Archive through June 09, 2009
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: New Product Development:
Module R3030 never built ships:
Federation Medium Cruiser, (middle years upgraded DDM):
Archive through June 09, 2009
When the DDM was first proposed (as a 'stable mate' of the contemporary CA) it was noted that the DDM cost about 70% of the purchase price of a Fed CA (88BPV/125BPV)=0.70. (YIS 130+, unbuilt variant.)
One of the "selling points" that was presented to the members of the Federation Senate and Council committees was the possiblity that the DDM's could be converted into a heavy cruiser class ship by the simple process of adding a second warp necelle and a modified secondary hull... the resulting ship being the equal or superior to the excellant Constitution class Heavy Cruiser. to "upgrade" the DDM into a CM class ship was on the order of 37 BPV...which was widely assumed to be a "low ball" price estimate. The same conversion could be done using the vanilla DD with its 4 photon torpedos, the BPV is 6 points higher, adds 2 photons, all other factors the same as posted.
The Medium Cruiser has (had?!?) three variations.
1. a small secondary hull that added back only those SSD boxes missing from the CA secondary hull.(1xTrans,2xBTTY,4xHull,2xShuttle).(CM)
2. a slightly larger version of the secondary hull listed above, but had several extra SSD boxes (1xTrans,3xBTTY,6xHull,3xShuttle).(CM1)
3. a full size CA secondary hull, with the Aux Con converted into Flag Bridge, the resulting Medium Cruiser actually becoming a "Medium Command Cruiser"(2xFlag Br, 2xBTTY, 2xTrac,1xTran,1 x Probe, 4xhull,4xshuttle).(CCM)
The following table compares a Fed DDM, CA and the proposed CM,CM1 and CCM designs.
| Systems | DDM | CA | CM | CM1 | CCM |
| Photon | 2 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| BTTY | 2 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 4 |
| Ph-1-FH | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Ph-1-LF&L | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Ph-1-RF&R | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Lab | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 |
| Bridge | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Trac | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Aux Con | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Flag Bridge | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Probe | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| F Hull | 0 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 |
| C Hull | 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Rear Hull | 0 | 4 | 4 | 6 | 4 |
| Emer | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Shuttle | 2 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| Imp | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| L Warp | 0 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 |
| R Warp | 0 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 |
| C Warp | 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| BPV | 88 | 125 | 119 | 130? | 127? |
| CU | 20 | 43 | 43 | 43 | 43 |
| BP | 6 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 |
| MC | 0.5 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| Total SSD Bx | 61 | 88 | 85 | 89 | 92 |
| Total Warp | 15 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 |
| Total Power | 19 | 34 | 34 | 34 | 34 |
Comments to follow.
edited to correct BPV of CM from 125 to 119. spelling error corrected.
This is a middle years proposal, (not a Stellar Shadows proposal) that was not historically constructied, but was well within the ability of the Federation ship yards.
If the vanilla DD were used as the base ship being converted, the resulting CM is equal to the CA in numbers of phasers and photons. all ships have sufficent room to adopt the + rear phaser and AWR refits in the correct time periods.
From a "Game perspective", the proposal (atleast the CM version, if not the CM1 and CCM variants) the result is a 2 photon CA. (the resulting BPV should be relected as 119 on the CM, not the 125 posted, that is an error that if I can, will edit later.)
Things dont get messy until or unless looks at the possible ramifications on F&E... litterally the proposal makes cheap and easy conversions of DD class ships into CA class hulls for the equalivalent of 37 BPV (roughly 2 Econ points in F&E terms)... the result is a CM worth 8 COMPOT.
If pressed, I would have to admit that such a conversion would require the use of a starbase, possibly limited to the main ship yard, and limited to 1 every 6 month F&E turn.
It might be possible to build CM's instead of converting them, but it would require the use of a CA building slip... and there seems to be little advantage in doing so as there are posted limits on how many CA's may be built in a given F&E turn.
in SFBs the CM would be used just as a CA would, while the CM1 has 1 extra shuttle and 2 extra Hull boxes, it still weighs in as a CA. the CCM would be a major improvement, but not so much better than a vanilla CC, that it would make any sense to change production.
To clarify, would the engines be moved to struts protruding from this secondary hull, which would itself be connected to the saucer via a CA-like strut (like a Strike Cruiser) or is it laid out almost like a tug (but with the secondary hull in place of the connector for a cargo pod) or would the secondary hull be connected to the saucer USS Kelvin-style?
Gary, IMO, the configuration should be exactly like the CA and CC classes have... literally the DDM would have to have its single engine removed, and the secondary hull installed in its place... while the new engine would have to be mounted on the secondary hull oposite to the original DDM engine.
That said, I hadn't considered a "Kelvin-style" version...Like Loren Knight, I like my struts straight (darn it!) 
Bottomline, the resulting ship is virtually the same as a vanilla CA... the issues that differentiate the ships are a single hanger on the Constitution Class while the CM class would have 2 separate shuttle bays, one in the saucer and the second in a slightly smaller rear hull.
there are some variations between the subclasses of the CM... but generally they are rather minor secondary systems rather than weapons or power SSD boxes.
In that case, might it not be an option to, instead of trying to build it up to a CA, making the design a kind of CSM?
Maybe have it be a two-photon take on what the USS Prometheus might have been, had it been built that little bit earlier...
(Taking away two photons would give that bit more room for cargo and supplies in an otherwise cramped CS saucer, for one thing.)
Jeff, while I don't have any real issue with the base CM you're suggesting, I'm not as hot on the two variants. As you correctly point out, these ships are creeping into the same capability range of the CA. I would not want to see middle years ships that make the CA obsolete in that time period (it is already nearly obsolete from Y170 on). I'd also hate to see a situation where the Fed lollipop disappears in the middle years to make the Feds a cruiser-heavy fleet. As it is, a really, really hate the DDM/neutered DD.
The base CM you're proposing feels like a slightly heavier replacement for the CL, and that sets up an easier explaination of why it ultimately was not built: "The Federation repeatedly considered producing CMs as replacements for its fleet of aging CLs, but durability of the older ships and constrained budgets prevented any conversions from being authorized." The bigger follow on versions could put the CA out of business.
Again, I have no real objection to the base CM design. I just worry about the impact it could have on history of Fed fleet composition if it ended up being anything other than unbuilt/conjectural. And this coming from a guy who has a bunch of old DDs in a campaign against the Roms. If I could convert them to anything like a CA, the war would be over. Good for me, not so good for our game.
I too have played with the idea of using the DD saucer as a forward hull on a cruiser. Every time I try, I end up with something that would be better than a CA. In one case, I ended up designing the CS. That ship started as kind of a lark (never intended as serious proposal, with different YIS dates than it got published with) and now its the Fed ship everyone wants from Y165 on.
Gary,
Sorry, I wasnt "trying to build it up to a CA" at all, I was trying to fit the basic (vanilla?) CM into the admittedly narrow space (in BPV terms) between the DD/DDM and the CA. given that its a 31 point BPV "Window" 119 BPV seemed as close as it could go.
If we want to discuss adding cargo to the CM, I suggest we defer that until after we finish discussing the general details of the CM first...
this is because I expect the "add cargo to every Fed ship in existance" idea will fall onto stony ground indeed.
Jeremy, I whole heartedly agree with you.
I included the 2 other variants (the CM1 and CCM) because I beleived that if I didnt, someone would have pointed out that the rear hull of a CA (and the CC of course) is already a piece of naval architecture that wouldn't require any R&D investment.
the CM secondary hull (the one I personally prefer) is only 9 SSD boxes compared to the CA secondary hull of 16 SSD boxes (remember, this is prior to the + refit version of year 165)... and may infact run into design issues vis a vis its effect on the ships Movement Cost rate (assumed to be 1.0 but infact might be 9/10 or some other factor that is less than 1.0.)
IMO the CM is a "better fit" in to the existing Star Fleet history than trying to explain why DDM refitted CA's arent equal to or better than the vanilla CA.
Your millage may vary.
Now as to the CM making the CA obsolete prior to year 170... I am not sure, that depends on whether it is possible to convert the DDM into a 4 photon DD versoin... and while we know that it was infact done... we do not have any assurance that the same could be true of the upgraded DDM/CM.
It may be that a 4 photon CM is unstable, or subject to shock or (like the CF and DNL designs) simply cant fuction with the ssame weapons suite that the CA has as designed.
And I must also agree that unlimited DDM to CM (or even to CA) upgrades in F&E is a bad thingtm that has no other impact than destroying game balance.
That is why the CM must be a unbuilt variant IMO.
Now lets turn it around, shall we 
lets say that the DDM was built historically... (which we know to be true) and that it is possible that some DDM's might not have been converted into DD's at the point where history says that they were.
What that gives us (IMO) is a CA sized cruiser with the COMPOT (in F&E terms) of 7 offensive COMPOT, and a defense COMPOT of 8... and the same F&E command rating of a CA.
