I think they'd arm it with a Fucshia beam, as Hellebores aren't likely to be used on such a small vessel.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, August 21, 2019 - 12:10 pm: Edit

A further observation on troop movements.

Any "garrison" is likely to suffer "attrition" or if you prefer, "wastage." Personnel suffer accidents, desert (perhaps joining an Orion pirate crew), are imprisoned for significant infractions or removed from the service for same, called home for family emergency, and even "combat losses" (repelling that Orion raid, or nearer the frontier a raid by the neighboring empire). The game does not reflect it, but any given military installation, and yes ship, may be short some personnel for any or all of these reasons.

So there is almost always some small scale movement of personnel from the major establishment to various locations. Much of this is generally done by simply hitching a ride on a ship that is heading in the general direction and may divert to drop off the people. To some extent, this is reflected by the "extra troops" a unit purchases with Commander's Options, although that purchase also reflects that an organized company may have been assigned to the ship for some operation and so happens to be present when the scenario event happens.

But because there is a constant flow going on (does not mean that any given garrison, whether on a planet or a deep space base) is getting replacements or seeing people whose duty has ended and they are going home happens every day, or even monthly, but it is ongoing.

The colony at Rojas IV may have taken heavy losses, and it may be the best way to get reinforcements/replacements there is to charter a Tramp Steamer (R1.44) that can carry up to two battalions with a little squeezing (two boarding parties replace each crew unit of passengers and use the ship's commander's options to purchase six more for 66 boarding parties total). But more likely you might see a few boarding parties and individuals on such a ship heading out to their new duty assignments as "ticketed passengers."

A similar thing may happen (not able to carry very many troops) by chartering a standard small freighter (R1.5) with an Accommodation skid (R1.68S). Up to 20 boarding parties in the skid itself replacing all passenger crew units, and up to another six boarding parties using the ship's Commander's Options (including the value added by the skid itself).

But troop movements (including replacement naval personnel as noted) are constantly going on keeping bureaucrats and bean counters busy.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Wednesday, August 21, 2019 - 12:50 pm: Edit

Engineering-wise, would it be possible to build up from the base Corvette hull towards a three-engine "Heavy Corvette" design, akin to the Frigate to Battle Frigate or Police Cutter to Police Frigate conversions; or would there be certain limitations of the VT base hull which would prevent this?

If so, perhaps a later heavy corvette design could be a means of extending the service life of the original hulls, or act as an improved "export model" to friendly independent planets in a more dangerous galactic octant. And if not, that might help further explain the class' obsolescence, in that it failed to provide an "upgrade path" akin to those which were developed for the POL and FF.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, August 21, 2019 - 02:16 pm: Edit

Gary Carney:

Technically, from the background, no.

This is simply because the background gives a year when "production ceased," and it is well before anyone looked at adding a third engine to any other ship not originally, e.g., like the dreadnought, designed to have three engines. To create a three-engine corvette analogous to the FFB (for example) would require opening a production line and building the entire ship from scratch, which would entail reopening the production line for the Corvette engines, and such an effort does not seem economical.

So any such three engine corvette would be a "conjectural" design.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, August 21, 2019 - 02:43 pm: Edit

a three engine VT variant would likely end up being very similar to the FFG, namely 12 points of warp power from the engines (3*4=12) 2 photons, 3 phaser 1, 2 phaser 3 and a drone rack.

that is, if you could squeeze everything in. not sure there is room for it all.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, August 21, 2019 - 02:45 pm: Edit

I think you'd have to add room (ie some sort of added section) to the VT or remove boxes to get more weapons.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, August 21, 2019 - 05:06 pm: Edit

You'd have to do at least what they did for the FFB, which isn't that much. Assuming there were 26 Corvettes, at least a few were alive in Y171. Whenever the FFB was invented, somebody doubtless looked at the last (3? 7?) corvettes and said "If we spend the money on the design and use up the stock of spare engines nobody is building any more, we could turn these VTs into the obsolete wrecks that the FFB is supposed to replace.

Now, if you want to go crazy, use the VT as the saucer of a new "saucer, cylinder, and engines on stilts" design with four engines and a rear hull to increase total mass to say 1/2 movement cost.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, August 21, 2019 - 05:12 pm: Edit

Would there be any spare engines for the VT by the time the FFB is being designed, or have they all been cannibilized or something to keep the VTs running?

By Charles Chapel (Ctchapel) on Wednesday, August 21, 2019 - 06:08 pm: Edit

Go crazy and mount a FF engine centerline, that 'ill show them!

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, August 21, 2019 - 06:09 pm: Edit

Richard, SVC just said there were spare engines, ("maintanence float?" perhaps?)

what caught my attention is the idea of converting the VT into a new "saucer, cylinder, and engines on stilts" design.

the only problem with that approach is you need a rear hull that masses up to a 1/4 MC (1/4+1/4)=1/2=0.5

that means a new rear hull design that is half of the CA/CC rear section.

means a 2 shuttle hanger, 2 more hull, and roughly half of the other SSD boxes.

all of that to get a destroyer sized hull that has 1 photon,3 phaser 1's, 2 phaser 3's and perhaps as many as 2 drone G racks.

talk about nerfing a Fed destroyer.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, August 21, 2019 - 08:12 pm: Edit

looking at the VT SSD again.. with 4 x 4 point warp engine Nacrelles, you get 16 warp power for movement on A 1/2=0.5 MC hull.

depending on how many photons you could mount on this hull (one to start, potentially 3, if you could replace the APR/WPR and the Probe launcher.). this ship could skip along at speed 28 or 29 (using 1 point of impulse power) AND put 2 points of warp power into standard photon cost of 2 points or hold a full over loaded photon also for 2 points. if the DVT (destroyer variant of the DVT), retains the WPR/APR in the saucer but does not gain a APR/WPR in the new secondary hull, its speed could increase to 29 or 30 hexes per turn.

If it gets to carry 3 photons, but loses its APR/WPR and doesnt gain one in the secondary hull, its speed loading 3 photons to standard warheads or holding full overloads drops to 20 hexes per turn. if it manages to keep one WPR, the speed increases to 22 hexes perturn. if it gets 2 WPRs, speed also goes up to 24 hexes per turn. If somehow they cram in 3 WPR, the speed loading standard warheaded photons or holding 3 overloaded photons hits a phenomenal 26 hexes per turn.

not bad for a base hull described as worthless in year 170.

and for what its worth, the vanilla Fed DD destroyer goes out of production in year 165. the replacement NCL YIS is 170 iirc. if only 5 of these DVT type hulls get built during those 5 years, they would be the ONLY 6 compot ships in prodction during those years. (the DD slip ways were converted to NCL production.)

think of it as an early war destroyer program.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, August 21, 2019 - 09:24 pm: Edit

I think an upgrade would add 1 photon and 1 or 2PH-1FH, 2x4 warp an AWR and a BTTY. I dunno what a WPR is. Move cost 1/2 obviously. It shouldn't be competitive with the DD or DW imo.

*Turn mode would prolly be worse, maybe a D with a bad breakdown rating, shields would be a little stronger, prolly add an excess damage.

Basically a small DD (no DW discount in F&E if buildable from scratch). Prolly 5 compot, like an F5 more or less. 5EP to build (historically not done) and 2 to convert from a VT. Call it a VTH for heavy corvette?

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Wednesday, August 21, 2019 - 10:56 pm: Edit

Just a thought: perhaps a 4-engine version could be configured as a miniature HDW?

As in, place a single RA option mount, 2 or 3 AWR* mounts, and 2 or 3 NWO mounts into a new secondary hull.

That might give the hull a more distinct layout than trying to add a third FA photon (if one assumes that there would be room on a 3-engine variant for a second FA photon to get to that point).


As for a would-be three-engine version, perhaps rather than trying to mount the second FA photon beside the one on the two-engine VT, one could add a "spine" hull section running underneath the saucer. (If I recall correctly, that is where the DNM would 9ve placed a sixth photon, ha one been converted out of a DNL.)

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Wednesday, August 21, 2019 - 11:15 pm: Edit

Given that the three-engine version appears it would be functionally identical if not box-for-box identical to the FFG, I would not bother with it at all.....

But that's just my opinion. If you all come up with something viable, perhaps maybe I'd change my mind.


Garth L. Getgen

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, August 22, 2019 - 01:00 am: Edit

FFG has 2*6 warp power (net total 12 points of power.) adds 2 impulse iirc and 1 APR for a grand total of 15 total power.

DVT would have 4*4 warp power (net total 16 points of power.) adds 2 impulse, and (depending on rear hull and whether or not it keeps the APR) any where between 0, 1, 2 or 3 APR. that totals for a range of 18 up to a possible 21 points of power.

depending on just what weapons the DVT could be equipped with would determine just how effective it would be on the job. IF it does end up with 3 photons, 4 phaser 1, 2*phaser 3, and 1 drone G rack, its clearly better armed than the FFG.

in F&E terms, it could rate a 6 offensive COMPOT, and atleast 6 defense COMPOT. at least 20% increase over the FFG.

no idea what the BPV will end up as... just a guess but It might reach 88 or 90 bpv (ignoring drone speed upgrades for the moment.)

the only real short coming (for a Federation Destroyer) is the lack of labs. only 2. the vanilla DD has 8.

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Thursday, August 22, 2019 - 02:22 am: Edit

Jeff, I was responding to the idea of a three-engine 'Vett with two photons. It would have 12 Warp, just like the FFG, two photons, just like the FFG, etc, etc, etc. Why bother.

A four-engine design seems to me that you would have to add so much mass (SSD boxes) to the base hull and/or add such a heavy secondary hull that it would be an engineering design failure.

Seriously, I like the mini-frigate concept. It fills a niche that the Feds need to fill, one the the POL doesn't quite do. It would be a fair match against the Klingon E3 and other such tiny ships.

However, any three-engine / four-engine version looks like it would be a direct competitor to the FFG or DW. Those ships were purpose-built to be what they are. To make the 'Vett be that, you'd have to kludge it so much, it would be a engineering nightmare.

But that's just my opinion.


Garth L. Getgen

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, August 22, 2019 - 02:55 am: Edit

Garth, SVC posted the idea of a VT primary hull, secondary hull with a 1/2 MC (about half of a CA or CC rear hull) and four engines.

I was just pursuing that thread/idea.

to be honest, I expected that it wouldnt be worth the effort... but the more I look at it, I have to say that it comes Very close to the vanilla DD, or, at the very least, the DDM.

ya, its short 2 impulse, six lab, a Photon, and without looking at any DD ssds, probly a few hull. but it gains at least 2 admin shuttle, 1or 2 phaser 1 360 degree, a battery, and either a tractor or a transporter and a control box or 2, and 2 after hull.

at a guess, it will gain the same f&e command rating as the DD (assuming it has the same number of bridge, em br, aux con as the Dd has).

going to be a crowded ship. dormitory crew quarters as opposed to 1 or2 room quarters. might not have a pool or even a hand ball court.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, August 22, 2019 - 08:59 am: Edit

I don't think the upgraded ship would be able to take the shock of three photon torpedoes considering the original can only take one.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, August 22, 2019 - 10:58 am: Edit

Richard, its SVC who brought up the idea of a Saucer+secondary hull+2 engines on stilts. It would appear that he is the one you have to convince.

dont shoot the messenger, I was trying to pursue the logical concept of his proposed design. that said, you might be right, its not my decision to make.

just to follow up a bit more, the FFG and the vanilla DD only needed 2 admin shuttles. if the CA pattern secondary hull has 2 admin shuttles, that frees up the 2 single space shuttle bays in the saucer. if they were cnverted to drone racks (type F jump rack? type A drone rack?) that would give the DVT (or VTH you called it earlier)1 photon, 4 or 5 phaser 1, 2 phaser 3, 3 drone racks (types unspecified now, but could be converted to B racks in year 175 refit?)

that option would not suffer shock, and still leave it stronger than the FFG if not quite as powerful as the vanilla DD or DDM.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, August 22, 2019 - 11:11 am: Edit

No strawmanning Jeff. I'm not arguing against four engines. I'm arguing that three photon torpedoes doesn't seem reasonable, which SVC has taken no stance on that I'm aware.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, August 22, 2019 - 11:13 am: Edit

Two photons would be fine for the Korvettentrad.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, August 22, 2019 - 11:40 am: Edit

I don't think it would be designed with multiple drone racks; this wasn't done on other standard warships of the time (apart from the DDG).

I really do like the idea of armament of 2PH-1 FH 1PH-1 LS/RS 1PH-3 LS/RS Drone G on 16 warp hull, it makes it a new style of ship for the Federation, being a bit bigger than an FFG but not really replacing a DD or DW.

Turn mode is prolly going to be C or D (I imagine) and have a bad breakdown rating, but that's what you prolly get for adding things to an existing hull like that.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, August 22, 2019 - 12:20 pm: Edit

Richard, there really is no reason for a destroyer (DVT/VTH) to have 4 shuttles in 3 separate bays.

I guess you could designate the left and right single shuttle bays as equipped with drogues. I have to swot up on what the drogues would do, just havent used them enough for it to stick in my memory.

IIRC no Federation ships were ever equiped with type F jump racks... this could be a first.

or the shuttle bays could be converted to RR-PH-1, LR-PH-1. not ideal, but not needing 4 admin shuttles on a destroyer would make the original admin shuttle bays available for conversion. that would give the ship atleast 6 phaser 1s (no overlapping firing arcs) 2 phaser 3s, 1 photon, 1 drone rack.

not sure if there is room to mount a second photon... guess SVC will have to tell us just where one could be fitted in... or even if it could handle it without shock effects.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Thursday, August 22, 2019 - 12:49 pm: Edit

Before I start, please realize that there is absolutely no point in any of us trying to design the Korvettentrad. Steve is going to do what he is going to do, so no matter what happens here, there are no design credits for this ship other than "Stephen V Cole". That said, this is fun ...

So, ..., I think everyone is overthinking things. The Korvettentrad is going to have a single shuttle bay. It is going to have a rational design. For guidance on how to build such a ship, look to the DD and CA for comparison. So, it'd more likely look like this:
- Take the Corvette. Remove the APR, Drone, both shuttles, and probe. Add an FA photon. Replace the Ph-3 with Ph-1. Replace the Trac with a Tran. Replace Aux with Emer. Add two hull; make hull forward hull. (There are no FH phasers as there is no room. We're pushing it with the extra photon.)
- Add a secondary hull that has: 2 rear hull, 2 tractors, 2 shuttle, 1 aux, 1 probe.
- Refit: one APR, one drone, two Ph-3 (all in rear hull).
- Engines: This is the hard part. Ideally, we'd just completely toss the Corvette engines and use new ones. But, there are no appropriate engines available. So ... we're stuck with four Corvette engines. I dunno how they are arranged.
- Shields: Because I'm lazy, let's just give it the shields, Sensors, Scanners, DC, and ED from the DD.

With this version of the Korvettentrad, you now have a true "half-CA" and the changes reflect how the DD relates to the CA. Whether this results in a useful ship, I dunno. But it is at least a functional DD-level ship.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, August 22, 2019 - 01:19 pm: Edit

Jeff are you ok? I never said anything about shuttles and was just discussing armament and movement.

I don't think F racks are going to be on any non Klingon ship ever again. That ship sailed when Captain's Edition SFB came out.

Replacing shuttle boxes with phaser-ones of any arc doesn't seem to be a thing that is normally done outside of the old ship modification rules perhaps? I don't see it here.