Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through June 09, 2009	25		06/09 09:15pm

Jeff Wile: Yes, but we all ignore that drek and just carry on as if that retconning had never occurred. ;)

In any case, even if we didn't (and we will) ignore that abomination of retconnage, the OCL is at 98. So the gap is between 98 and 125. That's a 27 point gap. Pretty narrow.

Unless of course we're going to retcon and nerf the OCL next.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, June 09, 2009 - 09:44 pm: Edit

Dale McKee:

Not gonna bet on that one! I always figured that if SVC wanted to Gore MJCs ox, he would do something terrible and cruel to the OCL!

(Its Joke, don't you people understand humor!!!! no, you can't pre-emptively booth a person, there are procedures and rules that you must follow! yes, run along to web mom, let her decide. thats a nice grunt, here have a banana.)

You know, I miss the old Klingon Marines that ADB used to have on payroll... these trained apes that replaced them don't have nearly the same charm or personality.

By Dale McKee (Brigman) on Tuesday, June 09, 2009 - 09:48 pm: Edit

We should change the nomenclature from "DDM" (Destroyer, Middle years) to "DDN" (Destroyer, Nerfed).

Like I said in the Middle Years topic. I'm all for adding to that period with new stuff. I'm very much AGAINST nerfing existing hulls that have been in the game 20+ years in some kind of retconning effort. ;)

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, June 09, 2009 - 10:01 pm: Edit

Oh, great.

Yeah, I want tickets to that discussion!

Lets see you square off against Steve Petrick! Tonight only! In this Corner, reigning Star Fleet Rules champion, Steven P Petrick (AKA The Crusher!) and the Challenger, Dale ("Death from Above") McKee.

No holds barred! No tag teams, no special scenario rules!

Debate topic:

To Nerf, or Not to Nerf!

As a coming attraction, we can have Loren Knight take on all comers in a free for all event. "I like my struts straight! Darn it!"

I'll bring the pop corn!

By Dale McKee (Brigman) on Tuesday, June 09, 2009 - 10:06 pm: Edit

I think the Tholians should get redonkulously big nacelles added to them, with curved struts. We could call them "PCJJs".

And the D6 should have only had 2 disruptors until Y160. Which would be called an "ND6".

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, June 09, 2009 - 10:19 pm: Edit

Dale, tell you what, open a new topic for a D6 variant with 2 disrupters, and I'll support you!

I figure if "Nerfing" is good for the Federation and the DD, it ought to be good for the Klingon D6 Battle Cruiser as well!

What say we call it the D6Brittle Cruiser!

No! you can't put me into the agonizer booth unless you get one of the Steves or Web Mom to give the OK.

Oh, you just want another banana? Ok. here, now go sit in the cornoer and be a good ape.

(Sigh...) I do miss the Klingon Marines... that Sgt Krumpdin played a good game of Chess... so far, I havent been able to teach these apes anything more than checkers.

Oh, and Dale, your're on your own in dealing with Loren Knight, I hear he has been working over time on new and devilishly clever things for the Holdfast.

By Mike Strain (Evilmike) on Tuesday, June 09, 2009 - 11:29 pm: Edit

DDM?

Wasn't that the 2 photon DD that was only around for 2-3 years until the Feds figured out 4 photons wouldn't cause shock to the hull?

I think they still have one around back at Starbase 1, they use it as a cadet training ship, I hear.

*snickers*

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, June 10, 2009 - 12:52 pm: Edit

Mike Strain, your comments are inaccurate.

the DDM was around for more than 32 years of actual frontline service in the Federation Star Fleet. (YIS 130 to year 160 when the Federation started to convert all remaining DDMs to the vanilla DD standard, plus up to 2 years for the "prototype rule" and however many yers it took Star Fleet to convert that last DDM (indeed, its possible that there were some DDMs still flying at the start of the General War, the rules don't specifically state.)

Edited to remove personal comments. J.Sexton

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Wednesday, June 10, 2009 - 12:58 pm: Edit

Methinks he might have been straining to pass on a note of sarcasm in his comments there, Jeff...


And you know, I'm happy enough with the DDM for what it is - a ship from a perhaps more hopeful time, and one which probably has that bit more in terms of station keeping time and operational limit than the 4-torp DD.

