[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / agatha2 / leftpol / nofap / sapphic / sonyeon / tf / vichan / zoo ]

/strek/ - Star Trek

Discussion about star trek shows, movies, vidya, etc.
Winner of the 72rd Attention-Hungry Games
/otter/ - The Church of Otter

February 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


Use this for cross-dimension shitposting https://nerv.8ch.net/trek/trekgenrl/1701/strek/streak/startrek/furtrek

File: 2e19c3214ff4f90⋯.jpg (488.19 KB, 1880x1414, 940:707, WEB Romulan Bird of Prey F….JPG)

e0dc04  No.27902

Previous thread is at bumplimit >>9811

And we have been far too long with the great comfort that is ship autism discussion.

5df86d  No.27903

>>27902

Is there any confirmation outside of STO that the proper name for that warbird is the T'liss class?


6a541b  No.27907

>>27903

>T'liss

It's the Vas Hatham or V8 and they appear in TNG as a background display along with a lot of the Starfleet Battles and FASA stuff.


18b59b  No.27913

File: 14e6eae1eca6a2c⋯.jpg (180.31 KB, 958x667, 958:667, t'liss.jpg)

>>27903

Never heard that ship named as a T'liss except in reference to the drone ship.


e0dc04  No.27940

>>27903

What these >>27907

>>27913

niggers said. It's Vas Hatham in most ship recognition guides. STO is shit anyway.


be6500  No.27950

I thought all the ship autists left?


e0dc04  No.27957

File: fc9b47a8253a009⋯.jpg (123.81 KB, 1024x768, 4:3, ships.jpg)

>>27950

I think most of the anons just got bored with this site which is unsurprising considering how badly 8chan is run.

Either way suppose I better finish what I was working on last thread before I probably fuck off myself.

Which was a logical anon built ship classification chart since Trek ones, canon and non-canon are a complete mess. Idea to build up something that makes sense rather than something retarded. Mainly using Starfleet Battles as inspiration for a lot of this as well as some real world terminology mixed in. If you are wondering why waste autism on this, it's because ship terms are littered full of instances where Frigates are labelled as Cruisers, Destroyers are labelled Escorts and so on. Plus special snowflake terms like "Warbird" and "Explorer" don't help matters.

/strek/ ship definition guide

Keep in mind this is a guide and working off this http://www.starfleetgames.com/documents/Starship_Name_Registry.pdf for inspiration. I was also basing off canon ships only which restricts a lot of terms used. There's room to add and change ship definitons.

Escorts - EE

Your smallest size of warship typically. I was debating whether to call them Corvettes but I think Escorts is a suitable term here, and they both relatively perform the same role. Essentially they are the equivalent of "policing" vessels in that there job is to patrol the space near and around for example a planet or starbase, guarding convoys, and in times of war make up a naval squadron wing as extra hitting power and cannon fodder. They tend to not be self sufficient and tied down heavily with logistics.

Example of this type of ship: Cardassian Hideki class

Frigates - FF

Next step up from an Escort and generally your first overal general purpose warship although specialists will be contained within this class. While basic functions might be identical overall to Escorts, especially when it comes to war, they tend to be a lot more self sufficient and be capable of additional functions such as transport and relief efforts.

Example of this type of ship: Federation Saber/Sabre Class

Destroyers - DD

A step up from Frigate but not necessarily by much. They are typically specialists that sacrifice versatility for greater efficiency at their role, this can be for example fleet defense or anti-warship.

Example of this type of ship: Federation Saladin Class

Light Cruisers - CL

Your first ship that's typically big enough to not only be general purpose, but survive reasonably on it's own and go into uncharted territory on long distance voyages away from home. They tend to strike a good balance between resilience, firepower, speed and manoeuvrability. They're your go to ship if you need to send something in but unsure what you will encounter. In a fleet action these ships will typically command groups of smaller ships or be the light ship bully of heavier squadrons.

Example of this type of ship: Cardassian Galor Class

Heavy Cruisers' - CA

For all purposes identical to role and purpose of a Light Cruiser except they will have a stronger focus on resilience and firepower and generally be of larger size. They are the first of your "heavy hitters" and generally something you don't mess with unless equal tonnage or heavier.

Example of this type of ship: Federation Ambassador Class

Battlecruisers - BC

Ships that tend to carry Battleship grade weaponary and focus on speed rather than worry about protection too much. In short, they are glass cannons. This does not mean though they are not to be considered a proper threat.

