RE: [FT]Star Trek rules?

David Griffin wrote:

 >Here are my feeble attempts at Federation Full Thrust
 >designs... [snip] ...Feel free to critique.

You asked for it <g>

 >http://home.earthlink.net/~dwgriffin/fed1.jpg

Nimitz-class supercarrier:
Listed as TMF 234, NPV 995 (incl. standard/interceptor fighters)
These values would be true if the 6 PDSs are removed, but with all the
systems currently shown on the SSD the ship is TMF 243, NPV 1029 (incl.
fighters). (Also, should the "+" touching the second PDS from the left
be
there? <g>)

Galaxy SDN:
Listed as TMF 250, NPV 856. These values would be true if the ADFC is
removed, but with all the systems shown on the SSD the ship is TMF 252,
NPV
866.

Dominion BDN:
Listed as TMF 169, NPV 580. These values would be true if 1 PDS was
removed
(leaving 4); with the systems currently shown on the SSD the ship is TMF
170, NPV 584.

New Orleans BB:
Listed as TMF 130, NPV 449. These values would be true if the ADFC is
removed, but with all the systems shown on the SSD the ship is TMF 132,
NPV
459.

 >http://home.earthlink.net/~dwgriffin/fed2.jpg

Kongo BC:
Listed as TMF 115, NPV 400. These values would be true if 2 armour or
hull
boxes are removed; with the systems etc. currently shown on the SSD the
ship
is TMF 117, NPV 406.

Bonhomme Richard BC:
Listed as TMF 108, NPV 376. TMF is correct, but the NPV should be 378.

Nebula BC:
Listed as TMF 115, NPV 401. With all the systems shown on the SSD the
ship
is TMF 120, NPV 414; I'm not sure what went wrong here.

Voyager CH:
Legal design provided that what looks like two-layer Phalon-style armour
is
in fact single-layer Human armour. With the actual 2-layer armour layout
currently shown on the SSD, the NPV is 312.

Andor CH:
Listed as TMF 87, NPV 302, but the ship shown on the SSD is TMF 90, NPV
315.

Locknar CH:
Legal design, though if you want to min-max it it could equally well be
TMF
72, NPV 250.

Locknar II CH:
Legal design, though if you want to min-max it it could equally well be
TMF
84, NPV 292.

Intrepid CL:
SSD shows 2-layer Phalon-style armour, but the NPV says single-layer
Human-style. Apart from that the design is legal.

Defiant CE:
1 Mass unused, and the SSD shows 2-layer Phalon-style armour. The design
actually shown on the SSD is TMF 79, NPV 282.

 >http://home.earthlink.net/~dwgriffin/fed3.jpg

Constellation science cruiser:
Listed as TMF 60, NPV 245; the design as shown is only TMF 57, NPV 231.

Remora DDE:
Legal design, but the NPV is only 165.

Baker DD:
Legal design, but the NPV is only 191. Can be min-maxed down to TMF 54,
NPV
188.

Larson II DD:
Listed as TMF 61, NPV 227. TMF is incorrect (should be 64), but NPV is
OK.

Wilkerson DH:
Listed as TMF 27?!?, NPV 257. The design shown on the SSD is TMF 73, NPV
251.

Gagarin science destroyer:
Listed as TMF 47, NPV 201. The design shown on the SSD is TMF 49, NPV
205.

"Dolphin FH" (Sunfish):
Legal design, but the NPV is only 81

"Dolphin FH" (Dolphin):
Legal design, but the NPV is only 90

River FF: 1 Mass unused. The design on the SSD is only TMF 43, NPV 151
(can
be min-maxed down to TMF 42, NPV 148).

Osa II:
Listed as TMF 10, NPV 36. Design shown on the SSD is TMF 11, NPV 41.

OSA IV:
Design is illegal; a TMF 16 ship must have at least 2 hull boxes. With 2
hull boxes it would have TMF 17, NPV 64.

OSA V:
Design is illegal; a TMF 17 ship must have at least 2 hull boxes. With 2
hull boxes it would have TMF 19, NPV 71.

I agree with Dean's comment about these designs being optimized for
Vector 
:-/ (F)-arc B5-1s aren't all that common in Cinematic...

Regards,

Oerjan
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."