Dreadnought HC
Posted: 2004-02-15 09:42pm
Anyone have the dimensions (other than LOA) or mass of the Dreadnought Heavy Cruiser?
I want to do a calc based on the JAT.
I want to do a calc based on the JAT.
Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid ideas
http://stardestroyer.dyndns-home.com/
http://stardestroyer.dyndns-home.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=39909
Wasn't Warspite a Nebulon-B?Stormbringer wrote:Which dreadnaught are you doing? The Standard one, a Katana, or one of the Imperial-built dreadnaught (I believe they're tentatively called Warspite).
The Katana-class and the Standard Old Republic might well be kin (I wouldn't really call them the same class) and share the same space frame .Illuminatus Primus wrote:They're all Rendili StarDrive Dreadnought-class Heavy Cruisers.
The Katana and original are subclasses. The Katana is the same ship, with more efficient systems and power sources because of more automation and fewer crewmen.Stormbringer wrote:The Katana-class and the Standard Old Republic might well be kin (I wouldn't really call them the same class) and share the same space frame.Illuminatus Primus wrote:They're all Rendili StarDrive Dreadnought-class Heavy Cruisers.
Probably a follow-up similar design for a similar mission, but a distinct class. Same general size? Consider it analogous to the Victory-class and the Rendili StarDrive design destroyers in orbit around Balmorra in Dark Empire II. Even so, the Empire did field refits of the Dreadnought-class Heavy Cruiser.Stormbringer wrote:But the Warspite type are definitely not Rendili Dreadnaugts. There forward section is all wrong for a RSD Dreadnaught and their after section is closer but still distinctly different. I doubt that they are a refit, far too extensive. If I knew how I'd get you a screen cap of it.
I wasn't denying that they're very similar ships but the redesign for the Katanas so fundamentally changes the ships that they constitute a seperate class.The Katana and original are subclasses. The Katana is the same ship, with more efficient systems and power sources because of more automation and fewer crewmen.
Probably a follow-up similar design for a similar mission, but a distinct class. Same general size? Consider it analogous to the Victory-class and the Rendili StarDrive design destroyers in orbit around Balmorra in Dark Empire II. Even so, the Empire did field refits of the Dreadnought-class Heavy Cruiser.
It was a very extensive rebuild, but there the basic frame is still there.You know the Rebel Assault Frigates are distinct classes derived from total rebuilds of the Dreadnought-class spaceframe.
No, it just got a new computer suite and shoved in more ordinance with the available room.Stormbringer wrote:I wasn't denying that they're very similar ships but the redesign for the Katanas so fundamentally changes the ships that they constitute a seperate class.
And eliminated a several thousands crewers by introducing massive automation. You don't do that with out a fairly extensive reworking.Illuminatus Primus wrote:No, it just got a new computer suite and shoved in more ordinance with the available room.Stormbringer wrote:I wasn't denying that they're very similar ships but the redesign for the Katanas so fundamentally changes the ships that they constitute a seperate class.
No, in several of the X-Wing games there is a Dreadnaught type vessels that is clearly different from the standard dreadnaught design.Connor MacLeod wrote:Are you referring to Bulk Cruisers? They have nothing to do with Dreadnaughts, aside from the slight similarity (not surprising, since Rendili produced bulk cruisers as well as the Dreadnaught.)
Talking to Stormbringer?Connor MacLeod wrote:Are you referring to Bulk Cruisers? They have nothing to do with Dreadnaughts, aside from the slight similarity (not surprising, since Rendili produced bulk cruisers as well as the Dreadnaught.)
Well, there is some historical precedent for relatively minor changes denoting a new class -- some publications classify USS Theodore Roosevelt and later as a distinct class from the Nimitz design despite there not being too many differences between them.Illuminatus Primus wrote:No, it just got a new computer suite and shoved in more ordinance with the available room.Stormbringer wrote:I wasn't denying that they're very similar ships but the redesign for the Katanas so fundamentally changes the ships that they constitute a seperate class.
Reducing the crew by 14,000 bodies is far more of a redesign than the Theodore Roosevelt.phongn wrote:Well, there is some historical precedent for relatively minor changes denoting a new class -- some publications classify USS Theodore Roosevelt and later as a distinct class from the Nimitz design despite there not being too many differences between them.Illuminatus Primus wrote:No, it just got a new computer suite and shoved in more ordinance with the available room.Stormbringer wrote:I wasn't denying that they're very similar ships but the redesign for the Katanas so fundamentally changes the ships that they constitute a seperate class.
[i]Dark Force Rising[/i], page 58 wrote:"Nearly right," Karrde said. "The Dreadnaughts of that era in particular were ridiculously crew-intensive ships, requiring upwards of sixteen thousand men each. The full-rig slave circuitry on the Katana ships cut that complement down to around two thousand."
That was my point.Stormbringer wrote:Reducing the crew by 14,000 bodies is far more of a redesign than the Theodore Roosevelt.
They are a major refit of the dreadnaut design. They leave little of the structure of the dreadnaut intact.Rogue 9 wrote:Rebel assault frigates always struck me as a crossbreed dreadnought/Nebulon-B. *Shrug* They just look that way.