By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, August 23, 2020 - 11:45 am: Edit

"I wish I had two B racks instead of two photon torpedo launchers." said no Fed cruiser captain ever.

:p

By Douglas Lampert (Dlampert) on Sunday, August 23, 2020 - 12:44 pm: Edit

Well, there is the scenario based on "Elaan of Troyius" where there's no warp power available.

If you want to swap out weapons to improve a ship, try replacing the heavy weapons and drones with additional Ph-1 (or for Hydrans, with Ph-G).

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) on Sunday, August 23, 2020 - 01:09 pm: Edit

Think about this. Would you rather fly a DD with the plus and APR refit or DDG with refits? In a =BPV duel. Then would You rather have the Above DD or DDG in a squadron battle?

The same with the above proposal. In the case of the above i would want the standard ship.

With the DD, DDG I would prefer the DDG in both a Duel and Squadron battle.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, August 23, 2020 - 02:12 pm: Edit

Depends.

Early GW years, I would go with the vanilla DD with refits. Late GW era With speed 32 drones, I would go with the DDG.

Speed 20 drones, for my money is something of a wash. It could go either way.

If the opponent were Kzinti, or a Lyran with fighters, the DDG regardless of drone speeds would be my choice.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, August 23, 2020 - 02:28 pm: Edit

DD can just charge 3 photons and use the 4th to take a hit. Pretty mean.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, August 23, 2020 - 04:30 pm: Edit

Just the threat of 4 over loaded photons can intimidate some players, not to mention 6 phaser 1s.

Packed into a size class 4 hull.

The NCL didn’t just inherit its good looks from the DD. The alpha strikes from either the DD or NCL Can make an impression.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Sunday, August 23, 2020 - 10:59 pm: Edit

Regarding Vandar's post asking whether you would rather have a DD or DDG in a duel or squadron battle; I submit it may depend on the opponent.

Case 1: An encroaching Lyran force, and all you have available to meet it are DDs, due to previous losses and other threats which must also be engaged. (I admit this is an artificiality for purposes of the thought experiment.) It has been established that the Lyran force contains ships only, possibly with some "casual" PFs. But there are no fighters.

I would go with standard DD+s. I don't have to worry about enemy drones and the enemy has formidable drone defenses.

Case 2: The encroaching force is a D7V group with ZYC fighters and fast drones.

I would want some of my DDs to be DDG+s, more for my own drone defense than for the damage the drones would do to the enemy. Ideally, some of my drones will be multi-warhead drones.

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) on Monday, August 24, 2020 - 04:24 am: Edit

There we go, Is what I was thinking Alan. Would depends on who i am fighting and the mission as well.

By A David Merritt (Adm) on Monday, August 24, 2020 - 05:53 am: Edit

To me these look like the pre-General War test bed ships the Feds played with, I suspect a couple of NLGs were made then the idea was dropped for a while. Once when the General War starts we have photon tube shortages, note the CAD Agincourt background, at which point more NLGs are made, and, perhaps, some NAGs, or the NAGs may only be a design study.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, August 24, 2020 - 12:50 pm: Edit

That could be plausible... except for the technology timeline.

If (and this is open supposition) speed 32 drones were in general use before the start of the General War, then deployment of the NLG and NAG would have been logical. I grant that they do indeed look like test bed designs... but the result would be only marginally better than the year 155 DDG tests, given drone speed upgrades at the time.

The other thing is, as test bed designs go, the NCL / NLG could ***In Theory*** have been as early as year 165.

I think it is more believable that the reason NGL were produced is a result of the photon torpedoes launcher shortages.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, August 24, 2020 - 01:57 pm: Edit

Alan Trevor:

And the Federation DD cannot chew gum and walk at the same time if it is loading all of the photons, and the DDG omits the two photons.

How does this make the case for the NCG and NAG? These ships have adequate power to move and arm photons. In all seriousness, the proposer is making the case that the CA should have a CAG variant (and CCG variant), and I just do not see it.

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) on Tuesday, August 25, 2020 - 04:34 am: Edit

Take a 3 ship squadron of 3 D7 hulls vs 2 Fed CA and a DDG.

The Klingons at range 15 or so.. will take out a CAs shield. At range 8 the FEDS open up and hit with half of there overloads plus phasers. As the klingons again fire there disrupters and phasers.

The FED CA now has internals and 2 down shields. The Klingons have a wrecked D7. The DDG is supporting by killing Klingon drones and adding its own drones that the Klingons must counter.

The FEDS could also use Proximity Torps and phasers taking down a Klingons shields and some good internals. Then turn off behind there own wave of drones becouse of the DDGs extra drone racks and spare drones for a scatter pack.

So yes if you had a CAG and two CA you could do that as well... but that would be like a weak cruiser I would think out side a squadron battle.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, August 25, 2020 - 09:02 am: Edit

That is certainly a hypothetical where the Feds get everything their way.

What year is it, what refits are applicable, what are the scenario conditions?

Your analysis seems to rely on perfectly average rolls and no EW shifts, but in real play things don't work out like that.

Also, why shoot CAs at range 15 instead of the DDG? The DDGs shields are weaker and it is a bit more vulnerable to internal damage degrading its capabilities (no phaser threes, damage control of 2)..

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, August 25, 2020 - 02:12 pm: Edit

Two CAs and a DDG puts the year at at least Y155; BPV is 2x125 + 94 = 344.

3xD7 in Y155 is 3x121 = 362.

Type-II or -V drones could adjust the BPV, but technically the Klingons should win.

two CARs and a DDG puts the year at Y160: BPV 2x129 +94 for 352.

No change in Klingons.

Closer, type-II or type-V drones are still the variable.

Two CAR+s and a DDG+ puts the year at Y165; BPV 2x143 + 100 = 386.

Klingons are three D7Bs with UIMs: BPV of 3x133 = 399.

10% of the drones can be medium speed (Federation: 3xtype-IM for 1.5 BPV, Klingons: 3xtype-IM for 1.5 BPV).

Still an edge to the Klingons.

In Y166 25% of the drones can be medium speed. Federation 4xtype-IM = 2 BPV. Klingons: 6xtype-IM = 3 BPV.

In Y167 all of the drones can be medium speed. Federaton: 8 BPV, Klingons, 12 BPV.

In Y170 the Federation gets the AWR Refit: 2x145 + 100 plus Medium Speed Drones (+8) = 398

Klingons are still 3x133 + medium speed drones (+12) for 411. Still a slight edge.

In Y175 the Y175 refit kicks in.

Federation is unchanged (398)

Klingons are 3x140 (including the "K" refit) and drone Speed Upgrades (type-B racks) of +18 for 438.

Significant edge to the Klingons.

In Y178 fast speed drones are 10%. adding +2 to the Federation force (BPV now 400).

Klingons are +3 for 441.

In Y179 fast drones are 20%. Federation +4 (402).

Klingons are +9 for 447.

In Y180 fast drones are general. The Federation is +16 (414).

The Klingons are +36 (474) very significant edge.

By MarkSHoyle (Bolo) on Tuesday, August 25, 2020 - 02:24 pm: Edit

To get the BPV closer,
Klingons take a D-5...
D-5 can play tag with the DDG....
Basically eliminates the whole purpose
the Feds believe they took the DDG for....

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) on Tuesday, August 25, 2020 - 03:16 pm: Edit

WOW OK THEN,
Richard>
yes I was assuming average rolls for both sides. Yes the Klingons could target the DDG. Yes the FED also managed to maneuver just so to get the good shots. There could be ECM drones on both sides as well as MRS shuttles in play. I was going with a very abstract set up.

As for BPV In a campaign setting You may not have =BPV. If a pick up patrol scenario then You buy some COs to make up the difference. I did say 3 D7 hulls but if you want =BPV then a D6 or D5 instead of one of the D7s would bring the points in line.

I picked the DDG to help in drone defense as well as Offensive use of drones as a screen to reload photons. As well as point out the use of such ship as was proposed above. The NLG and so forth.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, August 25, 2020 - 03:58 pm: Edit

Three CAs in Y155; BPV is 3x125 = 375.

3xD7 in Y155 is 3x121 = 363.

Type-II or -V drones could adjust the BPV, a full load of type-IIs would add 12 BPV, which would make the two sides the same before other Commander's Options..

Three CARs in Y160: BPV 3x129 +94 for 387.

No change in Klingons.

Edge to the Federation, type-II or type-V drones do not really make up the different.

Three CAR+s in Y165; BPV 3x143 = 429.

Klingons are three D7Bs with UIMs: BPV of 3x133 = 399.

10% of the drones can be medium speed (Federation: 3xtype-IM for 1.5 BPV, Klingons: 3xtype-IM for 1.5 BPV).

Still an edge to the Federation.

In Y166 25% of the drones can be medium speed. Federation 3xtype-IM = 1.5 BPV. Klingons: 6xtype-IM = 3 BPV.

In Y167 all of the drones can be medium speed. Federation: 6 BPV, Klingons, 12 BPV.

In Y170 the Federation gets the AWR Refit: 3x145 plus Medium Speed Drones (+6) = 441

Klingons are still 3x133 + medium speed drones (+12) for 411.

In Y175 the Y175 refit kicks in.

Federation is unchanged (441)

Klingons are 3x140 (including the "K" refit) and drone Speed Upgrades (type-B racks) of +18 for 438.

Just about even.

In Y178 fast speed drones are 10%. adding +1.5 to the Federation force (BPV now 442.5).

Klingons are +3 for 441.

In Y179 fast drones are 20%. Federation +3 (444).

Klingons are +9 for 447.

In Y180 fast drones are general. The Federation is +12 (453).

The Klingons are +36 (474) for an edge.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Tuesday, August 25, 2020 - 06:51 pm: Edit

First of all, if you are going to be having a 3 ship squadron, it would probably be a D6 or 7 plus a couple F5s. Maybe an E4 subbing for a F5.

Feds would probably have a single CA, plus a DD/ DDG and FF.

Just look at the map from the "Day of the Eagle" and you'll see that the cruisers are quite spread out.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, August 26, 2020 - 11:25 am: Edit

Michael Grafton:

Irrelevant to the discussion, sorry.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, August 26, 2020 - 12:20 pm: Edit

SPP,

In your 1:57 PM post on Monday you said:

---

Quote:

Alan Trevor:

And the Federation DD cannot chew gum and walk at the same time if it is loading all of the photons, and the DDG omits the two photons.

How does this make the case for the NCG and NAG? These ships have adequate power to move and arm photons. In all seriousness, the proposer is making the case that the CA should have a CAG variant (and CCG variant), and I just do not see it.

---

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, August 26, 2020 - 12:55 pm: Edit

Just an open question:

The Klingons used so called “jump racks” installed into shuttle bays (SSD boxes). I think they were Type F drone racks.

Instead of publishing a new ship class that just adds a couple of drone racks...

What if the list of commanders options were to expand by allowing players to change one or two (maximum limit) shuttles into type F drone racks (aka jump racks)?

Subject to a few limits.

1) no drones loaded in the racks. Any drones would have to be transfer from other existing drone racks, or drone stock pile or purchased directly from commanders option points.

2) no more than 2 shuttles can be converted.

3) seeking weapons control channels can not be improved, whatever the SWCC value was, is what the converted ship has.

The question is, what would this refit cost in BPV’s?

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, August 26, 2020 - 01:26 pm: Edit

Jeff,

I don't understand the reason for your limit "1)". If a warship were to have these racks installed, I would think they would come with drones as standard stores, and that would be reflected in the BPV cost of the refit.

Also, I note that once drogues become available, drone-using empires already have an option for a seeking weapons drogue replacing a shuttle craft. Of course, drogues do have a significant tactical limitation. They are destroyed if towed at a speed greater than 12, which may make them difficult or impossible to use if the tactical situation calls for high speeds. Drogues are also outside the ship's shields and can be targeted separately from the ship, making them easier to destroy than a "real" drone rack. Never the less, the option is there.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Wednesday, August 26, 2020 - 02:50 pm: Edit

In Module X1R, the Federation is given the DGX (R2.206) variant of the DDX (R2.202), which replaces two of the DDX's X-photons for additional GX-drone racks. The DGX was produced in more limited numbers than the DDX, though.

However, while X1R also provides the Feds with an NAX (R2.210), it does not have an equivalent guided weapons variant at this time. (I wouldn't be in a hurry to see such a variant added, personally-speaking.)

So, while there might seem to be space for a limited number of would-be NLGs as an iterative step (of sorts) between the DDG and the DGX, I would not necessarily be in favour of going so far as to also add a would-be NAG to the mix. Of course, I defer to ADB's wisdom on either topic.

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) on Wednesday, August 26, 2020 - 03:21 pm: Edit

Jeff Wile

Before Doomsday it was allowed to replace a shuttle with the Jump rack. BAD BAD it was not a good idea. There is a reason why only Klingons did that and only as an experiment to see if drones would work on there ships. At the cost of missing shuttles.

If You allowed it every one would have a jump rack on there ship. Why would you ask? ECM drones for a starter. Ability to have scatter packs. Anti drone use. The Federation put a G rack on there ships for good reason. It is way open for abuse like unlimited T-bombs and NSMs on ships.

Just my two cents on it is all,