One idea might be to upgrade various PFs that are mediocre without increasing the size. Maybe a late-war or post-war upgrade of the Lyran PFs to give it some phaser-1s? They were first out of the gate and may need a newer model. Doubt it would be worth refitting the old boats but a new production model would be good. Klingons and Hydrans might have similar upgrades to their boats.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, February 19, 2018 - 12:32 pm: Edit

Jon, that is another proposal in the old K-2 thread, namely a power refit for Lyran PFs.

IIRC there was a mixed reaction to extending the refit beyond the Lyrans though. Where do you draw the line?

Same issue regards to up gunning the Klingon. G1 and G2 boats. There were some who thought the existing designs were fine, and some who felt otherwise.

By Jon Murdock (Xenocide) on Monday, February 19, 2018 - 01:56 pm: Edit

I am not sure. I would think every power would push their PF design pretty much as far as it would go eventually. Unlike fighters it looks like every Galactic power in the Alpha octant used PFs heavily (except for the Feds) and there were not a lot of gradations in use like there were with fighters.

The only heavier than usual PF users would be the Lyrans and they have arguably the least effective PF.

I am also not suggesting changing the base model or getting rid of them. Just a "refit" style change later in the development cycle but before they were becoming obsolete following Unity.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, February 19, 2018 - 03:32 pm: Edit

To be clear.

The Klingons have H1 Interceptors and G1 Gunboats/PFs.

The G2 is the Klingon police cutter, nor a fast patrol ship, although similar in weapons to a certain degree (two drone racks, an anti-drone rack, and two FX phaser-2s, but the G1 also has a disruptor).

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, February 19, 2018 - 03:34 pm: Edit

Jon Murdock:

As to "pushing PF designs," that has already occurred.

Interceptors became PFs. The furthest the design could go from there was the Leader, and it was not economical to build only leaders, nor to add X-tech to the result.

By Jon Murdock (Xenocide) on Monday, February 19, 2018 - 03:45 pm: Edit

By pushing the Lyran design I meant updating the weapon loadout to phaser 1s and that is pretty much it. If I remember right the Klingons might benefit from a similar redesign but I am going off old memories on the the G1 and could be wrong.

Adding more power and volume is not on my mind as it would push designs into forbidden heavy PF territory and start a PF arms race I think few would want.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, February 19, 2018 - 04:09 pm: Edit

The problem with phaser-2 upgrades is there is nothing you can give the empires that have plenty of phaseroneium.

Empires that put phaser-2s on PFs are empires that cannot get all of the phaser-2s on real ships upgraded to phaser-1.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, February 19, 2018 - 05:48 pm: Edit

PF Mission Variant Review:

A: Stasis Field Generator variant. Too small a platform to risk such a device on.

A: Aegis Escort. Gunboats could certainly be fitted with Aegis, but the expense of aegis against the loss rate of gunboats is not economical (see below for further).

B: This is just a refit holder, and the gunboats already get a shield refit.

C: Basically the Leader variant.

D: Drone-armed gunboats already exist as direct combat units, the lack of an ability to reload their drone racks themselves (which is not going to change) pretty much means they are not going to "bombardment" platforms.

E: Escort variants (although again they do not have Aegis, not even "limited" aegis) already essentially exist for most empires where other limits do not intrude. That is to say the Hydrans would like to employ "Howlers" as escorts, but there are limits on the availability of phaser-Gs, the plasma-empires might like to have "plasma-K" racks able to carry more than four plasma-Ks, but that is not going to happen, which puts limits on using their PFs for the escort job. Drone-armed empires have access to type-E drone racks and anti-drone systems. There is nothing the Tholians or Lyrans can really do in this regard.

F: Anti-fighter: Basically limited to available technology much like the escorts above.

G: Commando: Already exists.

H: Transport: Already Exists.

I: Only the Klingons use this designator, and the Internal Security Force simply uses standard G1s just as the Deep Space Fleet.

J: Only the Klingons use this designator,and arguably some flotillas are "more penal than others," there is no need for a special PF variant for this mission.

K: Basically a refit identifier that does not apply.

L: Basically, again, the "Leader" already exists.

M: The minesweeper variant already exists.

N: Only use by the Klingons for a very small number of diplomatic transport PFs.

O: Designation not used for any mission variant.

P: Essentially a PF that gives up most or all heavy weapons to go all phaser. Phasers used pretty depend on the availability of the phaser-1, and if an empire it is unable to replace all of its phaser-2s on size class 4 ships that have a longer lifespan than a PF, they are just not going to waste the money to put phaser-1s on PFs.

Q: Survey, already exists.

R: Recovery, already exists.

S: Scout, already exists.

T: Basically the same as G and already exists.

U: No useable by PFs, you cannot put more fighters on them than they have.

V: Basically the mission of the Fi-Con, but note that all of the "logistic" operations (rearming and repairing the fighters) has to be done by a real ship.

W: Civilian variant.

X: Too vulnerable to apply X-technology for the same reason there are limited numbers of Howlers and restrictions on the use of phaser-1s for some empires.

Y: Pretty much, in the development of PFs, this is the technology to build skiffs, later expanding into Interceptors.

Z: I just do not see any need for "combat trials of experimental PFs."

Any other missions not already covered? By that I mean actually plausible ones.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, February 19, 2018 - 05:54 pm: Edit

As the Advanced Technology Carriers and PF tenders and the carrying of PFs on mech-links by such ships, there are two things to keep in mind.

One is that this is covering the period of the Andromedan War, and the Andromedans did not have X-technology and were pretty much the only enemy being fought, which meant that against them PFs were still viable.

The second is the age old problem that one ship can only be in one place at a time. Carrying a pair of casual PFs let a patrolling X-ship check out multiple things of interest, occasionally send one or both of the PFs to "pick something (or someone) up" without the ship itself having to leave its patrol area. Or to go sneak a peak at something (being smaller and harder to spot) before the X-ship itself went rushing in. It does not mean the PFs were actually viewed as more than a nuisance against another X-ship. But if you spotted a freighter where it was not supposed to be, you can send a casual PF to check it out.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, February 19, 2018 - 06:11 pm: Edit

The other thing to look at is, of course, other PFT variants. But as has been noted (I am pretty sure) by someone else in this topic, as new ship types have entered the game if there was a PFT variant that variant was also published, e.g., the Klingon D5W was in Module R5, and the DWP was in Module R10 (along with various other variants of the D5W). There are in theory other ship that might be looked at to produce PFT variant (PFT variant of the E7?) but many of those would be really, really questionable.

The biggest single thing I can see (I am not saying this is the only possible option or that someone else might not come up with something) would be to do the "two flotilla" variants of everyone's Space Control Ship, i.e., give everyone (not the Andromedans and a few other minor empires of course) a "Space Patrol Ship" (currently only the Lyrans and Gorns if I recall correctly), and perhaps a "Stellar Patrol Ship" variant based on their battleship. Anyone else have any ideas?

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Monday, February 19, 2018 - 06:56 pm: Edit

At some point, were there to be SSDs done for "lost empire" first-generation X-ships, one might imagine there being X-raider variants of both empires' war cruiser PF tenders and their heavy war destroyer PFT configurations, akin to those published in Module X1R. However, in the case of the C6 Paravians, they might find their would-be HWXP to be more effective at the RTN-hunting role than a would-be CWPX, if the offensive limitations of the non-X CWP were to be inherited by its advanced technology counterpart.

Speaking of RTN hunters, there may perhaps be one or more such units which could perhaps exist in the historical timeline; I proposed a Vudar CWPX once, though I suppose they might get greater operational flexibility by investing their limited resources in a HWX(P) design of their own.

Also, over in the "dark future" timeline, there might be scope for more Federation PF tenders (and/or X-PFTs) from alt-Y198 onwards - particularly after the RTN is uncovered in alt-Y200. For example, one could perhaps create a "GPX" equivalent of the GVX, which supported a flotilla of Thunderbolts instead of a flight of F-111s.

Also, in principle, one could present PF-specific variants of the modular Romulan dreadnoughts, to include the "REDHawk" (a DemonHawk with a pair of SparrowHawk-E modules and a single SkyHawk-C module installed).

And while the proposed K1 gunboat discussion stalled around the difficulties in terms of making such flotillas historically viable, the concept might be enough to fill a few pages' worth.

-----

However, even for those ideas above which were not conjectural, they risk going back to the issue of pre-emption.

Any "dark future" PFTs would, perhaps, be best kept aside for a potential "dark future" module; any Vudar or "lost empire" X-raiders might be better off going into a potential Module X1B (or even some sort of "Module C6A" supplementary product, in the case of the Carnivons and C6 Paravians); while it has been noted that too many conjectural SSDs do not a viable product make.

So, while I still argue that there are plenty of places left to go for "volatile warp" technology over in the Omega Octant, I'm not sure if there is much left to do in the Alpha Octant that would not be best served by other would-be modules, rather than being corralled into a dedicated Module K2.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Monday, February 19, 2018 - 06:58 pm: Edit

SPP, Super Space Control Ships along the lines of the Kzinti SSC?

By Douglas Saldana (Dsal) on Monday, February 19, 2018 - 07:40 pm: Edit

Perhaps the Romulans produced K1 gunboats because it simplified operating PFs from Klingon Hulls, the idea being that K-R Ships and K1 gunboats have many components in common. Taking it a step further, K1 production extended the service life of K-R ships because the same factory that produced the K1 could produce spare parts for K-R ships.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Tuesday, February 20, 2018 - 07:34 pm: Edit

If one was looking to fill up page space, I suppose another option could be to offer specific PF tender variant SSDs of each empire's HDWs (and HWXs, unless those were best kept for Module X1B).

Which might make things interesting for the Federation, based on the HDW and HWX options listed in the current Fed SIT for Federation and Empire. Regardless of whether "HDWP" and/or "HWXP" SSDs might go into a "dark future" module or not, that might still leave them with two possible configurations per hull type: one for a full squadron of six F-111s (or six A-20s), with no special sensors, for general combat purposes; and another for a "-Z" variant, with two special sensors and room for four F-111s, to be used as RTN hunters.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, February 21, 2018 - 01:16 pm: Edit

I am always in favor of supporting our players, and we could, if they wanted it, do an SSD book with HDWs in the eight or more configurations provided by (G33.0) for each empire, deleting in each configuration any extraneous data from the SSD making it simpler to read (less crowded).

There are currently (very rough count) 30 such ships (includes X-ships, the Hydran heavy Lancer and heavy Knight, Federation Modular dreadnought, Lyran Jagdpanther) producing more than 240 SSDs (in part because some have "conjectural" SSDs (e.g. Federation HDW PFT) and there has been some suggestion for "other missions" (e.g., anti-fighter, drone bombardment) that might get looked at.

But I do not see just doing the PFT versions for Module K2 as viable.

By Shawn Hantke (Shantke) on Wednesday, February 21, 2018 - 01:41 pm: Edit

I would buy it in a heartbeat! Does it need counters?

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Wednesday, February 21, 2018 - 02:04 pm: Edit

That doesn't sound too different from how the various configurations are, or may be, handled over in Federation Commander. There is a sample "combat configuration" Ship Card for the Federation HDW in Communiqué #52, as well as a plasma HDW Ship Card in FC: Federation Ship Card Pack #3 (listed here).

Would it be worth spinning this idea into a separate BBS thread, to help see if there is enough interest out there to try and make it work?

-----

Personally speaking, I must admit that I probably would have been more keen on the HDW (and HWX) concept if there had been a single historical empire which had been built around it, rather than it being a degree of modularity which every Alpha Octant faction (more or less) gets to make use of.

Although, I suppose it's not too late to have it be an empire-specific setup outside of Alpha. Perhaps it might be an option for, say, the Chomak out in the LMC, or instead for the Echarri over in Omega?

(And here I was worrying about derailing this thread with just the "specific HDW/HWX configuration SSDs" talk...)

By Dal Downing (Rambler) on Friday, February 23, 2018 - 03:48 am: Edit

Since we are talking gunboat sized hulls I would like to see Heavy Workboats. Especially from an RPG stand point.

I do not need Heavy Gunboats, just Workboats.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, February 23, 2018 - 04:37 am: Edit

What do you mean exactly though?

Are these Heavy Workboats based on Heavy PFs that never were? That would seem strange to develop such a thing.

If it isn't PF based in some way, then having the term workboat seems to be not quite accurate as currently (as far as I know), that term is associated with PFs.

I think that workboats existing at all is because of the large surplus of PFs at the end of the war. I don't remember if more were built, but I suspect that none would exist if there weren't PF hulls and production facilities around first to build them. With that the case I don't know how you would get to heavy workboats if heavy PFs weren't possible.

By Douglas Saldana (Dsal) on Friday, February 23, 2018 - 01:43 pm: Edit

Per Stellar Shadows:

The limit on PF size was in fact the harmonic balance of the high-energy engines used by PFs, which would have induced a vibration in any larger hull that would have literally shaken it to pieces. (The somewhat larger PF leaders were possible only because of expensive extra bracing which was not cost effective for general use designs, and could be afforded only because the leaders brought to the flotilla some extra capabilities that it needed to function.) Every attempt to build a larger “heavy PF” failed, often with spectacular results, and always with a catastrophic collapse of the hull. New materials, counter-vibratory generators, improved structural integrity fields, extra bracing, different engine arrangements — all were tried, and all failed.

By Dal Downing (Rambler) on Friday, February 23, 2018 - 04:41 pm: Edit

Yes Combat HPF didn't work because of the stress of operating in combat conditions.

I am talking about building and selling them to the civilian market. Where there was less stress non hot engines and with out the weapons more bracing was added.

Basically a work boat on steroids.

You could have the standard model with 2 P3 or an armed model with a Single Heavy Phaser or Drone/Plasma Rack.

By Douglas Saldana (Dsal) on Friday, February 23, 2018 - 05:03 pm: Edit

Well, I’m not sure about a workboat based on the conjectural HPFs but a workboat based on a PF leader might be worth the expense. PFLs typically have 4 more ssd boxes than standard PFs. If this extra volume was converted to cargo a PFL-workboat would have double the cargo capacity vs. a standard workboat.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, February 23, 2018 - 07:31 pm: Edit

The original quote above doesn't say anything about combat conditions, it says 'always *catastrophic* collapse of the hull'. This doesn't sound like it is possible at all (to make something based on a heavy PF 'civilian' hull).

I'm wracking my brain to come up with something new for PFs that's not already disallowed and honestly I got nothin'.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, February 23, 2018 - 07:33 pm: Edit

Well. dunno if it has been proposed before, but perhaps a 'light' PF with more range (move cost 1/6) at the cost of weaponry? Kinda dubious about the idea, though. Maybe less total warp, maybe not.

By Douglas Saldana (Dsal) on Friday, February 23, 2018 - 07:50 pm: Edit

We already have move cost 1/6 PFs (Interceptors).

Edit: Oh wait, I see what your're saying. You want to reduce the movement cost of a full sized PF by reducing the weapons load. I'm not sure that it works that way (otherwise wouldn't a workboat have a reduced movement cost?).