With SFB Module C6 almost upon us (fingers crossed), we'll soon get a look a the alternate timeline being worked up to support the quantum reality which Mapsheet P represents.

In this case, one interesting concept would be how the ongoing presence of the Paravians in the Alpha Octant (and the expansion of the Inter-Stellar Concordium into space that would be held by the Romulans in the "regular" timeline) would have on the Romulan Star Empire's technological development. Is there still a Treaty of Smarba? Do Kestrels still exist? And is the resulting Klingon influence on Romulan starship design still enough to shape the choices made with the layout of the Hawk-series hulls?


Whether the Klingo-Romulan connection happens or not, it still may be the case that, through accident or design, some Paravian hulls could have ended up in the hands of the Romulans.

Say, for example, if there was an Eastern Four Powers War, in which the Coalition powers managed to secure the space around Circle Trigon, but were forced apart by the Gorns and ISC. Such a divide could strand ships from either faction in the other's territory, akin to what happened with the KDRs and RKLs after Operation Wedge.

Or, perhaps there might have been a more limited transfer of technology between the two powers across the Neutral Zone intersection, enough to allow a few sample hulls to be converted.

Or, perhaps there was no such transfer, and the following idea was purely set up as a Romulan simulator exercise.


But in any case, this idea was intended to be two-fold.

On the one hand, it would look at a handful of pre-war Paravian hulls as will be presented in C6 (CL, DD, etc) and see how those ships might work as "PR" (Petrel? Peregrine? Penguin? Some other bird name beginning with P?) conversions; with the QWTs swapped out, and the cloak and plasma routine set in their place.

If the C6 Paravians retain the same kind of warp engine rules that Early Years and CL28 Paravian ships have (in which their Turn Modes are reduced if one or both of their wing-mounted warp engines are destroyed), that might make things interesting for a Romulan captain; plus the kind of room on the hull for heavy weapon mounts (and arcs) might have an effect on the kind of maneuver a Romulan player might be able to plan for.


The second half of this concept would be to offer a third-generation "design competitor" to Klingon-influnced hulls like the SparrowHawk; a ship design that would show how Romulan starship design might be if Paravian design heritage was a factor instead.

Would such a ship avoid having a Klingon-esque forward boom, and look more "Paravian-ey" in its outline (akin to how a WYN "fish ship" looks sort of "WYN-Orion-ey" in its general hull layout)? Would it have the same warp engine issues as Paravian ships (assuming the C6 Paravians themselves retain this factor), or would the Romulans be able to "split the difference" and provide a more balanced Turn Mode akin to that of the SparrowHawk? And what else might such a new design have to it which would help distinguish it as a design study?

(One thought I had was that a Paravian-influenced design might indeed retain the turn mode issues of a "native" Paravian ship, and that this may have been a factor in persuading the C6 Romulans to select the SparrowHawk instead. But, again, that would only work if the C6 Paravians retain that sort of warp drive issue.)

Now, even if such a design were drawn up, it could be that none were built even in the C6 timeline. Perhaps it was submitted as part of the design contest which led to the production of the SparrowHawk (assuming that the C6 Romulans still get those), akin to how the Terran-hull OCA lost out to the Constitution-class CA for Star Fleet.


One other future consideration for the above ideas could be in miniature form.

If any C6 Paravian ships were to ever be done for Starline 2400 or 2500, a "PR" design might allow a Romulan collector to have a use for whichever Paravian hulls were given such a treatment.

Also, in light of the ideas which Mongoose were looking for regarding alternate Feds, perhaps the same desire for "something new" could extend to the Romulans? If so, any Paravian-influenced third-gen "design competitors" to the SparrowHawk could perhaps allow for the 2500 line to include "new" Romulans, yet ones which would still have a theme that would in some way tie into what is being set in place for Module C6. (Which is not to say that they couldn't also be done for the 2400s, mind you.)


Of course, if the C6 Romulans turn out to not have any outside influence on their ship designs, the above ideas are somewhat moot. But, if they retain at least part of the overall concept of having their starship designs influenced by outside powers (be it the Klingons or someone else), perhaps there might be just enough room for these ship types to at least be drawn up as design studies; even if no PR conversion, or third-gen hull based on Paravian design influences, ever existed in the C6 timeline.

By Terry O'Carroll (Terryoc) on Saturday, August 31, 2013 - 06:45 pm: Edit

From what I remember (which may be wrong), Roms get warp from the Paravians. I suppose Paravian influence on ship designs is possible. Klingon influence in that timeline seems less likely.

By Jack Bohn (Jackbohn) on Saturday, August 31, 2013 - 06:57 pm: Edit

I feel more comfortable saying this as a fan rather than in a proposal thread, but, to me, the ships on the upcoming C6 cover look close enough to the Warbird that the Romulans would not have to work out new equations for the warp characteristics of the hull, unlike the narrow-boom-forward hulls of the Klingons (or Seltorians, or Neo-Tholians, if it came to that).

There is the difference of the Paravian Tactical Warp engines, and mounting them in threes, which might require the Romulans to adopt a "tail" hull structure with its modification of the warp envelope. (As a fan, I like it when additional engines require alterations to the hull for "balance.")

By Jeffery Smith (Jsmith) on Saturday, August 31, 2013 - 07:46 pm: Edit

gary:

in the R18 general war paravian thread for October 20th I posted a question along these lines to Spp, he and Svc replied to it . I suggest you take a look for some "insight" as to what they maybe thinking about this.

By A. David Merritt (Adm) on Saturday, August 31, 2013 - 07:51 pm: Edit

While I think it highly likely that the Treaty of Smarba does not exist in this timeline, I think we should wait and see how well Module C6 sells before we try and start a design process for the Romulans. What the Romulans have now, minus the Kestrel hulls, should be close enough to work. If the financial success of C6 is such to justify new Romulan hulls, they can come out later, and I will buy them.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Monday, September 30, 2013 - 05:33 pm: Edit

So, based on the C6 preview, any would-be "PR" ships (should they ever exist) would not need to worry about the turn mode issue, since that has been taken care of according to the info in the latest SFBOL podcast.

In the case of the CW, all four of its QWTs are in a single row on the prow. If the Romulans were to convert that particular ship, they could have a few options to think about in terms of which plasma types to install.

Would a pair of S-torps work better than, say, an S and two Fs? Or would a "strike" variant packing an -R be an option?

(On the other hand, depending on how limited the QWT options are on the pre-war units in C6 proper, it might be harder to work out an effective plasma loadout with such older hulls instead.)

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, September 30, 2013 - 06:40 pm: Edit

I would think there would be no PR ships.

The main reason they had KR ships was because they needed more warp capable ships. My understanding is that in the C6 universe, the Gorns don't prevent them from getting warp on their own, so they don't need someone else's ships to do it.

Besides, the Romulans already have three different series of ships, we don't need more.

By Dixon Simpkins (Dixsimpkins) on Monday, September 30, 2013 - 09:54 pm: Edit

They're certainly doable as 'Brothers of the Anarchist' ships if nothing else.

By Michael Kenyon (Mikek) on Tuesday, October 01, 2013 - 11:32 am: Edit

Richard,

If that is indeed the case, the question then still remains - what would ships look like if the Klingons were not involved. The Hawk series are clearly influenced by having worked them up from dismantling the kestrels.

In the alternate timeline, are their only Eagle series ships? If there aren't, then the alternates likely wouldn't have been the current hawks, might not have been modular and probably wouldn't have been as "war-hully" as the hawk ships are as they would have been developed probably around what, Y120? Earlier maybe?

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Tuesday, October 01, 2013 - 07:23 pm: Edit

Considering that the Paraviana have a similar 'boom' structure (long neck with a beak) the 'Hawks' may end up being very similar to what the Klingon-influenced ones, non-modular in all likelyhood...

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, October 01, 2013 - 07:29 pm: Edit

Considering the Paravians have no direct contact with the Romulans as the Klingons had through neutral Tholian space, I do not see Romulan-Paravian or Paravian-Romulan ships as viable in any case.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Tuesday, October 01, 2013 - 08:35 pm: Edit

Stewart:

There doesn't seem to be much in the way of a prominent boom section in this example, but there are the "tail" pieces jutting out the back.


SPP:

Does the Mapsheet P timeline include any conflicts in which the Coalition (at least temporarily) secures a direct link in the region around Circle Trigon, akin to the portion of occupied Federation territory that allowed for Klingon/Romulan transfers prior to Operation Wedge?

If so, could such a link (or rather, the risk of stranded ships on either side after such a link was severed) offer the same kind of opportunity which historically led to the onset of the KDR and RKL?

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, October 02, 2013 - 11:30 am: Edit

Gary Carney:

Whether it does or not, there is no need for such SSDs at this time.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Tuesday, July 23, 2019 - 12:40 pm: Edit

SVC,

This can likely be deleted.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Wednesday, February 10, 2021 - 12:17 pm: Edit

In light of the pending release of Module R4J and the recent addition of the Paravian fleet to the Shapeways storefront, I wonder if there might one day be a chance to reconsider this as a potential "Stellar Shadows" option, depending on how well Shadow of the Eagle does sales-wise.

In Module C6, there are three "Paravian timelines" presented. In one, the Romulans fail to develop tactical warp and sign the Treaty of Smarba as they did historically. In another, they develop "early warp" designs, perhaps akin to the ships to be published in R4J; but they do not acquire "modern" warp technology until Smarba. A different timeline presents the Paravians as "off-map" raiders, but does not go into any detail on how (or if) this effects the Romulan Star Empire.

