Proposal for R12:

In Y134 while building up their fleet the Hydrans launched what the Federation called the Amazon-Class Light Cruiser AZ.

This ship which resembled a scaled down Ranger used 3 of the 7 box warp engines seen later on the Pegasus-Class ships.

Only one ship is known to have been built,(possibly three) the Hydrans decided to concentrate on building Ranger-Class heavy cruisers and Lancer-Class Destroyers.

In late Y158 the log buoy from an F5 described encountering a Hellbore armed version of this ship, however the buoy was badly damaged and the KGB and GRU believed the F5 was destroyed by a Dragoon. There are unconfirmed reports of a Lyran CL encountering one in Y159.

It is not known if this ship (if it existed) was a new construction or a conversion of an existing ship(s). The Federation GIA dubbed this ship the Centaur-Class CT.

It is believed that the ship(s?) remained in the Old Colonies area after Y160 since there are no confirmed reports of them after that time.

Amazon-Class Light Cruiser:

Warp 3x7
Impulse 3
APR 2
Btty 3
C Hull 16
Bridge 2
Aux 2
Emer 1
Tran 1
Trac 2
Probe 1
Lab 4
Shuttle 6 (4 St-1)
P-G RA 2
P-2 FA 2
P-2 FA+L 1
P-2-FA+R 1
Fusion LF+L 1
Fusion RF+R 1

Total Ship (w/o warp): 51

Centaur-Class:

APR 6
Shuttle 2
Hellbore LF+L 1
Hellbore RF+R 1

Total Power (AZ): 26+3
Total Power (CT): 30+3

TM: C
MC: 2/3
BPV: ~75 (AZ) ~90 (CT)
BD: 4-6
Sensor: 6-6-5-3-1-0
Scanner: 0-0-1-3-5-9
DC: 4-4-2-2-0
ED: 5
Shields: 24-20-16-16

Plus refit (if it had survived that long) would strengthen shields 3-4-5 and change P-Gs to 1 ea. LS/RS.

If anyone wants to post a SSD they may do so.

Comments?

JBP

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, March 17, 2007 - 01:37 pm: Edit

This ship is nearly identical to the Horseman/Traveller class.

Hexcept Horseman (fusion version) has 6 fighters, not 4 and 2x10 warp instead of 3x7

I know it's easy to forget the original Hydran light cruisers. They're rather forgettable. But they do exist.

By James B. Pennington (Cutlass401) on Saturday, March 17, 2007 - 02:20 pm: Edit

John:

I am well aware that this design is similar to Horseman/Traveller, however the HR/TR has a YIS of 168/169 this proposal is for what a Y134/158 light cruiser might look like.

There are other differences besides the number of fighters and warp, this design has less shields, more hull, less P-2, different arcs for the heavy weapons and other differences.

I purposely made this design so it would not be all that much superior (if at all) to the Lancer-Class Destroyer (explaining why the Hydran would build a heavy cruiser class and a destroyer class but not a light cruiser class?).

JBP

By Martin Read (Amethyst_Cat) on Sunday, March 18, 2007 - 05:57 am: Edit

Mike: Only if the Steves throw away the published class history.

The class history article for the Pegasus (in Captain's Log 25) explicitly states that the original four Pegasus-class vessels (which G2 lists as having a YIS of 148) were all scouts (PGS).

Only one (the HMS Royal Majesty, built in Y173) was completed as a cruiser (PGC), and it was destroyed in its first battle with the Lyrans. The Pegasus cruiser had six Stingers, three fusion beams (LF+L, FA, RF+R), two hellbores (FA), three ph-2 (2xFA, 1x360), and two gatlings (LS, RS); I'd guess that a conjectural pre-Y158 PGC would have five ph-2 and no hellbores.

By Tim Longacre (Timl) on Sunday, March 18, 2007 - 11:37 am: Edit

What if you took the proposed ship and simply reduced the warp to 3x6 boxes, and eliminated 2 of the P-2s?
This would reflect the issues that Hydrans had producing "full speed" warp engines (much like the original Ranger/Dragoon and Lancer/Knight), and the phasers/heavy weapons suite would make producing this ship over a Lancer/Knight something of a waste of money.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, March 18, 2007 - 12:36 pm: Edit

The phasers are actually fine. With a lot of "2's" in there it's hard to tell it has 2x P-2 (FA) and 1x P-2 FA+R/L for a total of 4, not 6.

The warp drive is a more interesting question. How easily could the Hydrans build a 7- or 8-box engine? It could be that the ship was proposed and never built because the Hydrans couldn't put together the right set of engines for it.

The Horseman and Traveller designs are so lackluster, I seriously wonder why they hadn't been built sooner.

By Jeremy Gray (Gray) on Sunday, March 18, 2007 - 03:13 pm: Edit

Yeah, the phasers and weapons are fine. Arcs are sort of all over the place too, so not just a straight translation from the Horseman/Traveller.

21 Warp on a 2/3 mover is pretty good for a Hydran in this particular year. What about making it a 3/4 move cost with the existing 3x7 arrangement or go with a 2/3 move cost with two of the Ranger's 9 point engines (Either would give it a speed/power curve similar to the Ranger of the period)? 3/4 would be very different (and interesting) for a Hydran, but using the same engines as a Ranger makes sense too.

If the ship had a later intro date, the engines and move cost would be fine, but I think the earlier intro date means this ships would be a little slowish like other Hydrans of the time.

By Jim Davies (Mudfoot) on Sunday, March 18, 2007 - 08:33 pm: Edit

SSDs are here.

By Mike Strain (Evilmike) on Sunday, March 18, 2007 - 09:09 pm: Edit

Using a 3/4 MC and changing the gatlings to RA (like they are on the pre-refit Ranger/Dragoon) would pretty much nail it, methinks.

By Tim Longacre (Timl) on Sunday, March 18, 2007 - 11:38 pm: Edit

John, yeah, caught the phasers now (especially after seeing the SSDs).
I think you and/or Jeremy have a good solution for the warp. Right now, as it stands (especially for its proposed YIS), this is the speediest thing in the Hydran fleet prior to their refits.
Other than that, excellent design!

By Larry E. Ramey (Hydrajak) on Monday, March 19, 2007 - 10:51 am: Edit

These suck so much eggs they would not have made it off the drawing board. Or if they made 1, they wouldn't make 2.

I'm sorry, but its hard enough to convince me to take a Traveller over a Lancer, but this thing REALLY reeks.

I'm not saying you made a bad design here... its logical and I kinda think it is interesting. Its also a big fat failure. Blame the Hydrans!

Navy's do infact build ships that suck sometimes. This would be one of them. (Think the Kidd class DD that was supposed to go to Iran)

By Todd Jolley (Tjolley) on Monday, March 19, 2007 - 03:18 pm: Edit

8Xfusion+4xP-3 - even at range 4-8 can be nasty..esp in combination with the weapons on the 'mother-ship'. There is no real need to perform an over-run with Fusion ships..they have enough firepower to cause a lot of damage at ranges 4-8.

By Jim Davies (Mudfoot) on Monday, March 19, 2007 - 07:54 pm: Edit

So the choice seems to be between 21 warp on 3/4 move, and 18 warp on 2/3 move. 21 on 3/4 is better, which is no bad thing given the impressive suction of these ships.

However, the YIS of the Pegasus CL is Y160 (CL25), which makes the Y134 of this look a bit odd unless we change the engines, presumably to two 9-box Ranger units. The 4-6 breakdown would match the atypical arrangement (other Hydrans have 1 or 3 engines, AFAICT).

So this leaves it with 24 power. At speed 18 and 2/3 move this means 8 spare, which seems adequate if poor. Were it to survive until Y170, it would get the Ranger's engine warp refit.

By James B. Pennington (Cutlass401) on Monday, March 19, 2007 - 11:48 pm: Edit

I could see perhaps changing the warp to 3x6 (maybe the same engines as a Hunter-Class frigate?). But I would leave the MC at 2/3.

Maybe if it survived long enough to be refited changing them to 3x7 like the Pegasus-Class ships, possiblely upgrading the FA P-2 to P-1 also.

I would prefer to leave the design with 3 warp engines like the RN/DG. It would make the "early" Hydran fleet have 3 warp engines for cruisers, 1 for destroyers, 2 for frigates.

JBP