After multiple delays, several of which were my own fault, I have gotten around to posting my proposed Tholian "DDL". The "DDL" is in quotation marks because the Tholians didn't actually intend the ship to be a leader. The Tholians had intended it to be effectively a "DD+", an upgrade to their standard destroyer. But I like the idea, as "background color" , that the neighboring empires, seeing an enlarged destroyer, but typically only one per squadron, assumed it was a DDL and referred to it as such. But as stated, this is "background color" without any functional effect. You could just as well think of it as a DD+. See the discussion in Richard Eitzen's "Tholian NDW" topic, especially my "Suggested Background" in my 4:08 PM post on Wednesday, 22 May.

I also wish to stress that I don't have any objections to Richard's proposed NDW. It would be a useful addition to the Tholian forces, always assuming of course that SVC and SPP would accept the engineering explanation. But my personal preference would be for something that "fights more like a Tholian DD". Compared to other DDs, the Tholian is underpowered and undergunned, but has exceptionally good maneuverability and shields. Richard's NDW proposal is a substantial upgrade in power and weapons but has significantly worse maneuverability and shielding than the standard Tholian DD. Allowing for the differences in weapons, his proposal "fights like" a Fed DW more than it does a Tholian DD. My proposal for a "DDL" (or call it a DD+ if you like) would have some power and weapon upgrades to give it a chance against late war destroyers like the Klingon F5W, but would still have to rely on maneuverability and shielding rather than simply slugging it out.

Using Neo-Tholian welding techniques, the Tholians built their war cruiser and then subsequently produced "stretched" designs, the CWH and HCW, by welding the hulls together in different places. The former was more successful, adding systems without losing maneuverability or increasing movement cost. The HCW added more systems, but at the cost of higher MC, poorer turn mode, and a catastrophic vulnerability during HETs. I propose that the Tholians, having studied the lessons learned from the CWH and HCW, designed a "lengthened" DD by welding in an intermediate piece at the "sponsons" containing the disruptors. (I am proposing a YIS of about Y182. This is after the CWH since we know from the background text for the 312th that cruisers were a higher priority.) The resulting ship was the largest they could build with no reduction in maneuverability or increase in movement cost. It gains 2 APR, one hull, and upgrades the LS and RS phaser-3s to phaser-1s. BPV - probably low 90s, or high 90s with snare upgrade.

A photon torpedo version would have AWR in place of the APR.

I had another version, with more power and weapons, but with poorer maneuverability, but decided on this one because the whole point was to produce a Tholian upgraded DD with power and weapons to give it a chance against an F5W, but which would still have to rely on its maneuvering and shields, rather than overpowering its opponent.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, May 27, 2019 - 02:26 pm: Edit

Alan Trevor:

Given the fact that you are working with a Patrol Corvette hull as the basis (the destroyer is still a Patrol Corvette hull), I am not sure how you are getting this intermediate section.

Are you imagining that the slope of the hull is interrupted with a straight section before the slope continues, with the result that there is a distinctive "step down?" You cannot put in an intermediary piece without "breaking the slope." The miniature is what the miniature is.

By Jeffrey George Anderson (Jeff) on Monday, May 27, 2019 - 02:53 pm: Edit

Another concern I have, based on the fact that the Destroyer is, in fact, a built-up PC hull, is how much stress can that old hull design take before it has to deal with shock?

Don't get me wrong, Alan, I'd LOVE to see a new, superior Tholian Destroyer (I've actually almost had good luck flying the classic in a fight, once), but I think you might be asking a modified PC hull to try to carry just too much.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, May 27, 2019 - 10:46 pm: Edit

SPP,

According to F&E (looking at my copy of the Strategic Operations rule book), the Tholians can convert a CW to a CWH. Given the description of the CWH, a conversion (as opposed to building the ship from scratch) would require them to cut an existing CW in half (approximately) and welding in an extension. I submit this implies that the Tholians can produce "intermediate" sections of hulls.

Now consider the DD. The Tholians build the front portion of a DD, from the nose going 45% back. They build a rear portion starting from the stern (100% back) and going forward to 42% back. The two portions together are longer than a DD, but the thickness is wrong. The forward point of the rear hull is narrower than the rearmost point of the forward hull. The Tholians then produce an intermediate section (42% to 45%) and weld it in backward as a connecting piece. The internal structure would have to be altered, but they have to do that anyway, converting a PC to a standard DD or two PCs to a CW or CA. The DDL (or DD+) is approximately 6% longer than the standard DD (assuming that is the largest extension they could produce this way and still have the result be structurally sound) and contains room for the proposed systems. Moving from the stern forward, the hull narrows at a constant rate until you get to this section, then widens slightly before commencing narrowing to the bow.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, May 28, 2019 - 12:29 am: Edit

What you are doing to the PC is the same concept as building a CW, just using less of it. BTW, 3% more hull won't fit the parts you want to include. What you might do better with is to take a CW and start marking out boxes until you get there.

Your real problem is engines. You need a stock engine to make it work.

Thins thing is going to be so totally rearranged internally that the Tholians cannot build it.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, May 28, 2019 - 02:02 am: Edit

I think that the Tholian CW design (and by extension, similar but smaller designs) was only made possible by assistance from the Neo Tholians, at least I vaguely remember reading that somewhere.

So any DDL earlier than that doesn't seem like something that the Tholians could actually do.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, May 28, 2019 - 12:01 pm: Edit

Richard B. Eitzen:

Alan Trevor did include a year in service date of Y182, which is after the arrival of the 312th (Y178) and three years after the first war cruiser entered service (Y179, since it has a Y1 note for no earlier prototypes).

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, May 28, 2019 - 12:56 pm: Edit

Alan Trevor:

You are not visualizing the situation correctly.

You start with two Patrol Corvette hulls. To make a war cruiser you are going to just about completely build the forward hull, then you are going to build most of the rear hull. The rear "cap" of the forward hull then is welded to the front of the rear hull such that the rear hull's front end fits the cap (note, "cap" is not actually the right term, I am referring to the back of the forward hull from the highest point of each of the three wings down to where all three wings come together).

All you are doing to make a CWH is moving the two hulls further apart so that the join is at a narrower point. More of the end of the forward hull is present, and a narrower part of the rear hull is attached.

And, theoretically, you could cut a CW apart and weld in those hull forms. I say theoretically as I would be (being a laymen) really concerned about all those weld points on the central turning axis of the ship.

You are not doing that. You are taking an existing PC hull and lengthening it by literally inserting a section of hull that is not normal. You are breaking the hull form rather than following the hull form, thus creating the "step."

I apologize that I am being very poor at creating the visual with words, it would be far easier (for me) to sketch it on paper to show what I am talking about. But moving the distance between two hulls such that the weld joining them is in a different place is just not the same thing as cutting a Patrol Corvette apart and then inserting more length. You are going to have a "step" with your design, while the CW, CWH, and HCW all have the welds where the hulls join and the basic hull form is not broken.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, May 28, 2019 - 01:22 pm: Edit

Alan's design won't work.

The CW (and CWH) is built by combining two incomplete PCs. The rear one is missing most of the front.

Alan's DDL is build by taking one PC, cutting it across the thwarts, then inserting a rearward facing chunk of another PC, said chunk big enough to accommodate two APRs and a hull box and move something from somewhere to the new section to free space to upgrade two phaser-3s to phaser-1s.

It's that third rear-ward facing chunk that kills the deal. That means a lot of engineering the Tholians never did anywhere else, and two weld lines instead of only one.

Said another way, the dogtooth on the CW is the normal corner of the front PC. Alan's dogtooth is created from smooth hull sections that are not disrupted in any other ship design.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, May 28, 2019 - 10:13 pm: Edit

SPP and SVC;

I note again that according to the F&E Strategic Operations book, the Tholians did apparently (a conversion cost is listed in the rule book) cut a CW in half and weld in an intermediate piece to produce a CWH. So unless a subsequent product changed that, the two weld lines didn't cause problems. But it's also true that the CWH conversion didn't involve the problems inherent in welding the intermediate section in backwards. I acknowledge I may have underestimated the engineering difficulties with doing that.

I have an alternate suggestion which, if this topic isn't DOA, I will try to post in the next few days. It involves joining two PCs together as with the CW, but with much smaller sections, resulting in a smaller, less powerful ship. The backstory would be that it is the largest ship the Tholians can build in a destroyer facility, the true CW being too big for a destroyer slipway.

That wasn't my initial proposal because I was hoping for something that would be less powerful than a DW or F5W but would have superior shields and be Turn Mode-A and Nimble, like the DD. But the power and weapons upgrade was intended to be enough to give it a fighting chance against the F5W, which I don't think the DD really has, unless the Klingon blunders. This alternate DD could have the same excellent shields as the standard DD but I don't think it could be nimble. So it would need more power and/or weapons than my initial suggestion and fight more like a "conventional" DW than a Tholian DD. But since this proposal seems unworkable I will try, as stated, to post the alternate suggestion within a few days.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, May 28, 2019 - 10:43 pm: Edit

Alan Trevor:

As I said, I am a layman, and I am a little antsy about that many weld joints that close to the pivot point.

But splitting a war cruiser in two, spreading the two parts, and then inserting the missing length is doable.

But as much as you can point to it as possible, it does nkt mean it was ever done.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, May 28, 2019 - 10:58 pm: Edit

I don't think that is how you build a CWH. I will look into it AFTER we finish CL53. Right now this discussion is just delaying CL53 so it needs to pause until July.

To be clear, NO PROPOSALS, here or anywhere else, until 5 July. If any are made they will be rejected and deleted.

By A. David Merritt (Adm) on Tuesday, May 28, 2019 - 10:59 pm: Edit

Hrmm....

How about taking the current DD; moving the shuttles to exterior cradles, putting the two new APRs in their current space, and take the space from the door opening gear, the shuttle bays air pumps, and the spare shuttle to make room for the ph-3 to ph-1 upgrades. No extra hull.

It was worth building a limited number but was not thought successful enough to do the design work for other units due to crew crowding, the limited ability for the shuttles to move cargo easily, and the loss of the spare shuttle. The design was successful enough to continue with a proven design, but not good enough to be worth designing more.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, May 29, 2019 - 01:48 am: Edit

Two questions...

1. Are there any other external admin shuttles in the Tholian fleet?

2. Why did you ignore the directive to suspend proposals until July.
AH, BECAUSE WE CROSS POSTED. MY APOLOGIES.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, May 29, 2019 - 09:55 pm: Edit

Updated previous post.