Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through February 08, 2009	25		02/08 10:55pm
	Archive through February 13, 2009	25		02/13 02:35pm
	Archive through February 18, 2009	25		02/18 06:05pm

It's also worth noting the difference between the SFB and F&E perspectives on variants.
In SFB large-hull variants aren't that great a use of BPV since you get the same capability, it costs more and you probably don't want to put it into direct combat anyway.
In F&E large-hull variants are often preferred since the variant conversions are both expensive and in limited supply so you want those variants to be as hard to kill as possible.

I don't know that I'd build a BCH-drone as the Kzin in F&E but it's not something I'd dismiss out of hand, especially if the coalition has been targeting drone ships. The loss of a command 9 hull doesn't worry me, the Kzin have no shortage of those. Giving up the only 6-fighter factor hull the Kzin can build prior to the MCV does.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, February 18, 2009 - 08:31 pm: Edit

Andrew, There is no 6 factor hull to give up in this proposal.

We're talking about an unbuilt variant or a single "test of concept" hull for Star Fleet Battles.

Most specifically, the Kzinti player in F&E is in no danger of losing one of their CV/CVS hulls because if one of these BCHe2 hulls did manage to get built... it would be before CV production started (perhaps as early as year 160.

And just to emphasize the point... a Kzinti player would have to "pay through the nose" and his next 2 favorite orifaces to convert a BCHe2 back into a CV class ship. IIRC the BC to CV conversion in F&E was 5 Econ points... I'd estimate the cost of the BCHe2 to a CV conversion at 7 EP. frankly, there are a lot of other things to spend 7 EP on before trying to get another CV class hull into service... especially since it is more expensive than the other options.

So far, the DB refit of the BCHe2 is the only refit mentioned for the hull. And unless we can satisfy all of the Steves issues (and there are many of them!) it is exceedingly unlikely that the "Early BCH" or its DB refit would ever get published.

By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Wednesday, February 18, 2009 - 10:41 pm: Edit

Jeff - I'm sayimg the concept is good enough that even if it's a historical unbuilt variant a rational F&E player might build some even if it means giving up CV builds. There is a definite phase change in fleet composition as CVA's become more common after which building a MCV and BCH-D is attractive compared to a CV and a MCD. It's not a gotta have, but if you're not using the CV slot because the free fighters are going elsewhere it would be nice to keep the 10 compot hull.

I would expect the standard 2 point conversion cost to go from any of the mooted early BCH designs to a CV since they have already got the stretched hull of the latter. Most of that 5 point BC to CV cost is for the extra 2 compot and the SSD changes are no larger than many other CV conversions.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, February 18, 2009 - 10:49 pm: Edit

I just like D-Racks. Not enough of them IMO.

By Jonathan Jordan (Arcturusv) on Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 09:19 am: Edit

Quite right Mister Crawford.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 09:36 am: Edit

Andrew, I understand... the point I'm attempting to make is that a BCHe2 (as proposed) has a F&E Command Rate of 8 (per SPP suggestion).

To restore the BCHe2 F&E CR back to the level that a Kzinti CV/CVS has (a F&E CR of 9) means having to demolish the existing command decks (all of them, 3xBridge,3xAux Con, 1xEMER Birdge, and possibly 1xFLAG if it got the CVS/Flag Bridge refit we were talking about earlier) and replace all of the command, Scanner and Sensor components.

I don't know what that cost is in terms of BPV, but I know that in the Real world, less than 25% of the cost of new ship construction is the cost of the steel built into the hull. the biggest chunk of the remainder is in the power plant, and the associated Command, control and communications (the 3 C's).

I wasn't talking about the change in the ships F&E COMPOT... I'm talking about the unnecessary replacement of the "dumbed down" command facilities that we were discussing earlier.

Now, I can appreciate your point about getting a early BCH into production when there is nolonger a need for using the F&E building slips for CV/CVS style hulls. IIRC a BCH has a YIS date of year 180... so if we're talking the year 174+ time period... perhaps a TOS inspired DB (modified) hull based on the BCHe2 isn't so farfetched...

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 09:58 am: Edit

Tos, our problem isnt "normal" for this stage of a proposed SSD ship design.

SPP has talked about "white-itis" where normally players see a published SSD with "white" inside the hull border, and rush to suggest things to "fill the space"...

No, what we have here, is an existing design (the CV) with 15 shuttle buxes in a single bank (3 shuttle, 12 fighter boxes) and are discussing replacing them with D drone racks, cargo boxes, shuttles etc.)

(lets refer to this as "black-itis") the issue, is that to leave the normal separation between the system boxes, we need to introduce white space between the systems... which limits the number /kinds of systems that can be added.

Perhaps we should "go back to the drawing board" and give it a "holistic" review.

Lets say we install 4xD Drone Racks in the hanger bay space (or what would be the hanger bay if the BCHe2 were converted into a CV) that uses 12 boxes that would have been fighter boxes in the CV/CVS design.

Then we take the 3 Admin shuttles boxes, and convert them into cargo boxes to hold 150 spaces of drones.

That effectively gives the ship 4 drone racks (which is the number that the BCHe2 had.)

The thing is, what to do with the 4 wing drone racks (The 2xB and 2xC drone racks.... I suggest converting 2 of them into cargo boxes...giving the ship 250 drone spaces total storage capacity.

Convert the other two into Admin Shuttle box hangers... while stil retaining the phaser 3 point defense phasers.

That way, you get your 4 DxDrone racks, the ship still gets 2 admin shuttles, and SPP gets most of his 298 drone spaces for the Drone Bombardment missions. (as well as the F&E Command Rating of 8).

The CD is still technically "better" in that it has 300 drone space in cargo capacity... but 298 is fairly close .

The only other option is if we go the "Alphabet Drone Rack Cruiser Approach"tm.

(please, some one ask me what the ADRCA is!!!)

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 10:12 am: Edit

Its easy enough to swap systems out to free up cargo space if that's the way we decide to go. Lose the D-Racks and the ship would make one hell of a commando or survey cruiser. The ship could be easily armed with 2D, 2B, 2C as a direct combat ship. I can replace the 2xPh-3 on the pylons with Ph-1 to make an enhanced direct fire version. Perhaps this hull could form the basis of an interesting Captain's Log article ala the Pegasus. We could do all of these things, or none. The questions are, what do we want to do? What would the Steve's want?

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 10:34 am: Edit

Well, we know SPP hasnt closed the topic... so the discussion continues.

We also know that there is interest in a Early BCH variant... though what the "heck of a backstory" is gonna be is TBD.

We know that the DB version is likely going to be less effective (atleast marginally, perhaps more) than the CD.

We know that the Production of BCHe2 is limited to perhaps one "test of Concept" hull, and might have some limited direct combat early BCH variants in the middle GW years (based on Andrews comments above)... and thats assuming that SFH is correct in the number of kzinti CV/CVS hulls that were actually built.

We know that Post 4PW era, the Kzinti's managed to build just 4 CV class ships (the 5th IIRC was built just after the start of the GW... or It might have been just 4 CVL hulls and the 5th CVL wasnt finished until after the Lyrans attacked... I'll have to check F&E production tables).

Using the Pegasus as a guide, there are lots of possibilities... but I wouldnt hold out much hope of seeing anything material being added to F&E in significant combat hulls... the discussions about the FKE illustrated the line that SVC is willing to hold. and adding BCH variants to the prewar fleet is a significant enough issue that the Coalition players in F&E will scream bloody murder...

I'm sure I'm missing some things though...

By Jonathan Jordan (Arcturusv) on Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 03:37 pm: Edit

"What is ADRCA?"

Just to throw a monkey wrench at the disucssion, does the engineering really support the idea that one drone rack can be replaced by a cargo hull full of 50 drones? For some reason I never thought so, through the Drone Racks were basically just drums/clips (Depending on type) with a limited number of drones, reload mechanism. No fire or tracking hardware in there as it basically just drops a drone free and the drone's own engine propells it, and tracking would be on the bridge or other control space.

I mean sometimes sound easy, like replacing the large space of a hanger with D-racks and Cargo for it. Replacing a A/B rack with Cargo seems a bit, off. If you think in terms of the amount of space that is there instead of SSD box counts.


Also I wouldn't even think about F&E builds and fleets, not really. Goes back to what SC posted in the F&E area about the Gorn CV articles and Gorn CVs never being in F&E. Not all ships built are represented in the game.


And as long as we're talking variants, ala Pegasus Class, could we take Tos's Drone Chucker version, remove the disruptors, throw on four Special Sensors and have a Drone Chucker Scout? Channels would help it spot long range targets for bombardment. F&E Kzinti players probably would want that variant available, judging from what I hear about the D6D in F&E. But SFB-wise it could be useful for a campaign, having the Drone Chucker Scout paired with a raiding CV. Bombardment drones swarm in, with a long range fighter strike right behind them.

Plus, again, I think that such a ship might not be "glamourous" enough for the Nobles to take it as a command ship.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 03:50 pm: Edit

Jonathan, you missed the DB version of the SSD.

By Jonathan Jordan (Arcturusv) on Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 05:06 pm: Edit

So I did. Sorry.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 06:17 pm: Edit

"What is ADRCA?"

Glad you asked!

Alphabet Drone Rack Cruiser Approach.

The idea that a direct fire drone cruiser can be built, and successfully use virtually the entire series of Drone Racks.

We are already entertaining a early BCH hull that uses 2xB and 2xC drone racks.

The subsequent refit (Tos' pet baby!) adds 2xD Drone Racks.

I submit that we could replace the ADD with a drone E rack, and (given that) the rest of the Kzinti main line combat ships (the CS, CL, BC and the CC) all had shuttle bays mounted where the CV/BCH have the probe and third tractor beam, replace the probe and third tractor beams with type A drone racks (the probe can be placed where the Flag Bride would go if the ship were to get the full C-14 refit (since the original suggestions by SPP called for a lower command rating on the ship, it doesnt make much sense to add a flag bridge to this variant since it will only bring it up to the level of a CC, not the 10 F&E CR that the CVS or BCH would have).

That way the ship gets 2xA, 2xB, 2xC, 2xD, and 1 E type drone racks... in theory the ship could launch up to 11 drones (depending on whats loaded in the E drone Rack) per turn... not count any possible scatter packs.

If the ship only has a seeking weapon control limit of 6, that means it could launch up to 5 additional drones during any turn previously launched drones were destroyed (say in close combat).

In a duel the defending ship will literally die for lack of sufficient point defense capacity.

Its not what we started discussing... but it would be a heck of a drone chucker.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 10:20 pm: Edit

It wouldn't work without a G-Rack and an F-Rack replacing the second D-Rack. Perhaps what you are looking for is a new WYN Scrap Cruiser varient?

By Jonathan Jordan (Arcturusv) on Friday, February 20, 2009 - 04:39 am: Edit

Yeah, but those are pretty much single race used types, aren't they? I can't remember seeing F-racks on anything but the Klinks and G-racks on anything but a Fed.

Not saying it doesn't happen, I know I'm missing more than a few modules.

By Jeremy Gray (Gray) on Friday, February 20, 2009 - 08:26 am: Edit

G-racks are used by some non-Feds on escorts only (I can think of Kzinti, Klingon, and WYN examples, all introduced mid-late General War). But, I won't put fuel on the crazy alphabet-soup drone cruiser discussion.

To get back to the original idea, what about making this early Kzinti BCH (or Heavy Strike Cruiser as I call it) a contemporary of the Lyran Jagdpanther? Use some of that space that will eventually become the shuttle bay for NWOs? I know not everyone is a fan of HDW-like ships, but that would solve the problem of what to do with all the space while not creating a ship that is too powerful in the Y160-Y170 timeframe.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, February 20, 2009 - 09:22 am: Edit

The ADRCA ship was a Joke. Hope no one was offended.

Jeremy, I don't think Size Class 3 HDW-like ships are on the Auto reject list... so I can't see any obvious rejections to the idea.

I'll have to pull the Jagdpanther SSD to compare it to the early Kzinti BCH.

Our problem is Tos' devotion to the D Drone Racks... each of those puppies use 3 SSD boxes, and we need 6 cargo boxes to supply the needed drones for the Drone Bombardment mission.

If we go with a 6 or 7 drone rack design (say 2xB, 2xC, 2xD and a ADD/E/G drone Rack on the fantail, the ship would be better than the eventual BCH design in every way except F&E command rating.

I wonder if the Kzinti could handle multiple BCH options like the Feds do with the BCF/BCG/BCJ class ships?

By Jeremy Gray (Gray) on Friday, February 20, 2009 - 09:41 am: Edit

Working from memory, the Jagdpanther is a little bigger than a CW (more or less a CW center hull with a CL side hulls) and armed about like a typical CL. It has 6 NWOs.

The HCS (we could call it "Large Strike Cruiser" or LCS - same desinator for a real-life modular ship) would be a bit bigger. Working with the CV as the base hull, I think there is enough room to replace the big shuttle bay with 3xShuttle, D-Rack, 6xNWOs. Before the C-14 refit, I don't think the ship would be all that imposing (2xDisr, 4xA-rack, 1xD-rack, 4 or 5 Ph-1s (depending on how many 360s you give it), 1xADD and the typical Ph-3 forrest. If the D-rack is too much and we want to keep this design to the typical 4 drone rack load out, maybe the shuttle bay is a little larger (4) and we just drop the D-rack. A later version, perhaps unbuilt, could evolve into the Tos D-rack boat.

Just an idea.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, February 20, 2009 - 11:25 am: Edit

Jeremy Gray:

See Kzinti BCHs. They have a single type-G drone rack in leiu of an ADD. I cannot (off the top of my head) recall any other non-escort Kzinti ship with a type-G drone rack, but I do know the BCH has one. There might be some other ships.

By Jeremy Gray (Gray) on Friday, February 20, 2009 - 01:11 pm: Edit

SPP, good point. I had forgotten that one. Same would apply to a number of X-ships. I'm sure there is something else I'm forgetting. I do think, in general, G-racks tend to be pretty scarce outside the Federation until Y170+.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, February 20, 2009 - 01:40 pm: Edit

The Kzinti NCG has a pair of G-Racks.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, February 20, 2009 - 02:06 pm: Edit

In honor of the NCG, allow me to present the BCG.

By Gary Bear (Gunner) on Friday, February 20, 2009 - 03:10 pm: Edit

Is it a sign that this thread has gone too far if you are forgetting what the ship this is based from has for weapons?

By Jeremy Gray (Gray) on Friday, February 20, 2009 - 03:24 pm: Edit

Gary, most of what we've been doing has been based on the CV/CVS, not the BCH. There is no G-rack on the CV/CVS.

I'm very sorry that I don't have a photographic memory of every ship in the game while I sit here at work. I promise I'll go home and burn my rulebook.

By Gary Bear (Gunner) on Friday, February 20, 2009 - 04:05 pm: Edit

Wow. Please don't get so touchy. I was trying to be humorous/ironic in relation to the title of this thread.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, February 20, 2009 - 04:07 pm: Edit

Agree with Jeremy. The foundation for most of my inspiration has been the CVS. Jeremy provided a better CV varient, so I stole his SSD to make a commando version (without D-Racks, sniffle). At this point churning out varients is very little work. We could quickly fill a Captain's Log Class History article with variants of this ship if we wanted.

By Jeremy Gray (Gray) on Friday, February 20, 2009 - 04:53 pm: Edit

Sorry Gary. I'm rapidly coming down something and its making me grouchy. As my wife would tell anybody who's never been around me when I'm sick, I can be a real pain in the ... well, you get the point.

My apologies...I'm going to go try and kill this bug with some Jack and crawl into a bed someplace.

Catch you guys on the flip side. I promise to not get anywhere near an open flame.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, February 22, 2009 - 05:17 pm: Edit

This may be a good time to recap.

The original idea was for a early BCH variant based on a CV hull, built in the years before the CV actually started construction (which means prior to year 164...)

It was mentioned that such a design could have been built anytime after year 160... but that for the start of the General war... none would hve been produce during the early years (say year 168 through year 173).

After the construction of better carriers (with 6+ fighter factors in F&E terms) the opportunity for restarting the production of an early BCH would exist.

The Kzinti BCH has a YIS date of year 180. that means "normal" BCH is possible as early as year 178 (prototype).

That ultimately means, that production of the BCHe could have been years 158 through year 177. (bassically using the prototype rule, and any construction after year 177 would have been to the "real" BCH design.

Remember, that we are deiscussiong an Unbuilt Variant UNV) or a limited "proof of concept" vessel that had the double mission of demonstrating that the CV class ship could manuver effectively with the pre C-14 refits (meaning 9 point warp engines on a Movement Cost basis of MC=1).

We still havent ascertained what SPP would consider a "heck of a good back story" to be... but I'm only trying for a recvap here... not change the proposal.

I suspect that if a BCHe were built (lest say year 160) then it would have been an "engineering test unit" for the performance measurements... and it would have been that ship that determined the exact characteristics of the CV class after the end of the four powers war.

IIRC, SPP was concerned about how the Kzinti "nobles" would react to a hull significantly equal to the CC class... and he observed that such a hull would have to have a F&E CR of 8.

All of this being the "lead up to this question:

Should the BCHe be roughly the same relative BPV/combat power (for lack of a better term) to the "real" BCH, as the CS had with respect to the CC?

I know we have toyed with various drone racks, questioned whether the ship has 2 or 4 disrupters, and if the ship should have cargo boxes if it were equipped with D reacks... but what I'm getting at... is SPPs back story issue (back door appraoch!)...

Could the Kzinti Hegemony have "stolen a march" on the Klingons if (assuming the General War didnt happen) they built a "BCHe version of the CS" on a CV hull?

This might actually explain why the Kzinti's would have lobotomized the ship (as I mentioned earlier in the thread)... and it would also explain that there would have been two such units in production (had the Kzintis not pursued fighter/carrier development).

Call it a BCHe/HCS strategy... where instead of a fleet composed of FF,CL,CS,CC hulls, the FF would have been discontinued... the CL (or the DD I suppose) built for the Frigate role, the CS for the light cruiser missions, the CC(or BC) for the heavy cruiser tasks... and the new production "main battle fleet hulls" composed of the new Heavy strike cruisers& BCHe command ships.

comments?