Topic: Why don't more Federation Ships have center Warp?

[Age]

I was looking at Rod ONeal's model of F-CB and I saw the center warp.I was wondering why don't more Feds ships have center warp for eg. F-CC+ and F-CB?F-CC+ doesn't have center warp and F-CB does why is this as  well as  most other ships?

[_Rondo_GE The OutLaw]

And of what significance would that be my friend?  Better speed? Power?   Is it an actual property in SFC/SFB or just a thought?

Serious question.

[Sirgod]

The first ship I even heard of ,having the third Nacelle, was a dreadnaught, but that was decades ago. I'm almost positive it was from SFB. Basicly It was a constitution class with the third Drive to power more weapons and shields.

I don't know about the speed thing, as that get's kinda confusing, TOS going Warp 12+ while TNG is max warp 9.9999999999/\infinity.

Stephen

[Centurus]

What's center warp?  Last I checked Rod O'Neil's F-CB doesn't have a third warp nacelle. 

[I, Mudd.]

TOS and TNG have different warp scales for some reason, Stephen ...

From Wikipedia ...

Plots involving the Enterprise going far too fast were a frequent feature in the original series (such as warp 14.1 in That Which Survives), and for The Next Generation, it was decided that these would no longer be featured. A new warp scale was drawn up, with warp 10 set as an unattainable maximum. This is described in some technical manuals as Eugene's Limit, in homage to creator/producer Gene Roddenberry. (The old and new formulas are explained in much greater detail below)

The warp factors above warp 10 in the TOS, such as the one above, were slower than warp 10 on the new scale. According to The Star Trek Encyclopedia, warp 6 (new scale) is equal to 392c (392 times the speed of light, c) and about warp 7.3 on the old scale, whereas warp 9.2 new, to about 1649c and warp 11.8 on the old scale. Under this new definition warp 9.2 translates to 306,714,000 miles/sec. Travel to Proxima Centuri from Earth would only take 22.58 hours.

As for the original question ...

"Unofficial Starship Design Rules" by Gene Roddenberry...

Warp nacelles MUST be in pairs. (The "All  Good Things" Enterprise is explained not
to violate these because it has two warp field coils in each nacelle, thus creating three
pairs.  The Franz Joseph Designs single-nacelle ships are not official canon... )

Warp nacelles must have at least 50% line-of-sight on each other across the hull.

Both warp nacelles must be fully visible from the front.

The bridge must be located at the top center of the primary hull.

Basically, it all comes down to because Gene said so.

 

JM.

[Nemesis]

And of what significance would that be my friend?  Better speed? Power?   Is it an actual property in SFC/SFB or just a thought?

Serious question.

The Damage Allocation Chart that is used has a significantly lower percentage chance to affect center warp compared to left and right warp.  That makes your ship more durable.

Center and forward hull are more likely to be hit than aft hull so ships with most of their hull in those positions are more durable, which is why Klingon hulls are more fragile than they may appear.

[Vipre]

Basicly It was a constitution class with the third Drive to power more weapons and shields.

Makes me feel like such a nerd when people believe the nacelles power the ship and all I can think is "No the nacelles just take the energy from the reactor/core and use it to generate the warp field." 

I'm guessing that the nacelles actually did generate power in the SFB game rules in order to simplify the concept. I've never bothered to look it up.

[Czar Mohab]

To answer the question at hand, "Why don't more Federation Ships have center Warp?" is simple, yet complex.

If you are coming from a Trek canon point of view, then the "Gene says so" explaination above should simply answer the question.

However, I think you are asking from an SFB/SFC point of view, so I will answer as best I can.

The F-CC and F-CC+ were the Command Cruisers of their time. The F-CB is/was(/will be?) a Heavy Command Cruiser, a replacement. Throw in that SFB Fed ships can separate saucers, and mix it up with the "c-warp durability", also above, and you get a survivable piece of a command cruiser. Saucer sep's are a last ditch effort to keep the ship in game (or action), usually used after the ship takes catestrophic damage; however there are exceptions to the rules. Until the saucer is free and clear of the rest of the ship, the c-warp is power only, it can not be used for movement; this applies to those (few) that have the smaller (2 box) c-warp. DN's are another story. This is also true of the Klingon penal cruisers and the C-7 class hull.

You are correct in assuming that the F-DN's are essentially F-CC's with a touch more gusto (until, of course, you follow the DN with DN+, DNG, DNH, etc...). The c-warp here is just as important for movement as it is for weapons, et al (yes, from a non-SFB standpoint, it does take the power generated from the reactor and converts it to a warp field). Unlike its smaller counterparts, the c-warp on DN's is fully functional with the ship complete or separated.

