ISC CA's are all armed with PPD's Exception FCA. I would like to see a few varyants without the PPD's and mount a third plasma S or extra phasers. In a heavy BPV fleet and limited to only 8 PPD's it puts a limit on how many CA's you can put into a fleet.
DD's could have there rear plasma Fs swaped for plasma D racks this would give the DD great drone defensive abilitys for the gun line.

By Andrew C. Cowling (Andrew) on Sunday, March 17, 2002 - 04:45 pm: Edit

There's an all-torpedo CA (CAT?) design in the Captain's Log #18 Board of Proposals.

It's a logical ship, though, as an extension of the pre-PPD CA, upgraded to plasma-S.

By Tim rodgers (Mericon) on Thursday, March 28, 2002 - 02:41 pm: Edit

I would like to see a PLS-D refit some time for drone defence.
I would also like a fast scout the extra power would be great in a fleet battle.

By James McLane (Pygmy659) on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 11:33 pm: Edit

It seems completly illogical for the ISC to ever have built a crusier with out a PPD. PPD was the primary peace keeping weapon, because if it's ability to mizia the weapns off of the other ship. If you are running into the 8 PPD limit with a large BPV, you are probably going to be violating command limits as well as the 8 PPD limit. Not to mention a gun line will be hard to form correctly. A ship that big (cruisers are big ships in historical settings, even though that is often down played in game set ups) would allways be in the back of the gun line. You wouldn't want it getting shot up and going back to the ship yard.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Thursday, April 11, 2002 - 12:03 am: Edit

James> Any plasma cruiser would be fielded during the Andro War. The ISC did both mixed PPD/Pl-S and all Pl-S DN variantsfor use against the Andromedans. If they are willing to modify their largest fleet command/combat platforms, then I'd imagine they'd follow suit with at least a few plasma cruisers.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, April 15, 2002 - 07:28 pm: Edit

Andrew Cowling proposed this:

>(1) Scout Frigate (FFS): the ISC appear to have avoided building a scout
>based upon the Frigate hull. I would like to see one made available,
>however, for use in non-historical campaigning and in Frigate-only battle
>forces. If published it could as easily be as a conjectural design as be an
>overlooked historical one.
>Certainly (like all FF-scouts) with only two channels (replacing the
>F-torps) and meagre power, the FFS would be a poor EW platform, but it would
>still be useful for information gathering and for breaking drone lock-ons.

This is not an impossible idea, and doesn't even have to be non-historical.
Maybe they were built for the police?

>(2) Police Destroyer (DDP): looking at the discussions on 'heavy police
>ships', and given the massive production rates of SC4 units for the gunline,
>it appears that one easy way of adding extra teeth to the ISC Constabulary
>Police is to build a police ship on the Destroyer hull. (The only real SSD
>change would be to replace the APR with cargo space.)

Entirely plausible.

>(3) Heavy Survey Cruiser (HSR): a survey cruiser built on the CA hull,
>possibly armed with a single Plasma-S (FP) in addition to phasers and
>defensive torpedoes, to reinforce the Survey Fleet. An equivalent in general
>capabilities to the Fed GSC, Klingon D6E and (at a slight stretch) Lyran
>Prairie Cat SR (although I am not asking for an ISC Survey Tug).
>This would be a ship intended solely for survey duties (especially in
>dangerous areas), and does not need to have a carrier variant (although one
>would certainly be physically feasible, especially after the Andromedan
>Invasion) . If space can be found, it would ideally increase the number of
>labs, probably at the expense of some of the weapons. [I vaguely recall some
>discussion in the F&E threads about comparative SR capabilities, that was
>critical of the current SR's limited lab space. Certainly even doubling the
>number of labs (to 8) would not challenge the GSC's scientific supremacy.]

Purely conjectural for R9, at best.

>(4) Heavy PF Tender (HPF): a PF Tender built on the CA hull, probably armed
>no more heavily than the Fleet Carrier. Having greater durability than the
>PFT, and an EW capability match for those D6/D7-hulled PF tenders in
>Klingon-controlled (or -allied) space.
>My rationale for raising the subject of EW capabilities is that, for the
>Pacification Programme, the ISC have to deal with races in the
>Drone/Disruptor end of space who can, if I am correctly reading (S8.0),
>legally field fleets including 5 EW capable units (Scout + PFT + up to 3 DB
>vessels) - this ship would help reduce the EW deficit. An HPF would also
>appear to be perfectly compatible with ISC doctrine, considering their
>carrier deployment patterns.

Not impressed with the "need" for this. Maybe R9 non-historical.

By Mark Russman (Cannich) on Tuesday, April 16, 2002 - 12:46 pm: Edit

Steve: Wouldn't the Scout channels be too expensive for a 'Gunline' ship?
(As a cruiser captain, I wouldn't put that thing behind me in an eschelon..I'm going home, he can stay an win awards)
The ISC have the DD based scout...would it be more efficient for the Police to use one of those, or to use a toned down version of that, instead of creating a new class?
The DD is more expensive, but to create a new line of ships for six to ten (?)police ships, doesn't seem cost effective.

By Robert Snook (Verdick) on Tuesday, April 16, 2002 - 01:17 pm: Edit

With the Constabulary (sp?) and the police flagship, I don't see a need for a frigate cout. Maybe the ISC already knew what the other races figured out that scouts on frigate hulls don't live very long. Granted, that's what the gunline ships are for, but this is not an effective gunline ship as it has no guns. Maybe as a variant, give the Constabulary a few more teeth since it can't really stand up to a Gorn or Romulan frigate much anyways.

By Marc Baluda (Discomaster) on Tuesday, April 16, 2002 - 02:41 pm: Edit

I'm with Robert. The FLG is fine in the roles of (1) and (2) above, especially when combined with the larger cruiser version.

By Andrew C. Cowling (Andrew) on Wednesday, April 17, 2002 - 04:09 am: Edit

Feedback - yay! (All feedback, either for or against, is gratefully accepted.)

Some answers and conjecture:

I suggested the FFS mainly for non-historical campaigning (where money may be tight) and for use in all-frigate squadrons.

Yes, it would be a woeful EW platform, and have a short life expectancy; on the other hand, from what I have seen on the F&E 'Reports from the Front' topic, larger, more capable scouts also appear to die in their first battle, with distressing regularity.

I agree that the FLG and CPF are wonderful ships, but there will be cases where they are not appropriate. For example [Police Commodore]: 'You want to use my flagship on a picket squadron?'

Also, when you plan to pacify known space, you are going to need a large number of ELINT units - even with the LAS from CL#22, having enough units is going to be expensive: you may find that posting an FFS with 2 or 3 frigates to be more expendable than an SC (with, say, 2 or 3 DD as backup), and the FFS could redeploy more swiftly than can auxiliaries.

In addition, a smaller, cheaper scout should be useful in rear areas, both for training purposes and to supply early warning to key convoys.

Side note: because the ISC designed their frigates with the same offensive firepower as the DD, a two-channel FFS would have the same number of phasers available self-defense as does the four-channel SC - I do not recommend overrunning one unless it has already fired its phasers that turn, especially if your shields have been dented on the way in to the target.

By Mark Russman (Cannich) on Wednesday, April 17, 2002 - 11:39 am: Edit

Andrew: (sorry)your forgetting something...(sort of)
The ISC (DD) SC has more channels and more power...
also: if your scout is getting shot at directly, you've allowed the enemy through the eschelon..iow-you have failed to operate the eschelon properly, and your gunline is probably dead. If your gunline is dead, and your still fighting in a scout, a letter of condolences should be arriving at the Commanders home shortly.
Also- if your firing your phasers, you can't use those channels next turn...(you were planning on stopping that scatterpack?)
Note: if the ISC were to need a cheaper scout, they would probably convert only two of the plasma launchers on the SC to Scout channels...with maybe D's or P1's in the rear/front????
Look at it from the ISC standpoint:
Frigates and destroyers are expendable-cruisers (and bigger), and specialty ships (ie scouts) are not...They cost too much money.
Admiral to Police Commodore: "Pacify that Frigate squaron with Predudice. You have the larger force and should emerge with out serious damage. Oh, and Yes,thats an Order". Admirals dont want fair fights...only gamers want fair fights.
Of course Andrew, this is IMO, and you did ask for it...

By Marc Baluda (Discomaster) on Wednesday, April 17, 2002 - 12:22 pm: Edit

Andrew:

I have to agree with Mark-with-a-K. The frigate squadron would much prefer an FLG to a FFS. The FLG is a destroyer hull, has BAR and Repair, and has the same phaser suite as a FF/DD (although it has one special sensor, compared to the two you propose). It's also not that expensive.

How would the frigate power two special sensors effectively? Frankly, two to charge plus whatever you want to lend pretty much eats all the things power. I think that is why we rarely see any special sensors on frigate hulls.

By Mark Kuyper (Mark_K) on Wednesday, April 17, 2002 - 01:00 pm: Edit

Andrew,
For a race that uses drones (or faces on that uses drones normally) a frigae hulled scout with two special sensors makes some sence. Drone control games comes to mind.

For a non-historical game (ie, one where the ISC fleet normally faces off against a drone user) this would make some sence. Given their historical neighbors and standard deployment pattern they'd be more likely (as the other mar(c/k)'s pointed out) to use the FLG. That way they could still do the echelon and they don't initially share a border with a drone user.

By Andy Vancil (Andy) on Wednesday, April 17, 2002 - 03:10 pm: Edit

The FFS would also make sense for an ISC early-war unit. I would imagine they would have originally had them (just as other races did) but moved to bigger units before their conquest of pacification.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Wednesday, April 17, 2002 - 04:47 pm: Edit

IMHO: The FFS was probaly the first SC that the ISC had. After watching the other races they probably abandonded it as a useful design like everyone else. Maybe it could be a design they had before they bumped into the rude neighbors.

By Marc Baluda (Discomaster) on Wednesday, April 17, 2002 - 05:09 pm: Edit

Someone has to check the YIS dates, but that's what the police ships discussed above were - early fleet elements.

By Robert Snook (Verdick) on Wednesday, April 17, 2002 - 06:24 pm: Edit

Kenneth's idea of having it available before they even came into contact with anybody else seems like somewhat of a plausible excuse for having a frigate scout, but they would have quickly realized that they are more of a liability than an asset, even for small fleets. They probably would have discontinued all production of them and maybe even converted the remaining ones into combat versions before revealing themselves to their barbaric neighbors. Such a small scout would have no real value in a plasma environment and by the time they met the drone races they were already used to having the DD scout and FLG to take care of any special sensor needs for small fleets.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Wednesday, April 17, 2002 - 10:33 pm: Edit

There might be 1-2 of them left for training purposes but nothing more. I would'nt want to completely close off the possibility of using them in the GW. The YIS date for the police ships are from before contact was made. And it makes sense for the FFS to have been around as a cheap SC. Intended for sensor duty. The Pol ships are busy doing other things. Customs, patrol, etc. Any way it would help fill a hole in the free campaign setting. Without making a ship that would have been used extensively in the Pacification campaign. By that time they would have been relegated to the scrap heap like other races FFS's. The ships lost in the line of duty would have been replaced with more capable units. Like everyone else. The only real argument against it is the charge of cookie cutterism. But there is so much already that such a minor ship wont make a difference anyway. i mean the Andro's never had Xships but they got some conjectural ships after all. So an ISC FFS does'nt seem to be much trouble. Look at SVC's commentary. If he did'nt kill it off outright maybe it should be given a chance.

By Stanley Kolakowski (Eurthyr) on Thursday, April 18, 2002 - 08:11 am: Edit

I've read the proposal for a CAS (Star Cruiser Strike Variant) that's been shot down due to the fact that the side sponsons on a CA can't handle the PPD.
Well, what about some modification then to the CC?
Basically, a CCS (Strike Flagship Cruiser).
Rationale: Since the Echelon doctrine relied on the PPD, and a full 3 rank echelon would be commanded by either a DN or CC, Fleet Command felt that there should be a CC variant with the PPD firepower of the DN.
Realizing the side sponsons of the CA-based hull would not be capable of handling the volume of the PPD's, the designers came up with (what seemed to them) a radical idea.
Removing the Plasma-S torpedoes from the sponsons freed up room for an additional phaser and some command facilities. The proposed left sponson carries 3 Ph-1's, all LF arc, along with the main bridge. The right sponson got a third Ph-1 RA arc, along with the flag bridge. The transposition of these weapons and command centers allowed the placement of 2 additional PPD's in the center sponson. While this did not reduce the number of available weapons, the divergent layout, combined with the fact that the center sponson was not designed for that kind of firepower, makes the CCS subject to "shock" as it is representative of the extra maintenance of this unorthodox design.
Due to the maintenance required, the CCS is not capable of fulfilling the role of flagship for echelons travelling any distance from the homeworlds, and thusly was never seen in the primary War of Pacification. However, a limited number of CCSs were produced to fill the DN roles of the home Echelons in case it became necessary for those DN's to be mobilized to the front.

SSD has not been designed as of yet. I'll work on one when time permits, if someone else doesn't beat me to the punch...

Other variations that I've considered:
Completely removing the transplanted Ph-1s, along with the Pl-Ss, in return for the additional 2 PPD's
Ignoring the "no PPD on side sponson" restriction as this is a slightly larger CA hull (CC), thereby allowing the center sponson to remain in it's original configuration, this variant is subject to shock.
"Undergunning" the CC hull by removing both Pl-S, transplanting the Ph-1s and command facilities, and adding only 1 PPD to the center sponson.

For the shock effect, I view the CCS as having a shock rating of somewhere between 17 and 23, only accumulating when more than 2 PPD's are fired within a specific 32 impulse span (Ex: PPD 1 fired turn 2 imp 15, 16, 17, 18. PPD 2 fired T 2 I 21-24. PPD 3 and 4 fired T 3 I 15. PPD 3 does not create shock, as 32 impulses passed from the firing of the first PPD, clearing it's fire from the shock list. PPD 4 does generate shock normally as it is fired within 26 impulses of the second PPD.)

Something to bat around...

By Mark Russman (Cannich) on Thursday, April 18, 2002 - 09:17 am: Edit

Stan: If you read the description for the CC it says that its already overgunned...I think that would kill the idea (actually one form of that was proposed a while back..??). The PPD really doesn't provide the kind of wump to hit a ship with shock (like say a mauler or an R torp) because it dishes out its plasma energy in small doses. Please don't get me wrong on this, I would love to see it!
What I would really like to see is a conjectural BB that actually meets ISC specs, instead of that piece of junk they gave them.
BTW: I don't disagree with the FLG, but my original thought is that the ISC, producing many SC (DD), would use those as a matter of course, instead of making a new class (that in the long run would not work). The ISC was very methodical in that they always made their stuff better or disposable; a disposable scout is not in character..(Fed PF's), Although it could be a conjectural unit...hmmm

By Marc Baluda (Discomaster) on Thursday, April 18, 2002 - 12:18 pm: Edit

Mark is correct. They had no fleet, except police ships, prior to contact. Upon contact, everything was tried in simulators before being built. The ISC did not have any failed designs (because they were already tested) until they introduced some new ones during the Pacification (such as the CF).

Stanley:

I did not see a final conclusion on whether the side sponsons could take a PPD. Someone only mentioned that might be the case. I, for one, hope that is not the case because I have a proposal in for the CAS (File #67).

By Stanley Kolakowski (Eurthyr) on Friday, April 19, 2002 - 08:41 am: Edit

Mark:

Actually, R13.5 (description of the CC) states "As cruisers go, it was heavily overgunned (having the maximum amount of weapons that the hull could carry)"
And my proposal does not change the number of weapons carried, just the locations. If necessary, I've contemplated a couple of models that lose a weapon or 2 (either don't transplant the original FH Ph-1's or lose a whole PPD, (but that makes the CC barely as strong as a CA.) On the subject of shock, see my reply below...

Marc:

Posted in the ISC tactics thread:
by Ken Burnside (Ken_Burnside) Posted on Friday, December 28, 2001 - 4:20 pm
I proposed a 3 PPD ship 7 years ago, and got told that the side sponsons cannot survive the shock of a PPD being mounted.
=====
by Rus Lender-Lundak (Rusman) Posted on Friday, December 28, 2001 - 6:13 pm
Then how would the DN/BB be explained?
=====
by Ken Burnside (Ken_Burnside) Posted on Friday, December 28, 2001 - 10:19 pm
They're SC 2, which bypasses the restriction

Unfortunately, if that is still the case, then the standard PPD on side mount proposals will eventually be shot down, after a through review. So, I attempted a different route, putting all PPDs on the center hull, moving the stuff normally there out to the side sponsons (in place of the removed plasma launchers). Also, if the side sponsons cannot withstand the shock of having PPDs on them, obviously a large collection of them in the center hull could produce shock effects, from "carrier wave harmonics" or something suitably technobabbily...
The only other reasons I included shock in the proposal is balance, and a historical reason. The CCS is 2 Ph-1's shy of a DN in mid-to-long ranged firepower. At range 15, using only Ph-1's and the PPD, the CCS does 6 less maximum damage than the DN. On average, due to the fact that the ph-1's are 50% to hit, 1-3 damage at range 15, we're looking at a more average loss of 1-2 damage per volley. And, the CCS matches the DN volley for volley. To me, the DN-like power of the CCS requires some limit.
I'd rather at first overlimit a ship in minor ways (shock) than produce an "unrestricted munchkin" that walks like a CA, and hits like the DN. It's easier to pull limits off a ship than slap them on later...
The other reason for shock was "historical". As I've shown, the CCS has DN level firepower. If the CCS were completely effective, why even bother with the DN? The ISC are masters of efficiency, and the added staying power (internals) of the DN may not have been considered cost effective (economically and crew-wise) if a CCS has nearly identical firepower. Especially since Echelon doctrine calls for the sacrifice of the gunline in order to save the flagship. Since the CCS can withstand the same firepower as a CC, and CC's are capable of operating in the 3rd rank, then the rationale for the DN is non-existant.
Therefore, the added maintenance costs created by a shock inclusive environment would have made the DN the ideal heavy unit for pacification, and the CCS more of a "civil defense" ship, providing DN firepower to the core fleets if the actual DN's were needed on the front. Historically, the CCS would be limited production, kept in mothballs unless needed.

Oh, and Marc, on the BB, what would you propose? Upgrading to Pl-R? More PPDs, D-racks? Phasers?Removing some restriction on the rear Pl-F mounts? As I've learned in my SFC experience, the I-BBZ (class of the fully equipped BB), except for the lack of drone defense, and the usual power-hog nature of late ISC ships, (especially trying to load all the rear Fs,) is a match for most other BB's (even though that may be due to the fact that the flawed SFC I-torps allow 4 F-torps to be fired per turn out the back, as the I-torp is restricted to one per "hardpoint" (cluster of boxes) and the BB has them arranged in a cluster of 4 and a cluster of 2 on each side... 4 hardpoints (clusters) = 4 torps per turn... It's almost better to be tailed in the I-BBZ than to make battle passes (80 damage one turn, 80 damage the next turn and 40 the thrid turn... then it repeats... average of 6.68 power to charge each round, ) Also, the I-BB is turn mode E (matches Klingon B10), while most other BB's are turn mode F...

By Mark Russman (Cannich) on Friday, April 19, 2002 - 11:20 am: Edit

Stan:
-The BB: I actually would suggest one of two things:
1) Replace the S launchers with PPD's (I know the 4/unit limit...)-Barring Andro's or hidden cloak, NOBODY should EVER be able penetrate an Eschelon protecting a BB. Why? At the range the BB is firing, most plasma S torps would have dropped at least one bracket, and if a ship does get through the Eschelon you might as well call the junk yard anyway...its going to get pasted by the F torps, or phasered by the BB through downed shields.
2) The ISC would be deploying a BB after everone else (like normal), so this would put it in the y181-183(?)time frame. This time coincides with X-Ships, So M torps replacing the S torps would solve the distance problem mentioned above, and keep heavy plasma up front. Let the screams of anguish begin.."No! not X tech on a Battleship"...not that it was ever built anyway.
Take you pick...Either solution modifies the following as well...
Turn Mode: Actually the turn mode is very good, which is quite unusual for an ISC ship. Of course this just proves my point: The ISC BB is nothing more than a Lousy upgrade from a DN.
Consider:
Hydran Pal+ is 200(+), the MNR is 390...190 pts
Rom Con+ is 246, the KCN is 415.........169 pts
Gorn DnF is 229, the BB is 376..........147 pts
Thol NDN is 240, the BB is 376..........136 pts
Lyran Dn is 211, the BB is 336..........125 pts
Klink C8K is 226(+), the B10K is 348....122 pts
Kzin Dn is 225(+), the BB is 344........119 pts
Fed Dn+ is 207, the BB is 326 ..........119 pts
Fed DNG 244(+), the BB is 326 .......... 82 pts
-I think the Fed BB was based on the Dn+ design...they both come out the same year..
Note- You have to add in fighters and drones. Those ships that have drones increase their BPV quite a bit...
The ISC DN is 280, the BB is 360.........80 pts

See the general trend? The ISC was capable of building the Best DN in space, so why not the (or nearly) best BB? It does not follow the historical ISC way of doing things.
As for SFC, I am quite familiar with the BBZ, I have conquerored about 60% of the quadrant with it..

The CCS idea isn't bad...I thought of calling it a BCH (many years ago), but figured 4 PPDs on the CC would never be allowed. I said earlier that the BBs come out shortly before X-ships, so CCX's would replace CCS' or they would be converted into such anyway.

By Wayne Crawford (Darkelf) on Tuesday, September 17, 2002 - 06:21 am: Edit

An idea I've had for a while and played around with a bit, is replacing the rear firing F-torps on gunline ships with a Plasma D rack. I think it might be entirely possible for the ISC to have experimented with this as they started to face even more fighters and PF's.

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Tuesday, September 17, 2002 - 11:06 am: Edit

Wayne, IIRC you were able to do this in the Commander's Edition of SFB.

It was taken out in Captain's Edition.

Obviously, if you break through a gun-line of 4 ships, and each ship fires 2 Plas-D at your ship, it's toast.

Especially after the 2nd Echelon tractor's you so the torps hit almost instantly.

But if you have J2 already, you can deploy a Drogue which can have 3 Plas-F or 6? Plas-D on it, so this might be an easier solution for this, and much deadlier