I would like to see the addition of a CFS and a DDF to the ISC fleet. Given the breadth of territory the ISC needed to cover during their "peacekeeping" mission it only makes sense that the CFs and CLFs would have gunline ships to accompany them, as well as a scout vessel to rapidly respond.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, August 29, 2011 - 06:22 pm: Edit

Wouldn't ISC doctrine need to be rewritten for fast-fleet operations? The ISC regarded gunline ships as expendable, something you just can't do with any fast ship.

By Jim Makowski (Shyster) on Monday, August 29, 2011 - 09:48 pm: Edit

ISC regarded gunline ships as RELATIVELY expendable. Take the Fed DDF as an example. The base cost is 105 with the DDF+ being 109. A Fed DD is 94 with a DD+ at 100. The cost bump is not that significant, especially in light of the potential advantages.

By A. David Merritt (Adm) on Monday, August 29, 2011 - 10:02 pm: Edit

I think a bigger point is that the Gunline units would allow the more expensive CF/CLFs to continue on to where they are supposed to be going.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, August 29, 2011 - 10:03 pm: Edit

I'll concede the BPV point.

But historically, empires never built that many fast ships. They're a scare resource, not a "crunch all you want, we'll make more" sort of resource.

I would think that would dictate a modified ISC doctrine, since the ISC traditionally looked at DDs and FFs as expendable units.

By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Monday, August 29, 2011 - 10:24 pm: Edit

The ISC CF and CLF are not echelon ships; they have no PPDs. There is no reason for them to have a gunline.

By Terry O'Carroll (Terryoc) on Monday, August 29, 2011 - 10:36 pm: Edit

BPV doesn't necessarily reflect how much something costs, or the limits on its production. Fast warp engines are difficult to produce and only available in limited quantities (this is from the background in Captain's Log and other places). Most fast ships are intended to operate behind enemy lines as raiders, so they would not be operating in echelon.

As far as getting where they needed to be quickly, the ISC somehow solved this problem logistically. ISC War for F&E introduces new rules for special reserves for the ISC.

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Monday, August 29, 2011 - 10:49 pm: Edit

I should also note, just to point this out, a Fed CFS plays a bigger role in a fast raiding group of CFS, CF, NLF against the Klingons/Lyrans than the Romulans, because plasma torpedoes are influenced less by EW than disruptors/drones.

So a "historic" ISC fast scout, would be fighting against Gorns/Roms pre-pacification, where the EW advantage doesn't give that much of a bonus against plasma. Then during the pacification, the ISC aren't flying all over the place to stop intruders, but just keeping the border in place.

Against just an observation.

By Jim Makowski (Shyster) on Tuesday, August 30, 2011 - 02:46 pm: Edit

I understand there is not as much of a "need" for a gun line since there are no PPDs. That being said, I clearly remember reading that the ISC will ALWAYS attempt to form an echelon, even if the only ships present are a DD and an FF. Given that, a fast SC4 ship would be a logical extension.

With regard to the CFS, while I agree that the EW support from a sensor channel is less useful in a plasma environment a sensor channel still comes in very handy when dealing with the Gorn and Romulans.

By Koen van der Pasch (Croga) on Tuesday, August 30, 2011 - 02:48 pm: Edit

Yup, the ISC will always attempt to form an echelon. That does not, however, constitute a reason to build DDF or FFF ships. A CF and 2 CLF is an echelon as well.

By Jim Makowski (Shyster) on Tuesday, August 30, 2011 - 07:53 pm: Edit

@Croga: Yes, a VERY EXPENSIVE echelon, but that would be an echelon!

By Koen van der Pasch (Croga) on Tuesday, August 30, 2011 - 09:07 pm: Edit

Seeing as the biggest cost of a fast ship is not reflected in it's BPV, the addition of Size-4 fast ships would not make it any less expensive. It would make it more likely that money would be lost as the Size-4s are a lot more likely to die.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, August 30, 2011 - 09:09 pm: Edit

...which is why I wondered about altering ISC doctrine for fast ships.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Tuesday, August 30, 2011 - 09:23 pm: Edit

Fast DDFs for a gunline is not a bad idea. but the ISC could only form a battlegroup with CLF and DDF for a DNL lead PPD armed fast fleet.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, August 31, 2011 - 01:28 pm: Edit

I never saw the ISC using fast ship gunlines, for the reasons noted.

Fast ships are raiders, interceptors, blockade runners, and reserves that join ships already on the scene. The idea of a pure-fast-echelon seems to be a non-starter for me. Everybody else figured out that fast destroyers don't work (too small to accomplish anything worth the risk) and I cannot see the ISC adopting a ship everybody else rejected just so they could form an echelon that they could not afford to use.

By Mike Kenyon (Mikek) on Wednesday, August 31, 2011 - 03:22 pm: Edit

A fast scout is a dangeous addition from a balance perspective. The added power enables you to include it in an non-fast fleet and offer up considerably more power to the channels while maintaining a fine (non-fast) fleet speed.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, August 31, 2011 - 04:05 pm: Edit

Well . . . the Federation already has one, the CFS (R2.145). It is a one of a kind unique ship.

By Jim Makowski (Shyster) on Thursday, September 01, 2011 - 09:04 am: Edit

SVC, I understand what you are saying but if it became necessary to fight a delaying action I would think that, of ALL the races, the ISC would want cannon fodder to do so while allowing the larger ships to run away and fight another day.

SPP, that is part of why I asked for it. Why do the Feds get all the cool stuff LOL?

By Koen van der Pasch (Croga) on Thursday, September 01, 2011 - 09:23 am: Edit

Jim;
Fast Destroyers would, by no means, be cannon fodder. If a delaying action were necessary, normal Destroyers and Frigates could do that just as well as Fast versions, for a fraction of the cost.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, September 01, 2011 - 09:28 am: Edit

Jim,

Well, I wouldn't say they get all the cool stuff. Among other things, they don't get PFs unless you are allowing "Conjectural" ships in your game or campaign.^* Even F-14s, F-111s, and A-20Fs don't quite make up for that. On the other hand, the Feds do have, in aggregate, probably the best EW capabilities in Alpha so if any one empire did deploy a fast scout, they would be the logical choice.

^*On the other hand, I will admit that if you do allow the conjectural Fed PF, it is one of the better ones available. It is probably not quite the equal of the Gorn or Tholian PFs but I regard it as superior to either the Klingon or Lyran PFs. YMMV

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, September 01, 2011 - 10:22 am: Edit

Fast ships don't need anybody to stay behind while they run away.

Fast ships are short of heavy weapons and cannot make an echelon work anyway.

The whole concept here, of fast destroyers to build a fast echelon with a fast cruiser, is just not valid.

By Jim Makowski (Shyster) on Thursday, September 01, 2011 - 04:59 pm: Edit

Steve, you are saying there would never be a need for a fast ship to fight a delaying action? That seems a bit unrealistic. There are times when a delaying action is necessary not to save the other ships in the formation but to effectuate some other goal.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, September 01, 2011 - 05:15 pm: Edit

And the cruiser would do so, but you want to build a fast destroyer specifically to throw away and that's not workable.

The point is that fast destroyers were deemed a failure and you've found ZERO reason why the ISC would do what nobody else found plausible.

By Jim Makowski (Shyster) on Thursday, September 01, 2011 - 05:33 pm: Edit

I would not say "specifically to throw away." I would more term it as "throw away if necessary to save others."

And this doesn't address why the Feds would have a DDF variant. No other race would deem the issue worthy of exploring?

By George Duffy (Sentinal) on Thursday, September 01, 2011 - 05:42 pm: Edit

The ISC already have a "fast" echelon of sorts in the form of X-ships.

The ISC didn't begin their push into the Alpha quadrant until Y186. A time where X-technology is more readily available and "fast-warp" technology, considered too expensive from a failed design perspective, was on it's waning years.

Considering the time frame with which the ISC began their "Peacekeeper" campaign, the current form of gunline ships were sufficient to handle late-war year warships of their opponents, and an echelon of X-ships would have been more cost efficient to use as a fast echelon to handle as a rapid response unit.