Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game

Starfinder


Pathfinder Society


Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

What are your favorite top three space / star ships of all time?


Starfinder General Discussion

201 to 232 of 232 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Gilfalas wrote:
Tectorman wrote:
Fardragon wrote:
Putting a tadis inside another tardis causes dimensional recursion (see Logopolis).
What happens when you put the Tardis inside itself?

Same thing that happens when you put a portable hole into a bag of holding and vice versa.

Do not put engineered extra dimensional spaces into each other. :-)

I thought PF got rid of that nonsense.


Nope, still alive and kicking.

As for putting a Tardis in a Tardis... I think that actually happened once, I think it was one of the multi-doctor specials. Of course that was less dimensional looping and more crossing the timelines.


Shinigami02 wrote:

Nope, still alive and kicking.

As for putting a Tardis in a Tardis... I think that actually happened once, I think it was one of the multi-doctor specials. Of course that was less dimensional looping and more crossing the timelines.

It happened three times, actually. Once with the Doctor's TARDIS looping back into itself.


IonutRO wrote:
Shinigami02 wrote:

Nope, still alive and kicking.

As for putting a Tardis in a Tardis... I think that actually happened once, I think it was one of the multi-doctor specials. Of course that was less dimensional looping and more crossing the timelines.

It happened three times, actually. Once with the Doctor's TARDIS looping back into itself.

Yeah. Things got complicated.

Grand Lodge

So there are WAY too many awesome ships to restrict to just three. By classification though:

Carriers:
TCS Victory (CV-40), Wing Commander III: Heart of the Tiger
Open Circle Fleet flagship Resolute, Star Wars Rebels
TCS Concordia (CVS-65), Wing Commander II: Vengeance of the Kilrathi

Battleships and Battlecruisers:
Vor'cha class attack cruiser, Star Trek
Yamato, Uchuu Senkan Yamato
USAF Prometheus (BC-303), Stargate SG-1

Cruisers
Liberty, Return of the Jedi
TCS Gettysburg (CC-8), Wing Commander II: Vengeance of the Kilrathi
USS Enterprise, Star Trek

Destroyers:
Defiant-class "Escort," Star Trek
Southampton-class Destroyer, Wing Commander
Imperial-class Star Destroyer, Star Wars

Frigates:
Mon Calamari MC-40, Star Wars
Saber-class Escort, Star Trek
SSV Normandy SR-2, Mass Effect

Corvettes:
Corellian CR-90 Corvette Tantive IV, Star Wars
Nova-class science vessel, Star Trek
Rocinante (ex-MCRN Tachi), Frigate-class corvette, The Expanse

And last but certainly not least, the workhorses of space, the freighters:
Millennium Falcon
Serenity
Bonnie Heather (Paladin's free-trader/intelligence trawler in Wing Commander II)

Grand Lodge

Lady Bluehawk wrote:
BV210 wrote:

Millennium Falcon

Star Destroyer
Space Shuttle (I always wished NASA had put a moon lander in the cargo bay, had the pilot point the nose of the shuttle toward the moon and fly it like a friggen spaceship . . . )

Amen! Though I'm not sure if the shuttle had enough fuel to get out to the point where a lander could take over (beyond orbit? definitely beyond the gravity well of Terra), but then again, if the shuttle were just used as a launch device, and didn't use the fuel spending 2 weeks up in orbit ... hmm ...

LB

The shuttle's on-orbit maneuvering engines were two of the same Aerojet AJ10 engines that were used by the Apollo CSM to get to the moon and back. However, the Shuttle couldn't possibly have done the same because it was an order of magnitude more massive than Apollo, but only had double the thrust. The RS-25 main engines were of course fed by the bright orange external fuel tank, and used that entire massive sausage of fuel to get into orbit.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Couldn't the shuttle re-attach to a full sausage of fuel once in orbit?


Then you'd have to launch a full sausage of fuel into orbit, which would take even more sausages of fuel and rockets, because fuel tanks are heavy.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I guess the unit we measure fuel in is sausages now.

Grand Lodge

Ventnor wrote:
I guess the unit we measure fuel in is sausages now.

No reason not to!

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

It would take, what, 2 or 3 sausages of fuel to lift a sausage of fuel into orbit?

How many peppers and onions to do re-entry?

Grand Lodge

SmiloDan wrote:

It would take, what, 2 or 3 sausages of fuel to lift a sausage of fuel into orbit?

How many peppers and onions to do re-entry?

More like 6 to 10 sausages of fuel! Weight and throwing weight into orbit adds up in a shocking hurry!

As for the rest, I'll let someone else answer that. ;)


Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Large Ships:

• NCC-1701-E (Star Trek: First Contact - Star Trek: Nemesis)
• Star Venture (Avatar) - look I know it's only on screen for a few seconds, but it's gorgeous.
• Nebulon B Frigate (Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi)

Smaller Vessels:

• Normandy SR-2 (Mass Effect 2 & 3)
• Ares (The Martian)
• Serenity (Firefly, Serenity)

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Tough call, but

Moya, The Heart of Gold, and the Death Star

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber
Kittyburger wrote:


Destroyers:
Defiant-class "Escort," Star Trek
Southampton-class Destroyer, Wing Commander
Imperial-class Star Destroyer, Star Wars

Sorry, but I just have to quibble here. The Defiant and a Star Destroyer are not even remotely in the same class of ship. A defiant class ship has a crew of 50. An imperial star destroyer has a crew of about 40,000, not including the Stormtrooper garrison of an additional 10,000 troops. The defiant is only barely larger than a Star Destroyers command tower.


Moya, The Heart of Gold, and the mothership from Homeworld.


Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Imbicatus wrote:
Kittyburger wrote:


Destroyers:
Defiant-class "Escort," Star Trek
Southampton-class Destroyer, Wing Commander
Imperial-class Star Destroyer, Star Wars
Sorry, but I just have to quibble here. The Defiant and a Star Destroyer are not even remotely in the same class of ship. A defiant class ship has a crew of 50. An imperial star destroyer has a crew of about 40,000, not including the Stormtrooper garrison of an additional 10,000 troops. The defiant is only barely larger than a Star Destroyers command tower.

The Star Destroyer would probably be a dreadnought in any setting other than Star Wars or 40K where they could actually get away with calling them small ships compared to the crazy super weapons flying around.

Though it really doesn't help any that the definition of a destroyer has come to represent something very different from its original meaning that we could all be picturing something very different when we think of one. I suppose a good modern definition would be a moderately sized ship with some armor, strong firepower and speed; a threat to any other class of ship. You could argue though that the Defiant doesnt even meet those requirements since it was so small and lightly armored compared to other ships, i would say its a better comparison to an attack submarine but that is really bending terms to fit in space.

That said, it is one of my favorite ship designs from Star Trek and i applaud your tastes.


It's called a Star Destroyer because it destroys stars (metaphorically) not because it is a destroyer-class ship.

"In naval terminology, a destroyer is a fast, maneuverable long-endurance warship intended to escort larger vessels in a fleet, convoy or battle group"


defiant class is considered to be tactical escort is star trek online.

even in the book end of things it is still a tactical escort.

but then even still she carries some firepower. glass cannon so to speak. she can do the job of a ST equivalent of a detroyer, but her staying power, is not all that.

SW star destroyer/ ST dreadnought type ships. both have armor, weapons and in some cases flight deck. cant turn worth jJack Daniels.

ST escorts( tactical or otherwise)/ SW corvettes. some armor some weapons maybe a flight deck. can turn worth jack daniels.

I too though applaud your taste


Fardragon wrote:

It's called a Star Destroyer because it destroys stars (metaphorically) not because it is a destroyer-class ship.

"In naval terminology, a destroyer is a fast, maneuverable long-endurance warship intended to escort larger vessels in a fleet, convoy or battle group"

metaphorically you mean as in planetary bombardment??( that is what they are used for)

Grand Lodge

Fardragon wrote:

It's called a Star Destroyer because it destroys stars (metaphorically) not because it is a destroyer-class ship.

"In naval terminology, a destroyer is a fast, maneuverable long-endurance warship intended to escort larger vessels in a fleet, convoy or battle group"

In my considered opinion (and I've been considering this for the better part of two decades), an Imperial-class Star Destroyer is more a light cruiser than a destroyer per se - it's got more staying power in a fight than a traditional destroyer but it is in no way equipped for a sustained slugfest with a peer vessel. Star Destroyer engagements in a ship-to-ship sense tend to be short, sharp, and brutal; one vessel or another is destroyed relatively quickly (in Return of the Jedi we see an ISD get raked by three shots from a Mon Cal and she promptly blows up). Executor, on the other hand, is a battleship or battlecruiser (we've never seen her fighting a peer opponent so it's hard to tell if she holds up or buckles under peer-calibre firepower), but her armament feels more like a predreadnought (lots of relatively light weapons) rather than a dreadnought (a few capital-calibre guns and a few secondaries to ward off lighter ships).

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steelfiredragon wrote:

defiant class is considered to be tactical escort is star trek online.

even in the book end of things it is still a tactical escort.

but then even still she carries some firepower. glass cannon so to speak. she can do the job of a ST equivalent of a detroyer, but her staying power, is not all that.

SW star destroyer/ ST dreadnought type ships. both have armor, weapons and in some cases flight deck. cant turn worth jJack Daniels.

ST escorts( tactical or otherwise)/ SW corvettes. some armor some weapons maybe a flight deck. can turn worth jack daniels.

I too though applaud your taste

Destroyers aren't supposed to have staying power - destroyers are supposed to hit hard and then run like a scared little rabbit because they have all the armor of a tin can.


Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Fardragon wrote:

It's called a Star Destroyer because it destroys stars (metaphorically) not because it is a destroyer-class ship.

"In naval terminology, a destroyer is a fast, maneuverable long-endurance warship intended to escort larger vessels in a fleet, convoy or battle group"

i would say even this is an outdated definition, they are used to escort other ships but destroyers for the past 20 or 30 years have had to meet "multi-mission" needs to be considered "modern" They have endurance, some armor, speed but have to be capable of attacking anything, surface, air, subsurface or ground targets in addition to escorting and screening. the best sci-fi definition i could think of is "one of the smallest sized capital ships." you could argue that frigates or corvettes would be the absolute smallest but those terms might be better used for things other than capital ships.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kittyburger wrote:
Fardragon wrote:

It's called a Star Destroyer because it destroys stars (metaphorically) not because it is a destroyer-class ship.

"In naval terminology, a destroyer is a fast, maneuverable long-endurance warship intended to escort larger vessels in a fleet, convoy or battle group"

In my considered opinion (and I've been considering this for the better part of two decades), an Imperial-class Star Destroyer is more a light cruiser than a destroyer per se - it's got more staying power in a fight than a traditional destroyer but it is in no way equipped for a sustained slugfest with a peer vessel. Star Destroyer engagements in a ship-to-ship sense tend to be short, sharp, and brutal; one vessel or another is destroyed relatively quickly (in Return of the Jedi we see an ISD get raked by three shots from a Mon Cal and she promptly blows up). Executor, on the other hand, is a battleship or battlecruiser (we've never seen her fighting a peer opponent so it's hard to tell if she holds up or buckles under peer-calibre firepower), but her armament feels more like a predreadnought (lots of relatively light weapons) rather than a dreadnought (a few capital-calibre guns and a few secondaries to ward off lighter ships).

The Imperial I class is a light cruiser? i dont see it. It is 1600M long, 445M longer than the preceding generation of ship of the line. The deign goal was a single ship that could out fight any other ship of its era and be a single staging point for a planetary invasion. The most memorable battles, the ones that the movies highlight featured multiple Imperial I's but the normal operating procedures was to send a single Imperial I with some lighter ships as support to maintain control of an entire system.

Its wonky to think a single ship even as massive as a Star Destroyer could effectively blockade a planet but that was the in setting role.

I would say that they were shown to have a crippling weakness against small craft that could disable their shields and leave them critically vulnerable to other ships but in a stand up fight it would outclass anything other than the one off dreadnought vessels, it is a battlegroup unto itself.

The light cruiser role you suggest would better fit the aptly named Imperial Light Cruiser, also named the Arquitens-class, which goes back to the clone wars era and some of the newer canon has had in service throughout the imperial era as well. It was a fraction of the size of a SD at only 325M and only had between four and six quad laser mounts. As a side note that actually takes us back to Starfinder, it is about the largest sized ship i could conceive a PC group controlling under regular play, it is a dire threat to corvettes, frigates and any civilian or smuggler ship, it out guns them, can outrun them and has the shields and armor to put up with whatever they throw out. But it cant threaten a SD without massive backup. Either way, it would not last longer than a round against the 132 shots of heavy turbolaser cannon that an Imperial I throws out on each volley.

