Federation Commander

NCC numbers were assigned in blocks (300 are frigates, 500 are destroyers, 700 are war destroyers), and not nearly in sequence (the 600s were used for X-destroyers years after the 700s were used for DWs, the 900s were used for CLs 50 years before the 700s were used for DWs).

1360 GREAT-CLASS HEAVY CRUISERS, named for warrior kings.
1361 Alfred the Great.
1362 Theodoric the Great.
1363 Alexander the Great. (unbuilt)

1370 R-CLASS HEAVY CRUISERS, given traditional naval names.
1371 Republic (CA Old)
1372 Reshadije (CA Old)
1373 Ramilles (CA Old)

1600 HEAVY CRUISERS, various names, including traditional naval names, battles, and others.
1601 Agincourt (CD)
1602 Wolverine (CF)
1603 Stingray (CF)
1604 Pennsylvania (CA) new entry
1605 Port Moresby (CA)
1606 Antietam (CA) new entry
1607 Concord (CA) new entry
1608 Dieppe (CA) new entry
1609 Leyte Gulf (CA) new entry
1610 Lissa (CA) new entry
1611 Midway (CA) new entry
1612 Pharsallus (CA)
1613 Vimy Ridge (CA) new entry
1614 Ypers (CA) new entry
1615 Defiant (CA) new entry
1616 Nimitz (CC) new (Converted to CVS-1951)
1617 unnamed (CA)
1618 unnamed (CA)
1619 unnamed (CA)
1620 unnamed (CA)
1621 Hastings (CA)

1630 STRIKE CRUISERS, named for mythic figures.
1636 Prometheus (CS)
1637 Daedalus (CS)
1638 Epimethius (CS)

1640 HEAVY CRUISERS, various names
1648 Velikovski (CA Mauler)
1646 Von Daniken (CA Mauler)
1649 Arbela (CA)
1657 Olshevsky (CA Mauler)

1700 Constitution (CA)
1701 Enterprise (CA)
1702 Farragut (CA, converted to CVS 1960)
1703 Lexington (CC)
1704 Yorktown (CA)
1705 Excalibur (CC)
1706 Exeter (CA)
1707 Hood (CA)
1708 Intrepid (CA)
1709 Valiant (CA)
1710 Kongo (CC)
1711 Potemkin (CA)
1712 Bon Homme Richard (CC)
1713 Monitor (CA)
1714 Hornet (CA)
1715 Merimac (CA)
1716 Endeavor (CA)
1717 Defiance (CA)
1718 Excelsior (CA)
1719 Eagle (CF)
1720 Lafayette (CC)
1721 Wasp (CA)
1722 El Dorado (CA)
1723 Ari (CA)
1724 Saratoga (CA)
1725 Tori (CA)
1726 Krieger (CA)
1727 Essex (CC)

1728 HEAVY COMMAND CRUISERS, named for decisive battles
1728 Gettysburg (CB)
1729 Kadesh (CB)
1730 Thermopolae (CB)
1731 Cannae (CB)
1732 Alesia (CB)
1733 Isandhlwana (CB)
1734 Gravelotte (CB)
1735 Tannenberg (CB)
1736 Kursk (CB)
1737 Coral Sea (CB)
1738 Inchon (CB)
1739 Khe Son (CB)
1740 Golan (CB)
1741 Alfeld (CB)
1742 Austerlitz (CB)
1743 Panjsher (CB)
1744 Suomussalmi (CB)
1745 Rocroi (CB)
1746 Poltava (CB)
1747 Rossbach (CB)
1748 Gaugamela (CB)
1749 Vincennes (CB) converted to CX
1750 Basra (CB)

1750 BATTLECRUISERS
1751 Kirov (BCH-drone)
1752 Australia (BCH-drone)
1753 New Zealand (BCH-drone)
1754 Shangri La (BCV)
1755 New Jersey (BCH-photon)
1756 unassigned (BCH)
1757 Nevada (BCH-photon) (Never Built)
1758 unassigned (BCH)
1759 unassigned (BCH)
1761 Otto von Bismarck (BCH-plasma)
1762 Nathan Bedford Forrest (BCH-plasma)
1763 Nikolai V Ogarkov (BCH-plasma)
1764 Atlantis (BCS)
1765 Montana (BCH-photon)
1766 Lemuria (BCS)
1767 unassigned (BCH)
1768 unassigned (BCH)
1769 unassigned (BCH)

1770 ADVANCED CRUISERS, named for revolutionary battles
1771 Revolution (CX)
1772 Paris Commune (CX)
1773 Ayacucho (CX)
1774 Long March (CX)
1775 Krasny Barikaddy (CX)
1776 Bunker Hill (CX)
1777 Dien Bien Phu (CX)
1778 Managua (CX)
1779 Alamo (CX)
1780 Cinco de Mayo (CX)
1781 Cowpens (CX)
1782 Masada (CX)
1783 Collin Powell (GVX)

Thank you SVC!

In X1, there is a certain other CX listed - one which shares a name with a particularly well-known example of the 1700-series.

Is that ship still present in the setting, or is it no longer valid?

Steve Cole wrote:NCC numbers were assigned in blocks (300 are frigates, 500 are destroyers, 700 are war destroyers), and not nearly in sequence (the 600s were used for X-destroyers years after the 700s were used for DWs, the 900s were used for CLs 50 years before the 700s were used for DWs).

Thank you, indeed! That greatly clarifies things for me and the listing of CA hulls is very helpful, as well.

And new names added to the list. Thank you, SVC.

I presume it's still valid. Did it have an NCC number?

Steve Cole wrote:I presume it's still valid. Did it have an NCC number?

Assuming I am following this correctly, it is "NCC-1701A".

mjwest wrote:

Steve Cole wrote:I presume it's still valid. Did it have an NCC number?

Assuming I am following this correctly, it is "NCC-1701A".

that's the same number as the Enterprise A from trek.

I was trying to refer to the NCC-1701A Enterprise, yes.


I wasn't sure about where ships which shared names and registries with post-1979 Franchise ships stood. For example, would there be an issue if a Federation X2-era cruiser was to be named Excelsior, or NCC-1701B Enterprise for that matter - even if the ships in question did not look like the Franchise equivalents?

(Indeed, what about potential names for Early Years Terran, Vulcan, Andorian or other ships - would there be an issue if they matched names from the more recent Franchise take on pre-TOS?)

Good navy names are just that, and we use what we think is cool no matter what franchise did or did not use that or something like that.

We just do not do fiction about the enterprise or the voyager.

We list enterprise in ship name lists all the time.

And of course, regardless of what Trek says, or what SFU says, if you want to use a particular ship name on your miniature, use it.

There were 144 names in the Franz Joseph Tech manual for Star Fleet Heavies as well as the same amount for Transport tugs. What happenned to the rest of those ships. I see the contracts were re-assigned in samo cases, my guess is that they were either not built or scrapped.

So are we going to recognize the Enterprise as it was in the last movie? To me it looked like a perversion. It just does not seem to be the same ship to me

Way back when, I went through the FJ list and took the names I liked and ignored the ones I didn't. Then I filled the gaps with names I like.

As far as the "new alternate timeline enterprise" it's not part of our license so I have nothing to say or do about it. I'm sure that a dozen people have already posted illegal SSDs and Cards all over internet, and I'm sure you can find them easily enough. It would violate my contract with Paramount for me to tell you where they are.

Steve Cole wrote:It would violate my contract with Paramount for me to tell you where they are.

And, just to be clear, no one else can post that information on this forum. Since Steve owns this forum, allowing that to be posted here would be close enough to him telling you where they are to cause problems.

So, please don't.

Besides... why stick roast beef into your ice cream?

I like roast beef; tender and delicious especially with potatoes. I liked the new Trek movie (even it's unique take on the classic designs).

I like ice cream, sweet and perfectly cold for a hot day. I like the SFU in all its consistency and depth.

I see no need to mix the two, in either case.

I'm sure some company will eventually hand Paramount a bunch of money to go do yet another Trek wargame (or RPG for that matter). They'll sell some copies, but it won't pull many faithful away from the SFU (none of the others have). It also won't stick around for more than five years - it will get orphaned when that company is sold, or goes bankrupt, or Paramount won't renew their license, and leave its players stuck with no new products and a bunch of very expensive books (I'm looking at you LuG).