Looking at the SSDs of the D5, D5W, C5, CWL, and C7 I have come up with an idea for a Heavy C7. Lets call it a C7W.

Start with a C7:
1) Swap out the 15 box engines with D5 engines
2) Give it a D5W style engine mount on the top of the rear section with a single D5 engine and FX disruptor arcs. Note that it would retain the 2 boom warp since this engine is not part of or attached to the boom.
3) Its MC should be 1 1/6 with a turn mode of C.
SVC NOTES: ADDED MOVE COST ALLOWS MORE INTERNAL BOXES.

Optional but unlikely (4) Increase the amount of APR so that its max speed after housekeeping and loading normal disruptors is only one slower than a C7. With SC3 housekeeping and MC 1 1/6 it would need 2 more APR. (However to keep this thing SC3 and turn mode C it may not be possible to add any APR.)

It can be built in a cruiser slipway due to the smaller left and right engines compensating for the top mount engine. (Or perhaps the top mount engine is added afterward either excuse could work. I am aiming for the sort of excuse that was used for the Fed NCL to be build in a DD slipway.)

Although its SSD would look identical (accept for the engines and perhaps a couple APR) to a C7 its rear section is really a completely new design. I just don't think you could do these engines swaps and adds without a significant adjustment to the structure of the rear hull.
THE CENTER ENGINE WILL NEED BRACING BUT THAT IS ALL. I AM NOT SURE YOU WOULD NOT DO BETTER TO KEEP THE ORIGINAL SIDE ENGINES AND JUST ADD AN F5W ENGINE. THAT GIVES YOU FIVE DISRUPTORS.

The purpose of the ship is to provide a 6 disruptor unit that is maneuverable enough to lead D5/D5W and F5Ws.
It would replace C7 production and be called a C7W.
HISTORY HAS LOCKED IN C7 PRODUCTION THROUGH Y185. THIS MIGHT BE AN EFFORT TO BUILD A BIGGER SHIP WITHOUT USING RARE XTECH MATERIALS.

By James Hallmark (Jhallmark) on Sunday, January 25, 2009 - 07:01 pm: Edit

Design Feasibility:

The following is a defense of the 1 1/6 MC:

How big does a ship, that can move normal tactical speeds (31), have to be to have 6 heavy weapon spaces?

My answer is 1 1/6. Here is why:

Fed BCJ has 6 and it suffers shock, so MC 1 is too small. Gorn BCH has 5 1/3 (3 x 1 1/3 + 2 X 2/3). ISC BCH has 5 1/3 (4 x 1 1/3). Neither of these suffer shock so 5 1/3 is okay. There is no BCH that has more than 5 1/3 without special circumstances or shock.

Based on the above, 5 1/3 is assumed to be the maximum (pre-X). This can then be scaled as follows:

16/3 X 9/8 = 6

However if you continued my logic up to DN size they should have 8 heavy weapons but for some reason do not (Although BBs with 10 are closer to what my formula would give (10 2/3)). Due to this I will assume there is some inefficiency when scaling up. So lets round up (from 1 1/8) and say that the MC is 1 1/6.

By James Hallmark (Jhallmark) on Sunday, January 25, 2009 - 07:10 pm: Edit

Power Curve:

With MC 1 1/6 it has 1 more power at speed 30 than a C7. This is based on the following:

Imp and APR do not change.

32 warp becomes 38 (3 x 12 + 2 boom). It takes 35 to go speed 30 so this leaves 3 left vs the 2 left on the C7.

Given that it now has 2 more disruptors to feed its power curve is now worse than a C7 by 3. It would be great to add 2 APR but I don't want to 'break/munchkin' the ship and adding the APR may do that.

By James Hallmark (Jhallmark) on Sunday, January 25, 2009 - 07:12 pm: Edit

Turn mode C:

The reason I have not proposed adding any other systems is to keep this thing lean enough to justify a C turn mode. If we were expanding a C7 by 1/6 without regard for turn mode I would expect it to get a few more than 8 extra boxes. Probably 12-15.

