 | | Re: Defining the term "Capital Ship" —Bob Parker
|
| | | (...) IMHO: (...) 150 (...) No (...) Not applicable (...) No (...) Aerial bombardment of a planet, troop carrier, fleet defence, solar system defense, fighter/bomber carrier, hospital ship, ground assault ship carrier, deep space exploration (...) (...) (22 years ago, 29-Aug-02, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Defining the term "Capital Ship" —John P. Henderson
|
| | | | | (...) Problem is, "minifig scale" itself is ill defined and can mean different things to different people. *My* opinion on minifig scale is that it is the "scale and style" of original TLC System sets. At that scale, a car that is 4 studs wide and 8 (...) (22 years ago, 29-Aug-02, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Defining the term "Capital Ship" —Troy Cefaratti
|
| | | | | | "Hendo (John P. Henderson)" <hendo@valyance.com> wrote in message news:H1M8My.ByM@lugnet.com... (...) I got the impression that the intended use of the Death Star was to move around the galaxy destroying planets. If this is actually the case, then (...) (22 years ago, 30-Aug-02, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Defining the term "Capital Ship" —Mark Sandlin
|
| | | | | | (...) I think it's a "Battle Station." Who are we to argue with the Emperor? (22 years ago, 30-Aug-02, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Defining the term "Capital Ship" —Troy Cefaratti
|
| | | | | | | "Mark Sandlin" <sandlin@nwlink.com> wrote in message news:sandlin-1B239F....net.com... (...) Good Point, Mark! :) (22 years ago, 30-Aug-02, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Defining the term "Capital Ship" —Mike Petrucelli
|
| | | | | | (...) A battle station with a hyperdrive, what a crazy concept. (Travels from Alderaan, a core world, to Yavin, a rim world, in a day or two.) -Mike Petrucelli (22 years ago, 1-Sep-02, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Defining the term "Capital Ship" —Erik Schroer
|
| | | | | | Well, from what I know of cap-ships: (...) 60 is what I would call the minimum. (...) Depends on the technology level of the race employing the ship. In my legoverse, a cap-ship can land on a planet and take off in under 10 minutes thanks to the (...) (22 years ago, 1-Sep-02, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Defining the term "Capital Ship" —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | (...) I size really depends on the particular universe. It would seem some kind of minimum size like 60 or 100 studs would be reasonable though. (...) Agree. (...) Agree. (...) If by "smaller craft" one means fighters or shuttles, I would say no. (...) (22 years ago, 3-Sep-02, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Defining the term "Capital Ship" —Markham Carroll
|
| | | | "Bob Parker" <cg47@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:H1M6Dy.4y8@lugnet.com... (...) minifig (...) I think you may be wrong on this one. Of the definitions I've read, none have said anything that they can't land. They may need an on-planet dock, (...) (22 years ago, 30-Aug-02, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | |
