Well, I got some more figures at Colours, so here is my vision of a UNSC
fleet carrier :-)
For reference, here is the module size table again, I've added the carrier
modules.
Module MASS COST Medium Thrust 11 22
Large Thrust 23 46
Fighter Bay 36 108 Each houses 4 wings of 6 fighters
Weapons 4 varies Cargo 20 none
#Peacekeeper class Fleet Carrier
Displacement: 34200 tonnes (MASS factor 342) Hull type: Weak (Hull Integrity
76) Crew: 86 officers, 256 ratings (Crew Factor 17) plus fighter pilots
Armanent: 2 x Class 1, 2 x 3-arc Class 2 (FP-F-FS),
2 x 3-arc Class 3 batteries, 2x Pulse Torpedo Launchers, (all in
AP-FP-F, AS-FS-F pairs)
Defences: 6 Point Defence Systems, Grade 12 Armour, Level 1 Screens
Sensor suite: Standard sensors, 3 Fire-control systems
Drive systems: 4 x Large Drive module, rating 5, FTL (Jump) Drive Hanger bays:
8 bays holding 48 fighters
TMF: 342
NPV: 1,157 + 48 fighters
Later models drop the Level 1 screen and instead have 4 extra PDS 2
extra class-1 batteries, and 11 more points of hull integrity.
Any comments?
Modules wouldn't really be feasable for a design this large due to the lack of
hulls to fit them to (the FSE Jeanne D'arc is only in single figures). 342
mass is really too large (it screams "target" on every sensor available). With
mixed armament, it would be better to have something like the NSL
carriers, with 4-5 fighter groups & respectable armament. It's too
undergunned for a SDN sized ship; once the fighters are gone, a Valley Forge
(190 mass) will tear it apart.
Drop it to around 260-270 mass with 5-6 fighter groups & add 3-4 more
class-3 batteries and another firecon for enough firepower to at least
keep the escorts away.
Neath Southern Skies -http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernskies/
[Pirates] Dame Captain Washalot
[NPJB] Absorbent Sponge Sheesh'Ka'Baab
[MKW2] Admiral Peter Rollins - Task Force Zulu-Beta
> -----Original Message-----
In message <B18DDC5F1158D311A66900805FD47181C89C5C@VSTASV1>
> "Robertson, Brendan" <Brendan.Robertson@dva.gov.au> wrote:
> Modules wouldn't really be feasable for a design this large due to the
Well, have you seen the figure! (it is a) big, and b) noticably modular, and I
have a psychological limitation "must design ships to have systems
represented by features on the figures" - which is a pain) Frankly I
agree that its a bit big, (other people seem to think 'the bigger the
better') - at least FT doesn't give bonuses to hitting things because
they're large :-)
Actually, using the old MT sensor rules, it shoes up as a 'capital'
class target - use the thrusters at full power & manouevre at thrust 5
and see if the opponents thinks is an escort playing silly buggers with
a weasel system :-).
> With mixed armament, it would be better to have something like the NSL
Once the fighters are gone (presume you mean destroyed) it runs away
(well, tries to) - but point taken (this is a _UN_ ship - probably
designed by committe :-).
> Drop it to around 260-270 mass with 5-6 fighter groups & add 3-4 more
'Fraid upon my self imposed limit of trying to 'model' this monster based on
the figure, the number of fighter wings has to be a multiple of 4, and those
bay modules are too big to just be 2 flights each (each module has 12 sets of
launch doors).
You should have seen the problems I've had with the other UN ships - but
I really like the figures :-)
> Neath Southern Skies -http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernskies/
Thanks for the input - I'm certainly going to modify it a bit - just not
sure how yet :-)
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, Charles Stanley Taylor wrote:
> In message <B18DDC5F1158D311A66900805FD47181C89C5C@VSTASV1>
Out of curiosity, how do you work the standard line of GZG figs, then?
And you must LOVE the Superior line of Starfleet Wars ships. :-)
> Frankly I
It's been my take on this that the ranges between vessels is SO large
that size is basically nullified to an approximation value - e.g, all
ships are essentially the same size at a distance of 1000 km, ya know?
> > With mixed armament, it would be better to have something like the
Not *my* UN committee! ;-)
Mk
In message <B18DDC5F1158D311A66900805FD47181C89C5C@VSTASV1>
> "Robertson, Brendan" <Brendan.Robertson@dva.gov.au> wrote:
> Modules wouldn't really be feasable for a design this large due to the
Hmm.. done a bit of a re-work, and checked out the old FB1 designs - its
only down 1 Class-3 on the Valley Forge, and its Pulse Torps have wider
fire arcs (why oh why don't the NAC believe in multi-arc pulse torps!)
OTOH the Valley Forge has better arcs on its Class-2's.
Compares better with an Arc Royal - which only has 2x Class-1s, 2x
Class-2's, and 4 PDS (but does have Screen-2 - I'm still undecided on UN
Screen & Armour design requirements)
Der Theuerdank has stronger hull, slightly better armour, no pulse
torps, but 1 more each of Class-2 & Class-3 beams, but it is slow.
Jeanee D'Arc has more hull, almost as many fighters, Missiles, same
number of class-2 & 3 beams.
Knostantin has Level-2 screens, twice as many Class-2 & 3's, but no
pulse torps.
So I'd say its not _massively_ undergunned for a human carrier, but is
is for an SDN, which it isn't!
I'm still mucking about with all these designs - I think I'll try and
make the big ships a little smaller, and see what they look like.
> Drop it to around 260-270 mass with 5-6 fighter groups & add 3-4 more
[snip my old msg]
In message <Pine.GSO.4.21.0009201513560.29266-100000@poppc.stsci.edu>
> Mark Kochte <kochte@stsci.edu> wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, Charles Stanley Taylor wrote:
[snip]
> >
Err... I'm lazy and use the fleetbooks (except for some of my Kra'Vak
'cruisers' - actually old CMD KV tanks - that I might design their stats
for - or just use them as standard FB2 designs :-)
> And you must LOVE the Superior line of Starfleet Wars ships. :-)
Hmm.. not sure I've seen them - I'll have a look.
> >Frankly I
Thats what I figure.
> > > With mixed armament, it would be better to have something like the
Actually - see my other post, it's a carrier, carrier w/o fighters vs.
SDN is going to be pretty one-sided however you cut it (even for the NSL
carrier vs. the NSL SDN - they had to take _something_ out when they put
in those hanger bays :-).
> >
Do you have any UN designs, I'd be interested in having a look, I havn't
found many (which is why I'm designing my own - see 'lazy' comment
above!) since starting this project I've found some on Paul Radford's website:
http://www.innotts.co.uk/~paulradford/
Under his campaign section - they are a bit different, and he's fitted
some with Railguns (like K-guns, but with a different SSD symbol).
Anyway, this committe of one will continue hacking about with my
designs, and hopefully I'll get round to trying them out soon :-)
Thanks,
G'day Charles,
> Well, have you seen the figure! (it is a) big...
It is but I wouldn't say it was that much bigger than the Jeanne D'Arc, so
making 340+ mass is probably a little on the high side. Maybe 300 at a
push. Didn't one of the guys on the list use to actually weigh the figures to
compare masses? Wonder how the UN CV vs the Jeanne D'Arc would work
out....
Just my 2 razoos.
Beth
That sounds like quite a model. Is there a picture available?
[quoted original message omitted]
> Jonathan Jarrad wrote:
Yup,
http://www.warpfish.com/jhan/ft/gzgecc/gzgecc3/gallery/S3_Contest11.jpg
> -----Original Message-----
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, Charles Stanley Taylor wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, Charles Stanley Taylor wrote:
*grin*
> > And you must LOVE the Superior line of Starfleet Wars ships. :-)
When you look, look underneath! ;-)
> > > Once the fighters are gone (presume you mean destroyed) it runs
My UNSC designs fitting the new figs are not yet ready for publication (sorry,
Oerjan!:). I've had almost zero time to really devote to
working on this in the past few months. :-/
> Anyway, this committe of one will continue hacking about with my
Oh, no discouragement meant from this committee! I enjoy seeing what other
people's ideas are on things.
Mk
Charles Stanley Taylor wrote in reply to Indy:
> And you must LOVE the Superior line of Starfleet Wars ships. :-)
Put it like this: the Starfleet Wars *destroyers* are larger than GZG
*heavy cruisers*. The SFW capital ships are, well... big :-/
One of the larger models in that line, the Terran SuperGalactic Dreadnought
(is that the Victory, or have I gotten them mixed up again?) has the following
dimensions: Length 152mm Width 64mm Mass ~275g
For comparisions, data for the ESU Voroshilev model: Length 48mm (nose to rear
edge of engine nacelles) Width 41mm Mass ~15g
Later,
> Charles Stanley Taylor wrote in reply to Indy:
I was thinking more along the lines of how Charles has a built-in
'restriction' for coming up with designs which represent all visible weapon
systems on a given mini; for fun I had tried to do that with Superior's SW
Terran force, and quickly had a heavy cruiser out of
a destroyer. :-) I believe Dean/Star Ranger tried to do something
similar for his PBeM scenarios before he noticed the bristling array
of weapons UNDERNEATH each model! :-)
Mk
In message <4.2.2.20000921110742.00a3a770@pop.hba.marine.csiro.au>
> Beth Fulton <beth.fulton@marine.csiro.au> wrote:
> G'day Charles,
> push. Didn't one of the guys on the list use to actually weigh the
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> [quoted text omitted]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Funny you should mention that... I did actually weigh my other UN models
and compated them with my KV models and a FSE BDN - unfortunately, my
scales arn't very accurate for low weight items, so the results were a
guideline at best.
Ok, tried again (all results are approximate),
Ship Figure Weight Ship MASS Bonaparte BDN 80gm 160
UNSC Gaia SDN-X 120gm 240 (approx)
UNSC Fleet Carrier 155gm 330 (approx)
Hmm.. different again, I think I over-estimated the SDN-X weight -
<sigh> well, back to the drawing board :-| Carrier isn't far out though
:-)
You right, however, 342 is rather on the large size (by 12 MASS) - I'm
trying to cut it down a bit. :-)
I'm not overly fixated on the weight, I did the original weighing exercise as
the quickest way of geting a rough comparison on sizes.
And this only has any baring on the ship MASSes if we assume that all
human build ships have roughly the same densities :-)
How much does the Jeanne D'Arc figure weigh in at anyway :-)
In message <B0016178949@mzdy12.allegro.net>
> "Jarrard, Jonathan (J.)" <jjarrard@ford.com> wrote:
> That sounds like quite a model. Is there a picture available?
[snip my old message]
Not currently AFAIK, but I expect that one will be put up shortly, for some
idea, have you seen the UNSC Extended Range Superdreadnought (pictures are on
the WWW, somewhere, but I can't find the URL just now! anyway, there's a pic
in the GZG catalogue)?
If so, remove the main hull and the cargo boxes between the cruciform wing and
the engines. Attach the engines to the center rear of the wing section.
Imagine two large rectangular boxes, each with 6 indented 'fighter bay doors'
on both of the short ends. Attach these crossways, one to the center front of
the wing assembly, and the other in front of the first, but at a 90 angle.
Imagine an angular 'Y' shaped structure, attach this to the front of the
formost hanger bay section, with the prongs of the 'Y' pointing forward.
It weights (very roughly) 150gm, and is about 10.5cm long.
..and the figure comes in quite a few bits :-)
When I get a website, and _when_ I get it built and painted, and _when_
I borrow someones digital camera/flatbed scanner - I'll put up a piccy
(really _don't_ hold your breath :-)
Hope someone can make sense of all this gibberish!
In message <Pine.GSO.4.21.0009211121480.8512-100000@poppc.stsci.edu>
> Mark Kochte <kochte@stsci.edu> wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, Charles Stanley Taylor wrote:
[snip big figure]
> > > And you must LOVE the Superior line of Starfleet Wars ships. :-)
Erm, let me guess, no detail? like the Space Dreadnought 3000 figures from
Kallista, or some SFB figures I've seen (ISC dreadnought for instance).
> > > > Once the fighters are gone (presume you mean destroyed) it runs
Pity, but I know the feeling! I'll look forward to seeing them (planning to
give mine a playtest this Sunday, with luck!).
> > Anyway, this committe of one will continue hacking about with my
Mine are somewhat in a state of flux, I keep changing my mind on various
concepts (to spinal mount or not to spinal mount, that is the question...)
> Indy wrote:
> And you must LOVE the Superior line of Starfleet Wars ships. :-)
Dean has FB stats for all of the Starfleet Wars models at the Star Ranger
page... The SuperGalactic Dreadnoughts come in "weapons on top only" and "all
weapons on model" versions...
In message <Pine.GSO.4.21.0009211332250.8512-100000@poppc.stsci.edu>
> Mark Kochte <kochte@stsci.edu> wrote:
> > Charles Stanley Taylor wrote in reply to Indy:
Arrgh! so I was wrong (again - see previous post) - actually, I should
make a confession - I'm only trying to model the largest, most obvious
weapons (the wingtip pods and the detachable weapons turrets/missile
tube things), while I'm using a mex of Class-1s and PDS as an average
representation of the numerous small weapons ports. I'm still not sure
what the wingtip weapons on the Battlship are - I'm currently working
with Class-2s.
One quibble with these otherwise very nice figures, _all_ of the weapons
point forward, and whilst a "point all guns forward and have lots of
manoueverability" based design is possible, its been done for the Kra'Vak (who
have the advanced drives this policy really needs).
Well, I knew I'd have to compromise somewhere!
In message <70dd9d014a.charles@charles.taylor.cableol.co.uk>
> Charles Stanley Taylor <charles.taylor@cableol.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
> UNSC Fleet Carrier 155gm 330 (approx)
Arrgh!!!!! that should be 310gm ^ I calculated it right, hit the wrong key,
then refered back to my now incorrect result!!!!
Well, its been a long day :-|
Charles
--
> Charles Stanley Taylor wrote:
> And you must LOVE the Superior line of Starfleet Wars ships. :-)
<chuckle> You're not having a very good day today, it seems... Guess again!
> ...or some SFB figures I've seen (ISC dreadnought for instance).
The SFB minis I have don't have any detail at all :-/
Later,
Indy wrote
> >I was thinking more along the lines of how Charles has a built-in
Hey, its hard to look underneath when you don't have the minis, just top view
pictures.
> Oerjan wrote:
Which do follow the turrets on the minis, except the Terran ships have many
more secondary turrets as everyone else, so the number of Beam2's is actually
a ratio of 2 B2's per 3 turrets while other races are 1 B2 per secondary
turret.
ANy suggestion on pics for the superior line? Sounds interesting. Always have
a spot for really big and slow. Thanks
You can try my web site at
http://zappa.brainiac.com/spaceship/spaceship8.html#superiormini
Or you can go to the current producer of this line at
http://www.stellargames.com/
Enjoy, Tom Granvold <thomas.granvold@eng.sun.com>
> ANy suggestion on pics for the superior line?
> Mark Kochte wrote:
Yeah, but the easiest way to figure out the volume of a figure is to determine
the volume of water it displaces. With a graduated cylinder in sufficiently
small increments, you can figure out the volume very accurately. A variation
on this method is to fill the cylinder to the very top with water. When you
add the miniature to the vessel, the water will overflow. How much water?
Exactly the volume of the miniature. If you catch all of the overflow in
another vessel, you can then weigh the water. Since
the density of water is 1 g/ml, you can easily and accurately
determine the volume of the mini.
This method is much more accurate and simple than measuring all of the mini
cubes and cones that make up the mini and then summing them all up.
Cheers,
> Tony Christney wrote:
Yes, we thought of that. However, (keeping in mind that I haven't actually
tried) it seems to me that while this method will be more accurate, it may not
be as simple.
It's *hard* to accurately measure tiny amounts of water. Especially if one
does not have access to accurate lab equipment.
Many of my miniatures are too wide to fit in a narrow
> At 10:13 PM -0400 9/22/00, Nyrath the nearly wise wrote:
It all depends on how close you actually *need* to be. Try the filling a
larger, ungraduated cylinder (hey! I'm an ungraduated biped! wait, am I proud
of this?) to the brim and measuring the runoff method.
> And have you recently priced pan balances capable
Demand for those seems to have skyrocketed in the past few
decades... My high school lost 16 tripple-beam balances in one raid.
The rest of chemistry and all of AP physics sucked real hard.
> It's *hard* to accurately measure tiny amounts
So measure 10. Or 100.
How about this:
1. Weigh small container full of water 2. Dip mini in water by super glueing
wire to a point so that only mini goes in water and can be pulled out easily
(this allows water to overflow). remove mini. 3. Weigh container and remaining
water. 4. Difference is water dispalced
Might get a couple of drops clinging to the mini. Anything to coat it with to
prevent this?
> Nyrath the nearly wise wrote:
> Tony Christney wrote: