Jon, would you still want an ESG PF if the ESG is so heavy they had to strip all the other weapons off save for a single Ph-3/FX ????


Garth L. Getgen

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, March 23, 2018 - 07:31 pm: Edit

ESGs on miniatures seem to be fairly large, or at least have large parts to them - would they even fit on a PF?

By Jamey Johnston (Totino) on Friday, March 23, 2018 - 07:34 pm: Edit

Rbeitzen: They do not

By Jeffrey George Anderson (Jeff) on Friday, March 23, 2018 - 08:43 pm: Edit

Respectfully, Xenocide, I think the only ones who MIGHT want a Lyran gunboat to have an ESG would be a Hellbore happy Hydran.

In all seriousness, almost all the Lyran SSDs show mech links for them, so the Lyrans are going to have the advantage of being able to deploy gunboats in many situations where others won't. That should count for something?

By Jon Murdock (Xenocide) on Saturday, March 24, 2018 - 12:57 am: Edit

It was a joke. Even if you could put an ESG on a PF it would be very hard to use. Flotilla tactics do not generally allow for the spacing a group of PFs would need to allow them all to use an ESG.

I just thought up the deathrider concept for fun. Ram with the ESG and then hit the target and detonate. Even if it did work it would not be that useful tactically. You would probably want to crash multiple Deathriders into the target which means spaced out to keep the ESGs from hitting each other and the target could manuever so they are not going to end up hitting the same shields. You could still probably kill something smaller but you are trading a whole flotilla for it. Probably better to just launch a conventional PF attack (this is usually the case even with PFs good at deathrider attacks).

By Jeffrey George Anderson (Jeff) on Saturday, March 24, 2018 - 10:52 am: Edit

A good joke well presented draws in its audience. On those grounds, Jon, I'd say yours was a good one...

(... A lot better than the one I tried with my SFB friends about a FRAX submarine deathrider gunboat minelayer that I called the "Hunley")

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, March 24, 2018 - 03:25 pm: Edit

No ESGs on PFs. Dead Horse.

Jamey, if it is logical that the Lyran(player)s get something then the Kzinti(player)s think it is inarguably logical that they get the same thing.

Players want to win. There is NO logical argument to improve "only your empire" that will not cause a rebellion by every other empire. It just won't happen. The players will not accept it.

By Robert Cole (Zathras) on Thursday, August 30, 2012 - 05:25 pm: Edit

Mike West - We don't need J3!

We need K2.

Strike Tenders, X-Tenders, prototype Tenders, fast Tenders.

Maybe even some new PF roles.

Fighters have been heavily expanded on, but the lowly Fast Patrol Ship is left behind.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, August 30, 2012 - 09:56 pm: Edit

Robert,

X-PFTs already exist, in Module X1R. Two empires (Gorns and Lyrans) already have what you are calling "PF Control Ships", an SCS but with 2 PF flotillas and no fighters. They are in Module R12 and are called "Space Patrol Ships".

As far as I can recall, there are no ships that carry both a PF flotilla and a heavy fighter squadron. At least so far, the Steves have been highly resistant to that idea. But I don't recall it ever being stated why no such ships existed. So even though it will probably be shot down again, I'm going to suggest a "Heavy Space Control Ship", which would be an SCS but with the fighter squadron replaced by a heavy fighter squadron. Some empires might not want such ships because the heavy fighter squadron might not in fact be an upgrade. But for the Tholians, and probably the plasma empires, I think it would be an upgrade. And what about the Federation? If I were a Fed admiral and I had the opportunity to replace the F-14 squadron on my SCS with an F-111 squadron, would I do it? Heck no! But if I could instead replace the F-18 squadron with F-111s, I would do it in a heartbeat.

I note finally that "Heavy Space Control Ships" could fit easily into a Module K2, or J3 or R13.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Thursday, July 25, 2019 - 05:56 pm: Edit

