|
Post by kaisernathan1701 on Jan 6, 2019 0:07:16 GMT -7
|
|
bernard Guignard
Lieutenant
Trek Canon!!! I NO believe in TreK Canon!!!.
Posts: 137
|
Post by bernard Guignard on Jan 6, 2019 5:04:16 GMT -7
I can help you with that I archived some of his work. Pm me your E-mail
Live Long and Prosper Technically Bernard Guignard
|
|
|
Post by JAFisher44 on Jan 6, 2019 11:15:21 GMT -7
Can't you just post them here for everyone?
|
|
|
Post by trynda1701 on Jan 6, 2019 11:18:16 GMT -7
Can't you just post them here for everyone? I'd love to see that, with the appropriate credit of course. It was an interesting web page, and deserves to be preserved as part of FASA history.
|
|
|
Post by rabid on Jan 6, 2019 16:49:58 GMT -7
Agreed that would be cool!
|
|
|
Post by kaisernathan1701 on Jan 6, 2019 19:33:20 GMT -7
|
|
|
Post by tinker on Jan 7, 2019 5:43:40 GMT -7
Nice find!
|
|
|
Post by rabid on Jan 7, 2019 21:13:05 GMT -7
indeed! It improves on the chandley in a lot of ways, accounting for extra mass.
This seems to make more sense for that purpose than just stacking reliant saucers on the enterprise, ETC.
|
|
bernard Guignard
Lieutenant
Trek Canon!!! I NO believe in TreK Canon!!!.
Posts: 137
|
Post by bernard Guignard on Jan 8, 2019 6:29:49 GMT -7
Glad to help out fellow trek fans
|
|
|
Post by walrusguy on Jan 8, 2019 9:32:24 GMT -7
I swear I saw a high-end drawing of this along with stats...or am I just loosing my mind?
|
|
|
Post by rabid on Jan 8, 2019 10:13:24 GMT -7
walrusguy what does the one have to do with th other? 😆
|
|
|
Post by trynda1701 on Jan 8, 2019 12:50:36 GMT -7
|
|
|
Post by kaisernathan1701 on Jan 8, 2019 21:05:11 GMT -7
I thought the small craft looked a bit different on the site but whatevers
|
|
|
Post by rabid on Jan 9, 2019 5:17:56 GMT -7
You know this is a little reminiscent of the M'benga
|
|
|
Post by kaisernathan1701 on Jan 12, 2019 22:25:26 GMT -7
|
|
bernard Guignard
Lieutenant
Trek Canon!!! I NO believe in TreK Canon!!!.
Posts: 137
|
Post by bernard Guignard on Jan 13, 2019 7:19:43 GMT -7
Glad to see that someone else has been archiving also
|
|
|
Post by walrusguy on Jan 14, 2019 13:07:47 GMT -7
Let me start by saying - MAN Do I like this design! OK – so there are a few minor issues “as designed” – most significant of which is the overall weight. With the listed equipment (unless I’ve way missed something – jinkies! I hope I didn’t miss something!) she weighs in at a mere 177,285 mt – under the 185,000 mt listed – and only a class XI rather than a Class XII. With the additional 16,500 mt of cargo…she at 193,785 mt. FASA ships can be anywhere from 3% to a whopping 23% above the listed “weight” restriction when fully loaded. (Oddly enough – it’s the Chandley that is 23% overweight! Interesting!!) Even with a full compliment of fighters and shuttles – I think we might be having a minor weight discrepancy. I don’t know who originally designed it or what stat book they used – so no telling where the base design stats come from. That being said – you can see that the original Mk I stats are a bit different. AT WORST – she’d have 32 Superstructure points…and to bump it up to a Class XII – you’d have to add in a few to get to 34 SS or higher. So I guess the question is – do we try and track down the original designer and see if he or she minds us tweaking the original stats? Do we just live with the discrepancies and overlook the differences? Or do we call it something else and put out a set of corrected stats. The next questions is – do we go with a Class XI or try and work a Class XII? fasaststcs.com/?p=4467
|
|
|
Post by tinker on Jan 15, 2019 6:42:12 GMT -7
OK – so there are a few minor issues “as designed” – most significant of which is the overall weight. With the listed equipment (unless I’ve way missed something – jinkies! I hope I didn’t miss something!) she weighs in at a mere 177,285 mt – under the 185,000 mt listed – and only a class XI rather than a Class XII. With the additional 16,500 mt of cargo…she at 193,785 mt. The design rules allow you to add mass to a design without necessarily adding anything else to compensate. Look at the Klingon L-42A...it is not a Class IX ship as built, but a Class VIII. FASA just upped its mass the bare minimum for Class IX so it could use the KSP shield generator. I think it should be left as Class XI - given that the Chandley is underweight as well.
|
|
|
Post by walrusguy on Jan 15, 2019 8:00:52 GMT -7
The L-42 is one of the MANY minor issues we've tried to correct. Luckily - just adding 2 SS points gets it too the needed 120,000+ weight. Believe it or not - there are over a half dozen ships that have that problem...usually just adding in the requisite SS points gets the job done. Unfortunately - they also did the reverse on several ships - just round down or not include some equipment just so a designated design "fit".
