What does the Strike version have in the nose? I don't have my SSDs handy but I see no problem with having two photons in the center without removing a phaser.

An iteresting mix might be to have the Feds move two of those Pl-Fs to the side pontoons and have Four Photons in the center (having removed the two ph-1s). Pretty much a BC-F with a little 'G' mixed in. Then keep the BPV the same!

Man, now that would be fun to fly!

<EDIT> IF you really can't stand the idea of replacing the PPD with two Photons then just give it the three, that way it can load standards or hold full OLs and run in at 31! (32 Warp+4 AWR). If speed is life then this thing would be living high!

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, November 15, 2002 - 08:58 pm: Edit

If what Mike says is right (and I've no doubt it is, Mike) then I'd do this. Take out one phaser on each left/right sponson, and have two photons on each one, and one phaser. Then just leave the center sponson as is. That gives you four photons, 1 PPD, and four forward phasers. Now that's ugly.

By Andrew C. Cowling (Andrew) on Saturday, November 16, 2002 - 06:14 am: Edit

Based on the guidelines in CL24, it would be 1.5 photons per PPD or Plasma-S; so a converted CA, CL or CS would end up with only 3 photon torps. The CC and DN would get 5 photons, and the BB would mount 9. [The 'joker in the deck' would be the CM, which would carry 4 FA photons, when calculated by this method.]

I'd suggest replacing the rear-firing F-torps with G-racks on a one to one-and-a-half ratio; eg CA with 4x G-racks, CL with 2 or 3 G-racks, DD with one or 2 G-racks. [The variation here depends on whether the ratio is based on the total number of racks, or if it is per side.] If one-to-one substitution were used, this would result in the DN mounting some 8 G-racks, and 12!!!!! for the BB. Alternatively, use one-for one but limit the number G-racks to two racks on non-escort SC4 units; 4 racks for SC3 ships; and 6 racks on SC2 ships; replacing the remaining F-torps with either one ph-1 RH per two F-torps remaining or with nothing at all.

Plasma racks look a bit more straightforward. Starbase plasma racks are replaced with type-H drone racks; Base Stations and BATS get type-D drone racks; and escorts replace each plasma rack with a type-G drone rack.

For example, a converted ISC CEA would have: (unchanged phaser-1s), Ph-G LS and Ph-G RS (replacing Ph-3s), and 4 type-G drone racks (replacing the plasma racks). An ISC BCV converted to Federation use would be armed with 5 photons, 8 phaser-1s, 6 phaser-3s and 4 G-racks; while an ISC DD would (after conversion) have 2 photons, 4 phaser-1s, 4 phaser-3s and 2 (or 1) G-racks.

I suspect that the Feds would replace most ISC fighters with F-18s, except that they might put a squadron of A-10s on the CVA; and would replace heavy fighters with A-20s. I would assume that ISC PF tenders (and the SCS/BCS) would be modified to carry F-111 fighters, replacing their repair facilities with cargo storage.

By Andrew C. Cowling (Andrew) on Saturday, November 16, 2002 - 06:29 am: Edit

Going the other way, I don't see ISC engineers trusting 'flimsily-built' cruisers to safely mount PPDs, so I reckon that Fed to ISC conversions would replace photons (and type-B drone racks) with plasma torpedoes. Thus a BCG or BCJ would carry two FP plasma-F in place of the secondary-hull-mounted photons or B-racks (the BCF would keep the F-torps), with two or three plasma-S replacing the saucer-mounted photons.

The type G drone racks could be replaced with rear-launching plasma-F, probably on a one-for one basis. (Whether RA or L+LR/R+RR would depend on the number of G-racks to replace.)

Carriers would be refitted to reflect ISC fighter doctrines (2x SF + 1x TF for every three fighters, substitute HF in place of A-20, PF mech links replace F-111s).

By Andrew C. Cowling (Andrew) on Saturday, November 16, 2002 - 09:35 am: Edit

Having given a bit more thought to conversions of Fed ships to ISC service, I suggest:

Federation variants with plasma torpedoes or drone racks replacing photons would be converted as the parent type.

Drone bombardment ships would be scrapped, expended, sold, or converted to the same layout as the base hull.

Unlike most SC3 vessels converted to ISC use, the GSC would (probably) replace its photons with phaser-1s. (Ditto COV, CVE.)

Naturally, the ISC would replace AWR with APR; while the Federation would have an AWR refit, concurrent with AWR refits on regular Federation ships.

