Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 11
02-12-2012, 03:02 PM
First of all Chat, your links to my "comments" has nothing to do with this topic, they were regarding Rules regarding Nacelle Line of Sight.



If you read those posts, pretty much the only rule Gene set out regarding ships in Star Trek is simply that Warp Nacelles are always in Pairs. That's it.

In single nacelled ships (Freedom, Kelvin, and Saladin) or Three-nacelled ships like the Niagra and the Galaxy Dreadnaught, it can simply be explained that those nacelles have a dual coil system. Thus they meet the Roddenberry Requirement.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 12
02-12-2012, 03:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormnnorm
Good thing he's passed away and has no direct control over the IP anymore. Frankly, all Cryptic needs to say are the phrases "lock box" and "money" and CBS will jump right on board. CBS doesn't care about these arcane rules if it furthers the IP and/or (more importantly) their profits.

Besides their "engines in pairs" rule is ridiculous when given the explanation:



So a 3-nacelle ship is okay because we can pretend that each nacelle has 2 warp fields in it, but a one-nacelle snip is not allowed the same capability?
I am simply repeating what a Dev said no more than a week ago in a podcast. They said all Federation ships have to follow Gene's rules. That is one reason a lot of player submitted ships were ruled out and also has to govern any Cryptic designed ships.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 13
02-12-2012, 03:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azurian View Post
First of all Chat, your links to my "comments" has nothing to do with this topic, they were regarding Rules regarding Nacelle Line of Sight.



If you read those posts, pretty much the only rule Gene set out regarding ships in Star Trek is simply that Warp Nacelles are always in Pairs. That's it.

In single nacelled ships (Freedom, Kelvin, and Saladin) or Three-nacelled ships like the Niagra and Galasy Dreadnaught, it can simply be explained that those nacelles have a dual coil system. Thus they meet the Roddenberry Requirement.
It was in reference to the rules being a big mess.
"Lets apply this rule to this ship but not that ship."
"This ship has moving nacelles so the LoS rule doesn't apply."
"This warpcore is fueled by milk but the rules doesn't say anything about that so warp 12 it is!"
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 14
02-12-2012, 03:10 PM
Only a mess when you confuse the Roddenberry Rules with the Probert Design rules.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 15
02-12-2012, 03:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azurian View Post
Only a mess when you confuse the Roddenberry Rules with the Probert Design rules.
Rule 1(2 Nacelles):Roddenberry.
Rule 2(LoS): Probert
Rule 3(Full Frontal Nacelle)robert.
Rule 4(Bridge on top): Probert...Ish.

Something like that? Yes, no?
So it's Roddenberry Rule and Probert Rules.
Hmm... Is that irony? Roddenberry rule(d) the Star Trek scene and Probert rules now?

Also I'm tired of my avatar.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 16
02-12-2012, 03:38 PM
But in the end, there is no "big mess" about those very simple rules. Especially when it comes to basic Starfleet Designs like the classic Federation Cruiser design, the core of Star Trek.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 17
02-12-2012, 03:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Commadore_Bob
There you go. But I'll be generous and say Gene's rules only apply to Fed ships as the Klingon BoP violates the rules in spades.
What about the Freedom-class? It was a part of the armada that fought the Borg at Wolf 359. Here's another reference for it: http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/freedom.htm
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 18
02-12-2012, 04:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amosov
What about the Freedom-class? It was a part of the armada that fought the Borg at Wolf 359. Here's another reference for it: http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/freedom.htm
Given the size of the Nacelle (Galaxy) and the size of the saucer (Ambassador), I'd say that the Freedom class is a good case for "the exception that proves the rule".
  1. We've never seen it before or since. So it was probably experiental.
  2. It was a background "junk" ship. There's a lot of silly, difficult to defend designs in the junk shots. It was a TV show, and they had limited time and money.
  3. It was at Wolf 359. Most of the ships at 359 weren't exactly the best of the best. They were in many cases older vessels pulled out of mothballs and off colonial support duties to respond quickly to a threat within Federation space.

A case could be made for this "ship" having been the testbed vehicle for the development of the Galaxy-Class warp nacelle design. A salvaged Ambassador saucer attached to a single nacelle for field testing.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 19
02-12-2012, 04:21 PM
My guess is that a "Single Nacelle" Federation lineage should be used in a similar manner as the Klingon BOPs. All consoles are universal, and allows the ships to be used as "scouts" or "destroyers" depending on the type of Bridge Officers and consoles used on these ships.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 20
02-12-2012, 05:32 PM
Regardless of the reasoning for the 3 nacel Galaxy...doesn't change how hideous it is.

They can try to toss in the whole 'technically it's 6' crap, but I do believe he said nacels, not coils or whatever.

The rest of the Galaxy X is pretty nice as far as improvements on the Galaxy itself....but it just has that abomination perched on the secondary hull that ruins it.

Not quite on topic I guess...but still. I've not seen a Federation ship design with an odd number of nacels that wouldn't look infinitely better if it truly followed the rules.
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 02:19 AM.