Joe,

The Lyrans also have a Space Patrol Ship with two PF flotillas.

By Joe Carlson (Jrc) on Thursday, April 30, 2020 - 05:39 pm: Edit

Alan,

Thanks.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Thursday, April 30, 2020 - 05:57 pm: Edit

Another screwball ship I had was a conversion of the Federation SCSA (R2.32A), where I replaced the saucer with one from the GSC (R2.16). Admittedly, this WAS done back in the `80's (when the Federation CVA and SCS were the purpose designed hulls instead of modified DN type hulls), but I wonder if some aspects MIGHT be useful in this situation.

What would you think of replacing just the front half of the SCSA saucer with the front half of the GSC saucer? Might that work for making a ship of this type?

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, April 30, 2020 - 06:03 pm: Edit

What advantage would 4 special sensors give the proposed HDCS? IIRC the Kzinti SSCS only has two special Sensors.

In F&E four Special sensors (and the power to use all four if needed) might be enough to upgrade its status from a less capable EW platform to a better (heavier) type, but the difference isn’t As well defined in SFB’s.

It would mean four special sensors channels could be blocked instead of two. (Or, you could fire 2 weapons that block channels leaving 2 functional special sensors...)

Given that the real weapons in combat are going to be the fighters, reducing the total fighters does not make a lot of sense.

I may be alone here, but I would rather lose two photons than 4 F-18s.

By Joe Carlson (Jrc) on Thursday, April 30, 2020 - 09:14 pm: Edit

SSCS has 4. The Federation ship has to be something less than the SCS. The Federation counterpart to the PF is the F-111 and the A-20F.

Alan laid out the path for a PF races, loosing 2 heavy weapons for the special sensors. I think The Federation version needs to replace 2 photons with 2 special sensors. The rear hull carries 12 F-14Bs or 12 F-14Cs or 12 F-14Ds, and 6 A-20Fs.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Thursday, April 30, 2020 - 09:31 pm: Edit

Joe, the base ship I used for the conversion was the conjectural version that made use of the conjectural PFs.

This ship, as I scribbled on graph paper, had...

12 F-14s,
12 F-18s, and
6 Thunderbolt gunboats.

There were other things that made it so... Eww... At the top of the list was the GSCs ten boxes of cargo (for R2.R5).

By Joe Carlson (Jrc) on Thursday, April 30, 2020 - 11:37 pm: Edit

Jeff,

My understanding of the rules is a carrier has fighter storage for drones, pods, chaff packs, and warp booster packs in the area of the fighter shuttle racks. J4.7 (rear hull). A Federation galactic survey cruiser (GSC) operating a light carrier (CVL R.16A) used R2.R5 to store the drones and supplies for the 6 fighters. So 4 of the saucer cargo boxes are used. Federation carrier escorts use R2.R5 to fill their cargo boxes with fighter supplies which is drawn from the carrier.

All per annex 8H a special sensor is not a heavy weapon. The Federation version of this proposed class can replace 2 G racks with 2 special sensor. A separate change is adding a gun house with 2 drone racks. These are my view which I think are correct but I could be incorrect on how I applied the rules.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, May 01, 2020 - 12:09 am: Edit

You will find that special sensors (on warships) almost always replace heavy weapons from the base gull.

By Joe Carlson (Jrc) on Friday, May 01, 2020 - 01:45 am: Edit

Richard,

Thanks. So for the Feds we are back to 2 photons for 2 special sensors. Drone racks remain the same.

Any other suggestions?

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, May 01, 2020 - 08:31 am: Edit

Joe,

There have been two or three prior proposals for using GSC saucers as substitutes for carriers (CVSsecondary hull, DN secondary hull and adding a Third 15 box warp nacelle to the GSC saucer, even converting a GSC to a CA and CC variant.

My suggestion is to let Jeff Anderson Submit his own proposal In a different topic.

You might consider an alternative flight group by substituting six F-111 heavy fighters (on 6 mech links) and 6 F-18s in the hanger bay for the 6 A-20s. Given Alan Trevors point about the energy demands for supporting fighters In combat, the energy not used to reload the A-20 s photons.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, May 01, 2020 - 08:39 am: Edit

Alternate suggestion for the Federation: Base their heavy RTN Hunter of the DVA rather than the CVA.

DVA has six photon torpedoes, eight phaser-1s two gatling phasers, and two G-racks. It carries 12 F-14 and 6 A-20F. Replacing two photon torpedoes with special sensors still leaves a ship with heavy cruiser firepower at long range, but better short range firepower than a cruiser, with dreadnought shields and durability.

Over all, it's capability would probably be approximately comparable to the previously hypothesized C8S-based heavy RTN Hunter. The ship itself is probably superior to the C8S version and the F-14 squadron is superior to the Klingon Z-YC squadron. But the A-20F squadron, while formidable, still falls a bit short of the G-1 flotilla (though that is somewhat scenario dependent.)

By Joe Carlson (Jrc) on Friday, May 01, 2020 - 12:12 pm: Edit

That yours for me(Base their heavy RTN Hunter of the DVA rather than the CVA). Any additional comments on the Federation proposal?

What empire is next?

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, May 01, 2020 - 02:45 pm: Edit

Should there be a Kzinti RTN hunter based on the CVA?

By Joe Carlson (Jrc) on Friday, May 01, 2020 - 03:39 pm: Edit

Jeff,

I need to do some research. The Z CVA is in module J and the SCS and SSCS are in module K.

Alan,

12:12 post should have read "works for me"

By Joe Carlson (Jrc) on Friday, May 01, 2020 - 05:00 pm: Edit

Revised proposal:

The Federation recognized the limitations of the division control ship class. A dreadnought heavy carrier (DVA) was converted to what amounted to a heavy division control ship by replacing 2 photons with 2 special sensors. the conversion was completed in Y185. The ship was named a dreadnought heavy carrier scout (DVAS).

The Klingons concerned by the development of the Federation ship converted a C8S by replacing the center engine disrupters with 2 special sensors. It was designated a C8S-S. YIS is Y185.

Both the Klingon and Federation ship post general war performed neutral and freedom of navigation patrols until the Andromedans attacked both empires in Y192.

The Kzintis were satisfied with their space control ship. During the Andromedan war in Y196 they converted a SCS into a SSCS

The Gorns and Lyrans built space patrol ship with 2 flotillas of PFs.

The Romulans had the Thunderhawk battle control ships and didn't have a SC2 hull available.

The Hydrans and the ISC focused on building X-ships

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Friday, May 01, 2020 - 07:21 pm: Edit

I think that a Phoenix SCS and a ROC survived the GW …

By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Friday, May 01, 2020 - 09:00 pm: Edit

The Romulan have the RedHawk (Real Evil Demonhawk), which has 12 PFs and 4 Special Sensors on a dreadnought hull. It is a Demonhawk with SparrowHawk-C and SkyHawk-E modules. It is mentioned in rule (K2.13) but the explicit description seems to be lost in history.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, May 01, 2020 - 09:41 pm: Edit

So... in reviewing this proposal.

Seems like the ideas discussed fall more into a K module (since we are talking about RTN hunter type ships with two or more attrition unit squadrons or a PF flotilla and on board special sensors) than a more General R module.

If this were a K module proposal, there might be a need for support ships to keep the individual RTN hunters on task and on target.

In F&E, fleets are supported by the supply grid and (n the case of the Federation) a logistical task force.

At present, these HDSC class ships would need to retire to a base (star base, BTS or a FRD) after each successful attack.

I wonder if it’s worth deploying a support group of repair and resupply ships to keep the RTN hunters filled up with fighters & PFs (and able to repair a small amount of battle damage) between strikes.

The difference, is, a tempo based on F&E six month turns or SFBs tempo where in six months you might six or more SFB scenarios.

Not suggesting each RTN hunter would have or need its own logistics task force, but three small freighter variants (say a repair ship, a aux CVL, and a stock freighter holding spare parts and a drone stockpile) might be in order.

Or perhaps a set of three similar ship variants on a free trader hull, or even a APT. Guard ships would be the normal escorts assigned to the HDSC.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, May 01, 2020 - 09:55 pm: Edit

I don't think F&E needs extra rules for that, it's more or less already in F&E.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, May 01, 2020 - 10:16 pm: Edit

Richard, this is for year 192 RTN hunter operations, not F&E.

Let me point out that this is a star fleet battles proposals topic, not a F&E topic.

By Joe Carlson (Jrc) on Friday, May 01, 2020 - 11:30 pm: Edit

All:

Everyone can ask questions and make comments.

Richard are you saying that the "being in supply" handles the logistic Jeff posted?

F&E Andromedan War isn't out. The logistic for operation unity is just notional. The only time a supply vessel becomes important is in a scenario.

Jeff,

"...keep the individual RTN hunters on task and on target." See (R5.24) between patrols the ship, PFs, and fighters are repaired and resupplied. The tug Copernicus scenario is an example.

By Joe Carlson (Jrc) on Saturday, May 02, 2020 - 12:11 am: Edit

John,

If you would like to post what you think the Red Hawk is please do so. It is based on the conjectural Demon Hawk but that is okay.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, May 02, 2020 - 09:45 am: Edit

Joe,

Being in supply, for F&E purposes, means units (including Ships such as your proposed HDSC) fueled, armed with consumables (drones, fighters, MRS, etc...)

What Richard failed to note is repairs only happen (in F&E) at bases (star bases, BTS) or with the use of non base units such as repair ships or FRDs.

In this context, the RTN hunters are not at a base. They are “in the field” so to speak. Normal supply (such as use of the tug Copernicus) would again only supply consumable items such as fuel, drones, fighters (PFs for those empires that use them) MRS, (SWAC for the Federation) etc.

Again, I repeat, a supply grid (in F&E term, in this case a Tug acting as a supply node using the F&E rule concerning one of the tug missions that F&E allows) Does not repair battle damage.

This speaks directly to the “Tempo” issue.

F&E turns are Six months long, and normally only allow for a single repair opportunity during the sequence of play (SOP). Oh, there is a second repair function, that costs twice as much in Economic Points, but that happens during a different phase (other than during the economic phase.)

In contrast to the point Richard is attempting to make, Star Fleet Battles is played at a faster speed, turns are far less than six months like F&E. There could be many battles, and between scenarios Star Fleet Battles ships have the opportunity to self repair some battle damage under the published rules. Not to mention repairs that could be conducted by other units in the game (FRD, mobile bases with repair module, repair ships).

A HDSC (as proposed) could engage the Andromedan many times over a six month period as the RTN nodes are detected and destroyed.

The other thing Richard is ignoring is that the history indicates that the network was taken down quickly. Using F&E rules, such a result is not possible. With so few RTN hunter type ships available, and each node in the RTN taking six months to eliminate (using F&E rules) it would take years to complete.

Plus, again going by the published F&E rules, resupply will only restore fighters once per turn. In Star Fleet battles for your proposed HDSC, a support group as I suggested above could include a stockpile of fighters available to keep the HDSC combat ready for several encounters during the campaign.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Saturday, May 02, 2020 - 11:21 am: Edit

A Couple of comments:

I'm a little confused by the discussion of logistics considerations. What's really the issue? Due to the particular nature of the Andromedan threat, I think it's likely that all empires would support their RTN hunters with something comparable to "mini Logistics Task Forces". The ships for this already exist in SFB; repair ships, LTTs, FCRs, appropriately configured HDWs, etc. It's just a question of organization. Which is to say that the galactic empires would organize and conduct operations differently during the Andromedan Invasion than they did during the General war.

Well... yeah. Of course they did. Is there some issue I'm missing? If so, could someone state it more explicitly?

Comment 2: I don't think a "one size fits all" approach is the right way to proceed. Different empires, with different technologies, would try to solve the problems in different ways. I proposed very similar approaches for the Klingons and Feds; start with CS/DVA and replace two disruptors/photon torpedoes with Special Sensors. I think that approach works well for those empires. It doesn't mean it would necessarily work well for the Gorns or Hydrans or Tholians. Nor would it necessarily not work for them. I think each empire has to be looked at as its own case.

By Joe Carlson (Jrc) on Saturday, May 02, 2020 - 12:29 pm: Edit

Jeff,

The logistic discussion should go into its own topic.

Alan,

On your comment 2 I agree.

All: In module R12 are the space patrol ships. The lyrans used their SPS to support the scout hunting the RTN nodes. What would the Lyrans and Gorns do for an RTN hunter?