Can an Orion Salvage Cruiser (SAL) carry pods?

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

Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately) the SAL can NOT carry pods.

However, module R9 has a "Campaign Conjectural" Orion Tug based on the SAL. If you're running a non-historical campaign, it's an option.

Personally? I like it. A trio of HTS, twice the on-board cargo capacity of a standard SAL, and the ability to carry two pods, it's highly capable.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, May 30, 2020 - 10:05 pm: Edit

And we are doing a mini of it on Shapeways. (Just remember that the sales talk on Shapeways is not always part of official SFU history. To sell miniatures, many conjectural ships are described as might have been built, were built, could have been built, we cannot prove it wasn't built.)

Also, any ship name including the word "obstreperous" is me teasing Jean not an official ship name.

By Joe Carlson (Jrc) on Saturday, May 30, 2020 - 10:19 pm: Edit

SVC,

Thanks. I thought I had seen a picture but couldn't place it and thought I was imagining things.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, June 01, 2020 - 03:54 am: Edit

The same rule numbers are used for two different units:

R12.45 WYN AUXILIARY BATTLE CONTROL SHIP (AxBS)
R12.45 WYN WAR CRUISER ESCORT (CWE)

How was this resolved?

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, June 01, 2020 - 01:47 pm: Edit

Auxiliary Battle Control Ship was changed to (R12.44B).

By Frank Lemay (Princeton) on Sunday, June 14, 2020 - 07:47 am: Edit

Trying to confirm the actual YIS date for the ISC Independent Patrol Cruiser (CAT).

In Module R9, YIS of CAT says Y165 in navy list on page 48 with a BES of 22.
Actual SSD in module R9 page 76 says its Y175 with a BES of 31.
In module G3, YIS says its Y168 with a BES of 22.

Thanks.

Cheers
Frank

By Jack Bohn (Jackbohn) on Sunday, June 14, 2020 - 10:47 am: Edit

The color text is not controlling, but R13.82 does explain that the CAT was built before adopting echelon tactics. It is also listed there as "Limited production."

The YS in the box on the SSD has the double-dagger indicating a conjectural availability date for an umbuilt ship. (See the notes on page 4 of the module.)

Actually, all the numbers in the CAT's box are the same as those of the CAM (mauler cruiser) earlier. I think you've found an AAR line item.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Wednesday, June 17, 2020 - 01:15 pm: Edit

For what it's worth, the 2016 revision to SFB Module C2 revised certain details for the Star Cruiser (R13.6). Under the current setup, the CA as originally built had no heavy weapon mounted on the centre "prong"; this is provisionally listed on the ISC SIT for Federation and Empire as the "CA-". From Y168 onwards, several of these ships had a PPD installed on the centre "prong"; others had a third plasma-G torpedo launcher (later upgraded to plasma-S) to become the CAT.

By Steven Zamboni (Szamboni) on Wednesday, June 17, 2020 - 03:49 pm: Edit

Random question, but does anyone know where the artwork for the Old Galaxy Raider was published? I've clawed through everything I can find here.

(I have the SSDs, I need the pictures for the ship itself. I've misplaced the copy I was making the model from.)

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, June 17, 2020 - 03:57 pm: Edit

You could just ask me to email you a jpg.

By Steven Zamboni (Szamboni) on Wednesday, June 17, 2020 - 05:57 pm: Edit

I'd get to that point eventually. I know I have both the original and a copy here in my office somewhere, I had it in my hands a couple months ago before filing it away somewhere so I wouldn't lose it. (Going back to my pile-of-paper-on-the-desk filing system.)

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Wednesday, June 17, 2020 - 06:02 pm: Edit

There are a number of views for the OGR on page 36 of Captain's Log #16.

By Steven Zamboni (Szamboni) on Wednesday, June 17, 2020 - 07:06 pm: Edit

That's the one, thanks. Must have flipped right past it.

By Shawn Gordon (Avrolancaster) on Thursday, June 18, 2020 - 11:27 am: Edit

Do the WYN operate an AxCVL like other empires or is the AxCV its replacement?

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Thursday, June 18, 2020 - 03:48 pm: Edit

I'm pretty sure that the WYN do rely on their own AxCV (R12.7) and don't use the generic AxCVL (R1.13A), Shawn.

By Shawn Gordon (Avrolancaster) on Thursday, June 18, 2020 - 04:12 pm: Edit

Interesting. I guess the same is true for the FTH, HAC, LAH, and other generic auxiliaries?

By Jack Bohn (Jackbohn) on Friday, June 19, 2020 - 08:47 am: Edit

Speaking of art, does anyone know which CL (or Nexus!) had the multi-views of the F-14 and A-10? I've come across an old tracing I'd made from a friend's copy, with "10m?" guess at scaling. It occurs to me that with a 1/285th example to measure...

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, June 27, 2020 - 02:15 pm: Edit

Frank Lemay:

The answer Gary Carney gave is basically the situation with the ISC CAT. It shows up (minus the side phasers and plasmas) as the original ISC heavy cruiser in Y165 (prototype), Some get converted to the PPD starting in Y168, and more are built to that standard, but a few upgraded the plasma-Gs to Plasma-S (along with the ones in the side sponsons) and later more were built as independent patrol cruisers.

Shawn Gordon:

The WYN are unusual. They use their own version of the AxCV and do not use the AxCVL. They do use the AxCVA. Generally, if an Ax class ship does not show up on their order of battle, they do not use it.

Jack Bohn:

Line drawing of the A-10 was on page 36 of Captain's Log #2.

Line drawing of the F-14 was on page 38 of Captain's Log #2.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, July 17, 2020 - 06:25 am: Edit

Was there ever a version of Lyran FFS that could be converted into a Lyran DWS?
The SSD of the DWS seems to indicate that it would be possible with two special sensors in each boom of the FF/DW.

Thanks.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, July 17, 2020 - 02:52 pm: Edit

The Lyrans did not, as of this time, produce a frigate scout.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, July 17, 2020 - 06:29 pm: Edit

While such a trimaran version could exist, theoretically, is it reasonable in practical terms?

A FFS can conduct the full services of using the special sensors, And yes, a trimaran variant would have more power..
But at the “opportunity cost” of a Trimaran hull. As combat ships go, the Larger ship has more COMPOT and is better able to survive combat in the General war than a FF.

Sure, the History could reflect two or three hulls for evaluation. But long term high unit production of Scouts at a time when the Lyrans are trying to fill up the full command rating capacities of all the wildcat BC and dread noughts that they can build during the early war years?

Possibly not.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, July 17, 2020 - 06:48 pm: Edit

Jeff Wile:

The DWS already exists.

Colonel Strong was asking if there was a version of the FF that was directly converted to a DWS. As it happens, there is no FFS. The Lyrans went directly to the DDS/SC design, and later converted DWs to DWSs, but they (currently) Never had an FFS.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, July 17, 2020 - 10:38 pm: Edit

Sorry.

Seems like a backwards way to develop a FFS.

By A David Merritt (Adm) on Saturday, July 18, 2020 - 05:44 am: Edit

The Lyrans were not big on scouts, it is one of those differences to avoid cookie cutterism that most SFB players dislike.