The Rancor Pit Forum Index
Welcome to The Rancor Pit forums!

The Rancor Pit Forum Index
FAQ   ::   Search   ::   Memberlist   ::   Usergroups   ::   Register   ::   Profile   ::   Log in to check your private messages   ::   Log in

Most Beautiful Ship
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> Ships, Vehicles, Equipment, and Tech -> Most Beautiful Ship Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
evilnerf
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 11 Apr 2015
Posts: 165
Location: St. Charles

PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2017 4:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As far as Corellian stock freighters. I don't mind that they are very similar to the most part, it makes them seem ubiquitous and boring. I'm not saying I particularly like them, but they are garbage ships for garbage hauling as far as I am concerned.

I gotta say, not a fan of Slave 1. Nothing about it makes sense. Why is it called slave 1? Why does it land on its back? Why does the cockpit window so dang big. It breaks all of the normal ruled of Star wars starship design.
_________________
His eyes are shifty. That's how you know the nerf did it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Wajeb Deb Kaadeb
Commodore
Commodore


Joined: 07 Apr 2017
Posts: 1448

PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2017 4:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sutehp wrote:
Me, my go-to light freighter is the YT-1930. In terms of stats alone, it breaks even or comes out ahead of the YT-1300. Heck, just the fact that it has a centered cockpit and double the cargo space of a YT-1300 clinches it for me. I love it so much that it was my smuggler character's ship of choice.


All those Falcon re-designs--especially those with center mounted cockpits-- are going to have trouble once the new canon is widely known about the Falcon being a freight-pushing vehicle--which accounts for the massive engines and the mandibles as seen in this sketch:

http://i.imgur.com/MELrr4h.jpg

The image was supposed to be in The Force Awakens Incredible Cross-Sections book, but for some reason, the image wasn't ready in time for publication.

The book does say, about the Falcon: "As was intended, the ship began its career as an intermodal tug pushing container in orbital freight yards."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sutehp
Commodore
Commodore


Joined: 01 Nov 2016
Posts: 1797
Location: Washington, DC (AKA Inside the Beltway)

PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2017 9:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wajeb Deb Kaadeb wrote:
Sutehp wrote:
Me, my go-to light freighter is the YT-1930. In terms of stats alone, it breaks even or comes out ahead of the YT-1300. Heck, just the fact that it has a centered cockpit and double the cargo space of a YT-1300 clinches it for me. I love it so much that it was my smuggler character's ship of choice.


All those Falcon re-designs--especially those with center mounted cockpits-- are going to have trouble once the new canon is widely known about the Falcon being a freight-pushing vehicle--which accounts for the massive engines and the mandibles as seen in this sketch:

http://i.imgur.com/MELrr4h.jpg

The image was supposed to be in The Force Awakens Incredible Cross-Sections book, but for some reason, the image wasn't ready in time for publication.

The book does say, about the Falcon: "As was intended, the ship began its career as an intermodal tug pushing container in orbital freight yards."


....

So Disney turned everyone's favorite freighter...into a tug boat.

Excuse me while I throw up. Confused
_________________
Sutehp's RPG Goodies
Only some of it is for D6 Star Wars.
Just repurchased the X-Wing and Tie Fighter flight sim games. I forgot how much I missed them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2017 10:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If you read down the comments on the Imgur page, you will find the following:
    FYI, this is unused concept art for an Episode VII cross-sections book, so this is really just a retcon. Older ideas were that the mandibles had loading cranes or arms, or that a small loading skiff fit in there.

_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Wajeb Deb Kaadeb
Commodore
Commodore


Joined: 07 Apr 2017
Posts: 1448

PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2017 10:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If true, it does reveal how the Falcon can exponentially increase its cargo. And, it explains how Solo dropped Jabba's load so quickly.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Telsij
Captain
Captain


Joined: 07 Dec 2016
Posts: 509

PostPosted: Tue May 09, 2017 10:57 pm    Post subject: Re: Most Beautiful Ship Reply with quote

evilnerf wrote:
My vote is for the Nova Courier. I love it's blend of Gallofree Yards and Mon Calamari influences. Just a gorgeous ship in my opinion.


Off-topic (though it quotes the first post!) since I still have to decide on what ship really does it for me, but thank you for finding the closest visual match to the Battlestar Galactica in SW -- in appearance only of course, as I see the Nova Courier is no capital ship and is only 30m... alas!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Telsij
Captain
Captain


Joined: 07 Dec 2016
Posts: 509

PostPosted: Tue May 16, 2017 2:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

OK, so my childhood-to-teenage heart says Falcon / YT-1300.
And its weathered "lived-in" look is key to conveying that more generally in SW of course. Personal preference and taste would choose that.

From the POV of "aesthetics", design, and clean lines though, something from Naboo -- probably the J-type diplomatic ship from the opening of AotC.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Zarn
Force Spirit


Joined: 17 Jun 2014
Posts: 698

PostPosted: Tue May 16, 2017 3:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I like the Chiss claw craft, as well as the TIE Advanced Inquisitor prototype. Also, I like the Marauder-class corvettes. And, of course, I like the Preybirds - they look like jazzed up Y-wings or something.

In general, I like a little swoop to my wings, and a curve to the hull.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Solo4114
Commander
Commander


Joined: 18 May 2017
Posts: 256

PostPosted: Fri Jun 02, 2017 9:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I never minded the "variations on a Falcon theme" design that came out of CEC. It made sense to me because, like car manufacturers, there's gonna be design similarities across different models. You look at the Subaru family of cars, and their front ends and body lines all tend to look alike. (WRX '02 and '03 models notwithstanding.) Even older model years tend to retain a similar look. So, if everything coming out of CEC looks like a riff on the Falcon/YT-1300, I don't mind that a bit.

They are not, however, what I'd call "beautiful." They're pleasantly utilitarian, I'd say.

Although it doesn't make a lick of sense from a design perspective, I like Slave I because it's based on a real world object. (Actually, same story with the Falcon, or so I've heard.) It has a unique look to it.

I always liked the look of the Lamdba class shuttle, myself, especially the cockpit and the folding wings. I like the notion of a wing that can be repositioned, and actually wound up sketching my own ship idea for a ship that incorporated that aspect, based on a desk in one of my college lecture halls. If I brought it into this universe, I'd probably treat it as a light freighter or personnel transport, designed by Sienar Fleet Systems, as a limited-run that they did to test the waters for the private freighter market (but had trouble breaking in due to CEC, Ghtroc, and other competitors dominating the market).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)


Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10286
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy

PostPosted: Sun Jun 04, 2017 7:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

evilnerf wrote:
I gotta say, not a fan of Slave 1. Nothing about it makes sense. Why is it called slave 1? Why does it land on its back? Why does the cockpit window so dang big. It breaks all of the normal ruled of Star wars starship design.

Yeah I don't like it either. It makes no sense and it's ugly.

Sutehp wrote:
Me, my go-to light freighter is the YT-1930. In terms of stats alone, it breaks even or comes out ahead of the YT-1300. Heck, just the fact that it has a centered cockpit and double the cargo space of a YT-1300 clinches it for me. I love it so much that it was my smuggler character's ship of choice.

I've always like the YT-1930 too.

evilnerf wrote:
I really dig the DeepWater.

I don't feel it's aesthetically attractive but having an aquatic starship is very practical in my game. The Star Wars galaxy is filled with lifeforms requiring parameters similar to Earth. Earth is a water-world, which are terrestrial planets in the star's habitable zone (having water in liquid form) with hydrospheres of about 50% or higher. It is extremely unrealistic for planets with a hydrosphere of less than 50% to be capable of supporting Earth-range life that exists in Star Wars. Thus, in my SWU most of these planets have a hydrosphere of at least 50%, which means there are many opportunities to have adventures with journeys underwater. The DeepWater makes that easy.

In most cases I use published art for Star Wars planets in my game, but they only show 50% of the planet so I have to rationalize that most of the water is on the other side not visible in the image. Desert planets are somewhat explainable by formally having a 50% hydrosphere before going through changes that removed the liquid water from the surface, such as becoming atmospheric vapor and draining into underground oceans. Anyway, it was nice to see underwater scenes in TPM because I like to have underwater scenes in my game.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Sutehp
Commodore
Commodore


Joined: 01 Nov 2016
Posts: 1797
Location: Washington, DC (AKA Inside the Beltway)

PostPosted: Sun Jun 04, 2017 10:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'll have to dig deeper into this thread to find out more about the Deepwater, but let me confirm by asking: Is it a starship that also acts as a submersible? Because that's the silliest thing ever. Just because both vehicles are airtight doesn't mean they can perform both functions. A submersible is made to resist being crushed from extreme pressure while a spaceship is designed to resist exploding in an environment where there is no pressure. The two are not the same thing and have different engineering requirements.

Such a vehicle might make a SWD6 GM's job easier and/or more practical, but it's still a silly idea.

Now some of you may be thinking of Star Trek: Into Darkness where the Enterprise hid itself inside an ocean. But the Enterprise was merely just under the surface and just off the coastline where pressure wasn't a concern and Scotty was still lampshading this silliness by complaining about how the saltwater was still damaging the ship even if it wasn't that deeply submerged.

Cripes, the idea of a starship also functioning as a submersible is the silliest thing to emerge since the idea of Mon Cal starships being converted city buildings. Rolling Eyes

/end rant mode
_________________
Sutehp's RPG Goodies
Only some of it is for D6 Star Wars.
Just repurchased the X-Wing and Tie Fighter flight sim games. I forgot how much I missed them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)


Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10286
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy

PostPosted: Sun Jun 04, 2017 11:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sutehp wrote:
I'll have to dig deeper into this thread to find out more about the Deepwater, but let me confirm by asking: Is it a starship that also acts as a submersible? Because that's the silliest thing ever. Just because both vehicles are airtight doesn't mean they can perform both functions. A submersible is made to resist being crushed from extreme pressure while a spaceship is designed to resist exploding in an environment where there is no pressure. The two are not the same thing and have different engineering requirements.

Such a vehicle might make a SWD6 GM's job easier and/or more practical, but it's still a silly idea.

Now some of you may be thinking of Star Trek: Into Darkness where the Enterprise hid itself inside an ocean. But the Enterprise was merely just under the surface and just off the coastline where pressure wasn't a concern and Scotty was still lampshading this silliness by complaining about how the saltwater was still damaging the ship even if it wasn't that deeply submerged.

Cripes, the idea of a starship also functioning as a submersible is the silliest thing to emerge since the idea of Mon Cal starships being converted city buildings. Rolling Eyes

/end rant mode

The DeepWater is a Mon Cal freighter made by WEG in the 90s, so it did not emerge "since" the idea of a building being converted to a starship in the RO visual guide, or since Star Trek Into Darkness.

In a galaxy with starships existing for well over 25,000 years, I find it amusing that you take issue with a freighter that not only functions in atmo, space and hyperspace like all of them, but also underwater. Yes, functioning as a submarine is adding a fourth environment for the ship to survive in and does brings more engineering considerations. Mon Calamari are an aquatic species who specialize in making starships, but they also very reasonably make submarine vehicles too. DeepWaters are not normal starships "converted" to underwater use. These are vessels that were specifically designed and manufactured to also operate in this fourth environment. A light freighter that can withstand the pressures of 1 atmosphere inside of a ship in a vacuum and also the pressures of water on the outside of the ship maintaining 1 atmosphere inside seems significantly more plausible than a planetary building being converted to a capital ship. These are completely different things.

I find that spaceships surviving FTL velocities in hyperspace to be much sillier concept than a space freighter specifically designed and manufactured to survive underwater by an aquatic species of starship builders. Now I don't really agree with all the stats. It should have a higher Hull and cost. But space opera as a whole is really quite ridiculous and I find that DeepWater concept does not at all challenge the verisimilitude of Star Wars.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Pel
Line Captain
Line Captain


Joined: 10 May 2006
Posts: 983
Location: Texas

PostPosted: Mon Jun 05, 2017 10:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I always loved the excellent lines of the Skipray Blastboat.
_________________
Aha!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ForbinProject
Commander
Commander


Joined: 16 May 2016
Posts: 318

PostPosted: Tue Jun 06, 2017 11:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Whill wrote:
Sutehp wrote:
I'll have to dig deeper into this thread to find out more about the Deepwater, but let me confirm by asking: Is it a starship that also acts as a submersible? Because that's the silliest thing ever. Just because both vehicles are airtight doesn't mean they can perform both functions. A submersible is made to resist being crushed from extreme pressure while a spaceship is designed to resist exploding in an environment where there is no pressure. The two are not the same thing and have different engineering requirements.

Such a vehicle might make a SWD6 GM's job easier and/or more practical, but it's still a silly idea.

Now some of you may be thinking of Star Trek: Into Darkness where the Enterprise hid itself inside an ocean. But the Enterprise was merely just under the surface and just off the coastline where pressure wasn't a concern and Scotty was still lampshading this silliness by complaining about how the saltwater was still damaging the ship even if it wasn't that deeply submerged.

Cripes, the idea of a starship also functioning as a submersible is the silliest thing to emerge since the idea of Mon Cal starships being converted city buildings. Rolling Eyes

/end rant mode

The DeepWater is a Mon Cal freighter made by WEG in the 90s, so it did not emerge "since" the idea of a building being converted to a starship in the RO visual guide, or since Star Trek Into Darkness.

In a galaxy with starships existing for well over 25,000 years, I find it amusing that you take issue with a freighter that not only functions in atmo, space and hyperspace like all of them, but also underwater. Yes, functioning as a submarine is adding a fourth environment for the ship to survive in and does brings more engineering considerations. Mon Calamari are an aquatic species who specialize in making starships, but they also very reasonably make submarine vehicles too. DeepWaters are not normal starships "converted" to underwater use. These are vessels that were specifically designed and manufactured to also operate in this fourth environment. A light freighter that can withstand the pressures of 1 atmosphere inside of a ship in a vacuum and also the pressures of water on the outside of the ship maintaining 1 atmosphere inside seems significantly more plausible than a planetary building being converted to a capital ship. These are completely different things.

I find that spaceships surviving FTL velocities in hyperspace to be much sillier concept than a space freighter specifically designed and manufactured to survive underwater by an aquatic species of starship builders. Now I don't really agree with all the stats. It should have a higher Hull and cost. But space opera as a whole is really quite ridiculous and I find that DeepWater concept does not at all challenge the verisimilitude of Star Wars.


Wasn't the Multi-Environment Space boat that was first introduced in 1988 in WEG's adventure Battle for the Golden Sun also submersible?

From the description that it can operate in liquid environments leads me to believe that means underwater.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Tue Jun 06, 2017 5:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Whill wrote:
evilnerf wrote:
I gotta say, not a fan of Slave 1. Nothing about it makes sense. Why is it called slave 1? Why does it land on its back? Why does the cockpit window so dang big. It breaks all of the normal ruled of Star wars starship design.

Yeah I don't like it either. It makes no sense and it's ugly.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was designed to be weird and discomfiting. If the effect was to invoke an ominous feeling the first time you see the Slave One fire up its engines in pursuit of the Falcon at Hoth, it certainly achieved the desired result.

And since it was featured in only the second Star Wars film ever, exactly what normal rules of starship design were there, at that point?

Quote:
The Star Wars galaxy is filled with lifeforms requiring parameters similar to Earth. Earth is a water-world, which are terrestrial planets in the star's habitable zone (having water in liquid form) with hydrospheres of about 50% or higher. It is extremely unrealistic for planets with a hydrosphere of less than 50% to be capable of supporting Earth-range life that exists in Star Wars. Thus, in my SWU most of these planets have a hydrosphere of at least 50%, which means there are many opportunities to have adventures with journeys underwater.

This got me thinking of the possibility of a submersible capital ship in the corvette or frigate size range. Picture a ship fully capable of operating in space like any other ship in the SWU, but with the added advantage of being able to land in a planet's ocean and operate submerged. It'd make a great mobile base for covert operations, much like a modern submarine, but with the added mobility of being able to move from planet to planet under its own power.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> Ships, Vehicles, Equipment, and Tech All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 4 of 8

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group


v2.0