Federation Commander

I saw a picture of some miniatures online, and the Fed fleet had the standard DN (with the two nacelles connected to the secondary hull on angled support pylons), but then there was another DN-type ship where those pylons were flat, like the CS or BC. What ship is that?

Also, please correct me if I am wrong about the CS and Kirov-class BC having the non-angled nacelle pylons.

It sounds like the DNG. The side phasers on the saucer are LS/RS instead of L+LF/R+RF, just like the BCH and CS, because the engines are now low enough to allow for the wider arc.

In the SFU, only the original DN and DN+ have the nacelles on the shallow-V struts that Franz Joseph drew. That version of the dreadnought went on-sale on ADB's Shapeways store last-month.

The Federation DN and even the DN+ were never competitive with the other empires' dreadnoughts. Refitting them to a form that was able to compete involved drastic changes, such as the noted reconfiguration of the nacelles with flat struts (and additional power and weapons). This version of the dreadnought (the DNG) goes on sale on Shapeways in May and was the basis for variants like the CVA heavy carrier and DNH heavy dreadnought.

In fairness to the Federation DN, it might not have seemed quite so out of place had the "early dreadnoughts" from Star Fleet Battles Module R7, such as the Klingon C6 or the Lyran Royal Tiger, been published alongside it. (In SFB terms, at least; in Federation Commander, the FJ DN appeared in Booster #91 alongside the Middle Years DNEs in Briefing #2.)

Although it is true that the Feds fell behind the curve when the other DNEs in the Alpha Octant were being upgraded, or phased out, to make way for the likes of the Klingon C8 or the Lyran Lion.

So is the DNG ship card #2? That's the most advanced Fed DN I have (excepting the DNH).

Yes. Ship Card #2 is the DNG.

The card for the original "V" configuration struts dreadnought is in Booster #91 (the ships of Franz Joseph).

You know, you bring up an interesting fact about the angle struts versus the straight struts with the CS/BCH/DN. In my personal games, I never could understand why bother with the Original FCA. Ya, its the original design for the Federations Constitution class, but they used it for so many years with so many reifts as illustrated in SFB. I always wondered if the FCA or the GSC has some unigue game mechanic in its design that warrented its continued use over the decades in SFB and I guess FC. I allow the FCA and GSC to have a 5-6 HET chance in my Fed Commander games compared to the standard 4-6 with most other designs in FC.

Is this a vaild theory?

I don't have Booster #91, but I believe I have the Franz Joseph DN from Communique #8.

I'm assuming the F in FCA stands for Franz Joseph? That would be the same as the Middle Years CA, correct?

[edited]
That's a non-standard (and confusing) abbreviation.

I think he means Fed CA.

In game terms for FedCom, it is the Fed CA (which in SFB terms is actually the Fed CAR+, the fully-refitted General War era version).

The FedCom card for the Middle Years Fed CA is labelled as just that (in SFB, it is the unrefitted CA [the YCA is the Early Years CA]).