Flare Sci-Fi Forums: LUG Ships

This is topic LUG Ships in forum Starships & Technology at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/6/106.html

Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :

Vessels of Starfleet

I've now added scans of the Apollo, Deneva, Merced and Rigel. And there are lots of background titbits from various LUG books. Enjoy.

------------------
-->Identity Crisis<--

Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :

Thanks for posting the images, Steve. My inevitable comments:

Merced: An Enterprised Akira-Norway, the hull shapes are too bizarre, even more than the Steamrunner. It looks too modern.

Rigel: A Sabre clone. Only the engineering hull is different, just the way many fans first thought the Sabre's hull would look like. A reasonable ship, though.

Apollo: Another Galaxy clone. Looks like a swimming swan in the side view.

Deneva: Astonishment. What's that. Looks much too bizarre. Too alien.

Frankly, many members of the forum have designed much more interesting ships.

------------------
Brain. Brain. What is brain? (Kara the Eymorg, "Spock's Brain")
www.uni-siegen.de/~ihe/bs/startrek/

Posted by Pedro on :

I must agree with Bernd...while I'm glad to see some new designs, these are some of the ugliest ships I've seen in a long time...

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

I can only say two things. First, yuck! And second, yuck! I realize that is actually only one thing, but I felt that it was so important, it was worthy of repeating. :-)

------------------
"Look into any eyes you find by you; you can see clear to another day..."
-The Grateful Dead, "Box of Rain"

Posted by RW (Member # 27) on :

Jesus...

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Going to have to agree with that. Still, I'm not sorry I ordered The Price of Freedom (which reminds me, where the *&^% IS it? Gotta call the bookseller...), but most of those ships are U-G-L-Y! What were they THINKING?

(Of course, way back last year when I found out this was in the works, and reported it here, I SAID some of our people ought to contact them with the designs they posted here, but who listens to poor First of Two?)

------------------
*I only SEEM Normal*

Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :

Deneva: It's a transport - just a framework to house modular containers (you can see two on the top view, but they're absent from the side view). It has a lot of similarities to some of the old FASA tugs. Freighters are meant to be ugly so this works well.

Niagara: very nice but doesn't fit the registry range of the Niagaras. Use it for the Zodiac or Andromeda instead.

The others are just bad.

The book also has the Miranda, constellation, Sovereign, New Orleans, Olympic, Norway, Akira, Steamrunner and Sabre. The artwork is rather stylised and in some cases quite different to the 'real' things. Hence one could re-work these designs a bit.

But starships are just a small part of the book. Indeed these designs are just a small part of starships section. There are large sections on Federation history, how power is shared between the President and the Council. How the various Federation agencies are organised. Lots of detail on the Merchant Marine. Extra detail on starfleet.

Back to ships and the authors have clearly read SotSf and other fandom works. The Horizon class is mentioned as is the Endeavor class, both in contexts that support the fandom histories of those classes. The designations for various types of ships (CH for Heavy Cruiser, FF for Fast Frigate, etc.) are a lot more similar to the SotSF ones than any 'real world' system.

It makes a few blunders. The Akira, Norway, Sabre and Steamrunner are all lsited as 'new' designs introduced after Wolf 359. The Cheyenne is mentioned as being venerable. One or two classes are given designations that are at odds with on screen dialogue.

A good book, it's only the artwork in the ships section that really lets it down.

------------------
-->Identity Crisis<--

Posted by Captain Stark (Member # 70) on :

I was able to look over Price of Freedom for the first time last night. I have to agree with everyone else. LUG should fire who ever did the art for those ships and get someone with some talent. Some of the top views were ok. However the side views were just horrible. That's one of the thing I liked about FASA's books is that the art was very well done. Especially on the ship drawings.

I'm still trying to become aquainted with the new gaming system. Can someone tell me if the system for both characters and ships seem to be fairly accurate as some of FASAs was?

------------------
-=/\=-
Captain Stark
http://members.aol.com/captaincks/readyroom.html

"The man on the top walks a lonly path. The chain of command is often a noose." Dr. Leonard McCoy --Obsession

Posted by Cargile (Member # 45) on :

Excrement!

