Archive through April 17, 2011
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: New Product Development:
New: Module 3030 never builts:
Conjectural PF-carrying version of DVA:
Archive through April 17, 2011
There are conjectural PF-carrying versions of the Federation CVA and SCS already, replacing some fighters with their (conjectural/unbuilt) Thunderbolt PFs. I propose a similar "Unbuilt Variant" version of the DVA, swapping out the A-20F heavy fighter squadron for a Thunderbolt flotilla.
I just had one of those embarrassing moments when I suddenly realized I've said something silly. ".. conjectural PF-carrying versions of the Federation CVA and SCS already, replacing some fighters with their (conjectural/unbuilt) Thunderbolt PFs."??? The SCS is already the PF-carrying version of the CVA, except for the Feds. But the Feds do have a conjectural SCSA which carries Thunderbolts. So it's a PF-carrying version rather than different "versions". I think I was thinking of the conjectural PF-carrying version of the conjectural Fed Stellar Domination Ship, based on their conjectural battleship, or something...
In any case, it doesn't change the proposed ship, which I would still like to see published even though it is an obvious variant.
Well, doing it is pretty simple, as it would simply replace the A-20 bay with mech links and repair as was done on the SCSA. Do note, however, that such a ship would be significantly less useful than an SCSA, as it would have half the fighters of the SCSA.
Mike,
Yeah, but compared to to the SCSA, what it loses is the F-18 squadron, the least useful of the 3 "attrition formations" the SCSA carries. So it might be regarded as "less powerful in an absolute sense, but more cost effective".
Didn't Mike just say that it loses the A-20s, not the F-18s? i.e. the PFs replace your high-end attrition units, not your low-end ones?
Let's try this to clarify things:
SCS: 12xF-14, 12xF-18, 6xA-20
CVA: 12xF-14, 12xA-10
CVA(late): 12xF-14, 6xA-20
DVA: 12xF-14, 6xA-20
SCSA: 12xF-14, 12xF-18, 6xPF
DVA-PF: 12xF-14, 6xPF
So, unique among any carriers outside the Hydrans, the Federation SCS actually has three squadrons of fighters, rather than just two. The SCSA replaces the A-20s with PFs. If the DVA is to carry PFs, it would replace its A-20s in the *exact* same way as the SCS->SCSA.
The point is that the SCSA has a full fighter squadron above the DVA-PF. And, while they are "only" F-18s, they are really F-18B+s which, while not the equivalent of F-14s, are still very useful and capable. Tossing twelve F-18B+s to get two photons just doesn't seem like that good of a trade off.
Quite frankly, assuming the Feds had PFs, I can't see the Federation wasting an "SCS-conversion" on a DVA when they can convert a CVA instead and get a full SCS. It's just a bad deal.
[I note the late CVA, as it would replace its A-10 squadron with the much faster A-20Fs for comparison and to see where the DVA fighter group came from.]
Mike,
But comparing the SCSA to the "DVA-PF" isn't solely a matter "Tossing twelve F-18B+s to get two photons..." because it doesn't take into account the greater cost of the complete SCSA Group. (I'm assuming the DVA-PF would have the same escorts as the SCSA.) The BPV (in an S8-type fleet battle) not spent on the F-18s would be available to be spent on something else.
Alternately, suppose you are playing a non-historical campaign with Fed PFs. Presumably this means that the Feds do not have access to the "third way" and can only field 3 "attrition unit formations". The SCSA uses up all 3 of those slots and one of the 3 slots is being filled by an F-18 squadron. But with the DVA-PF you are only using 2 of those slots and you have the option of, for example, supplementing the DVA-PF with a BCV, filling the third slot with another F-14 squadron rather than an F-18 squadron. Whether you would want to exercise them or not, the DVA-PF does give you some additional options not available with the SCSA.
Alan,
Escort ships only carried ready racks designed for F-18s. They never carried racks for the F-14s or for any other fighter for that matter.
I forget where this was first mentioned (another thread in this proposal area?), but if a carrier were to lose a fighter squadron to make room for the PFs, it wouldn't be the F-18s.
George,
But wait a moment. The SCS (12xF-14, 12xF-18, 6xA-20) and the DVA (12xF-14, 6xA-20) already both exist as "real" ships within the SFU. They are two different development paths from the basic Fed CVA. The SCSA (12xF-14, 12xF-18, 6xPF) already exists as a "conjectural" ship. It's what the SCS would have been if the Feds had built PFs. I'm proposing that, if the Feds had built PFs, the DVA development path would have undergone parallel evolution to that of the SCS/SCSA. PFs would replace the A-20s exactly as they do for the SCS/SCSA. I'm not proposing taking some existing ship and replacing an F-18 squadron with a PF flotilla, so I don't quite understand your objection.
