Federation Commander Forum Index Federation Commander
A NEW fast paced board game of starship combat!
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Necessity of Fed DN 3rd Nacelle?
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Federation Commander Forum Index -> Miniatures
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
OGOPTIMUS
Captain


Joined: 10 Nov 2006
Posts: 981

PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 10:56 pm    Post subject: Necessity of Fed DN 3rd Nacelle? Reply with quote

So, I'm looking at making a miniature conversion, so this all my not apply anyway, but....

What do people think about the necessity of the 3rd nacelle on Federation Dreadnoughts? Could a dreadnought be made in the constitution class style with only two nacelles? (Of course I'm free to make anything I want, but I'm wondering about people's reaction.)

In terms of stats that I would make, I figure it would be similar in weaponry to the DNH (or perhaps a DNF-type cousin) with some Fast Cruiser type engines along with an expanded impulse deck and, some center warp and some reactors to make up the difference. I know that the type of reactor matters in SFB, so they'd likely be AWRs so that photons could still be armed from them.

I don't have access to all the dreadnoughts from SFB, but I would imagine that the Medium Dreadnought and Light X Dreadnought would both be in the 3 nacelle style since they were proposed conversions of the DNL.

Can anyone comment on the war dreadnoughts from R9? Obviously, I wouldn't want you to just blurt everything out like stats and such, but just general parameters.

This is all coming from me having a big ship conversion in the making and I'm wondering what it would be. An X Cruiser needs to still be the same size as the CA, and I'm not sure a BB is appropriate either (though I don't have one around for a saucer and hull size comparison), so that sorta leaves it to the dreadnought.
_________________
O.G. OPTIMUS


NEW Page | OLD Page
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
djdood
Fleet Captain


Joined: 01 Feb 2007
Posts: 2929
Location: Seattle, WA

PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 11:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The BB uses a saucer that is based on the one from the DNG/DNH. On the mini, it is literally a metal conversion of the plastic Zochi DN saucer, with the weapon bumps adjusted and two engines added on a strut/bow (much like the NCL).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
junior
Captain


Joined: 08 May 2007
Posts: 803

PostPosted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 12:01 am    Post subject: Re: Necessity of Fed DN 3rd Nacelle? Reply with quote

OGOPTIMUS wrote:
In terms of stats that I would make, I figure it would be similar in weaponry to the DNH (or perhaps a DNF-type cousin) with some Fast Cruiser type engines along with an expanded impulse deck and, some center warp and some reactors to make up the difference. I know that the type of reactor matters in SFB, so they'd likely be AWRs so that photons could still be armed from them.


In SFB, the total amount of warp power on both ships would need to be exactly the same as movement in SFB is done using the warp engines (with the exception of a single point of movement that can be paid for with Impulse). This is different than how things are handled in FC, where you can basically draw power for movement from any power source on the ship.

So if you're concerned enough about SFB that you'd arbitrarily label the APRs as AWRs, then you might as well go ahead and keep the total number of warp boxes the same in your conversion's "stats".

If you still want to stat this out, then you need to sit down and figure out how much of the engine power is from the right and left warp engines, and how much remains after that to be taken up in some fashion by the much smaller center warp.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
OGOPTIMUS
Captain


Joined: 10 Nov 2006
Posts: 981

PostPosted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 1:33 am    Post subject: Re: Necessity of Fed DN 3rd Nacelle? Reply with quote

junior wrote:
In SFB, the total amount of warp power on both ships would need to be exactly the same as movement in SFB is done using the warp engines (with the exception of a single point of movement that can be paid for with Impulse). This is different than how things are handled in FC, where you can basically draw power for movement from any power source on the ship.

So if you're concerned enough about SFB that you'd arbitrarily label the APRs as AWRs, then you might as well go ahead and keep the total number of warp boxes the same in your conversion's "stats".


Well then, that pretty much answers my original question about the necessity of that 3rd nacelle. I might be able to make the ship (model-wise, and have it fly in Fed Cmdr), but there's no way it could work in SFB, unless I took some liberties with how large the warp engines could be (maybe 20 boxes each...rather than 18?).

Not like I'm not going to make the ship because of this, it'll just have limited usage (read Fed Cmdr), or a more contrived explanation for its existence if I ever port it over into SFB.
_________________
O.G. OPTIMUS


NEW Page | OLD Page
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Sneaky Scot
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Posts: 387
Location: Thornbury, Gloucestershire

PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 7:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

SFB history refers to many ships where the engine design doesn't work out, and the design remains conjectural. So I guess there's nothing wrong with a conjectural set of 22-box or 24-box warp engines that could allow your revised DN design.
_________________
Nothing is quite as persuasive as a disruptor pistol on slow burn and a rotisserie......
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
OGOPTIMUS
Captain


Joined: 10 Nov 2006
Posts: 981

PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hmmmmmm....now I've got an idea, but it hinges on something else. What year was the (one and only in SFB) DNH introduced?
_________________
O.G. OPTIMUS


NEW Page | OLD Page
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
mjwest
Commodore


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 3498
Location: Dallas, Texas

PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 2:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

YIS dates for various Federation Dreadnoughts:
DN - Y148
DN+ - Y172
DNG - Y175
DNF - Y179
DNH - Y178
DNL - Y167
DLM - Y180

Do note that the DNH was not a "one and only". More than one was made, and many prior versions were converted to DNH.
_________________

Federation Commander Answer Guy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
OGOPTIMUS
Captain


Joined: 10 Nov 2006
Posts: 981

PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 3:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks. This might just work now.