Example of this type of ship: Klingon Vor'cha Class

Battleships - BB

Pretty much your biggest class of ship that is only really challenged by other ships of the same class. Typically they'll be the ship that's the flagship of a fleet and commanding other warships. They are also generally used as a status symbol as well and to show your might, so expect a lot of dignitaries and high ranking officials to be aboard these kinds of ships.

Example of this type of ship: Federation Galaxy Class

Other notes

I did not use Carrier - CV as Star Trek generally does not have them outside of a few rare instances and a lot of hearsay and non-canoncal sources. I also did not include Dreadnought - DN despite them being canon as it would be only reference to one ship, the Federation Class, and for all purposes they are considered a step down correctly from Battleships as well as obsolete again, also correct. I also felt like I used a lot of Federation ships as examples. I might go in and add other race ships and where they would fit in this chart.


4bec88  No.28412

Defiant ruined Trek ships

Prove me wrong.


4b47ae  No.28418

File: 3c959194c69833c⋯.jpg (69.64 KB, 544x469, 544:469, defiant.jpg)

>>28412

>Defiant ruined Trek ships

Name another starship with a patch.

>Prove me wrong.

Done and done.


e0dc04  No.28429

>>28412

I agree

>>28418

The retarded Mary-Sue ship that every 12 year old and manchild thinks is great when it's just a pile of horseshit?

Defiant pushed Star Trek combat to being more about retarded WW2 Dogfights in Space rather than comfy Naval exchanges between Subs/Battleships. It's perhaps the worst think to happen to Starship design in Trek ever.


c746f7  No.28430

File: 4d9f91338767f58⋯.webm (2.65 MB, 640x360, 16:9, Make_it_spin.webm)

>>28429

Second worst.


e0dc04  No.28434

>>28430

I don't acknowledge the existance of STD.


781394  No.28438

>>28429

Agreed. Defiant is over-rated. Fighters are Star Wars territory.


4b47ae  No.28439

>>28429

Oh, please. The only reason that Trek space battles were like naval exchanges prior to DS9 was because pre-cheap-CGI TV show budgets didn't allow for anything more action-packed. Let's not pretend that "The Ultimate Computer" style broadsides-in-space battles were due to some philosophical choice in the writer's room. They were due to the limits of special effects on a 60's TV show budget.

Frankly, I thought that the Defiant project was a great way to show the pragmatic nature of Starfleet during times of crisis. If Starfleet HADN'T started a dedicated anti-Borg combat ship programme after Wolf 359, they'd be the dumbest fucking idiots in the galaxy.


646d7c  No.28440

>>28429

The thing that just gets me about the Defiant Class is just how poor it makes a starship. Normal top warp speed is warp 4, it can go higher when weapons are offline (or plot demands it), or when the structural integrity power is reduced (at the cost of high warp actually pulling the ship apart).

Then there's the fact that there are basically no crew quarters, just bunks. Captain has no Ready Room, he just has an office that doubles as his personal quarters, and then there's the additional factor of the Defiant Class only having an infirmary instead of a full Sick Bay, which can only triage and stabilise patients, meaning they need to be transfered off the ship ASAP.

Mess Hall is a small room with barely any space. Engineering is cramped, and has little room to manouveur in if it needs to be evacuated. The Defiant Class doesn't even have space for any support craft. The NX Class which predates it by some 200 years was comparable in size (if you ignore the NX class' warp nacelles). Yet somehow, the Defiant has less space. Sure, the NX Class and the Defiant both have small bridges, and sure, crew quarters for enlisted personel are about the same density as the Defiant's, but I'm still left wondering if Starfleet made a mistake with the Defiant.

The NX class is far more space efficient, and perhaps that might come down to the fact that the warp nacelles and the buzzard collectors are located outside of the saucer section, while the warp coils and buzzard collectors are integrated into the main hull of the Defiant class. But there is just so much that's weird about the Defiant class. It just makes me think that it was just designed for war, and when there is no war, it just sits in mothballs waiting for use.

