T O P I C ��� R E V I E W
|
The Red Admiral
Member # 602
|
posted
Altered my Saladin to make the Hermes, which is virtually identical. Here's one pic.
|
Matrix
Member # 376
|
posted
Ok, besides from the NCC-595, what's different?
|
Cpt. Kyle Amasov
Member # 742
|
posted
quote: Originally posted by Matrix: Ok, besides from the NCC-595, what's different?
Ask Franz Joseph.
|
The Red Admiral
Member # 602
|
posted
There are no Phaser arrays on the top of the saucer, and no Photon Torpedo tubes on the ventral side - the Saladin is armed this way as it's a Destroyer. But physically, yes, it's identical.
|
Cpt. Kyle Amasov
Member # 742
|
posted
I wonder why they left out those features. That's like building an F-14 without any weapons. That's just a minor feature and wouldn't have killed anyone if those engineers had added some additional phasers like they did with the Saladin.
|
Prismatic EdipisReks
Member # 510
|
posted
well, not adding those features didn't kill anyone, so it really doesn't matter.
|
Cpt. Kyle Amasov
Member # 742
|
posted
quote: Originally posted by Prismatic EdipisReks: [...]not adding those features didn't kill anyone[...]
LOL! Had to read it twice to get it.
|
MinutiaeMan
Member # 444
|
posted
I think the idea was that taking out most of the weapons (there was still the main phaser bank on the lower saucer) left more room for more advanced sensors. Or something like that. Because there was no text accompanying the drawings, though, that's unfortunately just conjecture.
Oh, and nice job, Mark!
|
The Red Admiral
Member # 602
|
posted
Cheers. Well as a Destroyer the Saladin required competant armaments. As a Scout, The Hermes does not, and in favour though of additional sensor arrays MM suggested. It's as simple as that I suppose. I only wish Jospeh had changed the design a little more...
|
Masao
Member # 232
|
posted
Phaser turrets might look like little half-spheres sitting on the surface , but I think that they should be associated with quite extensive subsurface machinery weighing a couple hundred tons. Otherwise, what prevents a ship from being peppered with phaser turrets? On surface battleships everything is built around the biggest guns that can be carried, but on starships, weaponry seems like an afterthought. I'm not saying that mixed-use cruisers/destroyers should be turned into a fan-boy's wet dream bristling with weaponry, but I do think phasers are more than surface ornamentation.
|
Prismatic EdipisReks
Member # 510
|
posted
quote: Originally posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov: quote: Originally posted by Prismatic EdipisReks: [...]not adding those features didn't kill anyone[...]
LOL! Had to read it twice to get it.
|
The Red Admiral
Member # 602
|
posted
Yes Masao, I agree. There has to be a very good reason why all ships aren't armed in the same way as standard. Good point. But due to the lack of difference here to the Saladin brings up the question: why is this a specific class in itself? Why isn't it simply a 'Saladin variant'?
Perhaps Starfleet has radically changed its classification system, for it would seem to support the argument that in the 23rd century and before, even slight changes to a ship warranted a new classification, such as the Bonhomme Richard Class, etc
|
Topher
Member # 71
|
posted
quote: Originally posted by The Red Admiral: Perhaps Starfleet has radically changed its classification system, for it would seem to support the argument that in the 23rd century and before, even slight changes to a ship warranted a new classification, such as the Bonhomme Richard Class, etc
Aha! Yes! Score one for Enterprise-class.
|
Mucus
Member # 24
|
posted
Cool, its like the lollypop destroyer ship from SFC. Man that was a fun game.
|
The Red Admiral
Member # 602
|
posted
quote: Aha! Yes! Score one for Enterprise-class.
I never 100% subscribed to the Enterprise Class theory, but this 23rd century classification point might be worth discussing further. I'm going to start a thread about this in S & T.
|