Something big

[Abacus]

Even I, a purist at most times, believe Ansel is doing just fine on the design. As has, now repeatedly, been said -- it's a different variant and one which predates the Essential Guide you mentioned. So, just enjoy! Or better, commission! [*throws more money at Ansel*]

[fractalsponge1]

[evillejedi]

Not sure I like the bow lasers, they look very bolted on with the round bases. Maybe having a faceted shape?

I'm also curious why the Bay is that long, I always imagined something more like the forward bay of an Imp star for shuttles and some patrol craft.

[Lord Revan]

the Bay looks a bit like the centre part from the Venator which would make sense as the Victory and Venator as both clone wars designs.

[fractalsponge1]

I like the gun tubs. It's very Cantwell!

The bay was modeled on the Venator setup, just ventral and without doors - long and narrow. Also I figured it'd be nicely symmetric if the VSD could take a Consular in the bay just like the ISD could take a CR90.

VSDs are I think supposed to actually have 1-2 regiments. Unless they are totally for shipboard duties there still needs to be launch space for some level of dropship activity, unless they deploy a platoon at a time.

[fractalsponge1]

Triple light/medium ion cannon to round out the gunfit.

[Abacus]

Nearly there!

@VicStar: Here's hoping it's bay shields are strong -- I could see it becoming the target of choice for anyone engaging it.

[Adam Reynolds]

It is still better in that respect than a Venator, which has hangers on literally every single surface. Ashoka even rolls one such that the ventral hanger is exposed to an enemy bombardment, as it is less considered less vulnerable than the larger dorsal fighter hanger.

[fractalsponge1]

Hangars are always good targets, but it's not any worse than any other canon destroyer design in that regard - keep the shields up.

Light ship almost done:

[FTeik]

From some angles, it does resemble Jerec's Vengeance which makes it a more credible design.

[fractalsponge1]

From some angles, it does resemble Jerec's Vengeance which makes it a more credible design.

Would it be less credible if it didn't?

[Elheru Aran]

From some angles, it does resemble Jerec's Vengeance which makes it a more credible design.

The Vengeance was such a weird design for a SSD type though. Very flat, wasn't it? This is more bulky (proportionally) which looks much better. Of course the limitations of mid-90s video game rendering had something to do with that...

[fractalsponge1]

From some angles, it does resemble Jerec's Vengeance which makes it a more credible design.

The Vengeance was such a weird design for a SSD type though. Very flat, wasn't it? This is more bulky (proportionally) which looks much better. Of course the limitations of mid-90s video game rendering had something to do with that...

Yeah I never understood how they fit enough reactor into the type to make the surface area needed to be shielded tenable. It's a similar problem with Executor - great for carrier operations but not so great for survivability. I suppose you could have hundreds of small reactors, but that seems like a bad use of space...

[Weedle McHairybug]

From some angles, it does resemble Jerec's Vengeance which makes it a more credible design.

The Vengeance was such a weird design for a SSD type though. Very flat, wasn't it? This is more bulky (proportionally) which looks much better. Of course the limitations of mid-90s video game rendering had something to do with that...

Yeah I never understood how they fit enough reactor into the type to make the surface area needed to be shielded tenable. It's a similar problem with Executor - great for carrier operations but not so great for survivability. I suppose you could have hundreds of small reactors, but that seems like a bad use of space...

Even though the Executor-class is a ship I hold in high regard, I must admit... you have a point there regarding the survivability of that class, especially regarding shielding. You know, I wish they would post something akin to the Death Star Technical Manual or the Millennium Falcon Technical Manual for the Executor, since that ship, compared to those ships or even the other ships that get cutaways, is given very little coverage (the closest it got to true coverage was the command tower).

[Agent Fisher]

I am loving that small ship. Reminds me of destroyer types in WW2, small, sleek, with smallish caliber guns, but fast. Especially with the superfiring guns on the dorsal side.

[FTeik]

From some angles, it does resemble Jerec's Vengeance which makes it a more credible design.

