First, an interjection. A product full of minor changes to PFs and tenders isn't very exciting. Products about altered ships can get away with it as more people play with standard ships than with PFs. Products that excite me either change the battle field (such as X ships and EY ships) or create new types of scenarios. I'm semi dubious of the proposal below but it was worth a shot.

None the less, I could see the Lyrans upgrading their PF since they had it longer than anyone else. Heavy PFs are out so it has to be a rather minor change. Mini-ESGs also seem to be out.

Improved Lyran PF proposal, Stan Taylor
Bobcat PR. The Lyrans wanted to gain a PF advantage over their neighbors but were already pushing power limitations. In Y182, they hit upon the idea of a partial trimaran by attaching the center section of an interceptor under the center section of a PF. The small center section has only an impulse and a disruptor. The impulse engine?s thrusters were removed to lessen strain on the combined center sections (imp changed to APR). This modification could only be done to the Bobcat P as the shock of three disruptors was out of the question. Compared to a standard Bobcat, the revised Bobcat P had the same power requirements to arm it weapons but had one more point of power. Compared to the Bobcat, it had one less disruptor but two more Ph-2. The overall firepower was the same but it proved slightly more flexible when firing at drones and fighters.

No other race attempted a similar modification as none had a shape that reasonably allowed it and most were reasonably satisfied with their PFs.


If concerned about total number of boxes, one can add that the btty and bridge were moved out of the center section to make room. One hull box on each side is removed and replaced with a btty or bridge.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, October 18, 2002 - 04:17 pm: Edit

Loren Knight:

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

"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)."

David Kass already pointed out that the PF DAC is very different from the normal DAC, but I want to make sure you understand a broader point.

Anyone can sit down, look at the DAC, and design a ship that in general takes damage very well. But if all the ships took damage at the same rate and in the same manner, much of the flavor of the game would be lost.

Everyone knows about the Hydran "seventh shield", that mass of 21 center hull boxes that means the first 23 internal rolls between 5 and 9 inclusive (in one massive volley) are only going to hit one left warp, one right warp, and 21 hull boxes, leaving a Hydran ship still capable of putting up a fight because nothing really critical gets hit. It is what makes it possible for the Hydran to fly right in your face, take your best shot, and kill you.

Everyone knows that if you combine Center Hull with Center Warp, and only center warp, you will pretty much have everything that matters (except of course weapons that get picked off by phaser, drone, and torpedo hits) until all the hull is blown off, leaving you a ship still able to disengage because of the protected warp engine.

But the way the game works is in part how ships take damage. Any Klingon D7 or D6 driver KNOWS that the first 15-21 internals are probably going to wipe out his batteries because he only has four forward hull boxes to protect them (and the shuttle bay will go next). This fact will leave him crippled for want of the ability to access the reserve power rules, even though the ship is not otherwise crippled.

Any Federation CA or CC driver knows that he will retain his batteries until the damage gets into the mid 30 internals (because he has 12 forward hull boxes protecting them), but that his APRs/AWRs will be gone before then because there are only four aft hull boxes protecting them (although a lot of "5"s can get you into the Fed batteries through the back door).

Ships are designed based on an idea of reflecting a racial consistency, and not to "beat the DAC". Consequently, most Federation ships have a lot of forward hull (some are Center Hull), while virtually every Klingon ship has a small forward hull and a somewhat larger aft hull. This gives flavor to game in that both players can look at the DAC and figure how much damage they need to do, and how much damage may make their own ship too weak to win the battle.

By Marc Baluda (Marc) on Friday, October 18, 2002 - 04:35 pm: Edit

Steve Petrick:

Correct. I should have been clearer.

To clarify, I was referring to the P-2 "p" refit for 2 BPV.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, October 18, 2002 - 04:50 pm: Edit

SPP: I understand that and I atempted to retract my previous statement with:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 08:42 pm:

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).
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

That would include things such as hull and the like. Previously I was trying to point only to the PF situation but Dkass set me straight. THe situation I spoke of really had nothing to do with units with only c-hull and c-warp. I'm at a loss why you went there. I do understand how SFB works in regards to how damage is applied and how that effects ships.

In any case, I did retract my missive.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, October 18, 2002 - 05:09 pm: Edit

Loren Knight:

The point I was making the general observation about ship construction.

Your retraction appeared to only deal with your proposal about adding a third engine to a two engine PF.

The fact that you even proposed that a race should, in essence, study the DAC and design their ship to beat the DAC as opposed to in line with the race's racial characteristic did not seem to be part of your retraction, and why I commented.

