test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Single Nacelle Starships

SystemSystem Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
To get away from this "DOOM AND GLOOM" atmosphere or boxes and FE's and crashing.

Who else is with me that this game needs some single nacelle starships (not the abomination that is the kelvin) but the USS Eagle and Saladin.

Why cant we have more tos era ships such as the Federation class three nacelle constitution.

Or the double hulled excelsior variant.

I would also think that cryptic need to rethink starships in their current incarnation, although there are lots of cool ships floating around

once you hit end game you normlaly just see a few types.
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    I think it would be interesting to see some new ship designs myself. I'm not so sure I'd be up for single nacelle designs or TOS designed ships. What I'd really like to see is the federation break away from the current design patterns that many of the ships have, as I honestly find the general design to be rather ugly, and of all the ships in the whole of Star Trek, I'd rather have a Romulan Warbird, or a klingon vessel as they are more interesting designs.

    One idea I might like to see is a cylindrical or otherwise oblong structure, perhaps with fold out nacelle pylons towards the rear, much like the design of a modern rocket, or possibly with a body more like a submarine. Depending on the design, this could have several applications, like another variant on the Multi-Vector Advanced Escort, the ability to split into multiple smaller ships. Or if Cryptic wanted to do something different, side mounted torpedo tubes for broadside bombardment of a target.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    When Gene created this wonderful universe he set up some rules. And one of them was all ships had to have an even number of nacelles. CBS has STO following these rules to the letter with the only exception being the questionably canon Dreadnaught. Remember that the Kelvin is the property of Paramount, not CBS. And while there have been a few kit-bashes, that had one nacelle, they we always used as battle debris (and most after Gene's death).

    I'm afraid you will have to convince CBS to allow those type of ships, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    When Gene created this wonderful universe he set up some rules. And one of them was all ships had to have an even number of nacelles. CBS has STO following these rules to the letter with the only exception being the questionably canon Dreadnaught. Remember that the Kelvin is the property of Paramount, not CBS. And while there have been a few kit-bashes, that had one nacelle, they we always used as battle debris (and most after Gene's death).

    I'm afraid you will have to convince CBS to allow those type of ships, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
    Eh... Those rules got beaten with a dead horse earlier. :p
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    Chat wrote:
    Eh... Those rules got beaten with a dead horse earlier. :p

    There you go. But I'll be generous and say Gene's rules only apply to Fed ships as the Klingon BoP violates the rules in spades.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    CBS has STO following these rules to the letter with the only exception being the questionably canon Dreadnaught.


    Technically, the Galaxy's nacelles were considered as two nacelles in one unit. The Dreadnaught is considered to have 6 nacelles in 3 units. That's why it gets the exception.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    Honestly I hope they don't add the Federation class. Not that I hate the design but it's way past any time frame when it should still be in service. If any were still in service it might be one or very limited number such as a trainer or something but as a playable ship I hope not. Sure the Constitution is in game and though I love the ship it really shouldn't be either. Like the Connie the Federation is far out of date, in the Connie's case though it's a "historic" both in the game universe and in Trek history so an exception was made for fun and game play purposes.


    I really think the Excelsior is about the farthest back the ships should go as it was kinda a workhorse as far as ships go and seemed to be alot of them around. Maybe the Miranda too, maybe past it's prime but they seemed to have stuck around as well. As for single nacelled ships, I myself have never been terribly fond of them but I wouldn't be against some of the TNG era one's or newer as they at least fit the time frame...though I probably wont be flying them. :)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    Good thing he's passed away and has no direct control over the IP anymore. Frankly, all Cryptic needs to say are the phrases "lock box" and "money" and CBS will jump right on board. CBS doesn't care about these arcane rules if it furthers the IP and/or (more importantly) their profits.

    Besides their "engines in pairs" rule is ridiculous when given the explanation:
    Rule #1 Warp nacelles *must* be in pairs.
    "The 'All Good Things' Enterprise is explained not to violate these because it has two warp field coils in each nacelle, thus creating three pairs. The Franz Joseph Designs single-nacelle ships are not official canon..."

    So a 3-nacelle ship is okay because we can pretend that each nacelle has 2 warp fields in it, but a one-nacelle snip is not allowed the same capability?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    There you go. But I'll be generous and say Gene's rules only apply to Fed ships as the Klingon BoP violates the rules in spades.
    That thread evolved beyond just being about the Borta.

