Archive through February 08, 2009
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: New Product Development:
Module R13 Ships With ZING!:
BCHe, Kzinti "Pre-GW" BCH variant.:
Archive through February 08, 2009
The Base hull for the Kzinti BCH (YIS 180), was the CV (YIS 166). This proposal assumes that one CV (the prototype, actually) was nearly finished as a early version BCH before the Hegemony Admiralty changed its collective mind, and ordered it completed as the first CV. I selected the "e" in the BCHe disignation to indicate an "early" design... but as this is a year 166 proposal, it is possible that it might mislead some people into thinking this is actually an early years proposal. sorry for any confusion.
This is an unbuilt variant (UNV).
Note: This design is not directly comparable with the BCH. Significant technical and scientific advances had been made over the 16+ yearsbetween the initial design and the final standard established by the production of the "real" BCH in year 178 (the year the prototype BCH was first put in service, 2 years prior to the YIS date.)
Differences between the BCHe (as proposed) and the BCH include:
1. 9 point warp engines instead of the more modern 10 point engines used in the BCH. (result of the CVS upgrade part of the "C-14" refit program post year 166). Top tactical speed equals 27 hexes per turn (28 if 1 point of impulse energy is used).
2. Uses a ADD rack instead of the Drone G rack found in the modern BCH.
3. No flag bridge fitted inititally. The Kzinti CV had a F&E command rating of '9'. Since the BCHe retains the same command systems that the CV received, the F&E command rating stays at the same level.
4. Weaker shields.
5. Only 2 Disrupters (as were fitted to the CV) instead of the 4 found on the BCH.
6. BCHe Fitted with 4 Drone A racks in place of the 2 Drone C Racks, 2 Drone B Racks, (in addition to the Drone G rack mentioned in item #2 above.
Had the BCHe actually been built, it is likely that it would have received periodic refits... one can be assumed to correspond to the CVS refit applied to the CV (YIS date 170) that increased each engine by 1 warp box (net +3).
Other comments:
This may well be considered an "obvious variant" but as it hasnt been discussed at length, I thought we could atleast give it a hearing on the proposals board.
Discussion:
IMO, the BCHe is rather weak on disrupters, but it is the same number as found on the CS.
It is interesting to notice the similairities between the original CV design and the "modern" BCH.
A comparison of the CV, BCHe,and BCH.
| System | CV | BCHe | BCH | Diff |
| Sh#1 | 34 | 34 | 36 | 2 |
| Sh#2&6 | 24 | 24 | 30 | 6 |
| Sh#3&5 | 24 | 24 | 30 | 6 |
| Sh#4 | 24 | 24 | 24 | 0 |
| Bridge | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 |
| F Hull | 5 | 5 | 5 | 0 |
| Ph1-LF&L | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Ph1-RF&R | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Tran | 5 | 5 | 5 | 0 |
| Btty | 5 | 5 | 5 | 0 |
| Emer | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Trac | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 |
| APR | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 |
| Disr-LF&L | 1 | 1 | 2 | +1 |
| Disr-RF&R | 1 | 1 | 2 | +1 |
| Ph3-LS | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Ph3-RS | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Drone A | 4 | 4 | 0 | -4 |
| Drone B | 0 | 0 | 2 | +2 |
| Drone C | 0 | 0 | 2 | +2 |
| Probe | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Shttl | 15 | 4 | 4 | 0 |
| A Hull | 16 | 16 | 16 | 0 |
| Ph1-360d | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 |
| Aux Con | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 |
| LAB | 6 | 6 | 6 | 0 |
| Ph3-360d | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 |
| Ph3-L&LR | 2 | 2 | 0 | -2 |
| Ph1-L&LR | 0 | 0 | 2 | +2 |
| Ph3-R&LR | 2 | 2 | 0 | -2 |
| Ph1-R&RR | 0 | 0 | 2 | +2 |
| IMP | 4 | 4 | 4 | 0 |
| ADD | 1 | 1 | 0 | -1 |
| Drone G | 0 | 0 | 1 | +1 |
| L Warp | 9 | 9 | 10 | +1 |
| C Warp | 9 | 9 | 10 | +1 |
| R Warp | 9 | 9 | 10 | +1 |
This is mostly just a "forensic exercise" to look at a "ancestor BCH". The sad fact is, there really isnt a lot more available here that the CS already provided (except for the command F&E rating).