Would it be less credible if it didn't?

What I meant was, that we have canon (alright, Legends now) designs that share similarities with your Carrack-equivalent, while everything canon in that size-class was a flying toaster.

[Abacus]

I figure that it's not so much a matter of shield generator placement as it is the placement of shield projectors. If the shield receives it's power from a single source (with numerous secondaries for emergency purposes), then what matters is the distribution of that power. I.e. you're going to have a lot of shield projectors all around the SSD-class ships, but not necessarily as many shield generators.

[fractalsponge1]

I figure that it's not so much a matter of shield generator placement as it is the placement of shield projectors. If the shield receives it's power from a single source (with numerous secondaries for emergency purposes), then what matters is the distribution of that power. I.e. you're going to have a lot of shield projectors all around the SSD-class ships, but not necessarily as many shield generators.

It's not about projectors or generators. It's that shields require power, which depends on reactor volume. One assumes that they require power proportional to the area they cover. If a ship has high surface area, then the power requirements go up. If the shape does allow internal volume for large reactors, the shielding available per square meter is compromised relative to a more compact ship that maximizes the volume to surface area relationship.

There are presumably some tricks around this - secondary reactors, a protruding bulb, or just filling the internal volume of a high surface-area ship with machinery and not using the volume for things like hangars and such.

[fractalsponge1]

This is something I blocked out a long time ago: a cruiser/battlecruiser design pair for the Impellor-class carrier. I'm envisioning the carrier as a variant of a full 4.3km dagger ship. The engines are designed to move that ship along at a good pace, but the carrier version cuts away a secondary reactor, about a third of the hull by volume, a good section of superstructure, and a fair chunk of guns, but keeps the engines, which makes the carrier very agile, which is good for a ship that needs to be able to stay out of melee. The combat version retains the main reactor, producing ~5.5x ISD power, and adds (or retains rather) a secondary reactor complex where the forward mandible hangar bays would be for the carrier variant that adds another ~2.5x ISD power. That's adding up to ~8x ISD power, so roughly 8e25W.

[Abacus]

Daaaamn~ she's going to be a killer. A great white shark cutting through space, to be sure. Seems like a class that could, with enough skill and a little luck, challenge even an SSD.

[Crazedwraith]

Can those forward six turrets superfire? There doesn't look to be enough climb in the hull until after then.

[Patroklos]

On the "traditional" Victory-class I did appreciate the vertical sensor tower. It made sense to me to differentiate the Vics from the Imps that way given they come from different manufacturers.

[fractalsponge1]

On the "traditional" Victory-class I did appreciate the vertical sensor tower. It made sense to me to differentiate the Vics from the Imps that way given they come from different manufacturers.

I pitched it to the client and he didn't like it, so out it went. I'm not sure I disagree with him. I think tower could work with a full pagoda, but it requires a much more radical diversion from the non-Cantwell references.

[23 November 1939]

This is something I blocked out a long time ago: a cruiser/battlecruiser design pair for the Impellor-class carrier.... The combat version retains the main reactor, producing ~5.5x ISD power, and adds (or retains rather) a secondary reactor complex where the forward mandible hangar bays would be for the carrier variant that adds another ~2.5x ISD power. That's adding up to ~8x ISD power, so roughly 8e25W.
[Snip]

So, perhaps a third- to half-again the power of an Allegiance? Even more of a multi-role design than the old Urbanus WIPs? Heavier than an Impellor, but must still have good footwork. High-endurance type perhaps - fast-battleship escort lending a bit of extra oomph to the battle carrier? Regardless, I do love this one. Look forward to seeing her grow.

Edit: Hadn't realized that the Impellor's plant looks just about Allegiance sized. Deliberate?

[Weedle McHairybug]

Speaking of the Urbanus WIPs, Fractal, when are you going to be working on the Urbanus again?

Anyways, nice to see that the Impellor carrier's going to be getting a full-on cruiser/battlecruiser cousin.