Archive through December 03, 2007

Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board: Other Proposals: Star Fleet Gunboat World: Archive through December 03, 2007
By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Thursday, November 29, 2007 - 11:34 am: Edit

I have a web site up which is dedicated to Gunboats (aka PFs) in Star Fleet Battles. Over time I have created a bunch of gunboat variants. Virtually all of them are probably "obvious" as there isn't a lot of room to put things into a gunboat.

It is located at Star Fleet Gunboat World. It currently has a bunch of the SSDs that I have created. I generate my SSDs using my own process which produces color PDF files which have a FedCom look to them.

I currently cover 17 races (14 Alpha and 3 simulator). There are Scout-Leaders, Fi-Con Leaders and Scouts, Ground Assault Leaders and Scouts, Mine Warfare Leaders and Scouts, Cargo Leaders and Scouts, and Medical Gunboats. I have some others partially done and will eventual add them too. I also plan on adding Heavy Gunboat and Light Gunboat (Interceptor) variants.

This web site follows the rules of the ADB web policy. If you think we're not complying, let us know and we'll correct any problem.

By Michael Powers (Mtpowers) on Thursday, November 29, 2007 - 12:20 pm: Edit

What is the use of "leader" and "scout" versions of the Cargo/Ground-Assault/etc PF?

One thing I'd be interested in seeing would be a "fighter support PF". This would be similar to a Fi-Con, but it would have a single repair-capable mech-link instead of four "attach only" links. Replace the heavy weapons with Cargo, and add two Deck Crews. The PF carries 120 spaces of Drones, four sets of fighter WBP, twenty-four Chaff pods, and six "fighter pods" of any type. The "Fi-Plat PF" cannot buy extra supplies for its fighters. It cannot use its drone supply to reload its own drone or plasma-D racks (if any), and it cannot reload those of other PFs. (This might be possible between campaign scenarios, but cannot happen during an SFB scenario.)

A flotilla of three Fi-Con, one Fi-Plat, one Scout, and one standard combat type could act as a long-range patrol group.

By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Thursday, November 29, 2007 - 02:19 pm: Edit

Some these are more useful than others. I can see the ground assault leader to be used as a Special Operations Boat used by prime teams and commandos for cladestine stikes. On the other hand, I haven't come up with a good reason for the cargo scout, but what the heck.

I like the idea of the fighter support gunboat/PF. But I think your supply numbers are way too high. A cargo gunboat/PF can only carry 100 drone spaces, as each cargo box is limited to 25. Considering the space needed for a ready-rack/mech-link/tractor, I think having half the space of cargo gunboat would be closer.

General idea: take a cargo gunboat and remove 2 cargo. Add a tractor/mech-link/ready-rack box for a specific kind of fighter. (Possibly make an adjust or two to balance it out.) The crew includes 2 deck crews (cannot be transfered or added to). Up to 50 spaces of fighter supplies in cargo boxes.

I don't understand where the name "Fi-Plat" came from.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, November 29, 2007 - 02:36 pm: Edit

I would guess "Fighter Platform".

By Michael Powers (Mtpowers) on Thursday, November 29, 2007 - 03:08 pm: Edit

Maybe the "Fi-Plat" would be based on a leader-size hull. (Seeing as how we're completely in fantasyland, here, I figure I can get away with it.)

Actually, something I'd think about would be that if you assume PFs to be the standard warship--as opposed to the Heavy Cruiser--then something like a "cargo scout" might be useful to support flotillas that were on extended operations. The "cargo scout" would be part of a support flotilla that moved to a central location and directed combat-oriented flotillas towards enemy forces. You combine cargo and scout functions in one PF, so that you don't have to "waste" combat power holding it back at the rally point (presumably the combat scouts go on the mission.) The "cargo leader" gives the support flotilla the leader facilities (transporter, tractor beam, a shuttle) without tying up a combat leader's firepower.

I still don't think that "ground-assault" scouts or leaders are going to be useful, though, because the stuff that a leader-type PF gets doesn't add anything to the ground-assault mission. What's a ground-assault PF going to do with an extra APR? And even a leader-type PF probably doesn't have enough added range (compared to a standard PF) to be useful for covert ops. (That's what Prime Traders are for.)

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, November 29, 2007 - 03:28 pm: Edit

Well . . . one could assume a leader type-PF for Ground Assault which would have an additional transporter and stowage for copious amounts of transporter artillery rounds. It otherwise acts, when grounded, as the command post and fire support for the landed unit.

By Michael Powers (Mtpowers) on Thursday, November 29, 2007 - 03:41 pm: Edit

True. John would have to do something different from just replacing "wpn" with "bar", though. Maybe modify his existing "GA Leader" by removing one APR and one BTTY, and adding one Transporter and one Cargo.

Medical PF: Why not just replace the weapons with 2xHull and 2xLab? No need to invent a new type of box.

By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Thursday, November 29, 2007 - 04:40 pm: Edit

How about the following:

Fighter Support PF: Take the Cargo Leader design and replace an APR and a Battery on with a pair fighter mech-link. (It already has a tractor so these could be the tractorless kind.) It has 100 drone spaces available in cargo boxes for drones, WBP, etc. Convert one of the crew units into 2 deck crews (can't add and can't be used elsewhere). Can only handle a specific type of fighter. [A couple of the existing designs have quirks that may require slightly different designs.]

Ground Assault Leader: Take current designs, remove an APR and Battery. Add a second transporter and a cargo box. The cargo box holds 25 spaces of things like transporter artillery. [Some might not get a second transporter as don't have the typical 2 APR/2 Battery arrangement.]

Regarding Medical PF: I don't want to give them regular LABs as they aren't suppose to be used for science work or IDing drones.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, November 29, 2007 - 06:58 pm: Edit

Are we to assume that Medical PF are the result of Federation HMOs?

"Packing the maximum beds in the minimum space since Y179"

By Michael Powers (Mtpowers) on Thursday, November 29, 2007 - 10:53 pm: Edit

I'm thinking of the "Fi-Plat" as being sort of like a baby DWP; it has, effectively, an "internal bay" for supporting the fighter. (While the PF is much larger than the fighter, the deck crews require a lot of space to work, preventing the Fi-Plat from docking more than one fighter at a time.)

Medical PF: Well, then just give it "hull" boxes, and state in the description that "this design included extensive medical treatment and research facilities, but these have no effect in SFB. While the sensor suite was extensive, it was specialized for medical use and could not be converted to other purposes."

By John Erwin Hacker (Godzillaking) on Friday, November 30, 2007 - 12:00 am: Edit

John Wyszynski:

Any chance on doing the rest of the P/F's (Combat and the rest) in the same format that you did those?

By the way, VERY NICE WEBSITE :) :)

Later everyone, I am off to World Of Warcraft :)

Anyone seen the William Shatner and Mr.T commercials for it yet?

By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Friday, November 30, 2007 - 10:43 am: Edit

Godzillaking: Posting or distributing SSDs that replicate the official/published PFs would be a violation of the web policy.

I have modified six of the Ground Assault Leaders to incorporate the second transporter and cargo space for transporter artillery rounds. They are marked "Version 2".

I have posted six of the Fighter Support Gunboats. Right now they have two fighter bays. It probably makes more sense to only have one and will probably change that.

By Michael Powers (Mtpowers) on Friday, November 30, 2007 - 03:19 pm: Edit

John W: Neat!

Make sure to point out the "trans-artillery" use of the "ground assault leaders". Also, note that the fighter mech-links in the "Fighter Support Gunboats" are repair-capable.

By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Monday, December 03, 2007 - 10:41 am: Edit

My effort got a bit deflated this weekend. The suggestion of SPP's use transporter artillery on the Ground Assault Leader sounded like a great idea. It really added flavor to the unit. (It could have had a place in the future SFA stuff too.) Except that when reviewed the rule book, I found (E20.322), which prohibit PFs from using transport artillery. So either there would need to an exception for a purpose built unit, or scrap that idea.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, December 03, 2007 - 11:14 am: Edit

Wow, what would be the technobabble for that?

By Gary Bear (Gunner) on Monday, December 03, 2007 - 11:35 am: Edit

Probably that there aren't enough miscellaneous crew on the PF to service transporter artillery.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, December 03, 2007 - 11:50 am: Edit

Perhaps. Then along those lines maybe it's an issue with a lack of safty equipement and isolation fields for handling explosive ordinance as well.

By Michael Powers (Mtpowers) on Monday, December 03, 2007 - 12:46 pm: Edit

ARRRRRGHHHHHH NO I! NO I IN 'ORDNANCE'!

I agree with Loren's "no way to safely store explosive rounds". I also feel that a purpose-built "ground assault leader" would be able to incorporate such storage, even if the general-use mass-produced cargo and ground-assault PFs didn't have it.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, December 03, 2007 - 12:54 pm: Edit

MP, I'm a phonetic man and rely on nice people helping me with my disability. Thank you.

[poke in ribs]

I agree about leaders being a possible exception.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, December 03, 2007 - 05:39 pm: Edit

Shows that I do not remember everything. I had forgotten the absolute prohibition on PFs using Transporter Artillery. I did look at the text, and it is absolute, not a matter of noting that most PFs, including Commando PFs, do not have transporters. The fact that leader PFs, which at the time it was written was the only PF type that had a transporter (the G-1N being the only then Leader Variant with a transporter) makes it plain that it is a flat out prohibition. There is an obvious exception in that a Cargo PF could carry transporter artillery as cargo. So the solution would apparently be that the variant would have to arrive on the planet and set up a base, and then break the ammo out of cargo stowage under the provisions of (G25.3). A single PF box of cargo could hold 25 rounds. Operationally, the PF would not be able to access the rounds until it was landed, and could not take off again unless any remaining rounds that had not been fired were placed back into cargo stowage.

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Monday, December 03, 2007 - 05:57 pm: Edit

SPP, the PF-G could always just leave the Transporter Artillery gun and ammo behind, right?

We are talking about an "artillery piece" here right, and not a PF-mounted artillery gun?

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, December 03, 2007 - 06:07 pm: Edit

Scott Tenhoff:

Have you actually looked at the data you are proposing? A Transhowitzer has five rounds on board, and an ammo vehicle brings just five more (you may as well bring two Transhowizers). By having the PF able to land and then operate as a transhowitzer it brings more than twice the ammo, and is harder to knock out under the provisions of a landed unit than a Transhowitzer which could be destroyed simply by specific allocation.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, December 03, 2007 - 06:10 pm: Edit

Michael Powers:

We obviously need an ordinance about the proper spelling of ordnance, perhaps the ordinance should say that anyone using the wrong word will be used as ordnance?

By Nikolaus Athas (Nycathis) on Monday, December 03, 2007 - 06:23 pm: Edit

SPP: Why not say that they will be fired ...
*Duck and covers*

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Monday, December 03, 2007 - 06:29 pm: Edit

OK, SPP, I was just seeking clarity, for when you said "carrying the transporter artillery as cargo", I was imagining you meant 'transporter artillery ammo' that you were uncrating and unloading on the surface, along with a Transporter Artillery gun piece that was stowed as cargo, and not a PF-mounted Arty gun who's transporter artillery ammo had to be loaded once it was landed on a planet.

I'm sure you see the differance in the two situations. Because if it was just an 'artillery gun' you were setting up, why would you have to worry about reloading it into the PF before leaving. You just abandon it on the planet when you left, theirs nothing forcing you to pick it up (besides economics).

That is all.

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation