An IRC/Chat-style RPG ship named the USS Ark Royal (Akira-class) over at Star Trek: Echoes recently launched with me as CO.
I'm a real stickler for trying to jam more detail into the Trek world so I started designing things to enhance the environment. Not necessarily changing major things, but extrapolating based on what was already shown and adding in additional detail I think should've been there all along.
Development Patch - I tried to create this in the style shown in the Defiant/Danube era. I figure the Akira came out of the same Borgbuster program, so it fits in nicely.
Uniform Patch - This is the uniform shoulder patch (the official symbol is this shield, backed by a crossed sword and scepter and crowned by a knightly helmet). It's worn on a variety of uniforms. Not the normal "Class-B's" we'd normally seen, but on a host of others, including enlisted uniforms, working uniforms, tactical uniforms, security uniforms, etc.
Service Uniforms - *INCOMPLETE* - Here are some of the uniforms in use aboard the Ark Royal. In addition to the ordinary duty and dress uniforms we know, there are extrapolated variants/additions to those uniforms, and other classes of uniforms for other situations.
Tricorders - *INCOMPLETE* - It's been a while now since Nemesis and a long while since the 'flip-phone' tricorder came into being, so I reasoned that Ark Royal would now be using the new 'PADDcorder'. While this can be used on or off the ship, I figure it's most effective on the ship where it functions like a padd and has access to the ship's computer as well. So if you scan a damaged piece of equipment, for instance, it would also bring up the maintenance details on the part, whether there are replacements in stock, etc. I do intend to draw a flip-corder for more rugged field use as well, probably using elements from the more recent variants shown in like the Voyager finale and so forth.
Small Arms - The range of weapons shown in Trek seems ridiculously mundane, so I expanded on the list based on what I think they should have, things that have been shown but not repeated, and so forth. I think this is a decent cross-section of infantry weapons to be found aboard a frontline combat ship like an Akira. Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
Tactical Weapons - *INCOMPLETE* - Here's a list of torpedoes in use aboard the Ark Royal (not counting the different types of torpedoes/missiles her fighters carry). They're obviously interpretations of ones we know to exist, plus a customized decoy that I designed. I have planned (but not yet drawn), a multi-warhead one designed for overloading shield grids.
Probes - This is a full assortment of probes. I redrew, embellished designs of probes I was told a long time ago came from the TNG tech manual. I don't own the TNGTM so I can't verify that. I added Voyager's multi-spacial probe to the list as well to round it out to an even ten. I'm thinking about designing a relay or distress beacon and tossing that in as well.
I have no doubt that I'll end up doing more stuff in the future. I really enjoy creating extrapolative detail in the Trek verse, so I'll probably add more things to this list in the future.
I hope you all enjoy the illustrations, and find them interesting. I'm all for C&C so feel free to discuss anything you see here.
- Kurt
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Off to war then, are you?
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
Hehe, to war? Not necessarily. This is just what she's toting around under normal conditions. It's a warship.
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
Exactly how many dolphins do you have serving aboard the Ark Royal?
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
Hehe, none at the moment. A friend was doing fanfiction work with a Luna-class when I was working on the other uniforms and asked for a Delphine uniform concept. I just tossed it in with Ark Royal's. It's sort of a wetsuit.
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
How do they reach the comm badge? Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
Hehe, good question. In this case, I imagine his commbadge would function by voice command rather than fingertapping.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Talking dolphins, you say...
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
I haven't read the Titan books. I think they have a dolphin? Not sure.
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
If the Titan has a talking dolphin, then Riker has obviously aquired some interspacial STD and gone senile.
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
Hehe, well I never read the book. Perhaps this person was extrapolating on the 'Cetacean' thing in the tech manuals. I dunno. I know Probert had a dolphin in his concept sketches for Star Trek: Online.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Outgrowth of the program started in the early 21st century by the United Earth Oceans organization.
quote:Originally posted by Ahkileez: Hehe, to war? Not necessarily. This is just what she's toting around under normal conditions. It's a warship.
So you've made my point for me.
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
I did? Perhaps I did. I guess my point is this is would not be extra-ordinary cargo for the ship given her status as a warship. Realistically, I would expect to find most of those weapons aboard most Starfleet ships because there's really nothing exceptional about them.
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
Nice infantry weapons. I wish someone would do that for 22nd century weapons. Maybe some variations on the standard MACO EM-41...
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
Well if I ever start up another NX-era sim, I'd probably do that, hehe.
The Stun Grenade was inspired by the ones the MACOs used though.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 138) on :
So that's what happened to Darwin after seaQuest...
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
Seaquest! that's the show I was trying to link the dolphin to. I kept comming up with sealab 2010. Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
Hehe yes. Darwin continues to serve.
I believe it's actually popular among fandom to consider Seaquest and Trek part of the same universe, isn't it?
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
I read an article recently that basically boiled down to "SO MAYBE DOLPHINS AREN'T ALL THAT GREAT CUZ YEAH THEY'VE SAVED A LOT OF PEOPLE'S LIVES BUT THERE HAVE BEEN A FEW SCATTERED ACCOUNTS OF DOLPHINS RAPING OR KILLING OTHER DOLPHINS, PORPOISES OR HUMANS!" That *really* irked me...A few dolphins raped and murdered other animals, so they must all really be wild dangerous animals instead of possibly sentient lifeforms? That's like saying all humans are wild dangerous animals and not sentient lifeforms because some humans rape and murder other humans or non-human animals.
I'm getting really, *REALLY* fed up with people thinking we're so superior to everything that is not a human being simply on the basis of it not being a human being.
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
LOL... you're a picture perfect example of David Brin's essay on the " Dogma of Otherness ", Daniel Butler.
I think you'll find the link above quite interesting Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Dannyboy:
quote:That's like saying all humans are wild dangerous animals and not sentient lifeforms because some humans rape and murder other humans or non-human animals.
I wasn't aware they where mutually exclusive, nor that good guys wore white ten-gallons and bad guys actually wore black.
With the risk of going offtrack, I would say that it's not just the dogma of defending objectiveness that has people believing in dolphin intelligence, it feels more like classic, na�ve hope. Just like the assumption that there are aliens waiting for us in space (the only "evidence" being arbitrary statistics), or that there is life after death, or that there is a god. It's hope, people believe certain stuff to avoid facing uncertain quantitites, not because there's any merit to it. "Magma displacement", yeah?
[ March 26, 2008, 01:19 AM: Message edited by: Nim ]
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
They're not mutually exclusive. But saying "Some A are B therefore all A are B" is...pretty obviously fallacious.
Hope is a good thing. Unless you're a Vulcan.
Ahkileez - you're right, I did enjoy that, very much.
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
Working on Ark Royal's 'superauxiliary' ship now. I guess the Akira's version of a Captain's yacht, but without the luxury. A combination runabout/dropship heavy craft. Something nice and tough to match her mothership.
She's not done, but I hope you guys like the Britannic. I like the way the E-E's shuttles seem to match her look and feel, and so does Voyager's. I wanted this ship to be the same way, hence echoing the catamaran shape.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
Do you have side views yet?
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
No. I always put that off because I'm not too good at elevation views.
Want to see more of this militarized Trek ship? Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
*stern look* I maintain that what was seen on-screen weren't primarily warships, but that doesn't mean Starfleet doesn't have any. Plus this gal is attractive.
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
Thought I'd update this thread with some actual work
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Sweet. Bridge?
Mark
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
Bridge?
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
Yeah, the bridge, you know, the big room where the captain commands the ship from?
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
Oh, it was out of context Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
Heh. I like "signal booster filament." Pretentious way of saying "antenna" Maybe even better, "signal *amplification* filament" Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
Well we wouldn't want to be pretentious with the technological terms, would we? Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
more like Bovine Excrement.
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
A few people asked for something like this, so...
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
Quick and dirty, hehe
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
I'm assuming that's you. Photoshop?
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
Hehe no. Just some pic I grabbed off the net.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
But do you have a bridge design selected? That's what I was asking about before.
Mark
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
Oh, I didn't understand, sorry.
I'd drawn this up a long time ago, but I drew it up badly out of scale to the real life ship, so I'll probably redo it.
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
I like the flanking tac stations.
Posted by OverRon (Member # 2036) on :
I like the design, although the briefing room looks a little cramped. Is the crew break room, the place where the captain keeps the spare bridge crew when he decides to send half the bridge on an away mission immediately?
What about having a turbolift off one of the corridors next to the briefing room. As if your having negotiations with an enemy in the briefing room, you wouldn't want to have them walking through the bridge and seeing all sorts of sensitive information there.
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
There might be a similar briefing room somewhere in an easily accessable, though well defended and non vital part of the ship for that purpose.
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
Well having a briefing room right off the bridge is a Trek tradition now, but I don't like the idea of it either. It will almost certainly disappear in any new iteration of this bridge.
Since the bridge is a critical place, I figured there'd be allowance for bridge crew to take a break and get some lunch of take a piss that would keep them close rather than having to go down four or five decks.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
That docking port is some fucked-up shit, yo.
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
Hehe, I just copied what I saw on the drawings. I agree, it's not a smart place to put a docking port.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Putting one on the bridge I don't mind (although, there's none seen on the actual Akira)...it's that sidewall placement that makes it useless.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
...Except to travel pods.
The bridge overall is useful and kinda fun. The scale is certainly really off, but at least the major bits are in the right place. Obviously, the bridge seats were designed for the Obesoids from the planet Bakphat IX...
Mark
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
Which in its former life was a planet called Earth. Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mark Nguyen: ...Except to travel pods.
I don't even think a pod would squeak in there without some paint scratching & a need for Bondo.
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
I don't think the bridge is a good place for a docking port designed to handle more than an inspection pod. Being wedged between those catamaran hulls, I doubt anything much bigger would fit even if the port wasn't in a weird horseshoe thingy.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Uh...you DO know there a fuckton of space twixt those booms, yeh?
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
My mistake. I must have miscalculated. Still, If a large ship needed to dock, I wouldn't want to be piloting it. It looks risky. Although, I would assume that there are other docking ports.But, I know what happens when I assume things...
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
It's small any way you slice it. It was a bad design piece to transplant from the other classes. Who the hell needs a docking port back there unless Spock is going to show up inexplicably halfway into the movie.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Piloting a ship there isn't a problem (that's what auto docking is for) the problem is that any travel pod sat there would effectively block the EVA airlock opposite, making it rather redundant. I think the reasoning behind having airlocks on bridge modules is that they are effectively separate spacecraft that can in theory (though we've never seen it) eject away and act as a lifeboat for the bridge crew. This is possibly more a feature used in the trial run of a ship, where the crew is relatively small and the chances of something going wrong are slightly greater. Also for rescue operations it would be useful to have exterior access to the bridge in the event that it is physically cut off from the rest of the ship and transporting isn't an option. Of course it's also essential if the bridge crew need to evacuate to another part of the ship in the absence of jefferies tubes, the turbo lift and transporters.
So what I'd suggest is you make that cavity much more shallow and have just one aft facing airlock, or just more it so it's on the outer curved edge of that same compartment.
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
I haven't worked too much on this project lately. Basically what happened is I started to work on a side view for Britannic and it sucked and I got discouraged. Then I got sidetracked by an ancillary project to this one.
This little transporter beacon (approximately actual size) I drew because of the needs of a mission we were doing. Basically you slap it on to what you want to get a good solid transport lock on, activate it and it'll extend its arms to affix itself properly and then you've got a nice solid signal to beam whatever it is out.
The task force Ark Royal is leading into the area of space we're in, includes a Federation Army peacekeeper unit. Not SF Marines, but Federation Army - an entirely different service.
I meant to get much further along with this project before showing anything from it, but I figure I owe you guys something for being so kind.
The images are pretty self-explanatory. For the uniforms, I wanted something that felt like it belonged to the same 'family' as the current Starfleet uniforms, produced by the same culture, but with a distinct look of its own since it's an entirely different service.
Hope you like.
----
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
Interesting. I like how they are styled somewhat with today's military style. Are the ranks in the same pattern as today's military ranks? (or at least the American Military rank system)
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
Well I didn't work all of it out. But it would be some kind of a hybrid between the systems used by the major militaries of the world I imagine.
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
I'd quite like to see a rank system that is not based on US military insignia, like we always see. I mean, there are far more uses of the rank systems based on those of Russia, and half the world, ie. the Commonwealth, use a British type system.
Do like the uniforms though. Hats?
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
I actually like the British rank system more than the US system. I like the sound of " Brigadier",and "Lance Corporal".
Then again, I think " Gunny" has a nice ring to it also...
With US armed forces, I prefer the system used by the Army and the Marines. SLightly less complicated than the NAVY's scheme of things.
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Ginger Beacon: I'd quite like to see a rank system that is not based on US military insignia, like we always see. I mean, there are far more uses of the rank systems based on those of Russia, and half the world, ie. the Commonwealth, use a British type system.
Do like the uniforms though. Hats?
Hats? I dunno... hehe. Maybe.
As for the rank setup, as you can see the officers wear epaulets. My intent is for those epaulets to carry that system of ranking, where it's more about brooches than stripes and bars.
The Army would be a hybrid of the various systems. Due to the immense size of the military you'd need more rank differentiation in order to break down responsibility into manageable chunks. But I'll also admit to being biased towards the British/Commonwealth system, which is also used by the majority of the rest of the world, Commonwealth or otherwise.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 138) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sean: I actually like the British rank system more than the US system. I like the sound of " Brigadier",and "Lance Corporal".
Then again, I think " Gunny" has a nice ring to it also...
With US armed forces, I prefer the system used by the Army and the Marines. SLightly less complicated than the NAVY's scheme of things.
Personally I think the Navy's is the easiest. Three sets of three. Three seaman ranks, three petty officer ranks, and three chief ranks. Seaman Recruit, Seaman Apprentice, Seaman Petty Officer 3rd-class, Petty Officer 2nd-class, Petty Officer 1st-class Chief, Senior Chief, Master Chief
I always had a hard time with other ranks like which order all the sergeants go in which type of sergeant is higher.
Needless to say I like seeing a pro-military take on Trek fan art. And since I go with a more heavy Navy-Starfleet hybrid seeing an Army-Starfleet is an interesting change of pace.
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
Hopefully I'll have more to show you guys in the near future.
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
I haven't done too much on the Akira side of things lately, but I did play around with the Army side since our taskforce has an army detachment.
I wanted them to look and feel distinctly different from Starfleet, but part of the same culture. The rank scheme is a hybrid. It's primarily the British/Commonwealth/European scheme, with a bit of the Nato-style as well.
Hope you guys find them interesting.
OFFICERS
WARRANT OFFICERS
ENLISTED Posted by Toadkiller (Member # 425) on :
Well, leaving aside my thought that the Federation wouldn't have a "federal" army but something more akin to the US's national guard which can be "federalized" in emergency....
You seem to have more flag ranks than we've seen Star Fleet having - how many different kinds of admiral have we seen? Maybe two, three?
On the enlisted side we've no idea of the Fleet's structure but I'd question the need for a Corporal *and* a Specialist. Corporal is where you'd get your first significant level of leadership roles. I don't think an additional step between it and Sergeant is really needed, is it?
Warrant officers, today, are sort of an ad hoc rank that, IMHO, would hopefully be phased out by the 24th century. They also tend to be poorly written in military fiction.
They look fine though.
Posted by Toadkiller (Member # 425) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sean: With US armed forces, I prefer the system used by the Army and the Marines. SLightly less complicated than the NAVY's scheme of things.
You know that the US forces have the exact same rank structures, right? Just name them differently.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
"Yes, SIR." "'SIR?!?' I WORK for a living! What does three up & three down mean to you, Airman?!?" "End of an inning?" "....SERGEANT. MAJOR."
Interesting, although the lower & middle warrant officer grades look like they're playing for the Steelers.
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
The S.E.A.L.s are part of the NAVY, do they use the NAVY ranks,( i.e. PO1,PO2,PO3), or the Army's scheme of things, ( i.e. Pte,Cpl,Sgt)?
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
quote:Originally posted by Toadkiller: Well, leaving aside my thought that the Federation wouldn't have a "federal" army but something more akin to the US's national guard which can be "federalized" in emergency....
Well, you and I will obviously differ on opinion here, but I'm gratified to see that you'd even consider it. Most Trek fans can only believe that Starfleet is the beginning and end of military capability of a population that counts in the hundreds of billions, if not low trillions.
I know your idea of it being a national guard is your way of trying to reconcile the idea of an army with the fact that Trek only ever shows Starfleet and I appreciate the logic, though I disagree with it.
quote: You seem to have more flag ranks than we've seen Star Fleet having - how many different kinds of admiral have we seen? Maybe two, three?
I'm not the kind of person that notices those sorts of things, but I'm pretty sure that admirals of all levels (at least based on visible numbers of pips if not named by rank) have been shown. Having an equivalent number of general staff ranks is no different.
quote: On the enlisted side we've no idea of the Fleet's structure but I'd question the need for a Corporal *and* a Specialist. Corporal is where you'd get your first significant level of leadership roles. I don't think an additional step between it and Sergeant is really needed, is it?
Specialist isn't an additional step. it's more or less a lateral promotion. Lance Corporal should have been below but I put it on the same line for aesthetic reasons. Specialist would have much the same definition and role as today - which is of course to do specialized work.
quote: Warrant officers, today, are sort of an ad hoc rank that, IMHO, would hopefully be phased out by the 24th century. They also tend to be poorly written in military fiction.
I don't much hold to what the tv show tells me. I rely on what seems right and realistic to me. And the trek world where every officer (enlisted hardly even seem to exist) is a specialist in every conceivable area is wholly unrealistic to me. Warrant Officers are highly trained for very specific jobs, sometimes coming from outside the military directly to that position.
I don't see that changing in the future. There will always be jobs that will take so much investiture to get good at it that it doesn't make sense to try to use jacks of all trades to do them.
quote: They look fine though.
Glad you like em Posted by shikaru808 (Member # 2080) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sean: The S.E.A.L.s are part of the NAVY, do they use the NAVY ranks,( i.e. PO1,PO2,PO3), or the Army's scheme of things, ( i.e. Pte,Cpl,Sgt)?
Yeah, SEAL's use Navy ranks. Hence, the whole Navy thing
I personally prefer a phasing out of any sort of Fed "Army" or "Marine Corps" and instead using a Mobile Infantry of sorts, like in the Starship Troopers universe. I mean, the roles that the SF Army and Marines would play would basically be identical so it would make more sense to have it MI style.
Ahkileez man, great work. I'm in a IIRC/RPG too and I only WISH ours was as good as this. I'll go check yours out. Regardless, I like your look on a more militarized version of Trek. It's nice to dream about a utopian galaxy out there, but chances are conflict will occur. Great drawings.
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
Cool. I like them. Officer ranks look like a Russian/German hybrid, and the other ranks are a nice UK/US hybrid.
Perhaps I would have fewer sergeant ranks, to make it a bit less American, but thats me. Perhaps, instead of being senior sergeants, they could be ocupational titles for warrant officers.
One other thing - the officer cadets look too similar to the second lieutenants. Perhaps they could use a different device all together.
Like the British Army / RAF (white stripes and collar patches), or the Royal Navy (midshipman patches)?
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
"One other thing - the officer cadets look too similar to the second lieutenants. Perhaps they could use a different device all together. "
Not entirely, if you consider that all ranks from 2nd LT up have a "federation" bar on the sides of their insignias, with the officer cadets lacking that to signify that they are not yet officers.
Posted by Toadkiller (Member # 425) on :
None of this is to distract from your work. It is honestly none of my business how someone chooses to imagine the trek-verse. But in the interest of an increase in posts round these parts:
I guess my thought isn't so much political as logistical. Any sort of offensive "ground" operation against a well populated planet seems unfeasible. The target has: local knowledge, replicators for making weapons or weapons on hand and a huge numerical advantage. Sending "army troops" isn't going to be sustainable. Either you dictate terms from orbit and "occupy" with relatively few troops or you aren't going to win.