The person that drew those should be shot and put out of our misery. I'm not the only one here than can produce far better images than LUG's hired ILLustrators.

But hey, thanks for putting them up anyway.

Team up me and RW and we wcould run LUG into the ground.

------------------
I'm the only one who understands me, and I ire of my company.
--Paul Cargile

Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :

Why don't you then?

It's very easy to sit here and criticise, so why don't you write a complete set of RPG rules, background material and campaigns, playtest them, win a license from Paramount, arrange for the artwork and layout to be done, sculpt some miniatures, arrange for printing and distribution.

Go on, if you think you can do it, then do it.

------------------
-->Identity Crisis<--

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

I'm pretty sure Cargile is just refering to the design of the ships, rather then the RPG system in general...

------------------
"I'll turn everything around and confuse you. I'll fix it so you can't remember what was true."
--
They Might Be Giants

Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :

Since a couple of people are involved in doing a book and RPG, they should have the according talents. The RPG itself might be fine, the ships are not. Maybe that's only a superficial poorness for the game itself, but it is quite striking for someone who is interested in ship design or someone who has the Encyclopedia and can compare the designs.

Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :

Maybe, they were actually putting more effort into the stats for the ships. You know, the stuff that's actually relevant to the game. This is not a 'ships' book like 'Ships of the Stafleet'. It isn't trying to deliver accurate schematics, just some pretty pictures to accompany the text.

Now, let's be more constructive and look at the five totally new designs...

Apollo, the saucer matches the common description found on the 'net (saucer much wider than it is long). The date isn't bad for the registries.

Deneva, we know it's a transport from on screen sources and so they get that right. Transports are never beautiful, are they? This design fits in very nicely with FASA's transports.

Merced, it's possible to see this as a 'missing link' between the 23rd century Akyazi class Permiter Action Ships and the Defiant pathfinder from the DS9 TM. The saucer shape is at odds with the date, but on small ships this is less important as an indication of date than with big ships.

Niagara, the design is slightly too advanced for the date and the date is too high for the registry.

Rigel, the design is sabre-like and hence it fits well with the registries. But the date is too low for the registry and the saucer shape. It doesn't match the common description of the Rigel, but that might not be a bad thing...

Personally, I would use the Deneva as is; use the Niagara for the Zodiac or Andromeda and use the FF Niagara; change the date for the Rigel; probably use the Merced; and probably modify the Apollo design somewhat.

------------------
-->Identity Crisis<--

Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :

Identity Crisis: Since all the LUG ships are non-canon, we are not supposed to use any of them. I'd prefer to collect some suggestions for the definitely missing ship designs, i.e. the classes for which no model has ever been conceived or built. Some spontaneous suggestions (completely non-canon):

Andromeda: Akira variant with extended main hull instead of catamaran hull, four nacelles.
Antares: A TOS-like saucer like the unofficial (FASA?) design, possibly modified in the 24th century, so the original Antares and the Hermes are the same class.
Bradbury: An Intrepid predecessor with fixed nacelles (new type required) and some detail changes.
Chimera: No idea.
Deneva: A small ship with a fat Oberth-like saucer and two nacelles directly attached to the saucer bottom.
Hokule'a: Almost as large as the Ambassador, but with a smaller saucer and shorter neck.
Istanbul: A large bulky transport ship, no saucer.
Korelev: No idea.
Merced: Ship with small saucer and long engineering hull, no neck, two nacelles in Excelsior-like configuration, but much smaller.
Renaissance: Nacelles on either side of the engineering hull, short neck, Ambassador-like saucer, but smaller (350m)
Sequoia: Maybe this is a Nebulaized Sovereign with a new type of warp nacelles.
Surak: Originally Vulcan ship type with pointed warp nacelles and triangular main hull. Details like the bridge are rather Starfleet-like.
Wambundu: No idea.
Yorkshire: Transport ship similar to the Sydney in size and shape.
Zodiac: Galaxy-like saucer, four smaller nacelles, small engineering hull directly attached to the saucer rear end.

Maybe we could put together some ideas, draw preliminary designs and let RW do the rest

Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :

"Since all the LUG ships are non-canon, we are not supposed to use any of them"

Who's 'we'? And what's this 'supposed'? And 'use' for what?

If you're playing the LUG RPG then LUG probably do intend you to 'use' them.
If you're collecting as many ship designs as possible (I've got three or four Surak designs on my hard drive from various places all over the web) then you'd be stupid not to 'use' them.
If you're just trying to put a design to each name for your own personal 'use' then you can do what the hell you like.

LUG have a very clear statement about canon in the front of every book. They knew exactly what some people would say...

All you designs use components from existing designs which is a bit boring. If ILM had stuck by that rule we'd never have the Akira, etc.

"Antares: A TOS-like saucer like the unofficial (FASA?) design,"

Which FASA design are you talking about? There is no FASA Antares class. Do you mean the Concordance design?

"possibly modified in the 24th century, so the original Antares and the Hermes are the same class."

I refuse to believe that the Antares from Charlie X (a supply ship) is of the same class used as part of Picard's Romulan blockade over a hundred years later.

"Deneva: A small ship with a fat Oberth-like saucer and two nacelles directly attached to the saucer bottom."

Where does the cargo go? Is it a freighter, cargo internal, or a tug, cargo in external pods? (TPTB seem to use the term transport for all Starfleet freighter types, FASA uses it instead of tug and LUG use it mainly for people carriers.)

"Sequoia: Maybe this is a Nebulaized Sovereign with a new type of warp nacelles."

With a registry lower than the Galaxy? Ferrying people to DS9? I don't think so.

------------------
-->Identity Crisis<--

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

Bernd means that the LUG ships are not canon, and thus are not part of "real" Trek. Of course, fan designs, even if they're more logical, are in the same category.

I also detest kitbash-style ships that use existing parts. In the thread about favorite ships, most people have selected the designs that were all-new at their introduction (Akira, Excelsior). The exceptions that come to mind are the Nebula and Miranda, but even those get old after a while.

There's nothing wrong with the Antares and Hermes being of the same class. We still have the Miranda and Excelsior, after all. Also, in the epsiode, they said that some of the ships used in the armada were old ones, recently refitted.

Also, someone recently discovered (in the TNO forums) that we did in fact see the Deneva-class Arcos in "Legacies" (TNG). Unfortunately I don't have that episode on tape.

------------------
http://frankg.dgne.com/
Blitzwing: "If I want to know what's on your mind, I'll splatter it on the wall and see for myself!"

Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :

"Bernd means that the LUG ships are not canon, and thus are not part of "real" Trek."

As I said, LUG have a disclaimer about canon in every book.

These designs will be seen by more people than any other non-canon design for those classes. That makes them 'first choice' for me.

"There's nothing wrong with the Antares and Hermes being of the same class. We still have the Miranda and Excelsior, after all. Also, in the epsiode, they said that some of the ships used in the armada were old ones, recently refitted."

There's a lot wrong with it. The Antares was a supply ship not a front line vessel in the 2260s. By the 2360s it would be extremely stupid to take it into a potential war zone. The Excelsior and Constellation also used in that blockade are at least 25 years younger. A lot of people have problems with the Miranda being used as a combat vessel in TNG/DS9, but at least the Miranda was a front line vessel in the 23rd century not a supply ship.

------------------
-->Identity Crisis<--

Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :

"Also, someone recently discovered (in the TNO forums) that we did in fact see the Deneva-class Arcos in "Legacies" (TNG). Unfortunately I don't have that episode on tape."

When I see a screen shot I'll make a longer comment.

Based on the discussion on that forum the Deneva might be a Merchentman/Monarch class from STIII, possibly with Fed style nacelles added. Cool, that would free up the LUG design for another class.

LUG raises the interesting idea that the same class may have different names in Starfleet and civilian serevice. It says that the civil version of the Deneva is the Ceres class. How many names can one class have? ;-)

------------------
-->Identity Crisis<--

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

Well, that wouldn't make sense, unless the first Starfleet-built ship of that type were the Deneva, and the first civilian one were the Ceres...

BTW, remind me what LUG stands for? I used to know this...

------------------
http://frankg.dgne.com/
Blitzwing: "If I want to know what's on your mind, I'll splatter it on the wall and see for myself!"

[This message was edited by The Shadow on March 22, 1999.]

Posted by Lindsly on :

It is possible that the Niagara Class starship was first commissioned in the 2240's. The USS Brattain, registry NCC-21166, was commissioned in 2345. (Commission stardate of USS Brattain-22519.50 (2345); Stardate of Battle of Khitomer-23859.70 (2346)) This would indicate that Starfleet was still launching ships that had registries of NCC-2xxxx in the 2340's. And, further, the nacelles of the Niagara Class indicate that this class is contemporary with the Nebula and Galaxy. Since the USS Galaxy is said to have been commissioned in 2357, the USS Niagara could have been commissioned sometime between 2345 and 2357. Was this class of ship a response to the war with the Cardassians? We know from the Dominion War that Starfleet is combining parts from different starships so as to strenghten the fleet. Could this also explain why so many ships are the combination of parts from different ship classes?

Posted by Captain Stark (Member # 70) on :

Shadow: LUG is Last Unicorn Games

------------------
-=/\=-
Captain Stark
http://members.aol.com/captaincks/readyroom.html

"The man on the top walks a lonely path. The chain of command is often a noose." Dr. Leonard McCoy --Obsession, Stardate: 3619.2

Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :

What makes you think that civilians follow the Starfleet practice of naming a class after the first ship in that class? Military and Civilian versions of the same aircraft have different names.

It's more than possible that 'xfdhgfj starship manufacturing' produced a ship and marketed it under the name Ceres (there may or may not have been a SS Ceres). Starfleet purchased a whole bunch of them and called the first one USS Deneva, hence Starfleet calls them Deneva class. 'xfdhgfj' then sold the design to 'uiklj stellar engineering' who decided to market it under the name Monarch. Starfleet decommissioned some of her ships and sold them to 'uythy shipping' who sold them on under the name Merchantman.

Whilst Stardate 22519.50 is indeed 14:49:12 GMT Monday, 9th July 2345, I don't think that that date fits the registry NCC-21166 very well. The dates and registries of the minor ships have never made much sense. Look at the USS Tsiolkovsky for an extreme example: NCC-35911 but apparantly commisioned in 2363!

------------------
-->Identity Crisis<--

Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :

Identity Crisis: There are thousands of conjectural designs in the web, and I think I have seen at least half a dozen for each of the ship classes in question, some of them carefully drawn, some of them extremely bizarre and inconsistent cut-and-paste designs. The LUG ships belong to the category of non-canon ships too. You're right that the LUG ships will get more attention, after all they're printed in a book. However, if I don't like the designs, because they're inconsistent or just ugly, there's no reason to "believe" they "really" exist. In this respect theLUG ships can't be my first choice. I have a ship list similar to yours, and I would not adopt any non-canon design (Let's talk about the Niagara later, Frank).

I only suggested some possible designs for the ships for which definitely no official model exists. What I meant by "use them" was taking them as a kind of place-holder. This could have been a misunderstanding since you were talking about the RPG. My idea is that good designs instead of cut-and-paste graphics and the ugly (sorry) LUG designs could be established among fans, and maybe this *expert* forum is the right place to start such an effort. The descriptions are not meant to be taken literally, they just should give an impression on how the ships could look like. After all, it was an idea to start a discussion. I didn't mean to spoil your fun with the RPG, and I agree that good specs are more important in this case.

BTW: I'm sure there are a lot of people who have a talent to conceive specs and draw the ships as well.

Lindsly: I agree that there are a lot of signs the registries are not necessarily chronological. Still, there must be some flaw in the launch dates, I can't judge it right now.

Identity Crisis: I agree that Starfleet and civilian ships of the same type may have different class designations, or the same class name may be used for different designs. The latter must apply to the Antares class, since I can't believe Starfleet uses rusty, dirty and slow ships like the civilian Antares class that was featured several times in TNG (Batris, Bajoran non-warp transport, ship to rendez-vous with the Warbird in "Face of the Enemy"). The Starfleet Antares class has to be more powerful, whether it is a supply vessel or not. Basically, I have no objection against the idea the Starfleet Antares class is indeed the same class as the Charlie X Antares. Maybe the ships have been significantly upgraded.

Frank: I don't really care about civilian ship designations, because we know nothing about a naming system, if there's one at all. So anything could be possible. We should also take into account that some ship designs are used by several alien civilizations. It is natural that every race would use names of their own, while the Starfleet designation would always be Antares or Deneva, and would be translated as such by the universal translators in our TV sets.

Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :

So when you said that "we are not supposed to use any of them" what you actually meant was "I am not going to include them in my own personal list"?

Obviously we need the Universal Translator.

------------------
-->Identity Crisis<--

Posted by Lindsly on :

Identity Crisis: The registry of the USS Tsiolkovsky is NCC-53911. The dedication plague confirms this fact. BTW, the modelers didn't change the registry on the studio model used in the episode "The Naked Now". Registry is NCC-638-the registry of the USS Grissom. Launch Dates (Note: a. Constitution Class-I fall into the camp that believes there were two Constitutions. b. If there are more than two ships launched in a specific year, I do the list by sorting alphabetical, not chronologically. c. I believe that there could be two USS Cochranes-NCC-6000 ("The Drumhead") and NCC-59318 ("Emissary"))-

2224 USS Constitution (NCC-9xx)
2245 USS Enterprise (NCC-1701)
2284 USS Excelsior (NX-2000)
2285 USS Hathaway (NCC-2593)
2286 USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-A)
2293 USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-B)
2337 USS Hokkaido
2345 USS Brattain (NCC-21166)
2350 USS Pegasus (NCC-53847)
2357 USS Galaxy (NX-70637)
2363 USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-C)
USS Phoenix (NCC-65420)
USS Tsiolkovsky (NCC-53911)
2366 USS Bradbury (NX-72307)
2367 USS Sutherland (NCC-72015)
2368 USS Danube (NCC-72003)
2369 USS Cochrane (NCC-59318)
USS Ganges (NCC-72454)
USS Mekong (NCC-72917)
USS Orinoco (NCC-72905)
USS Rio Grande (NCC-72452)
USS Yangtze Kiang (NCC-72453)
2370 USS Defiant (NX-74205)
2371 USS Intrepid
USS Lexington (NCC-61832)
USS Rubicon (NCC-72936)
USS Voyager (NCC-74656)
2372 USS Valiant (NCC-74210)
USS Yukon (NCC-74602)
2373 USS Centaur
USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-E)
USS Volga (NCC-73196)
2374 USS Prometheus (NX-59650)
USS Shenandoah (NCC-73024)
2375 (NCC-75227)

I believe that the naming of registries is as follows-
2161 to 2300 3 digit numbers
2210 to 2310 4 digit numbers
2310 to present 5 digit numbers
2310's 1xxxx
2320's 1xxxx (USS Ajax-NCC 11574-2327)
2xxxx
3xxxx
4xxxx
2330's 2xxxx
3xxxx
4xxxx (USS Maryland-NCC-45109, USS Aries-NCC 45167, USS Hornet-NCC 45231 all built before 2337)
2340's 2xxxx (USS Brattain-NCC 21166)
3xxxx
4xxxx
5xxxx
2350's 5xxxx (USS Pegasus-NCC 53847)
6xxxx
7xxxx (USS Galaxy-NX 70637)
2360's 5xxxx (USS Tsiolkovsky-NCC 53911)
6xxxx (USS Phoenix-NCC 65420)
7xxxx (USS Bradbury-NX 72307)
2370's 5xxxx (USS Prometheus-NX 59650)
6xxxx (USS Lexington-NCC 61832)
7xxxx (USS Defiant-NX 74205)
2380's (Proj.) 6xxxx
7xxxx
8xxxx
2390's (Proj.) 7xxxx
8xxxx
9xxxx

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

All I know is that if BarnesandNoble.com doesn't ship me the Price of Freedom (which I ordered and which was available in FEBRUARY) really damn soon, there's going to be Hell to pay.

