I think there is both justification and reason for there to be a Lyran SSCS based on the DN.

1) The canon says single ships with Special Sensors are used to hunt for RTN nodes.

2) The Lyrans disdain Fighters. If I was the Lyran Ship Building PTB, I would insist on 2 squadrons of PFs. All should be the Disruptor main version for the sandblasting effect of all the disr on the PA panels.

3) Not hard really IIRC. Just change a couple Disr to Special Sensors.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, May 11, 2007 - 10:50 am: Edit

Mike Grafton;

I've got a bit of a problem with this one. I can understand why the Gorns, or the Tholians, would want their SCS to have 2 PF flotillas rather than one flotilla plus a fighter squadron. Compare a Gorn or Tholian PF flotilla to a squadron of their best-available fighters and PF superiority is obvious.

But the Lyrans are a bit different. The only way the Lyrans can ever have any significant seeking weapon capability is with a fighter squadron. Their PFs have more DF firepower than their fighters do. But despite the fact that Lyran PFs can't carry ESGs, I don't believe there is a drone-armed PF.^* So I think the Lyrans would retain fighters on their SCS in order to retain seeking weapon capability. This could change, of course, if a drone-armed version of their PF is ever published. So maybe this proposal should be advanced in conjunction with a proposal for a "Bobcat-D".

^*I have a vague recollection that a Conjectural drone-armed Lyran PF was published a long time ago, but I don't recall where. Star Fleet Times maybe? But I'm 90%-plus confident that their is no drone-armed Lyran PF that is an official part of the SFU.

By John Pepper (Akula) on Friday, May 11, 2007 - 11:03 am: Edit

The Lyran SSCS already exists its in SFT #9 but I don't know what the SSD looks like.

By Gary Bear (Gunner) on Friday, May 11, 2007 - 11:37 am: Edit

Most people don't consider anything published in SFT to be sanctioned for use, so you can't really use that to say it "exists". I know I won't let anyone I'm playing to use anything from it.

By Michael C. Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Friday, May 11, 2007 - 12:35 pm: Edit

Alan I can see your logic, but do you really think having seeking weapons, as opposed to lots more disruptors is what YOU'D want to fight the andros with?

If I was the Lyran AND had to take fighters, I'd take ZHM fighters. So to retain the sandblast and some drones too.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, May 11, 2007 - 01:06 pm: Edit

Mike,

If I knew this would only ever be used against Andros, I might go with pure direct fire and dump the fighters. But would the Lyrans know this? My impression (perhaps incorrect) has always been that the Galactic Powers regarded the Andromedan Invasion as an emergency that required them to temporarily put aside their differences to deal with the greater threat. But I suspect that there were many Lyrans (and Kzinti) who always believed they would go back to fighting each other once the Andros had been dealt with. So I think that the Lyrans would still take it's capabilities against Kzinti (and Hydran) opponents into account.

That's why the idea of this ship in conjunction with a drone-armed "Bobcat-D" appeals to me. If you are facing an opponent against whom you don't expect drones to be very effective, use 2 flotillas of standard Bobcats. For greater flexibility, use one standard flotilla and one Bobcat-D flotilla. Want massive drone support for some reason? Use 2 Bobcat-D flotillas.

Just my .02 quatloos worth.

By John Pepper (Akula) on Friday, May 11, 2007 - 01:28 pm: Edit

Gary: I mix and match a lot of stuff that was in SFT is now published in one form or another. It just depends I think the Lyran SSCS has 12 PF's and 12 fighters like the rest of them but it has been years since I saw that. Maybe SVC if he gets a chance can dig those up. Whats left of unpublished SFT should really get published as a best of SFT log or maybe a pdf. I'll have to check my recovery disks and see what I still have, at one point I had managed to collect almost all of them.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, May 11, 2007 - 01:34 pm: Edit

Point of clarification:

Unless I'm misremembering, the Gorn SSCS from Stellar Shadows has 2 PF flotillas, but no fighters. Given the superiority of the their PFs (the plasma races and the Tholians have a much more pronounced difference in capability between their fighters and PFs than do the drone-users or Hydrans, IMO) and the fact the the Gorn SSCS also has extra weapons on the ship itself, over and above those on the standard SCS, this is a big upgrade. But not every SSCS has 2 flotillas and a fighter squadron.

By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Friday, May 11, 2007 - 02:06 pm: Edit

The Gorn SSCS from SSJ1 was a Sector Control Ship, not a Super Space Control Ship. Both used the SSCS as its type. The Gorn was design for the late GW timeframe, the Kzinti SSCS is a Andro war ship.

Of the four ships in SFT #9, two have become "real", the Romulan MegaHawk and the Andro Shiva.

The Lyran Empire Control Ship is in the Module R12 thread. I put it there before SVC told us to stop doing that. It is a two flotilla SCS.

By John Pepper (Akula) on Friday, May 11, 2007 - 02:07 pm: Edit

Thats correct, however it has a earlier in service date and it lacks special sensors. It was designed for general war. Its also called a sector control ship rather then a super space control ship.

By Jeremy Gray (Gray) on Friday, May 11, 2007 - 02:23 pm: Edit

The Gorn Sector Control ship almost ended up looking like this.

I designed the ship in SSJ1 after this version, and ultimately it was published instead. This particular version could have carried a squadron of fighters in addition to the two PF flotillas.

By Michael C. Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Friday, May 11, 2007 - 02:25 pm: Edit

I suggest the following are pertinent issues.

1) Special sensors are good for RTN hunting, the Long Range phase of the battle (they will be blinded once you get to short range) AND PF strike launches.

2) I suggest that there may be a version with NO disruptors and LOTS of Special Sensors. Sorta of a SUPER PFT. A special thing for the Lyrans. You'd loan 4 or so to each PF squadron, another 6 OEW to the main Andro ship.

By Gary Bear (Gunner) on Friday, May 11, 2007 - 02:26 pm: Edit

John Pepper:
Not trying to bash you, but I can't understand what you are trying to say. There seems to be a bit of sentence-structure problems.

---

Quote:

I mix and match a lot of stuff that was in SFT is now published in one form or another. It just depends I think the Lyran SSCS has 12 PF's and 12 fighters like the rest of them but it has been years since I saw that.

---

By John Pepper (Akula) on Friday, May 11, 2007 - 02:36 pm: Edit

Sorry I'm typing about 50 things here.

That should be a couple different thoughts.

I mix and match a lot of stuff that was in SFT. A lot of stuff that is in SFT is now published in one form or another, I think it just depends on the material.

I think the Lyran SSCS(in SFT) has 12 PF's and 12 fighters like the rest of them but it has been years since I saw that.

By William G. Matthews (Billm) on Friday, May 11, 2007 - 02:51 pm: Edit

I would want the drones against Andromedans more than I would want them against any of the lyarans galactic foes. The Kizintis and Hydrans have an ability to kill drones that makes the out put of 1 squadron fairly irrelevant on offense. The drones are of some use as anti drone weapons at least. Aside from their t-bombs Andros are quite vulnerable to drones if used properly.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, May 11, 2007 - 03:08 pm: Edit

I had a version of the Gorn SSCS too which may have had some more rear facing weaponry, but its not on my current computer. I'll have to look for it at home tonight and see if I can get it posted.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, May 11, 2007 - 08:21 pm: Edit

Not my best work, but not bad for (c)1998.

Gorn SSCS

Don't miss the plasma in the rear bubble, 24 fighters and 12 PFs.

By Gary Bear (Gunner) on Friday, May 11, 2007 - 10:51 pm: Edit

A bit of a munchkin ship, don't you think? Or were you intentionally going way over the top?

1 Plasma-R, 4 Plasma-S, 4 Plasma-F, and 4 Plasma-D racks? RX Ph-1s; if the Gorns could do that, wouldn't they do it on all their hulls?

I don't see the double wings allowing the phasers to stay LS/RS. Probably be LF+L/RF+R for the front wing and LR+L/RR+R for the rear wing.

6 REPAIR is a bit light for 12 PFs, but I don't see where you'd find room for more.

8 more power, 2 more battery, more weapons (4 Ph-1, 2 Ph-3, 2 PL-S, 2 PL-F, 4 PL-D), better shielding, double the fighters, and double the PFs of the SCS all for the same move cost and turn mode. Nice deal.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Saturday, May 12, 2007 - 12:06 am: Edit

It was intentionally over the top. This kind of ship has no place in the SFU. It was a design study to explore 'worst case'. I was fond of the 2S, 2F, 2D in every arc symmetry.

Here was the original write up:
As word of the launch of the Klingon B10 spread to Gorn space a commission was formed to study the possibilities of quickly launching more powerful units without resorting to the design expense (and delay) of a full battleship program.

These studies discovered that the CVA/SCS class ships could be maximized into the SSCS design. The rear saucer was replaced with the functional equivalent of the Light Battle Pod (R6.41) and a second wing was placed between the center and the aft saucers providing this ship with the ability to fire 2 PL-S, 2 PL-F and 2 PL-D in any arc; this is of course in addition to the FA mounted PL-R torp. The 360-degree plasma coverage was thought to be well suited to its role as a SSCS.

The SSCS retains the full squadron of G-12s and G-10s found on the CVA and adds two full PF flotillas and minimal support facilities. There are two large fighter bays with four balcony positions on each wing. The PFs on the inner position of each wing can be repaired with collapsible bays.

Where possible the design team made use of the low power PL-D and PL-F torps as the ship had precious little room for additional power systems. The inherent weakness of minimal support services (i.e. 4 labs, 3 transporters, fewer administrative shuttles, reduced hull) required to keep mass within acceptable limits was felt to have minimal impact due to these facilities being available on the escort vessels. Escorts: 3xHDA. While not part of an official escort this ship would seldom travel without a scout.

The design team that developed the concept originally envisioned using a Heavy Battle Pod+ (R6.8) in the third saucer section but found that the double pod weight would increase the movement cost of the ship beyond the warp fields ability to maintain fleet speed and it was felt designing more powerful engines to compensate would hopelessly delay any eventual construction. It was also suggested to adapt the ship to formal tug status similar to the HDT (R6.28) which could allow for very interesting combinations (such as a PF Tender Pod (R6.34) resulting in three PF flotilla’s and the special sensors to make good use of them).