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 

Assembly questions re: Federation cruisers

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Federation Commander Forum Index -> Starline 2500
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
ecs05norway
Ensign


Joined: 09 Aug 2012
Posts: 9

PostPosted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 2:36 pm    Post subject: Assembly questions re: Federation cruisers Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
djdood
Fleet Captain


Joined: 01 Feb 2007
Posts: 2927
Location: Seattle, WA

PostPosted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 7:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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).
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
mdauben
Lieutenant JG


Joined: 15 Aug 2013
Posts: 62
Location: Rocket City

PostPosted: Fri Oct 24, 2014 12:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ecs05norway
Ensign


Joined: 09 Aug 2012
Posts: 9

PostPosted: Fri Oct 24, 2014 8:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mdauben
Lieutenant JG


Joined: 15 Aug 2013
Posts: 62
Location: Rocket City

PostPosted: Sat Oct 25, 2014 12:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ecs05norway wrote:
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.

I think that should be the Strike Cruiser and the Battlecruiser. Looking at the photos from the online store, though...

Stike Cruiser


Battlecruiser


The photos are obviously both the same miniature (right down to the NCC number). I'm not sure if there are supposed to be two different castings and someone made a mistake posting the photos or if the only difference is supposed to be the ship name and numbers of the finished models (FWIW, the NCC number indicates that model is supposed to be the Strike Cruiser Daedalus)? Confused

I admit I never noticed this in my models, and I'm not at home right now to check if they are actually two of the same miniature or not.
_________________
Mike

"The best diplomat that I know is a fully-loaded phaser bank."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bolo_MK_XL
Commander


Joined: 16 Jan 2007
Posts: 794
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Sat Oct 25, 2014 1:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ecs05norway
Ensign


Joined: 09 Aug 2012
Posts: 9

PostPosted: Sun Oct 26, 2014 1:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steve Cole
Site Admin


Joined: 11 Oct 2006
Posts: 3086

PostPosted: Mon Oct 27, 2014 7:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
mdauben
Lieutenant JG


Joined: 15 Aug 2013
Posts: 62
Location: Rocket City

PostPosted: Mon Oct 27, 2014 10:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Steve Cole wrote:
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.

I would have sworn the same picture was used for both ships, but looking again I see there is a different ship photo in the Battlecruiser entry. Embarassed



For the OP, the differences between the two are pretty subtle. In addition to the struts Steve mentioned, the most visible ones seems to be the raised ridge running from the bridge, back to the impulse engins on the Battlecruiser, and a slightly smaller bridge superstructure on the Strike Cruiser. You might check for that on your two ships.

Sorry for causing any confusion! Laughing
_________________
Mike

"The best diplomat that I know is a fully-loaded phaser bank."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
djdood
Fleet Captain


Joined: 01 Feb 2007
Posts: 2927
Location: Seattle, WA

PostPosted: Tue Oct 28, 2014 6:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
ecs05norway
Ensign


Joined: 09 Aug 2012
Posts: 9

PostPosted: Tue Oct 28, 2014 2:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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...)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steve Cole
Site Admin


Joined: 11 Oct 2006
Posts: 3086

PostPosted: Tue Oct 28, 2014 3:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Depends on which of the many games you are playing.
_________________
The Guy Who Designed Fed Commander
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
ecs05norway
Ensign


Joined: 09 Aug 2012
Posts: 9

PostPosted: Tue Oct 28, 2014 4:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Steve Cole wrote:
Depends on which of the many games you are playing.


Well, we have a mix of SFB vets, newbies, and a couple of in-betweens, in the local area.

So far we've just been playing straight Federation Commander, but the vets are pushing to adopt a couple of SFB-ish house rules (firing opportunities every sub-pulse, primarily, but we may also add phaser capacitors and SFB-style shield reinforcement).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Federation Commander Forum Index -> Starline 2500 All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
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