Difference between 1 & 2 is only the ready racks for 2 TF fighters.

Difference between 3 & 4 is 2 tractors (located under the APR & BTTY)

I wasn't considering PPD versions, or even a single Plas S/PPD, at the beginning, because the PFT doesn't have them. I see both PPD and Plas/PPD as being possible, but 4 SSDs is plenty.

By Wayne Crawford (Darkelf) on Friday, October 04, 2002 - 12:50 pm: Edit

I did find a ship that carried only 3 PFs. The Romulan Chickenhawk in Module K. The R rule states that this ship would have a standard flotilla if operated in pairs, but could be operated alone.

If the SCSL is to be used as a replacement for unavailable SCS, I would say it would be operated in pairs (probably SCSL-1).

Given the general ISC weapons philosophy, one of these would be armed with 2 PPD, or both could be Plas/PPD mixed.

By Mark Kuyper (Mark_K) on Friday, October 04, 2002 - 12:53 pm: Edit

Wayne,
For item 1, this ship wouldn't be as capable as either a carrier or a PFT. Each would be forced to lend EW to fighters (rather than a single carrier lending to its squadron) without bringing the full resources either the carrier of PFT would bring.

For item 2, if this is to test out PFT operations it wouldn't need the fighters. Instead it would operate with a carrier during trials. That way they still have a good carrier if the PFT concept doesn't work out while having a good PFT if it does.

Item 3 does make some sence. Though it does beg the question "How is this better than existing carriers/PFTs?"

The one thing I do see this ship useful for is combat training in combind PF/fighter tactics. That, though, would seem to be a role that a modified auxiliary hull (large freighter with one carrier and one PF pod) would fulfull better.

If you did increase this to a full Flotilla (and added a little cargo) you could turn it into a PFT/FCR. As a concept it would be "Its able to function as a PFT. Its also an FCR to keep our carriers (who are running out of fighters) up to strength".

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, October 04, 2002 - 01:44 pm: Edit

Just wool gathering, but given the ISC prediliction for operating in groups, what if each ship could carry 3 PF's, with a full squadron split between two ships? You know, two ships that by S8.0 would have to operate together? Sort of like Fed escorts and carriers have to stay together? Then the individual ship won't be as capable as an SCS or carrier, but two together would be pretty good.

Just a random thought...feel free to ignore it.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, October 04, 2002 - 01:55 pm: Edit

#4 Much nicer design. Guys, I think the idea is this is a pre-design to the PFT and was held over to patrol the Backwater Systems. Not a front line ship.

Cosmatic nit on #4: The APR and Battery are just beging to have a box added to them due to the whitespace. As four of each is too much I suggest raising the Phaser-3s and the Pl-Fs up one. That will fill the whitespace and pull the Pl-Fs off the hull line.

By Wayne Crawford (Darkelf) on Friday, October 04, 2002 - 01:58 pm: Edit

Mark K: I don't see why this ship could not be classed as a 'fully capable carrier'? The ISC tended to make ships that were, on average, better than other galactic races. If not so classified, the 6 fighters are still a squadron according to J4.461 & J4.462. Substituting an EF for an SF would provide additional EW for the squadron.

Now that I have J2 and see the CSF, the SCSL would not be operated in pairs. A PFT and a CSF would preform the function better.

The use of this ship as a test platform is not something I'm going to get broken up about. Just a possible idea I had.

As far as what will be better a CVL/CVS or PFT (or even a CSF) as the main ship of a 3 ship echelon, that must be play tested to see if there is any advantage to having mixed PF's & fighters over a pure PF or fighter platform.

A PFT designed to fill an FCR roll sounds interesting. I'd have to look over all the rules for FCRs again to see what is needed to make it plausable.

I want to add a thanks to everyone who is looking at this ship critically, it helps me to think more about the role a ship fills than 'is this cool'.

By Mark Kuyper (Mark_K) on Friday, October 04, 2002 - 02:06 pm: Edit

Wayne,
I wasn't saying the ship wouldn't funtion as a full carrier. What I was getting at is each ship would need to support its fighters with EW seperately.

Now if they always operate in pairs (like Romulan warhawks) it makes a bit more sence. it means that the ships operate on oposite sides of an eschelon thus reducing the distance fighters and PFs need to go to rearm/repair. Conceptually that means these would be 2nd line ships that fulfill the tactical role of a 3rd line SCS while leaving that spot open.

By Wayne Crawford (Darkelf) on Friday, October 04, 2002 - 02:24 pm: Edit

Mark K: I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear that operating in pairs was my original intention (for full echelons). In my above post, I think that a CSF and a PFT might be a better way to go, but it is something to be play-tested (hence the reason I stated the SCSL would not be operated in pairs, meaning it would be relegated to other duties). As well as seeing if one of these would preform well in a small echelon: SCSL, 2 DD/FF hulls (including FE/DE escort).

Loren: Nit fixed. Thanks for pointing it out.


Everyone, again, make me think about this ship. I want it to be something that is useful, whether published or not.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, October 04, 2002 - 02:52 pm: Edit

Wayne: I would strongly consider flying a pair of these on the second line if they can support each others ftr/PFs. That is a huge tactical plus. You get a full fighter squadron and a extra heavy PF squadron whos carrier is VERY hard to kill. And I have to say that it goes with the ISC personality. But operating in pairs and able to support each others Ftrs/PFs with Bay Ops and EW is a BIG and POWERFUL rule. You would need to write it up as a J rule separate from the ship description I would think.

By Wayne Crawford (Darkelf) on Friday, October 04, 2002 - 06:27 pm: Edit

Loren: Let me make sure I'm understanding what you are saying.

New J or R rule that states that when the SCSL is operated as a pair, that all fighters are treated as a single squadron and either (not both) SCSL could lend EW to the entire squadron or preform any other special function that a standard carrier preforms for its squadron. Also that all 8 PFs (if the 4 PF version is used) are considerd a flotilla when these ships are operated in pairs. Still limited to 1 PFL and 1 PFS.

Is this what you are meaning? If this is the case, I would also be very inclined to remove one Plas S and add a PPD in its place. Also, I might think that the extra 2 PFs might be PF variants (Fi-Cons spring to mind as fighter recovery). If the above is not what you mean, then please clarify. Thanks.

BTW, the above stated ability would have to increase the BPV of the ship, by how much, I'm not sure.

I'll chat with my gaming partner and see if he'd like to help me play test this possibility after our ISC/Gorn rematch in 12 days.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, October 04, 2002 - 07:50 pm: Edit

I can't see PPDs on this ship. I think that would be over the top.

The first Paragraph: That's basicaly it. Having the squadron control shared by two ships basically creats a very tough to kill carrier as you would have to kill both to eliminate the squadrons carrier.

BPV increase: How about having a split BPV and use the higher Economic BPV when paired with another. How much? Say 5% of each or a little less.

All I am saying is that if you have this ability it will require a new rule. No one else can do that.

By Wayne Crawford (Darkelf) on Friday, October 04, 2002 - 11:45 pm: Edit

Loren: Ok, just wanted to make sure that I understood you. I think it would be an R rule, since it is ship specific, or it could be a new system that can be taken out on both ships by a H&R raid (like a cloaking system) making it a G rule. I'll work on both this weekend and see how things look.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, October 05, 2002 - 11:03 am: Edit

Then I would make this suggestion. Don't make it a new box but a system that is pressent on a specific pair of control boxs. When those are destroyed then the special ability is lost.

Also, I would give them a proximity limitation i.e. in order to maintain duel control they must opperate within a cirtain proximity to each other. I suggest 15 hexs or less.


Also remember to address the new Remote Fighter Rules in J2.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Saturday, October 05, 2002 - 06:20 pm: Edit

You might also consider allowing the carrier to only lend a maximum of 3 EW to the combined squadron. You could also have the ship lose the capability when crippled rather than having to write some new rule.

By Wayne Crawford (Darkelf) on Saturday, October 05, 2002 - 07:38 pm: Edit

Loren: I was thinking of just adding a box for h&R like the cloaking system has. I also considered having it destroyed when all bridge & aux con were destroyed, but I thought as long as the 2 ships had lock on to each other it should work. 15 hex's would work as well, since ISC operate in echelons. Thanks for the J2 reminder.

Tos: Well, since both are to be classified as 'fully functional carriers', 3 EW might limit it a bit much. My line of thinking is that once the system (I'm calling it a Tandem Computer right now) is destroyed, then the fighters become 2 squadrons. Instead of one ship being able to supply all the EW, both must supply it to their own fighters. But there will have to be a rule, either a R rule or a G rule. I'm working on both, and will see which seems to work better.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, October 05, 2002 - 09:15 pm: Edit

I think adding a box is more than it needs to be. And harder to develope as a rule (i.e. getting it accepted). 15 hexs and lock-on and controlled is good enough for me.

The total EW support should not exceed what is normally allowed for a single carrier. The bonus is that each carrier can carry some or all of the burden. That is where the power of the rule come in. It shouldn't be too long a rule, I would think. A section G rule might be a good choice since it is a System and is to cover both fighters and PFs.

Been thinking about the Remote Fighter thing. Remote Fighters can only be controled from their own carrier since the remote stations with their pilots can only be on one ship.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, October 06, 2002 - 01:38 pm: Edit

Here's a KISS principle suggestion:

The combined fighter squadron gets all its carrier-based EW lending from one ship or the other. It would be as if one ship were the "home" carrier and the other were just helping out by carrying the rest of the fighters. This can be changed between scenarios, but not during.

By Mark Kuyper (Mark_K) on Sunday, October 06, 2002 - 06:22 pm: Edit

Or a simpler version:
"Fighters of the combined squadron may receive lent EW from either carrier within the normal limits of lent EW". No fuss about which is the "Home" carrier.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, October 07, 2002 - 03:19 am: Edit

Too simple. Too powerful.

IIRC, Other areas of the fighter rules say something pretty close to "fightes have to be configured to a given carrier." Otherwise, any carrier or any scout in a fleet can lend to any fighter squadron and I'm VERY sure that's not allowed.

Allowing fighters to receive EW from either carrier is a decided advantage and an unfair one. It confers a unique advantage on the squadron in heavy EW situations and pushes them back to the front lines.

What most closely conforms with existing carrier operations is that the combined fighter squadron is configured for one carrier or the other.

As it is the split operations gives a moderate advantage. The twin carriers can divide the energy-consuming duties between them. The squadron's plas-F tossers can be rearmed at the non-lending ship, who can more easily afford to reload the F-boxes or put power into repairing damaged PFs.

By David Kass (Dkass) on Monday, October 07, 2002 - 11:32 am: Edit

Remeber that fighters can only receive lent EW from one lending source. This should not be changed (and will not be changed unless the rule explicitly says it does). Thus even in Mark's simple version, while both carriers can lend, only one will actually be able to lend (and they will not be able to share the power load--but being able to do so is way too powerful). Note that the maximum lending distance to the fighters is 10 hexes...

By Wayne Crawford (Darkelf) on Monday, October 07, 2002 - 11:21 pm: Edit

Ok, I added a text version of my rule to my web site. Tell me what you think. This is the first draft, so I expect it to need work.

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/wcrawford/Rules/

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, October 07, 2002 - 11:27 pm: Edit

It's a good summation of what you want, but if you make it a (Gx.xxx) system, it becomes open for use on other ships and the ADB will nix it because munchkin players will pressure them to add it to their favorite ship.

By Wayne Crawford (Darkelf) on Monday, October 07, 2002 - 11:38 pm: Edit

John: It could be something that is an ISC only technology. Though, I don't see other races having the philosophy that would make use of something like this.

By Tim rodgers (Mericon) on Tuesday, October 08, 2002 - 07:15 am: Edit

Hum I would make it at least two control boxes on each ship one for ship operation and one for the computer. I would also limit the Tandem box to this function only IE cannot be used for a lab.

By John Kasper (Jvontr) on Tuesday, October 08, 2002 - 08:28 am: Edit

So, any fighter in the squadron within 10 hexs of either of the ships would be within range to receive lent EW?