It comes down to balance and durability. There is a lot of fed ships that have c-warp, and I'd say that at least 80% have a standard L/R-warp pair as well. I don't have any paperwork in front of me to quote specific ships, but I know that there is a lot. Of those that have only c-warp, well, that's all that they have. Nothing more; nothing to throw off the balance; a single nacelle slung below (or above). When a ship has just c-warp, any hit scored on L or R-warp does damage to the warp engine. There is no "cushion" of another nacelle or two to mitigate the damage.

Take the F-DD, 15 box C-warp. That means that 15 R/L/C warp hits and she's OOC. On the F-CB, it might pan out as 7-L, 7-R and 1-C for the same 15. F-DN might look similar.

I don't know, I guess I rambled on, but the short answer is balance and durability.

Of course, if you are just asking why more Fed ship models don't have c-warp... well, I just don't know that one...

Czar "I think I answered nothing" Mohab

[marstone]

Basicly It was a constitution class with the third Drive to power more weapons and shields.

Makes me feel like such a nerd when people believe the nacelles power the ship and all I can think is "No the nacelles just take the energy from the reactor/core and use it to generate the warp field." 

I'm guessing that the nacelles actually did generate power in the SFB game rules in order to simplify the concept. I've never bothered to look it up.

In SFB, yes the nacelles were the area that the power comes from. (I believe it came from the Franz Joseph stuff, because I remember seeing something on the reason the warp nacelles are on post is so they can be blown if the reaction gets out of control, and to keep the radiation away from the main hull)

[Age]

To answer the question at hand, "Why don't more Federation Ships have center Warp?" is simple, yet complex.

If you are coming from a Trek canon point of view, then the "Gene says so" explaination above should simply answer the question.

However, I think you are asking from an SFB/SFC point of view, so I will answer as best I can.

The F-CC and F-CC+ were the Command Cruisers of their time. The F-CB is/was(/will be?) a Heavy Command Cruiser, a replacement. Throw in that SFB Fed ships can separate saucers, and mix it up with the "c-warp durability", also above, and you get a survivable piece of a command cruiser. Saucer sep's are a last ditch effort to keep the ship in game (or action), usually used after the ship takes catestrophic damage; however there are exceptions to the rules. Until the saucer is free and clear of the rest of the ship, the c-warp is power only, it can not be used for movement; this applies to those (few) that have the smaller (2 box) c-warp. DN's are another story. This is also true of the Klingon penal cruisers and the C-7 class hull.

You are correct in assuming that the F-DN's are essentially F-CC's with a touch more gusto (until, of course, you follow the DN with DN+, DNG, DNH, etc...). The c-warp here is just as important for movement as it is for weapons, et al (yes, from a non-SFB standpoint, it does take the power generated from the reactor and converts it to a warp field). Unlike its smaller counterparts, the c-warp on DN's is fully functional with the ship complete or separated.

It comes down to balance and durability. There is a lot of fed ships that have c-warp, and I'd say that at least 80% have a standard L/R-warp pair as well. I don't have any paperwork in front of me to quote specific ships, but I know that there is a lot. Of those that have only c-warp, well, that's all that they have. Nothing more; nothing to throw off the balance; a single nacelle slung below (or above). When a ship has just c-warp, any hit scored on L or R-warp does damage to the warp engine. There is no "cushion" of another nacelle or two to mitigate the damage.

Take the F-DD, 15 box C-warp. That means that 15 R/L/C warp hits and she's OOC. On the F-CB, it might pan out as 7-L, 7-R and 1-C for the same 15. F-DN might look similar.

I don't know, I guess I rambled on, but the short answer is balance and durability.

Of course, if you are just asking why more Fed ship models don't have c-warp... well, I just don't know that one...

Czar "I think I answered nothing" Mohab

Yes.That is more or less of what I am getting at as I looked  as playing around with shipedit I didn't see a center warp for the CC+ as the CB.I was wondering what the reason would be for this is it because it has that 4 x Phaser 1 at the front and the CC+ only as a 2 x Phaser 1.I am not referring to cannon here just ADBs reason behind or Franz Joseph.

When it comes to cannon Vipre got it right here

Makes me feel like such a nerd when people believe the nacelles power the ship and all I can think is "No the nacelles just take the energy from the reactor/core and use it to generate the warp field."  Embarrassed