Well, an XP refit would be different to the extent that idk if it has ever been published in Captains Log.

IMO it would qualify as a possible refit that would be under consideration For any ship given a RTN hunting assignment.

Is that enough? Or should there be a another refit available Incase all the XPs were used refitting other ships?

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, June 01, 2020 - 08:00 am: Edit

I suggest checking with the powers that be about partial XP refits on any proposal before developing such a proposal.

I've akways seen such ideas shot down because they don't wanna do partial XP refits. This may be because the rule is optional.

I'm not saying you can't do the proposal anyway with an xp-refit, but just saying to maybe check with the powers that be to avoid wasting time.

YMMV.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, June 01, 2020 - 09:03 am: Edit

Which is why I posed the question, is it enough?

We could most certainly discuss non X tech refits.

Changing a drone G rack into a drone B rack is not an X Technology issue.

Adding, moving or changing phasers (assuming no X Technology is used) would most certainly be a possible option.

About the only thing off the table is increasing heavy weapons. While 6 overloaded photons are a wonderfully effective diplomatic way To crest an Andromedan Power absorber, I doubt it would be acceptable.

By Joe Carlson (Jrc) on Monday, June 01, 2020 - 12:44 pm: Edit

I will just go with the advice not to discuss XP refits in a proposal topic.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, June 01, 2020 - 12:49 pm: Edit

That is the best advice. I didn't realize how much Steve Petrick opposed the entire concept or would never have published it. Frankly, it's best forgotten.

By Joe Carlson (Jrc) on Monday, June 01, 2020 - 02:14 pm: Edit

SVC,

Thanks.

The SCS is as big as ship can be. If we are allowed to use a SCS with 2 special sensors then something has to be removed. I suggest 4 F-18s to representing space taken from the two side hangar bays (2 F18s per bay). I don't think much is gained replacing 2 G racks with 2 B racks. The ship's magazine will not hold more drones than its current SCS design, 800 per Annex 7G.

The proposed Federation SCSS would operate like the Kzinti. It would stay on the fringes of the battles and support its fighters with EW and drones then close in for the final kill.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, June 01, 2020 - 03:40 pm: Edit

Joe,

Each B rack holds 6 drone spaces, that means over 6 turns of combat, the B rack launches 6 spaces worth of drones (think 6 type IF drones.).

Two such racks would total 12 drones spaces over 6 turns Without having to reload.

A Drone G rack has a 4 drone space capacity. In 6 turns, a drone G rack would require a full turn to reload on turn 5, leaving only turn 6 to launch one additional drone (also a type IF).

Two Type B drone racks would launch 12 drone F drones, while the original two type G racks would only launch 10.

20% increase in the launch capacity.

Before we can analyze the effect of losing 4 F-18 fighters, we need to Know which version they are. Just guessing F-18C. I have to get my G module to look up the factors.

Just guessing, but your proposed reduction in the fighter strength of the carrier shuttle group will be significant.

By Joe Carlson (Jrc) on Monday, June 01, 2020 - 05:08 pm: Edit

Jeff,

That is true on the B-racks.Will leave as an option.

I don't known what is required to fit to sensors on the ships rear hull. A gun house with 2 B racks is an option. No photons.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, June 01, 2020 - 06:46 pm: Edit

Agreed.

While effective, the conventional wisdom holds that they too effective against most likely Andromedan force pools they would encounter at the RTN nodes.

Why put the special sensors on the rear hull? The Fed GSC put the special sensors on the saucer.

By Joe Carlson (Jrc) on Monday, June 01, 2020 - 08:12 pm: Edit

What do you take out of the saucer? The only items I would consider is the 2 G-racks.

So on this ship we put back the 4 F-18s. The drone racks are then 2XG (rear hull) and 2XB (gun house).

I did up a SSD like this with a CVS. It will work for an SCSS.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, June 01, 2020 - 09:03 pm: Edit

You don’t.

The GSC mounted the four special sensors externally. It’s part of how they could cram so many SSD boxes into a (roughly) CA variant hull.

By Joe Carlson (Jrc) on Monday, June 01, 2020 - 09:29 pm: Edit

If that will be acceptable to the Steves I am okay with the idea.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, June 01, 2020 - 10:59 pm: Edit

We will see!

For what it’s worth, the special sensors amount to a non combat system. The tactical handicap of self blinding the sensors leaves it to one mission. Self loaning ECM during the approach to a target, and once the initial salvo is fired/launched/ shot the SS are unlikely to be powered up for the rest of the battle. Effectively becoming “free hits”.

I suppose you could use offensive electronic warfare... but full power of both channels would consume 7 energy points each, 14 total. That’s more than a quarter of the total power available, nearly a third. With that much power diverted from the total power curve, it leaves less for movement, shields, overloads or reloading the photon staisis boxes for the assault shuttles (either A-10 or A-20 depending on what you chose to have.)

By Joe Carlson (Jrc) on Tuesday, June 02, 2020 - 12:37 am: Edit

Good points. I would chose A-20FMs for the combat power of 24 photons. An Andromedan Mother ship or satellite ship can't display or transport away from photons. The 12 F-14Ds and 12 F-18c can move the Andro Mother ships around using drone waves or destroy satellite ships.

The proposed SCSS can launch all six A-20fs (on mech links and 12 fighters on the balcony.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, June 02, 2020 - 08:11 am: Edit

One other issue:

Seeking weapons control channels.

The CVA iirc has 12 SWCCs.

The two single space fighter squadrons can control their own drones (up to the established limit) and each may have 1 two seat electronic warfare fighter. )

The SWACs (various models) May control drones, as well as a MRS (If available).

One of the nice things having two or three escorts is the ability to use their seeking weapons control channels.

A challenge for a CVA, SCS or SSCS is the fact that there are far more launchers Than a single ship can control.

The Andromedans will know this. That makes killing SWACs, MRS, and the ELectronics Warfare fighters a priority.

Without enough SWCCs, you can’t take advantage of the full drone load out capacity on all of your fighters.

Most importantly, you will not be able to take advantage of using scatter packs without exceeding your SWCC capacity.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, June 02, 2020 - 12:07 pm: Edit

Note:

A F-18C costs 12 BPVs.

The drone load out is 4 xtype IF drones, and 2 special drone rails.

Even if you leave the special rails empty (not sure why any one would...) the drone upgrade to Speed 20 is 0.5 BPVs each. Upgrade to fast (speed 32) another 0.5 BPVs.

Deleting 4 x F-18C fighters would actually reduce the SCS combat strength (assuming you just put 2 type IF drones on the special rails) 18 points per fighter, 4*18=72 BPVs.

That is one point more than a vanilla Fed FF (no drones).

Hardly seems worth it.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, June 02, 2020 - 12:32 pm: Edit

I want to re-post something I first posted in the "Special Heavy Carriers" topic of "R00: PROPOSALS FOR NEW CLASSES", where the discussion was looking at possible designs of RTN hunters for various empires, not just the Federation.


I don't think the decision point does come down to economic cost/BPV. I think it comes down to availability and time. It probably doesn't make sense to build an SCS-based RTN hunter from scratch. The problem isn't the cost, in my opinion; not when the very survival of the empire is in question. It's the time needed to build the ship. BUT if you already have an SCS that you can quickly convert by swapping out a couple of heavy weapons for special sensors, that's a different matter. Your new-construction RTN hunters, on the other hand, are probably based on X-cruisers because an X-cruiser, while expensive, is probably quicker to build. In F&E everything takes the same time to build (other than a battleship). But I think this is an abstraction for game purposes.


I stand by my claim that time to get the heavy RTN hunters into service is an important consideration. And that's why I'm not sanguine about all these ideas to change this, that or the other thing. You have to get ships into service destroying the RTN before your economy and logistical infrastructure are too devastated to continue the fight.^* My preferred Federation solution is simply to take the DVA and swap out two photons for special sensors. The advantage of this approach is that it could probably be done quickly and still leaves a pretty dang good RTN hunter; probably about as good anything short of the Kzinti SSCS. Additional changes beyond this will tend to delay the ship. Yes, B-racks are more useful than G-racks against Andros, and maybe that change could be done simultaneously with converting to special sensors. But adding a "gun house"? I really can't see that not delaying introduction of the ship. And in the meantime the Andros are continuing to destroy your infrastructure.


^*Different considerations apply once the situation in Alpha itself has stabilized and the galactic powers are starting to plan for Operation Unity. That's when these more optimized, but slower to field, ships might play a part. That, at any rate, is how I see it.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Tuesday, June 02, 2020 - 12:50 pm: Edit

I think you are going to see SCS/ CVas turned into RTN hunters with Special senaors.

Plus X ships with special sensors.

PLUS some of those BCS/ BCV are going to get a RTN hunter refit.

It MAY make more sense to have as heavy a "regular ship" hunt and have fast/ X ships as their reaction force...

So the Lyrans have their Combat tug with a PFT pallet backed up by a X squadron...

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, June 02, 2020 - 01:50 pm: Edit

Alan, I think your point is very valid.

Yet, the time period is not a single six month period, or even a single year.

***In Theory*** the Federation (just for example purposes) has 13 star bases. IIRC the Scout refit in F&E costs a single Econ Point.(to convert to Star Fleet Battles BPVs, it can vary between 1 Econ Points equals a range of 10 to 25 BPVs.)

That means the Federation has the CAPACITY to upgrade 13 ships with special sensors (assuming the Econ points vs BPV ratio holds) for a cost of 13 EP or a range of 130 to 325 BPV, in a single F&E game turn.

At present, there is no limit to scout refits In F&E except the number of star bases where the refits can be done.

Your point about the deck house/gun house additions is also true, but in F&E terms, the refit also would take no more than a single six month long turn to complete.

Without any input from the Steve’s, I would expect the Federation (And other empires) will virtually cease off map surveys and bring all survey cruisers on the F&E map to begin Hunting RTN nodes (that is as soon after they are notified the RTN nodes exist...) on the next 6 month turn, convert as many X and General war tech ships into RTN hunters.

All other ships guarding key economic production locations. (Capital hex, all Major and Minor on map worlds, if ships left over protect the logistical net work (star bases, Battles Stations etc.))

Nasty situation to be in.

By Joe Carlson (Jrc) on Tuesday, June 02, 2020 - 02:57 pm: Edit

Alan, Jeff, and Mike:

I started this post in a different topic "Special Heavy Carriers.

My proposal was the damaged Zhukov would be rebuilt into a type of heavy DCS around Y185. How much the Federation will add to the CVA to make it a viable RTN hunter latter is still an open question.

The Kzinti converted their CVAs and DNs into SCSs. In Y194 they converted an SCS in the SSCS Goliath.

If you look at the Fed MSSB it takes 2 years to build a new CVA. The SCS George Washington was in service Y186 (my presumption is about 2 years to build). The Julius Caesar and Napoleon CVAs were under conversion to the SCS at the end of the GW.

The Napoleon completed about Y190 and the Caesar during the Andro war. So if conversion of this proposed ship gets past Y188/189 we run into the conversions of two SCSs, building of X-ships and the start of the Andro war.

There are at least three choices: CVA with 2 special sensors; DVA with 2 special sensors and 4 photons; a SCS with special sensors with 2 additional B racks. While I prefer the SCS and Alan the DVA, we both agree we have to have a ship available and the time to convert it. In the end we will be happy if get anything.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, June 02, 2020 - 04:46 pm: Edit

We know from SVC and SFH there were about 50 RTN hunters/groups.

The Federation, being the largest economy, might have had more RTN hunters than any other empire. All others would rank in behind.

I need to run the calculation to prorate the # of RTN groups. Just counting empires and dividing gets us... (Fed,Klingon,Romulan,Gorn,Kzinti,Lyran,Hydran,Tholian...not sure if I should count Orion Pirates or not...)

50/8=6.2

We know the Romulans were in Economic bankruptcy.

Got to run the actual numbers but if Romulans, Hydrans,Tholian, we’re limited to 3 RTN hunter each, that means the average of the other empires would be about 8 RTN hunters each.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, June 02, 2020 - 05:14 pm: Edit

Jeff,

I haven't seen the "50 RTN hunters/groups". Does it mean 50 total, throughout the history of the Andromedan Invasion and Operation Unity? Or does it mean about 50 in operation at any one time? Since RTN hunters were sometimes killed by the Andros, the latter interpretation would suggest that well over 50 were constructed during the time period in question.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, June 02, 2020 - 06:28 pm: Edit

Alan, you would have to ask SVC. He only stated it a couple of weeks ago (or so...) in the other topic Joe started.

By Joe Carlson (Jrc) on Tuesday, June 02, 2020 - 07:02 pm: Edit

It is an estimate in X1R "Given the estimate of 100-300 nodes in the Alpha Octant, and the employment of perhaps 50 hunting groups (total)...". That is the specific sentance which is used in the context of Andro war to that point.

The next paragraph "The solution was to use as hunting ships those units which could, themselves, destroy any node...".

The total hunting groups is but an estimate as is the number of nodes. The important point is the solution hence this topic.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, June 02, 2020 - 07:32 pm: Edit

I said what where when?