Federation Commander

[ecs05norway]

So, I bought a Federation fleet box A While ago, and it's lingered in my basement because of a general lack of folk to play with. Now that we're finally correcting that problem (yay!), I've gotten it out and started to assemble my minis.

Not having issues with the Frigates or CLs. A little green stuff and everything goes on fairly easily, although the FF sensor dishes are a little fun to handle. Not.

It's the cruisers that bother me. Has anyone had issues with these? They look like they want to be pinned throughout, especially the nacelle attachment points.

[djdood]

I've not heard of anyone needing to pin the engines on the Fed cruisers, but personally I do drill out the receptacle slots in the hull for the engine struts. Making them deeper gives a stronger joint.

The saucer/neck connection is one that can benefit from pinning, but most folks don't. I had good results with the "two glue" method (slow-set epoxy glue in the middle of the joint, with a dot of cyanoacrylate "super glue" at either end to hold it in place until the epoxy sets).
_________________

[mdauben]

My experience is the same as djdood. With a bit of prep, the nacells fit into their sockets well enough without any pinning. The saucer I think does benefit from the extra strenght to the joint of pinning.

If you want to see a model that desparatly needs pinning, look at some of the Gorn ships! Not only is the joint between the engines and main hull weak, but on some of them the base mounts to the lower engine, so the whole weight of the mini is concentrated on that engine/hull joint!
_________________
Mike

"The best diplomat that I know is a fully-loaded phaser bank."

[ecs05norway]

Thanks for the advice. We'll see how things go with a bit of green stuff and a lot of trust.

I have one mini labelled "CS" and one labelled "BCH", they appear to be identical so far as I can see. They both have the straight nacelle pylons, rather than the angled ones of the CA, with a saucer identical to the CA and a shortened secondary hull.

[mdauben]

[Bolo_MK_XL]

An unassembled CS is shown here (5th pic down):
http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/messages/board-topics.html

A CB / Heavy CC is shown further down the page, sounds like what the BCH should be.

[ecs05norway]

So, it looks like I have two Strike Cruisers.

I do also have two minis labelled "BC", they're similar but have more bits on the saucer aft portion, reinforced nacelle pylons, and extra phasers on the secondary hull.

[Steve Cole]

The two photos you posted are both strike cruisres but the online store has a different photo for the BC than the one you posted (hull number 1752, with much wider struts holding the engines). Either you went to some other store or you miscopied a photo.
_________________
The Guy Who Designed Fed Commander

[mdauben]

[djdood]

The rear (engineering) hull of the CS strike cruiser is considerably smaller than the same part on the BC battlecruiser and CA heavy cruiser. That's probably the biggest unique "tell" of the CS, when viewed next to its stablemates.

The "fluff" text for the CS design is that it was an early attempt to make a "cheaper" heavy cruiser equivalent.

That didn't work out (the idea was later made to work with the NCL new light cruiser), but the CS' "flat" engine struts did have a lot of benefits and were used on the later BC battlecruiser, made wider, for even greater strength.
_________________

[ecs05norway]

So as far as I can tell from the replies here, then, I have two Strike Cruisers and two Battlecruisers. Hmmm. What to do with them... (I could use the CS's for CCs for now, I suppose...)

[Steve Cole]

Depends on which of the many games you are playing.
_________________
The Guy Who Designed Fed Commander

[ecs05norway]

[Scoutdad]

[mdauben]