Topic: OT : Anyone have the ship stats and history for the Missouri BB ? (Read 2896 times)

ModelsPlease · « **on:** December 18, 2005, 10:35:12 am »

Like the subject states.... I'm looking for the history and ship specs for the Missouri. Especially the history, I'm hoping that will include a launch year..IE:2270 etc. Any help is most appreciated .

-MP

Antivyrus · « **Reply #1 on:** December 18, 2005, 02:05:13 pm »

Quote from: ModelsPlease on December 18, 2005, 10:35:12 am

Like the subject states.... I'm looking for the history and ship specs for the Missouri. Especially the history, I'm hoping that will include a launch year..IE:2270 etc. Any help is most appreciated .

-MP

Dont know if this helps but here what I found

http://www.geocities.com/uss_missouri_ncc_63063_a/main.html

Chris Johnson · « **Reply #2 on:** December 18, 2005, 08:18:06 pm »

Go here. I wouldn't trust the information, however, as it contradicts itself when it goes down to defining its stats directly below (which seems accurate enough as it performs to those specs in-game and are on the manual). But again, don't trust the background info on that website mostly; the Missouri-class doesn't have an assault phaser despite the fan-made background information; Only the KA game manual went into detail for background info on, you guessed it, Klingon vessels.

With that said, I'd look at her design for a guess. Klingon Academy takes place in 2291, two years before Star Trek VI. I'm not sure if the Yamato-class in that game was more of a speculative design playable (although was in one of the KA missions, the one before you move to combat sim to actual space combat in-game storyline-wise), but I'm sure the Missouri-class was used. With that said, judging by the design aesthetics and performance, I'd say the Missouri-class might be a mid-2280s design, sharing traits of newer class ships of that decade such as the Oberth and Excelsior-class while having a touch of the old with the primary hull's Miranda class-esque design traits on the aft side of the primary hull/"saucer section".

ModelsPlease · « **Reply #3 on:** December 18, 2005, 10:46:33 pm »

Thanks AV but wrong Missouri. Thanks Chris that be it but seems no launch date.....anyone have a clue ?

OlBuzzard · « **Reply #4 on:** December 18, 2005, 11:38:26 pm »

IMHO

It seems that most of the information on the Mo BB is based on a hull design that is a cross between the Miranda .. and something else. It just does not seem right to me. I'll be the first to admit that this my own personal biased opinion (and probably unfounded) .. At any rate that was why I am doing the Iowa class. Granted the Iowa and Mo are cousins to each other, but for the fact that my personal preferences are so different than those chose by previous designs .. I chose not to use the name "Missouri".

I could not find anything of significant importance on the hull design you are requesting, aside from what has been posted. That is why I have not responded to this until now.

thanks

Chris Johnson · « **Reply #5 on:** December 18, 2005, 11:45:08 pm »

Quote from: ModelsPlease on December 18, 2005, 10:46:33 pm

Thanks AV but wrong Missouri. Thanks Chris that be it but seems no launch date.....anyone have a clue ?

Again, consider canon facts of the time period of the 2280s and 2290s. Now consider when KA took place (2291) and when Star Trek III: The Search for Spock takes place (2285). The Excelsior-class was first introduced to us in that movie as was the Oberth-class, and we see how different design aesthetics were, and they're commonly-accepted designs today as was the Miranda-class back in 1982 when Star Trek II rolled out.

If you have enough fanboy-esque thinking in your head, make a good guess as to when the Missouri-class was built. There is no launch date given for the Missouri; Heck, she's non-canon and whether or not you go by Canon or not, you can give her any launch date you want. But given that I take a bulk of canon as a base, I'd try to do so reasonably.

Considering the design aesthetics, how the configuration is somewhat reminicant of the Oberth-class and the little details you see; down-sloped rim of the primary hull's saucer section, up-sloped rear half of the primary hull... I'd say it's safe to put it around 2285-2290, take your pick of those years.