>Defiant pushed Star Trek combat to being more about retarded WW2 Dogfights in Space rather than comfy Naval exchanges between Subs/Battles

I think there's a weird balance here. Beta canon basically states that there are a number of different kinds of ship classification. Scout ships are light, manuveurable and can turn on a dime, but have limited firepower and durability. Escort type ships are manuveurable, but less so than Scouts, but are set up more like glass cannons. Cruiser type ships are fast, but lose a lot of manuveurability with size, but have large amounts of firepower. Battlecruisers sit in a class between Cruisers and Battleships. Finally, Battleships are slow moving fortresses, which can inflict huge amounts of damage, but are severely limited in their ability to manuveur and accellerate. Warp speeds are irrelevant for most of these vessels, and instead their ability to fight at impulse power dictates their role.

The Defiant is an Escort type ship. It's faster, heavily armed, but it lacks equipment and durability. It's designed to make strafing runs at enemy ships while also protecting the flanks of other larger ships.

An engagement between an Escort type and a Battleship would be weird. The Battleship would have to rely on its durability and heavy firepower, while the Escort could strafe at the Battleship, however at the loss of durability.

I'm trying to think of decent examples of this happening in Trek. One example I can think of is how the USS Odyssey was basically swarmed by several Jem'hadar fighters, which it struggled to deal with. The Galaxy Class was a Battleship type, meaning it was good in fighting another Battleship, but when engaging several smaller Fighter type craft, it becomes a sitting duck. This was why the Runabouts survived that skirmish while the Odyssey was destroyed. The Galaxy Class was designed to fight slow moving Battleship type craft, like the Romulan D'deridex Class Warbird. Both would be slow moving, and would be much more of a prolonged exchange.

Even Star Trek 2009 actually showed us a nice mix of what sort of ships you want in a fleet. Before going into warp to fight the Narada, the Starfleet task force very clearly consists of Scouts, Battlecruisers and Battleships. Scouts would focus on protecting the flanks and making quick runs at the enemy, Battlecruisers would make up the bulk of the fleet and Battleships would become the final line, the heaviest fire from the rear. Fighting in space is not like fighting in atmosphere or fighting in water. The smaller and lighter your craft is, the more you can pilot it like a dogfighter. The larger and heavier your craft is, the more you need to go more defensive and plan your course well in advance.


e94e9f  No.28442

>>28439

>They were due to the limits of special effects on a 60's TV show budget.

Because it's not like WWII naval dramas weren't all the rage at the time. And I'm sure "Balance of Terror" being a straight up adaptation of the archetypal 'Submarine vs Surface Vessel' plot was a complete coincidence.


2dd7fc  No.28470

>>28439

>The only reason that Trek space battles were like naval exchanges prior to DS9 was because pre-cheap-CGI TV show budgets didn't allow for anything more action-packed.

Your lack of understanding is showing, or else this is weak bait. TOS was heavily influenced by naval dramas (as >>28442 indicates), in particular the "submarine show" genre of radio play. TOS firmly established an emphasis on slow-paced naval-style combat and it simply carried over into the films and later series as one of ST's distinctive traits. The fact that they stuck with old-school naval combat even in the wake of Star Wars' enormous success would seem to indicate that Roddenberry and the other creatives behind ST considered slow-paced naval combat to be an integral part of ST's character.

But swooshy pew pew space fighters have broad appeal, I guess.

The Defiant's visual design could be drastically improved by just getting rid of that retarded "starfighter cockpit" deflector module.


e0dc04  No.28477

File: 3407422ee4b77dc⋯.jpg (80.21 KB, 1200x675, 16:9, 1200.jpg)

>>28439

>The only reason that Trek space battles were like naval exchanges prior to DS9 was because pre-cheap-CGI TV show budgets didn't allow for anything more action-packed.

Are you underaged?

>If Starfleet HADN'T started a dedicated anti-Borg combat ship programme after Wolf 359, they'd be the dumbest fucking idiots in the galaxy.

The Defiant wasn't the only one. Their whole new ship line including the Saber, Norway, Akira, Nova, Steamrunner and even Sovereign were all built designed to counter the Borg and each did a better job of it.

>>28440

>Defiant was a poor Starship

It was. There are far better Escorts out there considering the relative slow warp speed of a Defiant Class, it's lack of utility and generally it's poor construction that it was showed that it was a maintance nightmare. Supposedly these ships were also insanely expensive to make as well in time and resources so there is no reason for it to exist. With the Saber Class around there is virtually zero reason for the Defiant to honestly exist as it does it's job but with much more verstility.

This is to say nothing of the fixed guns kind of locking it into specific attack patterns that realisticly anyone would start to counter. If you compare the Defiant to other races Escorts for example the Jem Ha'dar fighter and Cardassian Hideki Class they use beam banks rather than fixed guns that allow them to engage in a wider firing arc which realistically not only make them more accurate but open up some tactical strafing options. Defiant is literally a suicide machine, point towards enemy till phaser banks and torpedoes are depleted and hope you don't get destroyed in meantime.


e5a82a  No.28481

File: 3bed14ccb7415e8⋯.jpg (1.06 MB, 4000x2500, 8:5, oberth_clarke_subclass_ort….jpg)

>:scroll: :scroll:

>no oberth faggotry yet

/strek/, i am sad

>>28440

It doesn't make much sense to compare Defiant-class and NX-class apart from them both being meme-bait hero ships mandated by the corporate suits. NX was shit and was a thinly-veiled visual reboot attempt. However, retro nostalgia was still very popular when DS9 got their ship. I always thought it would have played much better if they just gave them a modified Oberth-class that swaps the lower pontoon for a Reliant-style weapons roll-bar.


4bd841  No.28482

>>28481

Spoiler that shit for being too /cute/!


2e47d0  No.28496

File: fd01969f98a0c5d⋯.jpg (238.98 KB, 1600x900, 16:9, saber.jpg)

>>28470

>The Defiant's visual design could be drastically improved by just getting rid of that retarded "starfighter cockpit" deflector module.

Wasn't the excuse for that thing because the the ship was originally intended to be roughly Runabout sized and that really was going to be a cockpit/bridge area?

Would keeping it at the same size as a runabout or the smaller marque ships, essentially making it an actual god damn star fighter, have been better or worse in the long run?


e5a82a  No.28506

File: 34ce46b883128be⋯.jpg (155.82 KB, 1131x707, 1131:707, oberth_jester_subclass_ort….jpg)

>>28496

the move toward cgi-based zoomy action space combat was a mistake because they would inevitably go full-retard with it, especially after Ron Moore split for BSG and gave the fighters micro-thrusters while the actual ships were even more stationary than TOS-era Trek ships. Meanwhile, Star Trek descended into boobs & lazers stupidity under Rick Berman, which contributed to the weakening of the show, leading to the evil overlords we have today. Trek was literally torn apart between stupid & evil.

"submarine combat in space" is a defensible and sustainable set of tropes based on reality that would be good for the franchise long run because it's based on principles. Doing something because "it looks cool" is not. It's based on nothing and leads to exactly what we got, which is the delusion of the franchise into a recognizable "brand" vessel meant to contain whatever is deemed "cool" today.

>>28481

pic related is pretty much what the DS9 combat starship should have been, except maybe with the nacelles on bottom and weapons bar on top so it would be capable of atmospheric re-entry perhaps. Also, it needs the phaser cannons that Reliant had.


48d28f  No.28517

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

2714dc  No.28540

>>28496

Going to have to look this up but would not be surprised if it was true.


2dd7fc  No.28543

File: 83d7c7cbba60b40⋯.jpg (797.97 KB, 1920x2160, 8:9, defiant paintover.jpg)

To expand a bit on what I said here >>28470 this is a quick and dirty paintover to demonstrate a few things I would do if I were to try to "fix" the Defiant's design to better fit the Star Fleet visual canon. That's working off of the final design, of course. If I really wanted a more classic Trek-friendly Defiant I would want to start from scratch.

From a writing perspective, I'm mostly okay with the Defiant as I understood it when it was first introduced: a one-of-a-kind experimental/testbed ship. Sisko supervised the ship's design and is thus pretty much the only CO in the fleet who would really know how to use it. Sisko needs a ship and the Defiant is sitting in mothballs, so why not send it Sisko's way? Seems reasonable enough.

Where it gets retarded is when Defiant becomes a class instead of a one-off. The ship seems like an absolute nightmare when it comes to maintenance and construction, which makes sense if it's a unique testbed for experimental tech, but is not the kind of thing that you would pattern a whole series of ships after. When Defiant was destroyed it should have been replaced with a proper successor ship building off of the tech that Defiant pioneered, something like the Saber class, which feels more true to the later TNG aesthetic.

>>28481

>>28506

>those cuties

I got a 1/1000 scale kit of the Oberth Class for Christmas and I can't wait to get to work on it.


646d7c  No.28548

>>28543

>no bridge dome thing on the top deck

I'm dissaponted.

I would say that that redesign would still ned to visually indicate where the bridge is. NX Class had a deflector dish integrated into the front of the main hull, but that still had a noticeable "dome" shape for the bridge. Even other 24th century ships like the Sovereign Class, the Galaxy Class, the Intrepid Class and the Excelcior Class had visually identifiable bridges.


2e47d0  No.28551

>>28548

Having a more built in bridge located right under where the ship name is, does make some design sense as they'd want a more well protected bridge just like how they used the very nearly lore breaking integrated nacelles to make them less of an obvious target and reduce the overall cross section of the ship.

The defiant lacking a lot of the big obvious 'shoot here for maximum damage' hallmarks of fed design is the only good parts of the ship's appearance, They just needed to do a better job of merging that idea while still making look like a ST ship. Like how if I was designing a new Klingon ship, I'd absolutely scrap the fucking long ass turkey neck but still try my best to keep it otherwise similar in appearance to a battle cruiser or bird of prey


2dd7fc  No.28567

File: 8429961174c102f⋯.jpg (506.14 KB, 1394x1671, 1394:1671, Defiant rework rough.jpg)

>>28548

Like I said, if I wanted to really fix the Defiant I'd want to scrap everything but the basic flattened hull shape and start from scratch.

Pic related is a rough idea of where I'd start. Would definitely need a lot of refinement to the proportions, especially the profile view, but I've already devoted more time to this than I'd planned to.


442215  No.28569

File: 892765db578ca15⋯.png (390.22 KB, 656x619, 656:619, FleetPhantom.png)


18b59b  No.28593

The Pulse Phaser Cannons on the Defiant are retarded. That's all that needs said.


256786  No.28614

File: 31a10f52d73a3ff⋯.jpg (109.39 KB, 1621x1113, 1621:1113, bloody_cardies.jpg)

Why aren't there more Cardassian Ships?


2dd7fc  No.28666

File: 74c3df7b977d79b⋯.jpg (403 KB, 1399x1562, 1399:1562, Ranger and Hermes 01_15_20….jpg)

File: 8cefa15421a4cf4⋯.jpg (686 KB, 2658x1789, 2658:1789, USS Atalanta ortho 8ch.jpg)

A couple of days ago I stumbled across some pencil sketches that I'd done back during Comfy Ships Thread #1 of the Ranger and Hermes classes, so I decided to throw some color on them.

In the Ranger's case I tried to vary the shaping of its nacelles and engineering hull so that it would look more like its own ship instead of a jumbled-up Constitution.

The Hermes (and my own Original Ship Donut Steel, the Minerva-Class) typify my sort of "adjusted" TOS style, trying to preserve the spirit of TOS while modernizing it just a bit.


281a62  No.28667

File: 74c56c3f6015f95⋯.jpg (96.87 KB, 800x533, 800:533, reliantbridge.jpg)

>trying to preserve the spirit of TOS while modernizing it just a bit.

I've always been in the "fuck the cheap 60's models and cardboard sets, let's just act like that stuff had always looked like the movie refit style"


7be2ad  No.28821

>>28440

>Then there's the fact that there are basically no crew quarters, just bunks. Captain has no Ready Room, he just has an office that doubles as his personal quarters, and then there's the additional factor of the Defiant Class only having an infirmary instead of a full Sick Bay, which can only triage and stabilise patients, meaning they need to be transfered off the ship ASAP.

>Mess Hall is a small room with barely any space. Engineering is cramped, and has little room to manouveur in if it needs to be evacuated

Navy dude on a destroyer here. Aside from the lack of ready room this is exactly what my ship is like so I can’t consider the writers retards for thinking this is how a small warship would be.


b62d38  No.28826

>>28667

Isn't that what Roddenberry said?


0e73a8  No.28842

>>28666

Nice sketches, Satan. I quite like your donut steel class, it's like an upgraded Oberth-class. That's a comfy ship I'd like to tool around the galaxy in.


0d1d91  No.28875

>>28666

The more I see your ships the more I am tempted to make 3D models of them. They are how modernized Trek designs should look.

>>28842

Technically it's a precursor to the Oberth no?




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / agatha2 / leftpol / nofap / sapphic / sonyeon / tf / vichan / zoo ]