View Single Post
Old August 14 2013, 03:38 AM   #36
Continuity Spackle
Unicron's Avatar
Location: Cybertron
Send a message via ICQ to Unicron
Re: Oberth Class – the missing link between Enterprise and Reliant

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post

But if I ignored retroactive continuity and instead focus on the Jefferies Registry Scheme (JRS) for the era of Kirk and pre-TOS it works well from the 1st Federation design series (Daedalus) up to the 20th (Excelsior).
One could argue that it only works well with the consideration of certain sources and not others. One reason I'm more in favor of a batch system versus JRS is that his scheme doesn't seem overly balanced to me. The heavy cruiser series is 1700+, but it's the 17th cruiser that's been built in the course of, say, a century or two of the Federation being founded (perhaps more)? That seems like a lot of cruisers while only a handful of scouts and destroyers have been built in the same time frame. One can also go more literal and say it's the 17th starship class, but since I don't think that term makes a huge difference in the context of the whole franchise (and not as it might have been intended when TOS was written), it's sort of meaningless IMO in terms of a big space fleet.

Besides, if you wanted to include a source like the FJ Technical Manual, how would you account for his sequential system versus the class-ship style of the JRS? FJ's heavy cruisers start at 1700 and go to about 1842, and are clearly intended to be subclasses and variants. The destroyers and scouts are slightly more challenging, in that destroyers run 500-555 and scouts start at 585 and go to 625. Each group has its own set of subclasses even though both main designs are variants of each other. Would this mean that the first digit(s) should apply to all variants, or should they only apply to distinct categories of builds?

Using a batch system to me is the best way to avoid potential issues with registry sequencing. There's no contradiction this way between counting FJ's Federation class dreadnoughts (which have a higher number than the Excelsior) and counting the Excelsior as a separate ship type. One is a dreadnought and one is a cruiser, or a battleship if you want to include the original FASA concept.

How can (finally) applying something that was there from the beginning (JRS) and works for the Kirk era possibly register as a retroactive attempt, that’s a contradiction.

It’s the retroactive ignorance of the Jefferies Scheme which is the culprit that started the mess, and things went south when the Constellation Class Hathaway got the same “25” prefix as the Exelsior II Class Repulse although it had been previously established that the prefix of the Stargazer (Constellation Class) was “28”.
Obviously, the registry scheme had radically changed from that moment forward…
Because although I'd agree with you that the PTB succumbed to retroactive ignorance, so to speak, in not applying the JRS consistently, I also think it was a lot easier from a production standpoint to simply invent numbers as the need arose and try to maintain consistency if it didn't always work. For my part, I choose to ignore the Constitution registries that were given 1600 numbers because I don't think they fit, and I prefer the consistent 1700 scheme FJ used. The only exception I keep is the Defiant which had an odd registry, even though the FJ registry (1710) fits perfectly and is an easy alternative to 1701.

You are now talking about the Oberth Class TNG version. No doubt that the vessels were upgraded. However, the depiction of decks inside the secondary hull or pod strikes me as an attempt to put a square peg into a round hole. Since I first saw the Grissom on the screen and noticed the tiny and bended pylons, it seemed rather certain to me that the window-less pod was an uninhabitable area, entirely devoted to fuel and mechanical devices.
For what it's worth, I completely agree with you here and this was part of the last discussion we had some time ago. Many of us agree that the lower pod makes more sense as modular piece of equipment, and I can easily see the main upper hull as a cheap unit to build for a number of different variants (as in the case of Jackill's Oberth variants).

I have no doubt that NCC-1831 on the starship status chart in “Court Martial” referred to a Miranda (18th design), do not think that the Carolina was an Oberth, either, but feel confident that the USS Valiant was a vessel of the Oberth Class.
I think an 1831 number could easily fit into Mastercom's system for the Suryas and Coventries (though all of their listed numbers are 1850 plus, to keep consistency with the Miranda/Avenger type refits). I'd personally disagree with the Valiant being an Oberth myself, as I'm inclined to agree with Dukhat's comments earlier. I honestly think the name is just a coincidence. I also like the idea that while the Oberth was an older class by the time of TSFS (it would have to be for my idea of the FASA Gagarin/Sagan builds to be variants and refits), it was built late in the TOS period and was one of the designs to have the TMP era aesthetic. That's purely my own idea.

"My dream is to eat candy and poop emeralds. I'm halfway successful."

Catbert, Evil Director of Human Resources
Unicron is offline   Reply With Quote