Federation CVO
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board: New Ships: R02: FEDERATION PROPOSALS: Federation CVO
  Subtopic Posts   Updated
Archive through April 11, 2020  25   04/11 09:12am
Archive through April 11, 2020  25   04/12 07:09am
By Will McCammon (Djdood) on Saturday, April 11, 2020 - 09:48 pm: Edit

Quote:

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, April 11, 2020 - 08:55 pm:

All of that said, the CVO could be an unbuilt design that lost a design competition with the DNCVA.


Exactly my interpretation of the fluff text for the CVo, in SSJ.

(R2.J6) FEDERATION FLATBED CVA(O): When the Federation realized the need for even larger carriers that could employ two full squadrons, there was a great debate over how to do this. One school of thought (which eventually won out) was to design a new rear hull for the existing DN-class ships, which would simplify production and allow the relatively easy conversion of exiting ship if the need for more of these massive carriers presented itself.
The more radical school of thought, led by Admiral Leonhard, proposed building an entirely new class of ship designed specially as a CVA. This ship would have used a nearly traditional sauce, but would have carried the fighters in a long rear hull which mounted two huge engines. (The design of the rear hull precluded mounting a third engine and required the creations of an entirely new warp engine class.). The fighters were carried in two long bays with extensive balconies, allowing a full strike to be launched quickly. The design was eventually rejected due to the need for new engines and lack of an easy conversion ability.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, April 11, 2020 - 11:28 pm: Edit

Which brings us back, full circle.

A hull with two large engines, unable to mount a third engine, with two long bays with balconies.

Do we really need to run another circular argument?

For F&E, just add text stating that the first two CVA class ships are impossible to convert in to ANY DN variant. (SCS ok?)

No need to bother Olivetti Roche.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Saturday, April 11, 2020 - 11:36 pm: Edit

SVC,

Please note that I am, at the least, not arguing the F&E points any longer. I'm good with what was offered. I just want it to match the CVA-DN better (and the actual old CVA) better than the SSJ design.

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Sunday, April 12, 2020 - 01:02 am: Edit

And then there's this old topic: Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Federation & Empire: F&E INPUT: F&E Proposals Forum: Ships That Never Were: Archive through June 08, 2003

The suggestion was that the CVo would be a 4-11/2-6 ship with 41 total fighter factors: 16 for the F-14s, 18 for the F-18s, and 7 for the A-10s, plus the SWACs.


Garth L. Getgen

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, April 12, 2020 - 07:09 am: Edit

I thought that was the Nimitz carrier variant. Guess I forgot that it was a CVo.

By A David Merritt (Adm) on Sunday, April 12, 2020 - 09:50 am: Edit

Just a thought, but the F&E counters are somewhat abstract, can we just claim that these are functionally equivalent* to DN-CVAs when used in F&E and move on?

*I know that they aren't really equal, but do we really need to use F&E to stifle the occasional one off units? Call them failed prototypes or whatever.

By A David Merritt (Adm) on Sunday, April 12, 2020 - 09:51 am: Edit

The Nimitz carrier variant is the CVN.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, April 12, 2020 - 10:12 am: Edit

ADM you don't know some of us F&E guys very well. Some of us love one off oddball things.

By A David Merritt (Adm) on Sunday, April 12, 2020 - 10:04 pm: Edit

Turtle;
I know you guys fairly well. My point is that every time we have an interesting idea for not F&E it often gets squashed by "We can't do that, it will break the delicate balance that lets F&E work." We really do not need to stifle creativity in the tactical games for the strategic one, anymore than we should cripple the strategic game by changes to the tactical games.

At some point they need to be allowed to develop along their own paths.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, April 12, 2020 - 10:27 pm: Edit

ADM:

No.

By Mike Dowd (Mike_Dowd) on Sunday, April 12, 2020 - 11:09 pm: Edit

I second Richard's sentiment.

The two games are inextricably linked by a shared and common universe. Allowing them to separate from each other destroys any consistency within or semblance of what the SFU *is*.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Monday, April 13, 2020 - 12:27 pm: Edit

Guys,

Can we please stop with the F&E discussion here? SVC has already stated his piece and all you are doing now is killing any chance this has of being done.

If that is the intention, fine, but at least be transparent about it.

Thanks!

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, April 13, 2020 - 01:41 pm: Edit

Recapitulation: the ship cannot be in F&E without new counters, several SFB variants, counters for those variants, and upgrade/conversion paths from each to the others. We might do that in F&E Nebulous Operations in 2030, but it won't happen before that. Nobody in F&E sees any reason/benefit for this ship to be in that game.

For now, the published text and various SSDs here or there are more than adequate. Maybe someday Petrick will decide to include a new "reconsidered" SSD for the CVO and all of the variants I mention in earlier posts, and maybe sometime after that we'll do an F&E SIT just to say we did it.

I said the most you could get is "some analysts think that this rejected proposal was actually built" but that's already in the published text so we're good here.

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation