Number of Nacells.

[THE KID ADMIRAL]

Do the number of Nacells affect how much SUs are used? For example, I'm creating the USS Heirakonpolis, a size 13 Heavy Explorer Horizon class starship with 42 decks, and I want to give her four imbedded Nacells. Would each single Nacelle use up SUs ?

------------------
MAY THE GREAT BIRD GRANT YOU LOTS OF LATINUM.

[Steve Long]

Nope, the number of nacelles doesn't affect the cost. Check out the very first paragraph under "Nacelles" on page 34. You can have one or fifty-five, all for the same cost.

Steve Long

[Capt.Hunter]

On the subject of nacelles: Retractable Nacelles! There is no explicitly stated game benefit for having them according to the SD rules, but they cost extra SU. Would I be right in saying that, if the nacelles are retracted, they either can't be targeted using a called shot or the difficulty modifier to that shot increases to make it harder?

------------------
"Captain? Is something wrong?"

"I just had the most terrible news. I have to attend the Annual Admirals' Dinner.
I've faced Borg, Romulans and battle-crazed Jem'Hadar, but nothing compares to this."

Captain Matt Hunter, USS Tempest

[Steve Long]

That seems reasonable, Cap'n. I'll think about adding something of the sort to future iterations of SD.

Steve Long

[cagacandeger]

A question about nacelles, now that you guys mention it.(or them) What is the advantage of having more than one nacelle? DOes a ship with 4 nacelles speed up faster than one with 2? I do not remember anything about this in the rpg books. Can you help?

------------------
Loic is not the end...

[Steve Long]

What is the advantage of having more than one nacelle? Does a ship with 4 nacelles speed up faster than one with 2? I do not remember anything about this in the rpg books.

The advantage is: your ship looks different.

That's it. There's no canonically established difference between having 1 nacelle or 4 -- or at least, none that I can find. We have canon examples of ships with 1, 2, 3, and 4 nacelles, and they all seem to function just fine.

The rules, thus, don't distinguish between how many nacelles you have. You pays your cost and takes yer nacelles in whatever number you please.

Steve Long

[Sarge]

I was just thinking about the differences in in warp fields and number of nacelles a few days ago. Here's what I came up with.

One nacelle: cheap and simple to build, good maneuverability, but not very stable. Think of a starship as being balanced inside a warp bubble; with only one nacelle, the bubble is round and smooth, making it easy to "tip over."

Two nacelles: a little more expensive, but much easier to stabilize. The nacelles put out fields that combine into a warp bubble with two lobes, making it harder to "tip over". Since each warp field affects the other, any fluctuation in one nacelle must be compensated for in both nacelles, so the control software must be much more sophisticated than in one nacelle designs.

Three nacelles: more expensive, theoretically more stable, but since any fluctuation in nacelle A's warp field affects nacelles B's and C's fields which affects A and C, and A and B, ad infinitum, the control software has to be topnotch. This design is very sensitive and needs constant tuning to perform well.

Four nacelles: warp engineers thought they could simplify the problems of three nacelle designs by fitting four nacelles and programming them to act as two pairs of nacelles, but the theory was not entirely successful. Four nacelle designs suffer much the same problems as three nacelle designs.

Well, that's me in GM mode pulling some half-baked techno-babble out o' me arse. It sorta makes sense to me.

------------------

<<<<

LUGTrek isn't really dead. Not as long as we remember it.

[Dan Gurden]

Im sure I read somewhere that one of the advantages of 4 warp nacelles was a longer period of taime at maximum warp. The theory was that when the first two warp nacelles had sustained the high warp speeds for a maximum safe period of time, it would be possible to switch nacelles and sustain the high speed a little longer.

The downside was that they ate power like a high performance car drinks petrol...

While this may or may not be canon (if Steve missed it, it probably wasn't there), it does make for a good mechanic, should anyone choose to convert the concept...

------------------
Dan.

"A couple of thoughts from a random mind!"

[Morden]

Dan-

I believe one place that statement is made is in Jackill's Ships of the Fleet, where the four-nacelled Cheetah class is mentioned to use the pairs of nacelles a pair at a time, rather than all four at once, allowing for longer periods at maximum warp. YMMV, but I like that idea.

Morden

[Keny Suda]

Originally posted by Dan Gurden:
Im sure I read somewhere that one of the advantages of 4 warp nacelles was a longer period of taime at maximum warp. The theory was that when the first two warp nacelles had sustained the high warp speeds for a maximum safe period of time, it would be possible to switch nacelles and sustain the high speed a little longer.

The downside was that they ate power like a high performance car drinks petrol...

While this may or may not be canon (if Steve missed it, it probably wasn't there), it does make for a good mechanic, should anyone choose to convert the concept...

IMO, sustaining high warp puts more stress to the warp core than to the nacelles. On a ship the engines are that overheats, not the paddle wheel/propeller (?what's that word?)

In the Technical Handbook by Rick Sternbach and Michael Okuda it is said, that two nacelles are the optimum for energy consumtion and manueverability.

[Trinity Zeldis]

Due to some of the more handy dandy things having to do with canon, I came up with some house rules concerning this issue. It doesn't really come into effect unless a character is designing a ship (which happened in one game).

One nacelle, reduced SU requirement to 75% rounded up. There was also an increase of .1 power per .1 warp as well as an increased piloting difficulty of +1. This isn't the best of situations, but comes in incredibly handy for smaller vessels.

Two nacelles are unchanged as per Spacedock.

Three nacelles start to get a bit iffy. Increase SU cost by a further 25%, power requirements reduced by .5 for each full warp, and piloting difficulties increase by +3. Also, there was the chance that the ship would fly itself apart on any engineering or piloting dramatic failure (appropriate roll with a difficulty of warp speed divided by 2 rounded up + 3, don't forget the other +3 for there being 3 nacelles).

Four nacelles have an SU cost increase by 50%, .1 power per .1 warp, piloting difficulties increase by +2.

This will explain the Great Bird's insistence that 2 is the most efficient number of nacelles, as well as explaining why the constellation class had 4.

Once more, subject for your perusal with a reminder that these are house rules. You're light-yearage may vary.

[Typhonis 1]

you want to see multi nacel designs look at the ships from SFB some of the larger ships like the Klingon b-10 and the Federation Bb and NCa have four nacels

[SIR SIG]

As two the 2 pairs of nacelles switching for peak warp fields.

I once heard a idea about this specifically for Deep Space Explorers. eg. Constellation Class to get where there going quicker/sustained speed.

Although the old school FASA designed 3 nacelles ships seemed to be your dreadnaught overpowered types.

[Trinity Zeldis]

Typhonis, I'm sorry that I must be the one to inform you, but SFB is not Star Trek. There are striking similarities, but they are not the same. The details of why this is so have been expounded upon elsewhere on this board (but for the life of me, i don't remember where).

[COLWebb]

I like to think that the nacelles are the most expensive part of the ship, made with ultradense materials in the Warp Field Coils. This explains single nacelle vessels (cost-saving measure), as well as the fact that Voyager does not tip over forward when landing, as the model would be balanced VERY heavily toward the nose if the nacelles weren't very, very mass-intensive.

Thoughts?