The Bantam Cruiser (CB?) and Bantam Dreadnought (DNB?) are quadmaran ships that are parallel in design to the NCA and BB.

The Bantam Cruiser is a conversion of the small FF which adds a center section slightly bigger than the DW center and adds two 6 box engines; movement cost 2/3. The resulting ship was essentially a alternate war cruiser design. As it required the same shipyard slip as a CW, there was little reason to build them; as such only two were build.

The Bantam Dreadnought is the conversion of the CL to a quadmaran design. The resulting ship has four 10 box engines and a movement cost of 1.33, which made it an oddball of a class; too big to be a cruiser and too small to be a dreadnought. The resulting ship has about the same firepower as a heavy battlecruiser, although in had more durability. As it cost more than a BCH to build, it remained an unbuilt design.

(I used bantam as it hasn't been used before and it roughly describes the place in the class structure.)

By Dixon Simpkins (Dixsimpkins) on Sunday, July 24, 2011 - 09:30 pm: Edit

I like the idea of 'finishing out' the four engine conversions for the Lyrans. Although, they may fall under the 'obvious variant' category.

I think (I am not sure) that the FF conversion is the same thing as the Fleet Destroyer that was published for the LDR in Module R9.

The four engine DN is a neat idea, though I would suggest a Move Cost of 1+1/4. This would be more fitting for a ship with 40 warp. Essentialy, it's a light dreadnought (but not a light raiding DN). This is a little more in keeping with the power advantage that most NCAs have. With MC=1+1/4 the max warpspeed is 32 (theoretically), the same as the NCA. With MC=1+1/3 it is only 30. A good idea maybe to compare the projected number of boxes of the ship with the number of boxes on the Desert Lion DNL. If they are similar then a MC=1+1/4 is better, in my opinion.

Why give it a similar armament to the BCH? It has two engine nacelles on the central hull. Give it two disruptors on each, add the two that are on the outer hulls for a total of six. Arcs: 2 x FA, 2 x FA+L, 2 x FA+R.

I would suggest calling it the "Warcat" Dreadnought to reflect the design lineage of the CL/BCs.(Wildcat, Hellcat...Warcat). That's the name that popped into my head, anyway.

By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Sunday, July 24, 2011 - 11:25 pm: Edit

I had forgotten about the LDR Fleet Destroyer. It appears to be an overgunned design which might need to be toned down for a straight Lyran design (in addition to downgrading the the gatlings).

By Dixon Simpkins (Dixsimpkins) on Monday, July 25, 2011 - 12:49 am: Edit

I agree about the Fleet DD. Too many FA phasers. I suppose, though, that the LDR could get away with that, considering that they need to make the most out of EVERY hull they had. The Lyrans, with a much larger economy and larger construction capabilities would not need such a heavily armed design. This begs the question, would the Lyrans NEED to build this ship at all? Given their ability to field large numbers of DWs and CWs, they probably wouldn't need to build any Fleet DDs. I don't play F&E so I couldn't say if there is an argument either way from an economic perspective.

Still, maybe a good ship for "Ships That Never Were?"

By Koen van der Pasch (Croga) on Monday, July 25, 2011 - 05:37 am: Edit

I like the idea.
On the DNB:
This could well be a development parallel to the Lion and Wildcat development. During development of the Wildcat the Lyrans thought about upgrading the design to compete with the Lion design, resulting in the Warcat.

If developed in that time, it would most likely have the 1.33 move cost to bring it in line with the Wildcat/Lion. The same logic would put the armament somewhere around Hellcat, maybe slightly over. Maybe go for Wildcat armament plus 2 Disruptors (both center engines would have 2 FA+L/FA+R disruptors) putting it somewhere between the Wildcat and the Lion with YIS around Y168 like both of them.

Alternatively one could see it as a possible competing design for the Hellcat in Y180. In that case 1.25 might be a better choice for the era.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, July 25, 2011 - 11:54 am: Edit

Old ideas that have been on file forever. Still, worth doing sometime.

By Chris Proper (Duke) on Monday, July 25, 2011 - 03:38 pm: Edit

Are there dukes more apt to upgrade to quadrimaran hulls? A duchy low on the list for a new DN might take the conversion route.

By Koen van der Pasch (Croga) on Monday, July 25, 2011 - 03:50 pm: Edit

Duke (pun intended of course)
The conversion route might bring them to a Lion just as easily. Lack of a convertible CA might force them down the DNB route though.

It will, by design, be a "ship that never was". If it was a viable ship, the Wildcat would've never been taken into production.

By Dixon Simpkins (Dixsimpkins) on Monday, July 25, 2011 - 04:21 pm: Edit

I would love to see these in a "Never Was" Module! Did anyone suggest it in the future product development thread? (I don't really have time to check)

By the way, Koen, DNB is a Lion DN with powerpack.

By Koen van der Pasch (Croga) on Monday, July 25, 2011 - 04:36 pm: Edit

It is indeed Dixon. John suggested DNB for the Bantam DN though, I guess we'll need to figure out a different acronym for it.

By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Monday, July 25, 2011 - 10:13 pm: Edit

I realize that the idea is on the obvious list; but I was following path of posted it as a thread for discussion, to followed by an entry in the R13 thread. I figured the actual design would be "on file", so I wasn't bothering.

The B refit slipped my mind; I did include a "?".

By Dixon Simpkins (Dixsimpkins) on Tuesday, July 26, 2011 - 01:20 am: Edit

John,
I'll leave it to you to make the suggestion in the New Product Development thread then. I hope the DN ship gets selected.

Koen,
Sorry about the DNB thing, Koen. I hadn't noticed (or maybe just forgot) that John W had put the "DNB?" in his post.