The real issue with the Churchill is that it's listed with 28 SS - but the equipment is 32 SS...and if you add in 4 more SS, you bump it up too the listed Class XII. I'm easy going - so I think either works. It really comes down to what the original designer wants - and baring that - what the group at large wants. (I'm with you - the class XI seems just fine.)
|
|
|
Post by tinker on Jan 16, 2019 6:21:27 GMT -7
I personally didn't like FASA "cheating" when they designed the Chandley to begin with by giving it more weapons than the computer could handle. Besides, the ship doesn't have enough power to support 6 FH-11 phasers. I redesigned it to be equipped with FH-10s instead. The FH-10 is the second best phaser in the Federation arsenal, but is woefully underrepresented. Only early models of the Reliant (Miranda) are equipped with it. By stepping down the phasers, you don't need to cheat with the computer and it can more easily power these weapons.
If it doesn't fit, redesign it. That is what I do.
|
|
|
Post by pericles on Jan 17, 2019 11:50:55 GMT -7
I went looking though my files and here is what I have for the Churchill:
Race: Federation Construction Data: Ship Class - XI Model Number - Mark I Date Entering Service - 2/2301 Number Constructed - 14 Construction Location - Brooklyn Construction Yards Sol/Terra Hull Number - NCC-2300 Hull Data: Superstructure Points - 32 Damage Chart - C Size: Overall Length - 308 meters Overall Beam - 291 meters Overall Draft - 98 meters Gross Weight - 177,285 mt Cargo: Cargo Units - 3,300 SCU Cargo Capacity - 165,000 mt Equipment Data: Control Computer Type - M6A Transporters: standard 6 person - 8 emergency - 4 combat 20 person - 8 cargo - 4 Support Data: Crew - 488 Passengers - 75 Troops (SFMC) - 267 Hanger: Shuttlecraft - 6-14 Gunboats - 6-12 Engine and Power Data: Total Power Units - 68 Warp Engine Type - FWG-2 Number - 2 Power Units Available - 22 per Movement Points Ratio - 4/1 Stress Chart - H/K Maximum Cruising Speed - warp 8 Emergency Speed - warp 10 Impulse Engine Type - FIG-1 Power Units Available - 24
Weapons and Firing Data: Beam Weapon Type - FH-11 Phaser Number - 8 mounted in 3 banks of 2, and 2 banks of 1 Firing Arcs - 2f, 2f/p, 2f/s, 1f/p/a, 1f/s/a Firing Chart - Y Maximum Power - 10 Damage Modifiers: +3 (1-10) +2 (11-17) +1 (18-24) Missile Weapon Type - FP-4 Photon Torpedo Number - 2 Firing Arcs - 1f/p, 1f/s Firing Chart - S Power to Arm - 1 Damage - 20 Shield Data: Deflector Shield Type - FSP Shield Point Ratio - 1/4 Maximum Shield Power - 16 Combat Efficiency: WDF-110.6 D-165.8 Hanger Deck, Small Crafts Manifest: Standard ships' complement: Work Bees: -10 Transport Pods - 2 Utility Shuttlecraft - 6 sub-light only, personnel or cargo Combat Craft VMF SFMC: SF - 15 Stalker - 8 online, 2 reserve SF - 15A2 Pathfinder - 2 converted SF-15, to reconnaissance craft
|
|
|
Post by pericles on Jan 17, 2019 11:52:55 GMT -7
In addition, here are the SF-15 Stalker fighters
Race: United Federation of Planets Code Name: SF-15 Stalker Construction Data: Date Entering Service: 2/2301 Motto: "We who are about to die salute you!" Hull Data: Superstructure Points- 2 Class I Mass 4813 Damage Chart- C Size Length - 23.25 meters Width - 12.75 meters Height - 7.5 meters Cargo - None Equipment Data: Control Computer Type- L-13 Transporters- Standard 6-person- 1 Other Data: Crew- 8 Officers- 2 Engines and Power Data: Total Power Units Available- 11 Movement Point Ratio- 1/1 Warp Engine Type- FMWC Number- 2 Power Units Available- 4 each Stress Charts- B/B Maximum Safe Cruising Speed- W/F 2 Emergency Speed- W/F 3 Impulse Engine Type- FMIC Number- 1 Power Units Available- 3 Weapons and Firing Data: Beam Weapon Type- FH-2 Number- 1 Firing Arcs- 1 f/p/s, Firing Chart- H Maximum Power 3 Damage Bonus +1: 1-10 Missile Weapon Type- FP-11 Number- 4 Firing Arcs- 4 f Firing Chart- d Damage 3 Power to Arm 1 Shields Data: Deflector Shield Type- FSA Shield Point Ratio- 1/1 Maximum Shield Power- 12 Defense Factor- 35.5 Weapon Damage Factor- 4.9 Cost: 70.8 MCr
I don't have the stats on the Pathfinder version, but I would suppose deleting a couple of the photons to add additional sensors would fit the bill.
|
|
|
Post by rabid on Jan 18, 2019 16:49:10 GMT -7
Fighters need to be 1/2 MPr whenever possible. Looks like a ship I want to try though
|
|
|
Post by pericles on Jan 19, 2019 12:15:52 GMT -7
I agree, but in the designer's defense, these are large fighters, so a 1/1 MPR isn't completely off track.
|
|
|
Post by tinker on Jan 19, 2019 13:11:53 GMT -7
It doesn't matter, the design rules suck when it comes to designing small craft. Take this fighter for example: It cannot power its front shield to full strength using every power point it has. The same level of power would allow the Enterprise heavy cruiser to protect its complete frontal arc. Does that sound right to anyone?
|
|