------------------
*I only SEEM Normal*

Posted by Lindsly on :

BTW
Construction Period
By decade
First decade of production (FDP)
Limited production run (LPR) (Translation: This class has only one range for registries. EX. USS Bradbury)
1. Akira Class
FDP: 2360's
2. Ambassador Class
FDP: 2310's
3. Andromeda Class
FDP: 2360's USS Andromeda
4. Antares Class
FDP: 2210's (Note: said to be old in "Charlie X")
5. Apollo Class
FDP: 2300's (Note: I have seen a web site state that the registry of the USS Apollo is NCC-6570. This information supposedly came from the episode "Tapestry".)
6. Bradbury Class
FDP: 2360's
LPR
7. Challenger Class
FDP: 2280's or 2290's (Note: Design dates to this decade)
8. Cheyenne Class
FDP: 2360's
LPR
9. Chimera Class
FDP: 2340's or 2350's or 2360's
LPR
10. Constellation Class
FDP: 2280's
11. Constitution Class
FDP: 2220's
12. Daedalus Class
FDP: 2160's
LPR
13. Danube Class
FDP: 2360's
14. Defiant Class
FDP: 2370's
LPR
15. Deneva Class
FDP: 2300's
LPR
16. Excelsior Class
FDP: 2280's
17. Freedom Class
FDP: 2350's or 2360's
LPR
18. Galaxy Class
FDP: 2350's
19. Hokule'a Class
FDP: 2310's or 2320's
LPR
20. Intrepid Class
FDP: 2370's
21.Istanbul Class
FDP: 2330's or 2340's
22.Korolev Class
FDP: Two hypothesises-
a. USS Korolev (NCC-2014) Korolev Class 2290's
b. USS Goddard (NCC-59621) USS Korolev (NCC-2014) of different class 2340's or 2350's. LPR
23.Mediterranean Class
FDP: 2330's or 2340's (Note: USS Wyoming in operation in 2349)
LPR
24. Merced Class
FDP: 2330's or 2340's
LPR
25.Miranda Class
FDP: 2250's or 2260's
26. Nebula Class
FDP: 2340's or 2350's
27. New Orleans Class
FDP: 2340's (Note: USS Rutledge (NCC-57295) was operational in 2349.)
28. Niagara Class
FDP: 2340's
29. Norway Class
FDP: 2360's
LPR
30. Oberth Class
FDP: 2260's (Note: First known mention of scouts-"The Apple". In TSFS, USS Grissom was identified as scout class. There are those who believe that the USS Columbia of TMP was an Oberth Class Scout. Movie takes place in 2271. FDP takes this into account.)
31. Olympic Class
FDP: 2360's
32. Prometheus Class
FDP: 2370's USS Prometheus (NX-59650)
LPR
33. Renaissance Class
FDP: 2330's (Note: Renaissance Class starships USS Aries NCC-45167, USS Hornet NCC-45231, and USS Maryland NCC-45109 were build before 2337. These ships may have been scouts. In "The Icarus Factor", Captain Jean Luc Picard calls the USS Aries a "small ship".)
LPR
34. Rigel Class
FDP: 2350's
LPR
35. Sabre Class
FDP: 2360's
LPR
36. Sequoia Class
FDP: 2350's or 2360's
LPR
37. Sovereign Class
FDP: 2370's
38. Soyuz Class
FDP: 2270's
39. Surak Class
FDP: 2330's or 2340's
40. Sydney Class
FDP: 2270's or 2280's or 2290's
LPR
41. Wambandu Class
FDP: 2320's or 2330's or 2340's
LPR
42. Yeager Class
FDP: 2370's
43. Yorkshire Class
FDP: 2340's or 2350's
LPR

The classes of Yellowstone and Zodiac are omitted due to excessive debates about the existence of either one in the 'real' Star Trek universe.
This is my construction history. It is purely speculative. I ask you not to critizice the history, but to critique it. Until more is learned, all discussion about construction history is speculative and not set in stone. One further point to make-I do not and will never will buy any publication or include any material from such a publication in my conversations where I feel the reliabilty of the material is dubious origin. This includes all computer games, all novels, all everything except the episodes, the encyclopedias, the technical manuals. I wish for you the reader to understand this.

Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :

IC: "So when you said that "we are not supposed to use any of them" what you actually meant was "I am not going to include them in my own personal list"?"
You do, I don't, the others don't have to.

Lindsly: Huge list. I think we have discussed some of the issues before. There might be some speculation concerning the Korelev and Challenger classes.

BTW: Compared to the Galaxy, everything of Starfleet is "a small ship".

