Subject:
|
Re: Military spaceships classes and types
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Tue, 6 Apr 2004 18:55:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1035 times
|
| |
|
|
"Lenny Hoffman" <lahoffma@*NOSPAM*mailer.fsu.edu> wrote in
news:Hvr0rH.184s@lugnet.com:
> > If there is already another standard for naming military spaceships,
> > i would like to know it. Thanks.
>
> As far as concerns LEGO Spaceships - there is no standard. Mainly
> because the size restictions for even the smallest warship
> classification is larger than is really build-able in LEGO.
>
> A naval frigate is ~300 feet long. If we take 1 stud= 1 foot, then
> Dan Jassim's Dragonstar is only 163 feet long. And crew size is also
> much less - with a frigate having at least a hundred, while the
> Dragonstar has less then twenty.
>
> A full sized Battleship (800 ft) would be 800 studs long, which is
> twenty feet long! Definitely out of the scope of all but the largest
> collection.
>
> So far, the best way of classifying LEGO spaceships is along two lines
> - first by purpose (an escort vs. destroyer) and then by the builder's
> personal universe (if they want it to be a dreadnought, then it is a
> dreadnought). Otherwise, there is the classification of a 'SHIP' -
> meaning larger than 100 studs, then divided into 'class' based on the
> length of 100. 100-199 is Class 1, 200-299 Class 2, so on and so
> forth.
>
> On the subject of military classification, the Eastern Block has an
> interesting dilema - our Kosmos Directorate is modeled on the Army
> rather than the Navy - and therefore doesn't recognize 'ships' per se.
> Our forces are divided between assault shuttles (like the Zhukov) and
> larger warcraft (like the Kalashnikov) - and altho I will sometimes
> refer to them as ships, the term isnt actually correct. It's just
> there isn't really a better term.
>
> -lenny
Far from me the idea of imposing a size restriction with the name.
People who play LEGO without having tons of bricks (like me) could still
call a ship a carrier even if it was only 30 studs long as long as the
purpose is the same (craft transport). I added the size for comparing
purposes with real-life navy ships. In the .space version of theses
classes, you can see the only hint to size is "class x is smaller than
class y". If you want to make a corvette longer than a cruiser, go ahead
as long as the purpose of the ship is the same as the class.
The general size reference is only a guideline to help create MOCs for a
common universe with sizes not out of proportion. A guy could create a
carrier 200 studs long and then decide to create a cruiser to escort it.
Comparing the sizes of the two classes, he could then decide to make his
cruiser 150 studs long since a cruiser is generally smaller than carrier.
The same could be said with miniMOCs. I could design a corvette 3 studs
long, then a frigate 5 studs long and a carrier 12 studs long with 1x1
tiles as fighters.
Ex a: Corvette A
Weapons: 2 laser cannons, 2 missile launcher. (good for fighter disposal)
Purpose: escort
That, in my mind would be a good name. Note that there is no reference to
the size of the MOC. It could be 8, 20, 100 studs long.
Ex b: Corvette B
Weapons: 2 turrets with 3 heavy laser cannons, 4 missile launcher.
1 x Shuttle bay: 2 troop dropships
2 x Fighter bay: 8 fighters
Here it is quite clear that the purpose of this MOC is craft
transportation. Thus, naming this MOC as Carrier B would be better.
Hope this clears this misunderstanding.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Military spaceships classes and types
|
| (...) As far as concerns LEGO Spaceships - there is no standard. Mainly because the size restictions for even the smallest warship classification is larger than is really build-able in LEGO. A naval frigate is ~300 feet long. If we take 1 stud= 1 (...) (21 years ago, 6-Apr-04, to lugnet.space)
|
3 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
