StarDestroyer.Net BBS

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).

Hmm, that seems odd. I distinctly remember the Dreadnaughts in The Hutt Gambit being referred to as Invincible-class vessels. The cover picture is obviously the same Dreadnaught that's in the pictures posted above. What are the specs on the Invincible-class?

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.

NEVER JUDGE A BOOK BY ITS COVER! (Slams head with book repeatedly.) On the cover of Zahn's Survivor's Quest, there's an assload of Stormtroopers, TIE Fighters, TIE Interceptors and Executors, and yet nearly all of them never show up in the book. Only four Stormtroopers show up.

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.

Ah, ok. Those specs seem to match the numbers for the ships in The Hutt Gambit, at least the crew numbers. So, I guess I need to figure out just which ships we are talking about.

I just wanted to say that the new Strike Cruiser design is simply fantastic. It really fits in better with the film designs that the older one.

IP, where did those pictures come from?

Ask Ender.

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).

Is it impossible to concieve that two different ships seperated by millenia shared the same class name?

Don't mind me, I'm just a major Han Solo Trilogy and Lando series fan. While not amazing novels, they're still good in their own right.

Plushie wrote:Is it impossible to concieve that two different ships seperated by millenia shared the same class name?

No, but then we're talking about the differences between the ancient Invincible class and the more recent Dreadnaught class heavy cruiser (the topic of this thread).

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?

Well, I mentioned something about a Bridge in the beginning, but it was thought to be too impractical... But lets be honest, almost ALL heavy warships have SOME sort of noticeable bridge no matter how impractical.

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.

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.

Hmm... I'd have to see a picture of it to be sure, but I don't think I have a problem with this idea. If you made it the same module as your Victory's bridge, that would be nifty.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

Grandmaster Jogurt wrote:If you made it the same module as your Victory's bridge, that would be nifty.

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.

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.

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".

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?

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:Again, the idea of this thread was to investigate ways of improving the "flying hot dog".

"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.

The design is awful for a warship. Its just as shitty and stupid as the other flying cigars and abortions WEG created.

My objections are empirical, objective - yours, Spanky - are subjective, and as such, irrelevent.

Your objections and alterations are at least grounded in reason and logic, IP, unlike some of the other yahoos that just seem to want to flex their skillz and/or smack a bridge tower on it.

You basically keep the ship the same, so I don't have a problem with yours.

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.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:The design is awful for a warship.

Why?

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,

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.

A cone shape is the only thing that comes to mind, hull-wise. Changing to a wedge would be a bit too significant.

As for the "yahoo" idea of a bridge module, I didn't intend for it to extend high up in the same manner Star Destroyer towers do, but to conform more to the dorsal hull. It would have a shape similar to my VSD tower, only as I said before, without the outriggers.

On the other hand, Knife's idea sounds interesting.

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.

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.

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.

Crossroads Inc. wrote:

Illuminatus Primus wrote:The design is awful for a warship.

Why?

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,

Because the GFFA has been stagnant for 25 millienia.

Firefox wrote:

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.

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.

Why?

Seriously, why?

Spanky The Dolphin wrote: Why?

Seriously, why?

... The same reason I started this thread.