From: Alan and Carmel Brain <aebrain@w...>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 18:29:07 +1000
Subject: Re: [FT]Star Trek rules - BIG thanks
[quoted original message omitted]
From: Alan and Carmel Brain <aebrain@w...>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 18:29:07 +1000
Subject: Re: [FT]Star Trek rules - BIG thanks
[quoted original message omitted]
From: David Griffin <carbon_dragon@y...>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 09:29:15 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [FT]Star Trek rules - BIG thanks
--- Alan and Carmel Brain <aebrain@austarmetro.com.au> wrote: > [quoted text omitted] ... > I know I wasn't asked, but the ones at Yes, the Micromachine constitutions are the right scales, but most of the rest of their ships aren't. The defiant is too big (as is voyager). The excelsior is too small. The galaxy is WAY too small. The ambassador is way too small, etc. There is no consistency. Basically you can start with the task force and the FASA ships which are basically in scale to each other about ABOUT 1/3900 (or 1/3800 or 1/3788 or something). This is because they both have a constitution ship at the same size. THEN you can branch out to the rawcliffe ships which are the same size as the FASA ships they mimic. Then there are bits and pieces -- Rawcliffe's Galaxy which isn't bad for scale. This Enterprise E which seems to me to be pretty close. The Micromachines Constellation (Stargazer) which isn't bad. The Nebula which *may* be ok, though it seems a bit small. From there, you have to pretty much call a small excelsior another kind of ship to make it believable.
From: David Griffin <carbon_dragon@y...>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 10:32:07 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [FT]Star Trek rules - BIG thanks
> --- Don M <dmaddox1@hot.rr.com> wrote: Well it's a funny thing but the word Frigate has meant different things thoughout history. FASA uses it in it's ship of the line meaning to mean a bigger than cruiser sized ship designed for battle (actually a medium sized sailing war vessel) rather than a 5000-7000 ton vessel between a destroyer and a cruiser. So, that part doesn't bother me. Task Force uses the second definition and even makes them smaller than destroyers. The feds also like to complicate things by trying to come up with names that don't sound hostile -- explorer, starship, and the like. ... > > I talked Drew Bergstrom into making the Falcon I've got a few falcons, they're cute as buttons. I'd buy a pile of defiants if they were available. I'm not sure exactly how big it SHOULD be, but I'm guessing an inch to an inch & a half long? Actually, if we go by that scene in First Contact even 1 inch would be kind of big, but I wouldn't make it much smaller.
From: Don M <dmaddox1@h...>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 12:24:59 -0700
Subject: Re: [FT]Star Trek rules - BIG thanks
> David,
From: Don M <dmaddox1@h...>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 13:22:10 -0700
Subject: Re: [FT]Star Trek rules - BIG thanks
> Well it's a funny thing but the word Frigate has