A Galaxy class can carry 15,000 tops and probably only a fraction of that if you want them able to fight days or weeks later. Less again if you want to carry equipment, vehicles and any sort of "artillery", Dedicated troop ships might do a little better but given trek ship sizes I'd think a 5,000 troop ship would be pretty big. Say you have 10 of them for an assault and for tactical reasons the fleet can't stay in orbit for more than 10 hours. (An off hand guess based on current day Marine ops that I've read about in books.)
Can you beam/shuttle down 50,000 troops and gear in 10 hours? If you do, can they "take" a planet of 1 billion hostile folks? Wouldn't it just be the Iraq situation times about 1,000,000? How do 50,000 troops deal with 1 billion hostages scattered across the planet's surface? With transporters and IED's?
Is any of the above something that it seems like the Federation would be interested in doing?
My counter with the "militia" idea is that each member world and colony would have a force to 1) counter the above scenario 2) serve as a emergency management force like the national guard 3) be able to be "federalized" to assist other member worlds in an emergency of sufficient magnitude. These militias could, I suppose, be collectively referred to as the "Federation Army" and certainly those with a political reason (I'm looking at your Romulans) for doing so could call them that.
I'd imagine that a culture that refers to battleships as "explorers" would call it something like a "Emergency Response Cadre" or something.
Homemade donuts calling from other room....
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
Perhaps the purpose of the "army" is as more of an occupation force, to keep things in order once a planet has surrendered to starfleet, or to help deal with dissedents on a planet in the midst of a revolution. Or, they could be like a special forces unit, just on a massive scale, to perform covert operations. Also, they could be used to hold and defend installations captured or built by the federation in the event of war.
But, as a force to take a planet, I agree. It just doesn't make sense logistically.
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
quote:Originally posted by Toadkiller: None of this is to distract from your work. It is honestly none of my business how someone chooses to imagine the trek-verse. But in the interest of an increase in posts round these parts:
Great I love these kinds of discussions.
quote: I guess my thought isn't so much political as logistical. Any sort of offensive "ground" operation against a well populated planet seems unfeasible. The target has: local knowledge, replicators for making weapons or weapons on hand and a huge numerical advantage. Sending "army troops" isn't going to be sustainable. Either you dictate terms from orbit and "occupy" with relatively few troops or you aren't going to win.
Local knowledge, supply lines and numerical advantage has been a consideration in warfare for thousands of years. There have always been ways to surmount them.
I hold to the axiom that if you don't have boots on the ground, you don't control it. Trek is replete with waves, particles, materials and random minerals that can obscure and occlude sensors, disrupt their weapons, disable transporters and so forth. Any fighting force worth their salt would know these and employ them tactically. So unless you're willing to employ torpedoes against the surface (essentially using planet-cracking nuclear weapons) then the only way to properly control it *is* to get people on the ground.
If I was defending my planet against Starfleet, I'd load my atmosphere with all these nice obscuring particles and waves, put generators on the ground and turn my planet into one giant blindspot then spend my time launching surface-to-orbit weapons up at them until I knock them out of the sky.
High ground is not always the advantage it seems.
quote: A Galaxy class can carry 15,000 tops and probably only a fraction of that if you want them able to fight days or weeks later. Less again if you want to carry equipment, vehicles and any sort of "artillery", Dedicated troop ships might do a little better but given trek ship sizes I'd think a 5,000 troop ship would be pretty big. Say you have 10 of them for an assault and for tactical reasons the fleet can't stay in orbit for more than 10 hours. (An off hand guess based on current day Marine ops that I've read about in books.)
I would imagine them using dedicated troop ships for the most part. A Galaxy carrying 15,000 troops should not be an indicator of how much a dedicated ship could carry. Troop ships in WWII could carry up to 10,000 troops and they were a tiny fraction of all but the smallest starships. In Star Trek we see ships appointed like flying hotels. We've never seen a really stripped down ship dedicated more toward efficiency than the needs of a tv show set. A ship hundreds of meters long and dozens of meters tall can hold a crapload of people. Add to that dedicated vehicle carriers and you can move a substantial force - in convoy as it's always been done.
The number of hours a ship can stay in orbit I can't begin to guess at. That would entirely depend on the situation.
quote: Can you beam/shuttle down 50,000 troops and gear in 10 hours? If you do, can they "take" a planet of 1 billion hostile folks? Wouldn't it just be the Iraq situation times about 1,000,000? How do 50,000 troops deal with 1 billion hostages scattered across the planet's surface? With transporters and IED's?
I don't subscribe to the hour limitation, but I can say right off that I don't think you could effectively fight a war on a planetary scale (assuming the planet is of reasonable population) without a ground floor minimum of a quarter million troops.
As ever in war, the vast majority of the population won't be fighting. But even so, you don't just drop a million troops on the ground and call it a day. They would be supported by Starfleet and some kind of an air force and perhaps even the Fed Naval Patrol depending on the situation, as well as other military units, to give them an advantage so they can take territory - which is the purpose of an army.
quote: Is any of the above something that it seems like the Federation would be interested in doing?
You say that like they have a choice. Having an army is a necessity, not a weekend project. You can't protect and police your own territory without one.
quote: My counter with the "militia" idea is that each member world and colony would have a force to 1) counter the above scenario 2) serve as a emergency management force like the national guard 3) be able to be "federalized" to assist other member worlds in an emergency of sufficient magnitude. These militias could, I suppose, be collectively referred to as the "Federation Army" and certainly those with a political reason (I'm looking at your Romulans) for doing so could call them that.
That's workable too. But I don't believe that would be the smartest way to handle it. Many countries have standing armies as well as 'guard' units. They have two different kinds for very specific reasons. Reasons that will be as true four centuries from now as they were four centuries ago.
quote: I'd imagine that a culture that refers to battleships as "explorers" would call it something like a "Emergency Response Cadre" or something.
I chalk all that up to Roddenberry's hippie bullshit influencing TNG and what came after. Willful denial of the facts doesn't actually change those facts. They are battleships even if you call them luxury yachts.
Trek's insistence on euphemizing aggressive terms doesn't make any difference. They are what they are.
quote: Homemade donuts calling from other room....
Yum... glazed? ::hopeful::
Anyway, I enjoy these sorts of ideological discussions. I know they're drastically at odds with the average Trek fan, but I'm used to tht Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Well, if we really want to pursue this, what possible reason is there for an interstellar war? What possible resource is easier to acquire by traveling billions of miles and fighting billions of weird things than it is at home? No possible resource, is what. And if, say, you're concerned about some alien launching a relativistic bomb at you before you can do the same to them, you either launch your own at any planet you find with free oxygen, or you die, or it turns out there aren't any aliens with relativistic bombs and you just spend your time being paranoid.
(Except religion and/or ideology, I suppose.)
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
If resources mean nothing, why is it every three or four episodes our heroes run into some kind of mining ship/planet/person or freighters carrying cargo?
Resources always matter and they're not always the purpose of war even when you discount religion or ideology.
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
As for other reasons to wage war, perhaps just plain vengence. Like perhaps Species A was mad at species B because they insulted their supreme god in their last comunique. That may be reason enough. Maybe not for the Federation though...
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 138) on :
Flying hotels is right. A ship as large as the Galaxy-class only having 1000 people onboard while US carriers have a crew compliment of 5000.
I mean I see a certain amount of internal space being used for large compartments and areas such as science labs, stellar cartography, fuel storage, computer cores, etc...
However you still could fit maybe 10,000 on a Galaxy-class if you bunked people up. The USS Fitzgerald I served on was only 500 feet but had over 300 people onboard. This also has to do with the fact all enlisted E-6 and below stayed in berthings with lots of racks. I was in berthing 3, the Operations Department berthing which had about 80 racks. Combat Systems Department has close to 100 racks. E-7 and above chiefs stayed in their own chief's berthing. Most officers doubled up in their staterooms, 2 per room. Only the CO and XO had their own private rooms. The CO actually has 2 rooms. His main stateroom and a small room near the bridge to stay at during extended time on bridge duty. Think of it terms of Picard's ready room, but with a bunk and restroom.
[ June 15, 2008, 06:59 PM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
Is that with or with out hot bunking?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 138) on :
No "hot bunking". I had an assigned rack that was mine and mine alone. Berthing 3 Rack 40. Racks are 3 high and open up with a storage area underneath for your personal shit, as well as a high school type locker in berthing for your stuff.
For a starship I would have something similar in a fanfic with enlisted having berthings and junior officers having to share a stateroom with O-4 and above with their own personal staterooms.
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
There's lots of room for realistic portrayal in Trek. That's what I focus on. Okay, so a Galaxy can carry 15,000. Fine. But perhaps an Anzac-class troop ship half the dimensions can carry many times as much in dedicated, no-frills barracking berths and still use a few decks for storing vehicles and equipment, allowing you to put down a very substantial force with a single ship.
And I've always thought the crew numbers on starships in Trek are ridiculously low. Even if you account for a certain amount of automation (doesn't seem to help since people are always manually fixing shit int he show), you still wouldn't have the bodies to throw at a real emergency. God forbid you get boarded where you have one person to defend every 300 cubic meters of territory on the ship all by their lonesome. They'd get steamrolled.
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
Dear god, imagine how many they could stuff into a Galaxy class, with all enlisted crew and everyone under the rank of LCDR bunking up, perhaps 6 or more to a set of quarters. Using rotating bunk schedules " hot bunking", you could probably double that number. And, with it's shuttle capacity, the GCS might make a nice dedicated troop transport, if a few were outfitted as such later in life.
Hobbes, I'm not sure if you would know this, but do submariners actually get the best food in the NAVY? In fact, is the food any good at all? Although I probably don't know what good food is...I love MREs Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
My point is that Star Trek is already at such right angles to the possible that nitpicking the details like this is, well, fun, sure, but I mean, let's keep this in mind.
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
I understand what you're saying, Sol. But my position is that it doesn't have to be that way.
I look past the script on the screen and try to see the 'real' world behind it. Everything on the screen is there to serve the plot of that particular episode and nothing more. The problem is we've tried to stitch that together over the years, and it comes together into a jumbled mess of a world full of contradiction and things that just don't make sense.
I figure Star Trek as a media is no more a realistic portrayal of their world than Andy Capp is of being in the Army.
Posted by Toadkiller (Member # 425) on :
"Hot bunking" and "six to a room" is not conducive to having a fighting force on the other end. I used to help build troop transports for the Navy and Uncle Sam's Misguided Children and the population density is nothing like what you're talking about.
They can't just lay in their racks for weeks and then get up and fight.
Sub food is good, modern subs are not like what you see on Operation Petticoat.
I think you mean Beetle Bailey not Andy Capp .
Sol - I agree, but hey that's what we're here for, huh? Although this might need to resume in Timo's place.
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
They don't have to be stuffed like sardines to have high density. 10,000 troops on the Queen Mary which was built to carry 3000 passengers and crew was able to cross the atlantic in the middle of WWII. I should think four centuries from now, a ship four to five times her size should be able to carry quite a few, especially if they're built to do so from the jump.
The fact remains, it's a surmountable problem. It doesn't have to be solved by using the ships we've already on the screen as the yardstick.
Posted by Toadkiller (Member # 425) on :
My point is though that the troops on the QM were not going directly into battle. They would get to the UK and stage, build up and then take shorter hops.
I could more buy that if you wanted to invade a planet like Earth that you'd seize something undefended in the outer system and then make the main assault at sublight after the planetary defenses were down.
My main contention though is that we've never seen the Federation do quarter million people level operations. They *should* probably work at that scale, but certainly that's not the scale Trek has been on TV. Maybe the Federation is much more sparsely populated that we'd think.
Certainly help explain why entire planets all where the same kind of clothes and have the same hair style.
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
I think that the writers of trek have seriously misunderestimated the abilities of their ships. We predict, what 15,000 as the number of troops a GCS can carry? I am currently watching "Yesterday's Enterprise", and Tasha just mentioned to Castillo that the Enterprise could carry 6,000 troops. This is in an alternate universe where the Federation has been at war for 20 years, so I'm guessing that that number would have been tried and tested as the optimum number of troops to stuff into a GCS.
Of course, Tasha also said that the Enterprise D is the first Galaxy class produced...
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
The 15,000-person figure comes from page 176 of the TNGTM, where it notes an upper limit of that figure for emergency evac operations after conversion of all shuttle & cargo bays for triage & treatment centers. I would think that in a troop transport capacity, those shuttle & cargo bays would be used AS shuttle & cargo bays, that the single-person luxury quarters would hold 4 or 6 bunked roommates in a suite style, & that the extra room modules would be swapped out for troop barracks modules. Thus 6000 sounds about right.
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
quote:Originally posted by Toadkiller: My point is though that the troops on the QM were not going directly into battle. They would get to the UK and stage, build up and then take shorter hops.
Well I really don't expect the mythical ship we're talking about to put down on the surface and see a quarter million troops come running down her ramps into battle. Of course there would have to be some staging and preparation first
quote: I could more buy that if you wanted to invade a planet like Earth that you'd seize something undefended in the outer system and then make the main assault at sublight after the planetary defenses were down.
This is precisely how you'd have to do it. Either from further out in the system, or captured territory on the surface of the planet itself.
