In year 172, at the height of the Klingon Invasion, the Offices of Chairman Buckner issued a request for proposals to augment Fed warship production.

This was odd, first because the Star Fleet and the Ministry of Defense would normally be the agencies that issue such RFPs, and second because Buckner himself had been the single greatest obstacle to building up the Star Fleet in the prewar years.

Most people considered it merely a propaganda exercise or a cheap Public Relations stunt, but the citizens of the UFP responded with a deluge of suggestions. Most were totally unworkable, ranging from putting warp engines on asteroids or comets (ala Jindarians) to replacing metal hulls with focused force beams ('force fields') that current Federation Technology couldnt even attempt to do.

Some ideas were, however, almost possible to pursue, though incredibly expensive and not of very much worth in a military sense. (such as arming civilian cruise liners and making them into either troop ships (which were infact done during the war) or to auxiliary warships.

A very few ideas were considered, the following was one such:

Federation Auxiliary Light Cruiser Proposal, by Jeff Wile.

In year 172, it was sugggested that a servicable Light Cruiser type ship could be produced outside of Federation Shipyards using civilian yards and civilian fabrication processes.

It consisted of a saucer type section using a modified Prime Trader (PT) (see rule R1.67) that had a Fed Tug class docking attachement for cargo pods. this would allow a PT (or even a Free trader, if needed) to haul a normal cargo pod, although it would be very slow. Option Boxes converted to photon Torpedos.

The second part of the proposal was to use a freighter, (with military grade engines) (see rule R1.20, the F-AS, for an example).

The modifications included replacing the cargo pod (25 cargo box capacity) with a small 10 cargo box pod (see Captains Log#23, page 11) and 3 other skids (one of each type self defense, type I, type II and Type III, published in Module R11, see page 2 of the SSD book).

A standard "duck tail" was added.

The entire assemply is "hard welded". the ship may not be "disassembled" as normal cargo ships are, and reassembled using different components.

The 10 point short cargo pod, was modified to receive the docking attachment to the modified PT. This was done, to allow the elevator of the Shuttle bay on the PT to be extended down into the cargo pod, and on out through the bottom of the ship as an extended cargo/shuttle bay.

The net result of these modifications resultied in a ship with the following characteristics:

1. Size class 3.
2. Movement Cost of 3/4 (or 0.75) footnote (a)
3. shields, #1 to #6 = 22 boxes.
4. Ship is not nimble.
5. Ship may accelerate by 5 movement points per turn. It can disengage by acceleration.
6. The Bridge of the freighter chaged to AUX Con.(b)
7. Center Hull on freighter changed to Aft Hull.
8. The left and right warp of the freighter changed to center warp.
9. Crew Units (12+8+6)=26. Boarding Parties (4+2+2+2+2)=12
10. the ship is not capable of landing on a planet as a Prime trader could, the combination of the saucer/secoondary hull can not withstand the stress of entering the atmosphere of any normal M class planet, nor could the cargo pod/skid secondary hull support the weight of the PT/saucer.
11.Ship systems comparison table:

systems	ALC	NCL+
Photons	2	4
Lab	2	4
BTTY	2	2
TRAN	4	2
PH-1(d)	0	6
PH-2	6	0
PH-3	4	2
Bridge	1	2
WPR/APR	6	4
C Hull	6	10
A Hull	4	0
AUX	1	2
EM BR	1	1
SHTTL	5	4
TRAC	4	2
IMPULSE	3	4
DRN(c)	2	1
PROBE(e)	0	1
CARGO	16	0
R Warp	8	12
L Warp	8	12
Center Warp	8	0

Footnotes:
(a) The Movement cost of the Prime trader is 1/2, the Movement cost of the small frerighter is 1/3. due to some efficiencies in the saucer/secondary hull combination, the Movement cost is not a sum of the two parts (0.5+0.33) but rather somewhat improved to 0.75 (a net difference of 0.0.8)
(b) there was some discussion about control/bridge systems. it was felt that the main use of this ship is to provide convoy escort in place of NCL's. as such a NCL command rating would be unneeded. An alternative could be to replace the short cargo pod for a Convoy command skid (adding 1 PH-2,1-APR, 1 BTTY, 1-TRAN, 1 Hull & 1 Flag Bridge, but such a change would make the shuttle bay in the PT saucer un usable, and it would also cost the ship the 10 cargo boxes of the short pod.
(c) the Drone racks on the ACL are type B.
(d) the ACL is listed as having Phaser 2's as that is what the skids are rated as having. if the ship were commissioned as a star fleet vessel, the maintainence and skilled firecontrol personnel might allow the ships phasers to be upgraded as phaser 1's.
(e) the absence of a Probe launcher on the ACL was also discussed. Most civilian yards do not mount probe launchers on the ships that they produce, and in any case, the PT, F-AS or the Skids chosen for this project do not have a probe launcher installed. if Probes are required, it is suggested that probe drones be issued for use with the ships two drone B racks.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, August 24, 2007 - 12:17 pm: Edit

Comments on the intended use of the AuxCL.

First, being a product of the civilian yards, it would not replace any NCL or DW on the NCL or FF slipways in the shipyard.

Second, being composed of various civilian components allows the ships to be serviced at any civilian yard capable of maintaining normal Prime or Free Traders, or small freighters.

Third, the combination of the engines and hull size works out to be a fair approximation of the Old Federation CL endurance and operational speed. In general, the characteristics of the AuxCL and the Old Federation light Cruiser are very similar indeed.

Where the design "falls down" somewhat is in the area of shields. the NCL design has 30 box #1 shields and 24 box #2 to #6 shields compared to the 22 box "all around" shields of the AuxCL.

It is, however, somewhat better than the shields of the vanilla CL (or even the CL+).

The CL had 6 boxes worth of armor, while the AuxCL has 16 boxes of cargo... that interms of interacting with the DAC (damage allocation chart) provides much the same kind of protection.

The AuxCL has a somewhat smaller crew (26 crew units) verses 37 CU on the CL or 36 CU on the NCL but, in a kind of paradox, has a larger number of Boarding parties (due to the use of the various self defense skids) having some 12 BPs compared to the 8 carried by both the CL and the NCL.

The AuxCL is not a command ship and (barring any material changes such as the addition of the convoy command skid) can not be made to function as one.

it could, however function in the line of battle as a sort of "conscript" warrior filling up the various "command slots" in a battle force.

Another short coming of the AuxCL is its poor acceleration. it does have the speed to keep up with a battle force, but it cant "accelerate" its way out of trouble as a NCL or a CL could in similar circumstances.

By Todd Warnken (Toddw) on Friday, August 24, 2007 - 12:28 pm: Edit

Interesting design. Can the "saucer" separate from the rear hull? If so can it be reattached?

By Mike Strain (Evilmike) on Friday, August 24, 2007 - 12:41 pm: Edit

This thing sucks sooo much.....

I love it.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, August 24, 2007 - 12:47 pm: Edit

Todd, dunno.

Should it?

Make the case one way or the other.

IMO, it would be handled similar to the way the Fed CA saucer & rear hull sections are handled... only separates in an emergency, and uses the existing rules for saucer separation.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, August 24, 2007 - 12:51 pm: Edit

Mike,

I'll take that as a positive comment...

I'm almost afraid of what the kit bash mini would look like!

Talk about cheesy!

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, August 24, 2007 - 09:19 pm: Edit

Just for consideration, the F&E factors for this AuxCL would be about that of a old Fed CL, since it is armed with 2 photons, 6 phaser 2's and 4 phaser 3's and 2 drone B racks, it is at least a '6' COMPOT.

Depending on whether the ship qualifies to have its phaser 2's upgraded to phaser 1's, it might actually be a bit better than a CL.

With only 2 photons and the phasers spread rather evenly across the entire structure of the ship, it shouldnt suffer from shock, IMO.

With 24 points of warp power, and a MC of 3/4, it should have a tactical speed of 31 (including the use of 1 point of impulse power, and be just as fast as a CL (which is to say) have a operational F&E movement of 6.

