The most effective single upgrade that I have found is installing eleven Ph-1Xs on a Gorn HDA (cost 17 BPV). This gives it the equivilent of 22 phaser-3 shots, all under full aegis control. It does use 2 more points of power but this is made up with the double capacitors.

This probably works well for just about any other carrier escort, except maybe the Federation or Hydrans.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, May 26, 2006 - 11:01 pm: Edit

I like phaser upgrades too, though I usually give power (for the Tholians - my favorite race) or plasma (for the Romulans - my second favorite race) upgrades a higher priority. But the Tholians and Romulans are both phaser-1 races. I can think of a number of Klingon/Lyran/Hydran/Vudar ships for which my absolutely first priority would be XP-ing their phaser-2s up to phaser-1s.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, July 06, 2006 - 03:53 pm: Edit

During the reconstruction era after the Andro War the strategic situation changes. The hull designs that created the war classes will still make up the bulk of production and be dramatically cheaper to build than X1 and X2 ships. Post-war ships have less need to maximize heavy weapons and more need for rapid response to local emergencies. With faster strategic speed non-X ships would be better able to coordinate with their X counterparts. If production of hot-warp ships were to convert to fast-warp an empire could cover the same ground while relying on fewer hulls and less cost.

Take a D5K, replace the 24 hot-warp with 24 fast-warp, replace two disruptors with P1. Same ship, but with these simple SSD changes its strategic capabilities and post-war usefulness have changed dramatically. Scale this up to incorporate a full (or the Klingon historical variant of full) XP upgrade and you have a decent new class of ships worthy of a published SSD.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, July 06, 2006 - 04:15 pm: Edit

Tos,

Would this include XPing the two remaining disruptors? Ordinarily, "War Cruisers" are among the ship types the can't XP their heavy weapons. But what you're proposing isn't a CW in the classic sense. It's more of a "Fast Light Cruiser" based on a CW design, so XPing the disruptors might be legal for your proposed ship.

Whether it would be "cost effective" is another matter, of course. The D5 already has UIM, so XP doesn't benefit it there. Increasing the range from 30 to 40 also strikes me as an improvement of little consequence for this ship. Disruptors are so anemic in the 30-40 range bracket that they only become significant in large numbers, and your ship only has two. It seems to me that if it were legal to XP the disruptors on your proposed ship, the biggest benefit would be from the ability to hold disruptors at reduced power cost. The other benefit would be from the "no firing delay after UIM burnout" for X-disruptors.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, July 06, 2006 - 10:24 pm: Edit

Dunno. If you reduce the number of heavy weapons significantly then upgrading them to X-tech seems not only reasonable, but a logical compromise. As you say the Disruptor is not a particularly useful weapon to upgrade, but having two X-Photons (Hellbores, PPD, PL-M) would clearly be worthwhile.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Thursday, July 06, 2006 - 11:31 pm: Edit

Tos,

I think it is an interesting idea. The Feds have the NCF, which being a type of NCA can have XP heavy weapons. A smaller version of the NCL 12 box hot warp engine could be developed; a nine box engine. Two of these could be attached to the DDF saucer for a late GW SC4 fast warship. Since it is built using the DDF saucer it could be purpose built and then be able to mount XP heavy weapons. A scout version of the new DDF could be produced, which would allow a fast task force of four ships; NCF, 2xDDF, and SDF.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, July 07, 2006 - 02:52 am: Edit

Is there an NCF?...I just did an SSD a couple of days ago thinking of what the Fed NCA would look like as Fast-ship. If it already exists then there's no point in me propossing it.


As to the D5, I think replacing two Disruptors with two Ph-1s is too little a reduction to build the Fast-ship through the removal of weapons.
Try, removing 2 Disruptors, 2Ph-3s and one of the two ADD racks. Then you might be able to justify having the vessel as a fast ship.
XPing the vessel would then be pretty cool (GX-racks probably means you can do without the other ADD rack) and no UIM burnout-penalty would offset the reduction in firepower of the lost disruptors and the extra power in the Phaser-caps would give the vessel a good early battle speed and upgrading the remaining Ph-3s to Ph-1s would allow you to rapid pulse and effective lose nothing through the loss of the Ph-3s that were removed.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, July 07, 2006 - 03:45 am: Edit

NCF is in Module R10. It has 36 points of warp engine power (3x12 box engines) and total power of 44 generated plus 4 reserve. Weapons consist of 2 photon torpedos, 10 phaser-1s, 2 G-racks. YIS is Y175. Apparently, only one was ever built.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, July 07, 2006 - 04:02 am: Edit

Is there a DNF to go with it?
I found that 2x12 forward engine and 2x15 rear engines gives you 54 warp engine boxes on MC 1.5 which is a rate of 36 to 1. I used the base Fed DN with 2 extra FX Ph-1 and an extra G rack which when measured up against other DNs of the time ( like the DNG or even the DN+ ) is a thoroughly undergunned DN and thus could qualify as a DNF.
I recognise that the DL does the same job but a DNF would just be fun.

