Mike West:

Uh, not an "explanation." All I have said here is that when I look at it, these are the issues I see that need addressing as to why the Kzintis might produce such variants of the Needle. If there is a Module K2, there would be a place to print such units, but do you not think they need justification? I am pointing out that E racks and Anti-drone racks are not much use against the Lyrans (or the Inter-Stellar Concordium, or the Andromedans for that matter). So if you built them, you would (it seems to me) be focusing them on the Klingons. That gets you into having to either send them to fight the Lyrans (when the task group they are with winds up being redeployed either as an emergency reinforcement in response to a Lyran attack, or being sent to beef up a pending Kzinti offensive on that front), or having to shuffle Needles around which might break an existing relationship (a group of PFs that has worked with a particular group of ships and are comfortable operating together) resulting in a loss of combat efficiency or the substituting Needles do not arrive because of other administrative delays or combat emergencies.

I am at this juncture, as noted, just pointing out what I see are issues. Just shrugging (metaphorically) your shoulders and saying (in essence) "Petrick said no and will not listen to any rejoinders" is kind of unfair.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, August 31, 2019 - 04:14 pm: Edit

To put things another way.

Say you want an "escort Needle," what is its mission? Do not just say "escort," but define how the Kzintis historically would have used them in what context.

It is easy enough to do an SSD where you replace the type-A drone racks of a standard Needle with type-E drone racks (or anti-drones), the question is what is intended to be done with them that would make them more effective in that role than a standard Needle with the type-A drone racks.

Again, I note there is obviously some value against the Klingons because almost any Klingon force will have some "drone throw-weight," but this is not true versus the Lyrans (there are not that many Lyran carrier groups). Further that value is heavily mitigated by the existing anti-drone defenses of Kzinti ships. And it seems even less so versus the Inter-Stellar Concordium or Andromedans. I am not sure how valuable such a Needle would be versus Orions operating in Kzinti space (compared to the standard Needle or even the Drone Needle), and am discounting any brushes with Jindarians or Nicozians, and Carnivons seem (historically) unlikely. Which gets me to that narrow window of "The War of Return" (which I mentioned before) when the Kzintis and WYN (Usurper) clashed and the Lyrans were not involved. But that is a very narrow window it seems to me.

So if you want the Kzintis to have an "escort Needle," make a case why it would be useful (it does not have to be "just so darn cool the Kzintis would have been unable to resist), but it should have a valid reason to come into being, despite appearing (at least to me) of extremely limited value against the Lyrans.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Saturday, August 31, 2019 - 04:30 pm: Edit

I kind of like the idea of Needles with Type-E racks - in limited numbers. SFB has extensive history with "specialist" ships that are very good in a few important missions, though less good than standard warships at other missions. One example of such "specialist" ships would be minesweepers. But the more useful example for purposes of this discussion, I think, would be escorts. They are usually inferior to standard warships (built on the same basic hull) at engaging enemy warships, but much better at engaging fighters or killing drones. And the Feds, at least, produced a few escorts specialized for the Romulan front - the "R" versions with fewer Type-G racks but more phasers. This was actually a more specialized subclass within an already specialized class.

I agree that Needles with Type-E racks would be less useful against the Lyrans, generally. But most of the Kzinti PF production would remain standard Needles. And I agree that the tides of war might sometimes force the Kzinti to deploy some of the Type-E version against the Lyrans, anyway. But the Lyrans, while not a major fighter-using empire, did employ them to some extent. Presumably if the Kzinti need to deploy some Type-E Needles to the Lyran front, their high command can direct them to those areas where, based on the best available intelligence assessments, the Lyran carrier groups are believed to be operating.

Then too, there is the issue of Kzinti civil wars. A Patriarch who is concerned that one or more of his nobles might be plotting against him, might want some Type-E versions for potential use against other Kzinti. And a noble who really is plotting against the Patriarch might want some for the same reason - though his stated reason for procuring such vessels would be for use against the Klingons.

All in all, the production of small numbers (standard Needles would always be the primary PFs) of these specialized PFs seems plausible to me.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Saturday, August 31, 2019 - 04:35 pm: Edit

Okay, I'm confused. What's a Type-K drone rack? I thought the Klingon G-1K had Type-E racks.

By A. David Merritt (Adm) on Saturday, August 31, 2019 - 05:00 pm: Edit

The basic Needle has a very good set of weapons for any likely Kzinti use, specialties, other than drone only, would be rare.

IF a special Escort Needle was developed to protect carriers from mass drone strikes, I suspect that they would have G-Racks. Against Klingons load them ADD heavy, against everyone else load them drone heavy.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, August 31, 2019 - 05:24 pm: Edit

Alan Trevor:

I meant type-E, but had not spotted and corrected the mistake before you saw it.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, August 31, 2019 - 07:18 pm: Edit

As to the escort mission, again the issue to me is that the Kzinti war production ships (as opposed to the prewar ships) are already well suited to deal with Klingon drone throw weight. They have a goodly supply of anti-drone racks and plentiful stocks of their own drones which makes the use of drone strikes by the Klingons rather limited. That is to say the Klingons tend to use their drones more defensively to knock down Kzinti drones, and the drones they can spare or attempt to use in drone strikes are rather easily stopped by the existing Kzinii superiority in drone throw-weight. Taking drone racks off of Needles only reduces the drone throw-weight and does not really increase the defense capability. (Please all note this is DISCUSSION, not a fiat "my way or the highway" statement.) And the issue of facing the Lyrans remains.

Plasma escorts work because plasma-D torpedoes, while short ranged and doing less damage than even a plasma-F, are not easily countered and so retain more offensive potential than type-VI drones in ship to ship combat. The Klingon G1K works because so many of the Klingon's enemies are susceptible to them (Hydrans, Federation, Kzintis), the exception being the Tholians, which is a fairly small front. But they also suffer a noted lack of effectiveness after the General War against the Inter-Stellar Concordium and the Andromedans (probably not as many in service then).

Given the available defenses against drones and fighters, is it really worthwhile to strip the offensive potential from the Needles? Remember, they are Kzinti, so they have access to Kzinti drone percentages (50% special), and by design were less concerned with their enemies drone launch. (The Klingon G1 has an anti-drone rack, the Kzintis do not, but the Kziniis have more offensive potential. in two phaser-1s and two phaser-3s compared to the G1's two phaser-2s).

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Saturday, August 31, 2019 - 08:50 pm: Edit

The Escort Needles are for use against rebellious elements that might attempt to overthrow the Patriarch.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Saturday, August 31, 2019 - 09:42 pm: Edit

SPP,

My track record of changing your mind on anything hovers around 0%. I don't think it is actually 0, but it is pretty close. So, metaphorically shrugging my shoulders and moving on is actually the rational response, especially when I have so little invested in the topic. (Kzintis aren't usually on my radar.)

But, just to close it out, ...

Typically, from what I have seen, is that carriers will often fight against carriers. So, if your force has fighters, especially in a large operation, you can have confidence that your opponent will also have fighters. For any traditional opponent the Kzintis fight, fighters means drones. So, having a drone rack that can fire multiple times a turn is valuable. Especially when those munitions are effective against drones, fighters, and other gunboats.

Is it worth making a dedicated flotilla of just gunboats with E-racks? I assume not. But being able to include some in an otherwise standard flotilla or having them available for casual use could still prove to be useful.

And, regardless of the escort version, I am surprised at the lack of a version with a Ph-1 in place of the disruptor. Klingons do it, Lyrans do it, Feds would have done it. It just seems too obvious to not do. Especially when the Klingon and Lyrans do it with Ph-2s. The Kzintis would get to use a Ph-1, and sometimes that Ph-1 will be more useful than a disruptor.

But, again, that's just my looking at things. I could be wrong, and frequently am. It isn't worth trying to change.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, August 31, 2019 - 11:21 pm: Edit

Given how late Needles show up, I am not sure there are any operational carrier groups that need defense more than additional offense even versus the Klingons, much less the Lyrans. Anyone else have an opinion or looked at this?

That said, while I would like to believe it would not happen, I have read enough oddities of government actions that I can almost see the Patriarch perhaps taking such a step.

By Michael Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Saturday, August 31, 2019 - 11:45 pm: Edit

Perhaps a few testbeds that were quickly assigned to carrier groups as "causal PFs?"

actually, having a pair of these, to be released for "final terminal defense" of the carrier might make some sense. Docked until needed (to shields them from enemy sniper fire), then undocked to deal with the occasional heavy salvo (like 4 Scatter Packs synchronized to hit close in time).

PFs can start shooting HOW MANY impulses after undocking?

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandor) on Sunday, September 01, 2019 - 11:14 am: Edit

16 impulses after launch for seeking weapons. 8 impulses for direct fire weapons.

I am trying to think if i was a kzinti would i want a needle that can kill drones and fighters but not have regular drones. At the time of the needle we already have speed 32 drones.

Launch drones follow the drones in. launch more drones close to point blank range. having more phasers left to shoot the enemy with as his/hers is used to kill drones. The enemy is using drones to counter kzinti drones.

If I do the launch drones snipe with Disr tactic. Keeping the enemy off with drone waves. Forcing the use of there phasers again to kill drones. Again my short range phasers should be able to take care of any drones coming my way.

Now Ph1 on my needle and not Disr. That could be useful. I will probably have a shift and a Phaser would do at least some damage within range 5. The Disr can miss. Also phasers means more power for speed and defenses.

However i think Kzinti PFs and fighters are best used as extra drone racks. So a force can have more Disr for the medium range snipe battle.

It is always about at what range your force has the better damage potential then the opposing force. Drones are great at setting a range and forcing movement. More so in the numbers that Kzinti can put out.

So a phaser needle can be useful. I do not think a escort type is needed.

By A. David Merritt (Adm) on Sunday, September 01, 2019 - 12:51 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandor) on Sunday, September 01, 2019 - 11:14 am: Edit

16 impulses after launch for seeking weapons. 8 impulses for direct fire weapons...

---

By Francois Lemay (Princeton) on Sunday, September 01, 2019 - 12:54 pm: Edit

I believe PFs/INTs can start shooting/launching on the imp of release.

Cheers
Frank

By Francois Lemay (Princeton) on Sunday, September 01, 2019 - 01:49 pm: Edit

My belief is wrong !
:>)

Cheers
Frank

By Jeffrey George Anderson (Jeff) on Sunday, September 01, 2019 - 02:05 pm: Edit

Would the Kzinti be interested in Needles with Type-E Drone Racks after some encounters with the G-1Ks? I could be wrong, but with the kill rates from the Bounty Hunters, I think they'd want to try and copy them.

Also, have the Kzinti suffered an attack from a Klingon Swarm? I can think of two times off the top of my head that they used that attack (once against "Cracker Jack" Radey, and once against the Tholians), and I can imagine that the THREAT of such an attack might "Encourage" the Kzinti to take measures.

Just my 0.02 Quatloos worth...

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandor) on Sunday, September 01, 2019 - 02:55 pm: Edit

Ah i guess i should have read the K section

By Jamey Johnston (Totino) on Tuesday, September 03, 2019 - 12:57 am: Edit

Relatively minor, but curious anyway:

ISC PFs have an ISD of Y183, but the SCS has an ISD of Y182

Looks like all their other PFT hulls have an ISD of Y183, so I am guessing that the SCS should also be Y183, but I was curious if maybe I have that backwards and the PFs should be Y182?

By Michael Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Tuesday, September 03, 2019 - 02:57 am: Edit

SCS built as testbed using interceptors/ purchased pfs/ prototype PFs?

By Jamey Johnston (Totino) on Tuesday, September 03, 2019 - 03:10 am: Edit

That's possible, but I think that I answered my own question. The carrier data table in module K R13.4 (SCS) has Y183+ in the year column, which conflicts with the Master Ship Chart ISD, but agrees with both the PFT ISD and the PF ISDs found in other places. Looking fairly likely that it should in fact be Y183.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, September 03, 2019 - 01:02 pm: Edit

Jamey Johnston:

Apparently a previously unreported transcription error as the Module K Master Ship Chart gives the service date of the Inter-Stellar Concordium Space Control Ship as Y183.

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Tuesday, September 03, 2019 - 03:55 pm: Edit

Another possibility: they built the ship and then rejected the PF design, so for a year you can fly the ship but are not allowed to have PFs on it. {BIG GRIN}


Garth L. Getgen

By Jeffrey George Anderson (Jeff) on Tuesday, September 03, 2019 - 04:00 pm: Edit

Didn't some carriers that operated heavy fighters do so with them on a type of mech link? If so, why not with SCSes?

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, September 03, 2019 - 04:06 pm: Edit

Jeffrey George Anderson:

Because pretty much only the Federation did that. The Inter-Stellar Concordium did not.

By Jamey Johnston (Totino) on Tuesday, September 03, 2019 - 07:00 pm: Edit

And just to be clear on something else: The "Mech Link" refit (R1.R1) that can essentially be applied to any ship can only be used by the Federation if their Conjectural PFs are used. You cannot use it to bring a pair of F-111s to a battle, correct?