Archive through September 28, 2011

Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Starline 2500 Miniatures: Gorn Ships: Making the HDD, CS, CM different: Archive through September 28, 2011
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, September 27, 2011 - 04:23 pm: Edit

In the 2400s, we use the same minis for the BC as we do for the CS-CM, and we use the same mini for the CL as we do for the HDD.

I'd like to consider the idea that the HDD, CS, and CM be "different" and more modern even if that violates the holy precept of existing artwork.

The first idea I had was to make their bubbles octagons. Anybody else have an idea?

By Donovan A Willett (Ravenhull) on Tuesday, September 27, 2011 - 04:31 pm: Edit

I kinda think using what was used for the BCX in 2400 for the Gorn 'war' models. Having the flat edge of the disks could give them the 'rapidly built' feel over the smoother lines of the older ships. As for the octogons, that kinda feels wrong in my mind, and I know my opinion isn't in any way meaningful, but to me the rounded feel of the Gorn is one of their defining looks. Would be like doing the same with the Fed NCL.

Just my .02 Fed Credit

By Greg Ernest (Grege) on Tuesday, September 27, 2011 - 04:46 pm: Edit

I'm not big on the octagons.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, September 27, 2011 - 04:47 pm: Edit

All ideas are welcome. As are all comments on other ideas.

By Jack Bohn (Jackbohn) on Tuesday, September 27, 2011 - 04:54 pm: Edit

I like the roundness of the gorn ships as they are.

Over in the "What I'd do different" subject, Will McCammon has suggested the smaller ships have a smaller diameter, but taller, bubbles.

I would like to see this more bulbous look.

By Mike Novean (Blackdice) on Tuesday, September 27, 2011 - 05:04 pm: Edit

Keep the plan view round but change the edges from tapering to make a right angle (more like the fed saucers). This would give more room per deck and maybe make the saucers a slightly smaller diameter yet have the same internal volume.

Less surface area = less material for external plating which during war time construction would be useful.

By Damon Robert Anderson (Rihan704) on Tuesday, September 27, 2011 - 05:17 pm: Edit

I think I echo what Mike Novean is saying. Mess around with the thickness, but keep the circular shape.

Maybe some kind of distinctive cut-aways like the back of the D7 could be applied to a side view of the bubbles. To the casual observer the D6 and D7 aren't going to look that dissimilar anyway. In the same vein, the differences between these Gorn cruisers need not be that obtuse, but we will know which one is which.

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Tuesday, September 27, 2011 - 05:18 pm: Edit

One thing that had been discussed on this topic in a few places (but I suppose this is the "right" place for it) was using the difference between the 2400/2200 minis to identify the generation.

Many of us used the old 2200 minis (with the 'offset' warp engines mounted to the rear bubble) to represent the 'pre-war' designs, and the new 2400 minis (with the warp engines mounted mid-ships and almost built into the hull...an artifact of the mini production, of course) to represent the 'war' designs.

Arguably - less safe for the crew having the warp engines so much closer, but those ships weren't designed for long-term exploration missions, anymore, so... (if this would be the plan, I'd suggest the in-universe explanation would be basically the same reason Fed ships didn't have APRs in them during their first design versions...not necessarily dangerous, not really, but since you probably didn't need the power, why bother risking it?)

By Todd Warnken (Toddw) on Tuesday, September 27, 2011 - 05:36 pm: Edit

Different engine placements would help. I am okay with changing the bubbles but not octagons.

By Troy Latta (Saaur) on Tuesday, September 27, 2011 - 05:39 pm: Edit

Finally, Gorns! I've been waiting for this...
I agree the round shape should be kept, but one thing to think about is that the HDD is more maneuverable than the CL and the BDD is more maneuverable that the DD. Perhaps there's something in the bubble shape or wing shape to explain this?
Or maybe it's a difference int he warp nacelles.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Tuesday, September 27, 2011 - 06:23 pm: Edit

Maybe the raised lines on the bubbles could be octagonal, even if the bubbles themselves remain round?

Different nacelles might be another way to show the difference; perhaps make the "war" engines shorter, but bulkier?

By Robert Hyrneson (Hyrneson) on Tuesday, September 27, 2011 - 06:40 pm: Edit

I'm not real keen on octagons for the same reason why Marshall changed the design of castle towers. The round shape gives better firing arcs.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Tuesday, September 27, 2011 - 07:10 pm: Edit

I am not keen on the octagons, either, but have no problem if that is what is decided.

Another idea on the bubbles is to make them flat discs. Or have the bubbles not be centered on the center hull. Instead of sticking the bubbles directly to the ends of the center hull, stick them on top of the ends, so they are higher (or lower; either one works).

One of the things about the HDD/CM is that they have center mounted heavy plasma, and they have central 360 phasers. Rather than putting those weapons in (to be honest) silly little houses to get them above the height of the bubble, design the bubble so that no housing is necessary. Either of the above ideas would allow centrally mounted weapons to fire forward without requiring the houses. And provide a significant distinction from the CA, et. al.

