Federation Battlestar
Federation Battlestar
Many years ago, I was playing Star Trek:The Role Playing game. In one adventue I was running, our intrepid crew discovered the (oBSG) Battlestar Galactica leading it's ragtag fugitive fleet to a shining planet, known as Earth. Our heroes destroyed the cylon baseships that were chasing the Colonials, which laucnched a game arc. It ended up with the Colonials settling a new world called New Kobal, and joining the Federaton.
Since Starfleet didn't have anything remotely resembling a Battlestar, my friends and I decided to try and design a Federation version. We were much younger and had all sorts of ideas why this or that could or couldn't work.
What do you guys think of the idea? Would it work? Should it work?
Since Starfleet didn't have anything remotely resembling a Battlestar, my friends and I decided to try and design a Federation version. We were much younger and had all sorts of ideas why this or that could or couldn't work.
What do you guys think of the idea? Would it work? Should it work?
They say that in the Army,
the women are mighty fine.
They look like Phyllis Diller,
and walk like Frankenstein.
the women are mighty fine.
They look like Phyllis Diller,
and walk like Frankenstein.
- Deepcrush
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 18917
- Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:15 pm
- Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA
Re: Federation Battlestar
Of course you could build a UFP Battlestar. It would take time to produce a whole new design from the ground up. But you could do it.
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
- Captain Seafort
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 15548
- Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:44 pm
- Location: Blighty
Re: Federation Battlestar
I don't think so. Battlestars are heavily armed in their own right, but they also rely heavily on their fighters for offensive punch. In Trek, fighters are all but useless in fleet actions and are limited to patrols, small ship actions, and trying to provoke the Cardies.Mark wrote:What do you guys think of the idea? Would it work? Should it work?
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
-
- Rear Admiral
- Posts: 6026
- Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 2:11 am
- Location: Any ol' place here on Earth or in space. You pick the century and I'll pick the spot
Re: Federation Battlestar
So the Feds would have to build a more effective fighter?Captain Seafort wrote:I don't think so. Battlestars are heavily armed in their own right, but they also rely heavily on their fighters for offensive punch. In Trek, fighters are all but useless in fleet actions and are limited to patrols, small ship actions, and trying to provoke the Cardies.Mark wrote:What do you guys think of the idea? Would it work? Should it work?
"All this has happened before --"
"But it doesn't have to happen again. Not if we make up our minds to change. Take a different path. Right here, right now."
"But it doesn't have to happen again. Not if we make up our minds to change. Take a different path. Right here, right now."
- Captain Seafort
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 15548
- Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:44 pm
- Location: Blighty
Re: Federation Battlestar
It's not a matter of building a more effective fighter, it's a matter of the fundamental style of combat. In BSG fighters are extremely effective against capital ships, for some unknown reason. In Trek bigger is better, and fighters simply aren't strong enough to hurt large warships. A more effective fighter wouldn't change this, as anything that increased the firepower you could cram onto a fighter could just as easily, and more effectively, be used to increase the firepower of a capital ship.Sonic Glitch wrote:So the Feds would have to build a more effective fighter?
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
- Deepcrush
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 18917
- Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:15 pm
- Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA
Re: Federation Battlestar
Not really, seafort is right that fighters are limited. However, remember that a Battlestar built with UFP tech is going to have a ton of fire power. Every AA is going to be a micro-torp PTL, every gun turret is going to be a pair of Pulse Phasers, every missile launcher will be replaced with a PTL or QTL.Sonic Glitch wrote:So the Feds would have to build a more effective fighter?
Where BSG uses fighters as half the battle and ST doesn't. We saw that the UFP fighters were able to inflict damage on Galor (and or smaller) type vessels. This means that the Battlestar in a fleet action could better focus its rather insane firepower on more important ships.
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
- Deepcrush
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 18917
- Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:15 pm
- Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA
Re: Federation Battlestar
After a second, I got the thought that a UFP Battlestar would be like a mobile DS9...
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
-
- 3 Star Admiral
- Posts: 10988
- Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 10:01 pm
- Location: Timepire Mobile Command Centre
- Contact:
Re: Federation Battlestar
Are you going off the nBSG? Because BSG79 was a little light on details such as weapons loadouts.Deepcrush wrote:
Not really, seafort is right that fighters are limited. However, remember that a Battlestar built with UFP tech is going to have a ton of fire power. Every AA is going to be a micro-torp PTL, every gun turret is going to be a pair of Pulse Phasers, every missile launcher will be replaced with a PTL or QTL.
Where BSG uses fighters as half the battle and ST doesn't. We saw that the UFP fighters were able to inflict damage on Galor (and or smaller) type vessels. This means that the Battlestar in a fleet action could better focus its rather insane firepower on more important ships.
- Deepcrush
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 18917
- Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:15 pm
- Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA
Re: Federation Battlestar
More just speaking in general really.Cpl Kendall wrote:Are you going off the nBSG? Because BSG79 was a little light on details such as weapons loadouts.
