If we are going to have a miniature for the Federation CVO, then we should have an SSD that is somewhere other than in Stellar Shadows for it.

Since no matter what is done is going to have to require changes from whatever has been done before, I would like to introduce a couple very light changes to the SSD that will make it work in the current version of the game without necessarily being broken (like the CVO in Stellar Shadows).

For the ship, it would have a fighter/shuttle group of 12xF-14s, 12xA-10s, 2xSWAC, and 4xShuttle. It only has two engines, but these engines are 20 points, not 18 points. It is given a movement rate of 1.25. Obviously, it has no "photon freezer" boxes, and the rear hull is slightly rearranged to make that work correctly. Other than that, it should be as close the the old "heavy carrier" as possible. The CVO gets the same kind of ship upgrades as the CVA, and it has an SCS version, too.

This gives a ship that is almost directly comparable to the actual CVA, so that neither is significantly better, and either works well. The movement rate change let's it look and work better with the rest of the ships in the game so it doesn't stand out so badly. The 20 point engines allow it to move full (speed 30+1). Since both 18 point engines and 20 point engines are unique in the Federation arsenal, neither is more ridiculous than the other. If 20 point engines are unacceptable, then leave it with 18 point engines, but still keep the movement rate as 1.25. This will make its maximum speed 29+1, but so be it. Regardless, the CVO and CVA will be so close in performance that they have the same F&E combat factors. (This is a critical design point. The F&E counters for the CVO and CVA must be the same.)

Now the radical part of this proposal: Make the CVO historical.

The first two CVAs built were actually CVOs. They were built in a different time when it was expected that these would be center pieces of massive fleets that would ensure that the carriers would not be seriously risked. They never appreciated how bad and how desperate the General War would become. As they as were starting to build the second and planning for the third, the Federation realized that they needed a different design that made conversion from existing non-carriers possible. This design was the CVA. That third heavy carrier (and any subsequently produced) was built as a CVA, not a CVO. After that point, the Federation would never build any new CVOs, but would continue to use the two they built first. Assuming the CVOs continued to survive, either or both would be eligible for conversion to the SCS-O design (which again would share the same F&E ratings as the CVA-SCS).

Having said all of this, I have not checked all of the dates to see when things shake out. The main idea is that the "pre-war" CVA is really a CVO and the first one or two early war CVAs are also CVOs, but anything built once the war starts in earnest (and later) would always be CVAs. No new CVOs could be built after those first pre-war and early war builds.

The point of this proposal is to make it so that the much loved CVO design is "real" and actually used. There is a very small fixed number of them built when the "world was different" before the General War involved the Federation in earnest and forced the carrier design change. And since the impact on F&E is literally zero, it means that the CVO can be "real" instead of just conjectural.

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) on Friday, April 10, 2020 - 02:52 pm: Edit

nice thoughts there but what do I know

By Joe Carlson (Jrc) on Friday, April 10, 2020 - 03:03 pm: Edit

Mike,

"(R2.29)STRIKE CARRIERS (CVS): The forerunner of the Napoleon-class heavy carriers,...". The CVS leads to the CVA.

I suggest we look at the CVA verses the CVO like the DW verses the FFB. The CVA uses standard engines, is a conversion of a DN, has a large engineering hull with 24 fighters factors, and has capacity to grow.

The CVO uses a non-standard engines, is a unique hull type, is a maxed out design ( so no SCS), and has only 18 fighter factors. It is an experimental ship built Y169, one year after the CVS.

"(R2.13)HEAVY CARRIER (CVA):" The CVA was in response to what empire boarding the Federation. Three carefully designed flatbeds were designed beginning in Y171. "(Three more were planned...". I suggest the additioal CVAs were one or more DVAs. The SCS class was a conversion of the CVA.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, April 10, 2020 - 03:17 pm: Edit

Honestly, I would tend towards the ship being impossible simply because I do not see how you could fit it into the Federation & Empire order of battle. If it is cheaper to build but carries all the fighter factors, it would replace the DN-CVA conversions (and the Coalition would scream bloody murder). If it was more expensive to build, the Federation would never build it, choosing to build DN-CVAs instead to save the economic points. If it cost the same to build as a DN-CVA, the Federation would never build it as the DN-CVA would be a batter ship combat wise.

Joe Carlson:

Note that Rule (J10.0) says the actual first space control ships were heavy carriers with one squadron of size 1 fighters replaced by a squadron of size 2 fighters. The SSD of the CVA(O) in Stellar Shadow Journal has two (2) squadrons of size 1 fighters and one squadron of size 2 fighters for three total squadrons. Given that one of the squadrons is F-14 and one is F-111s, the fact that the third is F-18s is largely irrelevant, it is a space control ship as it has enough drone throw weight in the three squadrons to see off a squadron of size 1 fighters supporting a PF Flotilla. Having 18 fighter phaser-Gs and six fighter phaser-2s.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, April 10, 2020 - 03:39 pm: Edit

The “more expensive to build than DN-CVA” option seems the best option listed. If aFED player just has to have another flatbed carrier, he can do it at the cost of using a DN slipway, AND a truck load of scarce Econ Points.

In any event, the other “unique” ships in F&E all have stories to tell. The CVo is just another chapter in the STar Fleet Universe.

The fact that the SFU customer base is willing to pay for CVo miniatures is a clue to it’s popularity.

By Joe Carlson (Jrc) on Friday, April 10, 2020 - 03:47 pm: Edit

All,

Looking to make this real. I view the CVA as twice what a CVS is. The CVO is more or less 1.5 what a CVS is.

Make the ships data table an SC2 one with a movement cost of 1.25.

SPP I addressed your concern about the fighter factors at 18. The fighter group could be 12xF-18s and 6xA-10s.

In the saucer the side phasers (LS/RS) would be 1 each phaser-G and phaser-1. In the rear hull the phasers would be 2xPhaser-1 360 and 2xphaser-3 360.

Since it would occupy a SC2 building slot no one would build the CVO over the better CVA.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Friday, April 10, 2020 - 03:54 pm: Edit

SPP,

The proposal is that it is the same to build. From an F&E perspective, the ship is invisible. This has zero effect on F&E. Since they are already built by the time the Federation enters the war, any build concerns are irrelevant. After that, anything you can do with a DN-CVA, you can do with a CVA(O). Anything you can do with a CVA(O), you can do with a DN-CVA. It is literally the same counter for F&E. (There are no conversion concerns, as the CVA(O) can't be converted from anything; it can only be built from scratch. However, all of the CVA(O)s that will every exist have already been built. So, we're good.)

(One thing I did forget in the initial proposal: Of course the CVA(O) is SC2. I don't remember what the old original was, but this one needs to be SC2.)

The idea is that they didn't really think of the DN-CVA. Instead, they always planned on making the CVA(O). However, almost immediately, reality hit and it made them understand this weird design approach was bad and they had to scramble to fix the design into the DN-CVA. Fundamentally, the CVA(O) was a design of pre-conceived notions and bad assumptions that were exposed by the harsh light of actual warfare. The DN-CVA was then the quick redesign that addressed those flaws going forward. This is why the ships are so similar.

That said, the CVA(O) would still be usable, as the only truly unique part is the engines. The rest of the ship is similar enough to allow for common spare parts and maintenance. The engines do indeed cause a problem, but they'd figure out how to work around it. (At the granularity of F&E, any such difficulties are just lost in the noise of everything else F&E abstracts out.)

Again, there are only two (at most three) of them. F&E doesn't even "see" them. This is purely for SFB and something to make the well-loved design and nascent miniature have a place in the current SFU.

A couple more points:
- The point of this proposal is to have the first two historical DN-CVAs be CVA(O)s instead. There are no new carriers.
- This uses the published history for the entry of CVAs. So, no early introduction of heavy carriers. The initial date is still 171.
- This proposal has nothing to do with DVAs and has no affect or influence on that class. By the time DVAs roll around, the CVA is a DN-CVA.
- The CVA(O) in this proposal is NOT the one from Stellar Shadow Journal. This proposed CVA(O) most specifically only carries the fighter group of the DN-CVA.
- The ship from SSJ would likely be reused (with the engine and movement rate changes given in the proposal) as the SCS(O). Which might or might not ever get produced. Note that the SCS(O) would then have the exact same fighter group as the DN-SCS. Again, the SCS(O) and the DN-SCS would need to be designed such that they both use the same F&E counter.
- I cannot stress this enough. Both the CVA(O) and the DN-CVA use the exact same F&E counter. They have the exact same cost and factors. This ship is 100% invisible to F&E.
- I cannot stress this enough. The whole point of this is to let the CVA(O) in this proposal be "real" so that the miniature being made for it will be useful. I am not trying for a "ship credit" here. I am not trying to actually change SFU history. I am not trying to give the Feds a new or additional CVA. I am not trying to anything other than to justify the use of the new CVO miniature that is being created.
- I cannot stress this enough. This is mean to be as close as possible to the original pre-Captain's CVA as possible given the limits/expectations of the Captain's game.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, April 10, 2020 - 04:16 pm: Edit

The CVO will never be real.

