Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through July 24, 2008	25		07/24 02:10pm

BCF SSD sent to Peter. I go back and forth with it. The current version I would consider a minimal interpretation. Arguments can easily be made to increase X, Y and Z. I've been assuming that the design would be incompatible with power packs.

By Peter David Boddy (Pdboddy) on Thursday, July 24, 2008 - 12:05 pm: Edit

Hmm, it's been about a half hour and it has not arrived in my email inbox. Could you resend? I've checked my spam box and it hasn't been misplaced there either.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, July 24, 2008 - 01:20 pm: Edit

Resent with a different ISP.

By Peter David Boddy (Pdboddy) on Thursday, July 24, 2008 - 01:23 pm: Edit

It's up at: http://pdboddy.googlepages.com/BCF.jpg

EDIT: Haha, as a side note, the first email you sent just arrived... two minutes after your second one showed up.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, July 24, 2008 - 02:10 pm: Edit

Based on the CF being the Running Tiger and the CWF being the Running Jaguar, the classes under discussion should be the Running Panther and Running Wildcat.

By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Thursday, July 24, 2008 - 02:57 pm: Edit

Tos,
If it is incompatible with Power Packs, that would be reason enough for it to be an unbuilt variant.
Lose 8 APR + 2 Btty from the packs
Gaining 6 warp from the engines

Net loss of 2 power and 2 BTTY kind of cuts into the "fast" concept.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Thursday, July 24, 2008 - 05:30 pm: Edit

Why would it not be able to mount at least one power pack?

I'm not 100% sure (since I only have the FC Ship Card for the DNL, but I have the Ship Card and SFB SSD for the DN) but I'm fairly certain that the DNL has the same pack as the DN.

So, would it not be possible to have one, if not both, of the packs fitted into a BCF?


(Maybe one pack on a BCF, and two on the BBL...)


Oh, and I still think that, as with the DN>DNL conversion, the BCF should retain that 4th ESG.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, July 24, 2008 - 06:19 pm: Edit

It can do anything we (and ADB) want it to do, but, there is little value in producing a ship that differs from a BCH only in the loss of one disruptor. The posted design is unique; it doesn't duplicate an existing design; its intentionally sub-optimal in the combat role as a trade off for more speed. Compared to the CF, I'd rather have a BCF.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, July 24, 2008 - 06:26 pm: Edit

Technobabble: Design studies showed that the added mass and drag of power packs would have prevented the ship from generating the necessary fast warp slip stream so were never installed.

The X1R BCX eschewes power packs, probably for much the same reason.

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Thursday, July 24, 2008 - 07:01 pm: Edit

The CWX/DWX don't include the power packs seperate from the hull, but have big, honking blocks of APR+BTTYs to indicate the hull was expanded to include the powerpack.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Thursday, July 24, 2008 - 07:04 pm: Edit

The ship would still be unique with one pack - but it would be slightly less sub-optimal by fitting it.


I will say that so far as conjectural vs. historical ships go, I wouldn't try to make a BBL any less conjectural than the BB itself (outside of potential use for Fed Commander, that is) but I would like there to be at least the potential that, just as Heartseeker turned out to be a DNL, that perhaps at least one CL and/or BC in the Far Stars Duchy turned out to have been a CLF and/or BCF - so in that case, I wouldn't want the ships to be overly disadventaged compred to their non-fast equivalents.

By Charles Chapel (Ctchapel) on Friday, July 25, 2008 - 04:25 am: Edit

Wouldn't the Cheshire Cat be the ship that tried to use a borrowed cloaking device. (Smile)

By Larry E. Ramey (Hydrajak) on Friday, July 25, 2008 - 08:54 am: Edit

So.......


the Fast CL gets bigger engines and keeps 100% of its weapons?

Yeah, Sign me up for that. That doesn't seem munchkin or anything.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, July 25, 2008 - 10:00 am: Edit

Upping a 20 warp 2/3 MC CL to 24 warp is hardly tactically munchkin. The Gorns managed to do that in Y121.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, July 25, 2008 - 10:01 am: Edit

However, if that is your opinion, you must like the neutered BCF SSD, yes?

By Larry E. Ramey (Hydrajak) on Friday, July 25, 2008 - 10:04 am: Edit

Tos,

Tactically its not godlike or anything.... but strategically, it gets 7 hexes of movement for free.

I dunno.... how is that a good thing?

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, July 25, 2008 - 10:25 am: Edit

So from an F&E perspective you would prefer its combat value decline as a result of enhanced strategic movement. Is this the case for the current CF class? I not an F&E guy, but I would have assumed the CF class doesn't loose combat capability as it gains fast status. Its certainly no worse tactically in SFB.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, July 25, 2008 - 10:29 am: Edit

Personally, I like the BCF. It works for me.

By A. David Merritt (Adm) on Friday, July 25, 2008 - 10:41 am: Edit

Phaser Refit? It seems to be missing, is this intentional, or an oversight?

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, July 25, 2008 - 10:59 am: Edit

I removed it intentionally based on the CLF needing to loose some weight to please Larry (so as to be less armed then its non-fast cousin).

Its easy enough to add if desired.

Next up I'll have to build the CLF SSD, which won't be complicated but I'm not sure when I'll have time to squeeze it in.

By Peter David Boddy (Pdboddy) on Friday, July 25, 2008 - 11:43 am: Edit

Well Tos, if you do do that SSD, and want it posted, let me know and I'll put it up.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, July 25, 2008 - 12:40 pm: Edit

Thanks Peter I may. I have intermitent access to a web site, but not from work.

Building the CLF in parallel is important because we may hit a design problem that isn't aparent on the BCF.

By Peter David Boddy (Pdboddy) on Friday, July 25, 2008 - 11:50 pm: Edit

The CLF is here: http://pdboddy.googlepages.com/CLF.jpg

She's a nice ship.

By Ken Humpherys (Pmthecat) on Saturday, July 26, 2008 - 09:43 am: Edit

Nice SSD, but where are the 360° phasers?

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Saturday, July 26, 2008 - 10:21 am: Edit

This exercise makes me wonder why they never tried to mount 4 disruptors on a CL. It wouldn't have the power to move, but that would have been a secondary consideration.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Saturday, July 26, 2008 - 11:01 am: Edit

Ken, it took me a while, but now I understand your comment. Fixed in next version.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Saturday, July 26, 2008 - 06:37 pm: Edit

Tos:

Well, the Eneen heavily converted their remaining CLs into Monitors when they developed their NCL class - maybe, in theory, one could do something similar with a Lyran light cruiser.


What extra bulk/weaponry/etc would a larger centre hull (with 2 engines on it) need to bring the design up to a BBL level, yet keep it 'light' enough to retain the fast designation?

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Saturday, July 26, 2008 - 06:46 pm: Edit

You lost me somewhere between 'Fast' and 'Monitor'.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Saturday, July 26, 2008 - 07:18 pm: Edit

You said:

---

Quote:

This exercise makes me wonder why they never tried to mount 4 disruptors on a CL. It wouldn't have the power to move, but that would have been a secondary consideration.

---