Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Star Trek
»
Starships & Technology
»
LUG Ships
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Identity Crisis: [QB] 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 [i]is[/i] 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. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3