Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 11
02-08-2011, 04:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilCell View Post
I will have to refute some of your points, please don't take it personally.
I do not, please do not take my refutaton of your refutation personally.

Quote:
Voyager did have a saucer. True it was more triangular, but it was both longer and wider than it was deep. The Long Range Science Vessle is deeper than it is wide, as such it looses the clearly defined saucer section.
Um... a saucer is round, that is why it is called a saucer. Because it resembles a saucer. An arrowhead, no matter how flat or wide it may be, does not resemble a saucer.

The Voyager represented a considerable jump in Star Trek ship design, because while it had a primary and secondary hull, and paired nacelles, like the Enterprise, it was the first to replace the saucer with a more pointed, aggressive design. By contrast, the flow of the ship itself became more curved and aerodynamic, taking on a shape derived from the way the Galaxy-class Enterprise had been curved.

Quote:
There is debate as to whether the Miranda's roll bar was for weapons or the engineering section (I think it was both). The Nebula does indeed have an engineering section which is the same as the Galaxy. In fact, the Nebula really does have the same mass and volume, it is just more compact and has a smaller surface area compared to the Galaxy, but I digress. The Saber, Akira, Norway, Steamrunner and NX were created after Rodenberry's death. They do have engineering sections. The pyloins and pods consitute the engineering section. Both the Daeleus and Olypmic do indeed also have engineering sections as well.
By "engineering hull", I was talking about the third body that descends down from the main body of the primary hull. I am not saying anything about some portion of the hull which is sectioned off for engineering purposes, and I don't think that's even relevant. I am talking about the asthetic sense of the original TOS Enterprise, which balances the upper warp nacelles with the engineering hull underneath. The Galaxy, Sovreign, and Excelsior class Enterprises all had such a secondary hull, just like their predecessor, as does the Voyager. The NX Enterprise, Miranda and Akira have only a primary hull with nacelles attached directly to it.

The Nebula does have a secondary hull, but it is tucked under the saucer and the engines descend down beside it instead of up from it, and the "pod" on top of the hull extends from it as well. So it is not as prominent a part of the design as it is on the vessels that carry the Enterprise name. Its appearance is quite more clearly descended from the Miranda and it's "roll bar", which is itself a derivation of the Motion Picture version of the Enterprise, with its nacelles removed and placed under the saucer hull.

Quote:
As for the three nacelles, that is clearly against what Rodenberry advised.
The Galaxy Dreadnaught is the ONLY place three nacelles appears in the canon. And I like the explanation given that the Galaxy class warp pods (meaning those on the Nebula as well) have two warp cores, making them effectively two warp nacelles stuck together. So the assertion that warp nacelles be in pairs is not broken, there are three pairs, and they are in clear view of each other. You're probably right about the warp envelope being irregular, but likely the idea was to increase reduncancy, and allow warp flight if one pod was destroyed. The other two (or one, on the Galaxy) could be shut down and one pod used to achieve warp.

This explanation has been applied to the one nacelle designs in "Best of Both Worlds", but I consider it just as likely that as wreckage the ships simply lost their second nacelle. We can't be sure of the configuration of a wrecked ship. So really, we've only seen one ship with an odd number of nacelles actually in operation in the canon, and that was a future ship that might be operating using technology that simply wasn't available for most of the series.

That leaves four warp nacelles, which does not in any way invalidate Roddenberry's criteria that "warp nacelles come in pairs". They DO come in pairs, a PAIR of pairs. This has appeared several times in canon, the closely placed, upper and lower nacelles of the Constellation class Stargazer, as well as the more widely spaced and balanced Cheyenne and Prometheus, both the ship classes found here in this game. Presumably, the Nebula can also replace its upper pod with a PAIR of nacelles, and so I suppose it is possible that the DSSV's lower pod could be replaced with a pair of nacelles as well, or even a unified paired nacelle pod, like on the Stargazer or the theoretical Galaxy pod.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 12
02-09-2011, 02:02 AM
you are right. i had this picture in my head of a ship I saw on the homepage, i think, with 2 pairs, when I wrote this. Of course the crusers have only two. But that don't change my opinion because I don't like the starcruiser desing. the avenger has a nice front design.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 13
02-09-2011, 02:20 AM
Well as far as I remember Roddenberry statet that ships would need 2 warp naclesses. Never more never less. But the Constellation, Galaxy X und Prometheus broke that rule and made it canon that it is "diffrent" (although you could argument that the Prometheus has 4 so her diffrent parts can go to warp seperatly).

However, for the Akira: I thing thy should simply change the current Prometheus to an Akira; same stats just a diffrent skin; as soon as the promised Prometheus refit (that CAN preform the multi vector attack mode) goes live. We do not need 2 diffrent Prometheus class ships on t5.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 14
02-10-2011, 10:36 PM
If anyone wants to see Star Trek ship designs that are 'acceptable' find "Star Ship Creator" and/or "Star Ship Creator Warp 2". There are all sorts of various designs that have 1, 2, 3, or 4 warp nacelles. One I saw that would great in STO is a Galaxy class that has 4 nacelles, but the nacelles are thiner and longer then the stardard ones. It gives the ship a different look, but still has a classic feel.

I would love to see far more parts for us to pick and choose from, and maybe have the parts effect what 'bonus' stats the ship has to offer. This would not likely happen, since Paramount/CBS so strongly controls content decisions. It is sad that our little sand box threatens them so much. Like we could even hope to seek ownership. Or worse make something far better then they might design.

In the end, ship hulls are just a fancy bling bling we want to show off to others. And the more options we have is all the more work/bug fixing that Cryptic probably does not always have time to invest in. Atleast we have a Star Trek game to enjoy. I was trying to get the old Taldren 'StarFleet Command' games to work for my Trek fix. Nice to see Cryptic UI came out a bit simular to that great classic.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 15
02-12-2011, 01:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by D0L13N
I would love to see far more parts for us to pick and choose from, and maybe have the parts effect what 'bonus' stats the ship has to offer. This would not likely happen, since Paramount/CBS so strongly controls content decisions. It is sad that our little sand box threatens them so much. Like we could even hope to seek ownership. Or worse make something far better then they might design.

In the end, ship hulls are just a fancy bling bling we want to show off to others. And the more options we have is all the more work/bug fixing that Cryptic probably does not always have time to invest in. Atleast we have a Star Trek game to enjoy. I was trying to get the old Taldren 'StarFleet Command' games to work for my Trek fix. Nice to see Cryptic UI came out a bit simular to that great classic.
I am in agreement with you. Unfortunatly, the writer of the story "The First Duty" somehow managed to get copyrights to the character Nicholas Loncardo. How that happened is ludicrist. The way I see it, if you make a ship or character in the Star Trek Universe, and it makes it into print or on screen, then it becomes a part of the franchise, and falls under the property rights of the Star Trek name. The only real concession I would give, is credit for the origin of said character or design, and look for imput as to character motivation.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 16
02-12-2011, 01:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FirstAngelus View Post
Well as far as I remember Roddenberry statet that ships would need 2 warp naclesses. Never more never less. But the Constellation, Galaxy X und Prometheus broke that rule and made it canon that it is "diffrent" (although you could argument that the Prometheus has 4 so her diffrent parts can go to warp seperatly).

However, for the Akira: I thing thy should simply change the current Prometheus to an Akira; same stats just a diffrent skin; as soon as the promised Prometheus refit (that CAN preform the multi vector attack mode) goes live. We do not need 2 diffrent Prometheus class ships on t5.
You won't - the MVAM for the Prometheus is, according to one of the developers being developed as a console that's slotted in to take up one slot for the benefit of having access to MVAM and it will be usable by all 4 variants of the Prometheus skin.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
the science ships have not three naceles, they have a mission pod at the bottom.

The assault cruiser is as good as the others.

But maybe a bug? I skilled Anomalies and have always the photonic fleet (because science). my BO's can not make a anomaly because on a cruiser they are only Ensign and Leutenant. But why can't i use the skill I skilled? No BO has the photonic fleet, but I can use it.

There is alway a discussion about the right career in the right ship but the skill trees in space are nearly the same. I can ask an engenier to train my officers to mark 3 skills.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
Now I know that the assault cruiser is as good as the later ones, like retrofit and star cruiser.

I realy like now the higher escort design because they look realy "bad". But I even don't want to play them because of the fighter style behavor, I like the big ships more but I even think the escort "fighter" are important so this is no critic about them. Just the akira should be anywhere between cruiser and fighter maybe.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 19
03-21-2011, 01:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FirstAngelus View Post
Well as far as I remember Roddenberry statet that ships would need 2 warp naclesses. Never more never less. But the Constellation, Galaxy X und Prometheus broke that rule and made it canon that it is "diffrent" (although you could argument that the Prometheus has 4 so her diffrent parts can go to warp seperatly).

However, for the Akira: I thing thy should simply change the current Prometheus to an Akira; same stats just a diffrent skin; as soon as the promised Prometheus refit (that CAN preform the multi vector attack mode) goes live. We do not need 2 diffrent Prometheus class ships on t5.
No I dont like how they changed the BO stations on the new ship.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 20
03-28-2011, 01:42 PM
Just one minor point I saw from a earlier post, Gene was told about the plans for DS9 but never saw any of the production art or designs for the show. And by the time of his death he had mostly been phased out of TNG planning with all the back room politics that went on. After the earlier seasons of TNG he didn't have any input on how the ships looked.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:49 AM.