Ok... I think I've misunderstood your earlier comments in that you were supplementing a probable F18B+ squadron you would get via the "Third way" doctrine, as opposed to replacing a F-18+ squadron with "conjectural" PFs.
But using your example of a DVA-PF joined with a BCV to form a CVBG, you do realize that it would not come about because the escort ships for both carrier groups would not be able to reload the fighters using the ready racks because the escorts themselves only carried ready racks meant for F-18s.
Practically speaking one carrier in a CVBG would have to have F-18's in it's makeup.
George,
Are you sure that Federation escort ships only have ready racks for F-18s? It's been a while since I've actually played a battle involving a Fed carrier group so my own memory may be faulty on that score. It seems strange that escorts assigned to a carrier carrying only F-14s (such as the BCV) or F-15s (the CVB) would not have ready racks for the those fighters. But even if you're right, the Feds do deploy carrier groups based on fighters other than F-18s so they don't seem to regard it has a crippling hindrance. I'm not aware of any rule in S8 or elsewhere that prevents the Feds from putting a BCV group and a CVB group in the same battle fleet. The fighters will just have to reload from the carriers themselves.
Well, you are talking about a conjectural ship in the first place, so if you can get SPP to agree to a conjectural ship that would have been a one-off, go for it.
Back to the issue at hand, I don't really see your "cost" logic. In your S8 example, you are replacing an F-18 squadron with an entire BCV squadron. That is *way* more expensive, especially since you would have to include the BCV's escorts, too. (No third way, remember?) 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.
So, assuming the Feds have DNs and CVAs to convert, I can't see them ever choosing to make a DVA-PF over an SCSA. I doubt the ship costs would be different enough to matter, so the only costs are those extra F-18s. That is too small of an increase to not take advantage of.
On the escorts, I am pretty sure escorts for carriers with F-14s and F-15s have ready racks for those fighters. It is heavy (F-111, A-20) and assault (A-10) fighter racks that never appear on escorts.
Mike,
When you say
Quote:I don't really see your "cost" logic. In your S8 example, you are replacing an F-18 squadron with an entire BCV squadron. That is *way* more expensive, especially since you would have to include the BCV's escorts, too.
you're confusing two different cases. That's entirely my fault because I worded the relevant post poorly and didn't clearly express what I was trying to say. Let me try to reword it.
Case 1: S8-type battle. Defined (high) BPV level with both players choosing fleets to meet that level.
Cost of the SCSA Group is sum of:
a. Cost of the SCSA itself
b. Cost of the escorts
c. Cost of Thunderbolt flotilla
d. Cost of F-14 squadron
e. Cost of F-18 squadron
f. Cost of ancillary stuff (drone speed, T-bombs, extra boarding parties, two turtle doves and a partridge in a pear tree...)
Cost of the "DVA+PF" Group is sum of:
a. Cost of DVA+PF itself (probably slightly higher than cost of SCSA, but only slightly higher).
b. Cost of the escorts (assumed identical to SCSA escorts)
c. Cost of Thunderbolt flotilla
d. Cost of F-14 squadron
e. Cost of ancillary stuff (assumed lower than cost of CVA ancillary stuff because losing F-18 squadron means that you have fewer drone speed upgrades to pay for.
Now the SCSA Group may be more powerful in an absolute sense than the DVA+PF Group because of the extra fighter squadron. But it's also more expensive and in a BPV-defined battle the Fed player will spend those BPV saved by losing the F-18 group on something else. Perhaps he brings in an additional ship. Or perhaps the SCSA Group is supported by additional ships and the DVA+PF Group upgrades one of those supporting ships from a frigate or destroyer to a cruiser with those saved BPV. So losing the F-18 squadron doesn't weaken his total force, and might even strengthen it, if the Fed player believes that the F-18s are less valuable than whatever he spent the saved BPV on.
That's "Case 1" and the BCV Group doesn't enter into it. The BCV Group was supposed to figure into "Case 2" but my original post didn't make that clear enough.
Case 2: Strategic (non-historical) campaign. Fed player is going to fight a major battle that could change the course of the war. He isn't interested in "matching" the enemy BPV. He wants as much combat power in his battle fleet as he can possibly manage, consistent with the campaign rules and any other battles he has to fight. If he has a lot more BPV for the critical battle than the enemy, that is, as the saying goes, a good thing.
If the Fed bases his fleet for that major battle on an SCSA, he can't bring in any other additional attrition forces because the SCSA takes up all 3 slots, and one of those slots is taken up by the F-18 squadron. (Again, this assumes the campaign rules don't allow the Fed to use "third way, since they do allow him to use PFs.) But if he bases his fleet on a DVA+PF, he is only using two of his attrition slots and he has the option (if he thinks it gives him the best chance of victory) of supporting the DVA+PF Group with a BCV Group. Now he has 2 F-14 squadrons in the battle, rather than an F-14 squadron and an F-18 squadron. That's what I was trying to get at in my previous post. Note that he could still base his battle fleet around the SCSA Group if he thought that was a better choice. But he now has additional options.
One final point. It seems to me that your argument that the "DVA+PF" shouldn't exist because of the SCSA is just as valid an argument against the DVA itself in the "historical SFU. The DVA shouldn't exist because the SCS exists. The ships stand in exactly the same relationship to each other. Yet in the historical SFU the SCS and DVA do both exist. And I am arguing that in a "conjectural Fed PF" version of the SFU, the PF version of the DVA should exist, even though the SCSA exists.
All I know is, Fed PF's are fearsome anti-ship beasts.
*shudders*
The reason that the DVA exists in the "real" SFU is because SVC allowed it. 
Seriously, the DVA can easily exist because there is an enforced "earliest possible" entry date for the SCS. So, there is a big window where the DVA can appear. In fact, the way the DVA is presented shows that, to an extent, it was a prototype of sorts for the SCS A-20 bay. But, the important point is that there is a large window of time for it to appear.
With the SCSA, however, that window of time does not exist! There is no window where it makes sense to make the DVA-PF instead of the SCSA. The reason is because the SCS has a YIS of 186. There is a huge delay in its introduction. On the other hand, the SCSA has a YIS of 182, which is concurrent with the introduction of PFs. So, there is no window where it makes any sense to build the DVA-PF.
As for the cost of the extra F-18 squadron, I am looking at it from a different point of view. When the budgets are being approved and the decision of what to build/upgrade are being made, the power-that-be will have a simple choice: Do they make/convert an SCSA, or do they make/convert a DVA-PF? The only difference in cost (this is strategic cost, not BPV) is the F-18 squadron. Anything that can be made into a DVA-PF (i.e. a DN hull) can also be made into an SCSA. Unless the strategic finances are in a very small window (enough money to build the ship, but not enough for its F-18 squadron), the powers-that-be are going to pick the SCSA every time. Every. Single. Time. In fact, even if they hit that very small window, they would probably build a normal NCL instead of an NVS in order to build the SCSA over the DVA-PF (i.e. they would steal the fighters from another potential carrier build). With no "third way", the ability to concentrate fighter power like that is just too valuable to pass up.
Again, I know we are talking about a conjectural ship. But it would be a true conjectural conjectural ship, as it wouldn't be built even if the Feds did have PFs. There is no time window for it. There is no resource window for it (i.e. a ship that can be made into a DVA-PF, but not an SCSA). There is no cost justification for it (not BPV, but strategic cost).
The DVA-PF would, most likely, be available in Y182 given the F&E Order of Battle for the Federation with regards to Third Way/PF deployment in F&E and when the Fed SCSA is available in G3.
Exactly what I was trying to say: the DVA-PF and SCSA would have the exact same YIS date. So, if the DVA-PF isn't available prior to the SCSA, why would the DVA-PF ever be made? Remember, you can only pick one at any given time, and they cost the same (except for the extra F-18 squadron).
So, even if PFs are "real", I can't see the DVA-PF being anything but conjectural. It just wouldn't make any sense to build.
actual you are not thinking far enough out side the box consider a carrier version that carried no fighters it was simply a PFT write large say either 24
PFs or 48 INT add in mech links on the escorts 2 for SC2 and 4 for SC3 PF or 4int/8int and the strike forces goes up a lot.
by placing the PF on the hull of the ship and reserving interior area for repair and rearming it should be possable to carry a greater punch for the cost
Mike, the DVA-PF would be conjectural regardless as the Federation never built PFs. That said, it would make sense for such a unit to "exist" for things like the U4.0 Carrier Group Campaign where SCS groups replace CVAs.
I would think that most people who play the Federation don't use PFs when playing them. That said I think if people wanted the option of "playing on an equal footing" then this unit makes sense. 1 squadron of fighters plus one flotilla of PFs equals the Klingon C8S or Kzinti SCS.
It would certainly allow the Federation to be an option in some contrived situations where someone wanted to play the Federation with PFs.
Robert,
The Steves have pretty much put the kibosh on the idea of having one ship carry more than one PF squadron. The Kzinti SSCS is obviously an exception, but that have strongly resisted having anyone do it. For an anti-PF empire like the Federation, I would not ever expect to see such a ship.
A much more practical suggestion is to make a DNG-PF (a la the Romulan ROC) that carries a full flotilla of PFs, but has no fighters.
Thomas,
I am simply trying to explain why such a ship doesn't make sense in the game universe. You are talking about BPV issues. You are worried about meta-gaming; I am worried about in-game. They are totally different perspectives.
Besides, to get what you want, it would make way more sense to just create an SCS-lite, or CVA-PF, that takes the base CVA and replaces the A-10s with 6 PFs. I would see that as much more likely to occur than a DVA-PF being made. (In fact, I would argue that is what the SCSA should have looked like!)
"The Steves have pretty much put the kibosh on the idea of having one ship carry more than one PF squadron. The Kzinti SSCS is obviously an exception, ..."
The Space Patrol Ships (SPS) have 12 PFs. The Lyran and Gorn versions were publish in Module R12; others will probably get theirs in future products. (Maybe there with BB versions too.)
Good point. Forgot about them. Regardless, I would still not expect to see many (if any) more of them, no ship is going to have more than 12 PFs, and I would not expect the Feds to ever get one.
So, while I did forget them, they actually help reinforce the main point, as they are extreme exceptions, not a "lead" for many more similar (or better) ships.
Mike West,
You make an excellent point in your 06:36 pm post on Friday, April 15, 2011. Whether a ship makes sense or not does indeed depend on its YIS. I can believe in the Romulan Killerhawk, and the fact that the Romulans only built two of them, because its YIS is actually one year after the YIS for the Firehawk-X. The Romulans are desperate for more "heavy hitter" warships. This new X-tech looks very promising but it's so new that no one is completely sure whether it is viable. So as a fallback, the Romulans experiment with a "Superheavy Cruiser". But production is terminated at two hulls (or was it three, I can't recall for certain) because by that time they have enough actual operational experience with X-ships to realize they really are the wave of the future. That all makes sense to me. Had the Killerhawk been available in Y174 (YIS for the Novahawk) there's no way the Romulans would have only built 2 or 3 of them. They would have churned them out as fast as they could, and might well have terminated Novahawk and Royalhawk production instead.
So your argument that differences in YIS explain why both the SCS and the DVA can exist in the "historical" SFU but that the SCSA precludes the PF version of the DVA in the "conjectural Fed PF" SFU does have some force to it. It deserves to be taken seriously.
Never the less, I still disagree with your conclusion. To explain why, I want to start by looking at the YIS of the precursor ships. (For purposes of this discussion I'm going to ignore "prototypes and just go with published YIS for simplicity.)
The basic Fed CVA has a YIS of has a YIS of 171 with the improved CVA+ showing up an Y173. The DVA is available Y179. Now If I'm the Feds, and my choices are between a CVA+ and a DVA, I'm going to switch all my heavy carrier new production over to the DVA, particularly since I already have a number of CVA+ in service. So when PFs become available to the Feds, the point at which our "time line diverges" from the historical SFU. I have a mix of DVAs and CVA+s in service, and I have to decide how best to incorporate the new PF technology into my fleet.
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.
Now back to the Federation. SFB gives us no insight into how much it costs to convert one ship into a variant. F&E gives us this information for some ships, but doesn't cover everything. But I submit that, from an examination of the SSDs, converting DVAs to carry PFs instead of A-20s is probably much faster and cheaper than converting them to SCSAs. There's just so much less you have to rip out and replace with something else. So even if you think the SCSA is so superior that it should constitute all new construction (a matter on which we will probably have to "agree to disagree"), there is still a very strong case that the best path for the already-existing DVAs is to convert their A-20 facilities to support PFs. It gets them back out into combat,upgraded with the new technology, much faster and cheaper than converting them to SCSAs.
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.
"If I'm the Feds, and my choices are between a CVA+ and a DVA, I'm going to switch all my heavy carrier new production over to the DVA, particularly since I already have a number of CVA+ in service."
SVC has already weighed in on the limitation is partly about the shortage of F14s.
F14 toting Carriers are
3 CVA (McA...)
1 DVL
1 (or 2) BCV
1 (or 2) BCS
1 (or more) SCS (Alexander the Great...)
Note that NONE of the CVS/ CVB class EVER gets F14 (though with the F15 superiority for most of the time, I wouldn't convert a CVB) nor is there a new construction CVB (F14 capable)...
Mike (Grafton),
According to Captain's Module G3, the DVA is a real, rather than conjectural ship. It is listed as "LPW" (Limited Production Warship) rather than "CNJ" (Conjectural) or "UNV" (Unbuilt Variant). So according to the most recent interpretation of SFU history, at least one and probably more than one were built. (If only one had been built its status would probaly have been "Unique" in the Master Annex File.)
Note also that building a DVA in place of a CVA+ doesn't change the number of F-14 squadrons available at all. They each carry one squadron.