The saucer became something of a fast NCL to my mind making me think an NCA-F would be a good idea.

By Gary Bear (Gunner) on Friday, July 07, 2006 - 08:17 am: Edit

For the Feds, there is a DNF, but it's just a dreadnaught with Plasma-Fs.

The fast dreadnaughts are the DNLs (Light Dreadnaughts) from R7. Same engine power, but a MC of 1.25.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, July 08, 2006 - 12:55 am: Edit

...which is true of all fast-DNs.

To address Tos' suggestion, I question whether fast-warp engines could be produced in the mass-quantities needed to replace hot warp on war-cruiser assembly lines.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Saturday, July 08, 2006 - 01:52 am: Edit

John,

I think the 18 box hot warp engines used on the CF (R2.82) had production problems. The NCF used three NCL engines. A smaller version of the NCL engine could be mass-produced for a two engine DDF. Alternately two NCL engine could be attached a larger version of the DDF saucer to make a fast CL.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Saturday, July 08, 2006 - 02:39 pm: Edit

My basic premise is these would be Y188+ ships, 20 years after fast warp arrived and with the lessons of X-tech to draw upon it is presumed they could build, or adapt, hot warp into fast warp economically and in sufficient quantities. Fast warships would have an important new mission after an RTN was discovered.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, July 08, 2006 - 02:44 pm: Edit

Joe,

The NCF couldn't have used NCL engines.

Normal NCL engines are hot-warp. Fast-burning, high-output and high maintenance engines who give you a strategic speed of 6.

The NCF may use 12-box engines, but it doesn't use *NCL* engines.

Ask yourself why the Tholian C-hull *isn't* fast sometime. Therein lies your answer. It's obviously not just a question of power-to-weight.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, July 08, 2006 - 03:08 pm: Edit

Tos,

Seems to me "Hot" and "Fast" are conflicting terms. We are reminded often by the Steves that strategic speed is more than raw cruising speed. It also factors in downtime for maintenance and such.

In that context, Hot Warp seems an investment in the short-term. Quick-n-dirty engines that get the job done at a high maintenance price tag. But if the ship's destroyed or in the dock for battle-damage repairs anyway, who cares?

Fast Warp seems the opposite extreme. An investment in the long term. Fast, reliable engines that can run for long intervals between yard visits.

With Fast-Warp you're paying for 2 "plusses" (speed and operational range) over standard warp drive, whereas Hot Warp's "plusses" and "minuses" balance more directly.

The most obvious "minus" for Fast Warp is expense and/or difficulty in production, which makes it difficult to jam them wholesale onto war cruisers.

Forgetting that, even, making "Fast-War" Cruisers seems something of an exercize in conflicting oposites. You have a ship designed primarily for production, designed to not worry about cruise time and suddenly jamming hyper-efficient, long-cruising engines on them. Engines that won't often see their full cruise because other parts of the ship are going to go *sproing* before long. Seems a bit of a waste to be honest.

What would need to happen first is to "un-war" the war cruiser and make a light cruiser out of it. (The Klingons did this to the D5 design in the process of making an X-version)

If more "fast" resources were needed above Klignon X-ship production, perhaps they might also build a non-X D5 CL and put fast warp on it.

This a very different critter than the quick-n-dirty "Fast" conversion you're talking about. We'd be talking new construction, but not conversions.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Saturday, July 08, 2006 - 04:19 pm: Edit

I too would prefer new production only, provided we state categorically that it is impossible to convert hot to fast. The problem is I don't presume the authority to definitively make that claim, so I leave the option open.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Saturday, July 08, 2006 - 04:26 pm: Edit

John,

Take a look at (R2.108) NCF: ",as it use some NCA parts (rear hull and three NCL engines)."

In advanced missions under (R2.18) NCL: it just says the the crusier used a pair of smaller engines of a new and more efficient design. It doesn't say the engines were hot warp. Maybe some place else it does.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, July 10, 2006 - 04:54 pm: Edit

Joe,

Maybe I'm wrong.

I think NCLs used hot warp because I thought it was a defining feature of "war" production hulls. Therefore a NCL (a war cruiser) should use Hot Warp. I could be wrong, but I don't think I am.

This sets aside the question, "Regardless of the kind of warp used on a NCL, if 24 of this Warp on a MC 2/3 hull doesn't make that hull 'Fast', why should 36 of that same kind of warp make a MC 1 ship 'Fast'?" The only asnwer that holds any consistency is, "it doesn't."


I also think that "fast" engines are among the things needed to make "fast" warships.

In reading into various comments by the Steves, the clearest conclusion I reach is that there is an amount of "gearing" that occurs with warp drive and Hot and standard warp don't have the gearing to reach a strategic speed of 7. Certianly "warp-rich" does not equal "fast" or every FF, DW and CW would be "fast" already, and they aren't. Nor is the Tholian C-hull, which has 36 warp like a CF and carries no question of whether its warp is "hot" or not.

