Ideas for new classes of starships

Showcase your own starship and weapon designs or other creative artwork

Re: Ideas for new classes of starships

Postby Lt. Staplic » Sun Feb 22, 2009 12:11 am

I agree, but if the seperation is small enough the benefit's can out weigh the "damage"
Check this out, Let me know if your interested: viewtopic.php?f=33&t=7385
Lt. Staplic
2 Star Admiral
2 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 8050
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 2:25 am
Location: Somewhere Among the Stars

Re: Ideas for new classes of starships

Postby bob » Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:16 am

Mark wrote:the bridge itself is the Captain's Yacht?

Yes, well sort of. It's used as the escape "pod" for the bridge crew.
Because, since the captain is supposedly the last to leave the ship, it takes care of the stupid hero idiots that tell the captain to leave the ship.
This way instead of telling the captain to leave they all just leave the ship at once.
User avatar
bob
Lieutenant jg
Lieutenant jg
 
Posts: 373
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 12:28 pm
Location: classified... i think

Re: Ideas for new classes of starships

Postby Lt. Staplic » Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:33 am

now you've got a whole host of issues like power for the bridge, does the bridge have it's own computer module, how does the Bridge propel itself, if it does have it's own computer does it come with an auto distruct incase an enemy tries to capture it. If not how do the crew access the power supply/propulsion/navigation.
Check this out, Let me know if your interested: viewtopic.php?f=33&t=7385
Lt. Staplic
2 Star Admiral
2 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 8050
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 2:25 am
Location: Somewhere Among the Stars

Re: Ideas for new classes of starships

Postby bob » Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:45 am

bob wrote:Image

see that lump thats the whole bridge area that pops off
User avatar
bob
Lieutenant jg
Lieutenant jg
 
Posts: 373
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 12:28 pm
Location: classified... i think

Re: Ideas for new classes of starships

Postby Lt. Staplic » Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:46 am

I understand that, but does it have all those things I listed above?
Check this out, Let me know if your interested: viewtopic.php?f=33&t=7385
Lt. Staplic
2 Star Admiral
2 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 8050
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 2:25 am
Location: Somewhere Among the Stars

Re: Ideas for new classes of starships

Postby bob » Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:54 am

bob wrote:Image

see that lump thats the whole bridge area that pops off
Lt. Staplic wrote:does the bridge have it's own computer module

yes
Lt. Staplic wrote:how does the Bridge propel itself

2 impulse engines
Lt. Staplic wrote:does it come with an auto distruct incase an enemy tries to capture it

yes, its called explosives that are armed via a switch wired into each officers console using its own power source in case power runs out
User avatar
bob
Lieutenant jg
Lieutenant jg
 
Posts: 373
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 12:28 pm
Location: classified... i think

Re: Ideas for new classes of starships

Postby bob » Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:55 am

sorry, I accidentally hit submit then quickly hit preview
User avatar
bob
Lieutenant jg
Lieutenant jg
 
Posts: 373
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 12:28 pm
Location: classified... i think

Re: Ideas for new classes of starships

Postby Lt. Staplic » Sun Feb 22, 2009 2:25 am

ok, now you've just got the problem of way to many redundant systems.
Check this out, Let me know if your interested: viewtopic.php?f=33&t=7385
Lt. Staplic
2 Star Admiral
2 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 8050
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 2:25 am
Location: Somewhere Among the Stars

Re: Ideas for new classes of starships

Postby Coalition » Sun Feb 22, 2009 5:53 am

Captain Seafort wrote:"Too many" being "one".


Agreed. Prometheus (the splittable version) would be better off as a test-bed for datalink technology, rather than a dedicated warship. The ship is designed to test coordinated combat tactics, and they designed the ship so they could easily stay together and test the connections, then disconnect and try combat maneuvers.

Oh heck with it, I can't even think of a good excuse. They could have done the same with a single ship and a pair of Runabouts with massive computer cores and performance modified to simulate various starships. All I can think of is it is someone's private project that was shown to be really stupid.

Lt. Staplic wrote:I agree, but if the seperation is small enough the benefit's can out weigh the "damage"


Absolutely. The key is to make sure the sections that separate are designed for the job. I.e. the detachable base on your marine ship likely has the hull designed to incorporate the section, and the main job of the ship is to transport and support marines. The base attached to the ship means that problems can be figured out on the way to the target, rather than after setting it up and finding out that someone forgot to stock the Sickbay and/or Armory. I'll bet the contact area with the base is a fun balance between minimal hull area to reduce the vulnerable location or need for extra armor, vs larger area to make structural support easier.

