Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through January 29, 2009	25		01/29 09:53am

Gary Bear,

Yeah, I know thats a contradiction.

But It was I who posted the ""more "hull surface" to mount the ""shield emitters"." comment, not James Hallmark.

He's been consistant in championing the manuveribility angle.

I wanted to raise the issue because I feel that the added mass/structure of an additional engine and weapons mount ought to have some sort of impact... and that cuts two ways, positive (ie more shield boxes) and negative (ie poorer turn mode).

Of course I could be wildly wrong in my assumptions...

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, January 29, 2009 - 01:27 pm: Edit

Jeff,

Yes, as a ship's size increases so does its shields. This also occurs with wet-navy ships. In the case of wet-navy ships, it's a function of surface-area-to-volume. A larger ship has more less-surface-area per unit volume so you can mount heavier armor and more powerful weapons and still float.

SFB maintains this relationship between size and offense (number of weapons) and defense (size of shields) but it's not a strict relationship between volume and surface area. It can't be. Not with all the wierd shapes ships come in.

Case in point: Tholian DD has better shields than a D6B. So do romulan first-gen hawks.

So surface area has no relationship to shield strength. Adding an engine, therefore, does nothing for shields in and of itself.

It's like correlating number of heavy weapons to box-counts. It doesn't work.

The reason for heavier shields on this ship is the fact that it's intended to be a fleet-command platform, not a squadron-command platform as the C7 is. Take the C5, Average its shields with a C7 and you should be good to go.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, January 29, 2009 - 03:44 pm: Edit

John,

Sounds like a fair approach!

Lets compare the shield sizes of the C5 DNL and the C7:

Shield	C5	C7	Net Diff
Shld#1	44	36	8
Shld#2&6	36	30	6
Shld#3&5	30	24	6
Shld#4	30	24	6

So what kind of increase is warranted?

the net difference totals 38 shield boxes... so about 6 per shield. would 3-4 per shield work (possibly 4 or 6 on shield#1?!?)

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, January 29, 2009 - 04:47 pm: Edit

I think that perhaps you can't compare the Tholians to other races as far as shields go. They are alien enough to have their own shield tech (which is obviously incompatible with MWG tech. since it was never stolen.)

I have to wonder if the C7V doesn't have more hull surface with which is could mount more shield. My point is that I generally agree with John.

It could be that adding the engine might reduce the rear shields a bit. Probably not, but you see my point.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, January 29, 2009 - 05:32 pm: Edit

SO Loren, are you supporting adding afew boxes to the C7W shields facings? or opposed?

The net difference seems to be (based on the table i posted above) to be between 3 or 4 shild boxes per shield facing (the #1 shiled getting 4 or perhaps 6...)

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, February 03, 2009 - 10:30 pm: Edit

James hallmark,

this may be a good time for you to revise your proposal.

Normally, if any of the comments posted improves the ship, or is otherwise a "mandated" modification (SVC comments for one example) it would be appropriate to reflect that in the revised proposal.

some people list a revision number (such as C7W, Rev.2.0) or some such, while others don't bother.

Don't repeat the color commentary... its redundant, unnecessary and will some times earn a harsh comment. (beleive me, I like color commentary, but there are those who don't).

I would include referencing every improvement over the vanilla C7, and do indicate why you elected not to include any of the suggested modifications.

for example, I suggested a modest shield refit over what a C7 has...its ok if you disagree, but it would be helpful if you could site some reason (for example, a comment in the ship description that the C7 shields were already as powerful as they could be and were impossible to modify...)