Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through August 17, 2019	25		08/17 11:51am
	Archive through August 18, 2019	25		08/18 02:17pm
	Archive through August 19, 2019	26		08/19 07:21pm
	Archive through August 21, 2019	25		08/21 02:43pm
	Archive through August 22, 2019	25		08/22 08:25pm
	Archive through September 13, 2019	25		09/14 01:49am
	Archive through September 24, 2019	25		09/25 12:08pm
	Archive through May 18, 2020	25		05/19 11:35am

The Burke did not win any fly-off against the VT because there wasn't one. Each was designed for its own slot. The VTs had been sold off, discarded, given to national guards, or converted into various things before the General War. Star fleet had just decided they were too small.

You can convert a VT into anything you want, but it won't be very good. A carrier variant might have, what, four fighters? What's the point. You can use it as-is as a police cutter, and I'm sure some were. You can remove the major weapons and replace them with cargo or science labs or VIP quarters. Some of them got jobs that would otherwise have been assigned to Free Traders.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, May 18, 2020 - 05:24 pm: Edit

Garth, I simply do not understand your point.

We are talking different time periods.

A lot of the variants you are talking about happened after the four powers war. Some times many years later.

The VT class ships went out of production by year 145.

By the end of the General war (year 184-5 ish) there were only four “non- military” VT hulls still active.

The question I have, is, how to convert a VT into a lite free trader?

Got a couple of strikes against it, no atmosphere landings, so it will perform more like an APT than a free trader.

By Mike Dowd (Mike_Dowd) on Tuesday, May 19, 2020 - 03:41 am: Edit

Jeff: Survey duty?

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, May 19, 2020 - 09:24 am: Edit

Mike,

We have been all over that idea for years now.

Poor Petrick has been dragged (kicking and using a firm command voice) through that particular knot hole more times than my attorney will let me admit to.

A VT is too small To handle the number of mission critical (and required) SSD boxes.

The only criteria that a VT meets for the basic survey mission is two engines (Incase one fails, it can still limp home.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, May 19, 2020 - 11:35 am: Edit

You could build a "survey" version of a Flower VT but it couldn't do surveying like in F&E. It could do useful work searching asteroid belts, but so could a freighter with sensors. While it's way too small for a GenWar scout it is fine for a mid-years scout.

By Mike Dowd (Mike_Dowd) on Tuesday, May 19, 2020 - 11:56 am: Edit

Fair enough. I was just pointing out a possibility for a question that was asked. My bad for not seeing the entire discussion and hair pulling.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, May 19, 2020 - 12:09 pm: Edit

Workable hulls with workable engines will find a use so long as the operating cost is lower than the benefit.

You're a small government with a VT. Time goes along and you get a brand new POL or FF to replace it. Do you crash the VT into the sun for the planetary holiday? No, you look at the list (there is always a list) of agencies in the government that want a ship to do a job. Maybe you have a mining colony on the 10th planet, and it takes a day for the current freighter/transport to reach it. The Agency of Mines takes the VT, strips the weapons and some other things, reduces the crew by 2/3, and converts empty space into passenger or cargo space. Now you can get to the planet in an hour and make three trips a day. Maybe the Agency of Survey has a proposal to convert the VT into a "survey" ship able to search that star system two parsecs over that the Fed council allocated to you.

If you own a VT, everybody knows it will retire in a few years, and six or ten agencies have a plan to convert the ship into something better than what they are currently using.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, May 19, 2020 - 02:08 pm: Edit

sVC:

Is it okay for us to assume that a cargo pallet (6 or 8 SSD cargo boxes) is DOA? (Movement Cost with pallet 1/3=0.334?)

Or do we carry it forward as an option for the discussion?

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Tuesday, May 19, 2020 - 02:17 pm: Edit

Did you ever decide how many crew-units it has?

My suggestion would be 12.

Yes, the POL has 10, but part of the way I made that work was by filling the BP with Boatswain's Mates who could pull non-combat duty working shifts in the Engineering Department. They might rotate between Tac-Team and Damage Control (switch every couple weeks) for their combat duty position.