Sample conversion: The Federation GSC would replace its FA photons with FH phaser-1s. The AWR refit would be deleted. The drone rack in the secondary hull would be replaced with a plasma-F RH. The drone racks installed by the plus refit would be replaced with plasma-F torpedoes having respectively L+LR and R+RR firing arcs. All three rear-firing torpedoes would be subject to the ISC rear-firing restrictions.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Saturday, November 16, 2002 - 10:27 am: Edit

The only problem I have with that scenario, Andrew, is that conversions are essentially "gimmes." So, you more or less take them as they are, and do the minimal necessary refits to get them up to speed. If a Fed is captured by an ISC, I can see replacing heavy weapons with plasmas or possibly PPD's. I'd keep the AWR since it's not exclusively Fed tech; it's still useful as it is, so why waste a good pair of your own reactors just to replace a perfectly serviceable pair on the ship? I may do a conversion SSD just for kicks. If so, it'll probably look something like this:

Replace photons with S torps for non-command ships, replace with PPD's on command ships for use in rear echelons (i.e., CC would get PPD's, CA S torps.)

Replace Drones in aft hull with rear-firing F torps.

Keep phasers the same.

That makes minimal conversion for a decent ship; especially since it's free! I'll try to crank out an SSD...I know I've got a few CA refits I can play with.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Saturday, November 16, 2002 - 10:55 am: Edit

ISC Captured Fed CC

Here's an example of what I meant...didn't take too long to convert. Not sure about the F torps in the rear, but it's a start. They would normally have an arc of RA, but I purchases an expanded arc to make them more effective for defense. The rest is pretty straight forward. Take out the FLAG and change the two PPD's to S-torps (FA arc, unless a wider arc is purchased) for a CA.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, November 16, 2002 - 12:04 pm: Edit

Mike, I really can't see the ISC ever putting their prized PPD on a captured ship. So even on the CC two Pl-Ss would still rock. But I was thinking....four photons should be able to net you two Pl-S and two Pl-F. Not sure how that would lay out on the SSD but man, that would kick butt. I would even take a four PL-F ship for a total of six (including the rear). Or instead of the 2S+2F combo an easier fit would be 2G+2F. Why 2G? Cause you can fast load them as Fs! (Or ShotGun)

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Saturday, November 16, 2002 - 12:23 pm: Edit

For that matter, Loren, in a conjectural future where the ISC invasion was successful I see the ISC as a sort of USSR and the "pacified" areas as a sort of Warsaw Pact. The ISC fleet would retain its edge in technology (namely the PPD) and would probably give their "protectorate" fleets plasmas.

That might make an interesting SSJ scenario where the ISC was able to "pacify" the Galaxy BEFORE the Andros showed up.

Even so, Mike, I just looked at that ISC-coverted CC and if they did mount PPDs in a few "trustee" ships that's probably what they'd look like. Interesting design.

By Jeremy Gray (Gray) on Saturday, November 16, 2002 - 12:51 pm: Edit

Again, I'd recommend taking a look at the Lyran-ISC conversion article in Captain's log. It provides guidelines for converting disruptors to Plasmas and/or PPDs, and installing rear firing Pl-Fs. While not everything will translate directly to a Fed ship, it will give some ideas on ISC doctrine for captured ships.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, November 16, 2002 - 01:45 pm: Edit

Could you elaborate? (an overview would be great)

A big question about our converted Fed ships is how they'll fit in an echelon. The ISC loves their echelons and any conversion has to take that into account.

The G-racks would turn into rear-firing lateral torps, probably two groups of 2 each: L+LR/R+RR with the traditional ISC restrictions on such torps, not AP, which implies that they're fully functional F-torps. They might liquidate the P-3's to make it work, but there ought to be some spare space left from the photon-PPD conversion that we can slosh to the secondary hull to make 2x G-rack tnto 4x F-torp, specially since the ISC's lateral torps are absent swivel-torp technology and therefore can be rationalized as smaller (1/2 space rather than 2/3).

The ISC might want to add more P-3's, but where? Perhaps they might convert the 360-degree P-1's to P-3's, but the ISC like their P-1s just as much as the Feds do. They'd probably just grin and bear it as-is.

BTW, Mike, that set of P-1's on the secondary hull is 360 on the CC. It's RH only on the CA. Looks like you originally thought of converting a CA, then changed your mind.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Saturday, November 16, 2002 - 02:09 pm: Edit

Given some of the above comments, here are a few slight changes.

