|
|
Post by tinker on Feb 23, 2019 14:51:00 GMT -7
We have all posted our likes, dislikes, concerns, etc. regarding the various Ship Recognition Manuals. There are errors, inconsistencies and sometimes things that just don't make any sense. I don't fault the crew at FASA for any of it. Having worked on my own projects, I can see how daunting the task really is.
But we have the opportunity go through the manuals and rework/correct the designs - essentially introducing a new and improved edition.
FASA had limited time, staff and resources to compile these manuals. The internet was also in its relative infancy as well.
What am I getting at? We have literally thousands of fan generated designs found on the internet that are really spectacular and we have some FASA designs that are lackluster. We have an opportunity (should we so desire) to evaluate these designs to see if we would like to add them the SRMs or possibly replace the less desirable ones with new, fresh ideas.
Maybe our results could be published on the this forum's parent site. Who knows.
As to the process we would follow, I will provide some ideas only if there is some serious interest.
Any takers?
|
|
|
|
Post by tinker on Mar 12, 2019 4:52:26 GMT -7
OK, 50 views with no comments and no interest...moving on then.
|
|
|
|
Post by SITZKRIEG! on Mar 12, 2019 19:07:58 GMT -7
I can't speak for anyone else but I'd personally prefer to bring new ships into the game rather than fixing the existing official ones. I'd support others in their quest to do so but it's not personally my thing except for an occasional new Mk of a ship that I feel needs updating. YMMV.
|
|
|
|
Post by thescreamingswede on Mar 14, 2019 22:44:39 GMT -7
I am not against such a project as there are already other sites that are putting out fan bases Ship Recognition Manuals already. I have noticed though that these manuals only seem to promote certain people's designs, good or bad.
I do have several issues that I feel would need to be addressed before proceeding with any new "publication" that features new designs (for any/all races) and especially if existing ones are going to be redone, for whatever reason.
The main problem in reediting existing designs, especially ones that do not seem to conform with the Construction Manual, is "where does the error lie?" We've disagreed on this before. Several ships across all the SRMs don't seem to jive with the Construction manual in more than just mass. Sometimes the MPR choices don't make sense for a given engine design; a lesser efficient MPR being used instead of a better one being available. Or "that ship can't use that engine at that MPR because it's not listed in that column of the MPR chart" etc. If three designs use that MPR for that engine at that mass in the SRM, is the SRM wrong, or was the error in the Construction Manual? These discrepancies need to be ironed out before any work could commence on updating any existing design or the construction of new ones in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by tinker on Mar 15, 2019 5:21:22 GMT -7
Sometimes the MPR choices don't make sense for a given engine design; a lesser efficient MPR being used instead of a better one being available. Or "that ship can't use that engine at that MPR because it's not listed in that column of the MPR chart" etc. If three designs use that MPR for that engine at that mass in the SRM, is the SRM wrong, or was the error in the Construction Manual? These discrepancies need to be ironed out before any work could commence on updating any existing design or the construction of new ones in my opinion. I have never seen choosing a less efficient MPR as a "flaw". It is kinda like buying a car today. The same engine may be found in a truck or a sports car. It is tuned for torque in one case and horsepower in the other. Or built to a more cost-effective standard for a "reasonably priced car" (let's see who gets this reference). One design may be older than another. The older design is using a less efficient version of an engine than a newer design. In my own Romulan SRM for TNG, I intentionally used less efficient MPRs on the "older" Romulan Warbirds to reflect them just getting an initial grasp on AQS technology and to reflect them being less maneuverable/efficient than newer designs. The point being I am OK with not "always" using the best MPR available for a specific application. Now if a certain engine/MPR combo is not valid according to the construction rules, then I would certainly lean towards correcting the MPR or selecting an engine combo that is legal according to the construction manual that emulates the original design as closely as possible. That said, yes, I find some choices in MPR for some designs to be a bit bewildering. The Klingon D-32 immediately comes to mind (as an example). I personally think it should have had a 3/1 MPR instead of the 4/1 ratio it was given. Other designs, I am fine with them having a less efficient MPR - the Klingon L-42B comes to mind here as well. I like it having a lower MPR so it does not completely overshadow the A model. In cases like these, we can discuss the merits of making a change or not. The idea here is to do this as a collective project - to promote more interaction and involvement among the members here as well as producing a well thought out, quality "2nd edition" version of the SRMs. Of course this would be conditional on the goals of the project. We would first have to (collectively) decide just how far we want to go with these SRMs. Do we want to limit this project to reproducing the original designs as faithfully as possible within the construction rules? Do we want to make minor tweaks and alterations to "fix" designs that appear seriously flawed? Do we want to go all out and incorporate completely new designs as well? This would be among the first decisions we would have to make. |
