Garth, I can not Imagine Petrick is in the least concerned about anything that I could propose... he has had almost twenty years experience dealing with my little suggestions.

I might, however, have caused him some minor moments of irritation!

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Friday, September 13, 2019 - 08:29 pm: Edit

Garth,

If it wouldn't have been just two, at the end, that were out of order, I wouldn't have said anything. But, in this case, it just stands out. To the point it looks like the writer made a mistake.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Friday, September 13, 2019 - 09:30 pm: Edit

For anyone who has yet to see it, there is a provisional entry for the VT in the "early bird" edition of A Call to Arms: Star Fleet, Book 2 - which must make for one of the quickest turnarounds between initial proposal and inclusion in a product in recent times. Though it is worth bearing in mind that there is still a grace period to be held between the "early bird" and "full" releases of said volume.

For that matter, there is also a proposed Shapeways miniature for the VT elsewhere in the BBS, on the off chance that there is anyone reading this thread who has yet to pop over and take a look...

By Will McCammon (Djdood) on Friday, September 13, 2019 - 10:15 pm: Edit

I don't think it was really a proposal, in the usual sense.

This was one from SVC and I have a feeling the bones of the design have existed for a very long time (perhaps in the mythical "ADB has a design on-file" cabinet). It appears to have just become time to bring this one into the light.

I don't know if ACTASF (and its consistent desire for new ships and minis) spurred it, or some other factor.

At this small size, it's really hard for it to be all that different from the long-existing Pol cutter, but the lack of FA phasers on a Fed ship is pretty unique and the configuration will give fleet games something fun and very Fed looking as a "use up the last points" itty bitty ship. I have gamed with some folks who hated the cylindrical look of the Pol and used 1/3788 Fed FF minis as a substitute. In a 1/3125 scale setting, they looked adequately "small".

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, September 14, 2019 - 01:49 am: Edit

On file since 1982 or thereabouts.

Sparked to add was not ACTA but clearing BBS posts.

So, we don't need a 3125 version; they can ust use the 3788 FFG. Will may as well spin it up and send it to Jean.

By Will McCammon (Djdood) on Saturday, September 14, 2019 - 02:27 am: Edit

Well, I did put a lot of effort in to try and make the VT look as different from the FFG as I could.

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Saturday, September 14, 2019 - 04:32 am: Edit

Agreed, Will, it is different enough from the FFG that it 0should be its own mini. Yes, the 3125 VT will be within a millimeter or two of the 3788 FFG, but they won't be the same.

I don't suppose anyone wants the engines on top of the saucer, do they??? I don't think I do.


Garth L. Getgen

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, September 14, 2019 - 08:05 am: Edit

Well... (said in a doubtful/thoughtful manner.)

Having the engines on top would leave the bottom side clear for mounting the tug cargo pod mount for a theater transport variant. Might even be able to handle the half sized cargo pods somebody proposed some years ago.

It would also make room for the various proposals that have been made for converting the VT/CT into the destroyer SVC suggested earlier (the secondary hull with warp engines on the sticks thing.)

It could make the Fralli POL easier as well if the CT retained the original CT engines and adds two more to the fed POL rear hull.

Other than that, I do not have any good reason why the engines should be mounted on the top of the acT saucer.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Saturday, September 14, 2019 - 11:41 am: Edit

What's a CT btw?

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, September 14, 2019 - 11:55 am: Edit

Petrick changed the designation of the corvette from VT to CT.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, September 14, 2019 - 12:37 pm: Edit

Obviously a mistake on my part (seriously), I just missed the "VT" thing when I was going through trying to put a description together from what was on the board. Just like the "Advanced Missions" mistake previously reported. I will change "CT" to "VT" in my file, since I am pretty sure off the top of my head that "CT" is already in use for some other ship (even if not a Federation ship, e.g., see the Tholian CT Commando Transport in Module M).

As to the ship names, they are in the order in which they were published, and the last two names were apparently the last two ships built: "Later, two member planets paid for a 25th and 26th ship."

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, September 14, 2019 - 01:13 pm: Edit

REVISED CORVETTE BACKGROUND:

(R2.A??) CORVETTE (VT): This little known ship, smaller than a frigate (R2.25), dates from the beginnings of Star Fleet. In the Y120s when Star Fleet was converting to new ship designs, one of which was the frigate, they also designed as a contemporary a smaller corvette. The smallest regular navy ship in the fleet, the Flower-class corvettes were the ultimate small ships for small missions. They were cheaper to build and operate, which allowed more total ships to be built, and there really was not that much of a threat of fleet battles. Long before the General War, the last of these had been sent to serve as convoy escorts, police ships, local security, and for other missions.
They were on par with the Kzinti police cutter (R5.A15), Lyran Manx police corvette (R11.31), and Klingon G2 police cutter (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 and an 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 include an escort cutter (R2.A??) [a second type-G drone rack replaces the photon torpedo, phaser-Gs replace the phaser-3s, convert the AWR to cargo for use under (R2.R5) but only one (1) spare fighter and 25 spaces of fighter stores, install limited aegis, install fighter ready racks and add two deck crews], aegis cutter (R2.A??) (same as escort cutter but with full aegis), Romulan border escort (R2.A??) [a phaser-G-FH replaces the photon torpedo, phaser-Gs replace the phaser-3s, convert AWR to cargo for use under (R2.R5) but only one (1) spare fighter and 25 spaces of fighter stores, install limited aegis, install fighter ready racks and add two deck crews], Romulan border aegis escort (R2.A??) (same as Romulan border escort but with full aegis), drone cutter (R2.A??) (type-B drone racks replace the photon torpedo and AWR), and plasma cutter (R2.A??) (a plasma-F torpedo-FP replaces the photon torpedo). The ship is just too small to convert to a carrier, commando, forward carrier resupply ship, police flagship, or scout. The existence of the Early Years transport frigate (YR2.35) just makes any attempt to develop a transport version of this ship infeasible to my mind. [Better to keep the Early Years transports at work until the priority transport (R2.47) and VIP transport (R2.48) enter service in Y140 but I may be overruled.] A mine-warfare version that is optimized to just lay mines maybe, but it is too small to function as a minesweeper, even if just intended to maintain a minefield around an existing base. If the Klingon E3X (R3.J4) ever moves to formal publication, an advanced technology version of this ship might be done to allow duels, otherwise I just do not see that happening, although obviously players will be free to install their own "partial-X refits" (XR0.0).
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 VTGs.
SSD and counters are in ???.
Known names: Astilbe, Bluebell, Clover, Dahlia, Echinacea, Forsythia, Gardenia, Heather, Impatiens, Jasmine, Kalanchoe, Lantana, Mimosa, Nasturtium, Orchid, Peony, Quince, Rose, Snapdragon, Trillium, Ulex, Violet, Wisteria, Xique, Yarrow, Zinnia.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, September 14, 2019 - 02:06 pm: Edit

SPP:

Apologies. It did not occur to me that the "CT/VT" tag change could be anything but intentional.

It's not like we find your errors regularly... this is the second one That I can recall in 12 years (iirc, you typed that the Vanilla small freighter had a movement cost of 1/4. We didn't discover the typo until I asked if it was some sort of advanced model since normal small freighters movement cost had always been 1/3.)

Like a certain radio talk show host, that makes your confirmed error rate as less than a fraction of 1 percent per year!

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Saturday, September 14, 2019 - 02:44 pm: Edit

I am pretty sure that the Romulan border escort variant should have a Ph-1 replacing the photon, not a Ph-G. All of the other Romulan border escorts followed that pattern, and it would be odd if this one didn't.

The rest looks great!

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, September 14, 2019 - 02:59 pm: Edit

Jeff Wile:

That my error rate appears low is thanks to so many people who review and check my work. You have only, for example, to speak with the people checking what is being done for the various Master Starship Books to discover that I am infinitely fallible.

It is a good thing, as it helps to keep me humble and remind me that I am, in the end, only human. Which in turn helps me to see that others are also, like myself flawed and deserving of compassion when the err.

Also, the fact that a great deal of my life hung on the knowledge that in my chosen work (infantry) my mistakes could have cost lives.

By Jean Sexton (Jsexton) on Saturday, September 14, 2019 - 03:06 pm: Edit

SVC, I agree with Garth and Will. I think there are enough differences that I would certainly like a 3125 Scale ship to sell to ACTASF players.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, September 14, 2019 - 06:34 pm: Edit

Mike Wests Romulan border escort corvette idea deserves some serious consideration, imo.

A pure phaser boat VT would be tactically faster than any photon armed version. Three phaser 1's, 2 phaser 3's, and a drone G rack would allow the VT to cruise at a higher speed, sniping at enemy targets. A Photon armed VT has to approach suicide range in order to have a decent chance of hitting anything with a photon,

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, September 22, 2019 - 09:33 pm: Edit

Petrick's Rule R2.? Ship description write up refers to four of the VT ships survived to war. Two of them in "non military" configuration.

Any one willing to take a guess what those are?

Transport? VIP?
Hospital ship?

The idea of a troop trans port was shot down earlier...

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Sunday, September 22, 2019 - 10:53 pm: Edit

Maybe they were transferred to the Inspector Generals office to carry inspection teams to conduct Unit Readiness Inspection and the like. Anyone who ever served in the military knows just how fun those are. NOT!!


Garth L. Getgen

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, September 22, 2019 - 11:05 pm: Edit

Perhaps.

... but the VT corvettes come originally with 2 phaser 1s, 2 phaser 3s, and a photon. Darn near the armament of a POL.

Under most conditions, an APT would suffice, wouldn't it?

Well, perhaps you are correct. I will add IG transport to the list.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, September 23, 2019 - 11:49 am: Edit

Clarification:

The ship description for the Flower Class Corvette was adapted from what SVC wrote. SPP did NOT create the "two of them in a 'non-military' configuration" data point. SVC did, so you will have to ask him what he was thinking. I do not know.

As far as "IG transport," that would be a job handled either by an APT or a VIP transport. You would need a lot of people to do an inspection of a Starbase or a significant planetary garrison or the garrison of a planetary system. An inspection team for a much smaller organization would not need a VIP transport, but could be delivered by an APT. I do not think that is a viable job for a flower class corvette, but you could run it by SVC.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, September 23, 2019 - 09:24 pm: Edit

"Non-military" configuration has me confused.

Other than the three types mentioned above, I am at a loss to add any other examples...

Well, both the cargo transport and the VIP roles could be rear area operations zones where pirates might be encountered, the VT base hull has better shields and (barely) more power than a Fed Express or a APT (pretty close power wise, but depending on what weapons are retained, might be better armed for self defense.)

Unless they were transferred to other parts of star fleet... a tender or emergency supply ship for the 2nd exploration fleet? (To support the survey ships?)

Perhaps there were losses of FEMA ships during recovery operations at devastated worlds? Could both have been given a mini FEMA refit since the vanilla destroyers are out of production?

How about a "traffic control ship" police refit? For emergency use during raids by fast raiders or X ships? The mission is to route civilian traffic away from the danger areas?

By A. David Merritt (Adm) on Monday, September 23, 2019 - 10:41 pm: Edit

Police ships are considered non-military.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, September 23, 2019 - 11:02 pm: Edit

Police ships are kinda sorta military sometimes.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, September 24, 2019 - 07:06 am: Edit

So are FEMA ships, while the shooting lasts, anyway.