyer here? Is there any rule in the various empires that could be consistently applied? It seems random. |
|
|
|
Post by walrusguy on Mar 22, 2016 18:03:09 GMT -7
|
|
|
|
Post by MajorRacal on Mar 29, 2016 16:34:02 GMT -7
I've not read the FASA stories for a while, but there's not a hard and fast rule. I've generally accepted that cruisers tend to be more multi-functional and can be deployed to run longer more diverse missions; destroyers are a little less flexible and are intended for shorter missions; Frigates are the most limited in the range of duties they can perform once deployed, operate shorter missions and generally perform patrol and support roles closer to home.
Mass isn't necessarily a reflection of ship type, it's more closely linked to fleet function, capability to perform more limited/extensive range of duties, ability to operate less/more independently, and to a degree armament. Although this is changing in modern navies, cruisers tended to be the most flexible, could work more autonomously for longer periods without support and have the heavier guns, frigates tended to be the least flexible and destroyers were somewhere in between - destroyers can be bigger and more powerful than cruisers, particularly nowadays and cruisers have largely been usurped by modern destroyers.
|
|
|
|
Post by tinker on Mar 30, 2016 9:26:13 GMT -7
I've not read the FASA stories for a while, but there's not a hard and fast rule. I've generally accepted that cruisers tend to be more multi-functional and can be deployed to run longer more diverse missions; destroyers are a little less flexible and are intended for shorter missions; Frigates are the most limited in the range of duties they can perform once deployed, operate shorter missions and generally perform patrol and support roles closer to home. This is pretty close to my observations as well. For the same mass (key point) a Destroyer will have more weaponry than a Cruiser because the Cruiser dedicates more space to cargo, amenities and other functions (research for example) where the Destroyer is more single-minded in purpose. Destroyers - like Cruisers - can go on longer-ranged missions...but not quite as pleasant in most cases. Frigates operate in similar roles to Destroyers - but cannot go on longer-ranged missions without operating as part of a fleet with tender support or an Outpost/Starbase nearby. Exactly! Size is of no consequence - the mission the ship was designed for determines it's class. Yes, the lines are quite blurred now - unlike under the Washington Naval Treaty agreement: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Naval_TreatyWhich was followed by two treaties in London. Under these agreements, ships were limited in displacement based on their class - where Cruisers were allowed to be bigger than Destroyers/etc. This does not apply anymore. Today, if it isn't a Carrier or an Assault Ship, it is called a Destroyer for the most part....even if it is as big and as capable as a Cruiser. But that doesn't apply at all to the Naval forces of the JSDF (Japanese Self Defense Force) - because of treaty limitations, they are not allowed to build any other surface combat ship other than Destroyers. For example, the new Izumo class Helicopter Destroyer is about the same size as a small Aircraft Carrier: www.military-today.com/navy/izumo_class.htmThe Zumwalt Class Destroyer was designed to replace the Iowa Class Battleships: www.military-today.com/navy/zumwalt_class.htmThese examples blur the lines even more! On the bright side, this "flexibility" we see in ship classifications today can certainly justify all kinds of variation by the time we get to interstellar warships serving in Starfleet or any other space-faring navy. |
|
|
|
Post by rabid on Apr 19, 2016 12:31:39 GMT -7
Oh no, the LCS! I'm in the *army* and i've heard about all the problems they've had with those. Maj Racal, and Tinker, thanks that makes more sense as to how to apply classes.
I've also noticed that unlike the US navy (in which the 5" deck gun is fairly standard on small ships), looking through the FASA books there's not much consistency between weapon types on different platforms even of the same size. For example it always bugged me that the Andor doesn't have FH-11's or FP-4's, not counting fan ships. I guess that keeps the game balanced.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gorn on Jul 22, 2017 15:07:53 GMT -7
Although GR never wanted it, I think Baker Destroyer class, and Chandley Frigate class add alot to Trek. I would love to see them. Fan films could easily have it happen.
I've used the idea that Chandley is made to carry Marines for planetside action if needed. Was great to add those rules to my homebrew.
|
|
|
|
Post by thescreamingswede on Jul 23, 2017 3:19:38 GMT -7
Although GR never wanted it, I think Baker Destroyer class, and Chandley Frigate class add alot to Trek. I would love to see them. Fan films could easily have it happen. I've used the idea that Chandley is made to carry Marines for planetside action if needed. Was great to add those rules to my homebrew. Or convert a Chandley over to perform hospital duty in hostile areas during a conflict, either on the ground or in space. I don't think it would be too much of a stretch and probably a fairly easy conversion, at least logistics wise.... |
|
|
|
Post by trynda1701 on Jul 23, 2017 10:33:18 GMT -7
Although GR never wanted it, I think Baker Destroyer class, and Chandley Frigate class add alot to Trek. I would love to see them. Fan films could easily have it happen. I've used the idea that Chandley is made to carry Marines for planetside action if needed. Was great to add those rules to my homebrew. Or convert a Chandley over to perform hospital duty in hostile areas during a conflict, either on the ground or in space. I don't think it would be too much of a stretch and probably a fairly easy conversion, at least logistics wise.... Oddly enough, I picked up a converted Chandley miniature years ago where someone had shortened the nacelle pylons so the nacelles were much closer to the primary hull, and it's painted up as a medical ship! Give me a a few days and I'll post a picture of it. Plus, how do people think such a Starfleet vessel might be armed, if it were armed? I think it might have minimum armament, with a dedicated escort vessel, a destroyer or light cruiser, like a Baker or Durrett class maybe? Mark |
|
|
|
Post by kaisernathan1701 on Jul 23, 2017 12:27:30 GMT -7
Or convert a Chandley over to perform hospital duty in hostile areas during a conflict, either on the ground or in space. I don't think it would be too much of a stretch and probably a fairly easy conversion, at least logistics wise.... Oddly enough, I picked up a converted Chandley miniature years ago where someone had shortened the nacelle pylons so the nacelles were much closer to the primary hull, and it's painted up as a medical ship! Give me a a few days and I'll post a picture of it. Plus, how do people think such a Starfleet vessel might be armed, if it were armed? I think it might have minimum armament, with a dedicated escort vessel, a destroyer or light cruiser, like a Baker or Durrett class maybe? Mark im assuming armed like normal just shorter nacelle pylons  Cant wait to see it FASA kitbash minis are a rare thing |
|
|
|
Post by Gorn on Jul 24, 2017 6:49:05 GMT -7
I was always impressed by the line in some manual I saw >30 years ago, it stated that every starfleet vessel had to have at least one phaser for defense.
I would imagine a medical ship would have standard phasers, if weaker ones. Maybe they would retain the phasers removed from the TOS connies as they were upgraded, and install them on the medical ships. Seems to me, though, that building them from scratch from the newer design set, they would "channel power directly from the warp core", giving the 1-10 power setting.
We can assume the "shutdown" problem of the artificial wormhole was engineered around, since there was talk of a bypass - at least in the novelized version of TMP.
|
|
|
|
Post by trynda1701 on Jul 27, 2017 16:45:03 GMT -7
|
|