By Stan Taylor (Stantaylor) on Friday, October 18, 2002 - 08:59 pm: Edit

Police Tender proposal, Stan Taylor

During the General War, there was a lesser arms race, that between police and pirates. As the pirates used increasingly larger ships, the police wished to follow suit. Unfortunately, the war destroyers and war cruisers that would have truly helped were badly needed in battle groups in battle lines. The police needed firepower without consuming larger hulls. In the late war, the obvious answer was to give them PFs. The details varied but those races that went this route followed a general trend. A Pol or FF was modified by adding mechlinks to its existing tractor beam and adding an additional tractor beam. Systems were removed to add 1-2 repair stations.

Police tenders are not casual tenders. However, they did not mount scout sensors for cost reasons; the small ships could scarcely afford the power to lend EW to 2 PFs anyway. Due to lower priorities and a partial squadron, police tenders never had PF scouts, PF leaders, or multi-role PFs. They usually had interceptors for 1-2 years after the Navy had switched to PFs.

Police tenders serve a similar role to Aux Tenders. The latter have the advantage of being able to mount more PFs. Police tenders have the advantage of speed which allows them to react to trouble as well as staying with a convoy. Police tenders could also follow pirates into high speed warp and launch PFs once the pirates had stopped or reached their base; allowing them to kill pirates instead merely chasing them away as Aux Tenders tended to do.


There are a couple of alternative ways to fulfill the same concept. One would be to put a couple of PFs on police flagships. Another would be to take obsolete scout frigates and attach a few PFs.

By Stan Taylor (Stantaylor) on Friday, October 18, 2002 - 09:06 pm: Edit

Survey PF proposal, Stan Taylor
(I'm not if the first mission is possible. I'm not sure what the required separation between ships is when looking for Andro bases. If it's a significant portion of a PF's range, they couldn't search for very long after getting away from the tender or ship.)

In an effort to shut down the Andromedan RTN, scout ships of all sorts were sent on independent missions searching for Andromedan bases. In order to sweep a wider path, some would employ scout PFs to operate alongside, far enough away to not interfere with each other. The scout PFs would operate with their booster packs off (to reduce signature and increase range) until they found something. They would run away and report if they found anything.

Since they had no hope in battle (lone PF vs Andro ship or base), they generally had two phasers replaced with labs to increase data collection. Non-drone races would also remove one system to mount a probe rack.

Survey PFs were also useful in deathrider mode to investigate monsters and highly dangerous stellar phenomena. After Operation Unity, Aux PF tenders with 2-3 survey PFs and a few standard PFs made cost effective survey ships in exploring the Magellanic Cloud.


Adding the PF leader mods to a survey PF would help to make them a true mini-survey ship. But I'm not sure if it would be worth the cost.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, October 18, 2002 - 10:03 pm: Edit

r.e. Police Tender:
Submission 65, Lyran POLT, is a good example of what you describe. I too hope to see these type of ships. They would fit well in either K2 or in the upcoming R module that feature national guard units.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, October 18, 2002 - 10:27 pm: Edit

SPP: I never intended such.

"The fact that you even proposed that a race should, in essence, study the DAC and design their ship to beat the DAC as opposed to in line with the race's racial characteristic did not seem to be part of your retraction, and why I commented."

I see where I was confusing, though, with:
"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)."

What I intended was...well, lets see if I can explain shortly. All races surely study their ships. I figure the DAC is a representation for us gamers of a ficticious reality that center warp somehow takes less damage early in a battle. That certain designs are more stable than other designs when the ship taking damage. PFs do two things. The dish out damage and the take it. So sturdyness would seem to be the best approach. That was what my thought process was to begin with. Races CANNOT study a DAC. It doesn't exsist to them. What I ment to suggest is that they could conduct studys of damage processes that in the game are represented by the DAC.

Dkass pointed out that on the PF one was not nessasarily better than the other. The rest is history.

That's all. No big deal.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, October 19, 2002 - 12:52 pm: Edit

Stan Taylor:

We made a decision some time ago that there were ships simply too small to operate PFs. Police Cutters are pretty much it. That is why the SSD for the Lyran Manx and the Military Police unti lack the Mech Link refit found on virtually all other Lyran units. Note that the Military Police unit ship description specifically says the mech link refit is "unavailable" and the LDR does not have mech links on its Military Police units, although there is a note that the Military Police Minesweeper is an exception.