You'd have to establish a beachhead and then push out from there.
quote: My main contention though is that we've never seen the Federation do quarter million people level operations. They *should* probably work at that scale, but certainly that's not the scale Trek has been on TV. Maybe the Federation is much more sparsely populated that we'd think.
I think it's certainly a larger leap to assume the galaxy is underpopulated than it is to assume the show's writers have just lacked foresight in properly developing the logistics of that world properly.
Trek never really gets the scale of things right. For example, I just grabbed this off Memory Alpha: "Out of the 112 ships in the Seventh Fleet, only 14 survived the fight at Tyra and made it back to Federation lines." That's 98 ships that were lost in that battle. Given the scale of the losses, it's highly unlikely that they recovered many of the crew from these ships. So, assuming an average of 200 crew per ship, that was nearly 20,000 troops killed in one place in one single battle in a war that lasted for years. I could be wrong, but I don't think we've ever heard numbers like that in Trek, despite the fact that the were right there in the background.
Once you start thinking beyond the borders of a single planet, the numbers *have* to get huge. It's just that the writers weren't used to thinking in those terms, so the show never reflected them properly.
quote: Certainly help explain why entire planets all where the same kind of clothes and have the same hair style.
This drives me up the wall. I believe Bernd actually has an article about it on EAS. A poster on another board mentioned to me the other day that we can't actually depend on Trek to show galactic diversity properly when they haven't even managed to get human diversity right.
Posted by shikaru808 (Member # 2080) on :
Reagrdless of the amount of ability, it would take a massive amount of manpower, firepower, and support to take a single populated planet in "realist" terms. I mean, the US is having trouble handling the insurgency in a COUNTRY, can you imagine a planet?
Politics obviously interfere in those cases too, you can't just get a large amount of ships in orbit and just glass the surface. And the varying opinions and cultures of the Federation would make the whole idea of "world-capturing" a very lengthy process.
In the ST universe, it's possible, but I can only imagine how difficult it would be.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Well I really don't expect the mythical ship we're talking about to put down on the surface and see a quarter million troops come running down her ramps into battle. Of course there would have to be some staging and preparation first [Smile]
Or hoppers.
quote:Reagrdless of the amount of ability, it would take a massive amount of manpower, firepower, and support to take a single populated planet in "realist" terms. I mean, the US is having trouble handling the insurgency in a COUNTRY, can you imagine a planet?
Well my view is that Starfleet isn't in the habit of "taking" planets by force, it's not normally what they do. From what we saw in the Dominion War their tactics mostly revolved around engaging the enemy fleet (hence heavy losses) and small tactical raids to disrupt the enemy's ability to make war by taking out shipyards, supply bases and long range sensor arrays. The point was made very clearly on the show that the initial strategy was "engage, retreat". It wasn't until the invasion of Chintoka that we even heard about them going after somewhere with a civilian population and it seamed once the orbital defences were down it was just a matter of delivering the troops to the surface. Now I know it shouldn't be that easy to win a ground battle (certainly not with the Jem'Hadar) but a defender's options are decidedly limited when the enemy can transport thousands of troops at a time to just about anywhere on the planet and have total air and space superiority. So in this instance once the strategic points are taken (power stations, comms relays etc) there isn't allot of pacifying left to do. Naturally all the Dominion troops will fight to the end ("jolly good" says the Klingon troops) but I imagine the Cardassians would surrender once they see they're cut off and on their own. So I dare say that pitched, planet-wide ground battles would be rare, if not unheard of in 24th century warfare.
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: Well my view is that Starfleet isn't in the habit of "taking" planets by force, it's not normally what they do.
You'll get off on the wrong foot if you continue to think just in terms of Starfleet. I wouldn't expect Starfleet to ever have the manpower to fight a ground war of any real size on their own.
You're conditioned to think of elements in Trek in the propagandic terms the show uses, my friend. "Oh, we're much too nice to do something like that." Bullshit. The Fed has been in a near-constant state of war since its very inception. You really think those have been 'clean' wars with a half dozen ships fighting on some border somewhere and then the issue's resolved? The Klingons, for example, seem to prefer to fight on the ground. All the time the Fed was fighting them, do you think they never had to invade worlds to push the Klingons back, or recover worlds the Klingons had captured? War has many undeniable realities and truisms, and one of them is "You can fight them on your ground, their ground, or somebody else's ground." I very much doubt they had the decency to pick unpopulated planets for their ground wars.
quote: From what we saw in the Dominion War their tactics mostly revolved around engaging the enemy fleet (hence heavy losses) and small tactical raids to disrupt the enemy's ability to make war by taking out shipyards, supply bases and long range sensor arrays.
Since Starfleet is essentially the 'space navy' of the Fed, this is absolutely the kinds of things that would be their province. Reduce the enemy's ability to fight at range and disrupt supply lines.
quote: The point was made very clearly on the show that the initial strategy was "engage, retreat".
Strategy that's worked for centuries when facing a numerically and tactically superior enemy.
quote: It wasn't until the invasion of Chintoka that we even heard about them going after somewhere with a civilian population and it seamed once the orbital defences were down it was just a matter of delivering the troops to the surface.
That was the end of the episode you mean I doubt very much that the fighting on the ground was so easily resolved.
quote: Now I know it shouldn't be that easy to win a ground battle (certainly not with the Jem'Hadar) but a defender's options are decidedly limited when the enemy can transport thousands of troops at a time to just about anywhere on the planet and have total air and space superiority.
Uh.... hold on here, boss. I'd already pointed out earlier in the thread that Trek is loaded to the gills with ways to disrupt sensors, transporters, weapons and so forth. Unless the enemy is woefully inadequate, it wouldn't be so easy at all.
As for air and space superiority, that's another thing that would take a great deal of time to acquire. Planets are very big places. And from the ground alone they can hurt you quite badly just by lobbing missiles at you.
quote: So in this instance once the strategic points are taken (power stations, comms relays etc) there isn't allot of pacifying left to do. Naturally all the Dominion troops will fight to the end ("jolly good" says the Klingon troops) but I imagine the Cardassians would surrender once they see they're cut off and on their own.
Hehe, this kind of thinking has led to quite a few military disasters in recent history. Once you've got boots on the ground, it's only then that the real fighting starts.
quote: So I dare say that pitched, planet-wide ground battles would be rare, if not unheard of in 24th century warfare.
We'll obviously differ in opinion here, but I'd leave you with this thought: When the enemy, or the good guys, captures territory, what exactly are they capturing? What claim do they have to a region of space if there's nothing in it? There's certainly a degree of strategic buffering and transit points and so forth to consider, but ultimately what will establish a presence is a planet or an installation. And if the planet is populated, that means it has to be taken - by force or otherwise.
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
And if you take a planet, you have to weigh in the local population. WHether they are against the enemy, or sympathise with them. And with ground warfare, you also have to consider that the enemy may be outnumbered when cut off, but even when their numbers dwindle, they can use geurilla warfare. For all you know, they could have huge tunnel complexes, and installations that which in the 24th century, could probably only be destroyed by a photon Torpedo. It would be like if Iwo Jima were one big planet.
Then again, a lot of the planets to be taken could just be uninhabitable, or have just a small but vital settlement. A lot of them may be just colony worlds, or mining settlements. Or, huge gas giants.
In the case of the Dominion war for example, I'd think that the dominion wouldn't have troops, or at least many of them on most populated planets, and only control them through space, or perhaps if they surrendered or signed a non-aggression pact. If defeated, they could probably just recall the few troops stationed there. I'd doubt that actuall ground combat takes place on more than 1or 2 out of 10 planets captured or lost.
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
I like to play around with the miscellany of Trek. The stuff in the background that should be there, but we never really see them. And I like to put together novel things because I think they'd fit.
I know a lot of you guys expect like ship parts and weapons and stuff, but I hope that you'll find this stuff interesting also.
=============== CHRONOGRAPH This was inspired by the Swatch "Infinity" watch. I don't think we've ever seen anyone wear or reference a watch in Trek, but I don't understand why they aren't there. Time is especially important to people, especially humans. And it's particularly important in a naval environment. This watch is primarily just a watch, but it would function to a limited degree like a PDA also. Mostly in the sending and receiving of messages and keeping schedules and such. It's connected to the ship's 'wifi' network that the PADDs are connected so, keeping it up to date and whatnot.
=============== LIGHTS
There's two different sets of lights here. The first is what I dubbed a "Hoverlight". I'm not a big fan of anti-gravity because I believe it's a problematic technology. From an engineering standpoint, if anything goes wrong with an AG-doodad, it's likely to go badly wrong. Still, I try to find less problematic ways to integrate AG.
This is the case with the hoverlight. I conceived it first as a piece of medical equipment, to give medics light to work with. But it obviously could have other applications. You can just activate it and hold it where you want it for a sec and it'll stay there, hovering and illuminating. Or you can toss it lightly into the air where it'll stay and brighten a larger area. Then you just deactivate it with a control and it'll lower itself slowly to you. Obviously, this would be a problematic device in high wind since it would just blow away.
The second is the wrist flashlight / beacon / lamp / whatever. The ones in the shows always look retarded. And seem especially so since they use big giant bulbs and we have ULEDs now. I went for a more robust, but yet streamlined and comfortable-looking version. It's got controls to adjust the beam, swap out the battery and an emergency button that would cause the beacon to flash at different wavelengths and probably emit a sound to help find you if you get lost somewheres (much like some emergency flashlights can).
=============== Vacuum
This is probably the most controversial of the set, hehe. But I don't buy a lot of the stuff stated in the show and I find Trek's crew numbers generally very small for the size of the ships. One way to account partially for low crew numbers and support what Riker said about the ship "cleaning itself" is to equip it with 'Roomba'-like cleaning robots. Conveniently built by the same iRobot corporation. They go about late at night tidying up the ship.
It ionizes the carpet fibers and sucks up the loosened dirt particles and incinerates them. No real need to empty it out. And it's got a little receptacle tray on the back there for anything it picks up that isn't dust or dirt/trash and doesn't get incinerated. If somebody loses an earring or something, for instance.
I hope you guys enjoy little bits of miscellany like this. I have ideas for more miscellaneous coming soon to a theatre near you.
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
Nice. Next, perhaps things found in the bathroom...?
We have seen a vacuum in Trek before though, in TWOK, as Kirk and Spock are walking from the Kobyashi Maru simulator.
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
Did we see a vacuum before? I don't recall offhand, but I'm guessing it's some huge hulking SW:ANH-style thing moving behind them? Well this one's a little sleeker at any rate. I figure our Akira would have a few dozen of them.
As for things for the bathroom... maybe. I dunno though, since toiletries would be pretty personal and not really 'standard issue' kinds of things.
Who knows. Inspiration may strike.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
It isn't a robot. Just a guy with a complicated-looking doohickey.
Posted by Toadkiller (Member # 425) on :
Wrist things look sort of bulky for comfort, but they are pretty cool.
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
Neat concepts! The vacuum looks like it could be a Cylon if it had a red light on the front.
About the LED lights, personally I hate those things. I have no problem with regular flashlights, but if someone shines a LED flashlight in my eyes, it's an instant headache. Even just looking at the light when shining it away from me makes my eyes start to hurt. I really don't know what it is or why, but I can't have those things near me.
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
Well there might be something in the frequency, or perhaps some barely perceptible flickering that you're especially sensitive to.
Glad you like the concept, and I thought about the Cylon thing too, that's why I put the blue light. Hehe. To see if anyone would notice.
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
These aren't just for my ship. They're for the organization Star Trek: Echoes, but obviously will be used aboard Ark Royal also for our players.
Design-wise, they're a mixture of designs inspired by real world awards, the very few pictures of canon ST awards I could find, great ideas by great artists that I've seen and hopefully some individual stuff as well.
I hope you guys enjoy them, and as always I'm happy to discuss the pros and cons of anything here.
(Note: The Letters of Commendation and their accompanying ribbons are translucent.)
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
It's impossible to read some of the text on these things.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
It's impossible to read some of the text on these things.
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
On the medals themselves? Very few of them have any actual text on them. Those that do, I deliberately made it so they looked lightly engraved.
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
Like the text you put on the James Kirk Medal of Gallantry!
Any reason why the Purple Heart isn't heart-shaped? Overall, very nice designs! I know you're going for a more military feel, but any reason other than personal preference for going with the ribbon design rather than the triangular design seen in TOS?
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
Hehe, it's not so clear at first, so good eye for picking it up
The purple heart... well... not every species is going to even understand what a traditional heart shape is, so it makes little sense to copy that. Plus I wanted it to look a little more trekian.
As for the triangular design... apparently by the modern era of Trek, that had been abandoned - as illustrated by Data's medals:
Plus they're a hell of a lot more interesting to look at than triangles, hehe.
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
I'd forgotten about Data's medals, but those are the full-size versions, not the ribbon or triangle-sized versions, right? Eh, doesn't matter anyway, since Kirk was wearing both the triangles and a medal.
Just noticed something else - one of Data's medals is an Admiral's (Rear Admiral?) emblem from the movies, and your Silver Palm of Axanar resembles the Fleet Admiral emblem. Nice touch! Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
Well I don't like TNG so I've not watched many episodes of it. I've never seen this ep where the medals are displayed and it's hard to tell their scale here.