In principle, an alternate timeline in which the Paravians establish a "Mapsheet P" territorial holding could see them sign a "Treaty of Circle Trigon". This would either provide warp technology to an Empire stuck at non-tactical warp, or perhaps boost an "Early Years" Romulan fleet up to "modern" standards. The Romulans could ship a convoy to Paravian space via Circle Trigon (perhaps under cloak); they would acquire purchased Paravian hulls (minus their quantum wave torpedo launchers) and equip them with cloaking devices while still in Paravian space; and then fly them back home under cloak via the Circle Trigon route. While there is a Paravian-themed Brothers of the Anarchist article in Captain's Log #50, the Romulans here might complete these conversions somewhat differently, in terms of which types of plasma torpedo launchers to install once the ships make it over to Romulus.

If for nothing else, the resulting "PR-series" hulls might encourage Romulan players to consider adding the Paravian minis from Shapeways to their collections, or perhaps give them a further excuse to do so. (Those Shapeways designs do look like the kind of ships a Romulan officer might find acceptable to command...)

Although I'm still not sure what the Paravian-influenced equivalent to a SparrowHawk might be in such a timeline, if there were to be one.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Tuesday, March 30, 2021 - 08:08 pm: Edit

Several thoughts on this ...

There are actually *four* Paravian timelines.
- C6 Alt#1: Paravians slowly transition into a traditional empire. Romulans do NOT get warp early. "Mapsheet P" is used.
- C6 Alt#2: Paravians set up a single permanent colony that effectively becomes their new home base after the homeworld is destroyed. Romulans do NOT get warp early. "Mapsheet P" is not used.
- C6 Alt#3: Paravians start as a traditional empire. Romulans do get warp early. "Mapsheet P" is used.
- CL28/SSJ2: Gorn homeworld goes boom. Romulans do get warp early due to Gorn refugees. Different mapsheet is provided.

For your purposes, the main timelines are C6 Alt#1 and C6 Alt#3. They both end up in a similar spot (as far as empire borders go) and both use "Mapsheet P". (Alt#2 keeps the Paravians off-map.)

We can dismiss C6 Alt#3, as the Romulans get warp early, so that makes the discussion irrelevant. Even more so because, in that history the Romulans refuse any Klingon ships, so they wouldn't take anyone else's, either.

So, that leaves C6 Alt#1. Unfortunately, there is a *huge* problem for you in C6 Alt#1: It doesn't appear that the Paravians and Romulans ever meet, at least at any point that would make a difference. First, there is no indication that the Romulans made it any farther towards the ISC than they did in the main history, and they never tried to flank the Gorns. Second, the Paravians were completely wrapped in their lizard-hate to really think about exploring past either of them. I just don't see how they would ever meet, from either side.

Three additional problems:
1) When the Romulans and Paravians do meet early (in C6 Alt#3), they instantly start fighting. It isn't until the Paravians start having problems fighting both the Gorn and ISC that they come to any kind of alliance with the Romulans.
2) To get to "Mapsheet P", the Paravians will be in a perpetual state of war with either the Gorns, ISC, or both. They simply would not have the excess ships to provide to the Romulans. They are too busy being lost in the official wars, unofficial wars, and endless border raids.
3) "Mapsheet P" is the end result. We only get to that by the time of the Four Powers War (or so). So that means that any sublight Romulans are actually much farther away from the Paravians that implied by "Mapsheet P".

Simply put, it would take way more than a "single inflection point" to get a situation where the Paravians (as we know them) and the sublight Romulans (as we know them) together to make a deal that results in Romulan ships purchased from the Paravians.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Friday, April 02, 2021 - 06:13 pm: Edit

While C6's Paravian timeline #1 does not spell out one way or another how close the Romulans get to their share of the "Mapsheet P" borders at which point in time, it is noted in Paravian timeline #3 that the "Mapsheet P" borders are set in place in and around Y120.

In the case of a would-be "Paravian timeline #5" (or #6 or #7 or whatnot), much would depend on exactly when a "Treaty of Circle Trigon" were to be signed.

If it were not to happen until Y159 (when the Treaty of Smarba was signed in other timelines), and if the Romulans were not to have developed any kind of tactical warp drive before then, the door would be potentially open for them to consider deploying "imported" hulls, as they did with the Klingons historically. But, as you say, if they had already possessed some form of tactical warp, and the treaty only did enough to bring them up to "modern" GURPS Tech Level 12 standards, they would have had as little impetus to import Paravian hulls as they had to import Klingon hulls in Paravian timeline #3.

However, what if the Treaty of Circle Trigon were signed in, say, Y130? On the one hand, that would give "pre-warp" Romulans an extended time period in which they could import "Middle Years" Paravian hulls, such as the CL and DD. On the other hand, "early warp" Romulans would be short close to three decades' worth of their own builds, plus (if one were to oblige them to wait until after the Middle Years before the likes of the King Eagle were to appear) a similarly extended time frame in which they might have use of imported ships with the capacity of moving at Speed 31.

-----

Yes, it is true that, with a smaller shipyard capacity compared to the Klingon Empire, plus a more determined effort to pick fights with their neighbours, there would be much less "excess capacity" from which to export to the Romulans.

But then, what if only a small portion of the would-be "PR-series" hulls were actual imports, with the rest being built under license by the Romulans themselves?

One could have those Great Houses which historically built Hawk-series ships "start early" by constructing Paravian-type warships in the Middle Years. By the onset of the General War, they could either come up with a new set of hulls inspired by the Paravians the way that the SparrowHawk was inspired by the Klingons, or they could skip that part entirely and simply acquire the plans to build Paravian "wartime construction" hulls, such as the CW and DW.

-----

On a side note, while I have made my own work in progress attempt to paint up my recently-arrived Shapeways Paravian heavy cruiser (though I'm no expert by any means), I still wonder what kind of "bird" patterns a more accomplished Paravian - and/or Romulan - miniature painter might come up with someday...

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Friday, April 02, 2021 - 10:19 pm: Edit

I have no authority to say yes or no. So, my comments are what I see as the big hurdles to get such a situation going. And I see a lot of them. But, I am not the one that needs convincing.

I do understand going from an endpoint backwards so you end up at you want. I also understand the idea of plausible vs probable. See my efforts to make a plausible background to get EY KR hulls. But that was never intended to be published. It was just an exercise to give some background for the ships I was gonna make anyway. Actually getting something publishable is a much greater hurdle.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Tuesday, April 13, 2021 - 09:38 pm: Edit

It might be an option to use the four hull types currently available on Shapeways - the heavy cruiser, war cruiser, war destroyer, and frigate - as test subjects for this proposal. Not coincidentally, those were the same base hulls used to work up the sample Omega-Paravian antiproton variants previewed in Captain's Log #54.

-----

Plasma: For the Size Class 4 ships, it would seem reasonable to swap out the quantum wave torpedoes for plasma-F launchers on a 1-to-1 basis. So the frigate would have two plasma-Fs, and the war destroyer would have three. (A "leader" variant like the Paravian DWL might use 2 Plasma-Fs and 1 plasma-G, or perhaps two plasma-Gs instead.)

For the Size Class 3 ships, one could swap out pairs of quantum wave torpedo launchers for plasma-G/-S launchers - or, for those base hulls with at least four centerline adjacent QWT mounts, a single plasma-R launcher. So both the heavy cruiser and war cruiser would replace their 4 QWTs for a pair of G-torps prior to Y170, upgraded to S-torps thereafter; while "strike cruiser" and "war strike cruiser" variants would each have a single R-torp instead. (Any "odd" QWT launcher left over on certain hulls like the command cruiser might be swapped out for a plasma-F launcher.)

Presumably the sabot refit would be on offer for these hull types, also.

The question would be whether or not the Romulans would be able to install swivel mounts for these plasma launchers, or if the engineering limitations of the base hulls were such that they were stuck with the same FA arcs the Paravians themselves are limited to. (I would lean towards them being restricted to FA arcs only.)

-----

Cloaks: As with the Klingon-built hulls converted into Kestrels in the standard timeline, the Paravian-built hulls were not designed with the use of a cloaking device in mind.

Thus, the cloak costs for the converted CA, CW, DW, and FF might, at a conservative estimate, be no better than their respective Kestrel equivalents: namely, the KR (20/4), KDR (16/4), K5W (9/2), and K4R (5/2).

The proposed cloak cost for the converted DW in particular would be high for its weight class, but I feel obligated to mind the precedent made when the Klingon F5W was converted to Romulan service. Perhaps a converted Paravian DD would have a lower cloak cost by comparison, as is the case when the Klingon F5 becomes the Romulan K5R.

-----

Marine squads: In some cases, the Romulans reduce the number of boarding parties on a given Kestrel hull, relative to the numbers fielded by the Klingon Empire. In others, the number of Marine squads remains the same.

Given the relatively high numbers of boarding parties on a given Paravian hull type, would it be likely that the Romulans might lower the number of BPs typically deployed aboard a Paravian-type hull in their service?

That said, given the Paravian ships' ability to land on planets, perhaps the average number of BPs per hull in Romulan service might still be somewhat higher than seen aboard the equivalent Kestrels - even if the overall count was still lower than what the Paravians themselves prefer to work with.

-----

Overall, if the most "cautious" approach was to be taken (by giving them the "conservative estimate" cloak costs, along with an inability to use FP launch arcs), that might make it more likely to picture the Romulans eventually developing a SparrowHawk-equivalent hull more suited to their particular needs.

Even so, these Paravian-type hulls might still provide their own pluses and minuses for a Romulan player to consider - not least in term of expanding their potential Shapeways miniature options.

-----

One other thing I should note is that, according to the "lost empire" preview material for the Paravians in Federation and Empire in Captain's Log #48, the "Mapsheet P" Romulans are able to lease access to the "off-map" Paravian Farnest under (6WA.531), akin to how the Klingons historically lease access to the "off-map" Lyran Far Stars territories.

Depending on the infrastructure the Paravians permit the Romulans to install in support of these "off-map" survey operations, it might be that a handful of Paravian-type hulls in Romulan service never actually serve in "on-map" Romulan space. As in, they'd be built for export at the Paravian home yards, flown to a Romulan forward base in the Farnest region, and converted on-site to serve the Empire's "off-map" interests.

So that would be three possible options for "Mapsheet P" Paravian hulls in Romulan service:
1. Paravian hulls built for export and shipped (possibly under cloak) via Circle Trigon to Romulan "on-map" space,
2. Paravian-type hulls built at Romulus under licence by those same Great Houses which historically built Hawk-series ships,
and/or
3. Paravian hulls built for export and shipped directly to the Farnest for use in leased Romulan "off-map" territory.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Wednesday, April 14, 2021 - 12:36 pm: Edit

Just because I can't resist ...

I'd recommend being significantly more aggressive.

For all of them, I don't see why swivels can't be used. The Klingon hulls were restricted to the same FA arcs, and regardless of the arcs of original weapons in all of the Anarchist articles, everything gets swivels. So, I these ships would also be swivels.

On the SC4 units, yes, I agree that Pl-Fs are the standard weapon of choice. So, for the DD and FF, both of their 2xQWTs should be replaced with 2xPl-F. However, for the DW, its 3xQWT should be replaced with 1xPl-G and 2xPl-F. (And the DWL should get 2xPl-G and 1xPl-F.) So, the DW should have a pretty decent plasma load because of its larger size.

On the SC3 units, I think you are being too conservative. The D6 was an old, tired, undersized hull, whereas the D7 was the roomier, updated revision. I have to believe the Paravian hulls are going to be closer to the D7 than the D6. And remember that the D7's 4xDisr were converted to 2xPl-S and 2xPl-F.

Also, unlike the Kestrels, all of these ships have centerline, adjacent heavy weapons all in the main hull. This means they are prime candidates to get a Pl-R. So, ships from the CL and up could all easily justify having a Pl-R. I would hesitate to allow a Pl-R on anything smaller than the CA. Or maybe the CW. I dunno. Putting a Pl-R on the smaller cruisers is probably a bit much.

That said, depending on when the ships are received, using Pl-R could be a heavy temptation. If your choice is using two Pl-G or one Pl-R, it is going to be very, very hard to resist the one Pl-R. When the choice is taking two Pl-S, there are reasonable arguments to taking the smaller plasma. But when the choice is only two Pl-G, there are few reasons to do so.

So, in the below, I am going to offer options for both approaches.

For the CA, There are two main approaches. Either give them the outright 2xPl-S and 2xPl-F (as on the K7R), or 1xPl-R and 2xPl-F. Worst case I'd use the arrangement given in the Fed/Romulan Anarchist article of 2xPl-S and 1xPl-F, but I think the above works best. And for the CC and BC, I'd toss in another Pl-F giving 2xPl-S and 3xPl-F or 1xPl-R and 3xPl-F.

For the CW, it is a tighter, more compact system. For it, I'd think about dropping down to using the Fed/Rom Anarchist model of 2xPl-S and 1xPl-F or 1xPl-R and 1xPl-F. Yes, both the CA and CW have four QWT, but the realities of the hulls are different enough to justify the different arrangements. So, it "loses" a box.

For the CL, it can theoretically use 1xPl-S and 2xPl-F, but since the CW takes a ding, I'm going to apply that to the CL, too. So, it can use either 1xPl-S and 1xPl-F or 1xPl-R. Let's go with the Pl-S and 1xPl-F to give it multiple mounts. Note that this means the CL has an arguably smaller armament that the DW, but that's OK because the DW has a GW-era non-upgradeable Pl-G, but the CL's original Pl-G was pre-GW with room for upgradeability.

For the DN, it just gets the standard Pl-R, 2xPl-S, 2xPl-F. The box count justifies it, and we can just go from there. If you don't want the ship to have a Pl-R, then give it 3xPl-S and 3xPl-F. Or, if you want to double-down, give it 2xPl-R and 2xPl-F. That works, too.

Thinking about it more, assuming the Romulans get these ships fairly early, I am struggling to figure out why they wouldn't just double-down on the Pl-R and build everything that way. Plus, making these unique and not just Kestrel-redux makes sense, too.

Here's my recommendations:
DN: 2xPl-R, 2xPl-F
BC/CC: 1xPl-R, 3xPl-F
CA: 1xPl-R, 2xPl-F
CW: 1xPl-R, 1xPl-F
CL: 1xPl-S, 1xPl-F
DW: 1xPl-G, 2xPl-F
DD/FF: 2xPl-F

This gives these hulls some really, really nice weapons arrangements and heavily focuses them on "Romulan" plasma (since that is what the "R" in Pl-R stands for). It is very different from the Kestrels and means whatever follows these purchased ships will be very, very different from the Hawks.

Just some thoughts ...

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Wednesday, April 14, 2021 - 12:57 pm: Edit

My main source of caution was to do with the limitations imposed on certain empires' hull designs by the need to land on planets. It would appear that empires whose ships are solely designed to operate in open space are able to install a more "rounded" set of weapon capabilities, whereas those empires which build ships capable of landing on planets are obliged to deal with the resulting engineering constraints. (I might be wrong in this observation, of course.)

In the case of the Omega-Paravians, I had proposed limiting their antiproton variants in CL54 to the number of "centerline adjacent weapon boxes" taken up by the base hulls' quantum wave torpedoes. So both the antiproton heavy cruiser and antiproton war cruiser have a pair of antiproton beams (which take up one option mount apiece) plus a single antiproton lance (which takes up two centerline adjacent option mounts). This 2:1 ratio is lower than the optimal 3:1 ratio which the spinal lance can support, but is comparable to what the Worb and Zosmans (two other factions which acquire Ymatrian antiproton technology at various points in time) can accomplish with their respective heavy cruisers.

I felt similarly obliged to be more cautious with the would-be plasma loadouts here. I figured it was better to start there and leave room to work up if possible, rather than ask for too much at once and end up having to cut things back down to size.

That said, if ADB was open to the Romulans (or, for that matter, the Omega-Paravians) being more aggressive in terms of weapon mount swaps, well and good.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Wednesday, April 14, 2021 - 02:04 pm: Edit

Fair enough.

Just remember that the Romulan's original tiny cruisers could also land on planets, used big-plasma, and still managed to make things work. At the very best, I would expect any Pl-Fs to have swivels. That would seem to be a requirement.

The other thing is that, while I agree that "grasping" is never a good idea, and it is very important to have a good idea of what is "reasonable" and not, I still like to start at more than just the bare minimum. All of the weapons loads I presented are completely justifiable and already seen on one or more ships already in the game. None should be controversial.

Plus, the other thing to keep in mind is "interest". Making Paravian-Romulan hulls doesn't mean anything if they just operate like reskinned Kestrels or Hawks. They should have something about them that makes them interesting and fun in the game, not just the background. (Because, honestly, most people outside this board probably don't care about the background.) I was thinking that if you made them based around the heaviest plasma they can carry, then that is something different that could be fun to play and run with. Plus, why turn down the opportunity all those "adjacent center-line" weapons boxes present?

In the end, of course, this is your proposal, not mine. Do what you will.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Thursday, April 15, 2021 - 06:00 pm: Edit

In light of the data in the recently-uploaded Module R4J, I'd consider the prospect of a "Treaty of Circle Trigon" timeline (or timelines) to be a more viable one - at least in terms of how to account for it based on the data to hand in both R4J and in Module C6.

On the one hand, even in the most optimal "pre-Circle Trigon" setup in which the Romulans had already developed their own "Middle Years" technology (R4.JR7) prior to Y130, the most "conservative" conversions of those Paravian hull types available in this era would still compare quite favourably to what the Romulans themselves have on offer - not least in providing cruisers capable of moving at Speed 31.

On the other hand, given the differences between Romulan and Paravian warp engines (and accounting for the "dynamic warp balances" involved when designing engines intended to tun in threes rather than twos), it would seem quite reasonable to not have the more powerful warp engines of (R4.JR11) and (R4.JR13) show up until they do in the various "Smarba" timelines.

And if the "Smarba" Romulans were able to design an 8-box engine inspired by that of the Klingon F5 for use on the SparrowHawk, they could perhaps go a functionally-equivalent route by looking at the 8-box engines on the Paravian war cruiser. Although it might make more sense for these Romulans to consider a new design that could retain the ability to land on planets, as this is something which the use of Klingon-type designs no doubt moved them away from in the "Smarba" timelines.

-----

Also, thinking it over, I suppose it wouldn't be a deal-breaker for the Romulans to eventually install swivel mounts on Paravian-type warships.

Are there any thoughts on the issue of cloak costs, or of reducing (or not) the base hulls' numbers of Marine squads?

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Thursday, April 15, 2021 - 07:20 pm: Edit

For cloak costs, I see no reason to heavily penalize them. However, their hull shapes definitely do not seem to be made for cloak. So, I'd just use the default costs given in the cloak rules. The K9R, KR/K7R, and KDR all use the default values. The K5R has a cost break. I'd just use the default values for all of the ships and not give any of them a break. But I wouldn't especially penalize any, either.

For the marine squads, the ability to land doesn't make a big difference to me. All of the original ships could land, too, and that didn't matter much. So, I'd stick with the baseline Romulan trends. Troop ships are fair game, however, if they are nice designs. (Just looked at the Commando War Cruiser and I wouldn't change it's marine count.)

On the "third gen" designs, even using the CW engines wouldn't give them the Hawks. The Hawks basically make use of engine mounted weapons and the Paravians definitely did not do that. So, given that the Eagles and PR ships all don't use engine mounted weapons, I doubt the alt-Hawks would either. Basically, the alt-Hawks would be totally new designs. And if the PR ships used a "heavy plasma" loadout, it is highly likely the alt-Hawks would, too, meaning they are even more different. (Which is not necessarily a bad thing.)

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Thursday, April 15, 2021 - 08:07 pm: Edit

While it is certainly true that Paravian ships do not use engine-mounted weapons, technically the F5/K5R does not either; its heavy weapon mounts are embedded in the "wing" structure connecting the engines to the primary hull, as shown here.

But then, even in the case of Klingon F5W engines (which can mount heavy weapons at the end of them), the WYNs chose not to make use of this when using those same engines for the Mako destroyer.

That said, I'd consider a "functionally-equivalent" Hawk-series derivation as somewhat of a backup, though I'd picture them looking more like the "Mongoose-type" SparrowHawk+ (or Fast SparrowHawk+) rather than the "classic" design (or its "fast" counterpart) in this instance.

-----

Just a thought: would a Paravian-influenced "third series" ship still be modular - and, if so, would that necessarily mean it would use the same modules seen on SparrowHawks and SkyHawks historically?

Say, if a "third series" ship were to do the following things:

*Land on planets
*Have no engine-mounted weapons
*Use more than two engines

Perhaps, then, all of its modules would be designed to work in pairs, to sit on either side of the centre warp engine?

So, the SkyHawk-equivalent would use one pair of single-sized modules (of whatever size works best); the SparrowHawk-equivalent would use two pairs (or one pair of double-sized modules); the DemonHawk-equivalent would use three pairs (or one pair of single-sized and one pair of double-sized modules); and a battleship would use four pairs (or two double-sized pairs).

I refer to the DemonHawk rather than the Condor, due to its being more akin to the other Hawk-series ships design-wise.

That might capture one aspect of the Hawk-series (its modularity), while doing so in a way that worked better with the Paravian influences elsewhere on the ship.

How does that sound?

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Friday, April 16, 2021 - 10:45 am: Edit

Over in the Zosman Marauder preview in Captain's Log #50 and Captain's Log #52, the playtest Zosman ships as shown on Shapeways have both weapon modules and system modules. A weapon module can be swapped out for a system module, but not vice versa.

In the case of a Paravian-influenced "third series", I was thinking along similar lines, but with a few differences.

On the one hand, I was thinking there could be "Type-A" and "type-B" modules which these new Romulan ships could use. As with the Zosman setup, a type-B module could be used in a type-A slot, but not vice versa. But, in keeping with the SparrowHawk precedent, the Romulans here would continue to use them in matching pairs.

-----

For example, if one were to start with a "new destroyer", equivalent to the SkyHawk.

By and large, each SkyHawk module has room for about 14 boxes' worth of stuff, to include the "spare space" needed to place them tidily on the SSD.

In this case, imagine if these new modules had room for three pairs of two boxes. So instead of the SkyHawk-A module's 2 360* phaser-1s, 4 batteries, 4 shuttles, and 4 tractor beams, each of the equivalent "type-A" flex modules would have 2 batteries, 2 shuttles, and 2 tractor beams - but no phasers.

Similarly, the equivalent to a SkyHawk-F module would be two smaller "type-A" scout modules; each with 2 special sensors, 2 labs, and 2 tractor beams - but no shuttles.

In ship terms, say that the SkyHawk-equivalent "new destroyer" would have three 6-box warp engines (like the Paravian DW); this ship would have room for a single pair of matching modules, which could be either "type-A" or "type-B".

-----

In contrast, the SparrowHawk-equivalent "new light cruiser" would have three 8-box warp engines (like the SparrowHawk or Paravian CW); this ship would have room for two pairs of matching modules. The front pair can be "type-A" or "type-B", but the aft pair must be "type-B" only.

For a pair of "type-B" modules for use on a standard combat variant, perhaps each could have a pair of APRs and four C Hull boxes?

As a further example, say if there was a "type-B" cargo/shuttle module which had room for a pair of shuttles and four cargo boxes. Thus, a SparrowHawk-C-equivalent ship would take a pair of "type-A" scout modules as well as a pair of "type-B" cargo/shuttle modules, which together would enable it to function as a survey cruiser.

-----

The key tradeoff would be the lack of phasers on any of these modules - save possibly for a couple of phaser-3s for potential "Type-A" escort modules (with LS and RS phaser arcs on the port and starboard modules respectively). To a greater extent than on the modular Hawks, the onus would be on the firepower installed on the ship itself.

But perhaps these ships could be the ones to have the more powerful plasma loadouts proposed for the Paravian-built hulls above. So the "new destroyer" would have the equivalent of 4 centerline adjacent option mounts (room for either two plasma-Gs, or one -G and 2 -Fs). The "new light cruiser" would have the equivalent of 5 (room for a plasma-F plus either 2 plasma-Gs/-Ss or a single plasma-R).

But then, in order to make room for these modules and for a more powerful plasma loadout, the ship's phaser suite might be somewhat reduced compared to its nearest Paravian equivalent ship.

-----

Overall, here's a brief summary so far:

*All of these new "third series" hulls would land on planets,
*All of them would have at least three engines,
*None of them would mount weapons on the nacelles,
*Each of them (from the "new destroyer" up) would have one or more pairs of "type-A" and/or "type-B" modules; "type-B" modules can be swapped in for "type-A" modules, but not vice versa,
*Each would have one more "centerline adjacent heavy weapon mount" than the nearest Paravian equivalent,
*Each would have a somewhat reduced phaser complement relative to the nearest Paravian equivalent,
and
*Each would have a slightly reduced cloak cost, in line with Hawk-series precedents.

Does that seem like the basis for an interesting set of starship designs?

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Friday, April 16, 2021 - 07:02 pm: Edit

Note, that the SkyHawk's tractors are part of the base hull, not the module (CL#31) ...

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Friday, April 16, 2021 - 08:51 pm: Edit

Duly noted, thank you kindly.

Actually, I just went to double-check the SkyHawk-A deck plans from GURPS Romulans. It's surprising how much "open" space there is in the module; the "stuff" which equates to actual boxes on the SSD takes up a relatively small amount of its overall volume.

-----

I guess that would reduce the size of the proposed "type-A" and "type-B" modules, with room for 5 boxes rather than 6. For example:

Sample Type-A Modules
Flex: 2 C hull boxes, 2 batteries, 1 shuttle
Scout: 2 special sensors, 2 labs, 1 shuttle

Sample Type-B Modules
Standard: 2 C hull boxes, 2 APRs, 1 shuttle
Cargo: 1 shuttle, 4 cargo boxes
PF Tender: 3 Repair boxes, 1 shuttle, 1 repair-capable PF Mech-link
Survey: 1 shuttle, 1 transporter, 3 cargo boxes

Do these work any better?

These paired PFT modules would work a little differently than that on the SkyHawk-C, in terms of avoiding having to add more tractor mech-links to the base hull, at the cost of reducing the overall repair capacity. (Which would presume that the base hull has at least four tractor beams to convert to mech-links, I suppose...)

Actually, in keeping with the Paravian influence, perhaps the new light cruiser could place its modules side-by-side (with the "type-A" modules at the outermost points), rather than placing one pair in front of the other.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Saturday, February 15, 2025 - 08:21 am: Edit

With some of the recent Kestrel series discussions elsewhere on the BBS, I have been thinking over what might - or might not - be possible, in terms of would-be Romulan-built Paravian-type hull designs.

With the exception of the "older" D6-to-KR hull conversions, it's noted above that most Kestrels of Move Cost 1 or above get to replace two disruptors with a plasma-G (later to be upgraded to plasma-S) and a plasma-F - or a single plasma-R, in the case of the centre nacelle for the C9-to-K9R conversion. But, smaller ships are obliged to go with 1-to-1 "option mount space" conversions: the 4 disruptors on the D5 become two plasma-S torpedoes on the KDR, for example.

In retrospect, I might wonder if it would be okay to go with this concept here; as a half-way house between the two options suggested further up the thread, perhaps.

As in, to allow a Paravian-type heavy cruiser to get 2 plasma-G/S and two plasma-F (or for a "strike cruiser" to get 1 plasma-R and two plasma-F); yet for a Paravian-type war cruiser to "only" have two plasma-G/S (or for a "war strike cruiser" to have a single plasma-R).

-----

Actually, in light of the playest KC6R early dreadnought:

While the Paravians themselves get Raid Motherships as early as Y132, they do not field a "combat variant" dreadnought until Y165. Thus, they never field the equivalent of the Klingon C6 or Romulan War Vulture - or rather, the DNR is their "early dreadnought". (Although, a DNR in Y150, with two battle pods and a self-defence pod, makes for a powerful Middle Years command ship.)

However, were the Romulans able to refit their Size Class 2 slipways in order to build Paravian-type dreadnought hulls of their own, would they themselves make use of the "Raid Mothership" concept? Or might they instead try to field a C6-esque "early dreadnought" of their own?

Either might make for an interesting option: be it to consider a Romulan take on the Paravian battle pod (for use on a Romulan-built "DNR"), or to work "back" from a Paravian-type "DN" in order to create a "DNE".

-----

Does any of this seem like a more reasonable way to approach things here?