Topic: Kitbash Request: BCG Class (w/ Pics) (Read 9115 times)

wanderer · « **on:** January 27, 2003, 01:00:30 pm »

For some time now, I've been getting to know the sfb roots of EAW, and the more I think about it, the more disappointed I am that all the Federation BC Class ships are represented by the Excelsior class model.

The BCE in the shiplist is quite different from the other BC's and I had hoped I could find a "real" BCH. Luckily, I found Ghost's nifty USS Australia, and it's my TOS BC.

I have several...oh, hell, who am I kidding...just about everything from SFC:Eras of War. And there are several cool BC's among them. I've have some others from different places (half of 'em I've forgotten by now), but...

I don't think anyone has done a TMP era BC class, not like it would be in sfb with TMP parts (at least in my mind) based off one of the excellent Connies out there (I have quite a few myself, if needed).

So, I would like to request a kitbash (or original work, if someone wants to) of the Kirov Class Battlecruiser...

Constitution Class Heavy Cruiser (TOS)
-For reference purposes only.

-click for image

Kirov Class Battlecruiser (TOS)
-SCF2 model

-click for image

Constitution Class Heavy Cruiser (TMP)
-For reference purposes only.

-click for image

Proposed Kirov Class Battlecruiser (TMP)
-I have used only sfb "historical" Names and Registries, although, not necessarily sfb historical Captains.

Quite frankly, I was hoping that someone, or perhaps several someones, would take on the series...

IMHO, this is a worthy project, as no one has taken on the Fed BC Class quite in this manner. I hope someone may consider it worthy as well.

C'mon, Gow, I know you want a stab at the BCV...

FPF_TraceyG · « **Reply #1 on:** January 28, 2003, 11:28:14 am »

BUMP!!

jrstandfast · « **Reply #2 on:** January 28, 2003, 12:29:55 pm »

Well, this ship would be a logical start point.

Atrahasis Belknap

If my arthritus backs off some I may give it a shot.

Chrystoff · « **Reply #3 on:** January 28, 2003, 01:15:51 pm »

Quote:

Well, this ship would be a logical start point.

Atrahasis Belknap

Quote:

What about P81's Star League, minus the top warp nacelle?

wanderer · « **Reply #4 on:** January 28, 2003, 02:07:13 pm »

Heheh, you 'da man, Gow. I wholeheartedly agree. The Starleague is nice, no doubt, but the Belknap would be my first choice. Actuallyt the Belknap is a kitbash of P81's Enterprise, IIRC.

Hey, bro, I have arthritis in my knees and a shoulder, so I can commiserate. I know what I use for mine.

I made my design in mind with the BC class having 2 more Rear Hull than the CA/CC class (6 vs 4). Hmmm....oh, yeah, notice 4 phasers on the primary hull, forward.

I suppose it could be 3/3 (d/v) on the primary...your call.

Good to have you back around, friend. If you need anything, the email is in the sig.

Capt Jeff · « **Reply #5 on:** January 29, 2003, 10:02:00 am »

Would be nice to see these!

jrstandfast · « **Reply #6 on:** January 29, 2003, 04:34:39 pm »

Here's a very rough wip. I used Wicked Zombies FCA from the old kitbash tutorial. The textures are skewed all over right now, I'll fix them on the final.

Tell me what you want changed. Also, why would they NOT have extended the impulse drives back to the end of the pylon? On the ship as drawn that section looks unfinished somehow, as if they meant to build a DN then changed thier minds.

No matter either way, I can do it either way. Did your Kirov have the Botanical bay?

anyhow, rip this one all you want so I can get it where it needs to be.

FPF_TraceyG · « **Reply #7 on:** January 29, 2003, 07:22:41 pm »

Coming along nicely Gow, good work.

Directly below the sensor dish (similar to the 3 warp nacelled DN TMP version), I believe Wanderer also wanted another photon launcher for the BCJ, a plasma torp launcher for the BCF, something that looks like drine racks for the BCG, and along the sides of the secondary hull beneath the warp engine pylong, I believe he wanted fighter bays for the BCV. I'm not sure if its possible to take the fighter bays from the Galahad class NVS model and modify them, but I think they would look good there...

wanderer · « **Reply #8 on:** January 30, 2003, 12:12:09 pm »

I'm liking so far, brother.

Yeah, I would have to agree on the Impulse engines, good call.

Hmmm...well, maybe lengthen the secondary hull just a little bit, so that the shuttle bay juts out a bit more...skinny up the section leading aft just a hair as well. No botanical garden. The drone launchers and AMD would just be textures on the hull. The hatch on the secondary hull just above the ribbon would be farther forward, of course.

Good first steps, bro.