Ultimately I wasn't trying to duplicate these medals (well, other than that middle one I decided to use for the Order of Tactics), just be inspired by them.
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
I updated the set (the full set has been updated on the previous page).
============= A couple years ago I ran a huge six month arc called "Sanctum" for the fleet I was in in a previous organization. It was about an area of space called the Sanctum, and a race that lives in it. The Federation inducts a new member with a lot of territory, a powerful military and a bad history with these folks in the Sanctum. With the merging of the two territories, the Fed now surrounds the Sanctum. This leads to increased tensions, and ultimately a war between the Fed and the Synod (the Sanctum's inhabitants).
After the arc was completed (with a 3hr, 60-person IRC finale mission), all those characters that fought in the war received this.
Since I brought my character over from that org into Star Trek: Echoes, he still has it and I needed to redraw it to fit in with the others for STE. Heh.
================ I had neglected to put in some service markers in the original set. These are obviously in much faster increments than one would get them in a real military, but it's to acknowledge players' commitment to the game/organization.
================== Cdr_Hensley of Okudagrams.com asked for this medal based on a ribbon he'd designed. I hope he doesn't mind that I kinda swiped it to toss it in with my lot too.
Anyway, there you go. Hope you guys like them Posted by Hobbes (Member # 138) on :
I made some ribbons once. Looked very Navy-like.
I notice one of Data's medals is just an upside down commbadge.
Also, as for 'service markers' 6 months is too soon. In the Navy there's a good conduct medal for every 3 years of well good conduct. Plus hash marks on your uniforms, stripes above the cuff. 1 hash mark for every 4 years. After 12 years of good service they turn from red/blue to gold.
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
Hehe yeah, I noticed the same about one of data's medals. I guess the prop people were being quick and dirty.
The service marker thing is more of an out of character situation. Remember I'm not just making this stuff for the sake of drawing star trek stuff, it's intended to be used in a simming environment. Three years would be an eternity, hehe.
So the players will get these every six months until they hit the 3yr mark, and then once a year after.
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
Someone wandered into a thread of mine on another board and asked if i'd really worked on Ark Royal's carrier nature, so I gave him a bit of an update.
Ark Royal is a carrier, like her namesake. In addition to a complement of shuttles and runabouts, she carries two primary types of combat craft - Shuriken fighters and Shinto bombers in a few different variants.
I never got around to finishing the flight suit. It's on my 'to-do' list, hehe. It will probably end up getting a redesign cuz I didn't quite like the way it was going.
Most recently I was working on the deck support stuff for Ark Royal, crew and equipment. I started with the deck tractor, and I'm working on attachments for it.
And like any carrier, a certain amount of her crew dedicated to dealing with the aircraft will be from the ship, and from the air wing itself. In addition to their ordinary duties maintaining and operating the ship's indigenous auxiliary craft, the Flight Crew (belonging to the ship) works with the Air Crew (belonging to the Air Wing). Some of those positions overlap. And it's kind of sorted out here.
As always, if anyone has any comments or questions, I'm always happy to oblige!
[ August 25, 2008, 07:03 PM: Message edited by: Fabrux ]
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
Very nice, as always. Some of the air-crew jumpsuits look like the type of suits racecar drivers and their pit crews wear. They look awesome though. Might we be able to thumbnail these though, so they don't completely distort the page?
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
Sorry about that. Got used to forum software that auto-resizes the images these days. And apparently it's past the stage when I can edit it (why does Flare even use that?)
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
Maybe a kind passing mod will help... *Sounds the Fabrux bugle*
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
Ahkileez: From what I understand of the source code of UBB, it's not an option that can be turned off :-P
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sean: Maybe a kind passing mod will help... *Sounds the Fabrux bugle*
Tada.
Posted by Toadkiller (Member # 425) on :
Given the long term missions we see on Trek, I'm not sure that the air crew/ship crew division would be maintained. It is one thing for a 6 month rotation, but Trek ships seem to, frequently, have very long term mission, much more like ships of the line back in the day.
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
Well a heavy carrier like this would not be a long-duration ship. One way of keeping her from being a 'supership' is to have her need a lot of support.
She's got those four huge impulse engines, one or possibly two (some people theorize) warp drives, her complement of fighters and shuttles - all of that is going to eat through fuel like crazy, especially if her engines concentrate more on power than efficiency. Add to that the fact that in full berserker mode she'd go through a torpedo complement like a pirhana and she would be on a shorter 'leash' than explorer ships.
Ark Royal is the anchor ship for an operational wing of a task force. She's the heavy hitter/carrier in the lot, but also the command ship for it in keeping with the modern role of carriers. But that wing also carries support ships to keep Ark and the other ships topped off, move crew around, etc.
It was my way to voluntarily kneecap the Akira a little so it's not all fanwank-driven.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
The idea of a bomber named "Shinto" bothers me.
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
Not the first time I've heard that.
The term isn't just related to the religion.
Japanese katanas go through 'ages', where the styling and smithing methods change and evolve.
"Shinto" is the current age of katanas.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Obscure.
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
Hehe, obscure yes. But reasoned.
I wanted to come up with some Japanese-inspired names for the combat craft she carries to coincide with the "Akira" designation of their mothership, but nothing too hokey so they could stand on their own.
My ego would be gorged if people were to take my image of the Akira as the fandom one of choice, but I'm not holding my breath on that. So really I'm just concerning myself with making the best damn representation of the Akira *I* would like. Posted by emperorkalan (Member # 1821) on :
Try them with what? The name of the class of ship?
These era names don't seem to be related to katanas. They're something else entirely.
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
emperorkalan, I believe Ahkileez was referriong to the eras of Japanese Katanas, or Samuri swords. Not dynasty eras. Shinto is also a religion though, no?
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
It is indeed.
I've actually had this design, and name, for a great many years now. And since the moment I gave it that name I've had people tut-tutting me about that. Hehe.
I suppose I could change it, but laziness is such a comfortable state.
Posted by emperorkalan (Member # 1821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sean: emperorkalan, I believe Ahkileez was referriong to the eras of Japanese Katanas, or Samuri swords. Not dynasty eras. Shinto is also a religion though, no?
Yes, sorry, I'd missed the other thread which made that obvious. If the names have to be Katana-related, then the suggestions would be schools of swordmaking, names of famed swordsmiths, and names of famed swordsmen.
Posted by emperorkalan (Member # 1821) on :
quote:Originally posted by emperorkalan: Yes, sorry, I'd missed the other thread which made that obvious. If the names have to be Katana-related, then the suggestions would be schools of swordmaking, names of famed swordsmiths, and names of famed swordsmen.
Or to further tie it to "Akira", swordsmen from Kurosawa movies.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
No- it's clearly named after the sushi chef on The Simpsons.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Maybe even better, "signal *amplification* filament" 
