I got my New Israeli Fleet in the mail today.
It is simply gorgeous. Well designed, well cast, and a marvelous look. The
Yerushalyim and Barak are particularly nice cruisers, and the Ben Gurion and
Tzion are rather unique capitals. The whole fleet has a
greate cohesive theme, and, well, _character_.
Great job, Jon!
You may all commence your jealous raging.
Kitbasher note: THe NI fleet is ripe with possibility. I believe components
are swappable with UN and IJN fleets at least, but even if not, stick three
carrier bays on the SDN hull for a Supercarrrer (12 groups at the GZG scale),
or three of the DN "shoulder" gun sets for a Heavy Battledreadnought.
> I got my New Israeli Fleet in the mail today.
Holy c**p! I was just chuckling at the groppos for the 'embarrassment of
riches', in choices not pocketbook, so that their bank accts were in jeopardy,
and I notice, not only the increasing NI, but NSL additions from the first of
the year I'd missed.
*ow*
I'm assuming some are from contractors that the UN are using...
> It is simply gorgeous. Well designed, well cast, and a
Wow, Noam, I thought you'd done some of the sculpting; you aren't tooting
your own horn, are you? ;->=
OK, dopey moi.
> The Yerushalyim and Barak are particularly nice cruisers,
Is that a Monty Python great? "Greate, just greate!"
Those Yerushalayim(sp?) and Barak ARE fetching, but aren't they a little close
in appearance. In person, is there any problem in telling them apart? It's a
delicate juggling act, making unique ships that still 'hang together'.
> Great job, Jon!
He's got your lucre; you can quit sucking up... ;->=
> You may all commence your jealous raging.
Well and truly begun, but you noticed that.
> Kitbasher note:
I can't depend on getting kits together the way they're intended. Just figure,
whatever you suggest, may well show in the next kit list. Are you going to
share bashed kit ship stats?
OHMYGOSH, try saying that quickly.
The_Beast
> Indy wrote:
> After Monitors are Supermonitors, Leviathans and Juggernauts.
Damn, someone beat me to that one.
> Kitbasher note:
Hmm, that reminds me. Once I finish up my "regulation" UN fleet, I want to
build a few news SDN's. One with a single fighter "pod" behind the front
section and another with two pods. I'll have to figure some stats for them. I
was toying with saying that the extra length allows the main graser to be a
class 4. I just need some class names for them. What's bigger than an SDN? The
Star Fleet Battles designation of Space Control Ship (SCS) might work.
As BFG has now become Evil Empire(tm) property, maybe BFS?
The_Beast
> > Kitbasher note:
***snip***
> Hmm, that reminds me. Once I finish up my "regulation"
Nahh~ You wanna call them Star Destroyers. Give in to the dark side XD (as an
aside, ships bigger than SDs in Starfire are called Monitors. Mebbe you can
jigger that one for you new uber ships)
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 14:27:22 -0500, Doug Evans <devans@nebraska.edu>
wrote:
> As BFG has now become Evil Empire(tm) property, maybe BFS?
at his Command
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004, Sylvester M. W. wrote:
> Nahh~
After Monitors are Supermonitors, Leviathans and Juggernauts.
How about a Dreadplanet?:)
I always liked that the Super Star Destroyer was Executor. Had sounded
litigious and measured and a bit sepulchutory, but you could always accent it
like you meant the guy with the ax.
I thought Monitors had other attributes, including slow as heck. "We brake for
nobody." Naval parlance has monitor nothing special save for one BIG gun,
right?
Also, as it's something of an ultimate, Omega Destroyer, and you're tipping
the hat to B5.
The_Beast
> Nahh~
> s666@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:
But aren't Monitors....s-l-o-w?
> >
The dreadplanet roberts? I don't think it exists...
Mk
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 04:02:56PM -0400, Indy wrote:
> The dreadplanet roberts? I don't think it exists...
Are you sure you're not thinking of the Nova Cannon of Unusual Size?
R
> Roger Burton West wrote:
The degradation potential that this thread has acquired is...dangerous.
;-)
Mk
In a message dated 10/19/04 11:41:43 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> devans@nebraska.edu writes:
<snip>
I can't depend on getting kits together the way they're intended. Just figure,
whatever you suggest, may well show in the next kit list. Are you going to
share bashed kit ship stats?
OHMYGOSH, try saying that quickly.
The_Beast
Uh, NO. My children might pick it up...
Gracias,
> On 19-Oct-04, at 1:02 PM, Indy wrote:
Now if we had a holocaust-cloak, that would be something...
TC.
> Grant A. Ladue wrote:
I still got some parts laying around for a SDN with two figher pods (I
am severely behind in building/painting). For stats I simply added the
two pods, added some PDS's and kept the hull/armor ratio the same. If
you want I can dig them up.
Such a beast needs some more propulsion, so I got 6 engines, 1
2-engine thingy and 2 4-engine thingies. The plan is to cut one
mounting point from each of the 4-engine thingies and turn them into
3-engine thingies, and then mount these in turn onto the 2-engine
thingy giving a total of 2x3=6 engines. I still have my doubts about the look
of this, so I am thinking of
scratchbuilding a 6-engine mounting thingy.
> After Monitors are Supermonitors, Leviathans and Juggernauts.
Maulers?
Planetoids?
Anyone got stats on the Skylark of Valeron?
Nothing is bigger than a SDN. I designed a TMF 1500 ship for a local campaign
and costs something like 4500 (including cargo spaces). It DEFAULTED to being
a SDN.
Also, my pet peev is that everybody compares to SFB or tries to convert FT to
SFB. SFB needs to die and remain dead!
> "Grant A. Ladue" <ladue@cse.Buffalo.EDU> wrote:
What's bigger than an SDN? The Star Fleet Battles designation of Space Control
Ship (SCS) might work.
I thought that monitors were light craft with BIG guns and generally not as
fast as normal warships but faster than the bulk freight carrier, for instance
in the ACW, RIVER monitors could steam at about 4 or so knots against the
current, while in WW2 (according to Jane's Fighting Ships) COASTAL monitors
seems to be destroyers or corvettes with four
battleship main guns (12-in+ bores) in two or so turrets. I would think
that if that class of monitor gave you a full broadside (and not a rolling
broadside) the monitor might capsize.
> I thought that monitors were light craft with BIG guns and generally
I'm pretty certain the term goes back to Napoleonic, if not earlier, but the
meaning has definitely shifted over time. Natch, the titular 'Monitor' for ACW
was a single gun ship, and the ACW tended to classify monitor as low deck with
turret(s). I think the sail monitors were smaller ships with single mortars; I
thought the Great War (if you follow my thinking that WWI and WWII was one war
with a long haitus) monitors were often freighter hulls with a large gun slung
on.
Strangely enough, if I am right, these tended NOT to have turrets.
Of course, I could be full of, er, beans on any of these points, so you know
I'll STILL be googleing...
Point taken on SFB, but it's not dead yet... (damn, MORE Monty Python)
However, weren't we talking about monitors vis a vis Starfire?
I'm so tired, it's been such a long exposition...
The_Beast
> --0-1461854602-1098290809=:48041
Well, you could do that if you like, but it seems unlikely to me that navies
that bother to differentiate between heavy and light cruisers are going to
just lump a regular SDN in with a ship twice it's size with 5 times the
fighters.
As for SFB, I'm certainly not trumpetting for it, just considering stealing
the name from it. I think I'm going to stick with BCV/CCV/HCV anyhow.
They have the right military tone for me.
WW1 (some survived to WW2) coastal monitors were smallish craft with big
guns - either a battleship turret (2 x 12" - 16") or smaller ones had 2
x 8" in a cruiser turret. Can't remember coming across a twin-turreted
one but I could quite easily be wrong. Turrets were often taken from stricken
battleships rather than built specifically. The hulls were
very, very simple with the minimum of features to keep them seaworthy -
I came across one the other day (going through Janes in search of Aeronef
names of all things) that had a hull that was literally a
flat-bottomed box with blunt ends - I'm not even sure it had any
engines. Later British ones OTOH were virtually single-ended
mini-capital ships with high decks (some were at the Normandy landings).
> Doug Evans wrote:
> I thought that monitors were light craft with BIG guns and generally
> > >The Dreadplanet Roberts? I don't think it exists...
No, no, you're thinking of Dreadrocks. The Rastafarians have them.
Now there's a minor power for you. :-)
[quoted original message omitted]
Now there's a minor power for you. :-)
Ships have an excellent combanation biodegradable power source....)
> --- Thomas Westbrook <tom_westbrook@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I thought that monitors were light craft with BIG
The Brits had 2x15 in. in a simgle turret on
about 6-8 thousand tons. This does not
constitute a 'light' ship, unless one is talking about cruisers.
Bye for now,