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


Unless someday it is.

Even then, it won't have Gatlings while I am still alive.

By Patrick H. Dillman (Patrick) on Friday, April 10, 2020 - 04:29 pm: Edit

Just my .02 credits on the in-game history.


In the last F&E game I played, I Squeezed the SSJ CVO into the schedule in-between the CVA and SCA as a left over nearly completed hull that lost out during the CVA development phase in the mid Y160's that became expedient to finish during the re-tool to the Control Ships. My Star Fleet assigned it as NCC- 2207 John J. Pershing.

By Joe Carlson (Jrc) on Friday, April 10, 2020 - 04:34 pm: Edit

Mike,

I apologize for my posts that in retrospect came across as taking over your proposal.

SVC,

Thank you for "Unless someday it is".

By Patrick H. Dillman (Patrick) on Friday, April 10, 2020 - 04:35 pm: Edit

As for the MC 1, which is to me the only real "odd" thing in the SSJ version of the CVA(o), it actually works well to just change the MC to 1.25. With no photon shuttles to reload, it keeps up well enough with the fighters given.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, April 10, 2020 - 04:50 pm: Edit

Patrick H. Dillman:

Adding another heavy carrier to the Order of Battle that no one else gets a balancing factor shifts the play of Federation & Empire in favor of the Alliance to some degree. What is the balance option for the Coalition?

I do not see the Federation fielding a ship with a maximum speed of 29. It is not keeping up with its fighters, it is keeping up with the other ships of the fleet, which it winds up having to do by reducing its own firepower, i.e., it is carrying weapons it cannot use in order to move as fast as other ships that are firing all of their weapons. It becomes a liability.

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Friday, April 10, 2020 - 05:04 pm: Edit

Um, Petrick, if I read that right, Mike didn't say to ADD another carrier to the fleet, but rather REPLACE the first couple (pre-war) carriers with the CVO design. Once they worked out that it was cheaper/easier to build the DN-based CVA/CVN, they stopped building the CVO.


Garth L. Getgen

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, April 10, 2020 - 05:42 pm: Edit

And, by saying that the CVo type ships are invisible, there is no need to add them to CVo to f&e.

The problems not discussed (yet) is Mike West correct?

Is a CVo with 2x18 point (or 2x20 point) warp engines infact identical to a DN-CVA.

Dunno. That’s something for Petrick of SVC to answer.

My initial gut reaction is ‘no’, but I haven’t looked at the SSDs yet to quantify it.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Friday, April 10, 2020 - 06:26 pm: Edit

According to the MSC listing on page 12 of Stellar Shadows Journal #1, the CVO is marked as being Size Class 2. Oddly, it only has a Command Rating of 6.

For comparison's sake, there are some Move Cost 1.25 ships which are marked as Size Class 2 (such as the various Alpha Octant light dreadnoughts, as well as the Loriyill dreadnought over in the Omega Octant), and others which are Size Class 3 (such as Omega's Ymatrian Battleaxe battlecruiser and Worb heavy cruiser).

In this instance, regardless of whether or not the engines stay at 18 points (as shown on the SSJ1 SSD) or are upped to 20 points (as suggested above), I would agree with adjusting the Move Cost to 1.25... and then stating that the limitations of "modern" (GURPS Prime Directive Tech Level 12) Federation engine technology were such that building "up" from the standard 15-point nacelles was not viable - or, at least, that it would have been prohibitively expensive and difficult to do so when compared to building the historical DN-based CVA.

Well, I suppose one could speculate on the potential of importing the required size of engines from the Gorns; only to find that even had the Gorns been willing to do this, installing them on a Fed hull would not have been viable from an engineering standpoint.

In any case, there are a number of hull types which did not historically exist in Star Fleet Battles which can presently be found on the Shapeways storefront, such as the Federation Mars-class battleship. That said, games like Federation Commander and A Call to Arms: Star Fleet tend to be more open to making some of those ships available for use. So even if a suitably errata-ed version of the SSJ1 CVO SSD was still considered to be an "unbuilt variant", that might be enough to support its presence on Shapeways so long as it's not an entirely impossible design.

By Joe Carlson (Jrc) on Friday, April 10, 2020 - 07:31 pm: Edit

The first CVA, Napoleon was converted to an SCS (R2.32).

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, April 10, 2020 - 09:29 pm: Edit

I note that historically the Federation did use 18-point engines on their CF "fast cruisers". If the decision is made to make the CVO a historical ship, how about something like the following for the "back story"?

Feds want to build a more powerful carrier with the more powerful engines. Ship is too massive to be strategically "fast" (F&E speed 7) but would have more power at the tactical level. But the new engines prove to be too much of a logistical hassle (special fuel requirements, more complex maintenance) and the Feds decide to use them only for their few fast raiders. CVO remains "Unique", or possibly "LP2" and the Feds go with the CVA as their heavy carrier.

By Will McCammon (Djdood) on Friday, April 10, 2020 - 09:54 pm: Edit

If the intent is to make this work with the new mini (which will look like the old mini) per Mike West's initial post, then that doesn't jive.

The engines on the old mini (the CVo) are huge. The engines on the CF mini (as it was done for Shapeways) are the same as the normal cruiser, just a bit longer and with some extra widgets.

They may produce the same amount of power in box-count, but the technology isn't the same, given the size differences. The CF engines were the unique "fast" warp engine type. The engines on the CVo can be best explained as just larger versions of the standard engine type.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, April 10, 2020 - 10:42 pm: Edit

I confess I hadn't been thinking in terms of the miniature.

Could the extra size be explained as similar engine technology to the fast cruiser engines, but with much greater fuel storage?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, April 10, 2020 - 10:54 pm: Edit

If you cannot make this work with Will's miniature you cannot make it work at all.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, April 10, 2020 - 11:04 pm: Edit

I wonder if it could just be energy management side effects? The CF fast warp engines “pushing the envelope” of engine performance, probably required the same type of highly energized fuel that the fast cruisers used.

There was a captains log fiction story that used a Klingon APT On a special mission that needed special fuel to achieve very high warp speed. I forget the exact details, but the story did specify several differences between regular fuel and the “good stuff”...

Given that the CVo will operate with modified CF engines using normal warp, is it really a reach that it might have to radiate excess heat generated by the modified CF nacelles?

In fact, that would be another drawback of the CVo class ships. The CF engines (being designed to use the high grade fuels) had to use the high grade fuel in spite of only generating regular warp power.

The “bulky” appearance of the CVo engines simply reflect the after market modifications required to adapt the CF warp Nacelles to regular warp service.

Sort of like the difference between the older tech radial aircraft engines and the new tech water cooled “in line” aircraft engines that started appearing in the mid to late 1930’s in the real world. Compare the P47 or the Curtis P-36, to the Curtis P-40 or the P-39.

The in line engines required less forward exposure compared to the radial engines.

Just a different approach.

By Will McCammon (Djdood) on Friday, April 10, 2020 - 11:11 pm: Edit

"Given that the CVo will operate with modified CF engines using normal warp,"

Where did that decision come from?
CONFIRMED: IT DID NOT COME FROM ADB.--SVC

Not what I'm going to model, but you guys do you and I'll do me.
THOSE GUYS NEED TO DO WHAT WILL AND SVC ARE DOING.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, April 10, 2020 - 11:17 pm: Edit

I was following up on a post by Alan Trevor.

Open supposition.

Y.M.M.V.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Friday, April 10, 2020 - 11:58 pm: Edit

I like Mike West proposal to subsume them into the F&E counter mix with the same factors and costs. Then F&E players can imagine all of their carriers are one or the other or a mix.

Having the costs be the same and the factors be the same make it a zero impact. No need to do anything balance wise and the SFB/FC/Armada guys get their old Fed favorite from Shapeways which is a win/win/win on the miniature front for the company.

If the fighter group is the same or similar to the original, good!
If the refits/conversions are the same or similar to the original, good!
I love this OG ship and it made for an awesome story line when one of them became legendary to everyone hearing the story about how Big Mac went down ruining the Romulans!

I still have at least two of the old minis in storage. I consider them icons of the original game that brought me 30+ years of gaming joy and many many good friends.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Saturday, April 11, 2020 - 12:13 am: Edit

The CVO's engines are NOT the same as the CF. Those are "fast" engines. These are just bigger normal engines. Just because the box count of engines match does not men they are the same engines. I doubt the engines of the CL and the engines of the NCL are the same despite both being 12 boxes.

I expect these engines to be just bigger normal engines. Based on SVC's comments, the I have to push for 20 box engines to make the movement work. This is different, but allows for the increased movement rate. Probably for the best that way to make sure that it is possible to reload t least a couple A-10s.

So, my proposal still works with Will's mini as long as 20 box "XL" engines are workable.

And, as Garth points out, this is not to add anything to the Fed fleet, and not to have any impact on F&E. This is to just give a "real" ship to work with the new mini and allow for room for both the CVA-DN and the CVA-O. In a way it is intended to put the external history of the ship's evolution into the game history directly.