Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through November 15, 2002	25		11/15 07:49pm
	Archive through November 21, 2002	25		11/21 11:46am

Kind of spooky having a ship that big zipping around at high speed...close and unload...

By Jeremy Gray (Gray) on Thursday, November 21, 2002 - 01:25 pm: Edit

Something to keep in mind about the ISC CA conversion...the Lyran conversion gives it only three disruptors. When I made that list, I was simple basing it off the Lyran-ISC article (and a few others). While I won't argue that a ship as big as the ISC CA seems a bit undergunned with only 3 photons, creating a fudge to give it four does raise an important question: If the feds could squeeze in 4 photons, why didn't the Lyrans squeeze in 4 disruptors?

According to the ISC-Lyran conversion rules, the ISC CC would get 5 disruptors in Lyran service. I ask again, if the Lyrans can do it, why would the Feds and Klingons choose not to?

Also, even with 3 photons, the ISC CA is going to be nasty if you use the rules I posted previously. It will have 3 Photons, 6 Drone racks, 8 Ph-1s and a bunch of Ph-3s. Not exactly a whimp.

If you haven't, I'd really recommend a careful look at the ISC-Lyran article in CL24. I goes a long way toward establishing how to handle ISC heavy weapon conversion. Also, it is worth recognizing that not all ships in foreign service are created equal in the hands of the enemy. Look no farther than the Fed CA in Klingon service and the Klingon D7 in Fed service. Those two ships form the very foundation of SFB and have probably been used in more duels than any other two ships. Convert them to foreign tech. The Fed CA becomes a joke of a Klingon ship, but the D7 becomes near god-like in Fed service.

This problem is exasporated in the ISC case. Ships like the ISC CA, CC, and DN are really not equal to those classes in other fleets. They are going to result in absolute monsters by the standards of any other fleet, even with a less than optimal conversion.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, November 21, 2002 - 02:50 pm: Edit

What Jeremy described is pretty close to what I came up with in the posted SSD; and he's right...even with only 3 photons, you're still looking at one tough hombre. The only difference I had is that I have 4 drone racks, not 6. But even so, you're getting to replace an aft-arc defensive weapon with a 360 arc defensive/offensive system...a darn good trade, if you ask me.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, November 21, 2002 - 03:27 pm: Edit

What's the proposed box size of 3 non-swivel F-torps? Anyone want rear firing photons?

Worse still, leave them as F-torps!

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, November 21, 2002 - 03:36 pm: Edit

It's 2/3, I think. That's why I did the 2 drone racks per side. According to the conversion rules, a G rack is a one space item. I considered the rear photons, but that seemed a bad mix. Too much power, and placed wrong for a crunch weapon. It would also leave the ship in the unique position of having more aft heavy weapon power than forward.

By Jeremy Gray (Gray) on Thursday, November 21, 2002 - 03:42 pm: Edit

The CL24 article replaces two rear firing Pl-Fs with an ESG. The ESG is replaced by two drone racks in the Kzinti-Lyran conversion article (don't recall which CL issue). I see drones and rear Pl-Fs as a one-for-one replacement.

Rear firing Photons? L+LR (or R+RR)? While it is very weird, and woundn't really mesh well with Fed design practices, but I have to admit, it would definately be different.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, November 21, 2002 - 03:53 pm: Edit

Something's definately wrong with that figure. We know an ESG is a two space weapon, and that drones are one space. We also know that a F plasma is 2/3, at least when it's paired up with a Plasma S...that's why those two weapons together add up to 2 spaces. By the CL calculations, either ESG's are worth less than two spaces, or an F plasma is worth more than 2/3. Possibly a difference because the S/F combination shares a launcher, or something? I know on the minis they corner launcher on Gorn ships is considered to be the launcher for both...maybe it goes farther than that.

By Jeremy Gray (Gray) on Thursday, November 21, 2002 - 03:54 pm: Edit

Not saying it makes since...that's just what the articles say.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, November 21, 2002 - 03:59 pm: Edit

Oh, I know. I just notice it doesn't seem to jive with what I've seen before. Personally, I've always thought an F torpedo should be a one space item, with S's being 1.5, and R's being 2. Might have to ask SVC's guidance to be sure, but I'm guessing that the "sharing" of launcher components allows the S/F combo to be slightly smaller than you'd normally see.

By Mark Kuyper (Mark_K) on Thursday, November 21, 2002 - 06:44 pm: Edit

Mike, It could also be that the area used for the pair of F-Torps is just big enought to hold an ESG (or pair of drone racks) but doesn't offer enough surface area to mount a third F-Torp. Think of it as "The pair of F-Torps are in one space areas"

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, November 21, 2002 - 09:31 pm: Edit

If non-swivel F-torps are 1/2 box, a ISC CC/CA conversion results in 2, possibly 3 G-racks, assumeing a G-rack is a 1.0 space item.

What I would love to see is a chart for the space required by each weapon and how it changes over time. A P-1 in Y160 probably takes up more space than one manufactured in 180 and the X1 P-1, despite its extra capabilities, seems to take less still.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, November 21, 2002 - 09:33 pm: Edit

The X1 phaser may be the same size as a normal phaser. The capacitor was probably shrunk to 1/3 size allowing more room to mount more phasers.

By Dave Morse (Dcm) on Friday, November 22, 2002 - 01:32 am: Edit

Sigh...As an ISC player, I can assure you that not all F launchers are created equal. I would trade all four on a CL for just two LS/RS Plasma Fs. I don't even think of these guys as seperate weapons, more like a fancy single F launcher with a higher rate of fire. I think the whole lot should be replaced with 2 G racks and the rest phasers.

Otherwise the ISC would pay the Orions to abduct Fed Scientists and force them to install G racks on its entire fleet.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, November 22, 2002 - 09:11 am: Edit

Why G-Racks? Convert the rear F-Torps to PH-Gs. The limited arcs would make for interesting escort play.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, November 22, 2002 - 10:05 am: Edit

Tos, RE P-1's.

There's no reason to assume that the P-1 itself isn't smaller. In EY, it might even have been a 2-space weapon.

Either way, since the capacitor is taken out with the phaser, it is effectively a part of the phaser so shinking it shinks the phaser.

By John Kasper (Jvontr) on Friday, November 22, 2002 - 12:31 pm: Edit

There is a D-6 somewhere with PH-1s in place of Disruptors. The flavor text talked about the PH-1 mechinism being large.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, November 22, 2002 - 01:43 pm: Edit

I can see that. After all, a p-1 is considered a "heavy" phaser, and is the same size as a photon launcher or disruptor. It's gotta be fairly large.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, November 22, 2002 - 04:52 pm: Edit

A phaser consists of 3 parts: The phaser (gun turret/emitter), the capacitor (battery) and some sort of middleware that converts the stored energy into a phased pulse. Of the three parts we know the batteries get smaller and its reasonable to believe the middle components would shrink. Of the three parts I would think the external 'turret' would be least likely to shrink much. As a whole the phaser is significantly smaller than it used to be but my original comment was intended to reference just the turret.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, November 23, 2002 - 01:30 pm: Edit

Tos,

Makes sense.

The turret would shrink as the components it needs to house and move shrink, which would primarily be the emitter system as the capacitor shouldn't need to swivel with the rest of the phaser.

By Robert Lender-Lundak (Rusman) on Friday, August 01, 2003 - 03:43 pm: Edit

First post in several months for me and I may be a bit late jumping in on this conversation but I distinctly remember seeing in print that the Phaser-1 and Phaser-2 are the same weapon but the Phaser-2 has less advanced fire control computers/systems or whatever.

This of course explains why the PH-2 does less damage (its not hitting as accurately)

Anyway I realize this post is late to this thread but felt the need to comment regardless