Re: UNSC fleet carrier design

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:
> > 
> > >>And you must LOVE the Superior line of Starfleet Wars ships.  :-)
> > > 
> > >Hmm.. not sure I've seen them - I'll have a look.
> > 
> > Put it like this: the Starfleet Wars *destroyers* are larger than
GZG
> > *heavy cruisers*. The SFW capital ships are, well... big :-/
> 
> 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
> 
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!

Charles.

> 

--