Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through April 17, 2011	25		04/17 11:24pm

Alan,

I don't have G3. What is the name of the DVA? YIS? They don't appear on the Ship Name list http://www.starfleetgames.com/documents/Starship_Name_Registry.pdf and a WHOLE lot of vanilla DNs apparently built between the start of the GW and SCS construction do... Not to mention a pile of vanilla BCH construction instead of BCV/ BCS builds.

I am PRESUMING that the DVA is what the Feds build after the start of the GW and before the SCS comes into service (as an option).

IIRC there was some discussion about what the Feds built during the war.

As for the F14 availability, from what I understand of SVCs writing the limit is on the absolute number of F14s that the Feds could produce. So that's why they didn't build more F14 capable carriers. It appears to me, based on my limited understanding, that the F111 was actually serving in greater numbers than the F14 a few years after the F111 enters service. Not because the F111 is twice as good as the F14, but because it could be built and F14 production was maxed out already...

How about it, what kinds of numbers of carriers with F111 are documented? IIRC there are actually a fairly large number between the CWV, Heavy CWV, NCA-V, BCS and such toters...

Actually that might make a neat CL development history article. The Fed main line fighter development history. So there are the F14 & F15 issues that lead us to the F111. The A10 ->A20 ->A20F history is already well documented IIRC...

Then we could get someone to tell us something about the CVB carriers which have been VERY absent from the history. And for a long time they are about the best things out there (outside of the CVA) as far as fighter strikes...

By Michael C. Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Monday, April 18, 2011 - 03:33 pm: Edit

Aside: where the heck is the "Alexander the Great" on the CVA/ SCS/ etc list? Is that the putative DVA lead ship? I was sure that there was some mention of such a ship sometime way back...

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Monday, April 18, 2011 - 03:55 pm: Edit

Mike,

The DVA has only been published in Captain's Log and won't get into a Module until R or J2. As such, I don't think it has any names listed. Regardless, I doubt it needs a "new" name, as it will likely simply keep the same name of the DN+/DNG it was converted from.

Anyway, you are not going to see the DVA in any of those lists, because it is to 'new' to the game.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Monday, April 18, 2011 - 04:32 pm: Edit

OK, obviously you value two extra photons way more than a whole extra fighter squadron and the ability to effectively manage shuttle bay operations. Eh, whatever.

However, this completely baffles me:

---

Quote:

One final point; you assert

---

Quote:

Being able to include the F-18 group on the carrier already in the battle group, without having to bring along a whole other set of escorts is extremely powerful and useful.

---

I'm afraid I just don't see it. I think that would be a persuasive argument for some empires. But the Fed escorts kick posterior. Unlike some escorts, most of the Fed escorts can actually threaten regular warships. Granted they do have to get closer to do so, but still, they constitute a legitimate threat on their own. Given that my approach (DVA/PF Group supported by BCV Group) gives me two extra photons on the flagship anyway, and that my last fighter squadron is another F-14 squadron while yours is an F-18 squadron, I still don't see the advantage in the SCSA that you do.

---

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, April 18, 2011 - 06:41 pm: Edit

Mike,

You make a lot of points in your 4:32 pm posting that I want to dispute, but I don't have time right now. (This dang so-called "real life" thing keeps getting in the way...) I will probably have to address this post in several short posts over the next couple of days. I will try to post my first response tonight, though I can't promise I will be able to get to it before tomorrow.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, April 19, 2011 - 01:08 am: Edit

Mike,

I only have time for a short post tonight. But No, I don't "... value two extra photons way more than a whole extra fighter squadron...". If you think that is what I was arguing then obviously I did a poor job of framing my arguments and will try to do better tomorrow, or whenever I get the chance to post a long response. But in a nutshell, I was trying to argue two points. The first is that I think that in many cases the "DVA+PF Group" is more cost effective, in real strategic terms rather than just BPV, than the SCSA Group. You get more bang for the quatloos.

The second point that I was trying to argue is that for the admittedly rare "Assault on Klinshai" sort of battle, when you are facing a monstrously powerful opposing force and - cost effectiveness be d*mned - you are trying to cram the maximum possible combat power into your battle fleet, the DVA+PF Group allows you a higher maximum than the SCSA Group.

I'm peeved with myself because the argument I'm about to make regarding the second point is one I wanted to make several days ago, and kept forgetting when it was time to post. But better late than never, I suppose...

So, the Feds are preparing their fleet to assault Klinshai, or at least some extremely formidable defense such as a Stellar Forttress with multiple ships/PFs/fighters in support. They choose an SCSA as the flagship and fill out the rest of its command rating with the most powerful ships available. I admit I am assuming that the remaining command rating slots will not be filled entirely with Dreadnoughts or BCHs. Even the Feds won't have the assets to fill out the fleet with nothing but capital ships. Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that the weakest individual Fed ship, other than the SCSA's escorts, is an NCL+. This is the baseline assault fleet.

Now instead, suppose the Fed bases his fleet on a DVA+PF Group and fills out his command rating slots with exactly the same ships as the baseline assault fleet, except that he deletes the NCL+ and instead fills that slot with 6 casual Thunderbolts carried on mechlinks. This isn't an option for the baseline assault fleet because the SCSA already maxes out its attrition units.

If the 6 casual Thunderbolts are more powerful than the NCL+ and the F-18 squadron, then the DVA+PF fleet is more powerful than the SCSA fleet. I realize that there could be arguments about the NCL+ and the F-18s, compared to the six casual PFs (which won't have a PF Scout to support them with EW). But personally, I still like those casual PFs. My argument also becomes weaker if you do allow the Feds to fill out the command rating slots with all capital ships. But I stand by my statement that I think this unlikely.

This short post has become longer than I intended so I will end it here. Just to avoid any confusion, the "Assault on Klinshai" fleet example was not about the relative cost effectiveness of the DVA+PF versus the SCSA. It was purely about the question of maxing out a fleet. I'll try to address cost effectiveness nest time I post.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Tuesday, April 19, 2011 - 10:08 am: Edit

Very quick response: Except for that singe, one, scenario, the SCSA is a much better option and provides more flexibilty. But, in that one option ... the SCSA is still better. If you simply *must* have that extra PF flotilla, you leave the F-18s behind! Then you get the same fleet you want and are *still* using the SCSA.

Why build a ship that is designed for a single scenario (that may never happen) when the ship that is otherwise better can still handle that single scenario?

(And, BTW, you wouldn't throw in a casual flotilla. You would simply replace the NCL with a PFT and take a real flotilla. If you are going to max out, then max out!)

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, April 19, 2011 - 12:24 pm: Edit

Mike,

Very quick response to your very quick response:

The reason I went with the casual flotilla rather than a true PFT is because I was basically assuming (and I should have stated this explicitly - mea culpa) that deployment doctrine in this alternate world would still be similar to the S8 rules. Under S8 I believe the only way you can have an SCS and a "regular" PFT in the same fleet is if the PFT is the "free scout". Unless I am misremembering, the Fed Conjectural NCL-based PFT only has two special sensors. So the fleet would have a better second PF flotilla but worse general EW support. Better, I think, to use a casual flotilla and a scout with 4 (or more) special sensors.

By George Duffy (Sentinal) on Wednesday, April 20, 2011 - 01:37 am: Edit

If you want to max fighter deployment out you would need a Divisional "Interdiction" carrier (w/ 24 fighters, all F-18s)) and a CWV carrier (w/ 12 f-18s) and then add your PFT squadron with the PFT, plus your free scout afterwards.

The CA "Interdiction" carrier and the CW "Patrol" carrier can have all of their fighters counted as a single over-sized squadrons (Because the fighters on those carriers are of the same type. Two distinct squadrons on a carrier means there are no over-sized squadrons). In (S8) your allowed to have a single over-sized squadron included in the 3 squadron formation limit.

