A long time ago, in an archive far, far away, I posted this...Variant Mega-Packs.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 01:05 pm: Edit

Mike Powers,

Unless I missed something, all of your variant packs could be used on either standard or Heavy Fighters. That's the way they are handled in J2, but I'm not sure it's the best way. It's just my personal opinion, of course, but a pack that adds a phaser-2 (or two phaser-3) should not be allowed for standard sized fighters.

On a somewhat related note, some of my hypothetical packs listed above are restricted to "Heavy Fighters or Bombers". But a mega-pack for a bomber adds hit points and speed, but no weapons. I'm not sure why that is but suspect it is really a "game balance" decision rather than an "engineering" one. I restricted some of my suggestions to Heavy Fighters/Bombers because I thought they would only be supportable on a larger frame. But I suspect that even if some of those ideas are found accapetable by the powers that be, they will actually be restricted to Heavy Fighters only, and Bombers still won't be able to add weapons via mega-packs.

Just my .02 quatloos worth.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 12:26 am: Edit

Two ideas for single space fighters:

1. A single-space bay mega-pack, which can hold any single space weapon or pod, or two 1/2 space items. This would allow a single photon or F torp to be carried. Also adds two damage points and doesn't reduce the DFR, but no speed increase. The fighter would use WBPs for extra speed.

2. A ground assault mega-pack. Adds two damage points and has the same ground attack capability as a GBS (I don't know if this has been suggested already?).

By Brian Wesley Adams (Bwaomega) on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 12:42 am: Edit

I think we are all pretty much in agreement (at least those of us who are talking about it) that what we want is a sort of 'environmental/noncombat shield' rather than standard shields, something strong enough to protect against nebula/heat zone effects, but not protecting against combat damage or pulsar/black hole pulses. And yes, a crippled shuttle would become 'unshielded' with appropriate results.

On the subject of a 'survey shuttle', I still don't see it as either necessary or workable. A SWAC's equipment is geared toward electronic warfare, not survey. In an EW situation, it is superior to a survey PF (probable meaning of the 'poor man's SWAC' quote that I couldn't locate when I looked for it). In a survey situation, it would be reversed. The survey PF has the special sensors, with the gear for gathering data, the lab space to work with samples, etc. The shuttle is looking VERY small at that point, especially with the extra gear installed. Shuttles are designed for short range use. You can use them beyond normal operational parameters, but you do so at a great cost, and not-insignificant risk. The Federation put its money into the best survey ships in the Alpha or Omega octants. It didn't choose to go cheap and disposable. And I don't really see a need to send them that route.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 01:08 am: Edit

Brian Wesley Adams:

I am not following your logic. NOT disagreeing with you, asking for clarification only.

You say quote:"A SWAC's equipment is geared toward electronic warfare, not survey."

As I understand it, rule J9.12 Scout Functions: "SWACs have two scout function channels (G24.0) which can be used for the following scout functions.

please note function number 27 and number 29. which are gathering information and tactical Intelligence.

I have no doubt that you are sincere... but the rule would seem to indicate that the SWAC system is farm more capable and versatile than you are giving it credit for.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 01:52 am: Edit

Brian,

SPP said in one of his posts that SWACs are rare and difficult to build and would not be available for general fleet use. An E2 SWAC cost 4/88 in BPV over an MRS. If we add a single scout channel to an MRS a rough estimate in cost would be 2/30 in BPV (economic BPV is based on the increase from a E2 to an E3, which add a third channel) added to the Fed MRS.

Add the limited shield and now you have a survey shuttle for the Federation. Deployment would be limited to GSC and GSX ships.

I suggested the Federation would develop something that would fill a similar role as a survey PF, which would be some form of enhanced MRS or a lesser capable SWAC. I am not suggesting a shuttle that has comparable survey PF capabilities, but a shuttle like the one above.

By Brian Wesley Adams (Bwaomega) on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 02:07 am: Edit

What it is lacking is the physical analysis capabilities that the Survey PF has. and note that a SINGLE crew unit renders the SWAC's electronics non-functional (J9.332), as does 5 points of cargo (probably a necessity for any extended duration mission). It can certainly ASSIST a ship in survey (but is in LIMITED supply, CVA and SCS classes only (J9.31))
Sometimes, the only way to find out what you need to know is to get out, take a sample, and take it apart (scientific analysis) to see what you have. The Survey PF can do that, the SWAC can't.

By Richard Wells (Rwwells) on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 03:01 am: Edit

Brian: Why would everything have to be done by a single unit? If the Feds use multiple shuttles (some with improved research ability and others with the normal on planet ability) coupled with larger shuttle bays instead of other races Survey PFs (but fewer shuttles), then we have an interesting difference.

By Brian Wesley Adams (Bwaomega) on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 03:36 am: Edit

Joseph: The electronics (including shuttle sized sensors) are precisely what makes the SWACS difficult to build, and therefore rare. They aren't going to be able to divert those electronics to build these hypothetical shuttles, that are going to do a LOUSY job of survey anyway. People keep proposing these 'survey shuttles' as a Federation alternative to the PFs. 1)They won't do the job as well, and
2)The Feds are winning the survey game already. They don't need anything like this.

Richard: The single biggest problem with using shuttles (never mind the deployment limits) is the RANGE at which they can do an effective job. Despite F&E fudging, they just don't have the range and endurance to operate far enough from a GSC to make their deployment to another system worthwhile. The GSC/GSX can do the job faster and better by itself. And which systems were you proposing cutting out to put in the added shuttles?

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 12:07 pm: Edit

Brian,

While I don't agree with some of your conclusions, I appreciate your answers.

This proposed shuttle isn't a SWAC so it will have more room inside as it carries only 1/2 the SWAC electronic equipment. Alternately build it on a two space shuttle. If you compare it to a PFQ, the shuttle looks lousy. If you compare a PFQ to a Fed FFS, the PFQ looks lousy.

A GSC has eight shuttle boxes (war time six), which two could carry a heavy survey shuttle or HTS. I don't see where the GSC has to rip out systems, it has enough shuttles.

I haven't proposed this as an alternative to a PF and no one has mentioned that recently as the mission. The MCR cutter ship I proposed has the speed and range of the PFs.

Please look at CL 31. Information for F&E survey ships are listed. The Fed GSC is comparable to several of the other survey cruiser (D7E, FHC, Lyran NSR). The GSC is 6-8/3-4 4EW:2AF. The Romulan FHC is 7-9/3-5 3EW:2AF, and SPS is 5-7/2-4 3EW:2AF. The reasons the Feds could win the survey game I suspect is based on more than just the GSC.

The SFB Survey Captain’s game is in (U10.0) in S2. The F-GSC, K-D7E, R-SPA, R-SPC, Z-SR, and H-SR are considered comparable ships for scenarios 1,3,7, or 8. Will you consistently loose against the GSC flying one of the other survey cruisers? (haven't played this scenario so I don't know, just asking a question)

By Jon Murdock (Xenocide) on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 12:27 pm: Edit

Don't think a SWACS or a survey PF are viable. A survey PF might seem like an excellent platform but it's a maintenance nightmare. It's engines have to be flushed after only a few hours (maybe days?) of use. It's a war hull meaning it needs a lot of maintenance meaning lots of spare parts, etc. spare parts a survey ship won't be able to pick up much.

And A SWACS is just too expensive, I think a specialized shuttle fits the role best, perhaps one that can act as two lab boxes for a marginal increase in cost and perhaps the loss of it's phaser?

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 03:56 pm: Edit

If we set aside the survey shuttle (I think it has been thourghly discussed) and MCR variants and focus on what we do agree on what it appears those items are:

1. "environmental/noncombat shield" or limited shield.

2. Additional mega-packs.

Question on the limited shield: Would the improvements in power system miniaturization that was used for the B3 in CL31 be able to power this proposed shield?

What are some other ideas?

By Brian Wesley Adams (Bwaomega) on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 04:02 pm: Edit

Sorry, I wasn't talking about U10, I was talking about surveying in general. I checked the F&E survey rules (505) plus the new survey rules in CL31. By my reading, the Feds start the GW with 2 CLS and 9(!) GSC. The next closest race is the ISC with 8 slightly combat-inferior survey ships. And there is much more to survey capability than just combat ability (which is all that the combat factors on the F&E SIT measures). I can't find my GSC SSD right now, so I'm having to guess a little from the F&E SIT. The GSC is superior to any of the other survey ships in EW capability. Someone might want to do an SSD comparison of number of scout channels, number of labs, shuttle capacity, cargo space. All of these will affect survey capability, something that F&E deliberately decided to fudge. There is a tendecy among wargamers to look only at combat ability and assume that equates to ability to do the unit's job, and that just isn't the case. That said, you listed the SPA (I can't find my S2 to verify). That's an actual combat hull, not a survey ship. And the SPC is a scout (fudged as a survey ship for many years, but the Romulans just got the SPS as a survey ship. The Kzinti is going to be stronger in combat than any other similarly armed ship, just because the most common Kzinti weapons systems (drones and P-3) don't blind sensors.

