Robert, this is a cool idea but I have two suggested modifications that I wish to offer for consideration.

1. I think the EPVs are too low. I have always presumed (though I don't know if it's ever officially stated) that at least part of the reason monitors cost so little to build, despite their heavy weapons and massive APR, was that they are, in a sense "freighter-based". That doesn't mean the monitors are based on a specific freighter hull, but that the production facilities used to build freighters can turn out monitor hulls. Thus, producing monitors doesn't have much of an impact on warship production. That would also account for the uniformity between Empires of the basic design. But if that is the case (and of course only ADB can pronounce authoritatively on the matter) then the logic no longer holds for your, admittedly cool, designs. They would have to be regarded as "warship-based". Again, that doesn't mean that the "Buzzhawk", for example is based on a specific Romulan Hull (let's say the Sparrowhawk). Instead, it means that Buzzhawks are built at a Sparrowhawk production facility and so Buzzhawk production reduces the number of Sparrowhawks the Romulans can build at any one time. In F&E terms, it replaces a Sparrowhawk in the Production Schedule. I suggest the easiest way to handle this in SFB terms is to reduce the difference between EPV and BPV. If EPV and BPV are equal, then these monitor designs probably don't get built at all. But an EPV of, say 115, might be appropriate.

2. Given the great differences in hull design, I suggest each individual monitor should handle pallets a bit differently. The Klingon J6 and the Romulan KJR might handle pallets identically, and the Buzzhawk, given the similarity in design concept, might handle them the same way as well. But what about the Lyran, or the Tholian, or the ISC? It seems unlikely that their significantly different hull forms would all handle pallets the same way. Some empires would probably get more benefit from pallets then others. For example, the Tholian is the fastest monitor but maybe carrying a pallet slows it down, while most empires' monitors can carry a pallet with no reduction in speed (as the currently existing monitors can). And maybe some empires can carry more "stuff" on their pallets because their hullform is conducive to carrying a bit larger pallet. So that empire's fighter pallet carries 15 fighters rather than 12 (treated under the rules for "oversized squadrons"). They can't carry extra PFs but do have a couple of extra repair boxes on their PF or SCS pallets. This approach seems to me to be consistent with your general wish to have more functional differentiation between the monitors of various empires.

Just my .02 quatloos worth.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, September 30, 2011 - 01:56 pm: Edit

I do have to disagree with the notion that the pinwheel can do the job a monitor can. The Tholians are my favorite empire and I have some experience with pinwheels, both fighting with and against. I regard them as a special purpose tactic, not to be used unless the specific situation is conducive to their advantages. Merely "defending a fixed position" doesn't qualify. You still need to be able to maneuver tactically. (Bases don't maneuver, but they do have phaser-4s.) Their is a huge difference in tactical flexibility between even a slow (maximum speed-13) monitor and a pinwheel that can maneuver under impulse power only.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, September 30, 2011 - 02:25 pm: Edit

One final comment - at least for now.

The refitted Kzinti monitor has all Type-B drone racks. Most refitted Kzinti ships have a mixture of Bs and Cs. Was there a reason for making the Kzinti Type-B only?

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, September 30, 2011 - 02:37 pm: Edit

Speedwise, it's not that they are being balanced against each other, it's that a unit that can go speed 21 is _much_ more effective than one that can only go 13.

This is just wrong.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, September 30, 2011 - 02:50 pm: Edit

Richard,

21? Check out the Tholian - max possible speed of 25! It does have a bit less total power than the other monitors and so is a bit less effective at low speed. But it doesn't have to fight at low speed the way most monitors do. It can actually play maneuver games against real warships.

Much as I hate to defang the ships of my favorite empire, if the these monitors are accepted "as is", either the Tholian BPV needs to be raised a bit or most other monitors need to have their BPVs reduced a bit. It's not as effective as the 180 BPV basic Tholian D. But if its BPV is kicked up to the 160 - 165 range, I don't think the Tholians could legitimately complain.

I think Mike Strain's suggestion that this is actually an early "failed" Tholian dreadnought attempt has some merit in explaining why the ship has the capabilities it does.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, September 30, 2011 - 04:13 pm: Edit

Monitors are, among other things, supposed to be slow.

Thirteen is slow.

Twenty-one, and twenty-five are not.

There's no argument you can make that will change these things without making monitors into something they are not meant to be.

That's about all I have to say on this subject.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, September 30, 2011 - 04:31 pm: Edit

Richard,

the whole point of Mike Strain's suggestion, if I understand him correctly. Is that the Tholian "monitor" was not intended to be a monitor at all. It was intended to be a conventional warship but didn't quite succeed in that role. So the Tholians assigned it a purely defensive mission. In other words, it plays the same strategic role as a monitor but plays it very differently at the tactical level.

This is not inconsistent with established Tholian practice. The Tholian HCW turned out to have a serious flaw that led to the catastrophic destruction of the prototype (and the death of the designer, who was on board). The Tholians did build at least one additional HCW (maybe more - I don't recall for certain) but it/they were assigned defensive missions even though the ship had presumably been originally intended as a general purpose warship.

The Tholian CAN would be a similar example, though I'm not sure whether the Tholians had initially intended for it to be general purpose or had always intended for it to be a defensive ship.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, September 30, 2011 - 06:25 pm: Edit

Being careful not to trigger another round of panic and misunderstanding...

Times and technology have changed. SSDs can be printed by PDF, and by POD (print on demand). Not saying that this is one of them, BUT, this sort of thing was worth an email to ADB before it was posted.

Who knows, we might very well have said "sure, we'll print that!"

Less likely now that the SSDs have been "given away".

In future any project like this deserves a chance at the "real product level" instead of assuming that it would be dead on arrival.

Send an email to ADB first to see if maybe it could be a product instead of just a throwaway. (If we don't answer, ask again a week later (it would have to be taken to a Tuesday staff meeting to get a decision), maybe post a Hey Petrick to make sure we get it on the weekly meeting agenda.)

Let's not see any more creativity thrown away without giving it a chance first.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Friday, September 30, 2011 - 07:54 pm: Edit

Well this is a neat project and while the SSD's were 'given away' they obviously need 'some' work to make them an official approved design.

Maybe this can be an inexpensive PDF release that saves some cost by the low amount of 'polishing up' time that would be needed. Of course I am not sure that the conversion time to the MAC software system as it tends to never 'be all that easy'.

Nice work though RC and a great twist to an old design. It does call to light the proper channels for submissions though...you could have teased us with ONE of them.

By Robert Cole (Zathras) on Friday, September 30, 2011 - 07:55 pm: Edit

Alan Trevor:

---

Quote:

1. I think the EPVs are too low. I have always presumed (though I don't know if it's ever officially stated) that at least part of the reason monitors cost so little to build, despite their heavy weapons and massive APR, was that they are, in a sense "freighter-based". That doesn't mean the monitors are based on a specific freighter hull, but that the production facilities used to build freighters can turn out monitor hulls. Thus, producing monitors doesn't have much of an impact on warship production. That would also account for the uniformity between Empires of the basic design. But if that is the case (and of course only ADB can pronounce authoritatively on the matter) then the logic no longer holds for your, admittedly cool, designs. They would have to be regarded as "warship-based". Again, that doesn't mean that the "Buzzhawk", for example is based on a specific Romulan Hull (let's say the Sparrowhawk). Instead, it means that Buzzhawks are built at a Sparrowhawk production facility and so Buzzhawk production reduces the number of Sparrowhawks the Romulans can build at any one time. In F&E terms, it replaces a Sparrowhawk in the Production Schedule. I suggest the easiest way to handle this in SFB terms is to reduce the difference between EPV and BPV. If EPV and BPV are equal, then these monitor designs probably don't get built at all. But an EPV of, say 115, might be appropriate.

---

---

Quote:

2. Given the great differences in hull design, I suggest each individual monitor should handle pallets a bit differently. The Klingon J6 and the Romulan KJR might handle pallets identically, and the Buzzhawk, given the similarity in design concept, might handle them the same way as well. But what about the Lyran, or the Tholian, or the ISC? It seems unlikely that their significantly different hull forms would all handle pallets the same way. Some empires would probably get more benefit from pallets then others. For example, the Tholian is the fastest monitor but maybe carrying a pallet slows it down, while most empires' monitors can carry a pallet with no reduction in speed (as the currently existing monitors can). And maybe some empires can carry more "stuff" on their pallets because their hullform is conducive to carrying a bit larger pallet. So that empire's fighter pallet carries 15 fighters rather than 12 (treated under the rules for "oversized squadrons"). They can't carry extra PFs but do have a couple of extra repair boxes on their PF or SCS pallets. This approach seems to me to be consistent with your general wish to have more functional differentiation between the monitors of various empires.

---

---

Quote:

I do have to disagree with the notion that the pinwheel can do the job a monitor can. The Tholians are my favorite empire and I have some experience with pinwheels, both fighting with and against. I regard them as a special purpose tactic, not to be used unless the specific situation is conducive to their advantages. Merely "defending a fixed position" doesn't qualify. You still need to be able to maneuver tactically. (Bases don't maneuver, but they do have phaser-4s.) Their is a huge difference in tactical flexibility between even a slow (maximum speed-13) monitor and a pinwheel that can maneuver under impulse power only.

---

---

Quote:

The refitted Kzinti monitor has all Type-B drone racks. Most refitted Kzinti ships have a mixture of Bs and Cs. Was there a reason for making the Kzinti Type-B only?

---

By Robert Cole (Zathras) on Friday, September 30, 2011 - 07:55 pm: Edit

Monitor Speed Discussion:

I'll start this post by straight up thanking Alan and RIchard for the discussion. It is exactly this type of discussion that I wanted to have.

Next, I'll agree that the Tholian AMN is (without any argument from me) too fast. However, I wasn't able to come to a design that satisfied my goals and fit the idea of a POL-D. I could revisit the idea of going for a 2xPOL ship (like the C) instead of a 3xPOL ship (like the D).

That said - personally I like the idea that these units would perform differently not just based on their weapon loadout, but also because of their power output. I understand why mainline ships have to be balanced very close to each other, but this is what has lead to some of the "cookie cutter" comments I've seen.

If speed 21 is too fast, what would an acceptable "top speed" be? 18+1?


Concerning the comment by Mike Strain -

I like the idea from a background perspective, but a good background doesn't cover up a poorly designed ship. If the AMN is too fast for people's opinions of Monitors, then I feel that should be addressed.

By Robert Cole (Zathras) on Friday, September 30, 2011 - 07:56 pm: Edit

Steve Cole: I fully understand where you are coming from. I did send an email to SPP last year, but never really followed up on it. That's my fault as I understand how busy you guys are. All that said, when I started this project so many years ago, I was putting all my designs on the web for free anyway. So in many ways I feel like I'm just closing the circle. I appreciate your input as always.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, September 30, 2011 - 08:54 pm: Edit

Always a danger to post stuff as it becomes very difficult to publish. Would usually be better to not post it until you have a definitive "don't want it" from us, but no big deal either way. Not like anyone was going to make any significant money from it. Given how many versions have been posted, however, very few if any would pay for a "final version" so that door isn't open. No worries.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, September 30, 2011 - 09:11 pm: Edit

Oops!

I just realized I made a mistake in my 2:50 PM post. I described the original Tholian "D" has a 180 BPV ship. It's actually 175 BPV.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, September 30, 2011 - 09:23 pm: Edit

Robert,

You say that

---

Quote:

I'm not certain having a hull "look like" warships (and following racial design standards) would force them into "warship" type construction.

---

By A. David Merritt (Adm) on Friday, September 30, 2011 - 09:47 pm: Edit

Alan; They may not be Naval Shipyards, but they are selling them to the Navy, as such you build what the client wants. At least that is how I would see it.

By George Duffy (Sentinal) on Friday, September 30, 2011 - 10:31 pm: Edit

Robert,

I don't believe you have the correct KJR SSD posted.

It says:

"However, the J6 outline does not easily support a centralized R-type torpedo, so I chose to go with 2xS- and 4xF-Torpedoes."

The SSD however does show the centralized "R" configuration.

By Robert Cole (Zathras) on Friday, September 30, 2011 - 10:49 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Robert,

I don't believe you have the correct KJR SSD posted.

It says:

"However, the J6 outline does not easily support a centralized R-type torpedo, so I chose to go with 2xS- and 4xF-Torpedoes."

The SSD however does show the centralized "R" configuration.

---

By Mike Strain (Evilmike) on Saturday, October 01, 2011 - 12:48 am: Edit

Well, you could drop the Tholian down to a speed of 15-18. That would work, and still be plausible as 'failed D design'.

By Randy Blair (Randyblair) on Saturday, October 01, 2011 - 01:45 am: Edit

The Romulan Buzzard has 18 impulse engines????

My opinion is that those should be toned down a bit. APR makes more sense if you think about it. That Buzzard would look like it had 6 Saturn V rockets stickin' out of its butt.

I reckon you don't want that, do ya, laddie?

By Mike Strain (Evilmike) on Saturday, October 01, 2011 - 02:14 am: Edit

IMNSHO, the Roms don't need a 'monitor' at all. Lots of sublight Vultures and Warbirds they can use, after all.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Saturday, October 01, 2011 - 06:44 am: Edit

Absolutely players would pay for it...if it were in a CLog.

By Mike Strain (Evilmike) on Saturday, October 01, 2011 - 07:57 am: Edit

This would make an absolutely awesome CapLog article.

By Clayton Krueger (Krieg) on Saturday, October 01, 2011 - 09:19 am: Edit

For what its worth, and from a historical perspective, the original monitors of the Civil War were designed to be light draft harbor and river defense warships. Basically they were designed to be a well protected platform for 2 or 4 of the heaviest naval guns that could venture into very shallow water. They were not designed to be slow, but speed was not considered a top requirement considering their mission. The late war monitors had good speed for the times, easily out-running a confederate ironclad, able to keep station with the Union's steam sloops, and much faster than the Union's most powerful ship, USS New Ironsides. In fact Eads late war river monitors (USS Milwaukee, USS Winnebago) had a top speed of 9 knots and a draft of only 6 feet. Impressive for the age.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Saturday, October 01, 2011 - 11:08 am: Edit

Here's another alternate suggestion for the Tholians. They don't get a new monitor at all. Instead, they get a modified version of the CAN, which is already a warship for defending fixed installations. So that would fit the general scheme of new defense ships for everyone and would avoid the problem of a Tholian "fast monitor". As with the Feds (under Robert's proposal), the Tholians would keep their existing monitors. Perhaps they even have the same hull form as the Feds because the Feds supplied the hulls or because the Tholians simply copied the Fed design.

For those unfamiliar with the CAN, it is the Tholian CW with a "belly pack" welded on giving it more power and two more heavy weapons. But that pack increase the movement cost to 1 and the extra power is APR (or AWR in the photon torpedo version of the belly pack) rather than warp engines so the CAN is slower than standard warships (though faster than a monitor). The belly pack also worsens the turn mode and breakdown rating. The CW has one "safe" HET, the CAN does not. The reduced speed and maneuverability make the ship vulnerable in "open space" combat, especially once PFs and megafighters and plasma sabot and fast drones make their appearances. So the ship was relegated to defensive missions.

The CAN has 5 phaser-1s, 2 phaser-3s, and 6 heavy weapons (disruptors, photons, or a combination of both). But given its mission, this always struck me as a less than optimal weapon mix. A large percentage of the time it will be fighting behind web and the phaser-1 is the most efficient weapon for this. I propose that instead of a new monitor, the Tholians receive an all-phaser version of the CAN, swapping out the heavy weapons in the pack and the main hull for phaser-1s. The resulting ship would have 11 phaser-1s and 2 phaser-3s (plus the web generators, which are needed for reinforcing the web) but no heavy weapons. It has less cruch power than the standard CAN but is a much more efficient web defender. There seem to be no technology impediments to building such a ship and it fits the Tholian strategic requirements and limitations.