Mike:

I think the point of upgrading a VT is not to tear out existing systems but to add a secondary hull to fit new systems and more warp power to keep the ship able to move.

I think given that the saucer of the ship is smaller than that of the FF, that any secondary hull section is just not going to be very big. Five-six boxes at most I'd guess, with power systems and weapons mostly.

I'm not going to (and haven't tried) to define every single box added or changed to the ship, as indeed it will be SVC that chooses in the end.

By Will McCammon (Djdood) on Thursday, August 22, 2019 - 02:15 pm: Edit

[cross-posted with Richard]

Rather than comparing to the CA and DN, I would suggest the NCL to DNW as a better fit as a "model".

This would be both from a number of engines-gained and "how to (potentially) add a bunch of boxes, including potentially photon(s)" views.

To me, the movement-class increase points to something a bit more substantial proportionally than was done for the FFB from the FFG (i.e. not just a little box; something big enough to put "x" boxes into *and* hang struts and two more engines on).

The DNW was unfavorably described as having a big 'ole caboose, due to the rear hull being disproportionately large compared to typical Fed ships. I think any uberVT upgrade that doesn't really change the saucer (as was was my interpretation of SVC's starting notion, also as was on the DNW) would be similar. All the new junk ends up in the trunk and that trunk probably gets into Sir Mix-a-Lot likes it territory.

A Korvettentrad would really end up looking like a tiny version of the DNW, since the basic arrangement is indicated to be so similar.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, August 22, 2019 - 05:00 pm: Edit

I would make ZERO changes to the saucer.

I would take the contents of the saucer, change shuttle to hull, rearrange the boxes, put the one photon of the rear pod in a gunhouse like the BCH, make the phasers in the rear pod 360.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Thursday, August 22, 2019 - 08:23 pm: Edit

OK, if you're just gonna tack stuff onto the back of a Corvette, I want an Alternate Fed CA.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Thursday, August 22, 2019 - 08:25 pm: Edit

Mike, I think you got in the NCA. Which added a secondary hull and third engine on to the NCL.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, August 22, 2019 - 08:58 pm: Edit

Thomas, better read his proposal... he wants to refit DD into a CA.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, August 23, 2019 - 04:13 pm: Edit

Going back to the beginning of this discussion, people are ignoring what Petrick posted on August 16, 2019 4:01 pm.

the vanilla VT had the phaser 3's from the start, and the (plus refit of 165?!?) upgraded the APR to AWR AND added the drone rack.

A point that I think should be made, is if SVC's "Saucer, secondary hull and engines on stilts" refit goes ahead, then, in addition to changing the original Admin Shuttle bays to forward hull, the engines should be removed from the saucer and mounted (in pairs of 2*4 warp power necelles) on two stilts in the rear hull.

it would concentrate the warp power together. If there are not enough of the 4 box VT engines to go around, then the military refitted engines of the Free Trade could be substituted. those at least are still in production. (those are 8 warp power nacelles.)

can some one tell me what a z drone rack is? I could undrestand it being a Drone G rack, or if the rack were installed originally back in Year 130 being an Atype drone rack.

By A. David Merritt (Adm) on Friday, August 23, 2019 - 04:25 pm: Edit

Z Drone;

Fed Commander designation system is different, using the Feds;
Photons start at "A" goes through B-C-D-E etc. for any additional ones.
For drone racks they start a Z and go Y-X-W-V etc.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, August 23, 2019 - 04:32 pm: Edit

thank you, its been years since I read through the Fed Commander rules set.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Friday, August 23, 2019 - 05:20 pm: Edit

Jeff,

The APR (at all) and the drone are part of the plus refit for the Corvette. The AWR refit would be separate (like on every other ship except the DD+). The base Corvette can't have an APR for the reasons Petrick has already explained.

Also, literally everyone knew the Ph-3s were part of the base design. I whined about the Ph-3s on the frigate, but as they do exist on the frigate, they pretty much have to exist on the Corvette.

The drone rack is a typical Federation type-G drone rack. There is no drone rack in the Y130 ship, as the drone rack is only added in the refit, which most likely didn't happen until Y160 or later, by which point the Federation already had type-G drone racks.

By Will McCammon (Djdood) on Friday, August 23, 2019 - 06:29 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Jeff Wile -
...
A point that I think should be made, is if SVC's "Saucer, secondary hull and engines on stilts" refit goes ahead, then,

---

---

Quote:

Steve Cole -
... 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.

---

---

Quote:

Jeff Wile -
...in addition to changing the original Admin Shuttle bays to forward hull, the engines should be removed from the saucer and mounted (in pairs of 2*4 warp power necelles) on two stilts in the rear hull.

---

---

Quote:

Jeff Wile -
...
it would concentrate the warp power together.

---

---

Quote:

Jeff Wile -
...
If there are not enough of the 4 box VT engines to go around, then the military refitted engines of the Free Trade could be substituted. those at least are still in production. (those are 8 warp power nacelles.)

---

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, August 23, 2019 - 07:09 pm: Edit

I don't need help designing the Korvettentrab.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, August 23, 2019 - 11:00 pm: Edit

SVC:

Understood, you do not need help with the Korvettentrab..

Question, could there have been an unbuilt proposed VT saucer (engines lost in combat), during the 2nd Federation-Kzinti War circa year 145?

call it a repair depot project to get a servicable ship back into combat during the war emergency.

combine a VT saucer with a GCA secondary hull, and 2 OCL 12 point warp engine nacelles. the VT saucer MC =1/4. the GCA secondary hull Iirc is 1/2 MC. the total MC s 1/4+1/2=3/4=.75

only one photon, unless you think some one would have thought of a gun house before the the BCH was invented...

By Michael Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Friday, August 23, 2019 - 11:39 pm: Edit

And there are so many obvious variant Corvettes:

Little commando ships, tiny FCR, micro minelayer, pesky scout picket (suicide watch ship)...

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, September 13, 2019 - 03:58 pm: Edit

(R2.??) CORVETTE (CT): In the Y120s when star fleet was converting to new ship designs, one of which was the frigate (R2.25), they also designed a smaller corvette. It was cheaper, allowed more total ships to be built, and there really was not that much of a threat of fleet battles.
They were on par with the Kzinti cutter (R5.A15), Lyran corvette (R11.31), and Klingon G2 (R3.19).
The Federation knew that 12 corvettes cost what they would spend on eight 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.
Later, a second batch of 12 were ordered.
Later, two member planets paid for a 25th and 26th ship.
No more were built after Y145. By the time of the General War, some had been lost, converted to non-military missions, used as police cutters, or handed down to National Guard units. So none of them need to appear on the Federation & Empire order of battle.
The national guard ones were given a hasty refit to add a drone rack APR (which was later refitted to an AWR). They served as convoy escorts and local defense ships, but were too small to be used by Star Fleet. Amazingly, four of these (two in non-military configurations) actually survived the General War.
This is a base hull. Variants may be added later.
Seeking weapons: Prior to the plus refit, this ship can control a number of seeking weapons equal to half its sensor rating (F3.211); after the plus refit it can control a number of seeking weapons equal to its sensor rating (F3.21).
Refits: Tractors increased from Range 2 to Range 3 at no BPV cost in Y140. Transporters increased from Range 4 to Range 5 at no BPV cost in Y140. The plus refit was available beginning in Y160, was common by Y170, and was universal by Y172; ships with this refit were designated CTGs.
SSD and counters are in Advanced Missions.
Known names: Astilbe, Bluebell, Clover, Dahlia, Echinacea, Forsythia, Gardenia, Heather, Impatiens, Jasmine, Kalanchoe, Lantana, Mimosa, Nasturtium, Orchid, Peony, Quince, Rose, Snapdragon, Trillium, Violet, Wisteria, Yarrow, Zinnia, Ulex, Xique-Xique.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, September 13, 2019 - 03:59 pm: Edit

Duplicate Post Deleted

By Charles Chapel (Ctchapel) on Friday, September 13, 2019 - 04:39 pm: Edit

You have Rose and Violet, where are Daisy and Hyacinth? :}


BBC Joke

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, September 13, 2019 - 04:39 pm: Edit

SPP:

In the Fralli ship topic, there is a proposed Fralli CT+Rear POL variant. Where could such a hulk of a CT be acquired by the Fralli?

I could see several options:

Federation mothball reserve.
Repair Depot, (low priority just not repaired for service, but held in the queue.)
Sold for scrap.

Are there other ways the Fralli could acquire one or two of the CT hulls? Legally?

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, September 13, 2019 - 05:14 pm: Edit

Jeff Wile:

Sorry, but I have quite enough nightmares without thinking of the Fralli.

By Will McCammon (Djdood) on Friday, September 13, 2019 - 05:36 pm: Edit

"SSD and counters are in Advanced Missions."

Copy-paste typo from FFG, most-likely.
---

This is the first base-hull added for the Feds in a very long time.

Has any thought been put to NCC hull numbers for the VT ships yet? I ask, because decals will need to be worked up for the minis. The initial layouts always get done to the official list (2007 edition).

My first best-guess at a proposal would be to use part of the block reserved for "old frigates", NCC-100 through 199. Only the first 24 of those have been documented (and sporadically, even within that). Perhaps set aside 150 through 199 for the VT ships.

An alternative that doesn't take from any existing assignments would be sub-100 numbers. Two-digit numbers are going to look *really* weird on the minis though and also slosh too close to franchise "NX-01" to my thinking. Leading zeros to make it a three-digit have similar problems (NCC-0301 Kelvin) - the leading zeros are in the NCC list, but Tenneshington makes it clear that they never appear on the ship hulls.

The other end of the scale would be the unused 4000-block. It wouldn't fit the pattern of old Fed ships having descending hull numbers roughly correlating to size/class (ignoring the tug), but robs from nothing. This could be the least easiest fit, assuming no unannounced plans for that block exist.

Understood that none of the NCC/hull number stuff can really move until SVC returns with a Hawaii tan, but I wanted this here to hold a place in line. I'm considering trying to paint and detail up a VT mini in time for ACTASF 2.2

By Charles Chapel (Ctchapel) on Friday, September 13, 2019 - 06:01 pm: Edit

&Will,

How about NCC-CT01

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Friday, September 13, 2019 - 06:33 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, September 13, 2019 - 05:14 pm:

Jeff Wile: Sorry, but I have quite enough nightmares without thinking of the Fralli.

---

()

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Friday, September 13, 2019 - 07:00 pm: Edit

SSP wrote:

---

Quote:

So none of them need to appear on the Federation & Empire order of battle.

---

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Friday, September 13, 2019 - 07:02 pm: Edit

This is gonna sound silly, but ...

Would you please insert U and X alphabetically? It really looks odd to have just those two out of order.

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Friday, September 13, 2019 - 07:22 pm: Edit

What's that matter, Mike? Do you have CDO?

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

That's OCD for people who just have to put things in alphabetical order.


Garth L. Getgen