Noticed this in another thread, and wanted to make sure it was included here so it doesn't get lost:
==============
K2: No X-PFs. Frankly, even phaser-1s are not likely for empires that currently use ph-2 as they cost more. It’s not clear to me that there is enough good stuff here, but maybe there is.
No XP-Refits.
---
possible ideas
CA-PFT with 6 PFs and no scout channels.
SCSs with 12 PFs and no fighters.
the "missing" Romulan K1.
some workboat variants.
Make an Orion "Marshall" PF. (Legal Orion, no stealth, no doubling, not optional weapons.)
---
Xander is officially reprimanded for suggesting that the next update to X rules might make the no-PFs rule go away.
---
K2 is a product that SVC really wants to do. What's in that one? I dunno, but SVC seems to think he can fill it up easily enough.
SVC: DID I SAY THAT? WOW. I WONDER WHAT I MEANT.
---
Espionage. For some reason I really find the idea of a purpose built spy ship interesting. Always have. PFs are not the best choice for this, but I'm throwing it out there anyway.
PFs ARE TOO SHORT RANGE FOR THIS.
---
> Police Duty. Take a PF and exchange some of its guns for more utility. Obviously this would be post-GW.
ACTUALLY, the original idea for PFs was police duty, and a variant of the leader class might work for that.
---
> Rescue. Faster than a freighter, more economical than a FF or DD. Basically a PF leader with slight modifications (this one might have been done already).
NOT IMPLAUSIBLE, BUT SORT OF BORING
---
> Bombardment. For those races with drones.
PF RANGE IS TOO SHORT.
---
> I keep picturing a PF towing a heavy missile (type-H?) into close range and then releasing it.
PLEASE LAY DOWN UNTIL THIS IDEA PASSES.
---
> Mini-Maulers! A joke. 100% not serious. Unless some else says they like it.
GUARDS, I WANT THIS MAN OUT OF HERE!
Anyway, K2 isn't even on the list. I should probably just drop it.
IT IS NOW.
---
What we need is a PF flotilla that combines to form a giant robot, Voltron-style.
NO WE DO NOT!
==============

We so need a Voltron-PF flotilla! It'd be like a double-pinwheel that can move!

Also, I wanted to link an old discussion I know was done around the K1 gunboat, but I can't find it. Maybe it was deleted at some point? Oh, well. It isn't that hard to figure out.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, August 15, 2019 - 02:14 pm: Edit

a lot of bandwidth has been invested in this topic, but not a lot on how a future K2 module should be structured.

Just reading the archives, one might be left with the impression that it will just update and replicate (repeat) module K1.

I would hope that the next module would examine all of the size class attrition non ship units instead of concentrating exclusively on late General War combat PFs.

for example, history states that n the Federation, Skiff/Seeker production never actually stopped. we know that a larger skiff was published in a recent (ish~) Captains Log. I would hope it would be included in K2 module.

Interceptors were a failed development line on the way to true PF production, just as in the skiff case above, I would hope that some sort of epilogue might appear to give some respect to the INT style units.

for example... in the case of almost all empires (Federation excepted) the factories building Skiffs>INT>PF with PF production continuing long past the end of the General War.

for Module K2, perhaps the Federation only converted a fraction of the Skiff factories to building Interceptors. since retooling the factories BACK to building skiffs would cost credits,is it possible the Federation factory owners just kept building a Workboat variant of the Intercepters? it wouldnt be the same as the existing PF workboats... but being the first workboats in the alpha octant, perhaps it should be less able to perform the workboat duties of the later PF based workboats?

could Module K2 be the place to document the evolution of cargo handling in the Alpha Octant?

There was a Podlet proposal that SVC and SPP commented on a "Quonset shaped" thingy that were about the same size and general shape of PF's that could carry people or cargo. various sizes were quoted between 4 full size cargo boxes and iirc an upper estimate of 6 boxes. (2 cargo box quonset shaped thingy were sharply criticized....)

the point is a PFT (or a civilian hauler of these thingys) would hold an absolute qualitative advantage over all existing cargo freighters as the quonset huts could be dropped near its destination while the civilian hauler keeps moving. it could pick up a replacement quonset thingy at the same time WITHOUT stopping. the economic difference is fuel. a ship that keeps moving collects fuel in its buzzard collectors.

regular cargo freighters have to decellerate, stop, swap pods or unload using shuttles (could take hours if using a single admin shuttle with a 0.35 cargo capacity on each sortee.)

the freighters then have to accellerate using stored fuel to start collecting fuel in theirown buzzard collectors. its an operating cost the quonset haullers do not have to pay.

lower fuel costs mean much more cost efficient AND cheaper total operating costs. another advantage, the quonset haulers never stop. if the regular frieghters lose hours at every stop, then the quonset hauller can complete the whole route of cargo stops hours (potentially DAYS faster) than the older frieghters could. means the quonset haulers could, over a years time, complete many more cargo runs than the old style competition.

completed cargo runs means more revenue.

finally, depending on the number of cargo boxes these quonset things hold, six of them total nearly as much as the cargo capacity of a vanilla small freighter. if a freighter has the skids and ducktail PF version, it potentiall could haul up to 8 quonset thingys...(4 cargo boxes per quonset thingy)*8=32 cargo box capacity. compare to a 25 cargo box pod on a small freighter.

a revolution in freight business model...

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, August 15, 2019 - 05:20 pm: Edit

"Just reading the archives, one might be left with the impression that it will just update and replicate (repeat) module K1."

I cannot find any way to get that impression from the archives. I read them. Seems to be new stuff.

"I would hope that some sort of epilogue might appear to give some respect to the INT style units. "

Sounds like the conjectural units nobody wants.

"Lower fuel costs via quonsets."

Things do not work that way. There is no advantage to be had in such things. Quonsets might exist as camps for asteroid miners, but will never be any significant part of the cargo hauling system.

"for Module K2, perhaps the Federation only converted a fraction of the Skiff factories to building Interceptors."

The Feds never converted factories to making interceptors.

" depending on the number of cargo boxes these quonset things hold"

None. They are camps for asteroid miners, not cargo pods. The whole cargo micro-pod mech link thing died a while ago. It's not coming back. It was nothing but an open door to massive abuse. Dead horse.

By Jeffrey George Anderson (Jeff) on Friday, August 16, 2019 - 12:26 am: Edit

A "Red+Black" comment*

In recent R-Series modules, we've seen Patrol Tenders, PFQ, PFR, Workboats, and other K-Type material. They've integrated in quite well.

Do we NEED a K2, or can new gunboat material be integrated in with further R-series modules?

Just my 0.02 Quatloos worth...

(* Red+Black=Maroon, and I'm sure you'll agree I sound like a real maroon with a lotta stuff I say)

By Michael Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Friday, August 16, 2019 - 03:03 am: Edit

TO prevent quonset huts/ podlets being used as "damage sponges" just make sure that they are destroyed when the tractor they are on is.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, August 16, 2019 - 06:13 am: Edit

They will still absorb damage until you get to a tractor hit. This is an open door to abuse. Better to not have them at all. They don't do anything that other units don't do better, so the only use for them is as padding. That's an abuse, not a valid use.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Friday, August 23, 2019 - 12:05 pm: Edit

I would like to see the oft mentioned "police" PF variants. Basically, this is just a base combat PF where the APR is replaced by a transporter (two transporters if there are two APR) and a weapon of the designer's choice is replaced with a tractor/shuttle mechlink. This leaves the resultant PF with most of its combat capability, but also gives it the flexibility it needs with the transporter and tractor/link.

If this is made, I would also like to see an Orion version of this. It's existing tractor gets a mech link, and one option mount becomes a transporter. It would also NOT have any engine-doubling, suicide bomb, or stealth. (Like with the workboat.)

I guess they would all be collectively called "patrol boats" or "police boats".

Anyway, obvious variant and all. Often mentioned as actually existing. I'd just like to see them finally added.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, August 23, 2019 - 04:31 pm: Edit

I wonder if the Provincial Government in the Alpha Octant empires (not just Federation) would operate a "Governmental" style workboat?

we know Both Steves have talked occasional about planetary, system governors having political and executive authority (comments in a number of the recently deleted discussions) ... just wonder if there is a "department of public works" running around the various F&E hexes with "DPW" stenciled on the side of a special variant workboat?

there are a number of infrastructure items in SFH ranging from communication control stations (CCS printed a few years ago in captains log.) not to mention things talked about in various fiction articles. (communications beacons, sats) I imagine if the repairs were simple, a POL could handle it. but what if it was too big a job for a single POL?

it might even be a role assigned to the Star Fleet Corps. Engineers. certainly the Sfce would have inspectors to determine safety issues. what about public engineering projects on class M worlds that might need help to support a colony?

just curious.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, August 24, 2019 - 11:32 am: Edit

No, they would use skiffs, and not on mech links, either.

By Joe Carlson (Jrc) on Tuesday, April 07, 2020 - 11:21 pm: Edit

SVC,

Recently corvettes for various races were created by you and were discussed in a topic R2 Flower Class Corvettes.

Is there room between the published gunboats and the corvettes for a larger gunboat or is a corvette with volatile warp the same thing?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, April 08, 2020 - 02:32 am: Edit

There will never be a larger gunboat. PFLs are at the size limit.

There will never be a ship other than a gunboat with volatile warp.

I would note that "light frigates" also known as corvettes have been in the game since 1979. Everybody but the Feds has had one for decades. I know of no discussion of "creating corvettes for various races." Does not the E4, Snipe A, Kzinti FF, already exist?

The Fed corvette is way pre-GW, around Y140, and comparing it to a Y182 gunboat is like asking if there is something between the USS Monitor armed with eleven inch Dahlgrens and a hydrofoil armed with anti-ship missiles.

By Joe Carlson (Jrc) on Wednesday, April 08, 2020 - 12:07 pm: Edit

Thanks.