Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 31
02-12-2012, 09:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirian_darkstar View Post
I want a single nacelle Defient...
so you want a squishy ship that has lots of teeth, but no speed........

NX-999999 "Sitting Duck"
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 32
02-12-2012, 10:22 PM
I think there's more that could be done while staying true to the saucer and nacelle sort of shindig. I think a ship with "over/under" nacelles and a nose mounted deflector could be pretty cool, sort of like a cross between a Stargazer and Excalibur in game, I'd imagine it'd work best as a science or escort ship.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 33
02-12-2012, 11:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azurian View Post
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.
The mess in my view is that they decide when they rules should apply.
Oh I dunno...A bit totalitarian or whatever? :p By all means have the rules(still prefer to call them guidelines) but do have some consistency as well.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Ebeneezergoode
I think there's more that could be done while staying true to the saucer and nacelle sort of shindig. I think a ship with "over/under" nacelles and a nose mounted deflector could be pretty cool, sort of like a cross between a Stargazer and Excalibur in game, I'd imagine it'd work best as a science or escort ship.
Challenger? It's a lovely ship.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 34
02-13-2012, 12:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Awarkle View Post
To get away from this "DOOM AND GLOOM" atmosphere or boxes and FE's and crashing.

Who else is with me that this game needs some single nacelle starships (not the abomination that is the kelvin) but the USS Eagle and Saladin.
Whats wrong with the U.S.S. Kelvin? I thought it was the coolest looking ship for a one naceller
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 35
02-13-2012, 07:45 AM
Very well, one nacelle is out?
Then let's use the circular nacelle(s) of the D'Kyr!
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 36
02-13-2012, 12:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJ_McRich
Then let's use the circular nacelle(s) of the D'Kyr!

/getting slight stress headpains
I think I donīt like you anymore. :p

The Vulcan version is actually a completely different way to generate a warp field than the dual nacelle method.
Rademacherīs Ringship from the SotL calender is a great model to show us Earthīs early experiments with that propulsion method. They obviously went for the nacelles.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 37
02-13-2012, 02:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivarST

/getting slight stress headpains
I think I donīt like you anymore. :p

The Vulcan version is actually a completely different way to generate a warp field than the dual nacelle method.
Rademacherīs Ringship from the SotL calender is a great model to show us Earthīs early experiments with that propulsion method. They obviously went for the nacelles.
Hate to tell you, but Mark Rademaker didn't create that concept. He simply brought an old Matt Jefferies concept to life.

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_(XCV_330)
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 38
02-13-2012, 02:55 PM
I'd like to see Cryptic get back to doing things that people actually want, rather than setting themselves up as a Lottery Commission.

You, things like:

More New Ships and Ship Costumes, that don't come in grab bags, boxes or whatever.

More New Interiors (Properly Scaled of course)

More New Bridges (Properly Scaled of course)

More New Uniforms

More New Weapon Skins

More New Trophies and filling in the Old trophy gaps. (Ship Models for example)

If they are going to be so heavily focused on the C-Store, then for crying out loud, at least make things that people want, and not make them frickin lotto boxes.

Yes, let's have some 1 nacelle ships. And more 3 nacelle ships. And more 2 and 4 nacelle ships.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 39
02-13-2012, 03:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rayvenwing View Post
Actually Bob your wrong on that. He did not set those rules till sometime just before next gen came out. He actually athorized the Starfleet Technical manual back in like 71 or 72. in that book there where two single nacelle ship designs and a 3 nacelle design called the dreadnaught. hence the reason we refer to the gal x as a dreadnaught.
The Franz Joseph tech manual occupies an interesting place in Trek lore and canonicity. It's been 'officiallly' removed from canon and yet, (like the Animated Series) it remained in print for all this time. Aside from a few shoutouts to it in TMP (a dreadnought schematic appears when V'Ger is reading the ship's databanks, and the name and hull number of the Hermes-class scout USS Columbia are mentioned) it has not been referenced in any "official" Trek canon. This further muddies what is or is not canon and what is or is not 'official.'

A shame, too. I really liked the tech manual.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 40
02-13-2012, 04:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattimus_Prime View Post
I [snip]
As was pointed out before, a lot of the single-nacelle designs we're aware of were created pretty much just to fill up the starship wreckage at Wolf 359. They were kitbashes of store-bought models, and there was really only so much they could do there. One should really take those ships with a grain of salt.
No. You just can't take them with a grain of salt. Regardless of the reasons, they appear on screen however small or obscure. The fact that fans have gone to great lengths to view screen grabs of those scenes to tease out any detail of the wreck should tell you that it matters. Even after the show went off of the air. Fans went to conventions and talked with the art department folks about any details of those wrecks.
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 09:31 AM.