Not a bad little ship, even if the shields are abit weaker than what a NCL would have in comparison.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, August 25, 2007 - 06:59 pm: Edit

Suggestion: If the ship can't afford P-1s, they can't afford B-racks, which weren't used by the Feds much if at all and would therefore command a premium price.

The ship would probably have 1 G-rack the way a lot of rack-refitted feds did.

By Mike Strain (Evilmike) on Saturday, August 25, 2007 - 07:39 pm: Edit

What JT done said.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, August 25, 2007 - 11:34 pm: Edit

John, the skid's designs specify phaser 2's and B drone racks.

the design uses "off the shelf" components listed in Module R11.

For Fed only designs (which is what this proposal called for) should be phaser 1's and G racks...

I went with the printed skid options because I felt that that is what would be avialble in civilian yards where the Prime trader and the military freighter could be converted (or built) into the AuxCL design.

If this were assembled in a Star Fleet yard, then IMO there should be no doubt that phaser 1's and drone G racks are used.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Sunday, August 26, 2007 - 04:27 pm: Edit

John and Mike,

In Jeff's defence, type-B racks are not special. Once Y175 rolls around everyone switches to type-B racks instead of type-A racks. This includes both the Federation and Civilians.

(Well, except for Orions and Kzintis, who both use some type-C racks, but you know what I mean ...)

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, August 26, 2007 - 05:55 pm: Edit

Thanks Mike, But I figured John knew about about the Year 175 refits for drone users...(not sure about Mike Strain... I don't know his background in SFB's...)

The Phaser topic is more of a "iffy" thing.

IIUC phaser 1s and Phaser 2's are the same thing, the diffference tends to be the fire control process and (to some extent) how well the systems or maintained by the using race.

If this AuxCL thing is operated by the Star Fleet, then it should be phaser 1s. If it is a civilian manned ship, the they should remain phaser 2's IMO.

By Jim Davies (Mudfoot) on Sunday, August 26, 2007 - 07:02 pm: Edit

Turn mode D?

I'd not expect it to be separable, simply because there's no real reason to do so and hard-welding it would presumably make it stronger.

Anyone fancy doing an SSD for this ugly beast?

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, August 26, 2007 - 07:25 pm: Edit

Turn ModeD?

To be honest, I hadnt even looked at what turn mode this beast would have... I'd have hoped it would be a little bit better than that... but for a "cobbled together" design of two other ships that were never intended to fit together in such a way... yeah, maybe that is the way to go.

By Charles Gray (Cgray45) on Monday, August 27, 2007 - 05:36 pm: Edit

I like it- and the fluff makes a good deal of sense. (in fact I could see this popping up later during the Andro-war as a colony "flagship" for cut off colony worlds).

But then, I like quirky, civilian style warships since recently most of my gaming has been involving corporate fights, and local police fighting raiders/andro's and jindarians.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, August 27, 2007 - 07:02 pm: Edit

What about break down rating for this little beastie?

Any one have an opinion?

By Nikolaus Athas (Nycathis) on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 - 08:12 am: Edit

Breakdown rating?

Thats easy: 0-6 (meaning that even using the HET 1st Time bonus the ship suffers a breakdown on any roll of 2 or better.)

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 - 10:42 am: Edit

OOH, that seems harsh, Nikolaus!

The Fed Tug has a break down rating of 2-6, and the proposal calls for using the same connector for the PT to the cargo pod that the Fed TUG uses.

At the worst, the Breakdown should be the same as the TUG and cargo pod combo has...shouldnt it?

By Douglas E. Lampert (Dlampert) on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 - 11:33 am: Edit

Nah. The Tug only has one set of engines in use, and is based on a military hull, if there are extra engines on the cargo they're deactivated in transit. This thing is based on a pair of civilian hulls and is trying to use all their engines at once. 0-6 seems generous to me, I'd seriously consider 1-6 with no first time bonus.

By Mike Strain (Evilmike) on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 - 12:42 pm: Edit

Turn Mode?

You mean this thing doesn't stop and do warp tacs to turn?

*snickers*

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 - 01:34 pm: Edit

Douglas Lampert:

I concede!

lets leave it at 1-6 Break Down without any first time bonus for HETs.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 - 09:17 pm: Edit

Next Question, what BPV is this puppy worth?

the Prime Trader would be 82/34 BPV.
the F-AS is 36 BPV.
the skids are:

SDS1 = 10
SDS2 = 9
SDS3 = 7
CGOS = 0

I dunno what the fed tug docking collar would cost... but proabably less than what a Admin Shuttle costs, at a guess.

so the BPV would be 146/98 BPV.

A little more expensive than what normal production cruiser would cost... but this represents production from civilian yards, not the races main shipyard...

Second, it does not take up a valuable slipway so you already have all of the NCL, CA, DW and FFG production possible at the normal build rates... this represents a "servicable cruiser design" at much less than what overbuild rate would cost you.

(a 124 point NCL, overbuilt would cost, in terms of BPV ((116+4+4)*2)=248.

so, in that light, a 146/98 point AuxCL cruiser isnt that bad a deal... particularly when it comes on top of the "normal builds".

In combat, it very likely might be a 98 BPV cruiser.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 - 09:48 pm: Edit

It occurs to me, that a AuxDD could be fashioned the same way by using a Free Trader for the saucer, and a F-AS, and maybe a type 1 and a Type 2 defense skid.

that would give you total of 20 warp power boxes (12 + 8) and perhap a Movement cost of 2/3 (0.667). May accelerate by 5 hexes perturn, and a max speed (including impulse power) of 31 hexes per turn.

the option boxes again would be converted to 2 photons, and the ship would have 2 Drone B racks, 4 phaser 2's, and only 2 phaser 3's.

The AuxDD would be short some cargo boxes (like 10 boxes) so the AuxDD would only have 6 cargo instead of the AuxCL 16 cargo box capacity.

the BPV of the Free trader is 70/22, while the F-AS remains at 36 BPV, and the SDS1 = 10 BPV, the SDS2 =9 BPV, and the guess price of the docking collar is maybe worth 2)so the total BPV of the AuxDD would be (70/22+36+10+9+2)=127/79 BPV.

Lets leave the breakdown rating the same for both the AuxCL and the AuxDD at 1-6.

So this would be a combat DD variant woth 79 BPV, plus any drone upgrades.

Comments?

By James Lowry (Rindis) on Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 01:10 pm: Edit

Comments?

I want to see SSDs, and I want access to whatever medication you're on.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, August 31, 2007 - 05:29 pm: Edit

Perhaps we could ask for someone who has the ability to make SSD's to make them available for these two ships...(Mike Raper? Jeremy? Robert Coles? anyone?)

As far as the medication thing is concerned, I do beleive it is insufficent quantities of all things SFB!

I might feel less need to propose things if there were more SFB;s stuff...Maybe if Captains Log were a monthly publication?!?! Heck, how much sleep does Petrick really need?

By George M. Ebersole (George) on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 02:30 am: Edit

My only comment; change the designation somehow, because ACL is an aegis light cruiser.

Maybe RCL, or QCL? XCL and CLX already have X-ship connotations. Just tossing it out there.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 10:27 am: Edit

George, sounds good, I'd forgotten about the Aegis CL.

Not sure about the QCL... There was a Series of Q variants in Captains Log #28 IIRC (DNQ,CAQ, DDQ, TUGQ etc) that basically increased teh warp engine necelles... so I'd guess the CLQ would be preempted on the grounds that it would be an unbuilt General War upgrade (and a fictious one at that!)

RCL sounds like a romulan border variant like the DDL/DDG and the FFE/FFR were ships assigned to a geographic location due to their odd weapons (drones verses plasmas thing).

Maybe we should just treat it like the Auxiliary carriers are... by using the Aux prefix?

so we could call it the AuxCL class? or the other thing, call it the AuxDD?

By George M. Ebersole (George) on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 07:35 pm: Edit

Yeah, that works better.