In essence, Federation POLs (even if the Federation operated PFs), Klingon G2s and E3s, Romulan Snipes, Hydran Gendarmes, Lyran Pols and Military Police, WYN KG2s, and ISC Pols cannot operate PFs. The Kzinti Police Corvette is actually a Frigate by another name, and can, as can the Gorn Police unit (which is also a frigate). Also the Tholian Patrol Cruisers/Corvettes are actually Frigates and can operate PFs.

By Stan Taylor (Stantaylor) on Saturday, October 19, 2002 - 10:41 pm: Edit

SPP, that sounds quite reasonable. Maybe the basic idea of small units getting PFs to counter pirates could be applied to frigates in police service such as E4s. The Pols generally have so few systems that could be removed anyway.

Something along the same lines would be to release a couple of scout frigates to local forces and convert them to carry two PFs. They already have sensors installed which would cut the cost quite a bit.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Sunday, October 20, 2002 - 05:57 pm: Edit

Stan Taylor:

Frigates already are able to operate PFs. The problem is that few races use Frigates in their police forces.

The Federation does not.

The Klingons do (E4s and F5s).

the Romulans sort of do (Snipes, but Snipes probably will not be able to operate PFs). Possibly Seahawks.

The Kzintis essentially call a Frigate with no disruptor and no C refit a "Corvette".

The Gorns do.

The Tholians in essence do.

The Orions . . . well they are Orions.

The Hydrans do not.

The Andormedans . . . well they are Andromedans.

The Lyrans do not.

The WYN . . . they are the WYN.

The ISC do not (Police Corvettes).

The LDR do not.

The Seltorians do not.

By David Kass (Dkass) on Sunday, October 20, 2002 - 08:30 pm: Edit

Is the rule about some ships being too small to operate PFs published somewhere? I ask because I'd never heard of it and its the type of tidbit that makes an interesting "To Ask Why?" question.

By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Monday, October 21, 2002 - 09:35 am: Edit

Here is a conjectural ship idea for either K2 or J2:

1) Take the Lyran CVD based on their CA hull and give it the DN center section.

2) Replace the two center engine disrupters with special sensors

3) Give the center section the PFT refit.

You now have a Lyran ACS with 24 Z-Y in an oversized squadron and six Bobcats.

The ship was never built because the Lyrans never built a CVD to convert.

And by the time they faced foes who they needed such a capability against -- the ISC and Andromedans -- they lacked the economy to produce one from scratch.

By Robert Cole (Zathras) on Monday, October 21, 2002 - 09:53 am: Edit

Interesting idea... but my worry about making a ship like this is the fact that ALL the ACSs / CVDs could be converted to Super Conctol Ships. (D6U has 6 TRACs, D7U has 8!)

Rather not get into that...

42

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, October 21, 2002 - 10:31 am: Edit

David Kass:

We have never published it as a formal rule in the larger sense. Right now the beginnings of it are found in the places I mentioned, i.e., the rules for the Lyran and LDR Military Police units, and the fact that of all the Lyran SSDs only these do not show the mech link refit.

By Christopher J. Graves (Cgraves) on Monday, October 21, 2002 - 11:01 am: Edit

As I haven't seen this one suggested.

Lyran Carrier Alternative. (CP?)

Take a CV hull, remove the fighters and add the facilities to support a total of 6 PF's. I don't know about it retaining the escorts. (It's not a really a PFT, it's an alternative to a carrier.)

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Monday, October 21, 2002 - 11:19 am: Edit

Trent,

The only problem with putting a Lyran DN section in a CVD to make an Area Control Ship is, all ACS's are Cruiser hulls, and the Lyran one would be a DN-Hull.

Also ACS's have Heavy Fighters, not PFs.

What your essentially proposing is an 'Attrition Dreadnought' (for lack of better terms) having 24 fighters, and 6PFs to fill 2 squadrons (oversided fighters and 1 PF flottila) with 0 Disruptors. It's main goal is to carry fighters/PF's into battle, and not contribute any long-range disruptor fire into the battle.

I suppose you could do the same with the Hydran IC, change out 12 fighters for a PF flottila and repair to make a Lord Deacon (I proposed that one long ago, but never did an official write up for it.)

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, October 21, 2002 - 11:32 am: Edit

Christopher Graves:

Sorry, but if you remove the fighters it is no longer a carrier. It is a PFT.

The Lyrans already have a PFT on a CW hull. I do not think they need another.

By Christopher J. Graves (Cgraves) on Monday, October 21, 2002 - 11:56 am: Edit

I was thinking about a combat version (in other words an alternative to a carrier with heavy weapons not a PFT with scout channels.)

By Marc Baluda (Marc) on Monday, October 21, 2002 - 12:00 pm: Edit

Try a Lyran BC - it carries 4 PFs and is a "true PFT."

By David Slatter (Davidas) on Monday, October 21, 2002 - 12:06 pm: Edit

Um


Is there any reason why DN-hulled ships could not have mounted 9 PFs in a hybrid sqaudron? 6 seems the limit for cruisers, the Zin proved that 12 PFs on a DN was very problematical, so why couldn't other races try for 9 and succeed with a single example, say, around Y185-Y200? Maybe this could be an upgrade of an SCS as fighters became progressively outdated (and fighter production lines scaled down post-war)- PFs dating slower?

The 9-PF DN could provide leader and scout PFs, along with EW/repair support for a full second squadron, the other 3 PFs of the second squadron being mounted casually on other ships.

Intrigingly, you could extend this. Design a DN-PFT with just 6-mech links that when the ship is operating alone are simply a standard squadron. However, in fleet actions, the DN is designed to mount 3 scout and 3 leader varients while other ships bring standard PFs casually to make up a three-squadron complement. The extra space this DN has over an SCS due to not having any fighters is tided over to power systems, scout sensors, command, and repair to support 3 PFs squdrons as best as it can. Somewhat a patched affair, but *much* better than a PF squadron, a casual PF squadron, and a fighter squadron (the case for SCS + casual PFs).

The Lyran's wouldn't bother with this as they have DNps and BCps. However, most other races could build up a small task force with DNppp + 3 escorts + ca. 2 cruisers that could do this to give a very heavy and versatile punch across just a few ships. Now this is probably way over-powerful, but a DN that can support 2 squadrons should be possible, even if the remaining PFs are mounted on its escorts. Maybe the main escort could be modified to have limited PF repair and pack replacement capacity, rather like the current escorts do for fighters?

The SCSS would still stand alone, as it can mount 2 and support 2 PF squdrons without requiring escorts, and thus would be unique in its mission statement to kill Andromedan Satbases without any support.

(escorts presumably *can* have mech-links?)

By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Monday, October 21, 2002 - 12:28 pm: Edit

Err...

That should have read:

Here is a conjectural ship idea for either K2 or _J3_:

By David Slatter (Davidas) on Monday, October 21, 2002 - 12:42 pm: Edit

That's fine. I'm not up-to-the-minute on SFB releases and ideas (i'm an F&E man). The idea may even be auto-rejected..
But I don't see why my idea would be any more conjectoral than upgraded trimeran lyran PFs.

just realised - should have read the list - PFTs on DN-hulls are on the auto-reject. So i guess the idea gets bounced. Strange, as I would have thought SCSs are PFTs as well. Never mind.

By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Monday, October 21, 2002 - 12:53 pm: Edit

Scott T

The Lyran "ACS," as I proposed it, was meant as a counter to the ISC eschelon or a counterweight to the Kzinti SSCS in the Andromedan era.

Actually, given that the Lyrans will escort this with DN hulled unit three escorts that have two mech links each. The Lyrans could have their own "23rd Division" with this platform, Fi-con PFs on the DN and a CPF for cover on the carrier escort. And since the 12 fighters are an "oversized squadron" anyway. You would not violate the "three squadron rule."

How about this as a "Class History":

1) The original Lyran DN-ACS envisioned the use of heavy fighters in Y176 and was aimed as a counter to the Hydran IC. The idea was dropped for the SCS and Heavy PFT (DNP/BCP/DNH/BCH) when the interceptor showed more promise and the PF proved itself superior.

2) The Lyran ACS (PFT) was considered in Y181 as a possible counter to the Kzinti 23rd Division. The idea was dropped when the 23rd failed in combat.

3) The Lyran ACS (PFT) idea was revived upon the arrival of the ISC eschelon in Lyran space in Y189 showed the need for fighters to overload the ISC gunline. This idea was dropped when the Andromedons cut the ISC supply lines to pieces.

4) The Lyran ACS (PFT) was revived a final time several years after the Kzinti deployed their SSCS and the Klingons completed their B-10SCS.

Financial considerations and the increasing obsolecense of fighters in the face of x-technology put paid to the idea for the final time.

Had the Lyrans bothered to build a CA based CVD earlier, it's sunk investments in fighters would have made the ACS readily deployable.

As to whether it was a worthwhile unit, only combat would have made clear.