These designs are made to progress.  The TNG ships will have the longer range weapons.  If i was just doing TOS stand alone they would be longer. 
As for the defense, do you put on more screen then you have hull?  I have in my mind always used that as my personal high end (not house rule).  Maybe the Cardassian ships might get a little more and Klingon ship always see to pop a little easier so they get a little less.
I agree, range 30 weapons must be on a base or some very special circumstance.

My personal designs tend to have almost twice as much armor (screens) as hull, with level three screens.  I like the heavy armor to delay as long as possible losing any weapons.  I like my ships to go down fighting. 
My StarTrek type designs have the same amount of screens as armor.  I also give the Photon Torpedoes, disruptors, and phasers a maximum range of 18.   I use these  designs for new players to use because they are simpledesigns.
Here is a Constitution class Federation BC:

Federation BC (600)
-Tech: Engines +2; Weapons +2

Screens: 11-10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1
Hull: 11-10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1
Engines: 5-5-4-3-2-1
Weapons: 21-18-14-11-7-4
Shields: 4-4-3-2-2-1

Phaser (6-12-18) 1×3+/1/1
ABCD ☐| ABCD ☐| ABC ☐| ABC ☐| ABD ☐| ABD ☐ // (3)

Photon Torpedo (6-12-18) 1×3+/1/5 (Pr1)
GHI ☐| GHI ☐| GHI ☐ // (2)

Point-Defense Phaser (2-4-6) 1×3+/1/1 (Dfn)
360° ☐| 360° ☐| 360° ☐| 360° ☐| 360° ☐| 360° ☐ // (3)

Equipment: Hyperdrive ☐| Overthrusters ☐| Tractor Beam ☐☐☐☐ // (3)

Marines : 2-1

The Klingon D7 is also a 600 point ship.

A lower cost alternative of the Constitution.  The Avery Class.
[attachment=0]Avery Class.png[/attachment]

And in all her glory  :shock: 
[attachment=0]DN.png[/attachment]

D-10 deleted, under revision.

UC ships are designed to be balanced with each other so the arcs are very important for game play.  Positioning and trying to out think your opponents next move becomes MUCH more interesting then not much caring where you end up because the arcs are huge. 
I intentionally left tractor beams out because that is not how Star Trek canon uses tractor beams. That was a SFB thing.
UC is not about minmaxing.  You will find some of these designs have a bit of space left over and this is intentional for cost balancing and Trek feel accuracy. :mrgreen:

Well, 360 is going a bit overboard, especially with the big guns.   

Your defense weapons is a problem.  Klingons charge the enemy.  Hard to destroy those seekers/fighters in front of you with rear-firing defense weapons.  I tend to group them as a "Defensive Array Network" representing a variety of defensive measures (various short-ranged weapons, small capacity tractor beams, countermeasures to small warheads with tracking ability, etc.) all around the ship and give it 360 degrees arcs of fire.  But that's me, preferring not to get too fiddly with the small weapons.

As for single arcs weapons (G), I save that arc for spinal mounts (Traveller), rail guns of a particular race from Full Thrust, or big anime one-shot-one-kill type of weapons.  The Photon Torpedoes in Star Trek did have limited tracking and can veer their course (like underwater torpedoes).  Even then I don't like playing those single arc weapons after years of frustration.  Having a big gun that you might fire once is not much fun.  Hmm, usually that happens on first approach, after that it's hard to get a single arc weapon on the enemy in a turning battle.  Maybe I'll make a weapon with "Slw; Slw" since firing once only and early is the most likely scenario before the ship gets blown up.

What you see on screen is what the plot calls for or what the sfx people can create.

There is no true canon on how Star Trek weapons work.  I have seen photon torpedoes curve as they track their target; especially in one of the movies where a torpedo was specially built to follow the trail of the cloaked Klingon's torpedo back to the Klingon ship.  It curved quite a bit (plot device).  TNG Enterprise's phaser(s) swung around under the main hull in a huge arc.   TOS Enterprise were more limited, but then all you saw was two beams firing down or forward from either side or front under the main hull.  I would give those ABC, GHI, ABD arcs (3 banks of 2).

You can look at the bumpy bits on a miniature and use that to deduce weapons and arcs.  Foregoing the 3D aspect, seems to me that those bumpy bits have bigger range of arcs than you're portraying.  My arcs tend to be wider, and then wider still because of my usual opponent.  But those are your designs to play with. 

Tactical maneuvering is fine, but Starmada's movement system is not all that great.  Your designs should also consider the game mechanics, not necessarily to exploit them but to account how you think the weapons (or other systems) should work given the game limitations (i.e., no firing while on the move).  If I think a weapon should normally be AB, I'll make it GHI so that after movement enemy ships that were probably in the AB arc during the move might still be within the GHI arcs during the Combat Phase, and also allows for your ship's maneuvering to have some wiggle in it to offset the limited 6 directions the miniature can be facing.  We got used to using the 12 directions on a hex map a ship can be facing in Full Thrust (hex side or hex spine) due to its normal 12 points of facing when not using hexes.  We haven't worked on how to do that in Starmada (adapting the movement system; firing arcs would be fairly easy).

TWO ship packs are now available!  Federation and Klingon.  Download them in the Universal Conflict post in The Bourbaki Basin section of the forums.

I have nothing against FASA and i have no problem using their ships!  I guess to answer your question, random luck?

I have not worked on this for a while as there seems to be very little interest in this community and this is a lot of work for one person.
Oddly, people seem to be more interested in copying another game to work in the rules of Starmada.  That doesn't make much sense to me as then why not just go play that other game you are copying? 
My work was to create a universal Star Trek line within Starmada.  A game of its own.  Not a water downed copy of another game.  But the way i feel is clearly in the minority.  :roll:  So i have turned my attention to other things.

Thank you very much!  Just a couple more people like you and i never would have stopped. 
I had a shiplist worked out all the way out to the Enterprise E.  My favorite time is TNG/DS9 in terms of ships but I wanted to start at the beginning.

Very thoughtful reply, I didn't think about it like that and I can clearly see why people would feel that way.  I never played SFB though I was HUGE into SFC I & II the PC game.  I have played FC many times and I liked it for what it was, a dueling game.  At least that's how it felt to me.
I thought the lack of any input was a lack of interest and it is a lot of work, at least it is for me.  I will spend hours on one ship researching it and arguing with myself over cannon vs fluff vs gameplay vs FASA vs SFB vs Joe Schmoes opinion :roll: .  Then building a ship trying to mix that together in a way I feel most people would accept.  I have even worked in a timeline (took two days) that mixes all these different universes into a single timeline of when ships were launched.  The fudging I had to do with SFB and FASA with cannon ruling supreme 90% of the time mixed in with an educated guess.  Even after all that I chose to leave those dates out as it might cause to much contention and just be a distraction.
And here i am rattling on, anyway, Thank you

And yes, I aslo feel most FASA ship are horrendous looking but i do like including the few good looking ones.