Using the "third way" you could even bring in another squadron, but the PFs would have to be down graded to heavy fighters in that case

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Wednesday, April 20, 2011 - 03:27 pm: Edit

George,

We are talking about the merits of the SCSA vs a hypothetical DVA-PF in a hypothetical universe where the Federation uses PFs just like everyone else does. Alan's position is that the DVA-PF would be a valuable addition to the fleet. My position is that the DVA-PF would never be built, as it would be at the expense of an SCSA which is way better.

So, talking about the third way (which obviously doesn't apply in a Fed-PF universe) isn't really on topic.

Now, I will admit that I hadn't thought of using the . However, I think that whether the extra carrier has 18xF-18 or 12xF-14 (or 12xF-15), the better/extra fighters are still outweighed by the escorts the extra carrier is required to bring.

I also think that, even if the better/extra fighters *do* make that specific fleet better, the chances to get to use that fleet are so ridiculously small, and the massive advantage the SCSA has in every other situation is so great, that it still doesn't make any sense to ever build a DVA-PF when you could make an SCSA instead.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, April 25, 2011 - 09:58 am: Edit

Mike West,

I haven't abandoned this topic, but last week I came down with a sinus infection and didn't feel like posting anything on any topic. There are still a couple of points you've made that I want to respond to. I will try to post my responses either today or tomorrow. After that, if you don't think my responses call for any additional new posts from you, that's fine. Or if you do want to reply to my responses, that's also fine.

By George Duffy (Sentinal) on Wednesday, April 27, 2011 - 02:31 am: Edit

What I don't understand is why are you comparing the two ships.

A DVA-PF is the equivalent to an SCS in any other empire. While an SCSA is the equivalent to a Kzinti Super-Space Control Ship (SSCS). Comparing the two against each other would be the same as comapring a battleship to a dreadnaught.


MIKE

The one advantage the DVA-PF will have over the SCSA is overall fleet deployment. In that, the DVA-PF can be part of CVBG(DVA-PF + CVD + 5 escorts + 4 attrition squadrons/6-ship count), while the SCSA can never be part of one or have one deployed in it's fleet.

[SCSA group + 7 warships + frre scout = 12 ships +3 squadrons
vs.
CVBG + 5 warshps + free scout = 13 ships + 4 squadrons
(# advantage: 1x escort ship + 12x F-18s)]

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Thursday, April 28, 2011 - 12:38 am: Edit

The CVBG is part of the Third Way. In a postulated 'Federation PF' universe, there is no Third Way. As such, there are no CVBGs. So, your comparison just flat out doesn't work.

Also, S8 specifically does NOT exclude the SCS from building a CVBG. (In fact, the one example provided in S8 includes an SCS.) So, if you *do* have CVBGs even with Federation PFs, you could stick the SCSA into a CVBG. So, you comparison *really* doesn't work.

As for your initial comment, the SCSA cannot effectively be compared to the Kzinti SSCS. The reason is because the Kzinti SSCS has massive deployment restrictions. In effect, the SSCS is a battleship. The SCSA has *no* such restrictions. The SCSA is no more limited and no more special than any other potential SCS.

To recap, an SCSA doesn't cost any more than a DVA-PF (outside the F-18s). Anything that can be used to build a DVA-PF can be used to build an SCSA. There are no special restrictions on building an SCSA over a DVA-PF. So, basically, anytime the Fed can make an 'SCS', they can make either an SCSA or a DVA-PF. Why would you make the inferior ship?

The SCSA, in any fleet that is not completely and totally maxed out with its attrition units, always gives an extra F-18 squadron over the DVA-PF. This extra squadron costs no command slots, and puts no limitations on the fleet that the DVA-PF would not also impose.