A separating combat ship is potentially either stupid, or well done. The stupid version is Prometheus. The ship splits into three parts, so each has 1/3 the power of the original ship, affecting shield regeneration, weapons recharge, acceleration, etc. They then have to armor the areas where the ship splits, requiring more mass compared to a single hull. Each section has its own shields and estimating half the original surface area, meaning the shields are 2/3 the 'thickness' of the original ship (1/3 from the 1/3 power available, but *2 for half the area). So the shields are probably just as strong as the original ship before separation, but recharging them during battle will proceed at 1/3 the normal rate - this means it is not part of the Borg combat studies group (which focused on repidly restored shields). It almost feels like a First Strike vessel, capable of handling (and likely dealing) lots of damage initially due to fully charged shields and weapons on all three sections, but cannot sustain the effort.

The annoying part is that since the main hull is attached to the dorsal section of the Engineering, all you have to do is destroy the 2nd section (the dorsal engineering section) and the ship cannot reconnect. If the main hull was at the front of the two Engineering sections, you could connect 1-2, 2-3, or 1-3 as needed.

The smart version is where the FTL or other strategic systems take up a large fraction of the hull. An example of this is Battletech, with Jumpships requiring 95% of their hull in the FTL core (K-F core, to be specific), but capable of carrying combat vessels on docking attachments. It requires a 1000 ton component on the Jumpship, but that attachment can carry up to a 100,000 ton Dropship to another star system. Warships in Battletech are better, as they only need 45.25% (yes, they had to include that .25% for backwards compatibility) of their mass in FTL core, and their upper limit in hull mass is 5 times higher than Jumpships (Jumpship upper limit = 500 ktons, Warship upper limit = 2.5 MT).

I'm not going to mention what a fully-loaded Merchant Jumpship looks like.
Relativity Calculator
My Nomination for "MVAM Critic Award" (But can it be broken into 3 separate pieces?)
Coalition
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
 
Posts: 762
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:34 am
Location: Georgia, United States

Re: Ideas for new classes of starships

Postby Captain Seafort » Sun Feb 22, 2009 10:58 am

:lol: When it comes to the stupidity of the Prometheus, you're preaching to the choir here. I've lost track of the number of times that debate's come up. Nonetheless, I think yours is the best concise but comprehensive dissertation to date on why MVAM is stupid.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.

Across the Universe - Chapter 2 now up
User avatar
Captain Seafort
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 14943
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: Ideas for new classes of starships

Postby Reliant121 » Sun Feb 22, 2009 12:05 pm

I would have to agree. Whats nice is it's not a typical "rant rant rant" type thing. You've pointed the faults, and the (few) strengths. And even come up with an alternative.

I vote we award Coalition the spontaneously devised "MVAM Critic Award".
"He was the best of us. They struck without provocation, there was no reason. Animals! Brutal! They deserve no mercy! Strike them down, follow them back to their base and kill all of them, all of them! No mercy!" - Delenn
User avatar
Reliant121
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 12063
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 4:00 pm
Location: Hampshire, UK

Re: Ideas for new classes of starships

Postby Sionnach Glic » Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:14 am

When it comes to the stupidity of the Prometheus, you're preaching to the choir here. I've lost track of the number of times that debate's come up. Nonetheless, I think yours is the best concise but comprehensive dissertation to date on why MVAM is stupid.


I think we only really had one debate on the Prommie, and that quickly devolved into both sides yelling at each other, resulting in us agreeing not to bring up the topic again for a long time.

That said, nice work, Coalition. Perfectly pointed out the flaws in it.
"You've all been selected for this mission because you each have a special skill. Professor Hawking, John Leslie, Phil Neville, the Wu-Tang Clan, Usher, the Sugar Puffs Monster and Daniel Day-Lewis! Welcome to Operation MindFuck!"
User avatar
Sionnach Glic
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 26014
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 9:58 pm
Location: Poblacht na hÉireann, Baile Átha Cliath

Re: Ideas for new classes of starships

Postby Deepcrush » Sun Apr 05, 2009 1:09 pm

Maybe you should copy/paste this over to the current debate going on...
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
User avatar
Deepcrush
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 18917
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 7:15 pm
Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA

Previous

Return to Art and Design Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest