Just my opinion, but it's close enough to the POL, it could be considered "just another" POL in F&E.


Garth L. Getgen

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, August 17, 2019 - 09:52 am: Edit

I like it. I have long thought the Federation should of had a MC =1/4 ,size class 4 hull, now it does!

By Terry O'Carroll (Terryoc) on Saturday, August 17, 2019 - 10:26 am: Edit

Pretty cool ship, very close to the POL in combat capability but with better all-around shielding, which will probably make up for the poorer turn mode. It can also fire all phasers through the #4 shield, which the POL cannot.

Is the 0.25 move cost an artifact of Fed Comm, which has no 0.33 move costs, or is that also its SFB move cost?

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Saturday, August 17, 2019 - 11:51 am: Edit

---

Quote:

to make it a 50 point ship

---

By Nick Samaras (Koogie) on Saturday, August 17, 2019 - 11:51 am: Edit

Richard, compared to the Klingons, no. Compared to the Fed CA turn mode of D. And the FF phasers cover all arcs; the unrefitted Fed CA has blind arcs.

By Nick Samaras (Koogie) on Saturday, August 17, 2019 - 11:53 am: Edit

I like the idea for this class but I don't like having it look like a slightly smaller frigate. I always envisioned a Fed corvette to look like the frigate from the Star Fleet Command video games; i.e, small saucer with a small secondary hull the engines attach to and no neck. Like the Thunderbolt PF.

From a game perspective, why would the Feds not use the POL design for this role that they build in scads?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, August 17, 2019 - 01:27 pm: Edit

The VT design was eventually dropped so they could focus on just building POLs.

I don't know why F&E players would want it, but sure, build it for 2.5, combat factor 4/2.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Saturday, August 17, 2019 - 01:27 pm: Edit

I guess because this looked good to SVC. Besides, everyone outside SFB-world would want this to look like the Defiant, anyway (which it can't). A mini-FF works as well as anything else.

And it doesn't look like the Pol because this is a true military ship, not a police ship. Therefore it's gonna follow the saucer approach.

As for the Thunderbolt, I always though it should have followed the FF style itself. It shouldn't look like a mini-CA precisely because small Fed ships do away with the aft hull. The Thunderbolt should have just been a saucer with two engines.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, August 17, 2019 - 02:27 pm: Edit

For what it is worth, I do not find the phaser-3s on the Federation Frigate anachronistic.

They are not there as a refit for anti-drone work, as they are in most Federation ships where they are added. They are literally there to up the overall firepower of the hull. You could not really have five phaser-1s (1xFH, 2xLS, and 2xRS) on the frigate, and three phaser-1s (1xFH, 1xLS, 1xRS) is inadequate.

Given what could be done with the hull in terms of firepower for a warship, the phaser-3s make perfect design sense, and the Police Corvette not having them makes sense because it had less overall power than the frigate warship and a different mission (exemplified in part by the inclusion of a larger cargo bay that actually shows up on the SSD. That is to say that by definition all ships have cargo storage. (Where do you think spare shuttles and T-bombs, and that Ground Combat Vehicle you are landing to support your marines are?) But the Police Cutter has significantly more volume allocated to that for carrying emergency supplies.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Saturday, August 17, 2019 - 02:42 pm: Edit

As already sad, it is what it is. I could argue, but to what point. Nothing about it can change, anyway.

The Corvette looks good to go. I look forward to being available for use.

By Jeffrey George Anderson (Jeff) on Saturday, August 17, 2019 - 04:03 pm: Edit

Can't tell you (off the top of my head) how many times I've put crayon to graph paper with this concept.

This looks better than any (and not just because it's clean).

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, August 17, 2019 - 05:19 pm: Edit

why would F&E players want to build a (Flower Class Corvette)?

cost for one thing.

10 of these hulls would cost (10*2.5)=25 Econ Points in F&E.
10 FFG hulls would cost (10*3)= 30 Econ Points.

useless for mainline combat, but not useless for other tasks.

for example, pinning missions, the Compot is not relevant as all the pin force needs to do is prevent enemy ships from being able to move to their destination hex, thus preventing those enemy ships from completing THEIR mission.(emphasis, not shouting.)

Garrison mission. there are times players need to deploy ships to restore economic function, (as when an enemy has occupied a F&E hex to collect the EP income. )

using a FFG works, but sometimes the enemy will kill a ship engaged in the mission. a cheaper corvette frees a FFG for more important missions... and the owning player risks a lower value hull that can still complete the mission.

when you come down to it, these corvettes are effectively "damage sponges" that are 80% as good as the FFG that only cost about 85% as much as a FFG costs in economic points.

is it as good as a FFG? no, but if the use of these things mean keeping more FFG hulls engaged, just might be good enough to win.

By Jeffrey George Anderson (Jeff) on Saturday, August 17, 2019 - 06:55 pm: Edit

During peacetime, pencil pushers would be interested in a ship like this; it's inexpensive to build and requires fewer crew than a standard FF or DD.

Also, at the risk of descending into matters Politic, there'll ALWAYS be some legislators who'll say, "With a small ship watching the borders, we'll let our neighbors know we're really interested in peace. Larger ships would be SO provocative..."

IMO, it kind of makes sense. Small ships can serve as a "Tripwire;" they're there on the front lines to alert High Command, should their Neighbors do something. Still, their limited ability to really DO anything in the face of a major attack (Day 1, anyone?) could make them an unacceptably risky assignment.

However, if their neighbors have similar ships, a fight between such corvettes might make for a good way to introduce new players to The Game; smaller, simpler ships can make EA less intimidating...

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, August 17, 2019 - 07:26 pm: Edit

A fight between this ship and a Klingon E3 or G2, or a Romulan Snipe-A, or even a Gorn FF might be interesting. But a Kzinti FF or Orion LR will crush it in short order (in the case of the LR, the crushing might buy time for an escorted merchant to escape).

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Saturday, August 17, 2019 - 09:15 pm: Edit

Petrick: "You could not really have five phaser-1s (1xFH, 2xLS, and 2xRS) on the frigate, and three phaser-1s (1xFH, 1xLS, 1xRS) is inadequate."

What if was four phasers: 2xFH, 1xLS, 1xRS ????


Garth L. Getgen

By A. David Merritt (Adm) on Saturday, August 17, 2019 - 09:19 pm: Edit

A thought for a potential drone rack refit, given the limited power on this thing, and the two turn commitment for the photon, perhaps the drone rack refit replaces the photon with a drone rack. You might possibly add a drone rack as well, for two. It could be the foot in the door for drone racks across the fleet.

By Chris Nasipak (Ecs05norway) on Saturday, August 17, 2019 - 11:03 pm: Edit

SPP>> But a Kzinti FF or Orion LR will crush it in short order (in the case of the LR, the crushing might buy time for an escorted merchant to escape).

This might be the ship the Orion LR was built in response to, perhaps, then.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Saturday, August 17, 2019 - 11:28 pm: Edit

ADM,

I think it should have the photon and drone rack as the base version.

But having a drone variant would make sense. And, if replacing the photon with a drone rack, maybe it should replace the APR with one, too, for a total of three drone racks. Probably violates something somewhere to do that, but it would allow it to at least have some punch with drone racks as the primary weapon.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, August 17, 2019 - 11:49 pm: Edit

Guys, you are both right... but Star Fleet History holds that the Federation tested drones in year 155 (remember the DDG?) and found the slow speed drones were not very effective.

it took the speed 20 drones to make the Plus refits with a drone G rack viable, and that didnt happen until year 165+

Mike, your 3 drone G rack version does make sense, but only after year 171 when the Klingons invaded the Federation. the Federation needed hulls, and a lot of them. I really have to wonder why the Federation, if it could build a 3*drone G rack corvette variant, would choose not to.

I know SVC stated no more corvettes built after year 145, but the Federation was in desperate need for hulls immediately after the klingon invasion, much like the British Royal Navy in 1940 after the fall of France. the Royal Navy built lots of Flower class escorts to help fill the empty ranks of sunk and crippled ships. there almost certainly would have been calls to build a new group of Flower class corvettes, and with three drone racks and a year 175 refit, might actually perform well in the mid General war years.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Saturday, August 17, 2019 - 11:54 pm: Edit

At 2.5 EP a pop I would not build very many over standard FFs at 3 EP each.

By Mike Dowd (Mike_Dowd) on Sunday, August 18, 2019 - 02:13 am: Edit

Wouldn't they be 2EP each?

Quoting Steve Cole:

---

Quote:

"The Federation knew that 12 corvettes cost what they would spend on 8 frigates, and 12 corvettes could be in 12 places at the same time. So 12 were ordered, named for flowers in honor of the WWII British Flower-Class Corvettes."

---

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, August 18, 2019 - 07:05 am: Edit

Mike, you are looking at it from the standpoint of the cost of the FF vs the cost of VT. Try looking at it from this point:

When the Federation goes to war, usually on turn 7, Fall of Y171 they can build a maximum of 8 ships at normal costs. Granted they can double that with activations.

With expansions you can add another 2 ships from the CLVs.

Regardless of what ships you actually build, aka CVS plus escorts, scouts, etc, you still have some cash left over.

As you need some more ships for pincount your choices are to overbuild FFs or NCLs. Most of the time I have about 30 EPs to spend on overbuilds. Thus I can build 3 NCLs, or 5 FFs, or 6 of the VTs.

As Jeff stated earlier in reply to SVC's question about why F&E players would want to build them, pincount and garrison duty are 2 of the reasons that I would spend the money on them.

I seriously doubt that I would downsub an FF build to VT build, but would have no trouble spending 5 to overbuild a VT anytime I had extra EPs to do so early in the war. Once the DWs start replacing the FFs in the schedule, then building VTs becomes unlikely.

The way the war is going and the drain on the number of available EPs in a given turn could force me to make different decisions, but those would be on a game by game and turn by turn basis.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, August 18, 2019 - 10:54 am: Edit

SVC did state these were 4 compot in F&E and had a cost of 2.5 EP (which is standard for a 4 compot warship).

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, August 18, 2019 - 10:57 am: Edit

I'd prolly downsub a few FFs as VTs for places where I _had_ to sacrifice a ship (any ship) but otherwie the slight SEQ advantage is not worth it to me for going from 5 compot to 4 and I speak as a believer in SEQ count (having usually passed up T4 Kzinti/Hydran(in basic 2010) DNs for saving EPs for building more ships when they run out).

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Sunday, August 18, 2019 - 11:16 am: Edit

You know, you can already sub a POL for an FF for 2.5 points.........

Also, given that these are smaller than the POL, how is it these are 4/2 ships, but the POL is a 4/None ship???????


Garth L. Getgen