Posted by NeghVar (Member # 62) on :

Sorry Steve...I forked over the $25 for the book and my personal feeling is that not only do the ship designs suck...but the ships have no identity in the game system.

At least the FASA system gave the ships some solid character and differences of their own.

Rant over...and now a word from our sponsor...
NeghVar

------------------
Spoken in Klingon, with a distinct Scottish accent:
"If it's not Klingon...It's crap!"

[This message was edited by NeghVar on March 23, 1999.]

Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :

Remember that the ship stats are only a simple system. The Engage! game will give them more depth à la the FASA Starship Combat Simulator.
And the ships are a tiny part of the book, sometimes people here have real tunnel vision. The book is worth $25 or whatever.

Bernd, you said: You do, I don't, the others don't have to.

What are we doing here? You seem to be restating my philosphy of Trek being a subjective experience with everyone being able to define their own 'canon'.

------------------
-->Identity Crisis<--

Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :

IC: I'm sorry if you get the impression you have to defend yourself or the LUG book. I think those who don't like the LUG designs are just glad they are not canon and *need not* be included in an official ship list. On the other hand, you do present them on your website and you have arguments for it. We seem to have different ideas about it, what's wrong about it? You must take into account there can be objections. I only have to mention words like "BoP", "Defiant" or "Niagara", and there will be a fierce discussion about it

What I tried to suggest is that the people at the forum could put their talents together and conceive some consistent designs for the ships in question. No one demands you have to remove the LUG ships from your site. Suum cuique (hard to translate, sorry).

"What are we doing here? You seem to be restating my philosphy of Trek being a subjective experience with everyone being able to define their own 'canon'."

I think we don't have to state this explicitly, since we are arguing like this the whole time.

If I look back upward in this thread, our discussion seems to date back to an initial misunderstanding. This was when you said you "would use" certain ships and you meant the RPG, and I replied "we are not supposed to use" the ships and I meant a personal ship list or ship designs developed in the forum.

Posted by NeghVar (Member # 62) on :

Honestly Steve...I think the rest of the book is well written, but every time LUG does anything on starships...it seems they fall flat on their faces. I do know about Engage! and am looking forward to seeing how they address (or don't address) some of the failures that exist in the RPG starship combat system. In defense of LUG...in the Neutral Zone book...there is a really nice top view of a D'Deridex.

NeghVar

------------------
Spoken in Klingon, with a distinct Scottish accent:
"If it's not Klingon...It's crap!"

Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :

I'm defending the LUG ships because I think the criticism here has been too harsh. I have an unfortuante habit of siding with the underdog.

When I said I would use them, I wasn't referring to the RPG. I have a plan for an RPG campaign but it's unlikley to get off the ground. If it did it would probably feature only a few Starfleet ships.

I was referring to my vague, nebulous, mental list of what I think looks like what. My web site reflects only a tiny fraction of what I actually think and feel about Trek ships.

------------------
-->Identity Crisis<--

Posted by Cargile (Member # 45) on :

Make my own RPG? Hmmm. . .

Well, I have received a few request from vistors of my website to use my material for their sim groups, which is not a entirely what you mean by RPG, but given a possiblity that if I continue to add more to the site and don't burn out on it in two years, and someone with money thinks it would be worth an investment to sell the idea into the RPG world, and if we choose to look at it from a up-start point of view, then I've already begun to build a RPG a year prior to this post.

On the pratical, reality hand, I don't have the money or time to create something like a RPG. I don't even play RPGs, never have, and I don't do sim groups either, so I guess, what I'm really saying is even though my website could be the foundation for a RPG, I don't care enough about RPGs to develop the page beyond what it is.

The LUG ship drawings critiques have been too harsh? Well I suppose a group of nine year olds would think they are great. But my (and a lot of other peoples') standards of excellence are higher. I haven't drawn anything that bad since 1991.

------------------
I'm the only one who understands me, and I ire of my company.
--Paul Cargile

Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :

Steve: So if we were talking about the same thing (ship lists), where was actually the misunderstanding?
*still pondering*

Cargile: Some of the old pencil drawings from the beginning of the 90's you recently posted (4 designs and Defiant-predecessors(?) on one page) were really great.