I will note that the D5 took an engine strapped on its back without an increase in turn mode.

By James Hallmark (Jhallmark) on Sunday, January 25, 2009 - 07:13 pm: Edit

Design feasibility:

A D5 can have an 8 box engine and some extra space that allowed for phraser improvements and a couple extra systems welded to its back.

By extension a D7 (which is just a primitive C7), due to being 50% larger, should be able to have a 12 box engine and some extra space welded to its back. However this does not allow for the 'stress' for the 2 disruptors, especially considering that the hull is pretty stressed out due to having been upgraded to a C7. So to make space I have proposed reducing that left and right engines, redesigning the rear hull to be built for 3 D5 engines, and as part of this redesign expanding the rear hull.

Note 1: To be very clear, I am not proposing this as a CW to NCA or DNL to medium DN type conversion. The extra engine is not just welded on. It is part of the original design for this ship.

Note 2: The DNL to medium DN conversion is interesting. For 1/4 mass the ship gets 1 heavy weapon, no change in turn mode, and lots of phasers, secondary weapons, and power. I would suggest that this precedent improves the feasibility of my design.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, January 25, 2009 - 10:37 pm: Edit

Ok, lets run the numbers one more time...

comparison C7 vs C7W

System	C7	C7W
Shd#1	36	36
Shd#2&6	30	30
Shd#3&5	24	24
Shd#4	24	24
PH-1-FX	4	4
Trac	4	4
Bridge	3	3
SCTY	4	4
ADD	1	1
EMER	2	2
BTTY	7	7
Tran	6	6
Lab	4	4
F Hull	6	6
C Warp (boom)	2	2
E Imp	2	2
PH-1-LF&L	2	2
PH-1-RF&R	2	2
A Hull	10	10
AUX CON	2	2
Probe	1	1
PH-1-L&LR	1	1
PH-1-R&RR	1	1
APR	4	4
IMP	6	6
PH-3	2	2
Shuttle	4	4
Drone B	4	4
Disr-L&FH	2	2
Disr-FH&R	2	2
Disr-FX	0	2
L Warp	15	12
R Warp	15	12
C Warp	0	12
Excess Dam	7	7
Total Warp	32	38
Total Power	44	50

Total Internals,126,134}

We are looking at a net difference in total boxes of about 8 internal boxes ((6 warp, 2 disrupters)... but what we are missing is how many additional crew is needed to adequately staff the larger engines and added weapons?

At a guess of 1 crew unit for each disrupter, and 1 crew unit for each 2 added warp engine boxes (and I admit I have no data to go on here) we would require 5 more crew units for the crew so the C7W would need 60 CUs total.

We know that the vanilla C7 had 55 CUs and 16 Hull boxes. (average of 34.38 individuals per hull or 3.48 CU per box) so the C7W woudl need (at a guess) 17.45 Hull boxes to maintain the same crew accomodations for the C7W.

Not sure where you would add the extra hull box...

By James Hallmark (Jhallmark) on Sunday, January 25, 2009 - 11:43 pm: Edit

If it needs to exist it would go in the rear section.

I have been thinking about the F5 to F6 upgrade and what implications it has / does not have for the C7W. I have not finished my thoughts

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, January 26, 2009 - 01:48 pm: Edit

If you have a CA running a full-DN-load of heavy weapons, you are courting shock. (RE: Fed BCJ, Romulan Killerhawk or the F6 if you're working on a smaller scale)

Suggested shock rules to be adapted from BCJ and F6 shock rules.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, January 26, 2009 - 03:33 pm: Edit

John Trauger,

I have to agree with you.

The DNL class ships are Size Class 2, but had to accept a reduced weapons suite (in the Case of the C5, only 5 disrupters).

James, I know you have repeatedly posted your conjecture as to why this ship proposal doesnt suffer shock... but remember, you are designing a SHC variant with a reduced Movement cost value than the existing DNL class.

That may mean that your C7W couldnt even support the DNL weapons load... much less what a C8 or C9 full sized DN would have available.

Bottomline, 6 Disrupters plus No-shock status means 1 1/2 Movement Cost.

You can take it to SPP or SVC... but I suspect that any cruiser with 6 heavy weapons must suffer shock.

For what its worth, I have had atleast 1 proposal KIA'd because of this same issue...

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, January 26, 2009 - 04:24 pm: Edit

Working with James' analysis and breaking it apart for easier unsterstanding.

---

Quote:

Fed BCJ has 6 and it suffers shock, so MC 1 is too small.

Gorn BCH has 5 1/3 (3 x 1 1/3 + 2 X 2/3).

ISC BCH has 5 1/3 (4 x 1 1/3). Neither of these suffer shock so 5 1/3 is okay.

There is no BCH that has more than 5 1/3 without special circumstances or shock.

---

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, January 26, 2009 - 04:32 pm: Edit

6 disrupters plus No-shock status means 1 1/2 Movement Cost and size class 2.

6 disruptors on 1+1/6 movement with size class 3 means SHOCK and pretty much means "dead horse".

I would go with two phaser-1s on the center disruptor.

I also suspect you'd do better with 2x15 + 1x6 or 1x9 for warp engines.

By Andy Vancil (Andy) on Monday, January 26, 2009 - 05:11 pm: Edit

Of course, there are the Klingon, Kzinti and Lyran Battle Tugs, which have 8 disruptors (and copious drone racks or ESGs), are SC 3 and MC 1. And no shock.

By Gary Bear (Gunner) on Monday, January 26, 2009 - 05:22 pm: Edit

And the Federation BattleTug is the only SC2 (which means you have to choose it or a DN) and MC 1.5, but has fewer boxes, if I recall correctly, than those tugs you just mentioned.

Just don't use Tugs for any comparisons.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, January 26, 2009 - 05:23 pm: Edit

I have some trouble not seeing this as a DN replacement in a strategic sense, which seems contrary to the important role of the BCH.

A C7W, even as SVC puts it, would serve best in the same role as a DN given where it's maneuverability would not be a problem and yet would not be as capable in that role (it would not be as sturdy nor would it have similar force projection).

As a squadron leader, either independant or within a fleet, the C7 is tops and a real threat to the enemy. But pull it out of that role and put it in as a semi-DN and it would be a disappointment.

Maybe it could be something done when DN production was too expensive? Still, it seems to me that it could lead fleets better as a straight C7 where it could maneuver with the best of them.

It could opperate pretty well in a base defense or base attack role (like the Fed BCJ).

Here is another thought. If the center engine could mount two Ph-1's then the SFG refit wouldn't impact the ships fire power much. Plus, it would have significantly more power to opperate the SFG. The 1x9 engine could be an F5W engine.

Yeah, that does it. Give it an SFG and I'm sold. Call it a C7HA (Ha! pun intended).

By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Monday, January 26, 2009 - 05:40 pm: Edit

...and they (the tugs) predate even the early four Disruptor DN designs. But there is enough funky about their production (eg. each empire can build twice as many as they do dreadnoughts but only if replacing losses) that they can't really be used to justify or explain other designs.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, January 26, 2009 - 06:36 pm: Edit

Ok, lets run the numbers yet again...

comparison C7 vs C7W

System	C7	C7W
Shd#1	36	36
Shd#2&6	30	30
Shd#3&5	24	24
Shd#4	24	24
PH-1-FX	4	6
Trac	4	4
Bridge	3	3
SCTY	4	4
ADD	1	1
EMER	2	2
BTTY	7	7
Tran	6	6
Lab	4	4
F Hull	6	6
C Warp (boom)	2	2
E Imp	2	2
PH-1-LF&L	2	2
PH-1-RF&R	2	2
A Hull	10	10
AUX CON	2	2
Probe	1	1
PH-1-L&LR	1	1
PH-1-R&RR	1	1
APR	4	4
IMP	6	6
PH-3	2	2
Shuttle	4	4
Drone B	4	4
Disr-L&FH	2	2
Disr-FH&R	2	2
L Warp	15	15
R Warp	15	15
C Warp	0	6
Excess Dam	7	7
Total Warp	32	38
Total Power	44	50
Total Internals	126	134

This version reflects SVC suggestion to change the warp engines to 2x15 pointer (left and Right warp) and 1 x 6 box center warp. the 38 warp power reflects all three of these engines plus the 2 point Boom Impulse engine.

Also the 2 FX center disrupters were deleted, and replaced by 2 phaser 12-FX on the center engine mount (although I don't know of any 6 point warp engines with 2 weapons boxes mounted as part of the assembly... but that was the easiest change to make, so I did it that way.

If anyone is feeling generous and wants to post a SSD of the modified C7W...

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, January 26, 2009 - 08:38 pm: Edit

Ph-12?

Jeff, we haven't got past Ph-5 yet.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, January 26, 2009 - 09:23 pm: Edit

Sorry for the typo.

I just haven't gotten around to proposing a phaser 12 yet... surely that must be an over sight!

By James Hallmark (Jhallmark) on Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - 12:32 am: Edit

Can I have 5 Disruptors?

So 32 + 6 would still be 1 1/6 MC, leaving 3 extra warp. 1 more than a C7. This would not quite pay for the 2 extra PH-1s so it is probably a good option.

What would 32 + 9 be? At 1 1/6 it would have 6 extra warp. If instead it was 30 + 9(put engine on boom) with 1 1/6 MC then that is only 4 extra. This would be balanced if the weapons are 2 PH-1s.

Based on the F6 variants in CL31 I am thinking this engine (6 or 9) could have 2 drones or 2 PH-1s.

I was not originally aiming to create a new class of Heavy BCHs but I don't mind this proposal heading that direction. I would like to know the limit of SC3. Especially since we know the answer for SC2(BB) and SC4(HDD, F6).

I need to look at the F6 to see what it gained over the FWC other than 6 warp and 2 Disruptors.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - 09:35 am: Edit

James, I'm not the one who gets to decide... SVC said 2 phaser 1's in place of the center disrupter(s).

I respectfully suggest that when "G.O.D." (Games Overworked Designer) tells you '2 phaser 1's in place of the disrupters', you should listen to what he says.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - 08:22 pm: Edit

Another question we havent addressed yet, is 'does this variant need a shield refit?'

it gains another engine (6 warp power boxes) added to the C7 gives it 38 total Warp (compared to the 32 that a vanilla C7 has).

should the shields be "beefed up to correspond with the increased engine power?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - 09:07 pm: Edit

I wasn't aware shields correlated to engine power.

By James Hallmark (Jhallmark) on Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - 11:43 pm: Edit

YIS: 178

The C7 came out in 176 and NCAs in 175 so it seams that if a refit like this is possible it should be doable by 178.

Status: ???

If it is possible to build then I see two options. Either none where built due to the expectation of X ships. Or it was applied as broadly as the C5 to C5W and F5 to F6 upgrade.

Shields: Did the F6 get more shields?

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, January 29, 2009 - 09:19 am: Edit

John Trauger,

I'm just saying that by adding an engine, there would be more "hull surface" to mount the "shield emitters" or whatever technobauble excuse you may (or may not) want to use to justify refitting the shields.

There may not be a coorelation between shield strength and engine power... but it appears that as ship sizes increase, both engine power and size of shields also increase.

We are talking about a more powerful C7 variant here... I'm suggesting that the defenses could be improved by about the same margin as the weapons systems do (in this case +2 x phaser 1s).

Not improving the shields is certainly an option... I just thought we could discuss it.

By Gary Bear (Gunner) on Thursday, January 29, 2009 - 09:53 am: Edit

It's been proposed that this is "lean enough to justify a C turn mode" and has "more "hull surface" to mount the "shield emitters"".

These two justifications seem to conflict with each other.