So the first question, is there a "standard" police PF? For any races?

A PF designed expressly to replace the security skiff. Perhaps sacrificing some of the weapons for a transporter/ external mounted admin...

YEAH a standard PF would be OK for the combat part, but what about when you have to do customs work...

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, July 09, 2009 - 01:22 pm: Edit

An interesting idea.

By Michael C. Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Thursday, July 09, 2009 - 01:44 pm: Edit

Police PFs would be HUGE and would make a heck of a second career for the PF crews that finally got out of the navy. Based at home, infrequent long suicide forays....

Part deux:

A standard miners PF. With a couple works/ whatever boxes and a couple external propsecting shuttles...

Basic strategy is that a cargo pod is dropped off in the asteroid belt and the PFs come and drop off roughly refined ore.

So the darn pod is really just full of "cast iron" equivalent. So its not too attractive to steal.

A yard tug (one of the freighter based ones) comes along every couple weeks or so and totes it to the refinery ship/ mobile base/ comm plat/ whatever.

Part trois: a standard cargo PF converted to a workboat. Idea is to tote up bulk cargos to orbit for regular freighters to pick up. The entire grain/ fruit juice concentrate/ stuff.

Part Quatre:
A PF based mini tug. For toting the infamous "half sized pods" (I have been pushing these for a while) between relatively close systems.

A way for even the smallest colony to move their cargo to somewhere on the regular trade routes to a consolidated pick up location. Perhaps this is how the "Federation Express" gets the stuff to the boonies.

part Cinque:

A remote controlled Mine Laying/ Minefield tending PF. I wouldn't want to be on a PF that hit the jackpot with that NSM that was malfunctioning. Alternately a PF with a couple three remote controlled MSS and mechlinks/ controller stations for same.

Part Six (i forget the french) a PF based liner. The greyhound bus of the spaceways. Lots of hull. Pays life support.

Part Sept (???) a PF with tons of Transporters carried on mechlinks of the hospital ships. Used to mass transport up injured. Alternately a PF crammed with "transporter relays" like on Defsats used to make landings on worlds with unsuppressed bases. Remote controlled? This would be nice when you really don't want to be messing around diving through the atmosphere.

Part ocho (spanish now) a PF desiged to be a rescue PF. Has cramped quarters for a freighter with issues. A a couple repair boxes.

By Marc Baluda (Marc) on Thursday, July 09, 2009 - 02:32 pm: Edit

Steve, thanks for creating this.

Some of the ideas I thought I would raise for discussion are:

(1) Non-warp "booster packs." In exchange for giving up six warp, perhaps a long range "flusher" pack that prevents warp degredation for long missions and adds a small Orion-type cargo box, perhaps an armor/shield pack that protects a point or more of damage to your engines, a stealth pack (gives +1/+2 natural ECM), a cargo pack, an APR pack (perhaps one APR per pack, with no additional damage like a booster pack), a weasel pack (similar to chaff for fighters), and there could be many more.

(2) A new ship class, a heavy scout tender - it's a heavy scout with no heavy weapons and extra P-3s, and 6 PFs (true PFT). The concept is what a scout does - not shoot and spend power lending to it's fleet. I've always thought that traditional tenders aren't very good scouts, and if you need a scout anyway, combine the hulls as you'll almost always have both in a late war fleet battle.

(3) New PF classes - reconnaissance PF, special operations PF. First, a PFS is built for battle, but a recon PF might have two four point warp engines, one special sensor channel, reduced crew, no weapons, long range capability (perhaps with a flusher pack built in, otherwise no packs fit), a cargo box, a barracks box for long term crew support, lab box, probe launcher. Second, a similar PF but one designed to insert a prime team, perhaps with a shuttle or two, transporter, barracks, etc. I guess I view these PFs as having non-standard hull designs, but they don't have to. Both classes might be launched from Q-ships or auxiliary tenders, in addition to warships. Perhaps they are more common on casual mechlinks on scout or marine ships.


(4) New EW rules might be tied to new packs, like a stealth pack and wild weasel pack, essentially mimicking the ship effects. There might be other ideas, but I don't want to propose anything a ship can't do unless it's really tied to "being smaller they can...."

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Thursday, July 09, 2009 - 02:39 pm: Edit

Might there be any scope for Andromedan MWP variants, or are they pretty much all they can be as they are?


(Perhaps a 'mobile mining platform', which could be used to assist various sleds in extracting resources from asteroid fields or whatnot.)


Also, do the Andros already have a ground MWP base, for use on occupied planets?

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, July 09, 2009 - 03:51 pm: Edit

Marc,

I'm a little confused by your "(2) A new ship class, a heavy scout tender - it's a heavy scout with no heavy weapons and extra P-3s, and 6 PFs (true PFT)." It seems to me that what the war cruiser-based PFTs need to be effective heavy scouts are not "extra P-3s" but more special sensors. Most of them only have two special sensors but the few that do have 4 special sensors (like the Sparrowhawk-E) are already very effective heavy scout tenders. The Sparrowhawk-E does retain its heavy weapons, of course. But I don't see that as a problem. If the Romulans want max EW support from the ship they don't have to fire their torps. But they have the option to do so, if necessary.

What do the "extra P-3s" have to do with it, or am I misunderstanding your proposal?

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Thursday, July 09, 2009 - 04:30 pm: Edit

Reconnisance PFs. You mean something other than a Survey PF right?

How would it be different then a standard PF?

The only thing I could think of would be to remove a Hvy Weapon and make it MC=1/6 (?)

By Marc Baluda (Marc) on Thursday, July 09, 2009 - 04:34 pm: Edit

Alan, there is an existing heavy scout class based on the new heavy cruisers rather than the war cruisers. Given the time period, I would think it makes sense to have some converted (or built) to be PFTs.

I guess it depends on how you view scouts and tenders, but in my view why have both when one hull will do. The heavy weapons are not particularly useful as they blind sensors. P-3s don't. I'll give a specific example, and then a contrary example:
(1) specific would be the Lyran NSC with four channels (and two ESGs). Most of the time I will need all four channels to support a fleet (let alone break ECM drone lock-ons). I can't afford to allow any to be blinded unless there is a coup de grace my scout can give a crippled ship (and even then I'm weakening my fleet by blinding channels).
(2) a contrary would be the Rom RGC - perhaps blinding one of four channels isn't bad when it puts an R torp on the map.....

A heavy scout tender would have 4-6 channels, being able to dedicate one to the PFs (and possibly alleviate the need for a PFS), and have the power to support a fleet. Further, the P-3s can most definitely be used without blinding channels to take out drones, do an overrun, etc.

Is that helpful?

By Marc Baluda (Marc) on Thursday, July 09, 2009 - 04:46 pm: Edit

Scott, I put some differences up above. I'll take another look at a survey PF (is that a Bobcat-Q?), but I would think it would be different in that it's designed to be strategically fast, be hard to detect, and be very long range. There is no need for weapons other than perhaps a pair of P-3s. Maybe give it a t-bomb so it can shake a drone salvo while it accelerates to disengage by acceleration. Probably want a transporter.

Big thing is fast, long range engines, and perhaps some stealth. None of which should be part of a survey pf as I envision it, but maybe I should recheck the survey PF......

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, July 09, 2009 - 04:56 pm: Edit

Proposal: PF Sledge

The sledge is a cheap, portable home for a PF flotilla.

The sledge contains extended-stay living quarters, repair facilities and cargo boxes to hold supplies for a PF flotilla.

The sledge is impulse-driven, enabling it to hide, since it is not designed to go into combat. In situations where the sledge's impulse drive isn't enough, it can be towed by its PFs in either tactical warp or strategic warp.

A sledge has defensive weaponry, possibly scout channels, but that's about it.

A sledge can be carried as a single-weight pod by a tug.

To make the math easier for PF towing, a sledge has a MC of 2/5 or 3/5.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, July 09, 2009 - 05:23 pm: Edit

Marc,

Okay, I understand what you're proposing. I'm just not in agreement with your tactical assessment. I have no problem with NCA-based PFTs with enough special sensors (at least 4) to be effective heavy scouts. But I doubt the utility of the phaser-3s. It's true that they don't blind special sensors. But they're only phaser-3s! Unless you give the ship a humongous number of them (and how many can it carry if it also has mech links for 6 PFs, 4-6 special sensors, and repair boxes?) they will be marginally effective at close range and useless at medium to long range.

You suggest using them to take out drones (a reasonable suggestion, but most of the heavy PFT's drone defense should be resident in the flotilla it carries or the fleet it supports, rather than organic to the heavy PFT itself) and... overruns??? If the heavy PFT is that close to enemy warships, I submit that the battle has probably already gone severely pear-shaped and blinding the sensors is a minor concern. At that point you are worried about the very survival of the PFT.

Best weapon for a ship (whether a PFT or not) with special sensors? Drone racks. Hydran PFTs usually carry fighters, which can either join the attack on enemy forces or be dedicated to defend their tender; a task they will perform far more effectively than a few extra ph-3s would. As you have already noted, heavy plasma (especially plasma-R) is a decent choice because a launcher will only blind one sensor once every 3 turns, but still hits the enemy very hard.

But additional phaser-3s? That would be pretty far down on my list of systems for a heavy PFT. If there were no good weapon options (Tholians - arguably) I personally would prefer extra APR, which would at least provide more power for EW.

That, at least, is how I see the issue.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, July 09, 2009 - 06:44 pm: Edit

So, what is the desired purpose of Module K2?

is it simply to expand the General War PF technology and add more tenders?

Or is it a "civilian expansion" where police PF's are introduced after the end of the General war?

Personnally, I like that idea, but is it enough to build a module out of?

I would like to point out that we still have an "unresolved Issue" with PFs in general...

First, we know that the advent of X ship technology made attrition units obsolete... though how this exactly works out is unclear.

Second, we know that civilian work boats is a growth idustry after the end of the General War (see the Work Boat information in captains log)

and third, we know that both PFs and (to a lessor extent) interceptors and bombers were stillin service with plantary defense units across the Alpha octant for years after the end of the GW,ISC incursion and the Andromedan war....

Would it be possible that this proposed K2 module might answer some of the questions?

By Marc Baluda (Marc) on Thursday, July 09, 2009 - 07:08 pm: Edit

Alan, I hear you. You could make them P-1s so they could be down-fired. I'm trying to downgrade the ship's firepower, however, as we're talking about a very powerful EW platform that alleviates the need for a PFT.....that's really what a late war fleet wants.

Jeff, why not do both additional war/specialty hulss, and civilian hulls? Further, K2 could answer the attrition ship obsolesence question by using EW. For instance, say that PFs lose their built-in ECCM and swing points vs. X-ships. Say that the PFS flotilla lending doesn't work versus X tech - that essentially takes away one of the biggest advantages of PF flotillas. In fact, that would be a good addition to the EW rules to build them out with some new and interesting interactions.

John, I like the sledge, by the way.

Further, I was thinking more about some "booster packs." If a PF is giving up 6 warp to have a different kind of pack, the pack should produce something pretty useful if it's intended for combat. Maybe a shield pack? Six power=6 reinforcement (plus can be used for other things). So perhaps a shield pack can take 8 damage, from 360, before they burn out?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, July 09, 2009 - 08:41 pm: Edit

Marc,

6 APR would be the ticket. No warp-mizia.


Thanks for the kind words on the sledge. we'll see if it is deemed worth comment by SVC or SPP.


PROPOSAL: Klingon H1W "Swarm" Ints.

Post-destruction of the Seltoran fleet, the Klingons figure out how to fool\breed seltoran worker caste that work for them in operating a PF. The crews aren't independently aggressive but follow orders blindly.

The Klingons build cheap Int-grade PF that fit together such that two can attach themselves to a single mech link.

A Swarm flotilla requires a leader or a scout to be effective. These units are klingon-crewed and tell the seltoran crews what to do. If all command units are destroyed, the seltoran-crewed units will move straight ahead until the end of the turn at which point they self-destruct.

A swarm flotilla can't have more than 8 swarm INTs in it. Only leaders and scouts can control the swarm units.

This idea may be DOA depending on the reason why the Klinks killed off the seltorans. The idea here is that the klingons use the short-lived "crew" seltorans without having to work through long-lived queens or drones.

By Marc Baluda (Marc) on Thursday, July 09, 2009 - 09:05 pm: Edit

John, I don't think 6 APR works. That's the same as 6 warp without the critical damage effect.

Maybe 2 APR + 2 BATTS, but the problem with BATTS is they give the PF a lot of flexibility on changing EW, HET, speed change, cloaking, etc. I think more BATTS is real hard from a balance perspective.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, July 09, 2009 - 09:50 pm: Edit

2-4 APR then. 6 would be a heck of a lot, agreed.

By George Duffy (Sentinal) on Thursday, July 09, 2009 - 10:40 pm: Edit

I don't know... maybe it's me, but I don't thimk the packs are that big. Remember these things were attached to the engines of PFs

In comparison terms, I felt these things were more like the super-chargers installed on P-38 "Lightning" fighters of WWII.

I don't think they were so large that you could replace a single reactor, living quarters/barracks, transporter system or even bulky cargo box fopr the whole set. Also these packs were external pieces attached to the engines. Whatever proposed to replace them would probably have to fit that kind of set up.

I always looked at the packs as a way to double the output of the engines, which is why using them caused so much damage to the engines that were hit.

Now the flusher system or maybe a improved ECM capacity tied into the engines. They sound feasible

By Marc Baluda (Marc) on Thursday, July 09, 2009 - 11:08 pm: Edit

George, packs double the power of the engines. They may not be particularly large, and perhap barracks are silly, but I was thinking more of packs doubling the size of the engine. By foregoing them you could use a bellypack/backpack that was significant. Perhaps they even change the move cost, depending on the size, to cap speed to 24.

Another thought I had was to allow one drogue in the place of two packs (backpack idea), or perhaps a fighter phaser pod in the place of a pack.

By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Thursday, July 09, 2009 - 11:44 pm: Edit

A set of WBP takes 20 cargo spaces (Annex 7K) - they're not full sized boxes.