Actually, I didn't know there was a "Star" in there, thought it was just the "Hydran Kingdom"

Learn something every day.

I would imagine it would be safer (from an alphabetization standpoint) to stick with Gorn Confederation, but either certainly works.

Would I be reasonably safe just using "Fleet" if there's not an explicitly defined term?

e.g. "Gorn Confederation Fleet," as opposed to "Hydran Star Kingdom Royal Navy," or "Klingon Empire Deep Space Fleet."

As to my knowledge the Gorn, like the Kzinti, don't have a "proper name" for their fleet other than fleet?

By A. David Merritt (Adm) on Wednesday, August 14, 2019 - 04:31 pm: Edit

Does the Romulan Republic Navy get a name change, or did they stick with the traditional RIS?

By Jamey Johnston (Totino) on Wednesday, August 14, 2019 - 04:43 pm: Edit

David: Looks like their ship designation is RIS (Romulan Imperial Ship), which makes sense. Whether or not they are a "Republic" or not they are still officially the "Romulan Star Empire."

By Jon Murdock (Xenocide) on Wednesday, August 14, 2019 - 05:07 pm: Edit

The Romulans also put in a figurehead Empress after the Civil War to unify the new Republic. The people who have to paint the ship hulls were grateful.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Thursday, August 15, 2019 - 12:29 pm: Edit

So are the naval prefixes used on the various Ship Cards in Federation Commander considered to be less "official" than those which may be formally listed in Star Fleet Battles?

For example, Andromedan units use "AIS" (for "Andromedan Invader Ship", perhaps?) on their FC Ship Cards; presumably this would be a prefix assigned to them by Star Fleet, just as the names listed for the Andromedan ships themselves are those assigned to them by their various enemies.

That said some of those used on the Ship Cads are the same as listed by SPP above: "IKV" for the Klingons; "RIS" for the Romulans; etc. My question was more for those which do not match up with the entries on said list.

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Sunday, August 25, 2019 - 10:00 am: Edit

Was there ever a class-name given for the Fed WDD? Yes, I checked the Fed master starship book, YR2.3, which says "none listed" under known names.

If there isn't a class-name on file, may I suggest the WDD be the "Defender-class Destroyer"??


Garth L. Getgen

By Jeffrey George Anderson (Jeff) on Sunday, August 25, 2019 - 10:59 am: Edit

While I like that idea, Sgt G, does it fit with Terran naming conventions?

No names for Terran WDDs were listed in the R section of the rulebook for module Y1, so I can't give you anything specific, BUT the R section of module Y3 DOES give the names for two Terran WDLs; Ney and Grouchy.

While I'm probably wrong, it does suggest to me that the Terrans would likely have named their other WDDs after famous generals, so perhaps the class is named after Wellington? Lafayette?

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Sunday, August 25, 2019 - 11:56 am: Edit

Since the Terran dreadnoughts were named for planets in the Sol system, their heavy cruisers were named for key locations in the system (such as Christopher Point and Kirbuk City), and their light cruisers were named after Terran provinces, perhaps the Terran destroyers might have been named after a different class of Sol system objects: moons, asteroids, dwarf planets, or suchlike?

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Sunday, August 25, 2019 - 12:10 pm: Edit

That's not a bad idea, Jeff. Lafayette is listed as the Commander Cruiser NCC 1720, but Wellington is not being used. I'm not sure he'd be my first pick, but it is something to consider. Of course, SVC has the last word.


Garth L. Getgen

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Sunday, August 25, 2019 - 12:14 pm: Edit

It's worth noting that the Terran command cruisers do not follow the same naming conventions as the Terran heavy cruisers, so it may yet be possible that there might have been a similar discrepancy between the names of the Terran destroyers and those of the destroyer leaders.

Now that I think of it, it would be nice to have a class of UFP, or perhaps FRA, ships named after various moons: be it those of the Sol system (Luna, Titan, etc.), and/or those noted to exist elsewhere in Federation space (such as those moons in the Andorian home system which are named in Prime Directive Federation).

Of course, whether or not such class names ought to exist, and (if so) exactly which class ought to use them, is entirely at ADB's discretion.

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Sunday, August 25, 2019 - 01:14 pm: Edit

A "Lunar-class" ship is also a good possibility. I'm not sure that's what the WDD should be called. We'll leave it up to SVC.

If DNs were named for planets, please tell me Pluto is a DN and not relegated to being a frigate or destroyer.


Garth L. Getgen

By Gregg Henry (Labyr) on Saturday, August 31, 2019 - 11:13 pm: Edit

Apologies if this isn't the right place to ask. In Captain's Log 29, Tom Carroll mentions in his Victory at Origins 1995 article he wrote a similar article for Origins 1998. For the life of me I can not find that article. CL 29 has Victory at Origins 1997 (close but no cigar) and CL 19 has Victory at Origins Patrol 98 by Andrew Dederer. Does any one know which Captain's Log that article is in?

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, December 02, 2019 - 05:21 pm: Edit

I saw an old Gary Cooper movie on cable today, it was "your in the Navy Now!"

Also named "the U.S.S. Teakettle " (co starring some old actors people might recognize like jack Webb, Eddie Albert, Charles Bronson, Lee Marvin, and a Dozen others from 1950s and 60s tv shows.)

The gist was the navy placed an experimental high speed engine in a sub chaser with a crew of reservists with orders to make it work.

That aside, I took the time to look up the history of sub chasers, and found that the U.S. Navy has a history using such ships for emergency service.

These included wooden 110 foot long PC (patrol, coastal) PCE (patrol Coastal Escort) as well as SC (sub Chaser).

There was also a WW1 escort manufactured by FORD motor co. Called "Eagle boats" that were built between 1918 and 1919. The U.S. Government order 100 , and the Italian government added 10 more. War ended before the production run was completed, so only 60 were completed.

All of which gets me to the background question:

Would the Federation have a similar history supplementing the peace time built star fleet with emergency only small vessels?

If yes, then instead of the Flower corvettes (see other topic in proposals) being a one time design, is it possible that the Federation built other emergency only small craft coinciding with all or most of the wars that the Federation fought with neighboring empires?

I guess it comes down to, could there be a sublight flower class hull dating back to the first fed-rom war?

By Michael Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Monday, December 02, 2019 - 08:52 pm: Edit

E Boats were around 100 feet long.

And they are probably comparable to the PF.

US PT boats were 75 to 80 feet long...

I would guess that Aux Cruisers are the answer when you want some emergency only small craft.

By Eddie Crutchfield (Librarian101) on Monday, December 02, 2019 - 11:24 pm: Edit

Greg check the CL index on this site under Victory ar Origins, it seems to have most of the articles listed and what CL they are in.

http://www.starfleetgames.com/documents/Captains%20Log%20Index/INDEX_OF_CAPTAIN's_Log_53%20PDF.pdf

By Jon Murdock (Xenocide) on Tuesday, December 03, 2019 - 10:51 am: Edit

There is no real equivalent of submarines in the SFU to require small ad hoc specialized vessels to stop them.

By Douglas Lampert (Dlampert) on Tuesday, December 03, 2019 - 11:15 am: Edit

I disagree. There are subs. The Romulans were introduced in Balance of Terror, which was pretty much a straight Sub Hunting In Space story.

The problem is that there's no really good equivalent of a depth charge. The closest weapon is the t-bomb or NSM, which is hard to set off in a way that will get a cloaked Romulan and can easily endanger the deploying unit. A sub hunter could carry dozens of depth charges, and they were no danger at all to the sub hunter or to any other surface ship and they went off on timing so you didn't need to know exactly where the sub was to use them, just a solid suspicion was enough to drop three or four and hope you'd get lucky.

It's the depth charge that made small subhunters practical, and the lack of an equivalently cheap piece of anti-sub ammo that makes there be no SFB equivalent.

By Jon Murdock (Xenocide) on Tuesday, December 03, 2019 - 12:56 pm: Edit

It is still not an SFU equivalent to a sub. Subs are assymetrical warfare. They can kill things much more expensive and better armed then them and then can be killed by something much cheaper than they are.

Even if there was a decent anti-cloaked ship depth charge style weapon (sharkhunters have it) there wouldn't be little skiffs or freighter variants armed with them sent out to hunt War Eagles because the War Eagle would decloak and shoot an Enveloping R and it dies.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, December 03, 2019 - 02:26 pm: Edit

Guys, the flower class corvette thing is a size class 4 unit with a move meant cost of 1/4=0.25. See the proposals folder, Federation.

What I think this could be, is a sub light conversion for early years escort ship for 'W' and 'Y' tech period. An emegency ship production to escort freighters so "real" warships don't have to be assigned.

The proposed Flower class corvettes were built during the second fed kzinti war, so about year 140 to 148, and hulls served through the beginning of the general war. That makes the flower class a "modern" version of what I am asking about.

By Mark Hutton (Trynda1701) on Saturday, February 08, 2020 - 10:00 pm: Edit

So as not to derail the Shapeways mini thread concerning the Fed CX proposal, could someone point me to, or give me a description of, what X technology is supposed to represent, both in universe, and in game?

By Nick Samaras (Koogie) on Saturday, February 08, 2020 - 10:56 pm: Edit

As originally presented decades ago, they appeared to be the movie-era ships and technology.

By Norman Dizon (Ichaborn) on Sunday, February 09, 2020 - 02:55 am: Edit

(X0.0) IMPROVED TECHNOLOGY

During the final years of the General War, many races began to experiment with new advances in technology which increased the power and capabilities of starships. During the period Y180-185, each race produced a few "X-ships" which included various aspects of the advanced technology. During the Andromedan Invasion, more of these ships were built, but the total number remained low.

X-ships produced during the period Y180-205 were all conversions of existing designs. Some were converted from ships in service; others were converted during construction. These were known as "First-Generation X-ship designs" or sometimes as "up-rated" or "improved technology" designs (as indeed the standard ships were known when they first appeared to replace even earlier designs).

By Mark Hutton (Trynda1701) on Sunday, February 09, 2020 - 08:21 am: Edit

How does this affect warp engines in-game? Asking so as to understand the serious design change in the nacelles of the Fed CX and Klingon DX X-cruiser designs that Adam Turner has inspired, and what Will McC is emulating in the Shapeways proposal for the Fed CX.

I remember what the description of strategic warp speeds are in Prime Directive terms (standard, burst, and emergency speeds?), but I'm wondering what type of engines the X-cruisers have. Do they just have more power per nacelle, are they more manueverable (ie better turn mode), or are they 'hot warp' or 'fast warp'? I'm not sure about those terms.

I think I remember that 'hot warp' are the engines the PF/gunboats have, but am not sure what 'fast warp' engines entail.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Sunday, February 09, 2020 - 10:15 am: Edit

Mark,

Besides having more power (the actual increase varies between different ships but a 33% increase is a good rule of thumb), X-ships have other improvements which are probably due at least in part to better engines.

"Standard tech" ships can accelerate by +10, or double their current speed. X-ships can accelerate by +15 or triple their current speed.

"Standard tech" can change speeds four times during the course of a turn. X-ships can change speed six times during a turn. This change may be due to a combination of better control systems and more "responsive" engines. A rough "real world" analogy would be jet engine response. Early jet engines had a tendency to experience compressor stall if the throttles were moved too quickly. Advancing or retarding he throttles had to be done slowly, to avoid flame out. The pilot can move the throttles much more aggressively on more advanced jet engines.

The Post-Deceleration Period following an Emergency Deceleration is 16 impulses for most ships. The ship cannot move (under its own power; it could be tractored and towed) during these 16 impulses. For an X-ship, the Post-Deceleration Period is only 12 impulses. As with changing speed during a turn, this advantage may be due to better control systems, more responsive engines, or a combination o both.

X-ships have more HET bonuses. Standard-tech ships have one bonus. X-ships have two. Nimble ships and Orions have two HET bonuses while X-tech nimble ships and Orions have three bonuses. The additional HET bonuses might be due at least in part to better engines, though the rules don't say that explicitly.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Sunday, February 09, 2020 - 10:21 am: Edit

"Hot warp" versus "fast warp". Hot warp engines have more power at the tactical level but don't enable increased strategic speed. Most war cruisers have 24 points of warp power on a ²/₃ movement cost hull. This gives them the same power-to-MC ratio as most "fast cruisers" (36 to 1) but the fast cruisers have an operational speed of 7 in F&E (as well as other advantages in things like pin count and retreating from combat) while the war cruisers have the standard operational speed of 6.