    Example.
    Another one. <-This be interesting.

    It's all very messy in short.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    Actually part of the rules was that you could have multiple nacelles like 4 and 5, but you got diminishing returns above 2. Adding a third nacelle gives you 1/3rd more performance over the 2 nacelle design.

    http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Nacelle
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    First of all Chat, your links to my "comments" has nothing to do with this topic, they were regarding Rules regarding Nacelle Line of Sight.



    If you read those posts, pretty much the only rule Gene set out regarding ships in Star Trek is simply that Warp Nacelles are always in Pairs. That's it.

    In single nacelled ships (Freedom, Kelvin, and Saladin) or Three-nacelled ships like the Niagra and the Galaxy Dreadnaught, it can simply be explained that those nacelles have a dual coil system. Thus they meet the Roddenberry Requirement.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    Stormnnorm wrote:
    Good thing he's passed away and has no direct control over the IP anymore. Frankly, all Cryptic needs to say are the phrases "lock box" and "money" and CBS will jump right on board. CBS doesn't care about these arcane rules if it furthers the IP and/or (more importantly) their profits.

    Besides their "engines in pairs" rule is ridiculous when given the explanation:



    So a 3-nacelle ship is okay because we can pretend that each nacelle has 2 warp fields in it, but a one-nacelle snip is not allowed the same capability?

    I am simply repeating what a Dev said no more than a week ago in a podcast. They said all Federation ships have to follow Gene's rules. That is one reason a lot of player submitted ships were ruled out and also has to govern any Cryptic designed ships.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    Azurian wrote: »
    First of all Chat, your links to my "comments" has nothing to do with this topic, they were regarding Rules regarding Nacelle Line of Sight.



    If you read those posts, pretty much the only rule Gene set out regarding ships in Star Trek is simply that Warp Nacelles are always in Pairs. That's it.

    In single nacelled ships (Freedom, Kelvin, and Saladin) or Three-nacelled ships like the Niagra and Galasy Dreadnaught, it can simply be explained that those nacelles have a dual coil system. Thus they meet the Roddenberry Requirement.
    It was in reference to the rules being a big mess. ;)
    "Lets apply this rule to this ship but not that ship."
    "This ship has moving nacelles so the LoS rule doesn't apply."
    "This warpcore is fueled by milk but the rules doesn't say anything about that so warp 12 it is!"
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    Only a mess when you confuse the Roddenberry Rules with the Probert Design rules.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    Azurian wrote: »
    Only a mess when you confuse the Roddenberry Rules with the Probert Design rules.
    Rule 1(2 Nacelles):Roddenberry.
    Rule 2(LoS): Probert
    Rule 3(Full Frontal Nacelle):Probert.
    Rule 4(Bridge on top): Probert...Ish.

    Something like that? Yes, no? :)
    So it's Roddenberry Rule and Probert Rules.
    Hmm... Is that irony? Roddenberry rule(d) the Star Trek scene and Probert rules now?

    Also I'm tired of my avatar.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    But in the end, there is no "big mess" about those very simple rules. Especially when it comes to basic Starfleet Designs like the classic Federation Cruiser design, the core of Star Trek.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    There you go. But I'll be generous and say Gene's rules only apply to Fed ships as the Klingon BoP violates the rules in spades.

    What about the Freedom-class? It was a part of the armada that fought the Borg at Wolf 359. Here's another reference for it: http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/freedom.htm
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    Amosov wrote:
    What about the Freedom-class? It was a part of the armada that fought the Borg at Wolf 359. Here's another reference for it: http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/freedom.htm

    Given the size of the Nacelle (Galaxy) and the size of the saucer (Ambassador), I'd say that the Freedom class is a good case for "the exception that proves the rule".
    1. We've never seen it before or since. So it was probably experiental.
    2. It was a background "junk" ship. There's a lot of silly, difficult to defend designs in the junk shots. It was a TV show, and they had limited time and money.
    3. It was at Wolf 359. Most of the ships at 359 weren't exactly the best of the best. They were in many cases older vessels pulled out of mothballs and off colonial support duties to respond quickly to a threat within Federation space.

