Federation War Destroyer (DW)

Renderings, minis, and news about this product line

Moderators: mjwest, Albiegamer

Post Reply
User avatar
Jean
Site Admin
Posts: 1727
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 9:17 pm

Federation War Destroyer (DW)

Post by Jean »

SVC wrote: This is Sandrine's Fed DW. We have no idea where she put the shuttle hatch.

top
Image


side
Image


front
Image


below
Image


above and behind
Image


above front
Image


Feedback is appreciated.
Business Manager/RPG Line Editor
Amarillo Design Bureau, Inc.
User avatar
Aabh
Lieutenant SG
Posts: 134
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 1:00 pm
Location: Arvada, Colorado
Contact:

Post by Aabh »

I think it's cool!

I'm sort of new to this whole thing, but I don't get the difference between the "two on top, one on bottom" of the cruisers and the "two on bottom, one on top" of the Frigates, and the "a mix of all of the above" of the Destroyers (Isn't the War Destroyer a two on bottom one on top or am I mistaken?)... is there a pattern to this? (Said non-challengingly, I'm genuinely curious). :)
User avatar
phdillman
Lieutenant SG
Posts: 180
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 6:28 pm

Post by phdillman »

Nice!

Would like a size comparison view to the NCL and NCA.

Also see my comment on the NCA, I think it applies here too.

@Aabh: The difference stems from the original hull designs. The old SL2200 FF had two engines under the saucer and the NCL had them above.

The NCA and the DW are "based' off the NCL hull design, were's the FFB is based off the FF hull.
User avatar
Steve Cole
Site Admin
Posts: 3846
Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 5:24 pm

Post by Steve Cole »

If you have a comment about this ship, make it (in this topic).

Saying "see the comment I made somewhere else about something else" means you get ignored because I am NOT going to hunt down your comment. If the comment applies to THIS ship then make the comment in THIS topic.
The Guy Who Designed Fed Commander
Image
User avatar
phdillman
Lieutenant SG
Posts: 180
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 6:28 pm

Post by phdillman »

Now to me the late GW ships can use some deviation of the clasic design to bring out that WOW factor that Mongoose is looking for. To wit, the small secondary hull and engine mount could be made larger, maybe even use that superstructure from the first draft of the CC on the bottom of the saucer and mount the third engine to that.
User avatar
Darkwing
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 249
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 5:14 pm
Location: ZZ 9 plural Z A

Post by Darkwing »

I really like the way this looks. I am growing impatient for the day these are released!
Let's get DANGEROUS!

Tice Leonard, U.S.S. Lexington & IKV Annihilation
User avatar
Aabh
Lieutenant SG
Posts: 134
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 1:00 pm
Location: Arvada, Colorado
Contact:

Post by Aabh »

Will this mini be smaller than the NCA? If not, I'd like to recommend that it is, since it looks (From a distance, and with my old eyes) awfully similar (Hence the question about nacelles on top/bottom). I liked the fact that the FF's were reversed and the DDW was reversed because then it was very visually different from a distance.

Physically, I like the look of this mini, it's very pretty! I am too new to the game to actually give any advice on weapons placement.

I am also looking forward to getting my hands on these ships, they are beautiful! :)
User avatar
ctchapel
Lieutenant JG
Posts: 84
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 5:54 am
Location: Federal Way, WA

Post by ctchapel »

The only changes I would make are:

move the FH phasers one deck lower,

enlarge the dorsal engine strut, as this needs to work for HDW as well,

place the shuttle bay doors between the upper engines,

I like it overall.
User avatar
Scoutdad
Commodore
Posts: 4751
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 6:27 pm
Location: Middle Tennessee

Post by Scoutdad »

Aabh wrote:Will this mini be smaller than the NCA? If not, I'd like to recommend that it is, since it looks (From a distance, and with my old eyes) awfully similar (Hence the question about nacelles on top/bottom).
I'm not at home right now, so I an't measure to give exact tolerances but, IIRC:
The ST2400 DW miniature is about 2/3's the size of hte NCA miniature.
This relationship should carry over into the ST2500 range, so the difference in size should be distinct even from across the gaming table.
Commander, Battlegroup Murfreesboro
Department Head, ACTASF
User avatar
djdood
Commodore
Posts: 3407
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 5:41 am
Location: Seattle, WA
Contact:

Post by djdood »

My comments are all over on the legacy bbs.

For the benefit of those folks here that aren't there, here's the two pictures I put together with scaling and features markups -

NCA vs. DW Scaling Drawing

DW Features Markup Drawing
ImageImage
User avatar
marcus_aurelius
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 254
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 1:55 am
Location: Cary IL

Post by marcus_aurelius »

I really like it. The only comment I have is that the lower rear arc of the ship (in 3D) is a huge phaser blind spot. If one LS phaser and one RS phaser were moved to the bottom of the saucer then that would cover the blind spot.

Of course this has absolutely no effect on the 2D firing arcs or the game in any way.

(This is the same comment I made on Facebook regarding the NCL and DW.)
User avatar
Aabh
Lieutenant SG
Posts: 134
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 1:00 pm
Location: Arvada, Colorado
Contact:

Post by Aabh »

Scoutdad wrote:
Aabh wrote:Will this mini be smaller than the NCA? If not, I'd like to recommend that it is, since it looks (From a distance, and with my old eyes) awfully similar (Hence the question about nacelles on top/bottom).
I'm not at home right now, so I an't measure to give exact tolerances but, IIRC:
The ST2400 DW miniature is about 2/3's the size of hte NCA miniature.
This relationship should carry over into the ST2500 range, so the difference in size should be distinct even from across the gaming table.
Excellent! That should suffice (Even for my old eyes) Thank you Scoutdad!
Post Reply