Garth,

The same way a Lyran POL is a 4 when it has half the weapons of a Lyran FF. Most of the POL factors seemed too high to me. I always thought it was to compensate for their lack of a crippled side. The original play test rules had lower attack factors for some and crippled sides.

By A. David Merritt (Adm) on Sunday, August 18, 2019 - 12:23 pm: Edit

Garth;

The POL(4/0) is a civilian ship, the VT(4/2) is a military ship. There would be a different emphasis on which redundancies to build in to the hull.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, August 18, 2019 - 12:27 pm: Edit

Garth: POLS have severe restrictions in F&E. They cannot generally enter a hex with more than one enemy ship, may generally not leave the owning empire's territory and do not have a crippled side.

I've never seen reason to purchase one in place of a true warship hull. The (at best) 0.5EP saving has never been found by me in one of my games to be worth these limitations.

By A. David Merritt (Adm) on Sunday, August 18, 2019 - 12:42 pm: Edit

Drone VT

Mike West (Mjwest)
Three drone variant;
That would make for a very nice unit, possibly too nice. What are the odds the APR is in a location that this will not work?

Jeff Wile (Jswile)
"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+..."

Yes I am aware, that is why I suggested it as the drone refit. I think it would take a unit that would rarely get one, or maybe two, photons fired off before the unit is either destroyed, or the pirate has his freighter and leaves, to an every turn it fires unit.

F&E;

While F&E is a vital part of SFU, what F&E players will actually build is a min/max gaming question, and not an automatic yes/no on what is in SFU history.

If this unit winds up being available during the General War*, I suspect that they would largely wind up as convoy escorts, or planetary defense units, in areas that are unlikely to see enemy units, freeing up more offensive capable units for closer to the front lines. They would likely fight a lot of LRs, CRs, and the occasional monster/subspace anomaly or whatever, but would rarely see BRs, MRs, or enemy raider units.

*SFU historical use, not F&E use.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, August 18, 2019 - 02:17 pm: Edit

The VT would not be built regardless as its a very unsurvivable hull if it comes into combat. It's smaller than vitually anything short of a Snipe that has any real combat capability, without any special defensive ability (web, cloak, stealth) to help it not die.

It's small, it's low on power, it's maneuverability is sluggish for such a small unit and it has terrible phaser arcs (LS/RS). It's going to get killed in combat.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, August 18, 2019 - 03:04 pm: Edit

Richard, virtually ALL frigates and other size class 4 hulls die in combat. These Corvettes fit the pattern, and that means they clearly fit into the classic Attrition role.

these ships are more expendable than the Fed FFG only because they presumably would have a smaller crew size. At the same time, they CAN complete some missions just as well as a FFG does, at a lower cost in EPs and lives lost.

that said, do I expect to see them participate in fleet and squadron battles? no.

As stated above, I would expect to see them assigned to Pinning forces, garrison duty/patrol, and (in a Star Fleet battles setting) base garrison ship, convoy escort, all sorts of "pick up battle" scenarios where rear area ships are all thats available to deal with monsters, pirates and other security tasks.

the main use of this class of ships is not really in F&E. I suspect that in Star Fleet battles it will sub for FFG ships on a 2/3 ratio... where you might have seen 2 FFGs, now you will see 3 VT simply because of the cost.

By A. David Merritt (Adm) on Sunday, August 18, 2019 - 03:15 pm: Edit

Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen

"The VT would not be built regardless as its a very unsurvivable hull if it comes into combat..."

Keep in mind, as proposed they are out of production over a decade before the Four Years War, and by the proposal would be largely scrapped by the General War. For when they are proposed, they make sense.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Sunday, August 18, 2019 - 03:29 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

What are the odds the APR is in a location that this will not work?

---

By A. David Merritt (Adm) on Sunday, August 18, 2019 - 04:12 pm: Edit

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, August 18, 2019 - 07:34 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

F&E;

While F&E is a vital part of SFU, what F&E players will actually build is a min/max gaming question, and not an automatic yes/no on what is in SFU history.

If this unit winds up being available during the General War*, I suspect that they would largely wind up as convoy escorts, or planetary defense units, in areas that are unlikely to see enemy units, freeing up more offensive capable units for closer to the front lines. They would likely fight a lot of LRs, CRs, and the occasional monster/subspace anomaly or whatever, but would rarely see BRs, MRs, or enemy raider units.

*SFU historical use, not F&E use.

---

By John Sickels (Johnsickels) on Sunday, August 18, 2019 - 08:39 pm: Edit

Flower class corvettes in WW2 would die quickly if they ran into the Bismarck or Scharnhorst. That does not mean they were not useful and necessary as convoy escorts.

By Mike Dowd (Mike_Dowd) on Sunday, August 18, 2019 - 08:46 pm: Edit

I think that some people are missing the point. The 'VT' as it's being dubbed, is a late Y / early M design that predates even the Four Powers War.

If I understand the proposal correctly, it was really only active from about Y120 to Y130, and really was more of a stopgap hull before the Federation transitioned from the YFF to the FF.

I can't see this hull being still in use at the start of the GW era, except *maybe* stripped of weapons and operated by civilian concerns or still languishing in a remote backwater police force like the Mayberry system, maybe?

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, August 18, 2019 - 09:08 pm: Edit

To be clear, my comments were directed towards it's potential use or production in F&E, particularly in the general war period. It's still too small imo in the middle years, but perhaps they were hoping it wouldn't prove so at the time. These things happen. Certainly it could fight a G2 or E3 (or smaller national guard ship maybe) but anything bigger is going to be trouble, a lot of it.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, August 18, 2019 - 09:11 pm: Edit

The VT is designed for Y130, of course it is worthless in Y170.

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Sunday, August 18, 2019 - 10:15 pm: Edit

A long time ago, I wrote a "History Of" the POL cutter. I purposed that Star Fleet asked for ships to fill the role of Convoy Escort, much like the Klingon E-3. The company that built the POL was new to the game; they had taken over ownership of the old WDD slipways, and set out to design a new ship based on what they could make without retooling the factory. The result was the prototype POL in Y125. Due to some miscommunications, and having never worked a government contract before, the company spit out about two dozen of these before being told to stop. Star Fleet decided that the FF (later FFG) would be the smallest ship in the fleet. The police force needed a new ship and accepted the POL, after making some design changes for the Y127 Masterson-class.

If SVC doesn't reject my "History Of" out of hand, I could see the Flower-class Vett, also first prototype flown in Y125, being a competitive design to fill the Convoy Escort role. Star Fleet did buy the first twelve of these mini-frigates, and in Y130 ordered another dozen as a stop-gap until they could get Burke-class production up to speed.

Meanwhile, the role of Convoy Escort was filled by armed freighters, and later APT-cutters and Q-ships. Except for high-value / military convoys, Star Fleet got out of the escort business.


Garth L. Getgen

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, August 19, 2019 - 03:30 am: Edit

historically, in the real world, the civilan ship builders were building the base hull for what became the flower class escorts.

in the Star fleet Universe, production of the Flower class Corvettes ended in year 145..,

did Star Fleet ship yards scrap the factories that built the parts for the Flower class corvettes? I would say no because the weapons, tractors, transporters, command control, labs and even hull were all common to other ship types still in production, (FFG, DD, CL, Ca etc.)

the parts that got disassembled would be the jigs, rolling mills that turned out the hull plates, the exterior portions of the warp engine nacelles.

Governments, (yes, this includes the Federation) often sell unneeded assets for pennies on the credit (to mix a metaphor...)

would it be credible for a civilian ship yard to bid on the unneeded production equipment that produced the hull and structural parts of the VT?

as Garth pointed out above, the company producing the POL ships purchased theold WDD slip ways. (would have been about year 125-127 iirc). VT production ended in year 145 according to SVC above.

accounting for time to refurbish and reinstall the slipways for the VT class, a civilian ship yard could have a civilian hull in production by, oh say 149?

no Research or development, uses the same hull and engines, only changes would be internal hull area.

there could have been a number of civilian variants still in production by year 170+ all of which are obvious variants. (prospector, personel transport, passenger liner, courier, even a civilian escort(replace photon with drone rack, phaser 1 downgraded to phaser 2, retain phaser 3) lots of ideas.

if there were a civilian market for the VT hulls, they could certainly ramp up production of a military version after the Federation joined in the General War. Just as the real world producers of the Flower class escorts did in World War 2.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, August 19, 2019 - 11:01 am: Edit

Ahem, I have NEVER rejected ANYTHING "out of hand."

If I reject something it is for the good of the game and historical consistency.

Now, if I did a full analysis the first time that does not mean I need to waste my time analyzing it again every time a new person re-invents a broken wheel.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Monday, August 19, 2019 - 12:59 pm: Edit

In Federation and Empire terms, perhaps the best use for this ship - and for other ships of the era added to various issues of Captain's Log, such as the Federation OCA and OSR; the Kzinti CAM; and the Cygnan YCA and YDD* - would be in a revised and updated version of (682.0) The Second Federation-Kzinti War from Captain's Log #13.

*While Early Years and/or National Guard ships are presently beyond the scope of F&E, these Cygnan hulls are specifically noted as having played a key role in the defence of Cygnus during that war, according to the R-section data in the Federation Master Starship Book.


As for the Corvette design itself, might there be scope to go back and add a "YVT" which could one day appear in Module Y4, or would this type of hull have been "new" to Star Fleet in the Middle Years?

And so far as using these hulls goes, perhaps Corvettes might make for interesting "export models" for the Federation to sell to friendly independent worlds within their boundaries, such as Bisalia. Based on the Prime Directive data on the Bis'en Self-Defense Force in Captain's Log #45 and in Away Team Log, I'm not sure how much room there would be for the Bis'en themselves to get one or more of these ships; but there would likely be several other planets with similar status to Bisalia out there, either somewhere "on-map" or perhaps out in the Survey Area, which might qualify for such exports.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, August 19, 2019 - 01:53 pm: Edit

If there was a Y version of the Burke then there was a Y version of the Flowers.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Monday, August 19, 2019 - 01:56 pm: Edit

There was a Y-Burke (the YFF). So, I'll add a note in the Y4 section for this.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, August 19, 2019 - 02:57 pm: Edit

Garth L. Getgen:

The Federation does not generally build attack ships except for the Photon Torpedoes. Phasers are generally seen as the all around weapon, and the Federation tends to have two phasers able to fire anywhere in the LS/RS arc. The phaser-3s are a compromise in that it was not possible to put two phaser-1s in those positions on the Frigate. So the weapon arcs allow three phaser-1s (and two phaser-3s) on the forward centerlines (plus the photons), two phaser-1s and one phaser-3 anywhere in the FA arc (plus the photons), two phaser-1s and one phaser-3 anywhere in the FH arc, and one phaser-1 and one phaser-3 in the LR and RR arcs, with two phaser-1s and two phaser-3s in the rear centerline. The phaser-3s were a design compromise due to the size of the hull and are consistent with Federation design doctrine. The Police Cutter got around this for a while by having a 360 phaser-1 giving it three phaser-1s anywhere in the FA arc (plus the photon), two phaser-1s in the FA+L and FA+R arcs, and one phaser-1 anywhere in the rear arc, essentially inferior to the rear phaser protection of the FF prior to the plus refit.

In short the FF is designed as an all around ship, not strictly an attack until killed ship which is what it becomes when you go with the configuration you propose.

The phaser-3s in the LS/RS arcs were a reasonable compromise (to have the ship at all) for the size of the hull.

As to the Corvette, if it enters service at the same time as the FF, it is logical that it would have the phaser-3s as well even if Mike West finds them anachronistic. It also, like the frigate, would not have a drone rack (not an A, not a G, or an E) as the Federation simply was not interested in drone armament in that era, no matter that the Klingons and Kzntis were using them. The Federation began to look at drones in Y150 (when they began deploying MRS shuttles that used them), then experimented with them on a ship in Y155, then began deploying them on FFs (which became FFGs) in Y160-Y161, and accelerated that in Y166-Y167 when medium speed drones began appearing.

So, no, historically the Corvette would not have a drone rack (just like the police cutter does not), but may have begun getting them as a refit about the same time as the frigate.

Galactic Survey Cruisers also form something of an exception, but generally traded their defensive type-E racks for the type-G rack that was developed for them to use the new "Probe Drones" the Orions introduced in keeping with their exploration mission. And the development of minefields with the new extended sensors led to the development of minesweepers, and even slow drones were seen as useful for that mission.

But the Federation does not make any large use of drones prior to about Y160 (and even then because it begins deploying planetary defense bombers).

If the Corvette is adopted (it is still just a proposal until published), it is obvious that there may be variants, but if there are variants it may mean revisiting the Federation Police Cutter, that is to say if there is a drone variant of the Corvette, why not a drone variant of the Cutter? And who knows how long before Plasma-F variants of the Cutter and Corvette are proposed?

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Monday, August 19, 2019 - 04:02 pm: Edit

SPP,

In my defense, I said the FF's Ph-3s are anachronistic. Given that the FF has Ph-3s, then it makes a tremendous amount of sense to have Ph-3s on the Corvette, as that matches the "big brother". Similar effect, but just wanted a bit of clarification on my position.

Also, on the Corvette refit, I believe the APR/AWR should also be part of the refit. First, this is because it is part of the FF's plus refit, and consistency would seem to be a good follow-through. Second, it can (to the point) maintain speed 30 + housekeeping without the APR. So, I would expect the APR to have been part of the refit, along with the drone rack.

Again, I am probably wrong on that, too, but so be it. I still wanted to note it.

As for the Pl-F version of the Corvette, it makes no sense in SFB as the ship was already obsolete by then, so any such variant would be completely conjectural. In FC, I can see some players asking for it, so, maybe? But, honestly, I don't even care if we never see a drone variant. I'm good with the base (refitted) ship as is.

By Charles Chapel (Ctchapel) on Monday, August 19, 2019 - 05:19 pm: Edit

Wasn't the heavy losses of this class the reason the Feds rejected the gunboat. This is an old discussion but I don't know from how far back.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, August 19, 2019 - 05:41 pm: Edit

Mike West:

I agree the APR needs to be part of the refit. There is a background item somewhere that says the Federation Government had concerns about APRs and pretty much prohibited their use in warships, despite their being common on Large, jumbo, and heavy freighters, not to mention Armed Priority transports.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Monday, August 19, 2019 - 05:42 pm: Edit

The stated reason the Federation rejected gunboats was they felt it was better to send out 1-4 volunteers to near certain death, rather than 30-40 assignees. A squadron of F-111 fighters has 24 people total (four on each of the six fighters) and a squadron of F-18Bs has 13 people (one per fighter; two on the EWF), whereas a single gunboat has 30-40 people. Those fighter pilots volunteered for that role. That gunboat crew were assigned that mission; virtually none volunteered.

(Whether the price paid actually evened out or not, I don't know. And why FFs were still OK, I don't know, either. But, the above is the stated reason and, in the abstract, the math justifies it.)

That all is true irrespective of whether the Corvette ever existed or not.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, August 19, 2019 - 05:51 pm: Edit

Mike West:

Frigates, destroyers, and Cutters exist for all the standard reasons: economics, presence, and force projection.

Any given ship can only be in one place. Building ten cruisers to be in ten places is expensive, and what happens when you need one in the 11th place, or need one in the 10th place but it is undergoing maintenance and/or repair?

The lowly frigate can provide security and at least prevent a rabid armed freighter from doing something bad, or as it happens, fend off an intruding frigate in the same situation. You need to patrol your space, and the cruiser can only patrol in one area to see what is going on, a squadron of frigates can patrol a sector, and whistle up the cruiser if they find something one of them cannot handle.

There are always more jobs than ships, that is why sometimes the ship doing a job is an armed auxiliary, i.e., an auxiliary carrier patrolling a sector of space with its fighters.

You just cannot build enough cruisers and dreadnoughts to do the job.

It is basically the same reason a battalion of infantry on the march has screens of squads out to its front and on its flanks to warn it of an approaching enemy, or to see if that village is occupied by the enemy, or if that bridge was blown and can the barrier be forded.