Improving the Dreadnaught heavy cruiser
Moderator: Beowulf
- Spanky The Dolphin
- Mammy Two-Shoes
- Posts: 30776
- Joined: 2002-07-05 05:45pm
- Location: Reykjavík, Iceland (not really)
- Spanky The Dolphin
- Mammy Two-Shoes
- Posts: 30776
- Joined: 2002-07-05 05:45pm
- Location: Reykjavík, Iceland (not really)
The thread title states that the purpose is to improve the Dreadnought-class, not merely change its appearence. In my opinion adding a bridge tower firmly lands in the second category rather than the first.
So far it seems like IP has been the only one to go with the intention of actually improving the design while maintaining that it remains the same ship. Most of everything else just seems like puny alterations just 'cause.
So far it seems like IP has been the only one to go with the intention of actually improving the design while maintaining that it remains the same ship. Most of everything else just seems like puny alterations just 'cause.
I believe in a sign of Zeta.
[BOTM|WG|JL|Mecha Maniacs|Pax Cybertronia|Veteran of the Psychic Wars|Eva Expert]
"And besides, who cares if a monster destroys Australia?"
- Firefox
- Jedi Council Member
- Posts: 1546
- Joined: 2005-03-01 12:29pm
- Location: Wichita, Kansas
- Contact:
I don't see why adding something like this would be a problem. Changes that are not only better from a military standpoint, but eventually lead to Rendili's later Victory class, is what I'm getting at.Spanky The Dolphin wrote:The thread title states that the purpose is to improve the Dreadnought-class, not merely change its appearence. In my opinion adding a bridge tower firmly lands in the second category rather than the first.
So far it seems like IP has been the only one to go with the intention of actually improving the design while maintaining that it remains the same ship. Most of everything else just seems like puny alterations just 'cause.
It seems odd already that the VSD comes from a different manufacturer from the larger Imperator, but there's nothing in Rendili's design history that lends to the Victory. Adding a bridge structure and "wedging out" the hull would make the Dreadnaught fit in more with the later ship.
- Spanky The Dolphin
- Mammy Two-Shoes
- Posts: 30776
- Joined: 2002-07-05 05:45pm
- Location: Reykjavík, Iceland (not really)
Because it doesn't need a bridge structure. Besides, the original Strike Cruiser did have small raised bridge structure, while the Dreadnought does not.Firefox wrote:I don't see why adding something like this would be a problem.
I see, so your goal is to force a design lineage between unrelated ship classes. Too bad it doesn't really work like that.Changes that are not only better from a military standpoint, but eventually lead to Rendili's later Victory class, is what I'm getting at.
Probably because the Victory-class is a Star Destroyer, while the older Dreadnought-class is not.It seems odd already that the VSD comes from a different manufacturer from the larger Imperator, but there's nothing in Rendili's design history that lends to the Victory. Adding a bridge structure and "wedging out" the hull would make the Dreadnaught fit in more with the later ship.
Last edited by Spanky The Dolphin on 2005-07-27 04:26pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Crossroads Inc.
- Emperor's Hand
- Posts: 9233
- Joined: 2005-03-20 06:26pm
- Location: Defending Sparkeling Bishonen
- Contact:
Firefox? I'm going to have to agree with spanky here...
I like the Drednaught as is. Sure it can be improved, but constantly forcing ships to resemble other ships shouldn't be a needed factor.
I like the Drednaught as is. Sure it can be improved, but constantly forcing ships to resemble other ships shouldn't be a needed factor.
Praying is another way of doing nothing helpful
"Congratulations, you get a cookie. You almost got a fundamental English word correct." Pick
"Outlaw star has spaceships that punch eachother" Joviwan
Read "Tales From The Crossroads"!
Read "One Wrong Turn"!
"Congratulations, you get a cookie. You almost got a fundamental English word correct." Pick
"Outlaw star has spaceships that punch eachother" Joviwan
Read "Tales From The Crossroads"!
Read "One Wrong Turn"!
-
- Jedi Council Member
- Posts: 1725
- Joined: 2004-12-16 04:01am
Personally, I think that adding a bridge tower/stub would be an improvement. AFAIK, there's no onscreen full capital ships that have a bridge in the nose, and all but the 1.2-km Mon Cal ships are known to have dorsal bridges projecting outward. Keeping a common aesthetic is something that should be aimed for, in my opinion.
However, this opinion seems to be in the minority, and as I was not a fan of the Dreadnaught to begin with, I may be trying to change it too much.
However, this opinion seems to be in the minority, and as I was not a fan of the Dreadnaught to begin with, I may be trying to change it too much.
- Firefox
- Jedi Council Member
- Posts: 1546
- Joined: 2005-03-01 12:29pm
- Location: Wichita, Kansas
- Contact:
So what if they're unrelated? There's an obvious design lineage between the Acclamator class troop transport and the Imperator class Star Destroyer.Spanky The Dolphin wrote:I see, so your goal is to force a design lineage between unrelated ship classes. Too bad it doesn't really work like that.
Again, what's wrong with showing at least some design lineage between the two?Probably because the Victory-class is a Star Destroyer, while the older Dreadnought-class is not.
Again, it's really no different than my above example. The original idea of this thread was, again, to explore ways to change the ship's appearance, regardless of degree. If you're going to disagree, say so.Crossroads Inc. wrote:I like the Drednaught as is. Sure it can be improved, but constantly forcing ships to resemble other ships shouldn't be a needed factor.
- Spanky The Dolphin
- Mammy Two-Shoes
- Posts: 30776
- Joined: 2002-07-05 05:45pm
- Location: Reykjavík, Iceland (not really)
When ship classes aren't related or part of an evolution of development, that means there's no design lineage, moron. That's what design lineage means!Firefox wrote:So what if they're unrelated?Spanky The Dolphin wrote:I see, so your goal is to force a design lineage between unrelated ship classes. Too bad it doesn't really work like that.
That's because they're related! That's the whole point. Don't you get that?There's an obvious design lineage between the Acclamator class troop transport and the Imperator class Star Destroyer.
Because they're not fucking releated, you nimrod! That's not how design lineages fucking work.Again, what's wrong with showing at least some design lineage between the two?Probably because the Victory-class is a Star Destroyer, while the older Dreadnought-class is not.
Jesus, I got sick of this kind of crap back when I used to be more involved in Gundam fandom, where people would try and force non-existant design lineages between unrelated mobile suits that had only superficial similarities.
- Firefox
- Jedi Council Member
- Posts: 1546
- Joined: 2005-03-01 12:29pm
- Location: Wichita, Kansas
- Contact:
Why the fuck do you think I created this thread? I'm interested in different ideas.Spanky The Dolphin wrote:When ship classes aren't related or part of an evolution of development, that means there's no design lineage, moron. That's what design lineage means!
No shit. Why can't I create a hypothetical Dreadnaught that's related to the later Victory class? This is all apocryphal, remember?That's because they're related! That's the whole point. Don't you get that?
No one's forcing you to participate. This thread has been about apocryphal concepts from the beginning, with the intent of eventually building a scale model. See my Victory class threads to see more of what I'm talking about.Jesus, I got sick of this kind of crap back when I used to be more involved in Gundam fandom, where people would try and force non-existant design lineages between unrelated mobile suits that had only superficial similarities.
you know, Rendilli (or whoever made the Victory) probably copied the wedge design from the Acclamator, Venator, etc.
"Hey look, those ships have been successful. They also look like wedges."
"Hey, I know! Let's make a ship that looks like a wedge, implying that *our* ship will be succesful as well!"
please excuse me if this post is completely wron,g I'm pulling references from hazy memories here.
"Hey look, those ships have been successful. They also look like wedges."
"Hey, I know! Let's make a ship that looks like a wedge, implying that *our* ship will be succesful as well!"
please excuse me if this post is completely wron,g I'm pulling references from hazy memories here.
- Firefox
- Jedi Council Member
- Posts: 1546
- Joined: 2005-03-01 12:29pm
- Location: Wichita, Kansas
- Contact:
That's something that's been discussed before. Since the Victory was apparently around early on in the Clone Wars (certainly earlier than the Venator class, judging from the ICS), it's possible Rendili's designers looked at the designs coming out of KDY and decided to copy them. (Another thing to keep in mind is that there were Acclamator-like star frigates around during or shortly after the events in TPM, so the flying wedge didn't start with the CW.)Hawkwings wrote:you know, Rendilli (or whoever made the Victory) probably copied the wedge design from the Acclamator, Venator, etc.
"Hey look, those ships have been successful. They also look like wedges."
"Hey, I know! Let's make a ship that looks like a wedge, implying that *our* ship will be succesful as well!"
please excuse me if this post is completely wron,g I'm pulling references from hazy memories here.