ISC Captured Fed CC

This is the CC, with the phaser 1's on the rear showing the correct arc (good catch, John.) This is all very conjectural, of course. Still, if it were me, I'd retain the PPD's. The ISC is so dependent on the echelon, and a ship with command facilities and similar performance ratings as an ISC rear-echelon ship (turn mode, move cost, etc) would be in the rear of the echelon, before a DN, performing the duties a ship in that spot does. So, it's a question of trade off. Is it worth putting PPD's on a foreign hull to maintain the echelon? I'd think so...but that's just me, and I certainly don't claim to be right. That's my biggest argument for leaving them there.

ISC Captured Fed CA

This is what Loren describes. Paired S and F torps forward, in place of photons. While a bit power hungry, this would be a nasty combo. I had to bump the BPV a bit to "buy" the FP plasma arc, but it's worth it not to suffer with FA heavy weapons arcs on late war plasma ship.

I have no intention of submitting this stuff...it's just a fun exercise. I don't have the CL Jeremy references, either, so I'm winging this with the ship modification rules posted in the proposals/rules/other thread on this board.

By Jeremy Gray (Gray) on Saturday, November 16, 2002 - 04:16 pm: Edit

The ISC-Lyran "Brothers" article is in CL24. Based on that article, and perhaps a couple of the others, I think I could write an article for a future CL to cover Fed-ISC conversions.

I don't have the time at the moment to do it - too busy with Real Life^TM - but I can give a couple of things that the article suggests would happen in the Fed-ISC case.

On ISC ships, forward launching Plasma-S or G or PPDs would be replaced with 1.5 FA photons each - IN EACH LOCATION. If a fraction remains it is lost. Examples:
DN - 1 photon in each side sponson, 3 on the centerline (total of 5)
CA - 1 photon on each sponson (total of 3)
CL - 3 photons on the centerline
(note: the CC would also get 5 photons - nasty)
Forward firing Pl-Fs would be replaced by FA photons on a 1 for 1 basis.

For Fed ships, if photons appear in pairs, each pair is replaced with a Pl-S, Pl-G, or PPD. If there are two pairs (as in the CA) they must be replaced by the same type of weapon. If there are three pairs (a DN), 2 can be of one type with the third of the other (ie PPD-FA,PL-S-FP,PPD-FA or PL-S-LP,PPD-FA,PL-S-RP).
Size class three ships with single photon mountings (CLs) can replace each photon and an adjacent Ph-1 with a Pl-S, Pl-G or PPD. If there are two such weapons, both must be of the same type. Or the Photon could simply be replaced with a PL-F.
Size class 4 and smaller will replace photons and adjacent Ph-1s with a Ph-G as described above, or with PL-Fs.

As for Drn-G and rear firing Pl-Fs, the Lyran ISC article replaces each ESG with two rear firing PL-Fs. The are given the traditional L+LR and R+RR arcs. So a Lyran DD gets one in each direction for its 1 ESG, a Lyran DW would get two in each direction. The Lyran-Kzinti article in a previous log replaces each ESG with two drone racks. I think it is fair enough to say that rear firing Pl-Fs and Drone racks would be replaced on a 1-1 basis. If there is more than a single drone rack, it would be replaced by Pl-Fs with traditional ISC arcs. A single weapon (as in the case of the CA, FFG, etc) would be AP.

Fed ships with pairs of drone racks in forward locations replacing photons (as in the case of the NCD, NEC) would treat those pairs as Photons for replacement purposes. So an NCD would have two PPDs and two rear PL-Fs. A BCG would have three forward firing weapons and two rear Fs.

I know some of the results this will give are far less than optimal, but this is what I come up with when I extrapolate the ISC-Fed case using the existing articles. Some ships are really nasty (an ISC CC captured by the Feds would have 5 photons and 6 drone racks!) and others are sort of junk (Fed CA would have two Pl-S or PPD and a single rear firing Pl-F - sort of an oversized, under-defended ISC CL). My basic reading of this is that ISC cruisers and DNs captured by the Feds would become monsters, the DDs and FFs would be rather pedestrian. Fed DNs and Cruisers would become poorly-defended substitues for ships in the second rank, but the small ships would actually become pretty stout gunline units.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, November 16, 2002 - 05:13 pm: Edit

Mike R.: Cool. You see, I didn't think the ISC would use this as a echelon ship or at best a two tier echelon (1FF+1DD+CA). More over, I invisioned this ship being used alone or with only one other for special missions in Non-Federation space. You know, to send a message to the others (which might well be a different message to each race but this CA is the center piece to each message).

To use this ship in Fed Space would be to insite trouble/revenge.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, November 16, 2002 - 05:18 pm: Edit

On further inspection I realise this ship would make an excellent second tier ship in a full echelon. It's anti-fighter capabilitys a fantastic. It could pop out ten PL-Fs in one turn, phaser two more fighters to death and that's an entire squadron gone!

By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Thursday, November 21, 2002 - 06:52 am: Edit

One problem I have with the replacement of the PPD on a CA is that a CA is easily upgraded to a CC. Why keep an under gunned CA with 3 photons/disruptors when you can convert it to a CC and mount 5 total photons/disruptors? I feel that for purpose of doctrine, all of the photon and disruptor races should replace the PPD(s) of the CA/CC with 2 total photons/disruptors creating a ship that matches the fleet doctrine of each of the photon/disruptor fleets. All of their CAs and CCs had 4 photons/disruptors and as the room obviously exists in the ISC CA/CC design it should have a matching weapons arraignment (IMHO).

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, November 21, 2002 - 07:58 am: Edit

Daniel,

The problem with replacing single PPD's with paired photons is that the conversion rules state that a PPD is a 1.5 space weapon...not enough to get two photons or disruptors in the same space. So, you're sort of stuck with "loosing" a half-space on these conversions. That's fine with me...as someone pointed out, conversions should be a bit less effective than the original.

By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Thursday, November 21, 2002 - 09:01 am: Edit

The same conversion rules allow you to convert any captured ship into any variant a set number of years (2 I think) after the original owning race introduces that variant. The CC is a variant of the CA. That shows that the space exists for two photons/disruptors (three actually). Just because a native race does not use the space for weapons should not mean that a capturing race should not use it. If you stick to that hard-core rule, every captured ISC CA will be automatically upgraded to a CC to make it into a viable ship.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, November 21, 2002 - 10:02 am: Edit

...at considerable cost.

I don't buy the idea that CAs are inefficient CCs.

You don't build a warship, especially a warship, with wasted space assuming you'd want to upgrade it somewhere down the line. You build it to be the best darn fighting ship you can build with the technology.

The Fed CA has slightly less mass and interior space than the CC. It has to. You can make a CA into a CC, (the Feds did it with the Kongo) but it would require yard time ripping up decks, adding additional space to house the stuff and rearranging the interior to allow proper acccess.

By this logic, the Feds didn't (and couldn't afford to) choose to waste that much yard time on most of their CAs, but found way to do minimal upgrades, which ought to be why the belly phasers on the CAs are RH not 360.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, November 21, 2002 - 10:57 am: Edit

True. I just don't see any race taking someone else's CA, and converting it to a CC for their own use. If they need to convert a ship to a CC, surely they'd do it with one of their own. I imagine it would be extremely difficult to manage the yard time and space for converting a foreign tech ship not only to use your weapons, but also to add the command facilities and such to make it a CC. That's just my two cents.

By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Thursday, November 21, 2002 - 11:02 am: Edit

By the same argument, why bother to field a second rate captured ship when you can scrap it for the parts and materials to build a first rate new ship.

Reguardless, what I'm saying is that the weapons assembly is being ripped out to replace the PPDs with photons (in the case of an ISC to Fed conversion). While doing that, the effort to expand the weapons mounts to hold the second torp should be easily possible (in relative terms). IMO this would be done as a matter of bringing the ship up to combat capability.

Now, also IMO the ISC CC when converted to photons/disruptors would also have only 4 heavy weapons. Other size class three ships with 5 or 6 heavy weapons generally suffer from shock.

By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Thursday, November 21, 2002 - 11:05 am: Edit

Mike, true but you have to have it in the yard to convert to your own tech in the first place. While it's there, you make it the best thing you can. In war, every resourse is used to its upmost if possible.

By Dave Morse (Dcm) on Thursday, November 21, 2002 - 11:18 am: Edit

So if I understand this thread correctly, the conversation revolves around the CA having three 1.5 space weapons that can't be efficiently converted to 4 photons, because the weapons are in different banks.

Try this on for size: BEND THE RULES IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE!

By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Thursday, November 21, 2002 - 11:34 am: Edit

It's also based on the fact that I don't think that the Feds or Klinks would mount 5 photon/disruptors on the ISC CC. I think both should mount 4 photons/disruptors on a captured ISC CA/CC.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, November 21, 2002 - 11:46 am: Edit

If you bend the rules in this case, you'll be opening up one hell of a pandora's box. My advice for those that want a bit more "oomph" for their conversions would be to not use the historical conversion rules...just use the non-historical ones, and you can do pretty much what you want. For anything you want submitted, though, your best chances are with the historical rules.

I personally view the converted ISC CA as a variety of fast ship. With that much excess warp power, you're talking about a ship that can zip around with relative ease. That's not a bad thing, and (IMPO) adds flavor to the conversion, making it functionally different from the standard CA. I like that sort of thing.