CA refits...

[Vanguard]

So yeah, the rear-firing photons are a potential conflict with TOS. The first time we see them on-screen within the Star Trek continuity is in "Encounter at Farpoint".

Khan would like a word with you.

[djdood]

Indeed.

[Ricardo Montalban-voice=ON] "Aft torpedoes FIRE!!"

[Davec_24]

I have both the Franz Joseph tech manual and his Enterprise blueprints and neither showed aft-torpedo mounts (they also didn't have aft or 360 phasers, which were added into the SFB CA via refits).

Would the Star Fleet Tech Manual be a reliable source of information for what the weapons fit of the ships should be in the TOS era? I've always assumed so, but then my take might be a bit biassed after years of games in the SFU.

[derek]

So yeah, the rear-firing photons are a potential conflict with TOS. The first time we see them on-screen within the Star Trek continuity is in "Encounter at Farpoint".

Khan would like a word with you.

And then there's those Klingon ships in the Motion Picture.

Cheers

Derek

[bobrunnicles]

So yeah, the rear-firing photons are a potential conflict with TOS. The first time we see them on-screen within the Star Trek continuity is in "Encounter at Farpoint".

Khan would like a word with you.

And then there's those Klingon ships in the Motion Picture.

Cheers

Derek

We got to them already a few posts ago

[pinecone]

You sound like one of the guys in my group. He *still* can't get over that Klingons don't have photons...

Let him add a photon or two at the front of the ship (and mabey the back too) and make him play under the restrictions in SFB of not having a lock on

[Vanguard]

Would the Star Fleet Tech Manual be a reliable source of information for what the weapons fit of the ships should be in the TOS era? I've always assumed so, but then my take might be a bit biassed after years of games in the SFU.

Tricky. TOS was woefully inconsistant about dialog and special effects shots, so it's hard to rely upon. The Techical Manual, for its part, was indeed considered 'canon' (and therefore reliable), despite its handful of errors, from 1973 to 1985.

At that point, of course, with the advent of TNG, Rodenberry formally 'de-canoned' the tech-manual. Since then, Okuda has gone out of his way to contradict the Technical Manual whenever possible.

But, as far as licensed products go, the TM is still the best reference for TOS as a whole. The later guides all treated TOS as that 'bastard step-child' usually, or, at best, as a show filtered through the lenses of TNG.

For my own part, I prefer the TM as a reference, but have tweaked its data here and there to reflect those things which went missing in the run. The TM doesn't have aft phasers on the Constitution class, but I put them there. The Defiant isn't listed as one of ANY of the CA types, though it would be in the Achernar run, and so on...

[mjwest]

You sound like one of the guys in my group. He *still* can't get over that Klingons don't have photons...

Well, in that case let him use photons instead of disruptors, but make all the phasers Ph-2 and tell him those are known as "disruptors".

(SFB assumed that "disruptors" are the Klingon heavy weapons. However, other systems assume that "disruptors" are actually analogs of the Federation "phasers", and both use photons.)

[akula]

Somewhere around here is a Federation Turret Cruiser that mounts 4 photons in a rotating turret allowing them 360 range of fire. I think SVC called it the USS Monitor

The other thing that you can do is take a normal CA and designate 2 photons FA and 2 photons RA. I have mentioned before that it would be cool if ADB published SSDs for ships with rear firing heavy weapons.

[djdood]

Regarding my photon-Klingon friend -
I made sure he was aware of the note in FedCom that would let him swap disruptors for photon torpedoes on his Klingon ships (and add a cloaking device for a PV price, if he wanted to totally TNG them).

I did however be honest with him and explain how the Klingon ship just isn't built to work with the tactics photons really require. I explained the game background/setting/source-material to him and also ran through the "sabre dance" as the recommended Klingon "tactic of-choice".

I also offered to dig my old FASA Star Trek game out of the garage (it's in there somewhere), if he really wanted to play movie-era Klingons instead.

He wanted to learn FedCom (since that is what I play) and when faced with playing "what he wanted the game to be" (and most likely losing) and playing "the game" (and having a fair fight), he chose to play "the game".

He's adapted at this point and is a pretty capable player now.

Regarding the FJS Tech Manual being a good resource for TOS Trek -
Like Vanguard said.

The Tech Manual is a very special book to me; I'm in the career I'm in mostly because of how much that book (and the drawings in it and thinking behind it) inspired me.

When it was first published, it was very definitive (and very much the first of it's kind). However, Franz Joseph was limited by the reference materials available to him. He mostly had to work from "The Making of Star Trek" paperback, publicity photos, film frames, and whatever else his daughter and her friends could scrounge. He was marvelously consistent to himself and managed to address a lot of TOS' inconsistencies with itself but he couldn't fix everything.

For whatever reason, FJS chose not to give the Enterprise aft phaser banks (and he was very specific about where the banks are, to the point of adding the now SFU-standard "bump" turrets). He also chose to put the photon torpedoes into a specific place (the torpedo tubes/emitters moved around to various places on the ship, in the various special effects sequences). He put them in the front of the upper B/C deck "tear drop" and this is the location which the SFU also reflects.

At the time, Gene Roddenberry was very much "on board" with what FJS was doing. Trek was "dead" at that point and just carrying-on in syndication. The blueprints that FJS did were an opportunity to make some money so Roddenberry even signed them. He later also endorsed the Technical Manual for publication with Pocket Books.

At some point after that, there was a "falling out" (you can read all about FJS' family's side of things HERE). For whatever reason, several folks in the Paramount-fold chose to continue with the intentional (or not?) discrediting of the FJS materials. Mike Okuda has since said that there was no conscious effort to disparage Franz Joseph and that they intentionally included his materials when possible. I think the truth is somewhere in the middle.

[Davec_24]

Wow, it's amazing how political and (apparently) downright nasty people can get over TV shows! Thanks for the info there guys, I'd often wondered where the Tech Manual actually stood both in the Star Trek Universe, and the time frame of the show's development. I sometimes find myself having to explain to Trek buffs that the SFU is different in many ways, but I find most of them actually really like FC just for what it is once they've gotten over things like the WB being a "warbird" and not a "bird of prey" and the Klingons having disruptors instead of photons, etc.

[djdood]

That's exactly the experience I think my new players I've taught are having. They initially chafed at things, because honestly, most people under 30 were raised on the later movies and TNG - TOS is ancient history to them.

However, FedCom (and SFB, etc.) are fun. They work and they play really well. A game being consistent and working gives it its own appeal, regardless of the "trim" hung on it.

[Davec_24]

Yeah that's it - the games are consistent within themselves (not counting "timeline" issues with FC when compared to other SFU games) and play really well. I think FC is particularly good for new players, as it's pretty easy to get a basic hang of. I've found that most players I introduce like FC as a game in itself even if they don't really like Trek or even aren't into sci-fi in general. There's enough variety that it remains interesting, and enough depth that it's difficult to master every race completely, and that makes for an involving and balanced game for both new players and SFB vets (and everyone who falls between these) alike.

[Nerroth]

I would like to see one of the Klingon ships whisked along with Kraknora over to Omega have a prow-mounted photon torpedo launcher on it!


That might be an interesting option.

[droberts441]

That's exactly the experience I think my new players I've taught are having. They initially chafed at things, because honestly, most people under 30 were raised on the later movies and TNG - TOS is ancient history to them.

Don't tell that to my 9 year old son . With all ST in reruns now, it just depends on what the new generation has on DVD. I only have TOS in DVD at the moment, so it is all my son knows.
He has no problem with FC since he only knows TOS....he doesn't like Klingons very much either which I find funny now