Bernard Guignard · « **Reply #9 on:** January 30, 2003, 05:55:59 pm »

Hi Wander
I'm looking at the top and elevation view of your Kirov class and notice that you have 2 different types of bridges on your design. The top elevation shows the Bridge from the Federation and Acension class dreadnoughts. which is a bridge that has 2 docking ports on the long line port and starboard. the Elevation view is the standard Refit bridge with docking port facing aft. You might want to specifie which Bridge design you want to use. Great design over all and I'm looking to the finished work and the varients.

Phi Templar · « **Reply #10 on:** January 31, 2003, 09:17:38 pm »

you know I liek the idea of BC varients but they look so much likea consitituion that it really bothers me can we do something to make it look less like a constitution rehash?

*edit* I mean yeah I love the P81 Constituation model and all that but a Battlecruiser for some reason jsut needs to look a bit beefier than that to be a true battlecruiser IMO. This jsut looks like a good varient if you we're gonna have a CC.

wanderer · « **Reply #11 on:** February 02, 2003, 11:11:32 am »

Quote:

Hi Wanderer
I'm looking at the top and elevation view of your Kirov class and notice that you have 2 different types of bridges on your design. The top elevation shows the Bridge from the Federation and Acension class dreadnoughts. which is a bridge that has 2 docking ports on the long line port and starboard. the Elevation view is the standard Refit bridge with docking port facing aft. You might want to specifie which Bridge design you want to use. Great design over all and I'm looking to the finished work and the varients.

You are absolutely right, Capt Guignard. Totally my mistake. It should be the normal, single bridge level docking port found on the Heavy Cruisers. Thanks. I'm glad you like the design, and I know that Gow can do it justice.

Quote:

you know I liek the idea of BC varients but they look so much likea consitituion that it really bothers me can we do something to make it look less like a constitution rehash?

*edit* I mean yeah I love the P81 Constituation model and all that but a Battlecruiser for some reason jsut needs to look a bit beefier than that to be a true battlecruiser IMO. This jsut looks like a good varient if you we're gonna have a CC.

I understand what you're saying, Phi, but that was sort of the point, making the BC Class based off the same technology as the CA/CC's, as in SFB.

CptSavage · « **Reply #12 on:** February 02, 2003, 02:13:42 pm »

If these come out well, I will definitely use them.

Bernard Guignard · « **Reply #13 on:** February 05, 2003, 05:46:45 am »

Hello all I'm bumping this to find out how things are going on this project?

Mackie · « **Reply #14 on:** February 05, 2003, 01:32:59 pm »

hmm... a streched connie secondary hull with surya classes "wings"... or whatever they are called... those are all the changed that i can see (Except for the torp pod on teh tos version)

James Formo · « **Reply #15 on:** February 05, 2003, 02:40:19 pm »

Oh good another 1701

jrstandfast · « **Reply #17 on:** February 06, 2003, 08:20:56 pm »

I'll get this finished up in the next week Wanderer. The Ship will be as Wandered proposed, EXACTLY what the BCH was originally....... a beefed up CA hull as a wartime expedient to replace the more expensive DN varients.

It's supposed to look like a CA. They would have taken the CA plans and existing shipyard fixtures rather than designing from the ground up.

There are literally hundreds of examples of this in the history of wartime production. The Sherman M4E8 looked like the original Sherman tank but was vastly superior to the first. Escort Carriers in WWII and so on.

The changes laid out make sense. Shorter, stronger pylons to handle more powerful warps. Lengthened engineering section, more powerplant, etc.

Of course, I could cover it with useless pointed objects or put 300 biege windows in it so it could be TNG Kewl. Maybe even some Mattel Red Plastic Neato warp bussards.

You know, I realize that SFB is a bad word around here........ but at least they had thier Tech based on some sort of realively realistic naval tradition rather than pulling crap like K'Vorts out of thier butts.

Bernard Guignard · « **Reply #18 on:** February 07, 2003, 05:35:05 am »

HI jrstandfast
Thats great news Looking forward to seeing the ship and its variants. SFB is still great in my books personally I preferer the TOS/TMP timeline. I enjoyed TNG, DS9 and Voyager but My heart and affection is with Kirk and Co.
Heck I'm even enjoying Enterprise its good sci-fi .
Thanks for adding another model to the game and giving us more choices to better flavour our gaming experience.

Turling · « **Reply #19 on:** February 07, 2003, 11:38:16 pm »

Good job, JR. Nice looking ship.

News:

Topic: Kitbash Request: BCG Class (w/ Pics) (Read 9115 times) var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true};

wanderer

FPF_TraceyG

jrstandfast

Chrystoff

wanderer

Capt Jeff

jrstandfast

FPF_TraceyG

wanderer

Bernard Guignard

Phi Templar

wanderer

CptSavage

Bernard Guignard

Mackie

James Formo

wanderer

jrstandfast

Bernard Guignard

Turling

Topic: Kitbash Request: BCG Class (w/ Pics) (Read 9115 times)