|
|
|
Post by thescreamingswede on Mar 15, 2019 11:43:49 GMT -7
Sometimes the MPR choices don't make sense for a given engine design; a lesser efficient MPR being used instead of a better one being available. Or "that ship can't use that engine at that MPR because it's not listed in that column of the MPR chart" etc. If three designs use that MPR for that engine at that mass in the SRM, is the SRM wrong, or was the error in the Construction Manual? These discrepancies need to be ironed out before any work could commence on updating any existing design or the construction of new ones in my opinion. I have never seen choosing a less efficient MPR as a "flaw". It is kinda like buying a car today. The same engine may be found in a truck or a sports car. It is tuned for torque in one case and horsepower in the other. Or built to a more cost-effective standard for a "reasonably priced car" (let's see who gets this reference). One design may be older than another. The older design is using a less efficient version of an engine than a newer design. In my own Romulan SRM for TNG, I intentionally used less efficient MPRs on the "older" Romulan Warbirds to reflect them just getting an initial grasp on AQS technology and to reflect them being less maneuverable/efficient than newer designs. The point being I am OK with not "always" using the best MPR available for a specific application. Now if a certain engine/MPR combo is not valid according to the construction rules, then I would certainly lean towards correcting the MPR or selecting an engine combo that is legal according to the construction manual that emulates the original design as closely as possible. That said, yes, I find some choices in MPR for some designs to be a bit bewildering. The Klingon D-32 immediately comes to mind (as an example). I personally think it should have had a 3/1 MPR instead of the 4/1 ratio it was given. Other designs, I am fine with them having a less efficient MPR - the Klingon L-42B comes to mind here as well. I like it having a lower MPR so it does not completely overshadow the A model. In cases like these, we can discuss the merits of making a change or not. The idea here is to do this as a collective project - to promote more interaction and involvement among the members here as well as producing a well thought out, quality "2nd edition" version of the SRMs. Of course this would be conditional on the goals of the project. We would first have to (collectively) decide just how far we want to go with these SRMs. Do we want to limit this project to reproducing the original designs as faithfully as possible within the construction rules? Do we want to make minor tweaks and alterations to "fix" designs that appear seriously flawed? Do we want to go all out and incorporate completely new designs as well? This would be among the first decisions we would have to make. You've misinterpreted my comment. What I was getting at is that there are examples of ships in the SRM using a specific MPR for a certain class when the construction manual lists a better one, however there are NO examples of ships using the better MPR in the SRM manual for that weight class. I put forth that, in these examples, the Construction Manual contains the error and that the examples in the Recognition manual are actually correct and do not need to be changed. You postulate it the other way around and instead of changing the one error in the Construction manual you decide to change the three ships, sometimes to the point of rewriting/constructing them to fit your narrative. That's where I was going with that comment. A prime example is the very ship you mention, the L-42B. It is a class X vessel utilizing the KWE-3 tandem warp drive. The SRM lists the MPR as 4/1. The L-9F/G are also Class X vessels using the KWE-3 tandem warp drive. The SRM lists the MPR as 4/1 The D-10F/G/H models use the KWE-3 tandem warp drive in the Class X bracket as well. Guess what the MPR is? Now the Construction manual lists the KWE-3 tandem drive, Class X, in the 4/1 MPR column, but it also lists it in the 3/1 column as well. After close inspection of the SRM, there are no other examples of the KWE-3 tandem being used in Class X at a 3/1 MPR (the T-12 "Carrier of Doom" uses the KWE-3 tandem, but it's Class IX, although it lists an MPR of 4/1. That I posit is a typo). In this instance I put forth the recognition manuals are correct and the construction book is in error, however there are many, many fan based ships out there that take advantage of that typo. So the question remains.... ... where does the error lay? Additionally, it is also notable that even now, engines can be and are detuned for various reasons and do not always operate on the best or most powerful setting. Ford's new pickup line (2019) Ecoboost V6 can be set for various modes, including a Sport option. Each of these options provides benefits and drawbacks unique to the situation needed. Towing, general or distance cruising, speed, low torque, etc. Like I said, I would be on board for such a project, but the basic parameters of construction would have to be agreed upon first. The group is way too large to get a good consensus, but if a committee were to tackle the base construction guidelines; fix the typos, error, and inconsistencies, then good designs could be started while the mistakes in the existing material could be worked out. |
|
|
|
Post by krebizfan on Mar 15, 2019 12:47:37 GMT -7
The warp maximums differ between the various MPRs as well. I think FASA made a mistake by having the more maneuverable ships also reach higher warp speeds. The KWE-3 with a 3 to 1 MPR is also an extra warp factor faster. I would have inverted that so the highest warp speed ships would be slightly less maneuverable.
I can't find any Fed design that uses the higher MPRs with the FWA-1 which would have been a clue as to how FASA saw the different MPR ratings fitting into design uses.
|
|
|
|
Post by tinker on Mar 16, 2019 6:01:37 GMT -7
You've misinterpreted my comment. What I was getting at is that there are examples of ships in the SRM using a specific MPR for a certain class when the construction manual lists a better one, however there are NO examples of ships using the better MPR in the SRM manual for that weight class. I put forth that, in these examples, the Construction Manual contains the error and that the examples in the Recognition manual are actually correct and do not need to be changed. You postulate it the other way around and instead of changing the one error in the Construction manual you decide to change the three ships, sometimes to the point of rewriting/constructing them to fit your narrative. That's where I was going with that comment. Sorry swede, I did misunderstand your point and it is a good one. One thing that is obvious is that all of the manuals are not as refined as FASA or we would like. Where do the errors lay? That's easy: Everywhere. There are a lot of errors found in all of the manuals...the Construction Manual and SRMs included. However, I would argue against your conclusions regarding the KWE-3 warp engines having only a single MPR option for a specific class. The Construction Manual has far too many entries where the same power plants have multiple MPR options for any given class to be a mistake. Otherwise the charts would be far, far simpler (and boring to boot!). I would argue that the T-12 has the correct MPR and not a typo. I would also argue that the reason why we don't see any Class X ships equipped with these engines having a an MPR of 3/1 is not because it shouldn't be possible, but that FASA simply chose to not include any designs with that option. That is kinda the point I was making. The different options for MPR for the warp engines is to allow for ships to be designed (simply) with more options. The KWE-3 warp engine could be combined with different impulse engines and different MPRs to add color to the design rules without adding complexity. I would be glad to see you participate, swede. However, I think you are overestimating the level of participation in this project. I suspect we will will have fewer than ten members (I'm guessing closer to five) who will be participating in this project, so I think a consensus (or at least a majority vote) would not be too hard to achieve. Like I said in my first post, we would have decide just what we want to accomplish to begin with and as you pointed out, how we will do it. |
|
|
|
Post by cowboy40 on Mar 16, 2019 10:16:11 GMT -7
I am a purist when it comes to FASA. I don't like playing around with their stats at all...some ships are just meant to be. I do agree certain things should be corrected...glowing examples of that are the listed FH-3 phasers on the Andor class should be FH-13 and the fact that on the Constitution lists, there should actually be four types listed to match up with text. But as for redoing ships to make up for shortages in system, I totally disagree with that...they were put this way for a reason...
