Archive through February 13, 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 13, 2009
Good idea... but I think it would be best to let the steves decide that... I went with the BCH title as a "quick and easy" way to start the discussion... ie people know what a BCH is.
I thought the idea was worth starting a discussion, and it appears that there was some interest after all.
I'd still rather have 12 admin shuttles let alone 12 AS than this ship. I don't see ANY reason to take it instead of a CC.
To be honest, I don't even see how it is much better than a CS.
I would think that in the pre-war years (ya know, when the cats were busy fighting each other) they would have something with lots of Ph-III and maybe 6 Drone-As. Would still get beat up by a D7 that was careful enough not to get anchored, but would probably toast a CS. You'd would need to be some reason why it was never built (cause it would likely kill a CC pretty good too).... you know ... like the cats realized it was time to stop fighting each other or learn to speak Lyranish.
Opinion:
Once you put Flag Bridge on it, it is command ship, i.e., a ship of the nobility who are not going to allow themselves to be lorded over by commoners.
Sorry, but I do not see how the command rating can be anything but eight if you want to keep it a commoner ship. (OPINION)
If you give it flag bridge and a ten Command Rating, then it would be a noble ship and have the CC improvements over the CS.
Given BCs started getting improved to the C14 standard in Y166 [with the frist ship actually upgraded to that standard in Y160 (R5.3)], I do not see how it is possible for this ship to appear (it would be a waste of the hull) without those upgrades. Put the C14 upgrade on it, and the Nobles would know that it would eat a CC's lunch.
Gets you back to needing one heck of a background to explain why it was built as a non-Command ship.
The CV works because the Nobles would not have wanted to be in a non-direct combat ship, and it had to be the size it was going to be to support the fighter squadron. Then it was upgraded with more weapons later.
More fertile ground might be a conjectural or unbuilt "early" BC that would have been built instead of CVs had the Kzinti not made the early leap to fighters. Maybe the first one was started and converted to a CV before, during, or shortly after completion. Perhaps not as attractive as a "real" ship class that historically entered service, but it avoids the historical/social/racial hicups SPP points out.
None of that would stop you from using it as a "real" ship in a campaign.
Lets look at the current version with the indicated changes:
| System | BCHe2 | CC | Diff |
| Sh#1 | 34 | 30 | 4 |
| Sh#2 | 28 | 28 | 0 |
| Sh#3 | 24 | 22 | 2 |
| Sh#4 | 24 | 22 | 2 |
| Br | 3 | 2 | +1 |
| Flag | 0 | 2 | -2 |
| F Hull | 5 | 5 | 0 |
| Ph1-LF&L | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Ph1-FA&L | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Ph1-Rf&R | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Ph1-FA&R | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Tran | 5 | 5 | 0 |
| BTTY | 7 | 5 | +2 |
| EMER | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Trac | 3 | 2 | +1 |
| APR | 6 | 5 | +1 |
| Disr-LF&L | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Disr-FA&L | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Disr-RF&R | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Disr-FA&R | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| 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 |
1. Shields #2 and #6 strengthed to the CC level (28 boxes)
2. C-14 refit applied to the BCHe2 including the 10 point warp engines and the full set of 4 disrupters, with the CC firing arcs.
3. Flag Bridge removed, (assume command rating is '8' inspite of it having the same command facilities as the CV (a F&E comd Rating of '9').
4. changed Phaser 1 to match the same firing Arcs that the CC phaser 1's have.
This would appear to be the "basic" BCHe2 prototype... perhaps a "1 off" design to test the concept...as an experimental ship... no noble would want to be anywhere near it (afraid that if it failed its evaluation tests, the "stink" would some how associate with the noble...).
Once it was "proved" as a viable combat design... the "Noble approved" modifications could be added (larger live food holding pens for the gormet palats of the officers), expanded Flag Bridge facilities (fully 50% larger than what the lowly CC's have!) expanded Command capacity to function as a fleet flag ship (trans lates as a F&E Command Ratie of '10').
Personnaly, I could accept a "Test of Concept" design being undertaken... essentially that is exactly what the United States Navy has done with the follow on carrier design to the Nimitz class CVA (IIRC its the Ford Class Carriers).
What has me stimied is coming up with "one heck of a background to explain why it was built as a non-command ship".
Note to Larry "I'd still rather have 12 admin shuttles let alone 12 AS" Ramey.
The current version has 12 more SSD boxes than the vanilla kzinti CC... your missing fighters are effectively replaced by larger impulse engine, ADD rack, 1 more Ph1-360, 4 A Hull, +2Shuttles,+1 Tractor, +1 APR, +2 BTTY, +1Bridge, and still retains the capacity to easily add 3 Flag Bridge.
The ship will also have 10 more shield boxes than a Vanilla CC.
It is better than a CS by virtue of the C-14 refit that the CS does not have (it gets the refit, but that changes the class from the CS to the BC.)
I suspect that even when presented with data that refutes your position, you will still be opposed to the proposed BCHe2.
We will see. 
SRYSLY.
I looked on the chart 3-4 times and didn't see that.
So tactically it is better than a CC. Strategically, it is probably a failure as it takes a slipway that could make a CV. (And CR8 stinks on ice)
Peachy.
Larry,
I suspect that you are misunderstanding what both SPP and I are posting.
First, this was proposed as an Unbuilt Variant, I.e. a ship that could have been produced, but was not.
Therefore, no CV's were lost to produce the BCHe2.
SPP seems to be indicating that if a heck of a back story were written to explain why a non-command hull BCH variant were produced, there might have been limited production (my conjecture, not anything SPP posted)...
And that still leaves coming up with some kind of explaination why the BCHe2 which has the exact same command facilities of a CV (CR:9) only has a Command Rating of 8...
In esscence, to conform the proposed BCH early variant to the criteria posted by SPP, we have to perform some sort of lobotomy on the CV command decks... and I'm not sure that one could gut the bridge facilities without damaging the ships ability to function in combat (I'm referring to maintaining the ships Electronic Warfare capacity, its ability to control seeking Weapon Channels, communications, Weapons, Sensors and scanners and probably even its ability to use its labs in combat.
Seems like a contradiction.
No Jeff... I got it.
There has to be a reason it was unbuilt. The reason is the strategic drawbacks. Clearly fighters are better than ships. Just play F&E once. Once the AS proved itself on the Long Lean, there was no reason to make this.
My point was, it HAS to be tactically superior to the CC, or they never would have bothered. Or at least tactically superior in theory. War is littered with ideas that seemed like a great idea at the time..... M10 anyone?
I can see a couple of explanations for this sort of ship.
1) An alternative to the refit program. If you need to fight D7's on even terms and the refits that add weaponry were unavailable or failed another approach is to build bigger, tougher hulls. So the Kzinti may have started construction of a series of larger cruisers, then once the refits proved themselves found it to be a solution without a problem - but there are these neat new fighter things needing a home with a lot of internal space.
2) A CC-replacement for the Nobles, since the BC (and even CA) are much closer to the CC in combat power than the CS the Nobles need a more powerful ship to retain their superiority.
With regard to the SSD I'd include some elements of the DNE design (eg Cargo for Drone storage).
Cargo for drone storage is one of those ideas that seem tohave been floating around forever... and never get published.
I cant tell you where I saw it (there have been soooo many proposals over the years!) but I think SPP had talked about cargo box refits (it may have been on the discussion about the DDM)... Not sure of the details... but I think the gist was that it (cargo boxes on regular warship designs) could be a potential "can of worms" where non Fed players see the DDM and say "Ooooh I want one too!"
We could add cargo boxes to the proposal... but I expect that cargo boxes are a potential obstacle.
There's a fair number of ships with CARGO for drone storage, like all of the Kzinti DN variants.
I believe all (or at least almost all) "Drone Bombardment" ships have cargo for drone storage.
Ever actually played with ASes in SFB? The inability to control their own drones made playing them a real nightmare. As if my other Kzinti Ships weren't launching drones and using all their own control channels. It really limited their effectiveness. So with that in mind, I could see someone wondering if the Fighter Concept was not for mainline combat but only for bases/planets with no real control worries. Space combat being handled by traditional ships. And the BCHe being a design study and proof of concept.
Maybe if the BCHe was using all D-type three magazine racks it could be seen as more of a support variant. No scout sensors for bombardment, but something that would hang back in battle and just spit out drones, no rush, no glory, no anchors, no honor for the nobles. Thus a commoner's ship.
Maybe even a throwback to earlier Kzinti designs, lacking disruptors. Hull proves capable, Noble Leadership gets interested in the large, roomy hull that is properly majestic for them, and refit it into more of what you have now.
Not sure you can mount D racks on a BCHe2 hull... its even more impluasible on a CC... but IIRC the Kzinti version of the Combat Tug does have D racks...
I am pretty certain you wouldnt want to go below 4 separate drone racks... and IIRC the combination of the B and C racks lets the CC launch 6 drones per turn.