But, again, you can do whatever you want, like giving her the launch date of 2142 or 2583, etc. You can be creative with it or a little realistic.

Chris Johnson · « **Reply #6 on:** December 19, 2005, 12:10:59 am »

I wanted to literally illustrate my point (I hope my English is correct on that) incase anyone got confused. And it gave me something to do. I hope I illustrated it well:

OlBuzzard · « **Reply #7 on:** December 19, 2005, 07:41:24 am »

Chris ...

your evaluation is right dead on ..

This is why i personally have a hard time calling this a BB.

I'm sorry guys .. it just dont seem right. (Not trying to be unkind) .. it's just .. well .... it's just not right .

I know what they were attempting : Using a "new heavy" to create a "Fast BB" Which is what the Iowa, Missouri and NJ were.

But it requires a better hull than this to make a "new" BB. That was shy I used the Ambassador class to work with. It was as close to TNG as you could get.

IMHO once you get to TNG the BB is obsolete.

ModelsPlease · « **Reply #8 on:** December 19, 2005, 10:52:10 am »

Quote from: OlBuzzard on December 19, 2005, 07:41:24 am

Chris ...

your evaluation is right dead on ..

This is why i personally have a hard time calling this a BB.

I'm sorry guys .. it just dont seem right. (Not trying to be unkind) .. it's just .. well .... it's just not right .

I know what they were attempting : Using a "new heavy" to create a "Fast BB" Which is what the Iowa, Missouri and NJ were.

But it requires a better hull than this to make a "new" BB. That was shy I used the Ambassador class to work with. It was as close to TNG as you could get.

IMHO once you get to TNG the BB is obsolete.

I agree Buzz, that's why I asked for these stats, SInce I never played KA, I wasn't sure of the commision year(s) available for this ship. Thanks to Chris I now have a good idea, and designs available, so I'll get to work on re-addressing the Missouri. I'm going to use the basic idea but I'm definatley going to re-evaluate the design. I'll post a few WIPS in a few days to start getting opinions, I just want to finish the Gal MkIII first, and possibly one other NEW design.

-MP

OlBuzzard · « **Reply #9 on:** December 19, 2005, 11:27:00 am »

Quote from: ModelsPlease on December 19, 2005, 10:52:10 am

Quote from: OlBuzzard on December 19, 2005, 07:41:24 am
Chris ...

your evaluation is right dead on ..

This is why i personally have a hard time calling this a BB.

I'm sorry guys .. it just dont seem right. (Not trying to be unkind) .. it's just .. well .... it's just not right .

I know what they were attempting : Using a "new heavy" to create a "Fast BB" Which is what the Iowa, Missouri and NJ were.

But it requires a better hull than this to make a "new" BB. That was shy I used the Ambassador class to work with. It was as close to TNG as you could get.

IMHO once you get to TNG the BB is obsolete.

I agree Buzz, that's why I asked for these stats, SInce I never played KA, I wasn't sure of the commision year(s) available for this ship. Thanks to Chris I now have a good idea, and designs available, so I'll get to work on re-addressing the Missouri. I'm going to use the basic idea but I'm definatley going to re-evaluate the design. I'll post a few WIPS in a few days to start getting opinions, I just want to finish the Gal MkIII first, and possibly one other NEW design.

-MP

Would you like to review the WIP for the IOWA .. and maybe look at a joint effort to redo that class ? I think as long as we get away from the Miranda class "BB" (which is sort of a contradiction of terms) .. I think there are some real possibilities.

Input please from Models Please !

Captain Pierce · « **Reply #10 on:** December 19, 2005, 12:50:40 pm »

As an alternate idea, if you go by the idea that the Oberth is an older design (given the NCC-638 registry for the Grissom, and the conjectured NCC-602 for Oberth, IIRC), you could make the argument that the Missouri is an older battleship that is somewhat outclassed by the 2280's/2290's, and the Yamato is designed to replace it. Just a thought...

