Federation New Destroyer
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: New Product Development:
Module R3030 never built ships:
Federation New Destroyer
I recently posted photos of a bunch of Federation miniatures, including a kitbash for the somewhat mythical NDD (unbuilt design that led to the NCL). In the mini discussion, Paul Cordiero asked if I had done an SSD for the ship. While I had tinkered with an SSD for the mini before, I never really liked what I came up with. Inspired by the question, I decided to revisit my NDD SSD. This is the result:
Federation New Destroyer (NDD)
There were a number of self-imposed design constraints:
1. The SSD had to look like the mini.
2. I wanted to use Fed engines sizes that already exist.
3. I wanted a ship that was size class 4, as its called a destroyer. The Fed DD is already big as destroyers go, so this was going to push things a bit.
4. I wanted to hold on to some of the physical traits of the DD.
5. The ship needed to be inferior to the NCL
6. The ship needed to pre-date the plus refits applied to the DD hulls (due to the historical timing of the NCL and DD+ year in service dates).
After toying with a number of things, I ended up taking a DD saucer, adding a drone rack, and replacing the propulsion system with the engines (and associate move cost) of the CL. The engines on my NDD mini are physically about the size of the NCL's, so I'd say these are early, non-hot warp prototypes of the engines eventually used on the NCL. This is the main advantage the NCL has over this ship, but there are others. As a by-product of its smaller size class, it has weaker shields, fewer shuttles, less excess damage, poor damage control, and it starts out with only 28 power (unlike the NCL which starts with 32). The plus refit (which would not have been part of the original design and is provided for use if the ship had actually been built) improves things a bit, but because of the 3/4 move cost, this ship will never be quite as good as an NCL.
Anyway, I don't consider this a serious proposal (I'm sure ADB has gotten more proposals for this ship than SVC can shake a stick at), and its close enough to the existing NCL to not warrant a separate design, but I wanted to share what I came up with.
Jeremy,
I like both the SSD and miniature, nice job on both. I looked at (R2.202) which states the DDX was a heavily modified version of the DD+ (not a conversion)based on the unbuilt NDD. The DDX might look more like your miniature than the NCL.
Perhaps the reason the NCL had stability problems and a lower break down rating was the placement of the engines on top of the saucer and the addition of the structure between the engines.
Thanks Joseph. I do remember seeing a graphic of a Fed DDX that showed engines on top. On top or on bottom probably doesn't effect the boxes on the SSD (might impact things like BD as you mention), so no biggy from my perspective.
That said, I do have a mini I'm calling a DDX, with engines on the bottom...
http://jgray-sfb.com/Miniatures/Federation/fedmini_files/image125.jpg
Jeremy,
That is a cool miniature. How did you attach the engines and how did you make them? Did you use one of the CC saucers for the DDX saucer?
Begging the captain's pardon, but a NDD that's bigger than a NCL seems a little odd.
John T, I could be miscounting, but I don't think this ship is bigger than the NCL. Its only a couple of internal boxes smaller mind you, and I acknowledge that this is an odd duck (a size class 4 ship with a 3/4 move cost). A really odd duck.
The only other way I can think of to deal with this ship is as John P suggests - give it 9 point engines. That's been suggested before, and is usually critisized for being "non-standard". Unless the NDD is going to be a three-engine design like the DW, you end up kind of stuck.
Its wierd. I know. But if you more or less stick with a DD saucer, and its supposed to lead to the NCL, there ain't a lot of room to manuever design-wise.
I'm just sayin'...3/4 move cost vs 2/3 move cost.
The only other way I can think of to deal with this ship is as John P suggests - give it 9 point engines. That's been suggested before, and is usually critisized for being "non-standard". Unless the NDD is going to be a three-engine design like the DW, you end up kind of stuck.
What's wrong with 8-box engines? It doesn't give you the hot-warped "DW" warp power curve, but if the NDD were designed as standard-production DD instead of war production, it would make some sense.
If all else fails you could make it a lollipop. 
EDIT: Oh right. Doesn't fit the mini,
I've got to go along with John Trauger on this one. With 8-box engines the NDD still generates 20 power, 24 after the +refit. That's one point better than the standard DD.
And for that matter doesn't the the DW generate 23 power? I'm going from memory here but I believe that's correct. So the refitted NDD actually generates more total power than the DW, though it has less warp engine power. That strikes me as a more plausible design than a 32-power "DD with 3/4 MC".
As I said, I'm trying to avoid non-standard engines. 8 box is just as odd for a Fed as 9 box is. The 3/4 move cost is meant to reflect less efficient engines, not a heavier ship. As I see it, when it comes to engines on the NDD, you only have a few choices:
1) Blow off the whole "non-standard" thing and give it 2x9 box warp engines and a 1/2 move cost. Easy change to the above SSD...folks just have to accept the wierd engines (probably a reason the Feds didn't go there). All in all, I like this better, but wanted to try something different here.
2) Use 6-box warp engines in a trio like the DW.
3) Do what I did.
4) Different approach entirely - the NDD is an NCL saucer with a single, 15 box warp engine and a 1/2 move cost. Main advantage over the DD is a bigger shuttle bay.
Believe me guys, I hear ya. This thing looks the way it does because I remember people having a beef with non-standard engines types. I'm really fine with smaller engines, but my recollection is the wank over 8 and 9 box engines has killed previous discussions of this thing.
Also, keep in mind the NDD is designed before the Feds applied the + refit to DDs and the NCL was not yet on the drawing board. If the Feds had gone with this NDD, it would have first appeared with 28 power on a 3/4 move cost. If this NDD became a reality, the NCL would have probably never been built. Only when the GW started would the AWRs be added, and this would have to serve as the Fed CW. Not so good...thus why it didn't happen.
The problem is the •••• DD is already freakin' huge as destoyers go. Its bigger than a Kzinti CL! Try to "improve" it in any way, and it starts looking like a cruiser. I will point out that one other weirdo ship like this already exists in SFB: the Klingon F6. A move cost 2/3, size class 4 ship.
Jeremy,
Actually, I think your point 1) is a point in favor of a 1/2 MC NDD with 8 (or 9) box engines. The NDD wasn't built (I'm not sure whether none were built or whether a prototype or two might have been built - but in any event it never entered serial production) and the non-standard engine issue is a plausible reason why it wasn't built.
I'm with Alan.
As bad as 8-9 box engines are, an eating-disordered DD is actually worse.
I can handle a SC4 MC 2/3 ship OK. There's a few anacronistic SC + MC ships in SFB (tholian D-hull) MS 3/4 strains my credulity.
The pursuit of universal happiness, and so John doesn't pull something , here is a revised NDD as I described above.
Note, the SSD to original ship is still posted as well. I'm pretty sure SVC has already said that any official NDD would be done in-house by ADB (and I'd be shocked if SSDs like this had not already been submitted anyway). So, if somebody wants to play around with an NDD, they can take their pick.
Like I've said before, I've always preferred the 9-box engine option. So I'm personnally happy with option 2. Its a nastier ship.
My understanding is that the NDD was not built specifically because the 8-9 point nacelles were not standard. I believe the last time SVC commented on it, several years ago, it was a 8-9 point nacelles with a DD+ plus drone rack config. This would make since looking at the DDX which this ship was supposedly a predecessor to.
I can't seem to find the earlier discussion on this, but the board has changed a lot and it looks like it could have been deleted. Come to think of it maybe it was in the R10 or R11 thread from a long time ago.