Wow. The F came after the H. Interesting.

I figured it was a one off thing since in the official list there is only one name listed under that heading, while many other DNs that were converted are listed in two categories.
_________________
O.G. OPTIMUS


NEW Page | OLD Page
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
djdood
Fleet Captain


Joined: 01 Feb 2007
Posts: 2929
Location: Seattle, WA

PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[hangs head in shame]

I should know this, but what is the DNM? Medium Dreadnought?
Which SFB product was that in? R9 'Ships That Never Were'?
I must've missed that somewhere along the line.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
mjwest
Commodore


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 3498
Location: Dallas, Texas

PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The DLM is the "Medium Dreadnought" created by putting a "shelf" or "deck" on the back of the DNL's saucer. This adds the systems necessary to beef it up to DNG/DNH standards at the cost of its improved movement rate.

Pretty much everyone that has a DNL gets one of these. I will admit that, except for the Gorns, I can't imagine why anyone would bother. But that is just me ...
_________________

Federation Commander Answer Guy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Ravenhull
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 28 Jan 2007
Posts: 231
Location: Mobile, AL

PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 9:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mjwest wrote:
The DLM is the "Medium Dreadnought" created by putting a "shelf" or "deck" on the back of the DNL's saucer. This adds the systems necessary to beef it up to DNG/DNH standards at the cost of its improved movement rate.

Pretty much everyone that has a DNL gets one of these. I will admit that, except for the Gorns, I can't imagine why anyone would bother. But that is just me ...


It should also be noted that all the DLMs were 'unbuilt variants.' Each race looked at the work that it would have required and decided it wasn't worth the cash. They were probably waiting on the DLX design, which turned out to be flat out impossible to build.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
djdood
Fleet Captain


Joined: 01 Feb 2007
Posts: 2929
Location: Seattle, WA

PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 10:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hmmm. The Fed DNL is a pretty solid ship (bordering on munchkin as a independent raiding "super-cruiser"). Refitting it would seem a bit like an evolutionary dead-end.

"Well, these expensive fast raiding DNL's didn't work out, lets pay for them again and refit them into DNG-surrogates".

None of that would effect a game like FedCom (where ships just "are", without any larger context saying they "can't").

I can see the F&E strategic-game guys pooh-poohing refitting DNL's to DNM's big time and insisting on being able to build DNG's in the first place - unless the DNL's are free to begin with.

What an odd duck.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Scoutdad
Commodore


Joined: 09 Oct 2006
Posts: 4478
Location: Middle Tennessee

PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 10:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

djdood wrote:

I can see the F&E strategic-game guys pooh-poohing refitting DNL's to DNM's big time and insisting on being able to build DNG's in the first place - unless the DNL's are free to begin with.

What an odd duck.

No one in our group has ever... and I mean, ever converted a DNL to a DNM - and we've always got 2 or 3 (sometimes more) games of F&E running between us.

They just are not worth the economic impact. By the time a F&E game reached that stage, you can barely afford to pay for shi[ps once... much less, twice!
_________________


Scoutdad's minis photos here!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
jmt
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 394
Location: Plano, TX

PostPosted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 1:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Scoutdad wrote:
djdood wrote:

I can see the F&E strategic-game guys pooh-poohing refitting DNL's to DNM's big time and insisting on being able to build DNG's in the first place - unless the DNL's are free to begin with.

What an odd duck.

No one in our group has ever... and I mean, ever converted a DNL to a DNM - and we've always got 2 or 3 (sometimes more) games of F&E running between us.


Oooh - I'm jealous! So far, I've played twice in 15 years (and one was PBM)
_________________
jmt

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Scoutdad
Commodore


Joined: 09 Oct 2006
Posts: 4478
Location: Middle Tennessee

PostPosted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 4:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

We're currently playing:

One as a group (Demon of he East Wind + General War). 6 players with random racial selection at start, and even though it's only turn 2-A; it's easily the most fun we've had playing F&E in 20 years.

We have one on hold (General War) with 7 players. Currently on turn 7A and awaiting the acquisition of a replacement player to continue.

Mike Curtis is playing in two other Cyberboard games.

Three of us are looking to complete a game that was started f-t-f and then locations recorded for transfer to Cyberboard or the beta-test version of F&EOL.

We have one campaign that's sort of stalled on David Lang's Federation and Empire online set-up.

And 4 guys from Lebanon, TN have asked if I'd be willing to teach them to play F&E. My son and I will most likely start a 4-Powers War campaign with them in January of '08.
_________________


Scoutdad's minis photos here!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Federation Commander Forum Index -> Miniatures All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group