The *only* possible case where the SCSA could have a problem is when you are building an absolutely maxed out fleet and you want to replace the F-18s with a different set of attrition units (e.g. another PF squadron). In that case, the SCSA can always leave its F-18s behind and accomplish the exact same thing the DVA-PF would accomplish.

So, the SCSA costs no more than a DVA-PF. It is unquestionably the better ship. There is nothing the DVA-PF can do the SCSA cannot. So, why would anyone ever not build the SCSA instead of the DVA-PF?

By George Duffy (Sentinal) on Thursday, April 28, 2011 - 04:17 am: Edit

Mike West,

I believe you misconstruded my two previous posts into thinking that I was refering to using the "Third Way" as a means of deploying more fighters and how Alan's proposal would be a better choice to have.in that case. Please believe I wasn't attempting to use that method, I dd understand you were both refering to using a "Federation PF" universe thruout this discussion.

I realize now that you have made an error in believing just what makes up the "Third Way". Both "oversized squadrons" and "Carrier Battle Groups(CVBGs)" are not part of the "Third Way" method, they are just rules to help utilize it..

(These come from the updated S8 rules found in the electronic MRB)

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR SIZE=0><!-Quote-!><FONT SIZE=1>Quote:</FONT><P> (S8.283) CARRIER BATTLE GROUPS are used only by the Federation and only in Y181 or after. These consist of two carriers, each with their required escorts, and count as one less than the total number of ships. The two carriers must operate within eight hexes of each other if they use this bonus. Only one of the carriers can be size class 2, but both might be size class 3 or size class 4. Carrier battle groups cannot be combined with normal battle groups, i.e., a Federation battle force cannot include both a battle group and a carrier battle group. The carrier battle group can include one additional allowed escort for each carrier (S8.315).


(S8.32) FIGHTER, BOMBER, AND PF LIMIT: Except as noted below, a battle force cannot have more than three squadrons of fighters (a total of 36 fighters). Each heavy fighter, each bomber, and each PF/Interceptor counts as two fighters against this limit. For purposes of this rule, one (and only one) carrier with an oversized squadron can be included within the limit of three squadrons (this allows a total of 48 fighters). Carriers considered to be carrying an oversized squadron have an “OS” in the Notes column of the Master Ship Chart. The fighters on a carrier with an oversized squadron still operate under the rules in (J4.46), i.e., the fighters on a carrier with an oversized squadron are two squadrons for all purposes except that they count as one squadron of twelve fighters against the fighter and PF limit.


(S8.327) FEDERATION THIRD WAY: If the battle is set in Y181 or later, a Federation force may have as many as 48 fighters (heavy fighters counting as two fighters) in four squadrons. This can be as many as 60 fighters if one of the carriers has an oversized squadron (i.e. two squadrons counting as one). This can only be done if the Federation is using a carrier battle group (S8.283).
Example: A Federation SCS group (A-20 Squadron, F-14 Squadron, F-18 squadron) in a CVBG with a Federation CVD group (two squadrons of F-18s).<!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0></BLOCKQUOTE>


The first one deals with CVBGs, it helps with ship command limits within a fleet,. It falls under the Battle Groups heading and not "Federation Third Way". (as noted by it's rules number)

The second one, dealing with oversized squadrons, is used by all empires in order to bring in more fighters and still maintain the 36-fighter/3 squadron deployment limit within a fleet. (You can have a CVBG with an oversized squadron in it's make up and still not use the "Third Way" method)

The wording on the third one is the cause of the confusion. The "Third Way" allows the Fedxeration player to have a 48-fighters/4 squadrons deployement limit within a fleet. If using oversized squadrons, the number of fighters could reach as high as 60 (5 squadrons) but still be counted as only 48 to mathch that limit...
The first sentence is the rule, the second sentence is an exception. With the third sentence being the example on how it can be reached. (This was what I was refering to, with my last sentence from my first post on "April 20, 1:27 am" )

Keeping to the deployments you and Alan were discussing, I wrote out what your fleet deployments would look like. The SCSA carrying two DIFFERENT fighter squadrons and a PF squadron cannot form a CVBG or be able to bring more attrition squadrons to a fleet.
In order to do so, you would first have to replace the F-14s on the SCSA with a second squadron of F-18s, declare them to be the oversized squadron, then you can add a second carrier group carrying a single squadron of 12 fighters (F14s, F-15s, etc.) However this is limited to specific carriers being available to match the DVA-PFs deployment capability.

So you see, Alan's DVA-PF proposal does have a place for it to work, in that it can from a stronger carrier grouping than by using the SCSA.

By Terry O'Carroll (Terryoc) on Thursday, April 28, 2011 - 04:46 am: Edit

George, carrier battle groups are part of the third way, see F&E rule (502.9).

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Thursday, April 28, 2011 - 10:26 am: Edit

George,

Irrespective of Terry's helpful note, the rule specifically says CVBG "are used only by the Federation and only in Y181 or after." Whether the CVBG rule is explicitly part of the Third Way or not (and do note that we know it is), any rule with that clause is not going to be in effect if the Federation has PFs. The Feds don't get unique fighter advantages AND get PFs. It is fully one or the other.

So, my response still stands and is still valid.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Saturday, April 30, 2011 - 09:01 pm: Edit

Ok, I'm finally ready to respond to a few more points, only a bazillion years late.

Mike,
In your 4:32 pm post from 18 April you insert the following quote from a previous post of mine.

---

Quote:

Quote:
One final point; you assert


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Being able to include the F-18 group on the carrier already in the battle group, without having to bring along a whole other set of escorts is extremely powerful and useful.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm afraid I just don't see it. I think that would be a persuasive argument for some empires. But the Fed escorts kick posterior. Unlike some escorts, most of the Fed escorts can actually threaten regular warships. Granted they do have to get closer to do so, but still, they constitute a legitimate threat on their own. Given that my approach (DVA/PF Group supported by BCV Group) gives me two extra photons on the flagship anyway, and that my last fighter squadron is another F-14 squadron while yours is an F-18 squadron, I still don't see the advantage in the SCSA that you do.

---

---

Quote:

OK, what on earth do the escorts have to do with what I actually said? We have already established that the DVA/PF and SCSA would have identical escorts. Where is the advantage either way?

---

---

Quote:

Being able to include the F-18 group on the carrier already in the battle group, without having to bring along a whole other set of escorts is extremely powerful and useful.

---

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Saturday, April 30, 2011 - 09:17 pm: Edit

Another point I want to make concerns conversions versus new construction. You frequently assert that the basic DSCS Group and SCSA Group cost about the same except for the extra F-18 squadron. But I don't think you have ever really addressed the point from my 8:13 pm post from April 17, that the actual cost can depend a lot on whether the ship was built as new construction or was converted from an existing hull. Consider this quote from that post:

---

Quote:

I want to digress a moment to talk about two Tholian ships, both "improvements" on the CW, the CWH and the CAN. If the resource-constrained Tholians are looking for the most cost effective root to upgrade their CWs, should they go with CWHs or CANs? Well, using the F&E numbers, building a CWH costs 6 EP while building a CAN costs 7 EP. So the CWH is cheaper. But wait, converting an already-built CW to a CWH costs 3 EP while converting it to a CAN only costs 2. So the CAN is cheaper? But wait, converting a pair of PCs to a CWH costs 4 while converting the two PCs to a CAN costs 5. So the CHW is cheaper??? There's no explanation for this within F&E, though looking at the SFB SSDs and reading the SFB descriptions of the ships makes this all plausible. But the point is that the actual cost of the ship, not just the BPV, depends on how you got their. Ignoring for the moment the tactical difference between the ships, the most cost effective path for the Tholians would seem to be build CWHs as new construction but convert existing CWs to CANs. And if they believed they still needed more cruisers and decided to convert existing PCs, those should be converted to CWHs.

---

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Sunday, May 01, 2011 - 12:46 am: Edit

Alan,

Re: Escorts
Ah, I guess I didn't follow. We will have to agree to disagree on that. Turning a fleet and carrier group's escorts into suicide boats (which is pretty much the requirement to make them offensively useful) is not something I think is useful or advisable. I would much rather have the "real warships" and their photons. (I will note that the designers of F&E strongly agree with that view considering the combat factors given the various Federation escorts.)

I guess we just have to agree to disagree on that.

Re: Tholian example.
Uh, I guess?
No, we don't know the comparative costs of new builds/conversions for the DVA-PF or the SCSA. However, for the sake of argument on completely hypothetical and conjectural ships, we can safely assume they are close enough to be equivalent. I see no reason not to. There is nothing "likely" or "unlikely" about that stuff.

We are both making assumptions. Seeing how the Federation dreadnoughts and dreadnought carriers have been done thus far doesn't lead me to believe there will necessarily be big enough differences between the various costs for the DVA-PF and SCSA to make much of a difference either way.

Now, if it is absolutely necessary to force-feed the DVA-PF into a history that never actually existed, I guess a cost difference could be manufactured out of thin air to try and give a least a minimal amount of justification for building it. But I still don't buy it.

Re: Name of DVA-PF
I continue to use "DVA-PF" because no one will ever know what a "DSCS" is without explaining it just about every post. It is blatantly obvious what the "DVA-PF" is. Therefore, I will continue to use "DVA-PF" so things will remain clear. If the ship is ever published anywhere, then Petrick will give it a designation which is guaranteed to not be "DVA-PF", and likely not "DSCS". So, since either one is just a convenient placeholder, I figure I might as well use the one that is clear and easily understood.

Main Point again:
I am not saying the SCSA is guaranteed to be better than the DVA-PF in 100% of the situations 100% of the time. I am saying it is better 95% (or more) of the time, and that the situations where the DVA-PF could be better are either completely manufactured situations or obscure border cases. I don't think the Federation would be building DVA-PFs hoping they would be useful, but would instead build SCSAs that they know will be useful.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, May 03, 2011 - 06:37 pm: Edit

Mike,

I disagree with your assessment that

---

Quote:

I am saying it is better 95% (or more) of the time, and that the situations where the DVA-PF could be better are either completely manufactured situations or obscure border cases.

---

---

Quote:

So, the Feds are preparing their fleet to assault Klinshai, or at least some extremely formidable defense such as a Stellar Fortress with multiple ships/PFs/fighters in support.

---

---

Quote:

OK, obviously you value two extra photons way more than a whole extra fighter squadron and the ability to effectively manage shuttle bay operations.

---

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Wednesday, May 04, 2011 - 07:58 pm: Edit

Look, don't bother.

The fact of the matter is that nothing I can say or show will make any difference to your opinion. And nothing you bother to bring up is going to make my opinion change. And I can't even bring anything new to the conversation; all I can do is continue to repeat myself, and it would now be the third or fourth time. Quite frankly, we are probably just talking past each other at this point.

And what are we discussing? A conjectural ship that will never be "real" and would probably never be used by an actual player in real play. It just isn't worth the bother.

I was an idiot for responding in the first place. I admit it. You "win" (for whatever that means). Of course, my opinion is totally irrelevant: you must convince Steve and Steve, not me. I apologize for showing my lack of restraint and posting. I will endeavor to do better in the future.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, December 31, 2012 - 05:41 pm: Edit

A Federation DV replacing the fighters with PFs (and their support facilities) could be done to support the "conjectural Federation fast patrol ships" for those players who prefer to use the conjectural PFs rather than the fighters. It would basically be a Federation version of the ROC. This does not mean it will get published next week, or even at all, but there is a player base for it.