(R2.xxx) NEW LIGHT GUIDED WEAPONS CRUISER (NLG): Designed as the operational replacement of the Guided Weapons Destroyer (R2.28), these ships found favor as consorts to flagships and ground assault forces. Their better power curve improved their ability to keep station with the ship being protected, while the additional drone racks were not hampered by their firing arcs. While initially deployed with medium speed drones, the advent of fast drones enhanced their effectiveness needed late in the General War.

[ Changes to the NCL: Replace two photon torpedoes with two type B drone racks.]

(R2.xxx) NEW HEAVY GUIDED WEAPONS CRUISER (NAG): As various NCL classes were upgraded to NCA variants, a few of the NLG (R2.xxx) cruisers assigned to protect dreadnoughts were upgraded to this design.

[ Changes to the NCA: Replace two photon torpedoes with two type B drone racks.]

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Friday, August 21, 2020 - 09:53 am: Edit

An understandable idea, John, but respectfully, I doubt they'd be effective.

Comparing them with the New Drone Cruiser (R2.36) and New Heavy Drone Cruiser (R2.109), the ships as you're proposing them have a lower drone throw weight (and thus will have a much harder time making effective combat use of drones) while at the same time having a greater potential for loss of firepower (due to having weapons that'd be stripped on both "Drone" and "Torpedo" hits).

Both of these are problems the DDG you mentioned (R2.28) had throughout their careers; the only reason why DDGs continued in operation was because the base DD hull never had enough power "...To walk and chew gum."

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, August 21, 2020 - 03:08 pm: Edit

The Federation Destroyer was famous for not being able to chew gum and walk at the same time. It was a destroyer with cruiser armament and appeared at a time before the shock rules were developed (otherwise it probably would have also suffered from shock with such a heavy weapons load). It was thus the most heavily armed Size Class 4 ship that first appeared. [Notice that the F6 (R3.64) when it appeared suffered from shock, but was a size class 4 hull with cruiser firepower, and led to the F6B (R3.168) which replaced two disruptors with drone racks to avoid the shock problem.] Thus it benefitted from the switch from four photons to two photons and two drone racks (and the drone racks were useful because it almost uniquely did not receive a drone rack in the "plus" refits, unlike almost every other ship type in the Federation fleet, from Police Cutter, to Frigate, to Old Light Cruiser, to Heavy Cruiser).

The NCL does not really have a problem with having four photons, nor does the NCA. If they did, then the Klingon D5 and D5W would, and we would swap two disruptors for two drone racks on those hulls under the logic of this proposal.

That being said, I am NOT saying that "I am infallible." This discussion can go forward. After all, I could be wrong (I am being serious here, not joking), and look forward to the discussion proving the point.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Friday, August 21, 2020 - 05:08 pm: Edit

I think you jumbled the Klingon F6 and Fed FFB in your head when you wrote the above...

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, August 21, 2020 - 05:40 pm: Edit

Not wanting to put words in John's mouth, but my guess is that he proposed these ships not because of power demands from the photon torpedoes, but because the drone racks are generally better for anti-drone or anti-fighter work. (Photon torpedoes can be used for that, but they are probably less-than-optimal.)

One comment, if that is indeed the rationale, he might want to consider G-racks instead of B-racks. They have less capacity but can be configured as 8-shot ADDs.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, August 21, 2020 - 06:43 pm: Edit

Mike Grafton:

What makes you say that?

The F6 was a four disruptor design that suffered from shock. The F6B Replaced two disruptors with drone racks so that the design did not suffer from the shock. I did not confuse the F6 with the FFB. I know the Original FFB design in Star Fleet Battles (Commander's Edition) had four photons, but it was cut back to three in the Captain's Edition, so would have made my point of Cruiser Firepower on a size class 4 hull. So the F6/F6B was an apt comparison to the DD.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, August 21, 2020 - 06:47 pm: Edit

Alan Trevor:

That gets you into the ship is too specialized. You are building the ships to hang around a dreadnought, but by the time they show up, the Federation has the DNG which is more than able to defend itself from drones. So you have cut down on offensive firepower to little purpose and saddled yourself with new ship types that are largely dependent on resupply to remain viable. While photons do not have the ability to tie up defensive phasers or provide counter drones every turn, they do not run out of ammunition. And Jeff Anderson has made a valid point about damage.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, August 21, 2020 - 07:08 pm: Edit

SPP,

Well, to be fair, the NAG would "hang around a dreadnought". The NLGs would be "consorts to flagships and ground assault forces". I took "flagship" in this context to mean something like a Command Cruiser; not a wimpy ship certainly, but no dreadnought either.