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
- Captain Seafort
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 15548
- Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:44 pm
- Location: Blighty
Re: Federation Battlestar
True, but then we get into the question of whether we're designing a Starfleet Battlestar, or whether we're asking how powerful a Battlestar would be if we replaced all its weapons with their Starfleet equivalent. The latter would require calculating how powerful a Battlestar's weapons are relative to (say) a GCS, why breaks the "no versus" rule. The former would inherently be less powerful than a proper Trek battleship such as a Sov, War-GCS, or the Paladin, because it would sacrifice weapons and power generation for hangers and the shitton of ammo, fuel and support gear aircraft need.Deepcrush wrote:Not really, seafort is right that fighters are limited. However, remember that a Battlestar built with UFP tech is going to have a ton of fire power. Every AA is going to be a micro-torp PTL, every gun turret is going to be a pair of Pulse Phasers, every missile launcher will be replaced with a PTL or QTL.
We only saw fighters hurting a capship in Preemptive Strike, and that was at least a dozen of them focusing on a single unsupported vessel. In SoA they were no more than an irritant, and Dukat only sent his ships after them to draw the Fed fleet into a trap, not because they were a threat.Where BSG uses fighters as half the battle and ST doesn't. We saw that the UFP fighters were able to inflict damage on Galor (and or smaller) type vessels. This means that the Battlestar in a fleet action could better focus its rather insane firepower on more important ships.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
- Captain Seafort
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 15548
- Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:44 pm
- Location: Blighty
Re: Federation Battlestar
We didn't get numbers, but there was enough to get a good idea of what sort of defences she had - the AAA twin guns along the hangars, the shields (or PD guns, depending on how you interpret "Experiment in Terra"), and the big forward lasers andCpl Kendall wrote:Are you going off the nBSG? Because BSG79 was a little light on details such as weapons loadouts.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
- Deepcrush
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 18917
- Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:15 pm
- Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA
Re: Federation Battlestar
I'm not going with vs, I'm going with what Mark asked "if it is possible to build a SF Battlestar" and the answer is yes.Captain Seafort wrote:True, but then we get into the question of whether we're designing a Starfleet Battlestar, or whether we're asking how powerful a Battlestar would be if we replaced all its weapons with their Starfleet equivalent. The latter would require calculating how powerful a Battlestar's weapons are relative to (say) a GCS, why breaks the "no versus" rule. The former would inherently be less powerful than a proper Trek battleship such as a Sov, War-GCS, or the Paladin, because it would sacrifice weapons and power generation for hangers and the shitton of ammo, fuel and support gear aircraft need.
In SOA we saw the Cardassian ships taking damage from the UFP fighters. A SF Battlestar and her fighters working together would make one hell of a wedge. The swarm of fodder added to the impressive fire power you could mount on a Battlestar would mean the enemy would have to give up some of its position or stay up close and take a continuous stream of fire at point blank range.We only saw fighters hurting a capship in Preemptive Strike, and that was at least a dozen of them focusing on a single unsupported vessel. In SoA they were no more than an irritant, and Dukat only sent his ships after them to draw the Fed fleet into a trap, not because they were a threat.
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
Re: Federation Battlestar
Just a thought.....couldn't specific torps be made for the "fighers"? If you take a photon or quantum torp, strip out the guidence system, warp sustainer, and a chunk of its fuel, you could get close to the same explosive punch in a short range warhead. Of course you'd have to get close enough so the torp wouldn't get dodged, but its smaller size would make that a bit more challanging, wouldn't you say?
That kind of weapon would suddenly make a squadren of "Vipers" a clear and present danger to a cap ship.
That kind of weapon would suddenly make a squadren of "Vipers" a clear and present danger to a cap ship.
They say that in the Army,
the women are mighty fine.
They look like Phyllis Diller,
and walk like Frankenstein.
the women are mighty fine.
They look like Phyllis Diller,
and walk like Frankenstein.
- Captain Seafort
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 15548
- Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:44 pm
- Location: Blighty
Re: Federation Battlestar
And I'm saying you'd be much better off with a normal gun warship than a Battlestar. In Trek 100% guns > 50% guns, 50% fighters.Deepcrush wrote:I'm not going with vs, I'm going with what Mark asked "if it is possible to build a SF Battlestar" and the answer is yes.
When?In SOA we saw the Cardassian ships taking damage from the UFP fighters.
Possibly, but you've still got the vulnerability of fighters to take into account. I can only imagine a fighter carrying a few warheads (two, maybe four), which a proper battleship could spam out in a second, and be far better protected. Shots that would kill a fighter would only deplete the shields of a battleship.Mark wrote:Just a thought.....couldn't specific torps be made for the "fighers"? If you take a photon or quantum torp, strip out the guidence system, warp sustainer, and a chunk of its fuel, you could get close to the same explosive punch in a short range warhead. Of course you'd have to get close enough so the torp wouldn't get dodged, but its smaller size would make that a bit more challanging, wouldn't you say?
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
Re: Federation Battlestar
Unless some tech could be devised to scamble a weapons lock. But we see cap ships with locks missing each other on a regular basis anyway. Could a high speed fighter prove too much for a cap ships weapons to effectively target?
They say that in the Army,
the women are mighty fine.
They look like Phyllis Diller,
and walk like Frankenstein.
the women are mighty fine.
They look like Phyllis Diller,
and walk like Frankenstein.