Federation Battlestar

[Teaos]

Okay 3 things on that comment:

1. Probably why they designed the USS Vengeance in the first place. Look at the ship itself. You will notice that the bridge isn't exactly EXPOSED. The nacelles still are yes, but maybe that was just a fluke that they intended to fix. Hey, for all we know, the nacelles were SUPPOSED to be like that because they might have heavier armor, thereby STILL offsetting that weakness....if ONLY slightly.

2. It's STILL better than how the Star Destroyers from Star Wars were. Look at the Executor!!!! At least Federation ships have shield generators WELL hidden....NOT STANDING OUT IN GIANT DOMES LIKE THAT!!!! XP haha That's practically INVITING enemy targets to hit you! Saying to them, "Come get me you A--holes!" XP JUST saying.

3. That is kind of false, just look at the TOS Galactica! The whole bridge is practically EXPOSED on the alligator head, INVITING Cylon Kamikaze attacks! Look at the episode Fire in Space and watch it and you'll see what I mean.
What do you have in mind for the Federation Battlestar Teaos? Be honest.

Your continual asking for us to answer honestly gives the impression you think we are all sociopaths. Why would anyone be anything but, this is the internet, people dont spare feelings here.

1) It is an improvement but still massivly flawed. Just because it is better than bad designs does not make it a good design.

2) Again being better than bad designs dont make them good designs. And having shield generators on the outside seems like it would just be an artifact of how they work. Different technology in different universes, you cant compare them all all.

3) Once again, other bad designs do not make another bad design good by comparison.

Frankly the nBSG Gallactica is a fairly good design, take that as a model and tweak it with Federation design principles, smoother lines, deflector ect.

You can even keep something resembeling seperate engineering and main hulls so long as it doesnt weaken the design.

[McAvoy]

Be honest? As opposed to him lying.

The Vengeance and any other Starlet ship is crap. The saucer is crap for fighters and support ships. Those engines are highly vulnerable.

Crap? Well a saucer I don't really understand how. Given sufficent size AS WELL as PRECISE organization, I can honestly see the saucer doing just that. Besides you and Teaos look at the Akira class page on DITL. It says and I quote:

"Another unusual feature of the Akira class is the hangar bay arrangements. There are two large shuttle bays in the saucer section, one at the forward edge of the saucer section and one at the rear (MEANING that it is a fly through saucer like hangar bay). These are linked together through the centre of the ship, allowing large numbers of launch and landing operations to be handled simultaneously. During peacetime this allows the Akira to evacuate large numbers of small survey craft, or ferry evacuees on board at a high rate. During the Dominion war the ships often serve as fighter carriers; in this role they can carry up to one hundred (COUNT THAT! 100) attack fighters, although a load of thirty six (36) fighters and a dozen (12) utility craft is more usual."

Now, if that's crap, then I do NOT wish to see how a NON CRAP saucer section would be configured to carry fighters. If this new Federation battlestar were to be the length that it is (being 4.140559395387895 times, or just 4 times the size of the Akira class) and it were to be the EXACT shape that I described (that being the USS Vengeance), then she would carry 414 fighters maximum, but would just carry a standard of 149 or 150 fighters (about the number of fighters that the TOS Battlestar Galactica carried, with her own 25 fighters, 42 from the other battlestars and 83 more from the Pegasus). Granted I am NOT a genius and I WILL ADMITTINGLY accept that AND admit that to all of you guys. However I WOULD like to think that the math is correct, seeing as how it WAS my favorite subject in school.

The engines on the other hand.......well you got me there, I'll give you that one. But AGAIN I PUT that at least it like the shields on the ISD from Star Wars. THOSE are crap if they are going to be exposed like that right now. -_-

Using the Dell as an example is bad form. The Akira is regarded in fan circles as wanked out.

[Meste17]

Be honest? As opposed to him lying.

The Vengeance and any other Starlet ship is crap. The saucer is crap for fighters and support ships. Those engines are highly vulnerable.

Crap? Well a saucer I don't really understand how. Given sufficent size AS WELL as PRECISE organization, I can honestly see the saucer doing just that. Besides you and Teaos look at the Akira class page on DITL. It says and I quote:

"Another unusual feature of the Akira class is the hangar bay arrangements. There are two large shuttle bays in the saucer section, one at the forward edge of the saucer section and one at the rear (MEANING that it is a fly through saucer like hangar bay). These are linked together through the centre of the ship, allowing large numbers of launch and landing operations to be handled simultaneously. During peacetime this allows the Akira to evacuate large numbers of small survey craft, or ferry evacuees on board at a high rate. During the Dominion war the ships often serve as fighter carriers; in this role they can carry up to one hundred (COUNT THAT! 100) attack fighters, although a load of thirty six (36) fighters and a dozen (12) utility craft is more usual."

