Moderator: Beowulf
Firefox wrote:The Invincible class dreadnaught is a 2,011m long ship built 3,000 years before ANH. It's not quite the same craft as the subject of this thread (600m craft).
Firefox wrote:I've learned never to trust cover art. One example of this is Firefox, which supposedly shows the title aircraft on the cover, but is actually a standard MiG-25. They probably saw "dreadnaught" and immediately thought it was the same thing as the later 600m craft.
As for the Invincible class, TFN's encyclopedia says the ship is 2,011m long, built by Rendili/Vaufthau Shipyards, Limited Corp. The ships required 23,614 crew and 114 gunners. They could also support 6,000 troops.
Armaments include:
-30 quad laser cannons
-12 TL cannons
-6 tractor beam projectors
-6 concussion missile tubes
Again, it's not the same ship as Rendili's 600m Dreadnaught class Heavy Cruiser.
Is it impossible to concieve that two different ships seperated by millenia shared the same class name?Firefox wrote:The Invincible class dreadnaught is a 2,011m long ship built 3,000 years before ANH. It's not quite the same craft as the subject of this thread (600m craft).
Part of the point of this thread was to explore ways to change the "classic look" of the Dreadnaught. It was really spurred on by comments made in a PSW thread where the general consensus was that the class looked too much like a "flying hot dog".Crossroads Inc. wrote:I think the trick would be to add a bridge that isn't to big or messes up the original shape that gives the Dreadnaught its classic look.
Indeed, which may be further justification for adding a module towards the back. It seems to be a hallmark of other Republic and Imperial warship designs.The other thing to consider is that the Dreadnaught i supposed to have it's bridge up front at the top of it's 'bow' which is off from most Imperial designs which have a bridge at the stern.
Close, but not quite. It would look somewhat different, perhaps without the outriggers. The Venator and Imperator class bridge towers look totally different, after all.Grandmaster Jogurt wrote:If you made it the same module as your Victory's bridge, that would be nifty.
Perhaps, though with some work I don't see why such an addition would be inherently bad. Again, the idea of this thread was to investigate ways of improving the "flying hot dog".Spanky The Dolphin wrote:I see no reason why the Dreadnought-class should have some bridge tower just idiotically tacked onto it when it already has a bridge in the nose of the ship, which is perfectly suitable for the design.
If you're thinking a tower on the aft end, then I think it would actually make it look worse (and I like the Dreadnaught). However, perhaps a Corellian flare might do. Some slim like bridge jutting out of the bow like a spartan helmet. Think of the cockpit modual from the Radiant from TMP, scaled up and put on the Dread.Firefox wrote:I had a crazy thought while staring at my VSD. Would it hurt the Dreadnaught if I were to add a bridge module of similar or more simplified design? I don't necessarily want to turn the ship into a full-blown flying wedge (though the design should look better than it currently is), but an added module to the dorsal hull would give the ship extra character.
... Hell, I could write an apocryphal text that links the Dreadnaught heavy cruiser to the later Victory class in lineage. Thoughts?
"Flying hot dog" or not, I think the design is damn fine the way it is, and needs no meddlesome "improvement." Better use of time would be spent fixing up the various haphazard WEG designs that actually need it.Firefox wrote:Again, the idea of this thread was to investigate ways of improving the "flying hot dog".
Why?Illuminatus Primus wrote:The design is awful for a warship.
A cone shape is the only thing that comes to mind, hull-wise. Changing to a wedge would be a bit too significant.Illuminatus Primus wrote:Yeah. Look, leave all the essential parts and stuff to the same basic locales and shapes. You just need to arrange it in a more reasonable slight wedge- or cone-shaped configuration.
I already said the bridge area wouldn't jut out as much as on other ships, merely a dorsal protrusion that extends up only a couple dozen meters or so.Spanky The Dolphin wrote:It doesn't need a bridge tower, though, that's the problem and yahoo-ness of it. Not all Imperial capital ships have bridge towers. Hell, the redesign of the Strike Cruiser even pulled the bridge back into the hull.
Because the GFFA has been stagnant for 25 millienia.Crossroads Inc. wrote:Why?Illuminatus Primus wrote:The design is awful for a warship.
At it's core, It's a long rectangle with guns on the side. This has been the model of Warships since the day of Sail. It does NOT have the efficiency of the 'Wedge'O'Doom' but, surprise, surprise, it was built in an age long before that became an Industrial/tactical standard.
The ship has it's cannons such that all fire can be directed straight ahead, which makes it excellent for head on engagements. Also, the can be angled to the side to attack ships either above or bellow it, or directly on it's sides.
On a more superficial note, the 'Hot Dog' that so many talk about reflect a general design for Starships across Sci-Fi for ages. It's not ugly,. it's not overly inefficient, it simply sticks out from 'The Norm' of other StarWars warships. And really, there’s nothing wrong with that,
Why?Firefox wrote:I already said the bridge area wouldn't jut out as much as on other ships, merely a dorsal protrusion that extends up only a couple dozen meters or so.Spanky The Dolphin wrote:It doesn't need a bridge tower, though, that's the problem and yahoo-ness of it. Not all Imperial capital ships have bridge towers. Hell, the redesign of the Strike Cruiser even pulled the bridge back into the hull.