Is the GSC going to send half its shuttle complement to check out that system (it's going to take a couple of weeks, more than likely). And does it carry two heavy shuttles (it very well might need one in the system it is currently checking out).

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 05:12 pm: Edit

Brian,

In P6 is a format for a ship comparisons. It was used for the DWs. We could use that format.

By Brian Wesley Adams (Bwaomega) on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 05:38 pm: Edit

The survey ship comparison has moved a little off-topic for this discussion, but if someone can find their SSDs I would be interested to see it. Any shuttle using the improved power systems is going to have to be post Y184, possibly by a large margin (the B-3 has twice as much space as the largest shuttle we've been discussing). I think that an environmentally shielded shuttle ought to be possible by Y190 or so, though that is a designer call. I like the idea, though they probably wouldn't see much SFB use (but lots of PD potential). I do not see them as the thing to build a module around, but as a little bonus, they are nice.

The new megapacks would be something a little more saleable, though there ought to be some mechanism to avoid 'customizing' for a particular opponent. Possibly that could be handled like the pods are.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 11:40 pm: Edit

What should the BPV cost be for this limited shield system?

Are there other types of shuttles that might either be upgraded or created?

Post GW what about a configurable shuttle that uses mission pods. The Shuttle frame is based on the advance Admin shuttle, which has the flight deck for the crew. The rear of the shuttle is flat onto which mission pods can be attached. These pods would be admin, MRS, GAS, and MSS.

By Jeremy Gray (Gray) on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 09:34 pm: Edit

Federation Carrier Production History

I was thumbing through the R-section again, and got to thinkin' about Fed Carriers. Or maybe its the fact that I've got five Fed carriers in our current campaign. Either way - I decided to put together my swag at the historical production schedule for Fed carriers. Here goes:

Y167- CVS 1951 Nimitz (CC Conversion), CVL 1820 Discovery (GSC Conversion)
Y168- CVS 1952 Yamamoto, CVL _?
Y169- CVB 1953 Nelson, CVL _?
Y170- CVB 1954 Gorshkov, CLV 942 Mississippi, CLV 943 Virginia, CVL _?
Y171- CVA 2200 Napoleon, CVS 1955 Raeder (CC Conversion), CVB 1956 Sam Houston, CVL _?
Y172- CVA 2201 MacArthur, CVS 1957 Courbet, FFV 360 Langley, FFV 361 Zuiho, FFV 362 Zeppelin
Y173- DVL 2161 Star Tiger, CVS 1958 Conti de Cavour, CVF 1950 Gryphon, CVD 1961 Nile, NVL 1508 Kaga, NVL 1591 Kiev, CVP _ Ural
Y174- CVA 2202 Zhukov, CVS 1959 Almirante Lattore, CVD 1962 Brazos, NVL 1592 Hosho, NVL 1593 Princeton, FFV 363 Moskva
Y175- CVS 1960 Farragut (CC Conversion), CVD 1963 Volga, NVL 1594 Veinticinco De Mayo, NVS 1595 Hermes, CVP _ Sierra Nevada, FFV 364 Principe de Asturias
Y176- CVD 1964 Yangtze, NVS 1596 Vikrant, CVP _ Andes, CVP _ Hindu Kush, NCV _ Rickenbacker, FFV 365 Richthofen
Y177- CVH 1965 Benjamin Harrison, NVS 1597 Clemenceau, NVH 1589 Ise, CSV _ Kiska, NCV 1595 Hermes (NVS Conversion), DWV 821 Cosic
Y178- DCS 1966 Vercintorix, NVS 1598 Garibaldi, NVH 1590 Hyuga, CSV _ Betio, NCV 1596 Vikrant (NVS Conversion), DWV 822 Izetbegovic, FBV 363 Moskva (FFV Conversion)
Y179- CVH 1967 Benjamin Disraeli, NVS 1599 Tblisi, NVH _ Mogami, CSV _ Malta, NHV 1651 Chicago (NCA Conversion), DWV 823 Milan Panich, FBV 475 Bryant
Y180- CVH 1968 Benjamin Franklin, CSV _ Wake, NHV 1653 Dayton (NCA Conversion), NDS _ Pompeii, NSV _ Betio (CSV Conversion), DWV 824 Slobodan Milosevic
Y181- CVH 1969 Benjamin Netanyahu, CSV _ Ie Shima, DWV 825 Karadzic
Y182- CSV _ Falklands, NCV _ Billy Bong, DWV 826 General Mladic
Y183- BCV 1754 Shangri-La, NDS _ Tamerlane, DWV 827 O’Grady
Y184- BCS 1764 Atlantis (BCV Conversion), DWV 828 Kresimir Zubak
Y185- BCS 1766 Lemuria
Y186- SCS 2204 George Washington
Y188- SCS 2203 Julius Caesar
Y189- SCS 2205 Frederick the Great
Y190- SCS 2200 Napoleon (CVA Conversion)

Ok, come commentary. The CVS/CVB class is the easiest to figure out. We have CL9. The rest is a bit tougher. YIS dates for the individual classes are known, and the dates for a few ships are known based on R-sections. I guessed on the numbering on all the CA-derivative carriers following the CVS. Elsewhere, I just left a _ if I didn't know something.

I assumed CVL conversions would occur principly at the beginning the General War as an emergency measure, followed by the CLVs and the FFVs. Most of that would cease in Y173. In that year, the Feds get a ton of new carriers, from a large variety of classes. The interesting thing - according to the MSC - the NVL and NVP appear in the same year, along with the DVL, CVF, and CVD.

From that point on, things get pretty busy. The exact dates on some of the hulls is kind of murky - tough to figure out exactly when the 3rd, 4th, 5th ships of some classes might have been built. Others its real clear. We know the NVL disappears once the NVS comes along, and the FFV is effectively replaced by the DWV.

Production drops off rapidly after the General War, with only the SCS class making an appearance (a leftover from the end of the GW brought back to face the Andros).

Anyway, this is what I could come up with using the R-section, the MSC, Captain's Logs, the Ship Registry. I'd love to hear feedback on anything I may have missed or might need to correct. This should eventually make for a decent history article in Captain's Log.

By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Saturday, December 17, 2005 - 07:33 am: Edit

Nice list!

For completeness sake, you should also add the GVM carriers (Gaul, Cooperative, and Shreshalia) from R8 and the GHV carriers (Monaco - built 177 and Seranaya) from R9. All are conversions from GCA's.

Cheers,
Jason

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Saturday, December 24, 2005 - 06:11 am: Edit

Jeremy,

Starting in Spring 180 you can build 2 NVH/turn outside the carrier limits (count as PFT).

FFV/DWV are 1 per turn.

I could see the FEDs using production overides to do an additional carrier per year. Most likely on the NCL hull.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Sunday, March 19, 2006 - 12:57 pm: Edit

SVC

In Star Fleet Times #14 was: Fighter-bombers and bombers (3- and 4-space fighters).
In Star Fleet Times #22 was: Federation Stealth Fighters.

Are there any designs in either of these Star Fleet Times that could be modified into historical designs for J3?

In CL#31 three kit bombers were published: B-24; B-26; and B-36. These bombers can retain 2/3rds of their cargo capacity. Would you be open to a type of EWF package that fills this cargo space. Limit is one per squadron of six bombers.

In CL#31 three kit bombers were published: B-24; B-26; and B-36. Per (J14.23) bombers can use megafighter systems. Can these bombers use megafighter systems? Could the mega pack have defensive systems instead of two extra damage and extra drones? Suggestion: 2xADD, 1xEW pod, and 1xP-3-FA.

Type-VI and Type-IX drones as warp seeker are self-guiding. Would you consider allowing PFs and fighters to use Type-IX drones carried in racks, on rails or in MW drones and stingray drones. The Type-IX drone is using its own guidance system so no X refit is needed.

Would you consider allowing the Plasma race's PFs and fighters D and F torps to shotgun K-torps?