If the truth were to be known... the BCHe should have been the original Kzinti CC (with a comand rating of '9'... it would have had a combat Offense COMPOT about equal to a Kzinti CS.... and a defense COMPOT of 9... so much for "cookie Cutterisms"... such a CC would have been strikingly different from what all other CC's of the time (year 166).
Its a pity its a story that can't be told.
Jeff:
There already is (more or less) a pre-CV. The CVC was in SSJ #1 pg 36.
Essentually a oversized DDV.
JBP
What Jeff is proposing is a bit different.
I think I'd rather see an E-Rack instead of an ADD rack. In your chart you list the BCH as having 3 APR, it has 6.
Jim, check the proposal again, I'm not proposing a carrier alternative... its a early BCH alternative based on the CV hull.
Tos, I would also prefer a Drone E-Rack, unfortunately the CV was built with a ADD, and this (proposed) BCHe would date back to year 164-166 time period (YIS date 166).
Sorry about the errors on the chart, I believe I also missed the 3 Flag bridge boxes and miscounted the Batteries (Should be 7 x BATT).
I will post a corrected list if the topic elicits any interest.
I'm confused.
I gave up 12 fighter boxes... what do I get?
Comment:
Given Kzinti background, had the ship been completed as a direct combat ship (BCHe), it would have included flag bridge and used the type-C/type-B drone racks of the CC, as well as the CC's disruptor mounts and superior engines.
It is (to me) not conceivable that the Kzinti nobles would have allowed such a large direct-combat ship (BCHe) to enter service and be commanded by non-nobles, and the ship would obviously have included those things that proved the inherent superiority of the nobility over the Hoi Poloi.
That a carrier (a non-direct combat ship which the nobles might have disdained to personally command until fighters started proving themselves) entered service with the weapons it did makes perfect sense in that light.
But given the existence of the CC, it makes no sense for a BCHe to enter service with less capabilities than that ship. (My opinion, I am not trying to shut down the discussion.)
Some of this might be handled by a well-written background laying out some political machinations that resulted in a direct-combat ship that was larger than a CS/CA/BC/CC, but smaller than a DN, that was not as well armed as the CC.
"But given the existence of the CC, it makes no sense for a BCHe to enter service with less capabilities than that ship."
Agreed.
Hopefully, from an F&E perspective, we'd see a design that warranted a 10-9 or 10-10 rating; otherwise, the ship would be pointless (in F&E; it might still be fun to play with in SFB/FC)...... for F&E purposes, if the ship rates the same as the CC, then I'd say it'd be subsumed into the CCs, and would not need its own counter.
Had the Kzintis not developed fighter technology, they may have built an early BCH in response to the Lyran BC.
I like the idea of the Kzintis producing an early BCH design, even if it was never built.
Didn't the Zin's get fighter tech from/inspired by the Hydrans - in which case, Jeff, I can see that as a legitimate idea, or am I misremembering things again?
That being said, I like this idea, and would love to see it, if only in a CL, and not in an R module proper.
Jeff, have you looked at my proposal for a Kzinti SRH?
Basically the CV precursor was a Kzinti attempt to equal the Fed GSC (rocks!) and Lyran SR (with pallet rocks!)...
Joe,
If this is just a downgraded early release of a Y180 ship, the F&E factors _might_ still be the same ... as we all know, "minor" upgrades such as the Y175 refits are too fine to depict in F&E.
Jeff,
Have you done a side-by-side comparison of the Kzinti BC/CC to the BCH? It might provide you with some ideas how you want to proceed.
Garth L. Getgen
Makes sense to me, Garth
Wow, lots of interest... ok, lets take this a little at a time.
Larry- 'gave up 12 fighter boxes... what do I get?' Ramey... stay tuned in... this is an open proposal, and it sounds like we're not any where close to a consensis as to what this thing is gonna end up looking like.
Steve Petrick:
Thank you for your comments. There seems to be two or possibly three approaches, and at this point I have no idea how it will be received by "the proposals Board"... If I (or anyone else, who wishes to) decide to attempt a "well-written background laying out some political machinations that resulted in a direct-combat ship that was larger than a CS/CA/BC/CC, but smaller than a DN, that was not as well armed as the CC..." It should probably submitted directly to you or SVC as a Captains Log fiction/history thing.
My only reason for saying that is, I'd estimate the exercise to require 500+ words which is far more than most ship discriptions.
Jeff, Tos & John. 
Michael, this is a proposed, but unbuilt variant... I do not see how your SRH impacts or could have been a response of the BCHe... at best they could have been competition for each other when the Kzinti Admirals got together to decide what to build next if not a CV.
Garth, actually no... I wasnt going to do a side by side with the CC or BC... I was looking at the 9 point engines and just asumed that the CV would have been the closest match to the CS.
Now, with the information provided by SPP, we can see that "politics" played a far bigger role in the Hegemony Fleet development than other factors (such as engine availability, naval construction slipways or even Heavy Weapons systems (like drone Racks or Disrupters)).
The Analysis on this sucker just got a lot more complicated.
Side by Comparison including CV, BCHe BCH, Diff, BC, CC.
| System | CV | BCHe | BCH | Diff | BC | CC |
| Sh#1 | 34 | 34 | 36 | 2 | 30 | 30 |
| Sh#2&6 | 24 | 24 | 30 | 6 | 28 | 28 |
| Sh#3&5 | 24 | 24 | 30 | 6 | 22 | 22 |
| Sh#4 | 24 | 24 | 24 | 0 | 22 | 22 |
| Bridge | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 2 |
| Flag Br | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| F Hull | 5 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 5 | 5 |
| Ph1-LF&L | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Ph1-RF&R | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Tran | 5 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 5 | 5 |
| Btty | 5 | 5 | 7 | 0 | 5 | 5 |
| Emer | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Trac | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| APR | 3 | 3 | 6 | 0 | 3 | 5 |
| Disr-LF&L | 1 | 1 | 2 | +1 | 2 | 2 |
| Disr-RF&R | 1 | 1 | 2 | +1 | 2 | 2 |
| Ph3-LS | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Ph3-RS | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Drone A | 4 | 4 | 0 | -4 | 4 | 0 |
| Drone B | 0 | 0 | 2 | +2 | 0 | 2 |
| Drone C | 0 | 0 | 2 | +2 | 0 | 2 |
| Probe | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Shttl | 15 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| A Hull | 16 | 16 | 16 | 0 | 12 | 12 |
| Ph1-360d | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Aux Con | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| LAB | 6 | 6 | 6 | 0 | 6 | 6 |
| Ph3-360d | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Ph3-L&LR | 2 | 2 | 0 | -2 | 2 | 2 |
| Ph1-L&LR | 0 | 0 | 2 | +2 | 0 | 0 |
| Ph3-R&LR | 2 | 2 | 0 | -2 | 2 | 2 |
| Ph1-R&RR | 0 | 0 | 2 | +2 | 0 | 0 |
| IMP | 4 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| ADD | 1 | 1 | 0 | -1 | 0 | 0 |
| Drone G | 0 | 0 | 1 | +1 | 0 | 0 |
| L Warp | 9 | 9 | 10 | +1 | 10 | 10 |
| C Warp | 9 | 9 | 10 | +1 | 10 | 10 |
| R Warp | 9 | 9 | 10 | +1 | 10 | 10 |
Notes: BC carried A drone racks until year 175 refit, then 2 x C drone racks and 2 x B drone racks.
I just added two more columns (for the BC and CC)... Just glancing at the systems, it seems as if the BCHe isnt that far off of what the CC has, and is actually better in a few areas (shields, 1 more impulse box).
I can see the wisdom in having the 10 point engines added to the BCHe design... but historically the CV didnt get the refit (to the CVS standard) until year 170... which may mean the first hull didnt get converted until year 168... And I just can't see the Klinks and lyrans holding the invasion up while the Kzintis pull a CV/BCHe hull in to the dockyard to upgrade the engines... of course, its a unbuilt variant so...
I'm not digging the two disruptor and 27 warp concept. The CC has 4 disruptors and 30 warp way back in Y147. But the CV(Y166)/CVS(Y170) upgrades give us some excuse to go that way. Perhaps the extra mass was just too much for existing engine tech? Could that be why it wasn't built?
Whatever we come up with is going to look a lot like a BCH. If we limit Command Rating to 9 and 1 Flag bridge CVS style, we get a powerful warship that still gives a reason for the BCH to exist as the 'command' version.
Another small difference I noticed between the CVS and BCH is the BCH disruptors are range 40 and the CVS disruptors are range 30.
Drat. I was drawing up an SSD when the program crashed. Too late to start over.
Take a CVS. Loose 12 fighter bays. Gain 3 Cargo. Gain two 3-Magazine D-Racks. Call it a BCD. Command Rating 9.
The mixed drone racks give the ship a novel feel that would make me want to fly it. If I really had my way I'd swap the ADD for an E-Rack, but that would be pushing things too far.
Simple enough to downgrade it from here back to Y166 standards.
Tos, sounds like a promising approach.
Hope you get the enthusiasm back to finish the SSD.
Some comments:
1. I'm not a fan of the speed 27 version either... but that is what the CV came out as... and the proposal is based on the CV style hull.
2. the three cargo boxes give the ship a wonderful capacity for storing those "extra Goodies". I think what you've created here is a Mega Drone bombardment ship...3 cargo boxes would give you what? 150 drone space worth of storage... added to the 150 the CV/CVS have available (and since the BCH/BCHe are based on the same hull...) I'm guessing 300 points total Drone space capacity for the DB mission.
let me think about that one for a while...
Unfortunately I suspect you loose the extra carrier storage as soon as you loose the carrier. This would 'only' have 150 reload drones. There could easily be a DB version with sensors, but would you devote such a large and rare hull to the DB mission?
It would be a great drone raider.
Just jotting down the differences between the BCHe1 and the vanilla CC. (I added some of the things SPP listed that the BCHe should have, and am now calling it the BCHe1.
| System | BCHe1 | CC | Diff |
| Sh#1 | 34 | 30 | 4 |
| Sh#2 | 24 | 28 | -4 |
| Sh#3 | 24 | 22 | 2 |
| Sh#4 | 24 | 22 | 2 |
| Br | 3 | 2 | +1 |
| Flag | 3 | 2 | +1 |
| F Hull | 5 | 5 | 0 |
| Ph1-LF&L | 1 | 0 | +1 |
| Ph1-FA&L | 0 | 1 | -1 |
| Ph1-Rf&R | 1 | 0 | +1 |
| Ph1-FA&R | 0 | 1 | -1 |
| Tran | 5 | 5 | 0 |
| BTTY | 7 | 5 | +2 |
| EMER | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Trac | 3 | 2 | +1 |
| APR | 6 | 5 | +1 |
| Disr-LF&L | 1 | 0 | +1 |
| Disr-FA&L | 0 | 2 | -2 |
| Disr-RF&R | 1 | 0 | +1 |
| Disr-FA&R | 0 | 2 | -2 |
| Ph3-LS | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Ph3-RS | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Drone A | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Drone B | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Drone C | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Probe | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Shttl | 4 | 2 | +2 |
| A Hull | 16 | 12 | +4 |
| Ph1-360d | 3 | 2 | +1 |
| Ph3-LR&L | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Ph3-RR&R | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Imp | 4 | 3 | +1 |
| ADD | 1 | 0 | +1 |
| L Warp | 10 | 10 | 0 |
| C Warp | 10 | 10 | 0 |
| R Warp | 10 | 10 | 0 |
Near as I make it, thats 40 total energy for the BCHe1 and 38 total energy for the CC.
the both have disrupters (though I used the same firing arcs the original CA had with half the total disrupters) so the CC has better firing arcs. (others will have to decide if the BCHe1 could have improved disrupter arcs added).
the CC has 9 phaser 3s, 4 phaser 1s and 4 drone racks, the BCHe1 has 11 phaser 3s, 5 phaser 1s and the same type B&C drone racks that the CC has.
Note, by adding the 3 Flag bridge boxes to the design (that the BCH had, but the CV did not) increases the F&E Command Rating of the BCH\-2e1} to 10, not 9.
Overall, the BCHe1 has 2 more total shield boxes (when all 6 shields are added together) than the CC has...the BCHe1 has better #1,3,5  shhields, the CC has better #2 and #6 shields.
I increased the engines to 10 pointers... but am wondering if perhaps the year 170 C-14 refit should be added as well?
Reviewing the proposal, I would recommend that the BCHe2 version should have a shield refit to bring the #2 and #6 shields equal to what the CC shields are (28 boxes each, compared to the CV #2 and #6 shields, which are 24 boxes).
A second suggestion, is that while the BCHe2 would have had a YIS date of 166 (to match the CV), the CVS, C-14 refit date was year 170. That was the refit the CV got the 10 point warp engines. Inparticular, I recommend that the BCHe2 should have a refit to add two more disrupters on or about year 170.
Does any one have suggestions as to how to improve the BCHe2?
Hmmm, terminology wise, this thing could be termed a CSH (heavy strike cruiser) as its a hyped CS (replacing the CV/CVS) even if/when it leads to the BCH...