The BCHe2 would hve to conform to the CC performance and launch rate of 6 drones pwer turn off the 2xB, 2xC racks... so if we did substitute 2 D drone Racks (6 SSD boxes worth of space) we would still have to add in 2 other racks of some sort (either B or C I suppose...)
Having 12 spaces of drones in each drone D rack is attractive... but it doesnt make up for the drone launch rate lost by deleting 2 or 4 of the B and C racks.
now if you had 2xB, 2xC, and 2xD racks you would have a drone chucker of legend... but I don't see that getting approved this side of "Armageddon" rules edition(the next to last rules set of the the SFU! )
I'd like this ship to have 2xC, 2xD, 1xADD. The D-Racks where the shuttle bay is and 3xCargo to back it up.
I second Tos's request.
I'd like four D-racks, two C-racks. But I doubt even in a larger hull design like this that I'd ever see it. Least I thought the CV/BCH hull was larger than the CC.
Ok, Tos' proposal has been moved and seconded, all in favor vote Aye! (or Nay...
if opposed...)
Jonathan, can we count your last post as a vote in favor of 2xD racks and 2xC racks?
Yes, yes you may.
Well, thats what? four votes in favor, and none opposed, motion carried.
Lets look at the current version with the indicated changes:
Comparison BCHe2/CC
| System | BCHe2 | CC | Diff |
| Sh#1 | 34 | 30 | 4 |
| Sh#2 | 28 | 28 | 0 |
| Sh#3 | 24 | 22 | 2 |
| Sh#4 | 24 | 22 | 2 |
| Br | 3 | 2 | +1 |
| Flag | 0 | 2 | -2 |
| F Hull | 5 | 5 | 0 |
| Ph1-LF&L | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Ph1-FA&L | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Ph1-Rf&R | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Ph1-FA&R | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Tran | 5 | 5 | 0 |
| BTTY | 7 | 5 | +2 |
| EMER | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Trac | 3 | 2 | +1 |
| APR | 6 | 5 | +1 |
| Disr-LF&L | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Disr-FA&L | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Disr-RF&R | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Disr-FA&R | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Ph3-LS | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Ph3-RS | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Drone A | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Drone B | 0 | 2 | -2 |
| Drone C | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Drone D | 2 | 0 | +6* |
| Probe | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Shttl | 4 | 2 | +2 |
| Cargo | 3 | 0 | +3 |
| 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 |
Notes:
*D Racks are 3 SSD boxes each, and are mounted in the main hull where the Shuttle hanger was located on theCV class.
1) this proposal includes 3 cargo boxes, also located in what was the hanger bay of the CV.
2) this ship substitutes the D Drone Racks for the pair of Drone B racks carried in the pylons... at present nothing has been placed in the pylons to replace the Drone B racks.
Tos Crawford...(mischeivious grin) would you be up for posting the 'Crawford Modified BCHcrawford SSD?
Not to put too fine a point on it, IIRC SPP had doubled the number of "ninja Klingon Assasins" assigned to you after the failure of the infamous "Hotdog Scenario" a couple of years back. I am not expecting anything bad to happen, but if one of Petricks minions managed to complete the contract on you, we'ed have no one to post the SSD!
(Its a joke! A Joke! Honest, I was only trying to bring some humor to the conversation!! no NOOOO! Not the Booth Again My hearing only just recovered from the last time!!!
((sounds of body being physically picked up from the work station, and frog marched to the new booth facilities)
(heard from a looonnng way away "a lollypop? for me?!?! what are these wires for?!?!? what do you mean there is a speaker inside the lollypop? so I can hear Roseanne Barr singing the 'Star Spangled Banner' in stereo from within and without at the same time?!?!?!?!
••••. Looking over the SSD of the CVS, that doesn't make any sense. Sure adding 2xD is a good use of the shuttle bay, but removing two drones from the pylons has no logic. Allowing for the logical arrangement, 2xC, 2xB, 2xD, 1xADD, makes the ship arguably better than the much later BCH. Would anyone be willing to place D-Racks on the pylons making the ships 4xD, 1xADD?
I would be willing... if I thought the pylons culd support D-racks. Then again I said I'd want four D-racks originally.
But for Pylon options there's a lot of things the Kzintis have used, least based on the different pylons that they have used on other ships.
But the logical one that comes to mind (Without combing through all my SSDs right now) would probably be the two phaser-3 ones.
D-racks in pylons...see the Fast Cruiser...