You know, for doing the whole exploring strange, new worlds thing.

I seem to be a minority in this, but how and ever.

By Richard Sherman (Rich) on Wednesday, June 10, 2009 - 01:44 pm: Edit

Listen to me carefully.

The DDM does not exist.

The DDM does not exist.

The DDM does not exist.

There is nothing to see here. This is not the destroyer you're looking for.

By Jeremy Gray (Gray) on Wednesday, June 10, 2009 - 02:11 pm: Edit

Amen brother. Blah!

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, June 10, 2009 - 03:43 pm: Edit

Deleted personal comments. -- J.Sexton

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, June 10, 2009 - 03:54 pm: Edit

Richard Sherman, Jereemy Gray, Please report to the infirmary! Time to adjust your medications again.

Seriously guys, the DDM has been published and is official, doing the Dale McKee "LALALA Not Listening Song" may make you feel better, but does nothing about having a fleet full of DDM class ships during the middle years period.

Personnaly, I was perfectly happy with the idea of unrefitted Kzinti CS, CL and FF class ships breaking claws, fangs and various other unnamed parts of their anatomy on the vanilla DD... I must say my interest in a F&E module expansion for the middle years is seriously dimminished by the idea of having the Fed Fleet filled with mostly DDM junk (except for the golden 5 vanilla DDs that SVC graciously allowed us).

Now if we could, could we please return to the subject of this thread?

It is, a proposed "fix" for the lowly (and very much disliked) DDM.

By Dale McKee (Brigman) on Wednesday, June 10, 2009 - 04:14 pm: Edit

[Deleted, no longer needed. -- J.Sexton]

And I'm not rearranging any of MY games on account of a Captain's Log ship that spuriously retcons a ship that's been in the game 20+ years, and have no interest in ships that build on such.

The "fix" for the lowly and disliked DDN is the DD.

Even if you somehow, at gunpoint, got me to play in a game that insisted only 5 DDs could be built prior to Y160, and the rest HAD to be DDNs... I would then build 5 (and only 5) DDs, and use those. Any DDN hulls pre-existing would be converted to SCs. With the Fed FF and Fed OCL, there is plenty of room to get by without it. At THAT point, the "gap" I'd be 'worried' about would be between the FF and OCL, not the DDN and CA (the OCL fills that).

By Richard Sherman (Rich) on Wednesday, June 10, 2009 - 05:17 pm: Edit

What Dale said. Double even. The "fix" to the DDN is to ignore it.

[Deleted, no longer needed. -- J.Sexton]

Hey Dale! It's actually 6 destroyer hulls we'd get. Don't forget we can get a waaaaay early prototype of the DDG too (like in Y155 or thereabouts)!

By Jean Sexton (Jsexton) on Wednesday, June 10, 2009 - 08:58 pm: Edit

Jeff,

You did the "Summons the WebMom" spell twice.

I'm here.

Be careful what you wish for.

Personal attacks are never allowed. They have been deleted.

Rich, Dale, you do not have to defend someone here on the BBS (although I know you didn't want to bother me, WebMoms know all). Just email me with the address in my profile and I'll deal with it.

Jeff, as for you and the Booth, the Slirdarians have orders to take you there and to play Handel's Messiah performed by Def Leopard, the Statler Brothers, The Mormon Tabernacle Choir, and the Klingon Boys Choir. Soloists are: Rosanne Barr, Michael Jackson, Boy George, and the Slirdarian sitting next to you. Wesley Crusher has been assigned to keep you focused on the music.

Guys, in all seriousness, this is a Very Bad Time to draw negative notice down upon you. The Steves are very busy, I have far too much to do (especially with a cold and sore throat), and we are on a very tight deadline. So be good, please?

Jean
WebMom
(Who has four pages of Communique that need checking and things for Captain's Log to read and who sees PD Klingons slipping further down the schedule and who knows where PD Feds is going to land?)

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, June 11, 2009 - 10:44 pm: Edit

Lets get back to discussing the CM.