|
|
|
|
Post by tinker on Mar 16, 2019 13:58:59 GMT -7
...they were put this way for a reason... So you don't think that FASA would have introduced updated SRMs had they kept the franchise? |
|
|
|
Post by cowboy40 on Mar 16, 2019 16:21:24 GMT -7
...they were put this way for a reason... So you don't think that FASA would have introduced updated SRMs had they kept the franchise? As we progressed though the timeline, I believe they would have released follow on SRMs, that introduced us to new classes, but I think they would have kept the stuff they already had, i think they wold have corrected continuity errors and typos. But, I also believe they had reasoning for introducing what they did when they did. |
|
|
|
Post by thescreamingswede on Mar 16, 2019 16:29:03 GMT -7
I didn't say that in the example of the KWE-3 (or any other for that matter) that the MPR should be limited to one choice for a specific class, and I am well aware of the broad MPR choices for most engines in any class for any race. What I said was that since there are no examples of a Klingon vessel using that particular engine in that weight class at that particular MPR, but several that use the higher, less efficient MPR, then the lower 3/1 MPR is an error and should be one of the things that should be corrected, a.k.a. omitted/ignored. Some errors are quite obvious, like the FH-3/FH-13, but that's an easy fix. If the stats are for the FH-13 then bingo, typo found, however in our previous example of the KWE-3 you and I will never agree. The existing data backs my point, but you still staunchly assert that you are right and that the 3/1 MPR should stand. It's discrepancies like that that are going to cause the issues, even with a small contingent of members doing the work and this is just one example. There is an entire mountain of work that has to be gone through. Who gets final say on what is an error and what is not? I have no doubts that you have gone through the entire FASA catalogue and made your corrections because I have done the same and I guarantee that we agree on some points but disagree on others. Cowboy40 said: I am willing to accept that logic, though I am not against correcting certain things, like the mass of the Gorn BH-2, which is NOT a class IX vessel with its listed load out (which changes the MPR by the way, but that's an argument for later) but on the whole, I've used the ships pretty much "as is" since my introduction to the game back in the early 80s (Very. Very. Early. 80s)  and won't change now. |
|
|
|
Post by tinker on Mar 18, 2019 4:58:06 GMT -7
I didn't say that in the example of the KWE-3 (or any other for that matter) that the MPR should be limited to one choice for a specific class, and I am well aware of the broad MPR choices for most engines in any class for any race. What I said was that since there are no examples of a Klingon vessel using that particular engine in that weight class at that particular MPR, but several that use the higher, less efficient MPR, then the lower 3/1 MPR is an error and should be one of the things that should be corrected, a.k.a. omitted/ignored. But were you not arguing that the T-12 had a typo because it had a different MPR than other Class IX ships? If the manual did include a Class X ship with a 3/1 MPR, would you argue that it was a typo as well? I was not advocating for any Class X ship in the SRM as currently written have its MPR adjusted to a 3/1 - only that a 3/1 MPR still be considered valid because of the construction rules. Otherwise, we will run into problems with the D-7S. When following the construction rules, it will actually just go over the line to be a Class X warship instead of a Class IX. Forcing it to change to have a 4/1 MPR would be crippling (unless you change the power plants completely - which would make it a non-issue). I think that if we compared notes as to our corrections that they wouldn't be too different. I think they would be variations on a theme. |
|
|
|
Post by thescreamingswede on Mar 19, 2019 18:22:08 GMT -7
There are no other Class IX ships using the tandem KWE-3 in the book that have a 4/1 MPR. The D-7M, R and S have a 3/1 MPR, so does the D-18B and C. I will capitulate that the T-12 may very well have a 4/1 MPR because FASA chose to give it that, but that would be the only explanation.
You may not have been advocating changing the MPR of existing ships to the 3/1, however there is no precedent for the KWE-3 to have a 3/1 MPR at that weight class at all, except to exploit the error.
Look at the L-42. In the A variant is Class IX and receives a 3/1 MPR from the KWF-1 Tandem drive it was built with. Now the moment it is upped to Class X when the B variant is released it receives the KWE-3 but is forced into the 4/1 bracket. Again, FASA may have simply chosen to give it the less efficient MPR, but since the L-42 is one of their premiere designs (anything they would bother to market a miniature for would fall into that category in my opinion), it seems illogical to do that unless the KWE-3 wasn't meant to have a 3/1 MPR in that category. Which brings me to the D-7S...
...which is exactly why I believe the Class X 3/1 MPR is a typo. While examples are limited (i.e. the L-42A/B) it proves that the increase in weight required a change in the warp drive. If the D-7S is overweight, then the choice is either to dim down something to get it underweight or accept the fact that the added mass affected the MPR (or change the warp drive, though there isn't any others that perform in the Class X-3/1 MPR bracket). Yes, it cripples the D-7S, but a mass change will do that. It's a matter of what everyone is willing to accept. Kind of like WDF. I've seen ships with marginally higher WDF than the stated computer can handle. Two versions of the Chandley fall into that category. To work around it, they call the computer an M-6A and give it a slight boost in both weight and WDF capability. Perhaps something could be considered for the case of "marginally overweight" ships in order to keep continuity in current designs.
You are probably correct. That's why I'm still game to give this a go.
|
|
|
|
Post by tinker on Mar 21, 2019 5:14:05 GMT -7
Look at the L-42. In the A variant is Class IX and receives a 3/1 MPR from the KWF-1 Tandem drive it was built with. Now the moment it is upped to Class X when the B variant is released it receives the KWE-3 but is forced into the 4/1 bracket. Again, FASA may have simply chosen to give it the less efficient MPR, but since the L-42 is one of their premiere designs (anything they would bother to market a miniature for would fall into that category in my opinion), it seems illogical to do that unless the KWE-3 wasn't meant to have a 3/1 MPR in that category. Then how do you explain the L-42B being equipped with KP-5 torpedoes instead of the KP-6 (as stated in its description)? Yes, the L-42 is one of the best designs the Klingons have - but FASA was not allowed to make it (or any other design) TOO good. Paramount interfered a lot with the development of the SRMs. They firmly believed in "let the wookie win". In a one-on-one scenario, the majority of the Federation ships were to have an unfair advantage over their opponents. FASA didn't like it, but they had to abide by it. That is why you see that most of the Federation designs are at least average capability and above with only a couple of lemons. For the other SRMs, FASA was instructed to make most of the designs mediocre and for every good design they provided, they had to include two lemons. That is why the L-42B has a 4/1 MPR and KP-5 torpedoes. It couldn't be too good. You are looking to FASA's "intent" - what if their "intent" was exactly as the D-7S was represented? A 3/1 MPR with additional KD-8 disruptors and KP-4 torpedoes? Do we cripple it because we think the design rules are in error or do we remain faithful to how the design was intended to work and the design rules currently allow? Yes, the Chandley irked me with its M-6"A" computer. It was pretty much cheating in my book. I think the Chandley would be impressive enough with FH-10 phasers (which was my fix for the design). The Chandley could never take full advantage of the extra power the FH-11 could handle anyway and the FH-10 (IMO) was woefully under represented for the second best phaser in the Federation inventory. I'm glad to see you are willing to participate. |
|
|
|
Post by tinker on Mar 23, 2019 5:54:42 GMT -7
Anyone else interested?
|
|
|
|
Post by tinker on May 1, 2019 5:41:15 GMT -7
Notice: This week's Apathy Awareness Meeting has been cancelled due to lack of interest.
|
|
|
|
Post by starcruiser on May 1, 2019 9:05:46 GMT -7
I don't know man... I'm kinda apathetic...
|
|
|
|
Post by thescreamingswede on May 2, 2019 14:08:34 GMT -7
Sorry. Some real life stuff has had to take the forward spot in the cortex, so I haven't really had time to devote to this. I'm sure it will happen if someone starts the ball rolling.
|
|
|
|
Post by tinker on May 3, 2019 4:49:21 GMT -7
I was waiting to what kind of interest it could muster - which to be frank, is nearly non-existent. The secondary goal was to "polish" the SRMs up a bit and breathe new life into the game by introducing the changes. The primary goal was to get the members involved and engaged in a community project. Unfortunately, the interest just isn't there.
The process was more important than the result.
|
|
|
|
Post by JAFisher44 on May 3, 2019 13:31:59 GMT -7
I'm not sure what exactly you would want this project to achieve or how you imagine it would work. From the OP it seems to be a suggestion that we come together as a forum and make new SRMs by fixing their flaws and adding new ships. My question is, why should and how could this be a forum project? Anyone can gather fan designs from the internet and compile them into a single document for people's convenience. Were you hoping that forum members would reach some kind of consensus on what should be included, thus lending the final product some sort of legitimacy?
I'm asking, What would be the final goal of the project?
|
|
|
|
Post by tinker on May 4, 2019 5:51:29 GMT -7
The final goal would be to effectively introduce sort of a "2nd edition" series of SRMs. But again, that was supposed to be secondary to the process - which was to fully engage the members of this community in a common project.
As for legitimacy? Is that even possible for a board game that maybe 20-30 people in the entire country still care about?
|
|
|
|
Post by krebizfan on May 4, 2019 21:09:01 GMT -7
The only way to do such a project would be to select a ship, propose some changes, and let it be thrashed out.
|
|
|
|
Post by bazbaziah on May 5, 2019 5:59:19 GMT -7
The final goal would be to effectively introduce sort of a "2nd edition" series of SRMs. But again, that was supposed to be secondary to the process - which was to fully engage the members of this community in a common project. As for legitimacy? Is that even possible for a board game that maybe 20-30 people in the entire country still care about? Don't forget the few across the pond or even further afield? Jim |
|
|
|
Post by starcruiser on May 5, 2019 8:24:41 GMT -7
We've have to find as many people as possible to get a good range of opinions on any changes...
In some ways, it almost sounds like we'd have to just "start from scratch" and build a new game system based off the STSTCS.
|
|
and won't change now.