    A case could be made for this "ship" having been the testbed vehicle for the development of the Galaxy-Class warp nacelle design. A salvaged Ambassador saucer attached to a single nacelle for field testing.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    My guess is that a "Single Nacelle" Federation lineage should be used in a similar manner as the Klingon BOPs. All consoles are universal, and allows the ships to be used as "scouts" or "destroyers" depending on the type of Bridge Officers and consoles used on these ships.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    Regardless of the reasoning for the 3 nacel Galaxy...doesn't change how hideous it is.

    They can try to toss in the whole 'technically it's 6' TRIBBLE, but I do believe he said nacels, not coils or whatever.

    The rest of the Galaxy X is pretty nice as far as improvements on the Galaxy itself....but it just has that abomination perched on the secondary hull that ruins it.

    Not quite on topic I guess...but still. I've not seen a Federation ship design with an odd number of nacels that wouldn't look infinitely better if it truly followed the rules.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    The Kelvin's not an abomination. It's a dead sexy starship.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    Probert´s rules plain make sense from an "engineering" point of view.
    Something I always loved about his designs and why the usual type of designer on the show probably hated his guts. ;)

    About the only of the rules that we could(& obviously have to) explain away with technological advances is the "line of sight in-between nacelles" rule, Bortas and many others violate.

    Single nacelles designs really do look like a one legged dog to me. And it didn´t surprise me one bit that they featured prominently in Abraham´s stupid lens-flare ´gasm.
    They could be explained away with the Galaxy-X caveat of two nacelles in one housing, but they almost certainly wouldn´t be one of my favorite designs.
    And that nacelle better be a fat mama similar to the standard Galaxy type, definitely not like the Kelvin type.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    I created a design with that in mind. A larger Galaxy Nacelle on a futuristic Kelvin-type.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    Azurian wrote: »
    I created a design with that in mind. A larger Galaxy Nacelle on a futuristic Kelvin-type.

    That's not that bad, but the thing is that secondary hull that houses the deflector might as well just be a 2nd nacel since it's almost a match. It would actually be pretty interesting to integrate the deflector somewhere else because of that. Just seems like it's reaching for a way to make one with 1 nacel when there's really no need to by taking one with 2 nacels and changing the 2nd nacel into something 'technically' different.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    ...but I liked the Kelvin.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    I want a single nacelle Defient...
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    superchum wrote: »
    The Kelvin's not an abomination. It's a dead sexy starship.

    YES! I want to play a Star Trek video game where I am the captain of a Kelvin Class Star Ship on a mission of exploration!
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    Ramierez wrote: »
    That's not that bad, but the thing is that secondary hull that houses the deflector might as well just be a 2nd nacel since it's almost a match. It would actually be pretty interesting to integrate the deflector somewhere else because of that. Just seems like it's reaching for a way to make one with 1 nacel when there's really no need to by taking one with 2 nacels and changing the 2nd nacel into something 'technically' different.

    But thats a Kelvin-configuration with the Secondary Hull on the upper pylon with a single (dual core) warp nacelle on the bottom. :p
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    When Gene created this wonderful universe he set up some rules. And one of them was all ships had to have an even number of nacelles. CBS has STO following these rules to the letter with the only exception being the questionably canon Dreadnaught. Remember that the Kelvin is the property of Paramount, not CBS. And while there have been a few kit-bashes, that had one nacelle, they we always used as battle debris (and most after Gene's death).

    I'm afraid you will have to convince CBS to allow those type of ships, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

    Actually Bob your wrong on that. He did not set those rules till sometime just before next gen came out. He actually athorized the Starfleet Technical manual back in like 71 or 72. in that book there where two single nacelle ship designs and a 3 nacelle design called the dreadnaught. hence the reason we refer to the gal x as a dreadnaught.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    superchum wrote: »
    The Kelvin's not an abomination. It's a dead sexy starship.

    I have to agree here. Unlike other single-nacelle designs we've seen, the Kelvin worked. It had a very distinctive profile, and an attractive symmetry. Plus, it did a very good job of looking appropriate for its timeline. Its design was successful at everything it had to do, with the added bonus of being a ship that was just fun to watch.

    As was pointed out before, a lot of the single-nacelle designs we're aware of were created pretty much just to fill up the starship wreckage at Wolf 359. They were kitbashes of store-bought models, and there was really only so much they could do there. One should really take those ships with a grain of salt.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    I want a single nacelle Defient...

    so you want a squishy ship that has lots of teeth, but no speed........

    NX-999999 "Sitting Duck"
Sign In or Register to comment.