In theory, the CM would fit into the Federation Star Fleet in the same niche as the D6 class fits into the Klingon Deep Space Fleet.... and at 119 BPV, is closer to the D6 (which has a BPV of 113) than either the DD, DDM or the CL ships do.
just a thought!
Jeff, the main point I was trying to get to was not to focus on cargo - but rather, to offer the CS as a potential basis for development.
With a YIS of Y165, there is no 'middle years' take on the CS at present, and the ship is already a case of an historical vessel intended to mass less than a CA, but fill a somewhat comparable role.
(In FC, at least, one could argue that it does this all too well...)
So, maybe taking away the CS's drones, two of its photons, and a couple of the phasers on its secondary hull, while thinning out shields 3 to 5, might be a way to start?
What goes in the hull in place of these is another matter, of course.
(Plus, it would give more use for the CS mould, especially if a FC Ship Card ever gets made for such a vessel.)
Gary, Sorry, not following your thinking on this...
The CS was YIS 165 IIRC, the DDM was a YIS130, and the CM (as proposed, unbuilt variant) could have been converted from an existing DDM at any point post year 128+ (assuming the first prototype DDM was commissioned up to 2 years before the YIS date).
35+ years is a long time, and given that there was no overlap (meaning that the last DDM was converted to a vanilla DD prior to year 165 IIRC)
it is difficult to see any connection between the possibility of a CM conversion and the CS.
Now you might want to pursue an early CS variant... but you may not be able to get it from the DDM base hull... and it certainly will not be compatible with the CS ship description IIRC.
now if you want to argue that FC needs a ship that fits the D6 'slot' in the Federation Star Fleets order of battle, you might find the steves receptive (or not, strange are the ways of the steves!).
I suppose, from an intellectual exercise, we could compare the vanilla CM (the one with the 9 ssd box secondary hull) to the CS... but even that isnt really a fair comparison... remember that the CS was "retconned" to some extent as it was built using CA components 35 years after the CA YIS date... in plain english the two ships are not contemporary designs... more like second cousins once removed!
Lets do a comparison of the proposed CM and the CS.
| system | CM | CS | CS+ |
| Photon | 2 | 4 | 4 |
| Btty | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| Ph-1-FH | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Ph-1-LS | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Ph-1-LF&L | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Ph-1-RS | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Ph-1-RF&R | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Lab | 8 | 4 | 4 |
| Tran | 3 | 4 | 4 |
| Bridge | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Emer | 1 | 2 | 2 |
| F Hull | 12 | 12 | 12 |
| Probe | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Drone G | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Imp | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| Aux Con | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| APR/WPR | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Ph-1-RH | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| R Hull | 4 | 2 | 2 |
| Ph-3-360d | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Shuttle | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| L Warp | 15 | 15 | 15 |
| R Warp | 15 | 15 | 15 |
| BPV | 119 | 125 | 143 |
| Crew Unit | 43 | 40 | 40 |
| BP | 10 | 10 | 10 |
| MC | 1.0 | 5/6 | 5/6 |
| Total SSD Bx | 85 | 89 | 95 |
| total Warp | 30 | 30 | 32 |
| total Pwr | 34 | 34 | 36 |
When preparing this table, I noticed that I inadvertantly left off the transporters from the original table in the initial post. Sorry, but the total internal box count did include the transporters from the ships (go figure...)
Any way, it appears to me that the CS is the more combat capable unit, not only does it have the same phaser 1's (with the side phasers having better firing arcs) it retains the 4 photons of the CA and DD classes... and the CM is just not in the same league without the extra two photons IMO.
Now, if it turns out that the DD could be converted into a CM, then the CS might be in for some competition...and if the smaller secondary hull results in the CM with a movement cost of 9/10=0.90 or some such factor... the CS would be in for some serious competition...
Now, just what this does for Federation Commander, others will have to decide, I'm not that conversant with the FC game system...
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.
To clarify, part of what I had in mind for a 'CSM' (or whatever the ship might have been called) was for it to only have 2 photons in the initial design.
Essentially, the idea I had was that the same kind of competition between the CA and OCA that took place in the mid-Y120s might have been echoed at the CL level, too.
Perhaps a design team came up with a 2-torp early equivalent of what would one day be known as the CS, intending it to be a more efficient, and more powerful, light-to-medium cruiser than the Terran-hull CL wold have been.
(The bigger engines would have pushed the ship closer to the category held by ships like the D6 and Kzinti CS, but perhaps the engineering team thought they could still make it at least as cost-effective as the Terran-hull CLs to build and operate.)
However, perhaps it was easier and more efficient for the fleet to choose to retain the infrastructure it had built up for the servicing of CLs, rather than convert those facilities to handle the new design (which may not have been much cheaper to build than a CA anyway).
While the Constitution-class won out in the heavy cruiser capacity, perhaps a similar contest went the other way in the slightly smaller weight class.
(And one day, an engineering team might try to revisit the design and turn it into the CS we know, but still couldn't quite make it viable for full-scale production...)
That said, in terms of converting such ships from DDM saucers, well... the aft section of the saucer might need to be re-worked somewhat, but the two forward torps would be left intact, at least.
(Although, perhaps the biggest knock-on effect on the DD might have been the diverting of yet-to-be-filled saucers and 15-box warp engines to CSM construction.)
Jeremy,
the CM is "lighter" than a CA to the extent of having 2 photons, rather than 4.
the question of lower movement rates is (IMO) to be determined by the size/weight of the secondary hull chosen.
the "vanilla" CM with its 9 SSD box secondary hull is actually smaller and lighter than the secondary hull on the CS (which has, IIRC 12 SSD boxes (or 16 after the "+" refit is applied).
The other point about the CM was to reuse both the DDM saucer and the original 15 point warp engine... replacing the original DDM center warp engine by adding two 12 point CL engines (depending on whether the CL is still in production at the time, you might have to disassemble a CL to free up the two engines needed) is arguably wasteful and defeating the purpose of the CM upgrade.
the idea was to have a 31 BPV upgrade to the 88 point DDM to result in a servicable (119 BPV) cruiser. (if a 4 photon CA was needed, then the DDM refit would also have to add 2 more photons to the mix, (if possible) and a total of 37 points.
the only problem I have with making the CM with 2 x 12 point CL warp engines and a 3/4 movement cost is the probablitlity of limited CL engines... IIRC those are old, out of production and possibly only are available at the cost of scrapping mothballed CLs. Not an attreactive option unless you feel that the Federation moth ball fleet doesnt need the full number of CLs at the start of the general war!
Well, if 2 15-box engines won't cut it, you could give it 4 frigate engines...
(Maybe that's not the most serious proposition, but you never know.)
EDIT: I'll go and put the CSM thing in a different thread, get it out of your way.
Gary,
Have you consulted the ship description of the CS? (it is found in Module R9, page 6, rule #R2.131.)
It says specifically, "The Strike Cruiser began with a standard heavy cruiser saucer...", and it also specifically states that the contemporary of the CS was the NCL.
While your suggestions may be entertaining, it should be pointed out that the entire history of the CS must be changed to accomodate your theory... and frankly the chances of that happening are not good.
perhaps you can convince SPP that your perceptions on Federation ship design and development are correct.
Jeff:
Well, this ship would be more of a precursor design to the CS - but I've put it here anyway.
You may now return to your regularly-scheduled programming.
*looks at his Federation Modern Light Cruiser proposal and the related Medium Destroyer/Heavy Frigate proposal*
Ahem.
Lets restate the proposal and post the table again.
The CM is an Unbuilt variant that could have had a YIS date as early as year 130. It is a 2 photon Heavy Cruiser, that could (just like the DDM was the precursor to the vanilla DD) have been a slightly weaker constitution class CA clone.
| Systems | DDM | CA | CM | CM1 | CCM | CS |
| Photon | 2 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 4 |
| BTTY | 2 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 4 |
| Ph-1-FH | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Ph-1-LF&L | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Ph-1-RF&R | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Lab | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 4 |
| Bridge | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Trac | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Tran | 2 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| Aux Con | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Flag Bridge | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| Probe | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
| F Hull | 0 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 |
| C Hull | 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Rear Hull | 0 | 4 | 4 | 6 | 4 | 2 |
| Emer | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Shuttle | 2 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Imp | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| L Warp | 0 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 |
| R Warp | 0 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 |
| C Warp | 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| BPV | 88 | 125 | 119 | 130? | 127? | 125 |
| CU | 20 | 43 | 43 | 43 | 43 | 40 |
| BP | 6 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 |
| MC | 0.5 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 5/6 |
| Total SSD Bx | 61 | 88 | 85 | 89 | 92 | 83 |
| Total Warp | 15 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 |
| Total Power | 19 | 34 | 34 | 34 | 34 | 34 |
Jeff, I think the "upgraded DDM" is in fact just the DD. It's a lot easier to add two photons to a DDM than it would be to add a secondary hull and two engines, especially when the combination basically gets you a Fat OCL. Tougher, but no more firepower. For the same engine production you could either have a CA with FOUR photons, or you could have two DDs (with 4 photons EACH).
Dale, the DD is unique and very special in the hearts of many SFBs players.
For many of us, it is the DDM that is the abomination.
Also, I must point out that your math is in error... the DDM has a 15 point warp engine, the upgraded CM adds ONE engine, not two (emphasis, not shouting). No need to pay for two engines for the CM as the one that came with the original DDM is exactly what is needed for the CMs requirements.
besides, the CM would be able to get the full benefit of the plus refit, and that means it gets a Drone G rack which the DDM/DD does not.
All of this aside, It should be pointed out (again) this is an UNBUILT VARIANT.
There is no trade off between DDs and CAs or CLs... it was proposed as a benefit for building DDM's as part of the DDM production. (IE a sales talk issue, not a signed contract mandating long lead time production and scheduling time in the naval construction dock.)
Jeff: I am in complete and utter agreement about the Fed DD and the abomination that is the DDM. Most of us plug our ears, sing "lalala not listening" and move on without it.
And I didn't communicate clearly. What I was trying to say was, that a CM (such as you propose) TAKES two engines (the existing one, and the new addition), while a DD takes one.
If you're going to build that extra 15-box warp nacelle, why not put it on a new DD? Or slap it on a CA? The CM as I see it is a tough sell.
That said, you know, the Feds are wonky. I've seen it in my campaigns. The DD+ is more like a CL, and it's right around the same value as the CL+.
The problem I see with a CM proposal is you need something inbetween a CL/DD and a CA. That's a pretty narrow range. The DD is around 94 points, the CL 98, and the CA is 125 (unrefitted).
The gap gets larger with refits (DD+ is 100, CL+ is 113, CARa+ is 145).
I;ve always wondered why they didn't put an upper aft hull and a second warp engine for a MC1 cruiser.
Dale, No problem.
I do need to remind you that the ship description of the DDM indicates that only 5 "seige class" DD's were produced originally, all others were built to the DDM standard (ie two photons), and those were the ships that served in the middle years. It wasn't until year 160 that Star Fleet began converting the DDM's to the "vanilla" DD we Star Fleet Battles players know and love.
So, to be blunt, the "gap" about which you spoke is not 94 BPV, but rather 88 (the BPV of the DDM) and the CA BPV of 125.
And, I've already covered this twice in this thread, but lets go over it again... the refit of the DDM to the CM costs 31 BPV. the refit of the DDM to the DD is 6 points. the net difference between the two refits is thus (31-6=25 BPV.
You asked the question "If you're going to build that extra 15-box warp nacelle, why not put it on a new DD?" the answer, my friend, is money.
a brand spanking new DD would run 94 BPV. the result is a (according to the DDM ship design comments in the Captains Log #23 notation) a marginal ship that has "long been derided by SFBs players"
The CM, is another attempt at improving the DDM into a lite CA, that has the power to operate its photons. the cost to upgrade the CM to a 4 photon cruiser is still 6 BPVs, so the question comes down to:
spend 31 to 37 BPV's and transform a underperforming DDM into a CM, or spend 3 times that (31*3=93) BPV (roughly) to get just another "underpowered Destroyer"?
Now, please don't misunderstand me, I happen to like the DD, and have played it many times successfully.
I'm not a fan of the DDM.
For me, this is an intellectual exercise on "what if" we took the dispicable DDM and tweeked it somewhat.
I think, on the whole, that I like the CM much better than the DDM, and given a chance at flying the DDM or the CM, I'd prefer the CM.
same with the DD, I'd much prefer it over the DDM.
if the choice was the DD or the CM, It would depend on what the mission was... there are some things that a DD can do (IMO) that a CM isnt needed, and the heavier shields, extra power and systems that the CM has might be more useful than what a DD has in some situations.
Loren,
not sure, it seems like a logical progression when you start with the assumption of using major components form the CA (in the case of theDDM the CA saucer and one of the CA engine necelles).
We could get to about where you want to go with a DDQ (published in Captains Log#28 IIRC) and a deck house.
The problem with that approach is that the movement cost of the resulting ship would fall somewhere between that of a vanilla DD or DDM (0.5) and a standard CA (MC 1.0)... IMO it would be either 2/3 or 3/4, but we will have to let the Steves figure that wone out
I still think it would be an outstanding cruiser, but thats just me.