Now, if that's crap, then I do NOT wish to see how a NON CRAP saucer section would be configured to carry fighters. If this new Federation battlestar were to be the length that it is (being 4.140559395387895 times, or just 4 times the size of the Akira class) and it were to be the EXACT shape that I described (that being the USS Vengeance), then she would carry 414 fighters maximum, but would just carry a standard of 149 or 150 fighters (about the number of fighters that the TOS Battlestar Galactica carried, with her own 25 fighters, 42 from the other battlestars and 83 more from the Pegasus). Granted I am NOT a genius and I WILL ADMITTINGLY accept that AND admit that to all of you guys. However I WOULD like to think that the math is correct, seeing as how it WAS my favorite subject in school.

The engines on the other hand.......well you got me there, I'll give you that one. But AGAIN I PUT that at least it like the shields on the ISD from Star Wars. THOSE are crap if they are going to be exposed like that right now. -_-

Using the Dell as an example is bad form. The Akira is regarded in fan circles as wanked out.

My apologies. I had not intended to use bad form.

[Meste17]

Okay 3 things on that comment:

1. Probably why they designed the USS Vengeance in the first place. Look at the ship itself. You will notice that the bridge isn't exactly EXPOSED. The nacelles still are yes, but maybe that was just a fluke that they intended to fix. Hey, for all we know, the nacelles were SUPPOSED to be like that because they might have heavier armor, thereby STILL offsetting that weakness....if ONLY slightly.

2. It's STILL better than how the Star Destroyers from Star Wars were. Look at the Executor!!!! At least Federation ships have shield generators WELL hidden....NOT STANDING OUT IN GIANT DOMES LIKE THAT!!!! XP haha That's practically INVITING enemy targets to hit you! Saying to them, "Come get me you A--holes!" XP JUST saying.

3. That is kind of false, just look at the TOS Galactica! The whole bridge is practically EXPOSED on the alligator head, INVITING Cylon Kamikaze attacks! Look at the episode Fire in Space and watch it and you'll see what I mean.
What do you have in mind for the Federation Battlestar Teaos? Be honest.

Your continual asking for us to answer honestly gives the impression you think we are all sociopaths. Why would anyone be anything but, this is the internet, people dont spare feelings here.

1) It is an improvement but still massivly flawed. Just because it is better than bad designs does not make it a good design.

2) Again being better than bad designs dont make them good designs. And having shield generators on the outside seems like it would just be an artifact of how they work. Different technology in different universes, you cant compare them all all.

3) Once again, other bad designs do not make another bad design good by comparison.

Frankly the nBSG Galactica is a fairly good design, take that as a model and tweak it with Federation design principles, smoother lines, deflector ect.

You can even keep something resembeling seperate engineering and main hulls so long as it doesnt weaken the design.

So are we going to use the nBSG Galactica as the shape of this new Federation battlestar then?

[Teaos]

What do you mean? This is a theoretical thread, there is no design, you can say it looks like a 5 mile cock and balls for all it matters. The nBSG Galactica is a good design but a completely different design motif from Starfleet ships.

There is no "official" design for a theoretical ship. If you want to use it in a RP you can make any design you want to. As for this thread, it was just brain storming ideas. It doesn't have a design.

[Meste17]

What do you mean? This is a theoretical thread, there is no design, you can say it looks like a 5 mile cock and balls for all it matters. The nBSG Galactica is a good design but a completely different design motif from Starfleet ships.

There is no "official" design for a theoretical ship. If you want to use it in a RP you can make any design you want to. As for this thread, it was just brain storming ideas. It doesn't have a design.

Well, I'd like to see if I can't design this new Battlestar for you.

[Teaos]

Then think logically, a Battlestar is pretty much a dreadnought with fighters.

Armor and survivability with Federation design motifs. So yeah, the basic design principles of the nBSG (Hidden Bridge, utilitarian build, protecting key areas, accessible fighter hanger) but with a Federation design, smooth lines, Federation engines, deflector ect.

[Graham Kennedy]

Then think logically, a Battlestar is pretty much a dreadnought with fighters.

Armor and survivability with Federation design motifs. So yeah, the basic design principles of the nBSG (Hidden Bridge, utilitarian build, protecting key areas, accessible fighter hanger) but with a Federation design, smooth lines, Federation engines, deflector ect.

The kind of aesthetic I always envision for a Federation battlestar would be something like the Typhon class :

[Teaos]

I like it, kinda loks like a supersized Defiant.

[McAvoy]

Seems like the ship is chopped short to me.

[Teaos]

Also the top view looks like it has a BFG.

[Meste17]

Then think logically, a Battlestar is pretty much a dreadnought with fighters.

Armor and survivability with Federation design motifs. So yeah, the basic design principles of the nBSG (Hidden Bridge, utilitarian build, protecting key areas, accessible fighter hanger) but with a Federation design, smooth lines, Federation engines, deflector ect.

The kind of aesthetic I always envision for a Federation battlestar would be something like the Typhon class :

So make the new battlestar EXACTLY like the image above, just much larger and sleeker?

[DarkMoineau]

Not exactly but following that kind of design.

[Teaos]

Not pointy, smoother. The idea that star ships are getting pointier is getting to be ridiculous. But that design is in the general theme of a Dreadnought, compact, armored, protecting key areas. I dont see a scale on it, so size wise it could be fine.

[McAvoy]

The thing looks small going by the windows.