And is it really "too specialized"? If enemy drones aren't expected to be a problem, use the drones against enemy ships. It seems to me to be less a case of cutting down on offensive firepower in an absolute sense, and more a case of decreasing one particular type of offensive firepower while increasing another another type of offensive firepower.

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) on Friday, August 21, 2020 - 07:49 pm: Edit

Well if you want a lot of drones play a Kzinti.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, August 21, 2020 - 07:58 pm: Edit

Two B racks wouldn't really fit the mission if the mission is drone defense, two G-racks instead would be more appropriate, I think. More Fed-like, too.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, August 21, 2020 - 08:25 pm: Edit

The time period (mid to late General war, years 178 to year 181 ish) puts the Ships well into carrier/fighters and the beginning of SCS/PFs technology.

To quote an old F&E player, to kill PFs you need drones and phaser 1s and Photons.(actually, a paraphrase...)

It’s okay to propose new ships, but Johns Ship proposal comes up a little short in being able defend Itself, much less than a flagship DN from a determined late war Fighter/PF strike.

The problem is,Generally, no single ship (General War technology, or earlier tech)can defend itself from a full flotilla of PFs. (Rare exceptions exist like SCS or B-10 etc.)

From a BPV stand point, we know this is the correct value, very few ships can reach the BPVs of a fully tricked out PF flotilla (including 20% commanders options bonus.)

If the proposed ships are too specialized, perhaps a general refit designed to kill PFs and late General War single space and double space fighters is what is needed?

The problem is, just up gunning the NCL / CW and NCA Ships isn’t going to work.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Saturday, August 22, 2020 - 02:01 am: Edit

---

Quote:

It’s okay to propose new ships, but Johns Ship proposal comes up a little short in being able defend Itself, much less than a flagship DN from a determined late war Fighter/PF strike.

---

By MarkSHoyle (Bolo) on Saturday, August 22, 2020 - 09:24 am: Edit

I can see it as temporary/emergency repairs, when they don't have enough photons and time is a factor, i.e. preparing against an upcoming enemy assault...
Not as a ship class though...

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, August 22, 2020 - 11:35 am: Edit

Sigh.

If you want a ship that defends other ships against drones, and you do not want to rely on the "point defense" of the typical carrier escort, you do not equip your ship with ADDs (point defense), you do not equip the ship with type-B (or type-G) drone racks (rate of fire is too limited), you equip the ship with type-E drone racks. Drone waves can generally be detected at fairly long range, and you can begin launching type-VI drones at targets (depending on the speed of the drones on both sides) at 24 hexes range, and launch additional type-VI drones from the E-racks as the racks cycle, engaging multiple drones defensively (and finally using the ships phasers).

But the ship is fairly weak, cannot patrol alone (it would have to run from another cruiser), but if your stated mission is drone defense ...

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Saturday, August 22, 2020 - 11:55 am: Edit

One limitation about type VI drones used in a counter drone role, is that they themselves can be shot down. This can occur if the enemy ships follow their drones in. ADD shotsnes and phaser-twos are well suited for this, and Klingon ships doing this sort of thing will usually have those particular weapons. In the case of Lyrans supporting drone strikes, they *could* shield against incoming type VI drones using ESGs, though care must obviously be taken.

This being the case may be a good reason to use type-G drone racks (or ADD-12s) rather than E-racks.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, August 22, 2020 - 12:04 pm: Edit

Steve Petrick:

There have been several refits by various empires to improve drone defense.

I can’t speak for John W, but my guess is that he genuinely wants a more modern DDG for fleet service.

That means patrol duty, not drone defense.

That is why I posted about combat between a PF flotilla and a single ship.

I apologize for not clearly labeling my point as “patrol ship vs PF flotilla “.

If I may be allowed an observation, it is my suspicion that John W’s Point about “being a consort to flagships and ground assault forces” was a secondary alternative mission for his proposed NLG and NAG ship proposals, not the primary mission.

Alan Trevor was responding to my post about an individual ship defending itself from a PF flotilla.

He may have made the same assumption that you did, thinking John W. Proposal had to do ONLY with drone defense.

Of course, I could be wildly wrong.

Sometimes people read the printed words, then come up with wildly different interpretations.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, August 22, 2020 - 12:07 pm: Edit

Richard Eitzen:

The same arguments can be made for normal counter drones. The ESGs will shield the incoming drone strike. While a single phaser can harvest a type-VI drone, the E-rack can launch multiple type-VI drones at the drone wave requiring multiple phasers, ultimately the type-VI drones require more phasers to shoot down then the two phaser-2s or phaser-1s, or phaser-3s it might require to down a type-I counter drone. Same situation with ADDs. A single hit with an ADD will destroy ANY drone, but if there are multiple type-VI drones coming in the Anti-drones are likely to exhaust their ammunition and not stop all of them.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Saturday, August 22, 2020 - 02:20 pm: Edit

Probably there are not enough E-racks to saturate counter-counter weapon fire in a fleet action.

I just don't think, except in rare corner cases, that an E-rack is better overall than alternatives.

YMMV.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Saturday, August 22, 2020 - 02:36 pm: Edit

SPP

"[Notice that the F6 (R3.64) when it appeared suffered from shock, but was a size class 4 hull with cruiser firepower, and led to the F6B (R3.168) which replaced two disruptors with drone racks to avoid the shock problem.] Thus it benefitted from the switch from four photons to two photons "

"thus it benefited from the switch from 4 photons..."

I understood your intent from the beginning

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Saturday, August 22, 2020 - 02:53 pm: Edit

SPP,

Do Federation ships use Type-E racks? I can't think of any that have them. I readily admit that there may be Fed ships with E-racks that I have forgotten about. But I think it's safe to say it's not a commonly used system for the Feds, at least not in the time period under consideration. But they certainly do use both Type-B and Type-G racks and that may be why John Wyszynski chose B-racks for his proposed ships.

Then, too, there's the question of specialization versus generalization, which has arisen earlier in this thread. Photon torpedoes are good at killing enemy "large targets" but generally bad at killing drones. E-racks are effective against drones and enemy fighters but almost useless against enemy ships. ("Almost" useless because if I recall correctly an E-rack can carry Type-VI drones, which... can... damage enemy ships... for a whopping two points!) A Type-B or Type-G rack can be used against either ships or drones (or fighters), though this depends on selecting an appropriate load-out prior to battle. Your fleet is heading to the Klingon front to try to counter the depredations of a C8V group? LOTS of enemy drones! ADDs in the G-racks and stock up on multi-warhead drones in the B-racks. Changing fortunes of war require you to deploy to the Romulan front? Rendezvous with a supply tug on route and ditch those ADDs (except for the mandatory reload) and multi-warhead drones. Stock up on "shipkilling" drones, with maybe a few Type-VIs - not for their whopping two points of damage but to try some "darkfire" tactics if the opportunity arises.

And this gets to Jeff Wile's comment that

---

Quote:

He may have made the same assumption that you did, thinking John W. Proposal had to do ONLY with drone defense.

---

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Saturday, August 22, 2020 - 03:05 pm: Edit

Oh, one other point about B-racks versus photon torpedoes or E-racks: ECM drones.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Saturday, August 22, 2020 - 06:18 pm: Edit

Also usable on G-rack equipped Feds and so on.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Sunday, August 23, 2020 - 01:07 am: Edit

Richard,

Yes, but John's original proposal is to replace to photons with B-racks, not G-racks. I did mention G-racks as an alternative in my August 21, 2020 - 05:40 pm post. But for the most part I have tried to address his actual proposal.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, August 23, 2020 - 06:28 am: Edit

One other observation.

A vanilla NCL having to charge four photons, would have to reduce speed. (Perhaps down to 24 hexes assuming all other power from sources other than engines was used for other needs. (House keeping, recharging depleted batteries, tractor beams, Recharging phaser capacitors, ECM etc...))

All other factors remaining constant, the Proposed NLG and NAG would be expected to be somewhat faster tactically than one might expect in comparison to the NCL or NCA variants due to the drone B racks not requiring warp power as do the photons.

I wouldn’t expect the speed increase to be more than 2 or 3 hexes faster than 24 under most situations, but it would be some what faster in comparison. Slower if the two remaining photons were to be overloaded on the second turn of charging.

This might be useful in those cases where the ships are in a fleet battle defending a force flagship (say a CC or a DN).

The point is, as was pointed out by SPP and JGA, this leaves these ships more vulnerable during solo duels to running out of ammunition.

The second point, is, while the DD class ships were seriously under powered, the NCL and NCA are not.

The replacement of half the photon torpedoes with drone B racks is not needed to increase the tactical speed of the ships from 14 hexes per turn tactically as was the case with the vanilla DD.

I submit, that the only case where this refit is justified in the NCL or NCA ships, is one where the ships need to be able to fight at speeds approaching 31 hexes per turn while still fully loading photon torpedoes. And this proposal does not quite achieve that standard.

(Of course, this leaves the question of why the ships may need to fight at such speeds...)

By MarkSHoyle (Bolo) on Sunday, August 23, 2020 - 09:24 am: Edit

If you want to fight at speed 30...
Use Andromedans......