So we have many cases of "fast" amounts of warp (enough to drive a ship to "speed-36") in the flavors of both "hot warp" and some in "standard warp" and nobody is "fast". It doesn't seem a great leap to assume that a "fast" warship requires a special type of engine.

If a "fast" warship requires a "fast" engine, then the greatest liklihood is that (R2.108) is incorrect.

Now in fairness, the hull modifications made to the NCF are also a part of what makes a ship "fast". You could argue that since the ship is built to be "fast" that it somehow manages to to be "fast" despite the fact that it is using Hot Warp engines with the attendant short maintenance time frame that comes as part and parcel of Hot Warp engines.

I personally would find that a weak argument given the number of times that the Steves had rammed home the notion that cruising time depends on maintenance time as much as raw speed and Hot Warp is at an extreme disadvantage when it comes to maintenance.

By Stacy Brian Bartley (Bartley) on Monday, July 10, 2006 - 05:20 pm: Edit

There's a few supplements to the game I don't have yet. Would someone mind giving me a brief rundown of "hot warp" and "fast warp"?

regards
Stacy

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, July 10, 2006 - 05:23 pm: Edit

Tos,

I am not the Steves so I can give no definitive answer and the convertability of Hot Warp to Fast Warp either.

Personally, however, I tend to think the critters are on opposite ends of the spectrum. I would expect a hot-fast conversion could be done in the same way that retooling a modern "stock" gasoline engine to use vegetable oil can be done: It's much easier and cheaper to simply pull the gas engine and drop in another engine that was built to use the fuel.

In the same way, I don't think there's an "upgrade kit" that will make a high-maintenance hot warp engine suddenly act like a (presumably low-maintenance) Fast Warp engine.

That means you'd have to replace warp engines wholesale, which is where I came in last time, not convinced that fast-warp relacements could be produced in mass quantities.

Then there's the whole question of structure. Fed fast-war ships have a different-controured saucer to start with and there's a lot of structural differences under the hood. It doesn't seem a matter of simply changing out warp drives and dumping a couple of heavy weapons for phasers to make a ship Fast.

Therefore no conversion to "fast" status seems possible.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, July 10, 2006 - 05:49 pm: Edit

Stacy,

Since your post came in while I was here posting myself, here's how I see it.

"Hot Warp" is a kind of high-output warp drive that trades output for service life. Ships using Hot Warp need a shorter time between yard visits for maintenance. IIRC, Hot Warp needs service every 6 monts as compared to every 9 months for standard warp drive.

Hot Warp is used on mass-produced War Production ships (usually DWs, CWs and PFs). If the ship is likley to be seriously damaged or destroyed inside its reduced maintenance window, there's not much operational loss for the empire and much cost savings in the form of not building a ship for longer operation than conditions allow. Crew comfort was usually one of the first things sacrificed for production.

Fast Warp is relatively new. I don't have as concise a definition for it. They are one of the components in "Fast" ships that enable them a noticably longer cruise range than normal ships. Fast ships are good at operating independently or behind enemy lines, but they are normally built from the keep up for the role. Larger fast warships have to give up what would otherwise be their full complement of heavy weapons. Fast CLs and CAs have 2, not 4, heavy weapons. Fast DNs have 5, not 6. Fast DNs also sacrifice size (MC of 1 1/4 not 1 1/2).

The Steves have said on several occasions that cruising range is not just a function of ship speed. It's also reliability. Fast Fed ships can be told apart by their spade-shaped saucers (which help with drag) but also have many changes made inside as well.

I assume that Fast Warp is the opposite of Hot Warp in that it has a longer maintenance interval than standard, but I have no quote from the Steves to back that up.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, July 10, 2006 - 05:55 pm: Edit

John Trauger;

Tholian C-hull has 24 warp on a 2/3 MC hull. But it's still a 36-1 ratio on a ship that is neither "Fast" nor uses "Hot Warp".

By Stacy Brian Bartley (Bartley) on Monday, July 10, 2006 - 05:58 pm: Edit

John
OK-that's kind of what I was getting "contextually". But since I don't have the Fast Cruisers supplement-yet— I wasn't sure. I kinda got "hot warp" based on what I knew about war time production cruisers "way back in the stone age" when I began playing SFB-but the phrase was a new one.

regards
Stacy

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, July 10, 2006 - 07:14 pm: Edit

We won't be able to definitively answer the question: "Can a CW be converted to fast-warp?"

We should find an answer to: “Would a post-war fast-warp new-construction XP-enhanced war-cruiser be a desirable class in X1R?”

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Monday, July 10, 2006 - 11:54 pm: Edit

John,

The NCL and DW engines use the same hot-warp technology used for the engines used on the CF. Part or the main reason the CF and NCF (and DNL) are fast is the reduced hull structure. See Module R6 (R0.0). I don't know of any reference to "fast warp".

For SFB tactical encounters the CF hull could not stand up to the shock of a full heavy weapons load in addition to the hot warp drives. X-ships over came this limitation.

Tos,

I think post GW fast cruisers and destroyers could be built in small numbers. These would benefit from XP technology.