Edit: one last point about the ridiculous scale of an Imperial I, it has consumables and supplies onboard to last 2 years without restocking. Star Wars is crazy like that.

Grand Lodge

If it's just three I'm gonna have to break it down to at least two types.

Ships
Miranda Class USS Reliant NCC-1864 (Star Trek)
Space Battleship Yamato BBY-01 (Space Battleship Yamato)
Super Dimension Fortress SDF-1 Macross (The Super Dimension Fortress Macross)

Snubfighters
Incom T-65 X-Wing (Star Wars)
Northrom VF-1S Valkyrie (The Super Dimension Fortress Macross)
Colonial Viper Mark II (Original Battlestar Galactica)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

1) TOS Romulan Bird of Prey - like a lot of the designs of this ship in Star Trek on-line. But find I like Romulan ships in general.

2) Futurama ship

3) Death Star

------

Special note: Shadow Crab ship from B5, it just screamed alien and danger. But B5 has some of the best designs of ships.

Dark Archive

Sol Bianca from Sol Bianca
Sword-Breaker (AKA Canal Volfeld) from Lost Universe
The Voidhawks from The Nights Dawn trilogy by Peter F Hamilton

Anything that falls into the category of "Remnant from an extinct or ascended race that still far surpasses our current tech level"

Any self aware Biotech ships.


has anyone ever mentioned the mirage from silver hawks?


Torbyne wrote:
Kittyburger wrote:
Fardragon wrote:

It's called a Star Destroyer because it destroys stars (metaphorically) not because it is a destroyer-class ship.

"In naval terminology, a destroyer is a fast, maneuverable long-endurance warship intended to escort larger vessels in a fleet, convoy or battle group"

In my considered opinion (and I've been considering this for the better part of two decades), an Imperial-class Star Destroyer is more a light cruiser than a destroyer per se - it's got more staying power in a fight than a traditional destroyer but it is in no way equipped for a sustained slugfest with a peer vessel. Star Destroyer engagements in a ship-to-ship sense tend to be short, sharp, and brutal; one vessel or another is destroyed relatively quickly (in Return of the Jedi we see an ISD get raked by three shots from a Mon Cal and she promptly blows up). Executor, on the other hand, is a battleship or battlecruiser (we've never seen her fighting a peer opponent so it's hard to tell if she holds up or buckles under peer-calibre firepower), but her armament feels more like a predreadnought (lots of relatively light weapons) rather than a dreadnought (a few capital-calibre guns and a few secondaries to ward off lighter ships).

The Imperial I class is a light cruiser? i dont see it. It is 1600M long, 445M longer than the preceding generation of ship of the line. The deign goal was a single ship that could out fight any other ship of its era and be a single staging point for a planetary invasion. The most memorable battles, the ones that the movies highlight featured multiple Imperial I's but the normal operating procedures was to send a single Imperial I with some lighter ships as support to maintain control of an entire system.

Its wonky to think a single ship even as massive as a Star Destroyer could effectively blockade a planet but that was the in setting role.

I would say that they were shown to have a crippling weakness against small craft that could disable their...

this is more how I see them.

planetary bombardment

Scarab Sages

Mine would probably be ...

1) The TARDIS from doctor who (although preferably a type 89 mark 10 rather than his obsolete type 40)
2) The cabbit class ship Roy-Ohki from tenchi.
3) The millennium falcon (although again a more "modern" model)

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

1. Arwing Fighter (Star Fox)
2. X-Wing Fighter (Star Wars)
3. ZIG Fighter (Zero Wing)

Yep, I like fighters


LMPjr007 wrote:
Mine: The Defiant, the White Star and Borg Cube

The ship on Killjoys. Its AI has a crush on the tech that maintains the ship. She's practically the fourth member of the crew.

201 to 232 of 232 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo / Starfinder® / Starfinder General Discussion / What are your favorite top three space / star ships of all time? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.