Mike,

I also like your proposal. I am sure something can be worked out for ship names. I hope the 20 box engines work for the new mini. Thanks for keeping this on track.

The CVA(O) is an iconic ship.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Saturday, April 11, 2020 - 12:30 am: Edit

There are a good number of "Conjectural" ships in the SFU.

IF a group wishes to include some in their campaigns, they may.

Battleships for everyone? If a group wants to, they may.

Federation Gunboats? If a group wants to, they may.

DLXes? They may.

(Although in that last instance, I don't think I'd want to be trying to build a ship history in that campaign, but maybe that's just me.)

What I'm trying* to say is that if a group wishes to have the CVO as a Federation option, SSJ#1 has an SSD, so why not...


(* Yes, I know; I'm VERY trying... )

By Will McCammon (Djdood) on Saturday, April 11, 2020 - 12:47 am: Edit

The engines on the mini (new and old metal) are gigantic, so they would be fine to represent 20 points each, even 22, without anyone batting an eye.

I fully expected the peanut gallery to ask why they are so huge, if they are only producing the 18 points of the SSJ CVo. (the answer is because 'matching the metal' top-view silhouette takes precedence over almost all)

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, April 11, 2020 - 08:31 am: Edit

Confirming a few things.

Will is doing fine and other than maybe adding a sixth bay door he is good.

We can do a new SSD with minor changes and still fit the mini., 23 box engines are not out of the question.

Mike West's theory can be shoehorned into the CVO box but it isn't perfect. Saying it has no effect on F&E is necessary to make it happen but that isn't really the case. You still have a very different ship pretending to be the same counter and that gets into all kinds of issues. The real conversion costs and paths would be much different. You would have to pretend really hard that it uses the same counter, cost, and path. For that reason alone, the CVO can never be real but in theory could sneak in as: "The records are confusing but there are some analysts who think the first two CVAs were CVOs. This theory is not widely accepted."

Without new counters that the F&E guys do not want or need making this thing truly real is just out of the question and nothing anyone has proposed can make it truly real.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, April 11, 2020 - 09:12 am: Edit

23 warp box engines... movement cost 1.50.

Has anyone compared the number of shield boxes to a DN or DN/CVA yet?

I think I am warming up to this proposal...

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Saturday, April 11, 2020 - 10:35 am: Edit

Do note that if you used 22 box warp engines, a move cost of 1.5, and an AWR wedged in somewhere, you can make the SSDs almost literally identical:
- The CVA-DN has 3x15 warp engines.
- The CVA-O would have 2x22 warp engines with an extra APR/AWR.
Same power, same warp, everything else exactly the same.

That is one way to roll with it that would get pretty much what I was trying for. You wouldn't even need to finagle the power to compensate for the lower move cost. It would have the same move cost and same power. The F&E counters would literally be the same.

(Or, if the 23 box engines is important, just strip an APR/AWR. Either way the power will be the same.)

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Saturday, April 11, 2020 - 10:46 am: Edit

Why does conversion cost mean anything if you already have the ship? Assuming the base premise I put forward, then once you have a CVA-O, you can do anything with it that you can with a CVA-DN, except you can't convert it to a DN. Which doesn't matter because no one converts a CVA to a DN. Anything else (heavy fighters and SCS) are supported and look the same at F&E's granularity.

Once you bring the 22 or 23 box engines into play, we are now talking about literally the same ship, it's just that one has three engines and the other has two larger engines.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, April 11, 2020 - 11:14 am: Edit

But is there really a conversion path?

There is not variant CVo hull to convert. Now, if there were a list of obvious variants to change the CVo from /(or to...) it would be logical to discuss the ideas, but as it stands, there are no alternatives.

In short, a unique ship in F&E.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Saturday, April 11, 2020 - 12:20 pm: Edit

As a further point of comparison, the Romulans have the DemonHawk modular dreadnought in Module R7; it would have replaced a Condor on the production schedule had it been built. There are rules covering this hull type in F&E Advanced Operations; there are also a pair of miniature options on the Shapeways storefront.

Personally, I think that the DemonHawk (Matthew Lawson's Mongoose-style "DemonHawk+" in particular) is a more interesting Hawk-series dreadnought design than the Condor, not least due to the ability to use its "REDHawk" configuration to hunt Andromedan RTN nodes... but alas.

So while one could, in theory at least, consider a revised CVO for inclusion in, say, the proposed Tactical Operations module for F&E, that need only go so far as to allow players to choose to build one or more of them in their own games, without obliging them to do so if they otherwise preferred not to - as is presently the case with the DemonHawk.


On a side note, since this ship is likely going to remain conjectural in any event, might there be an option to present a variant which swaps out the F-111s for a flotilla of Thunderbolt PFs? (Perhaps someone in the Darwin's "dark future" timeline considered such an option in or after alt-Y198.)

Or, to double back to the Gorns for a moment, perhaps a version which swaps in a pair of Gorn-sourced plasma-F torpedoes?

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Saturday, April 11, 2020 - 02:24 pm: Edit

Jeff,

Of course there are no variants of the CVA-O. That's because it doesn't exist yet. However, since we are making a ship, what makes you think we wouldn't also make sure it has the variants it's going to need?

If there is a CVA-O like I'm proposing here, then, yes, there will likely be an SCS-O to follow, whether conjectural or "real". It will get any variants it needs and none of the ones it doesn't.

Gary,

Part of the proposal here is no new F&E counter. Now that I get 22 or 23 point warp engines to play with, the ships are literally identical in F&E. There is no reason to build an entire path for a new F&E unit when the whole point is to avoid it.

Also, another point here is to make sure this is NOT better than the CVA. If you want a super carrier, just stick with the version from SSJ and give it F-111s. No need for anything new if you want to sneak an overpowered super ship in before the SCS. Just because something is conjectural doesn't mean it has to be bigger and better than everything else.

By MarkSHoyle (Bolo) on Saturday, April 11, 2020 - 02:28 pm: Edit

Guess we can compare this one to the "Ice Carrier" the Allies contemplated in the '40s.....

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, April 11, 2020 - 03:13 pm: Edit

The SSD of the CVA(O) as published in Stellar Shadows Journal #1 is not made identical to the SCS in Module R2 (the comparable ship).

The forward shield of a SCS is 45 boxes, the front flank shields are 38 boxes, and the rear shields are 36 boxes.

The Forward shield of the CVA(O) is 34 boxes, the front flank shields are 30 boxes and the rear shields are 24 boxes.

The SCS has 11 more internal boxes, not counting all the extra sensor, scanner, damage control and excess damage boxes.

All of which means the CVA(O) will have a smaller Defense factor than a true DN.

Firepower is identical.

The CVA(O) with a movement cost of 1 has an edge in power despite the SCS having seven more points of power generation. If you change the CVA(O)'s movement cost to 1.25, that edge disappears, and adding four points of warp power does not bring it back.

They have the same turn mode, the CVA(O) has a slightly better breakdown rating.

Fighter Groups are pretty much identical with an edge going to the CVA(0) because it does not have to power photons for the heavy fighters, but historically if it operated F-14s and A-10 like the historical CVA (before the heavy fighters show up), it would be inferior when trying to rearm the A-10 photon freezers from Y171 to Y176.

So, no. The first Federation CVAs in Federation & Empire could not have been CVA(O)s because they would require a different counter to reflect their smaller defense factor. While you can blow off the just 11 boxes fewer ship internals (after all, that is less than a 7% difference) you cannot blow off the differences in the shields and sensors, scanner, damage control, and excess damage, which are also all part of the ship's ability to absorb damage. Those add another 15 points of damage absorption even before you start talking about the differences in the shields.

So a CVA(O), whether you add four points of warp engine power or not (and an extra AWR as has been suggested) is not "literally identical in F&E." It WOULD have a lower defense factor.

By Chris Ross (Chrisross) on Saturday, April 11, 2020 - 04:12 pm: Edit

I'd suggest ignoring the existing and historic CVO SSD sheets. Just start with the CVA sheet, use two big engines instead of three standard ones and maybe change a few boxes here and there for aesthetic or fluff reasons.
If the CVO and CVA were designed around the same set of requirements they could easily end up near identical in game terms.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Saturday, April 11, 2020 - 04:14 pm: Edit

SPP,

I must be very bad at the English language based on your latest post.

My proposal has NOTHING to do with the CVA(O) published in SSJ#1. For this proposal, please forget that ship. It doesn't matter and has nothing to do with anything I am going to say at all for the rest of this specific message.

Here is exactly what I am proposing:
1) Take the CVA as published in the Captain's Edition.
2) Remove the center warp engine entirely. Toss it in the trash. It's gone.
3) Replace each of the right and left warp engines with 22 box warp engines. (Each increases from 15 boxes to 22 boxes.)
4) Add in an APR/AWR box in the rear hull somewhere. I really don't care where, it just can't be on the saucer.
5) Everything else is unchanged and exactly the same. This includes the refits, the fighter groups allowed, and an eventual SCS variant. This all remains the same.

The above ship will fit Will's miniature perfectly. It matches exactly.

THIS is my proposal. This proposal does end up having the exact same F&E counter as the existing CVA because it IS the existing CVA, just modified to use two engines instead of one. This is my proposal.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, April 11, 2020 - 04:18 pm: Edit

Mike West:

Error is mine in trying to read too much too quickly.

I assume you are retaining the movement cost (1.50) and just accepting the ship is unable to make Speed 31, more or less declaring that irrelevant (not putting words in your mouth here) since most ships under "combat conditions" do not move Speed 31 in any case so one hex less movement capability does not matter as long as the total power available is the same (the added AWR making up the ship's total available power as identical. (Again, I am not trying to put words in your mouth I am looking at the reasoning, you may have a completely different point.)

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, April 11, 2020 - 04:24 pm: Edit

I do not understand why I need to repeat myself.

Maybe you can finagle the CVO to be box-by-box equal to the CVA, but that doesn't make it a CVA. (After one particular battle, US Grant promoted a herd of mules to the honorary rank of horse. That didn't make them horses.) A CVO may be in the end box by box a CVA but it is not a CVA. There are things you can convert a CVA into which means you want to create box-by-box equal SSD for the DNCVO, DNLCVO, DNHCVO, SCS(A)CVO, SCS(F)CVO, and SCS(PF)CVO. And that is a lot of crowbar work, bending, stuffing, and twisting.

As I said before, the MOST I WILL EVER ACCEPT is "The records are arguably confusing but there are a few analysts who think the first two CVAs were CVOs. This theory is rejected by a majority of analysts."

And yes, that is "weaker" than the first time I said it. Every time I repeat it the text will get weaker. You can:
1. drop the idea of it ever being real.
2. Push me again and see this become an Olivette Roche ship.
3. Take what you got where you are and that's the end of it. "...a few analysts think..." is an outright gift. Take it or put on your asbestos underwear because things are about to get hot.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, April 11, 2020 - 04:25 pm: Edit

Note that the SCS miniature with three engines already exists.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Saturday, April 11, 2020 - 04:29 pm: Edit

SPP,

To answer your actual questions up a bit, I am proposing MC 1.5 with 22 box warp engines. However, that's a good point; I screwed up the math.

So, let me leave it here:
1) Since this is conjectural, we don't need a perfect match anymore. Let's forget about making up the odd point with an extra APR.
2) Even with the math error, I have no problem preventing this ship from making speed 31. It's close enough and we don't need the perfect match anymore.
3) If that flat out isn't acceptable, give it 23 point warp engines and let it have the extra point of power. It isn't going to make that big of a difference.

Since I doubt there is anyone getting "credit" for this (assuming it is even accepted), tweak it as needed to make it work.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Saturday, April 11, 2020 - 04:32 pm: Edit

SVC,

Honestly, I'll take the "... a few analysts think ..." I am fine with that.

EDIT:
Now, with that put out quickly, just to finish ...

My last two messages were to just be completely clear on what I was actually proposing and what I was not proposing. If it needs to be conjectural, so be it. I was just trying for "real" because of the general moratorium on conjectural ships.

SPP,

I know there is a three engine SCS. I was never denying that. Part of my proposal was to say that there would be a two engine SCS, too.

That said, however, if this CVA-O has to remain conjectural, then there really isn't any point of publishing a two engine SCS-O. It occurs so late in the time period that there is nothing gained by publishing it. As such, the only real ship I'll ask for then is the base CVA-O I proposed, with its refits and such.

By Will McCammon (Djdood) on Saturday, April 11, 2020 - 04:46 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, April 11, 2020 - 04:25 pm

Note that the SCS miniature with three engines already exists.

---

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) on Saturday, April 11, 2020 - 07:00 pm: Edit

Ok I will say I like the idea and well do not play F&E and do not play FEDS much as I normally roll 6s when firing photons.

Wondering about it all...

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Saturday, April 11, 2020 - 08:05 pm: Edit

The "easy" fix for F&E is for players to mark one or two CVA counters with a pen/marker to denote that these are the pre-war CVo which cannot be converted, or would pay a higher cost to do so, but otherwise have the same COMPOT (maybe a slightly different fighter factor).


Garth L. Getgen

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, April 11, 2020 - 08:53 pm: Edit

Why would any Fed player put up with that?

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

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

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, April 11, 2020 - 09:22 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Saturday, April 11, 2020 - 08:05 pm: Edit

The "easy" fix for F&E is for players to mark one or two CVA counters with a pen/marker to denote that these are the pre-war CVo which cannot be converted, or would pay a higher cost to do so, but otherwise have the same COMPOT (maybe a slightly different fighter factor).


Garth L. Getgen
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, April 11, 2020 - 08:53 pm: Edit

Why would any Fed player put up with that?

---