As the VT is Star Fleet, I presume the BP are Marines and thus would not have the training to do much more that sweep & mop and pull KP duty. Ergo, it needs a few extra ship's crew to do the day-to-day maintenance, work the Marines can't do.


Garth L. Getgen

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, May 19, 2020 - 04:25 pm: Edit

I don't think inventing a new cargo pallet just for this ship is necessary. Especially once you start trying to turn it into a carrier pack, gunboat pack, drone bombardment pack, and so forth.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, May 19, 2020 - 04:29 pm: Edit

Understood.

Thank you.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, May 19, 2020 - 08:31 pm: Edit

Following up on the lite free trader thing conversion of the VT.

system	FT	APT	VT
Sh#1	12	5	14
Sh#2-6	12	5	14
Sh#3-5	12	5	14
Sh#4	12	5	14
OPT	1	0	0
Photon	0	0	1
Probe	0	0	1
Drone z	0	0	1
Bridge	1	1	2
AuxCon	0	0	1
Trac	1	1	1
Trans	1	1	1
C Hull	4	2	4
Lab	0	0	2
Ph3	2	1	2
Cargo	12	6	0
Shuttle	1	1	2
BTTY	0	1	2
APR	0	5	1
Impulse	2	1	2
L Warp	6	3	4
R warp	6	3	4
Total	37	26	31

I am posting the vanilla versions of the FT, APT, VT.

Need to proof read and verify that I have not missed any systems or missed any boxes.

The question, assuming I got everything right, is what system boxes in the VT to delete, and how many of them can be replaced with cargo boxes.

As it sits right now, the FT is 8 more SSD boxes than the VT has. (4 of which is the difference between the warp power on board the FT vs the VT.)

In total SSD boxes, the VT is closer to the APT than the FT.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, May 20, 2020 - 11:28 pm: Edit

Just “eye balling” the list, the following deletions from the VT to create a “lite corvette trader” include:

-1 photon,
-2 phaser 1,
-1 probe,
-1 drone z,
-1 bridge,
-1 Aux Con,
-2 lab,
-1 shuttle,
-2 battery,
-1 APR,
Total = 13 SSD boxes that ***Could*** be converted to cargo boxes.

My question is, should they?

Personally, the admin shuttle boxes are located in the warp engine struts. Inaccessible, exposed, and frankly I think the ship is better left with two admin shuttles, than being reduced to one.

Secondly, most Federation ships have two bridge box control stations. So, again, I feel the ship would retain the original bridge SSD boxes.

Of the rest, since the Free Trader does have a single OPT box, I feel the Photon SSD box should be converted to an OPT box.

That restores a total of 3 SSD boxes to the proposed VTT (corvette trader) leaving 10 cargo boxes on the VTT and I think a net total of 31 SSD boxes.

Does any one feel strongly that it should retain more systems?

It should be noted, that if you do change the bridge to one box, and delete on admin shuttle, you will have created a lite free trader clone that carries the same 12 cargo box capacity as the vanilla free trader, and one that uses 4 fewer warp power boxes on the SSD.

Frankly, it’s just as good as the FT, and it uses less power to move the cargo ... it should make the FT obsolete instantly.

My recommendation is that the VTT MUST have fewer cargo boxes. The poor FT just can’t compete!

By A David Merritt (Adm) on Thursday, May 21, 2020 - 12:36 am: Edit

The FT can land.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, May 21, 2020 - 09:13 am: Edit

True.

Another reason to retain the second admin shuttle.

But, that said, the main reason to discuss a possible “non military” conversion is because the proposed back ground states explicitly that two of the four surviving hulls were such.

Would a APT clone be a better fit?

APT type ships do not land. A VT conversion would have shields nearly three times the size Of those on a APT. It also is roughly 25% larger (in terms of SSD boxes) being 5 more SSD boxes different.

I do not know if the VT dash speed is more, the same or less than the APT dash speed.

But a VT APT conversion is better protected (ie better shields), better armed (2 phaser 3 vs 1phaser 3), and twice the hull (better accommodations?).

And it could still retain the OPT weapon SSD box.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, May 21, 2020 - 12:08 pm: Edit

Non-military covers a lot of ground, not just traders. More likely to be VIP transports. Faster, no need to land if you just beam down some big shots.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, May 21, 2020 - 01:05 pm: Edit

That works.

Still... a small cargo capacity might be helpful?

Two or perhaps four cargo boxes for high value/critical items?

The other 6 SSD boxes additional hull?

We would need to calculate the new crew units required, and generate a number of passenger capacity.

If the VIP/VT was still a unit of star fleet, rather than being reduced to a free trader clone, it might require some of the SSD boxes that were deleted.

Any one have an opinion on what is needed?
We never found out if Garth’s estimate of 12 crew units for the vanilla VT was right.

By Will McCammon (Djdood) on Thursday, May 21, 2020 - 01:27 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, May 20, 2020 - 11:28 pm

Personally, the admin shuttle boxes are located in the warp engine struts. Inaccessible, exposed, and frankly I think the ship is better left with two admin shuttles, than being reduced to one.

---

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, May 21, 2020 - 02:50 pm: Edit

Ok.
I was just going by the FC SSD posted by SVC.

Sure had me fooled.

Funny how it Looks like the shuttle bays are mounted in the engine struts.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, May 21, 2020 - 02:58 pm: Edit

The shuttles are not in the engine struts. That's just making a three-dimensional multi-deck ship spread out on a page.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, May 21, 2020 - 09:48 pm: Edit

Ok, got it.

Thank you will and SVC.

By Jack Bohn (Jackbohn) on Friday, May 22, 2020 - 06:03 am: Edit

If it's a fleet unit, I suggest it keeps the probe. A civilian, told to get close to a monster and probe it (or a space anomoly, but "probe a monster" sounds so much worse) would say, "I don't get paid enough for that!" A military captain (O5 or O4 here) says, "Me, neither. But orders are orders."

As another example of "the right way, the wrong way, and the Starfleet eay," the bridge stays two spaces and the stations are manned. Of course it keeps tha AUX CON.

We keep two shuttles in either case, for the VIPs.

So we lose the photon, the dronez, APR, and a battery or two, also the labs, we can do science on the bridge.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, May 22, 2020 - 07:31 am: Edit

Sounds good.

Free trader has no battery or APR.

I wonder if a VIP transport would operate like an APT?

Those ships have 5 APR SSD boxes, and use them so the ships (APTs) can operate at or near their max speed. For now, let’s go with Jack Bonn’s dea to drop the APR from the VIP /VT.

Also, all the APTs seem to need in weapons are a single phaser 3.

If this VT is to remain a fleet unit, but act as a VIP transport, my instinct is to split the difference in cargo and hull (for the VIP passengers). If it’s a fleet auxiliary/VIP transport I am tempted to keep both phaser 1s and either a photon or a drone. Also, it needs to retain a transporter and a tractor beam.

My recommendation is to convert the photon to an OPT weapon (like the vanilla free trader has.)

That leaves the sHip with:

System	APT	VTVIP
Sh#1	5	14
Sh#2-6	5	14
Sh#3-4	5	14
Sh#6	5	14
OPT	0	1
APR	5	0
Ph1	0	2
Ph3	1	2
Probe	0	1
BTTY	1	0
Bridge	1	2
AUX CON	0	1
Tractor	1	1
Trans	1	1
Shuttle	1	2
Cargo	6	2
Hull	2	6
Imp	1	2
L warp	3	4
R warp	3	4
Total	26	31

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, June 06, 2020 - 01:30 pm: Edit

Another option, go full bore APT version of the Flower Corvette.

System	APT	VTAPT
Sh#1	5	14
Sh#2-6	5	14
Sh#3-5	5	14
Sh#4	5	14
OPT	0	0
APR	5	5
Ph1	0	0
Ph3	1	2
BTTY	1	1
Bridge	1	2
Aux Con	0	0
Trac	1	1
Trans	1	1
Shuttle	1	1
Cargo	6	6
Hull	2	2
Imp	1	2
L Warp	3	4
R Warp	3	4
Total	26	31

Lost the probe.

Same 6 cargo, 2 hull.

Had to drop the OPT box.

I kind of like this version.

It’s more durable than a vanilla APT, 2 phaser 3s. Nearly three times as many shield boxes. Two bridge boxes.