> In general, do you prefer your starships to be smooth and sleek
Yes. I like Trek ships (or Minbari or Vorlon, etc.) as "very high tech"
designs where asthetics are design considerations and (for Trek anyways) where
ships are more than just warships. On the other hand, I also like UN and NSL
ships for a setting where functionality is primary and ships are warships
only.
> I also think the new ESU ships have a look ressembling both NI and JPN
> combination. Am I the only that thinks that?
Nope, not the only one. I rather liked the NI and JPN ships when they came
out, but I don't care for the ESU ships having the same sort of "multi level"
structure as the JPN ships. Too radical a change from the old designs for my
taste. Along the same lines, I don't care for the new NAC heavy cruiser.
It's just too busy and "un-NAC ish" for me. The light cruiser and
corvette are better. I'd prefer to see the smoother lines of the command pod
retained with perhaps a limited number of protuberances up front.
> On 8/30/05, Grant A. Ladue <ladue@cse.buffalo.edu> wrote:
I like EA ships myself, but I'm speaking from the POV of someone who's
building a game background that's completely FTL-free.
> I like EA ships myself, but I'm speaking from the POV of someone who's
Glad to hear it. I think that's an under-considered area of space
wargaming. One solar system is plenty large enough for some interesting
campaigns.
> Grant A. Ladue wrote:
> I rather liked the NI and JPN ships when they came out, but I don't
That's a bit surprising, since the ESU used this kind of "multi-level"
structure long before the NI and IJN did - the old ESU BC, BB, BDN and
CVL were all designed in this fashion, with the bridge section mounted below
and forward of the main hull. The only "radical" thing about *this* particular
change is that it has now spread to the other ESU ship sizes as
well...
Regards,
> I also think the new ESU ships have a look ressembling both NI and
I'm quite surprised that several people are making this comment, as the style
of the new ESU ships was (to me at least, while I was designing them) a direct
progression from the style of the original
ESU 209/210/211 series, all of which had the wedge-shaped front
section set slightly below the main hull boom..... The only one of the new ESU
that has a MAJOR level change at the front (to the same sort of degree as the
Japanese) is the CVH, and in this case it is deliberately done to get the nose
section well out of the flight line of the launch bays. The original ESU fleet
was quite a mix of widely differing styles (eg: the 207!), so I decided to go
along with the general theme of those that we had defined as the "newest" in
the FB1 blurb.
> The only one of the new ESU that has a MAJOR level change at the front
At one point, I'd asked if some of the others were as dropped nosed as I
thought; not sure if that got out. Mail client problems.
OO/OA: I'd agree about the BDN, but the idea is not just a change in
level, but a pronounced appearence of a 'hanging neck', which is an IJN
feature, and appears strongly in the new ESU, at least, as far as I can tell
from the photos, but that codicle about possible
photo-interpretation
error may have also been swollowed by my mail client problems.
Did anyone see I'll be in Denver, pushing ships around a table, this weekend,
I hope?
I'll be getting the word about the mini-van this today.
Concerning some of the issues with NAC new designs, could some of the problem
be the flavor of the surface details? I'd thought they were 'busy', but I
think part of the problem is size, not the amount, of the detail elements. I
get the impression of big, blocky pieces hanging on.
FWIW, I also find find blocky and sleek appropriate, but some work well,
others...
A look at the old Star Frontiers ships, not universally beloved, of course,
gives you the Fed ships as blocky, with almost Gothic surface, and the Sathar
sleek ships, almost devoid surface detail. I'd have to say I'd have preferred
the latter with a bit more, but simple scribed lines and perhaps a bit more
ovoid bulges. Otherwise, worked well for me.
Has anyone used Star Frontiers Feds in Aeronef?
If I want totally sleek ships, I can go to Reveresco's
(SP?)40's/50's-style designs, but that's a lot of detail work left to
the painter.
The_Beast
PS As the designer/designers are on the list, I'm not rabidly
disapproving; consider it more level of enthusiasm. I really liked the new
Savasku... ;->=
> On 8/30/05, Robert Bryett <rbryett@mail.com> wrote:
Actually I'm setting it up more for Role-Playing than wargaiming, but
I'm sure there'll be some spillover. ;-)
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
In a message dated 8/31/2005 12:45:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> oerjan.ariander@telia.com writes:
> I rather liked the NI and JPN ships when they came out, but I don't
That's a bit surprising, since the ESU used this kind of "multi-level"
structure long before the NI and IJN did - the old ESU BC, BB, BDN and
CVL were all designed in this fashion, with the bridge section mounted below
and forward of the main hull. The only "radical" thing about *this* particular
change is that it has now spread to the other ESU ship sizes as
well...
Regards,
Oerjan
Not nearly as dramatic as the IJN ships are. If you look them over, IJN DDs
are eve leveled, where the ESU doest. ESU doesnt do anythign liek that util BC
size, and then it aint really level layered more jsut stacked over...
> >
Hmm, I just went and compared the new ship pictures to the old ship pictures
side by side to get a better comparison. I see what you're saying about the
front sections on the old ships, but for some reason the new ones just seem
more pronounced to me. It may be an artifact of the angle of the pictures.
While comparing them, I think I saw what makes them look like the JPN ships to
me. It's the rear hulls. Almost all of the old ships had some type of wide
flat "wings" incorporated into the rear hull. While there were several
different styles, they did have the look of a competing design bureaus working
from a common theme, at least to me. To me, the newest ships have lost that
entirely, and that's where the disconnect is for me I think.
Now, none of this is a *bad* thing. The newer ships are nice, and if you were
to put in a mention in the next fleet book about a radical new designer
gaining favor in the ESU or rumors of stolen designs from the Japanese or some
such, that would make them make more sense (to me anyways). Of course, that
brings up the real point. There are a *lot* of mini's out now that don't have
"official" stats. We could really *really* use a new fleet book. I know that
mini's are where the money is, but the rules and ship stats are important to
how I game. I got into Full Thrust with the UN ships, partly because I like
how they work, but also in large part because there were stats and rules for
them online. Not having to design a whole fleet in advance was a big deal for
me.
Just sayin' :-)
Something like GURPS Transhuman Space?
Best regards, Robert Bryett rbryett@mail.com
> On 31/08/2005, at 11:27 PM, Brian B wrote:
> On 8/30/05, Robert Bryett <rbryett@mail.com> wrote:
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
In a message dated 8/31/2005 10:08:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> ladue@cse.buffalo.edu writes:
Now, none of this is a *bad* thing. The newer ships are nice, and if you were
to put in a mention in the next fleet book about a radical new designer
gaining favor in the ESU or rumors of stolen designs from the Japanese or some
such, that would make them make more sense (to me anyways). Of course, that
brings up the real point. There are a *lot* of mini's out now that don't have
"official" stats. We could really *really* use a new fleet book. I know that
mini's are where the money is, but the rules and ship stats are important to
how I game. I got into Full Thrust with the UN ships, partly because I
like
how they work, but also in large part because there were stats and rules for
them online. Not having to design a whole fleet in advance was a big deal for
me.
Just sayin' :-)
grant
Speaking of new a new fleet book. Has anyone played the IJN ships off my
website or in the PBEM game? I ams till looking for input and hoping to get
them as official for the future printing
Vince
> Vince wrote:
> >>I rather liked the NI and JPN ships when they came out, but I don't
Bingo. The new ESU ships have the same sort of "multi-level" structure
as the most modern of the *old* ESU ships, which means that they are
considerably LESS "multi-level" than the IJN ships... but the ESU were
nevertheless *first* with the "layered" ship design concept. If anyone
copied someone else, it was the IJN who copied the ESU - not the other
way
around. (The NI only have one single ship with horisontal "multi-layers"
-
the Kinneret-class light carrier.)
(BTW Vince, you do realise that you're saying almost exactly the opposite to
what Grant said in the post I replied to above, don't you? Grant claimed
that the new ESU ships have "the same sort of multi-level structure as
the IJN", whereas you're saying that the new ESU ships *don't* have the same
sort of multi-level structure as the IJN... :-/ )
> If you look them over, IJN DDs are eve leveled, where the ESU doest.
ESU
> doesnt do anythign liek that util BC size, and then it aint really
Er... I interpret this as:
"If you look them over, IJN DDs are even leveled, where the ESU doesn't do
anything like that until BC size, and then it ain't really level layered
more just stacked over..."
Hope I got it reasonably right :-/
My reply:
Even IJN *corvettes* are somewhat "multi-level", and their FFs noticably
so...
The reason why the *new* ESU ships don't start "layering" until BC size is
most likely that the *old* ESU ships don't start "layering" until that size.
The reason why the *old* ESU don't start layering until BC size is that the
old ESU range is an utter mish-mash of *six* distinctly different design
styles, at least four of which could have been expanded into an entire fleet
of its own without causing any distinction problems whatsoever:
- Lenov all by itself
- Nanuchka II/Novgorod,
- Warsaw/Volga/Tibet/Voroshilev (with the Gorshkov a distant relative
and
the original Nanuchka-class corvettes as a now-retired cousin),
- Beijing all by itself, Manchuria/Petrograd/Rostov/Tsiolkovsky, and
- Komarov/Konstantin.
What has happened now is that Jon built all the new ESU ships in *one single*
design style, derived from the most modern of the six old styles
(ie. the Manchuria series) - just like nearly all of the other GZGverse
star navies stick to one single design style. (OK, the FSE have two -
the
"built from plastic-kit sprue" style (Mistral to Hydra), and the "wedge
style" (San Miguel to Jeanne d'Arc)...)
Regards,
Having seen the recent battle report, I've decided it was, somewhat, an
illusion that led to my first complaints. WHICH I said all along was a
possibility. If you notice, there is a structure slopeing into the 'head'
of the CC/HC and the DD that looks more than a little like the hanging
neck to which I referred earlier. Just saying 'multi-layer' doesn't give
the full feeling these ships appear to have, but are less so than the IJN.
Which means, for me, the jury is still out until I've got some in my hands,
which will be 'not for awhile'.
It's a conspiracy, I swear. After a lot of talk, the Full Thrust night had
no show-ers, the group purchase for Jon's sale did not come to pass, and
I"ve JUST received word that my sis' father-in-law passed away, and I'm
stuck with caregiving for the weekend, ergo, no Denver.
Ok, James' passage is far more significant; a quiet, even-tempered
fellow who knew more about internal combustion engines than I about computers,
or ever will. He'll be missed.
Maybe Denver in the spring... *sigh*
The_Beast