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Sunday, April 15, 2007 - 02:44 pm: Edit

Over in the FA-22 topic I brought up an idea for an anti-ship cannon (ASC), which could be installed in the fighter or carried in a pod. I am seeking information/input to explore if an ASC is potentially workable.

The current heavy weapons for fighters are: photon, disrupter, PL-F, fusion, and hellbore. In Omega 3 the FRA use the short ranged cannon (developed from the ADD).

Proposal outline:
The basic idea is the weapon is more like a light DF weapon, which uses an energy enhanced projectile, for close range (0-4) attack. The ASC would carry 2-4 rounds of ammunition and could fire once per impulse.

Each round has .25 points of energy; causes 4 points of damage to SC5 and smaller targets and 2 points of damage to SC4 and larger targets. The to hit # would be the reverse of ADD table, with: R-0 at 1-5; R-4 at 1. If mounted in a fighter the ASC has 4 rounds of ammo and if in a POD 2 rounds of ammo.

By Tony Downs (Whitetyger009) on Sunday, April 15, 2007 - 11:02 pm: Edit

the original point of this thread was for an improvment for the megapacks.

it makes sense to do an upgrade in the year (194+) as it would allow standard fighters to deal with xfighters and ships on a more equal footing (keeping in mind that they would still not be equal). so any improved/alternate megapack would have to be limited to non-x fighters only.

now my idea. why not a second pack system? you could have 3 types.

type 1- 2 light rails (plasma k) 1 ph3
this is your dogfighter version.
type 2- 2 standard rails (plasma d) +1 ecm only
this is your standard version.
type 3- 1 heavy weapon or ph2
this would only be allowed to be mounted on a fighter that does not already have a heavy weapon. so plasma would get to mount an f torp on fighters that didn't already have them. the heavy weapon would only have a standard charge. so a st-f would get a 2 charge fusion.

all fighters would get 2 aditional damage points. no increase in special pods or drone storage for the carriers. they would be able to be reloaded in any fighter bay that can rearm the standard fighter, however note that if not returning to its own bay there might not be a "full" load to place on it. this would be true in the case of a F-16CM+ landing in the bay of a F-16.

oh yea the bpv cost is probably the easiest part of this concept. 50% of the base fighter and first megafighter pack

St-2f is 7 bpv
mega pack 3 bpv (3.5)
pack 2 5 bpv

for this pack system since in enhances the fighter and the original system you would include the whole of the two for its cost.

just from my point of view the megafighter pack system improves the fighter and its bpv is based off of the fighters (50% of the fighter). now the second pack improves both the base fighter and the first pack there for its bpv is based off of them both (50% of the base fighter and its pack).

of course any refits applied to the fighter (C refit) would be added to the end product, after all megafighter pack additions.


any questions or comments would be welcome.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, April 15, 2007 - 11:19 pm: Edit

The only races that will ever face an X-Fighter is Lyrans and Klingons then ISC and Andros. Other races might see them in use during OpU. The point is that only the Hydrans EVER get an X-fighter.

Alternative mega-packs sound interesting but I doubt they would be all that common so late in history. I have little doubt that there were pleanty of design studies.

Note that the F-16 is a planet based fighter so it will likely always land where its supposed to. But that's besides your point.

By Gary Bear (Gunner) on Sunday, April 15, 2007 - 11:41 pm: Edit

Since the Federation doesn't field PFs and the other races continue to use PFs (even after the introduction of X-Tech), it would be logical that the Federation would look to an improved megapack. Especially since they have so many carriers, many of which are some of their top-of-the-line non-X combat vessels, like the BCV, BCS, and GVX, that would not get mothballed in the fleet downsizing following the end of the General War and the Andromedan Invasion.

By Tony Downs (Whitetyger009) on Monday, April 16, 2007 - 12:52 am: Edit

so even if the prime target that i had in mind (x-fighters) is not the best, there are still a large group of targets that would make this system desired and even "necessary" in some eyes?

i guess the main question is "Do you see this system adding to the game or taking away from the game?"

how do we all see this affecting the game?

yes it would make fighters more effective in an eara where they are seeing a dramatic decline in their effectiveness as a result of the introduction of pfs and more advanced ships. is this type of advancement needed or wanted to bring their effectiveness back up?