By Tony L Thomas (Scoutdad) on Tuesday, September 27, 2011 - 07:54 pm: Edit

Octogons... uhh, No. I can think of at least 8 reasons not to.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, September 27, 2011 - 09:58 pm: Edit

Stay round. Like round. I've always liked the Gorn ships. They seem like something that lizard men would design.

Maybe something could be done with the wings.

Also, perhaps the round hulls could have a raised protion in the center circle in later generation designs.

By Terry O'Carroll (Terryoc) on Tuesday, September 27, 2011 - 10:30 pm: Edit

No to octagons, but I do like Mike Novean's idea. Mike West's idea of moving the attachment point I'm not so keen on, but the basic point is valid: they have center mounted heavy plasma.

Perhaps if the plasma were mounted on the bottom side of the centre hull, with a teardrop-shaped depression in the forward bubble ahead of the launcher, making "room" for the plasma to clear the launcher.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Tuesday, September 27, 2011 - 10:54 pm: Edit

One more important differentiation: the CM/CS wings need to be noticeably smaller than those on the CA/BC. They are way smaller and hold far fewer systems.

Another thought: Instead of offsetting the bubbles, change their relative sizes. Make the bubbles smaller than on the CA/BC, and make the center section relatively larger to compensate. As an added bonus, this would allow the depth of the bubbles to be the same as the depth of the center section, removing the need for offsetting anything, or building little houses for the center-line weapons.

Doing those types of changes will provide a very distinctive, but much more subtle differentiation between the CA/BC and CM/CS.

By Kirk McDermott (Ironers) on Tuesday, September 27, 2011 - 11:20 pm: Edit

I think either having a flat edge to the bubbles or thinner bubbles would be good, octagons just do not seem "Gorn" to me.

Maybe for something more distinctive would be to have hull plating on the bubbles, with each class of ship having both larger or smaller scale bubbles with unique patterns of hull plates.

By Dal Downing Rambler (3deez) on Tuesday, September 27, 2011 - 11:55 pm: Edit

Whatever is decided I would like to see the gorns stay with round hulls not some other geometric shape.

I have been thinking on it though I think using offset stacked circular similar to the BDX for the war designs would be cool and show that the gorns were cutting corners when building up thier war fleet. Something I could see thier coucil doing very easily.

I have this image in my head of a circular myan pyramid or a tired weding cake type arrangment.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, September 27, 2011 - 11:58 pm: Edit

Hmmm ... nobody liked my octagon idea. I'm crushed.

By Dixon Simpkins (Dixsimpkins) on Wednesday, September 28, 2011 - 12:21 am: Edit

Maybe change the shape of the bubble edge.
for example: < or [

By Patrick H. Dillman (Patrick) on Wednesday, September 28, 2011 - 01:06 am: Edit

I would like to see one with an octagon bubble before I pan it.

By Mike Slade (Therealmxslade) on Wednesday, September 28, 2011 - 02:23 am: Edit

I know you read all the posts and at the risk of being a nuisance for repeating this:

I like the engines on the rear bubble, perhaps if the ship could be made to look more reptilian, the engines could be like tails. (sort of how the warbird is birdlike & the D7 is predatory).

but that's just my opinion.

By Will McCammon (Djdood) on Wednesday, September 28, 2011 - 05:04 am: Edit

I have no problem with the engines-forward version of the Gorns. I got very tired of gluing metal Gorn mini engines back on all the time. They also took an inordinate amount of space on the game board.

If the octagon version happens, I'd skip purchasing those. I always pictured the Gorn "bubbles" as being an egg motif and something from their biological aesthetic. I would just buy CL And BC minis and modify them as-needed.

In regards to the ideas I had that I mentioned up-thread, here's a drawing:
http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r128/djdood/SFU_Blog_BBS_Stuff/SFU%20Minis%20BBS%20Stuff/Starline%202500%20Reviews/Gorn_CM-HDD_Ideas_9-27-2011.png

#1 is the smaller-diameter/deeper-height bubble concept.
#2 is adding a "band" around the periphery of the bubbles. This version somewhat evokes the "step" look of the BDX mini.

Another concept that I didn't have time to finish drawing would be the reverse of the "band", instead adding a "trench" around the periphery of the bubbles. This would have an interesting look to it, but complicates the phaser mounts a bit.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Wednesday, September 28, 2011 - 09:26 am: Edit

Again, I think the "smaller-diameter/deeper bubble" works better for the CA/BC, not the HDD/CM/CS. I am sorry, but that giant pimple on its back just looks stupid.

Instead, I would like to see a *thinner* bubble to allow the central mounts easier ability to fire without having to be mounted in giant pimples.

(I finally figured out what the 'weapons houses' reminded me of: Giant Space Zits! They look like zits on the space lizard that you just want scrubbed off.)

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation