Jessica Orsini:

Cannot buy it as a CC or CCH would clearly have a higher priority than a MP or DW if it was possible to fit them with power packs.

By Marc Baluda (Marc) on Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 05:35 pm: Edit

Steve:

That same argument would apply to the "plus" and "phaser" refits. Therefore, no CW or DW should receive a plus or phaser refit until all BCs and CAs received one.

However, that was not the case.

It seems very plausable that any CA that would be taken back to a yard to be "heavily" modified to reroute existing power conduits to add four APR and a BATT, would have been converted to a DN.

I understand what you are saying, and it is appealing, but in my opinion it is a strained interpretation when YIS dates can explain the issue.

In addition, there are a lot of things that work on PFs and not on ships.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 06:09 pm: Edit

Marc Baluda:

Apparently I am unclear.

You said: "It seems very plausable that any CA that would be taken back to a yard to be "heavily" modified to reroute existing power conduits to add four APR and a BATT, would have been converted to a DN."

I never said anything about "taking a CA back into the yard".

I said: "My shipyard to produce CAs exists. If it is possible to put a power pack on a Catamaran hull, why did not I not take one of my trust ship designers and tell him to redesign the lower section of the of the CA to mount the power pack, then instigate this new design into the existing assembly line?"

I built a CA in Y165. In Y170 I hauled it back into the yard and converted it to a DN.

All well and good.

But in Y165 I saw this new power pack thingy, and had my ship designer redesign the CA design to incorporateit.

In Y169 all new Production CAs were built to include the power pack.

Why did I not do this?

There is nothing about pulling ships back into the yards to be heavily modified in my statement. I am saying if it was possible it would have been designed into the new production ships.

As to your first statement: "That same argument would apply to the "plus" and "phaser" refits. Therefore, no CW or DW should receive a plus or phaser refit until all BCs and CAs received one."

You are seriously redefining the discussion. Jessica Orsini said: "It may very well be that catamarans didn't get power packs because anything that was so far down the priority list that it stayed a catamaran was also far enough down the list to not warrant a power pack."

That is a very narrow area, not given to the wide interpretation you applied. Neither Jessica's statement, or my response: "Cannot buy it as a CC or CCH would clearly have a higher priority than a MP or DW if it was possible to fit them with power packs." can be read as you have read it.

Jessica said that Catamarans would never get the power packs because they had lower priorities than Tri-Marans. I pointed out that more powerful Catamarans would clearly have higher priorities than less powerful Tri-Marans if the power pack was possible. Your statement that CWs and DWs would not get the refit until all CAs and BCs had it is flat erroneous as clearly a CA or BC on the front fighting when the refit became available would not get it until it could come into dock. Might still not get it because the system is not available (short stocks in Lyran service), while a new construction CW or DW might have it built in to start with, or one returning to dock might have it installed because it is available. So all you have done is agree with me that if the power pack could be installed, it would be. While Jessica was saying that it would not be installed on lower priority Catamarans, my statement simply pointed out that if it could be installed on Catamarans at all, it would have been simply because there would be no way that every CA or CCH ever built was not in a position at some point to receive it.

By Marc Baluda (Marc) on Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 06:27 pm: Edit

Steve Petrick:

The question then arises whether: 1) this redesign of cat hulls you assert was not done because it was impossible or because it would have resulted in a new ship (i.e. redesigning the cat hull for a pp could not be done for a reasonable cost given current tri hull emphasis, and would have resulted in a new ship, which is the tri-hull); or 2) cat hulls were not produced except in extremely limited numbers or as a precursor for a tri hull.

If you consider that tri-hulls were conversions of cat-hulls, you have answered your question.

Cat hulls were redesigned to accomodate the pp, and that redesign was incorporated with other improvements, resulting in the tri hull.

Since mechlinks can't carry tri-hull PFs, the redesign resulted in only the power increase, not the system increase associated with adding a center hull section.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 07:05 pm: Edit

Marc Baluda:

Discussion going nowhere.

You hold to your opinion (Seriously, SVC might after all decide to go that way, it is he and not I that is the final arbiter of the fate of PF developments) and I will hold to mine. But there is no point in taking the discussion between you and I any further.

I say this partly because your first paragraph could simply be read as:

Your "1) this redesign of cat hulls you assert was not done because it was impossible"

Supporting my not done because the closeness of the duo warp engine stresses resulted in the power pack not being stable, and thus not doable on PFs Catamarans.

your "or because it would have resulted in a new ship (i.e. redesigning the cat hull for a pp could not be done for a reasonable cost given current tri hull emphasis, and would have resulted in a new ship, which is the tri-hull)"

Supporting again my conclusion that the tri warp engine design could have the pack (and thus when the Lyrans became aware of it they designed the pack and configured the new tri-engine designs to use it).

Your: 2) "cat hulls were not produced except in extremely limited numbers or as a precursor for a tri hull."

Is destroyed because things like Maulers, Tugs, CCH, CF, and CV are not tri-hulls, and all would benefit from a power pack. And that gets you back into the problem that if the ships could be redesigned to be tri-hulls, then if it was possible they would have modified the existing shipyard designs to produce these hulls to accomodate the power packs.

By your own conclusion a catamaran PF cannot have a power pack because it is impossible to convert a Catamaran ship to carry a power pack without converting it into being a tri-hull.

Consequently, we are not going anywhere and lets just stop (you and me, you might still convince SVC and I do not and am not trying to stop you from that recourse).

By Marc Baluda (Marc) on Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 07:24 pm: Edit

Steve Petrick:

Well, thanks for the discussion. It's been helpful. Please allow me to clarify one point:

"By your own conclusion a catamaran PF cannot have a power pack because it is impossible to convert a Catamaran ship to carry a power pack without converting it into being a tri-hull."

What I said was that tri-hulls incorporated two things: 1) a powerpack, involving a redesign; "and [(2)] that redesign was incorporated with other improvements, resulting in the tri hull." I did not say that a tri-hull was a prerequisite for the powerpack, and frankly the other systems added probably resulted in a tri-hull requirement. So, please don't assume my conclusion as you present it.

A tri-hull based on the interceptor is starting to look better and better....

By Marc Baluda (Marc) on Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 07:27 pm: Edit

I do NOT want to have the last word on this subject, so I hope somebody else, preferably SPP, will post something....

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 07:34 pm: Edit

Marc Baluda:

And why should I have the last word? Why is it necessary that anyone have the last word other than SVC? It is a discussion. Others may want to support your concept, or refute it. A last word implies the discussion is over. All I have said is that since you and I are bumping heads, best I leave off. And I stressed in my statement that SVC will be the one to make the final decision, so there is no call to stop the discussion at this point.

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 07:35 pm: Edit

OK,

So how about a tri-hulled Interceptor, that was Conjectural.

FA+L-P2, FA-Disr, FA+R-P2
hull, hull, hull
---- Bridge ----
APR, btty, APR
LS-P3, imp, RS-P3
2LW, 2CW, 2RW

But the Bobcat was selected for production, because it was easier to build (catamaran) and more durable.

2 less power, and 1 less disruptor, made this an inadequate replacement for the Lynx.

B-) Happy Mark? LOL

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 07:45 pm: Edit

Scott Tenhoff:

From a design standpoint, it does not really work because you have laid it out in a square with a slight forward bump caused by the bridge (which has nothing on either side of it.

Technically, Lyran trimaran designs seem to work by the center "maran" not being as long as the side "marans". Why that is,I do not know, but is one of the design features.

By Andy Vancil (Andy) on Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 07:53 pm: Edit

We already have conjectural trimaran Lyran PFs, with upgrades. Check out SSJ#1.

If you want the Lyrans in your campaign to have an upgraded PF, the Heavy PFs of SSJ#1 seem like the logical way to go.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 07:53 pm: Edit

I personally rather like a Tri-hull PF. The final version posted above makes a lot of sense to me. Why? Well, replacing one disrupter with a P-1 is a good move I think. But the main reason is durability.

THREE ENGINES are naturally better for PFs(Well, for all ships subject to a DAC but particularly for PFs with Booster Packs). Center Warp is less hit than R and L. Also if you take warp damage while the warp packs are on you can loose half your warp with one hit. On a three warp design you can only loose one third. So given the exact same number of internals and exactly the same type, the Trimaran is inharently better. Why did the Lyran designers not see this? Or rather, why did they not go with this design (trimaran that is, not anyones specific design proposal).

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 08:05 pm: Edit

Andy Vancil: I'm looking at SSJ#1 and can not find a Lyran Trimaran PF. I see the Lyran Treecat Heavy PF. It's not a trimaran but it is a three engine design.

Interesting how the c-warp has no booster pack. For the reasons stated above that design is superior to the Hydran design which puts a small pack on each engine which subjects all the engines to the WBP damage rule. The Kzinti design has the same short comming.

By Marc Baluda (Marc) on Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 08:09 pm: Edit

What about 4 P-2s and a disruptor?

This keeps out the P-1 (see above discussion re: the P-1), and allows the PF to downfire the P-2s as P-3s for self-defense. The phaser capacitor is increased, however, because of the P-2.

Perhaps this is too powerful.

By David Kass (Dkass) on Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 08:20 pm: Edit

Loren,

Look at the PF-DAC (K5.1) again. C-warp is actually more likely to be hit than L-warp or R-warp. Each is hit once on column-B (on a flat distribution--1d6). But C-warp is hit if the ship is out of either L-warp or R-warp on column-C, but only L-warp is on column-C (R-warp is behind it on column-D).

While your second argument about losing warp is true, I've generally found it to be a small effect. Since the extra damage isn't scored until after all damage is allocated, it really only comes into play when the PF only takes a few warp hits. Note also that on 3+3 engines, with a bit of luck, the PF can still have mostly intact warp engines after dumping the packs and their vulnerability. Basically, consider a PF that takes a single warp hit. Assume the roll is a 4 (average, but the results apply for any lower roll). For tactical reasons, the PF then drops its packs. A 2 warp PF will have 5 warp left. A 3 warp PF will have 4 warp left. If one does the same calculation with 2 warp hits (on different drives), the result is that the 2 warp drive PF has 4 warp left (and no reason to not drop the packs--they're both dead) while the 3 warp drive PF has 2 warp (total) left (and lost 2 warp when it dumped the packs). I realize this case is a bit contrived, but there are a number of similar situations that can occur.

Overall, I find that the 2 warp and 3 warp PFs perform very similarly. If anything I like 2 warp ones better, but that is more based on asthetics than anything else--damaged PFs tend to no longer contribute to that battle.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 08:42 pm: Edit

DKass. Good point. I suppose they are balanced as both have advantages over the other depending on circomstances.

I retract my previous statement that three is better than two (ahh hem, engines that is).

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 10:54 pm: Edit

Andy Vancil: Oh man, I guess it is time for me to get a fresh pair of glass's. Was just admiring the COVER of SSJ#1 and noticed, um, Lyran Trimarans Heavy PFs. Though the SSD out line doesn't really reflect that the cover art sure does. Sheesh. Sorry about that.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, October 18, 2002 - 11:15 am: Edit

Marc Baluda:

Four phaser-2s and a disruptor starts running into size problems. Lyran PFs are already among the largest PFs in the game. The Lyran PFL has 25 internals, there is no PFL that has more internals than that. It is one of only four (Gorn, Hydran Harrier, Lyran, and ISC) that hits that number of internals. Swapping a disruptor for two phaser-2s would move the Lyran PFL to 26 internals, and that is not going to happen in any case.

The standard Lyran PF is among the top end for internals already with 22. It is joined there by the Tholian PF. The only PF with more internals is the ISC at 23.

Most PFs have only 20 internals, the exceptions being the Fed Conjectural (19), WYN Freedom Fighter (18), Gorn PF (21), and Hydran Harrier (21), and the aformentioned Lyran, Tholian, and ISC.

Most PFLs have 24 internals, the exceptions being the Fed conjectural (23), Gorn (25), Orion (23), Hydran Harrier (25), Lyran (25) and ISC (25).

NOTE: Sensor, Scanner, Dam Con, and Excess Damage not counted in any of the above, but technically add 7 damage points in each case. Also warp packs are not counted since in all cases they add six boxes.

Sorry, but the Lyrans already are at the top end for the size, and there are not going to be any boxes added to them.

By Marc Baluda (Marc) on Friday, October 18, 2002 - 11:51 am: Edit

Steve:

There would be a DEcrease in boxes. Replace the P-3s with P-2s, for a total of 4 P-2s. Delete one disruptor.

Another alternative would be to provide a phaser refit for the Bobcat. For two points, refit the P-3s to P-2s. This would be the easiest change of all, and in fact is what I favor over the above. Results in a larger phaser capacitor, effectively adding one point of power for one turn, and helps the lack of P-1s when it comes to intercepting fighters. The P-2s can be downfired as P-3s for drone defense.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, October 18, 2002 - 12:07 pm: Edit

Marc: The Problem with that is that Ph-3 are half the size of a Ph-2. In effect, though you would not be adding any more boxs you would be adding one additional space of phaser. I'll bet it would be argued that there is not room in the design to physically expand the space to accommodate a Ph-2.

By Marc Baluda (Marc) on Friday, October 18, 2002 - 01:17 pm: Edit

Loren: That would be one technobabble way to shoot down the idea.

Of course, the "p" refits all replace P-3s with P-2s (sure, it's a larger hull - more technobabble).

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, October 18, 2002 - 01:51 pm: Edit

Sorry Marc. I really wasn't trying to technobabble you idea down. But I have heard that reasoning put forthe before even for larger hulls.

By Marc Baluda (Marc) on Friday, October 18, 2002 - 02:05 pm: Edit

No problem! I didn't take it the least bit personally. I tend to provide technobabble to explain away proposals I'm not hot on, especially if they seem to be consistent with a race's technology.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, October 18, 2002 - 02:52 pm: Edit

Marc Baluda:

That was NOT what you said.

You said:
=============================================
By Marc Baluda (Marc) on Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 08:09 pm: Edit

What about 4 P-2s and a disruptor?

This keeps out the P-1 (see above discussion re: the P-1), and allows the PF to downfire the P-2s as P-3s for self-defense. The phaser capacitor is increased, however, because of the P-2.

Perhaps this is too powerful.
=============================================
If you meant "delete one disruptor and change the phaser-3s to phaser-2s, that is not obvious from the above text. The above text appears to read "delete one disruptor and ADD two phaser-2s. If you had meant the former, you should strive to be clearer (no offense intended on my part, but the latter is how I read your suggestion).

As to upgrading the phaser-3s on the PFs to phaser-2s, I cannot help you (again and as always SVC might decide otherwise). Standard Lyran Doctrine says no. There are only two Lyran ships (both carriers, CVL and DWV) other than PFs that have only one phaser LS/RS, and there is no refit to upgrade those phaser-3s to phaser-2s (or phaser-1s). There is no Lyran ship in service that does not have at least one phaser-3 LS/RS.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, October 18, 2002 - 03:00 pm: Edit

Marc Baluda:

And one other minor point, the "p" refit does not

"replace P-3s with P-2s"

It replaces phaser-3s with phaser-2s on most size class 4 hulls and some size class 3 hulls. On most size class 3 hulls it replaces phaser-3s with phaser-1s. An example of an exception being the Transport Tug (a size class 3 unit where the "p" refit upgrades phaser-3s to phaser-2s instead of phaser-1s).