Systems	DDM	CA	CM	CM+	CM1	CCM	CS
Photon	2	4	2	2	2	2	4
BTTY	2	4	4	4	5	4	4
Ph-1-FH	2	2	2	2	2	2	2
Ph-1-LF&L	2	2	2	2	2	2	2
Ph-1-RF&R	2	2	2	2	2	2	2
Ph-3-360				2
Drone G				1
Lab	8	8	8	4	8	8	4
APR				4
Bridge	2	2	2	2	2	2	2
Trac	2	2	2	2	2	2	2
Tran	2	3	4	4	4	4	4
Aux Con	2	2	2	2	2	2	2
Flag Bridge	0	0	0	0	0	2	0
Probe	1	1	1	1	1	2	1
F Hull	0	12	12	12	12	12	12
C Hull	12	0	0	0	0	0	0
Rear Hull	0	4	4	4	6	4	2
Emer	1	2	1	1	1	1	2
Shuttle	2	4	4	4	5	6	4
Imp	4	4	4	4	4	4	4
L Warp	0	15	15	15	15	15	15
R Warp	0	15	15	15	15	15	15
C Warp	15	0	0	0	0	0	0
BPV	88	125	119	125	130?	127?	125
CU	20	43	43	43	43	43	40
BP	6	10	10	10	10	10	10
MC	0.5	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	5/6
Total SSD Bx	61	88	85	88	89	92	83
Total Warp	15	30	30	30	30	30	30
Total Power	19	34	34	34	34	34	34

lets look at the plus variant of the CM, guessing that the 2 engine version can carry a drone G rack, the plus refit would add 2xP-3-360. IIRC, the DD+ refit also converted 4 of the labs into APR.

To be complete, I should also reflect the refits for the DD+, the CA+ and the CS+, but I don't have that information tabulated just now. I'll try to post it with the next revision, if there is one.

By Dale McKee (Brigman) on Thursday, June 11, 2009 - 11:13 pm: Edit

Well let's see.

Systems	CM	OCL	CM+	OCL+
Photon	2	2	2	2
BTTY	4	4	4	4
Ph-1 FH	2	2	2	2
Ph-1 RF+R	2		2
Ph-1 LF+L	2		2
Ph-1 RS		2		2
Ph-1 LS		2		2
Ph-3 360			2	2
Drone-G			1	1
Lab	8	6	4	6
APR		2	4	2
Bridge	2	2	2	2
Trac	2	2	2	2
Tran	4	2	4	2
Aux Con	2	2	2	2
Flag	0	0	0	0
Probe	1	1	1	1
F hull	12	6	12	6
C hull	0		0
R hull	4	6	4	6
Emer	1	1	1	1
Shuttle	4	2	4	2
Imp	4	4	4	4
L Warp	15	12	15	12
R Warp	15	12	15	12
C Warp	0	0	0	0
BPV	119	98	125	113
BPs	10	8	10	8
Mv Cost	1	0.75	1	0.75
Total Warp	30	24	30	24
Total Power	34	30	38	30

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, June 12, 2009 - 09:42 am: Edit

Hmmm....

Seems like a disconnect somewhere, the BPV between the original CM and the OCL is 21 BPVs, but after the plus refit, the difference is only 12 points.

BOth ships got similar improvements, 2 phaser 3s, a drone G rack, the OCL got 2 APR the CM got 4 APR, but lost 4 Labs. THe CM started with 4 shuttles, the OCL only 2, at 2 PBV each, thats a net +4 BPV infavor of the CM.

On balance, I'm guessing the CM+ under valued somewhat. On know that the loss of the 4 labs is a negative impact on the BPV, but I doubt that its worth much more than -4, and possibly not even that much. Without knowing the BPV formula, its hard to be precise.

Should the CM+ BPV be 131? Higher? lower?

By Richard Sherman (Rich) on Friday, June 12, 2009 - 05:26 pm: Edit

Minor point...

The OCL has FX phasers, not FH...

Hey! I NEED that extra 30 degrees on each side, dagnabit!

By Richard Sherman (Rich) on Friday, June 12, 2009 - 05:28 pm: Edit

Y'know, speaking of nerfing...the OCL actually got "un-nerfed." Remember when it only had 4 P1 (and a BPV of 93)?

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, June 12, 2009 - 08:22 pm: Edit

4 phaser 1's?!?

Gee, I guess I hated that idea so much I just blanked it out of my memeory...

Richard, what product was that in? the pocket edition? I started with the Designers edition, and for some reason, I'm thinking the OCL (or the CL back then) had 6 phaser 1s... but now that I thinnk about it, I do recall early on thinking that the CL being 1 point less than the destroyer was just "wrong".

By Richard Sherman (Rich) on Friday, June 12, 2009 - 09:27 pm: Edit

I don't think it got changed until the Captain's Edition.

By Mike Strain (Evilmike) on Friday, June 12, 2009 - 11:43 pm: Edit

Commanders' Edition and prior CL was the 4xp-1 version.

Yeah, it was tough to fly.

By Dale McKee (Brigman) on Saturday, June 13, 2009 - 01:48 am: Edit

Well, despite that, she's not anymore - 6x ph-1, with better arcs than the proposed CM. In fact, I'd say she firmly occupies the niche the "CM" is attempting to fill.

Sure, you can make the CM a little better (designed last, designed best), but at that point you're making the OCL obsolete in the period where it shouldn't be.

By Richard Sherman (Rich) on Saturday, June 13, 2009 - 10:40 am: Edit

Agreed.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, June 13, 2009 - 05:27 pm: Edit

Which is why it was proposed as an unbult variant.

As has been said before, just because you can do something, there is no imperitive that you must do it.

The CM as proposed has the engine power and general phaser layout incomon with the CA, and could draw spare parts supplies and consumables in the same styles and proportions as the DDM,DD and CA classes would.

the CL is still the "odd duck" of the Star Fleet in that it has the same (heavily modified) warp necelles from the early years and virtually a unique supply / logistics requirement as being the only example of "old tech" in the whole of star fleet.

If it hadn't of been the less expensive option, there is no doubt in my mind that a modern variant would have been selected for the classic light cruiser role...

Which probably explains why the CM wasnt built at the time (or any other modern light cruiser version) doing so would hve been far more expensive than what the federation had in using the OCL.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, June 14, 2009 - 11:45 am: Edit

Lets stand back a moment, and look at one of the ideas that Jeremy Gray posted:

Quote: "...If the CM is supposed to be lighter than the CA, you might want to go with a 3/4 movecost and CL engines. That would make the ship clearly inferior to the CA. It would also likely have slightly better power than the CL, fitting in between nicely.

Of course, if such a ship got built in numbers, I doubt many CLs would be still in service by the GW."

While I still feel that the CL engines are not available, and "old Technology", we could get to the same place using 4 of the 6 box FF engines.

If we did that, and made the ship (the modified CM-) available as an unbuilt variant in year 130, with the 3/4 movment cost (or possibly 2/3 MC?!?) the result would be much like Jeremy suggested, IMO.

From a minatures POV, the DDM saucer would have 2 frigate engines on the dorsal side of the saucer (much like the Fed FF has its engines) and the other 2 FF engines mounted on the reverse side of the saucer (above and below it, as it were.)

That would give us a CM-,OCL,CM-+,OCL+ comparison:

Systems	CM-	OCL	CM-/+	OCL+
Photon	2	2	2	2
BTTY	4	4	4	4
Ph-1 FH	2	2	2	2
Ph-1 RF+R	2		2
Ph-1 LF+L	2		2
Ph-1 RS		2		2
Ph-1 LS		2		2
Ph-3 360			2	2
Drone-G			1	1
Lab	8	6	4	6
APR			4	2
Bridge	2	2	2	2
Trac	2	2	2	2
Tran	4	2	4	2
Aux Con	2	2	2	2
Flag	0	0	0	0
Probe	1	1	1	1
F hull	12	6	12	6
R hull	4	6	4	6
Emer	1	1	1	1
Shuttle	4	2	4	2
Imp	4	4	4	4
L Warp	12	12	12	12
R Warp	12	12	12	12
C Warp	0	0	0	0
BPV	113?	98	119?	113
BPs	10	8	10	8
Mv Cost	0.75	0.75	0.75	0.75
Total Warp	24	24	24	24

Is this a better configuration for a Unbuilt DDM / CM conversion?