OlBuzzard · « **Reply #11 on:** December 19, 2005, 01:20:26 pm »

actually ... from a historical position ( and I think that is where MP is going with this) .. it would be the other way around). The Iowa, Missouri, and NJ class would all be BB's developed at or about the end of the BB era. I'm also thinking that he (MP) also agrees that this would also be a TMP era. IMHO .. this should be late TMP or pre-TNG: depending upon how you want to look at it.

ModelsPlease · « **Reply #12 on:** December 20, 2005, 12:27:57 am »

Quote from: OlBuzzard on December 19, 2005, 01:20:26 pm

actually ... from a historical position ( and I think that is where MP is going with this) .. it would be the other way around). The Iowa, Missouri, and NJ class would all be BB's developed at or about the end of the BB era. I'm also thinking that he (MP) also agrees that this would also be a TMP era. IMHO .. this should be late TMP or pre-TNG: depending upon how you want to look at it.

How well ya know me Buzz, spot on with what I'm thinking.

Quote

Would you like to review the WIP for the IOWA .. and maybe look at a joint effort to redo that class ? I think as long as we get away from the Miranda class "BB" (which is sort of a contradiction of terms) .. I think there are some real possibilities.

Absolutely lets go for it. And yes there will be NO Miranda in my design. I'm also going to re-adress the 'Oberth' Sec hull. There's alot of empty space ( at least texture wise ) there. Like I said in an earlier post I'm really looking at the design seriously. Hopefully we'll come up with something the majority will enjoy and approve of.

-MP

OlBuzzard · « **Reply #13 on:** December 20, 2005, 07:27:16 am »

Quote from: ModelsPlease on December 20, 2005, 12:27:57 am

Quote from: OlBuzzard on December 19, 2005, 01:20:26 pm

I'm also going to re-adress the 'Oberth' Sec hull. There's alot of empty space ( at least texture wise ) there. Like I said in an earlier post I'm really looking at the design seriously. Hopefully we'll come up with something the majority will enjoy and approve of.

-MP

Actually this is something else that just does not seem to fit .. two reasons:
1. Primarily due to the "size' of this part of the hull. It seems a tad awkward. Perhaps if it were modified there might be a possibility.

2. The over all scope of most designs I've seen with this style of hull just seem clumsy to me. I will admit that this is just me for the most part. Maybe I'm being a stubborn old man !

(hey I'll admit it !).

One thing that we might look at with the current design I have with the Iowa is stretching the 2ndsry hull a tad wider ... but not over doing it. Right now it looks a bit "skinny" BUT .. then again .. so does the Ambassador class.

There might be a couple of things we can look at yet. I'll hold off on finishing the textures for the Iowa class (as it is directly related to the Missouri) until we get this wrapped up.

I do agree that there is room for improvement between the Alabama and the Missouri. If we pull this off we will have a VERY good representation of a significant part of the Fed fleet that IMHO has been missing from the game.

(BTW... I have not quit on the Klingon BB. I have just been taking a break with a close friend of mine on NWN. Just hang tight !)

Also note: I really appreciate this opportunity to work with ya bud. Seems like we both have similar thoughts on this one. It should be interesting to see what become of our efforts.

ModelsPlease · « **Reply #14 on:** December 20, 2005, 09:01:37 am »

Agreed, the overall ship (as is) seems out of place. Many design elements to me ,at least, make no sense. We'll figure this out

. Actually I think I'll start an Official Missouri thread and start getting opinions.

OlBuzzard · « **Reply #15 on:** December 20, 2005, 09:35:54 am »

sounds good .. I would preface any opening remarks with an understanding that we are not going to reproduce the Missouri of previous game releases. That might save some time in the long run.

ModelsPlease · « **Reply #16 on:** December 20, 2005, 04:13:58 pm »

Quote from: OlBuzzard on December 20, 2005, 09:35:54 am

sounds good .. I would preface any opening remarks with an understanding that we are not going to reproduce the Missouri of previous game releases. That might save some time in the long run.

Excellent idea

News: