Prev: Re: [OT] Silent Death missile markers Next: Re: Missile counter measures.

RE: Star Trek designing

From: "Tim Jones" <Tim.Jones@S...>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 14:42:37 +0100
Subject: RE: Star Trek designing

>How about shielded "armor"?  It would represent the degrading
>effects of shields as seen in the show and is also repairable in
>combat.  Treat as armor except that it costs 3 points, it also
>must precede any regular armor on the armor row.  It would also
>provide some shielding vs photon torpedoes (pulse torpedoes)
>and the occassional missile.  The symbol would be a circle,
>just like armor, with an 'S' inside.

Just use standard armor, change ignore armor weapons so they don't
ignore it. 

>
>Another thought for lack of fighters and why missiles do not
>seem to be a threat: any "phaser" (beams, no matter the class) 
>can shoot at fighters and missiles.

Fighters & FT captital missiles are rare in real star trek, photons
are actually missiles.

>
>Here are my concepts for ST style ships, I didn't use my shielded
>armor idea.  Pulse torpedo = photon torpedo (that was easy).

I'd use ER SLM's, its more like the photons you see in the show
long range guided missiles. IIRC the range of a photon is vastly
greater than a phaser, as its a standoff warp capable weapon. 
  
>Class-3 beam weapon = disruptor (wait until I'm done).  

Railgun

>Heavy phaser = class-2 beam, light phaser = class-1. 

Phaser classes map to beams
 
>Btw, I've only considered the Federation and Klingons;
>very few fighters or missiles are used (they are rarely seen in ST).

Agreed 

>Feds use level-2 screens on cruisers and larger, Klingons use
>only level-1.	

How does this tie in with shield armor, they should be the same
system? I agree the feds are tougher in defence.

>since the Klingons' main weapon is treated as a beam weapon.
>Feds use more armor, Klingons prefer more weapons (I kept all hull
>strengths as Average).  Fed ships' thrust speed is 4, Klingons'
>is 6.	

In TOS the big E could out manuver most other ships though.

But I have a dilemma: I'm in the middle of designing a
>Klingon DN and I'm torn between the thrust-6 or thrust-4 with a
>lot more weapons (+2 disruptors with 120 degree arcs, +2
>heavy phasers, and +2 armor).	The little bit of Klingon in me
>says "more weapons!".	:)  Or should I stay with the thrust-6?
>This is a DN, afterall, used more for brute strength that 
>positioning.

I'd go T4

>
>So, I'll provide my list of ship designs.
>
>Fed CA, 84 mass, 282 points.  Thrust-4, average strength hull,
>level-2 screens, 7 armor, 3 FC, 2 PDS (or should be 2 class-1s?),
>2 pulse torpedoes, 3 class-2s with 180 degree arcs each.

PDS don't fit the background IMO.
2 FC's (main bridge and aux control)

>
>Klingon D7, 80 mass, 262 points.  Thrust-6, average strength hull,
>level-1 screens, 4 armor, 2 FC, 2 class-3s with 60 degree arcs 
>(disruptors), 2 class-2s with 180 degree arcs, 2 class-1s.
>(PDS?	bah, defenses are for losers)

in TOS they only have disruptors, no secondary armament 

>
>Klingon Bird of Prey, 48 mass, 157 points.  Thrust-6, average 
>strength hull, level-1 screens, 4 armor, 2 FC, 1 class-3 (60 degrees),
>2 class-1s.

Missing photon

Interesting...

-= tim jones =- 


Prev: Re: [OT] Silent Death missile markers Next: Re: Missile counter measures.