Lyran Large Aux Cruiser








Someone a lot less sick than I am needs to think about the weapons arcs here.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, February 06, 2020 - 04:03 pm: Edit

Lyran Light Aux Cruiser

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Thursday, February 06, 2020 - 04:14 pm: Edit

Oh, nice!

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Thursday, February 06, 2020 - 07:04 pm: Edit

The Light (Small?) should have 2 disruptors and the phasers are supposed to be 360, not LS/RS (if the red spot on the command module isn't a phaser).

The Large has the same phaser problem, the 'pod' phasers are supposed to be 360, not LS/RS though the command module phasers are present (nose and side) along with the rear phaser at the back end.

Fastest way for the 360s would be to strap them to the bottom of the pods (or the command module) … though elevating them could work as well …

By Jay Gustafson (Jay13) on Thursday, February 06, 2020 - 07:15 pm: Edit

Agree nice

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, February 06, 2020 - 09:32 pm: Edit

I like the look of these.

By Chris Nasipak (Ecs05norway) on Thursday, February 06, 2020 - 09:45 pm: Edit

The red dot on top of the command module is a phaser, yes.

As for the pod phaser locations... they're supposed to be on the pod, not the command module. And I really am not liking putting all the detail on the bottom. Thus, even though the arcs don't work exactly right, on the top.

By MarkSHoyle (Bolo) on Thursday, February 06, 2020 - 10:21 pm: Edit

Mobile Mobile Bases????

By wayne douglas power (Wayne) on Thursday, February 06, 2020 - 10:50 pm: Edit

I think it does look like a phaser, other similar dots are sometimes the navigation lights. (edit: has been answered, did not see post, all good)

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Friday, February 07, 2020 - 06:44 pm: Edit

Chris, unfortunately the SAC doesn't have a phaser as part of the command module (does have a shuttle bay) while the LAC command module DOES have both (phasers and shuttle bay) plus the center disruptor doesn't look to be 120 (being recessed like it is), looks more like it could fire through the #1 shield (60) but not much past that …

By A David Merritt (Adm) on Friday, February 07, 2020 - 06:58 pm: Edit

Stewart;

The generic SSD doesn't show that phaser being there, an empire specific one may be different.

By Charles Chapel (Ctchapel) on Friday, February 07, 2020 - 10:51 pm: Edit

If the center disruptor is flipped over that might improve the arc to 120 from the bottom of the pod of the LAC.

By Chris Nasipak (Ecs05norway) on Friday, February 07, 2020 - 11:26 pm: Edit

@Stewart: The generic Small Freighter has a ph-3 in the command module, the generic Large Freighter has a ph-2 in the command module and a ph-3 in the engineering section, per Captain's Basic Set SSDs.

Per R8, The Small Aux Cruiser (generic) has two weapons forward, plus two ph-2 and two ph-3. Lyran SAC puts Disruptor or Phaser-2 in the forward mounts, captain's discretion which. My model uses one of each.

The Large Aux Cruiser (generic) has double the pod phasers, 3 weapon mounts and a ph-2 forward, a ph-2 to either side, and a ph-3 aft. Again for a Lyran LAC the option mounts can be ph-2 or disruptor, captain's choice. Here I have chosen to go all-disruptor.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, February 08, 2020 - 01:11 pm: Edit

I cannot approve these without Petrick who is out of town.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Saturday, February 08, 2020 - 07:11 pm: Edit

Forgot about the discretion part of the weapons loadout, ah well …

By Chris Nasipak (Ecs05norway) on Monday, February 10, 2020 - 05:42 pm: Edit

A thought for the center disruptor on the large, would it work better for folk if I lowered it so that it was about flush with the bottom of the pallets?

By Charles Chapel (Ctchapel) on Monday, February 10, 2020 - 05:58 pm: Edit

That was my point.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, March 24, 2020 - 05:54 pm: Edit

First, we need to be definitive.

SVC posted the first ship as a LAC (Large Auxiliary Cruiser) while Nasipak's text says it is a HAC (Heavy Auxiliary Cruiser).

I am assuming that SVC is correct, as I see no weapons on the bottom of the ship, and no indications of expanding sphere generators which should be present on a HAC.

I am assuming the two bumps on the top of the freighter section are the Phaser-2-360° (forward larger bump) and the phaser-3-RA (the smaller bump to the rear and normally associated with the drive section, but this would be consistent with the earlier freighter hull already done for the Lyrans).

There are bumps (grey rather than orange) on the warp struts (cannot think of a better term to call them) on the sides of the pods generally that I believe are the Phaser-2-LS/RS normally associated with the command module on the SSD. But at this juncture again fairly consistent with the unique freighter hull already done for the Lyrans.

This leaves us with four large bumps and four small bumps on top of the "pod." If we were playing a truly "three dimensional" game, this would be a problem as there are no phasers "under the ship" creating a large blind spot in which the ship could not defend itself. But for SSD purposes, we have the four 360° phaser-2s represented, and the four 360 degree phaser-3s represented. Arguably, however, they do not have 360° firing arcs because the command module is higher on the hull then they are and would thus block significant parts of the firing arcs for all weapons, giving firing arcs for the left rear phaser-2 and phaser-3 more akin to L, and RH and so on.

We may have to ignore that, as honestly I do not really see anyway to get 360° arcs with this design and retain the 360° of the freighter section's phaser-2. Or just assume the ship is able to "Bank" hard to bring the weapons into play and still take return fire on the appropriate facing shield. (Firing below the ship is always going to be an issue if we ever go to a true 360° space game system).

The three weapon options are normally part of the command module on the SSD, but again as we are making an empire specific design, and the Lyrans specifically only have FA firing arcs on these options (which can only be disruptors or phaser-2s) (R1.58) I think this is acceptable.


The second graphic is listed as the Lyran "light auxiliary cruiser), which I am assuming is a "small auxiliary cruiser" or SAC. the first thing is that there is no phaser-3-360° retained by the command section on a SAC, so that should go away.

The firing arcs of the 360 phasers on the module have the same issue as those on the LAC (the command module blocks them. Again, we may just have to assume the ship is able to "bank" to bring the offside into arc and this is just not something we see in the game.

I cannot tell if there is only one centerline weapon mount or two, but there should be two, as this ship can have two disruptors or two phaser-2s (FA firing arcs only) in that position. Given the design of the larger ship, you might want to just fill in the center and put one mount on each of the side positions as they are on the LAC.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, March 24, 2020 - 05:56 pm: Edit

Chris: Fix what he said to fix and ask questions regarding what you cannot understand (which may be several items).

By Chris Nasipak (Ecs05norway) on Tuesday, March 24, 2020 - 07:45 pm: Edit

> First, we need to be definitive.

Ok then. Doing my best to address the issues/questions you've raised.

> SVC posted the first ship as a LAC (Large Auxiliary Cruiser) while Nasipak's text says it is a HAC (Heavy Auxiliary Cruiser).

SVC is correct, this is a two-pallet/pod unit.

> I am assuming the two bumps on the top of the freighter section are the Phaser-2-360° (forward larger bump) and the phaser-3-RA (the smaller bump to the rear and normally associated with the drive section, but this would be consistent with the earlier freighter hull already done for the Lyrans).

This is correct; the command/drive section is identical to the existing Lyran two-pallet freighter.

> There are bumps (grey rather than orange) on the warp struts (cannot think of a better term to call them) on the sides of the pods generally that I believe are the Phaser-2-LS/RS normally associated with the command module on the SSD. But at this juncture again fairly consistent with the unique freighter hull already done for the Lyrans.

Correct, these are the LS/RS Ph-2.

> This leaves us with four large bumps and four small bumps on top of the "pod." If we were playing a truly "three dimensional" game, this would be a problem as there are no phasers "under the ship" creating a large blind spot in which the ship could not defend itself. But for SSD purposes, we have the four 360° phaser-2s represented, and the four 360 degree phaser-3s represented. Arguably, however, they do not have 360° firing arcs because the command module is higher on the hull then they are and would thus block significant parts of the firing arcs for all weapons, giving firing arcs for the left rear phaser-2 and phaser-3 more akin to L, and RH and so on.

> We may have to ignore that, as honestly I do not really see anyway to get 360° arcs with this design and retain the 360° of the freighter section's phaser-2. Or just assume the ship is able to "Bank" hard to bring the weapons into play and still take return fire on the appropriate facing shield. (Firing below the ship is always going to be an issue if we ever go to a true 360° space game system).

These are indeed the 360 Ph-2 and Ph-3. I could not give them that arc without placing them on the bottom of the hull, and I have been averse to doing that when I can avoid it because, as has been said elsewhere, "nobody looks at the bottom of the model". I did not like the idea of elevating them since that would be too much added volume when the weapons are already taking space out of existing cargo volume.

I can certainly move them to the bottom if that's what you want, it would make the specified arc obvious. I would want to add some additional detail at the top to differentiate it from the regular freighter in that case.

> The three weapon options are normally part of the command module on the SSD, but again as we are making an empire specific design, and the Lyrans specifically only have FA firing arcs on these options (which can only be disruptors or phaser-2s) (R1.58) I think this is acceptable.

Thanks.

> The second graphic is listed as the Lyran "light auxiliary cruiser), which I am assuming is a "small auxiliary cruiser" or SAC. the first thing is that there is no phaser-3-360° retained by the command section on a SAC, so that should go away.

> The firing arcs of the 360 phasers on the module have the same issue as those on the LAC (the command module blocks them. Again, we may just have to assume the ship is able to "bank" to bring the offside into arc and this is just not something we see in the game.

And done for the same reason - to avoid having them on the bottom. I'll put them there if you prefer it. Again, I'll add some minor greeblie to the top to differentiate it from the standard small freighter.

> I cannot tell if there is only one centerline weapon mount or two, but there should be two, as this ship can have two disruptors or two phaser-2s (FA firing arcs only) in that position. Given the design of the larger ship, you might want to just fill in the center and put one mount on each of the side positions as they are on the LAC.

There are two, in this case I've used a Ph-2 and a Disruptor. The Ph-2 is atop the command module replacing the standard freighter's Ph-3. (The text I have specified that mixed weapons are possible at the captain's discretion.)

I'm going to go ahead and move them as you suggested, since I can see the problems I would have with adding a disruptor atop the command module (it would end up going beneath it) and this clarifies the firing arcs for the two option mounts.

Thank you for reviewing the model.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, March 24, 2020 - 09:21 pm: Edit

Chris Nasipak:

I made sure that I saw the Lyran freighter before commenting. As noted, if we were to go to a true three-dimensional game system, the weapon arcs on the ships would be an issue. So looking at these as noted for the existing game system is to just assume they are able to "bank" to bring their phasers into arc.

One other issue is that auxiliary cruisers have more powerful warp engines than the civilian freighters. Usually double the power output. You might consider doing something to the engines to reflect that if you have not already. I only got a quick look at the civilian freighters and may not have picked up on a change to the engines between them and the auxiliary cruisers.

By Chris Nasipak (Ecs05norway) on Tuesday, March 24, 2020 - 11:14 pm: Edit

> I made sure that I saw the Lyran freighter before commenting. As noted, if we were to go to a true three-dimensional game system, the weapon arcs on the ships would be an issue. So looking at these as noted for the existing game system is to just assume they are able to "bank" to bring their phasers into arc.

If you're cool with it, then I'll go ahead and leave them there.

> One other issue is that auxiliary cruisers have more powerful warp engines than the civilian freighters. Usually double the power output. You might consider doing something to the engines to reflect that if you have not already. I only got a quick look at the civilian freighters and may not have picked up on a change to the engines between them and the auxiliary cruisers.

OK, that part I -had- missed. I'll take a closer look at that, maybe something akin to what I did for the WYN-hotrodded Lyran engines on the PBB, although not quite that extreme. Or just go straight to the same nacelles as on the FF and DD.

By Chris Nasipak (Ecs05norway) on Wednesday, March 25, 2020 - 12:46 am: Edit

And revised version of the Small sent in.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, March 25, 2020 - 09:20 pm: Edit

And approved.