Can something be done with this ubiquitous hull that fills in some of the military's needs?

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, March 11, 2021 - 06:30 am: Edit

Open question for everyone interested in ship proposals:

Several years ago, SVC opened a proposal titled “ Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board: New Ships armed priority Transport variants”

Is there a need or interest in a similar topic discussing Free Trader variants?

One variation that I would like to see discussed would be Empire specific variant refits.

For example, would Federation naval auxiliaries (on eitherFree trader hulls or Prime Trader Hulls) have received a year 165 plus refit? (Let’s define such a FT refit as having two additional Phaser 3’s, a Drone G rack (on a sponson, perhaps), and a APR.)

A second example is The Kzinti Hegemony naval auxiliaries. Perhaps some variant of the C refits warships received? Perhaps a shield refit? The C refits often included upgrading type A racks to B or C racks. Should the Kzinti Free Trader C refit add a drone A rack on a sponson instead of the type G drone rack the Federation plus refit had?

What refits should the other empires apply to their own Free Traders And Primetraders?

Is there enough interest in the discussion to justify ADB opening a new topic for it?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, March 11, 2021 - 10:34 am: Edit

Jeff, down here!

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, March 11, 2021 - 11:42 am: Edit

"... two additional Phaser 3’s, a Drone G rack (on a sponson, perhaps), and a APR."

I don't know. That seems like a lot to add to such a small hull. I would be more inclined to go with two additional phaser 3s or a drone rack, and no power upgrade. Though sometimes used as auxiliaries, these are not warships and any refits shouldn't necessarily mimic the refits applied to actual combat vessels.

Also, I think any refits should be mission-specific. A refitted Free Escort Carrier might get some additional weaponry. But a refitted Free Trooper might benefit more from additional transporters or shuttlecraft, regardless of empire.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Thursday, March 11, 2021 - 11:47 am: Edit

There is the Prime Corvette (R1.85) in SFB Module R11, as well as its Y-era counterpart (YR1.12) in SFB Module Y3.

A "low toner" Ship Card of the PTC is in Communiqué #63, while an Omni Scale mini is part of this Shapeways miniature sprue.

Perhaps a first-generation X-ship variant could be considered for Module X1B, along with an X-upgrade to the Armed Cutter (R1.86)?

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Thursday, March 11, 2021 - 06:12 pm: Edit

A long time ago, I created this Heavy Trader SSD.


Garth L. Getgen

By Nick Samaras (Koogie) on Thursday, March 11, 2021 - 06:41 pm: Edit

I like the heavy free trader, but should it get a small shield increase?

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, March 11, 2021 - 09:09 pm: Edit

Alan, again, I agree broadly with you concerning over gunning a refit.

In this case, I would see it as a late General War refit to vanilla Free Traders. The time period coincides with the introduction of PFs and heavy fighters and modern bombers (B-1 B-2 etc.)

Most variants of the Free Trader (free Trooper, free tanker etc.) will be operating with or near friendly fleet units in invasions or raids.

Vanilla free traders will not be normally operating with the main battle fleets, but will be engaged in normal cargo/resupply missions... and at times not given any escort at all. Adding a couple point defense phasers and a drone G rack seems little enough.

I could also point out that freighters (small and large) effectively got a refit with the addition of duck tails and skids. Free traders have nothing comparable.

Lastly, I used the terms “plus refit” and “C refits” as people instantly recognized them. I didn’t have to post 75 words describing the basic concept.

Now, all of that said, perhaps you are correct. May be a full blown plus refit for federation is over the top. After all, the vanilla free trader has two option boxes and a pair of phasers to start with. Perhaps a vanilla free trader would benefit more if the two options boxes were convertible to APRs x2. Skip the additional two phaser 3’s and add a drone G rack. (Putting 2 drone racks in the option boxes might cross the line of defense verses offensive weaponry.)

I was hoping it could be discussed.

As far as the Kzinti C refit for free trader naval auxiliaries, much the same arguments apply:

Two more phaser 3s added to the existing phasers might be too much. Adding a type A drone rack, and a ADD might work, instead of a G rack. Or perhaps a E rack.

Not sure what a Klingon Free Trader needs. They are not really under attack until the allies (feds, Gorns, Tholians and Kzinti) restore the prewar borders, and by that time (year 180-81?). The Klingons do not have to worry about federation PFs... there isn’t any. So a variation of the Fed plus refit does nothing to help. Size class 4 ships (like the vanilla free trader) are too small to carry a casual PF or interceptor (INT). Cant carry bombers... might be able to install a couple of fighter shuttle boxes in the options boxes as a second hanger bay. If they used older single space fighters (Z-1 or Z-2) it would help (not as much as the increase in BPV the fighters would cost. Nor would they have any drones unless they paid for them using commanders option points... and there might not be enough at 10% or 20% limit for CO points.

If the Klingons did decide to add a fighter refit for the free traders, the Lyrans might adopt the same for their free traders.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Friday, March 12, 2021 - 11:39 am: Edit

Sgt. G, I LOVE that ship!

Is her movement cost 2/3, 3/4, or something else?

REALLY like the addition of the Aux Con.

Do have a question about the option mounts. Are they "Adjacent Centerline" mounts? I hope not; it opens the door to some serious abuse of this ship.

Another thought off the top of my head. What about something with that sort of cargo configuration but with less Warp power? I mean, we have the eight box warp engines of the Prime Trader, so what about a "Historical Development" where the claim is made that those engines were meant for a larger version of the standard Free Trader, but were adopted to create a sort of "Hot Rod" version of the smaller ship.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, March 12, 2021 - 02:41 pm: Edit

Where does that stop? Lets build a Free Trader as big as a destroyer. No, wait, a heavy cruiser, no a battleship, no, wait, I have got it, a Nest Ship.

Free Traders are inherently designed to be Free Traders. If you start upping the size then they replace normal freighters. And as such start replacing the Auxiliaries and raising the question of why anyone ever did the auxiliaries on the freighters to begin with .

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, March 12, 2021 - 02:58 pm: Edit

A heavy Trader might have its uses, but shouldn’t be a refit for the vanilla free trader. I imagine that a number of people would support the idea, in spite of SPP’s comment.

Who knows? Perhaps there is an argument that Petrick hasn’t yet considered.

In any event, it’s different enough from a Free Trader refit to justify its own topic.

Besides, Petrick hasn’t had a really good work out on the BBS for ages. Lots of good for a body comes from such social interaction. Raises the blood pressure, gets the body moving instead of hunched over a computer screen etc.

One warning though, if you see the veins sticking out and pulsing on his neck, I think you might have gone a bit too far. If he grabs a bayonet or an entrenching tool, run. If you make it out the door, don’t stop. He has access to guns and ammunition, and he knows how to use both.

By Jim Davies (Mudfoot) on Friday, March 12, 2021 - 07:15 pm: Edit

There's no reason why all free traders should all be the same size and capacity, any more than all cars should be saloons with 4 seats and a 2.0 litre engine. And everything else gets a refit, so the FT should be allowed one too.

Pirates exist everywhere, and they get upgrades over time. So there's a reasonable case for an upgunned FT with slightly bigger engines and a bit more space. Garth's version is a bit bigger than I'd envisaged, but there's no real reason there couldn't be a few out there.

I'd expect the Klingon to get an ADD-12 or E-rack; plasma empires might get a D rack; Kzinti get an ADD-12 or B or C rack.

Not sure about Lyrans. I like the idea of a mech-link nominally towing a shuttle or workboat (or PF in the military version) as it's very Lyran, but really it's probably a P2. Likewise the Hydrans get an old Stinger-1 or P2. Tholians and Bugs get a P2 or maybe P1 (do they even have FTs?).

WYN get the same as the neighbours, except for a couple of overgunned monstrosities with 2P1s and 2 C-racks.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Friday, March 12, 2021 - 08:30 pm: Edit

Gentlemen, adding anything to the FT is going to be hard as there isn't any 'spare' space (other than the cargo area) for the addition. So that means anything added must be to the top (or side as anything on the bottom will interfere with its ability to land) not to mention if the addition is not a black box and inspection areas are needed, this will increase the movement cost.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, March 12, 2021 - 08:36 pm: Edit

Jim, good point.

To be honest, I have wondered why there was never a streak version of the Free Trader.

Inspired by the Kzinti streak fighter (SS) that were faster (speed 10 hexes per turn) than the AAS (Advanced Assault Shuttle)(speed 8 hexes per turn.)

If the FT hull were trimmed by enough weight and mass to qualify for a smaller movement cost (say 3/8) the resulting streaker FT could achieve a speed of 31 hexes per turn.(no APR, need 1 point of the impulse engines for life support(1/2 point?) and minimal shields (5 box)(also 1/2 point). Means nothing for fire control.

I do not know how many SSD boxes would have to be sacrificed, be it 5, 7 or 9 or even more... but if you could strip a FT down, the performance should improve markedly.

If you could preserve the 2x6 box cargo holds, it would still be able to fill the Free trader niche. Say that you lost the option box. One of the two phaser 3. 2 of the center hull. Add a Mech link for the shuttle, so you could drop the shuttle box.

You might have to reduce the center hull to just a single box, and crew to 1 crew unit.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, March 12, 2021 - 08:48 pm: Edit

Stewart:

Times change.

Architecture advances, so does materials science. Just because there was no space to available when the Free Traders were first built, does not mean it’s still “state of the Art” in year 180.

The same arguments were made concerning the OCL (Oldstyle light cruiser) and the Vanilla Fed Destroyer. (DD).

And yet, by year 165, improvements in design and materials allowed both the OCL and the DD to receive the plus refits.

Your argument, boiled down, amounts to “once built, never improved”.

And the fact the plus refits exist, is justification that 30 or 35 years after the Free Trader design was first built, a similar refit might be possible.

Or, If you prefer Alan Trevors position, perhaps something less extensive than the Federation plus refit.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, March 13, 2021 - 11:13 am: Edit

Free Traders do not need any more engine power. Right now they, unlike freighters, can disengage by acceleration and under (C7.124) can do so at Speed 23 (maximum speed after paying for life support, shields, and fire control). As it has warship acceleration, this means that it can be moving at Speed 12 on Turn #1 of a scenario and disengage at the end of Turn #1 by acceleration) and its 12 box shields can take most damage from typical raiders to make that possible.

Adding power means it has to disengage at a higher speed, giving it the capability to make Speed 32 means it cannot disengage in one turn unless it is moving at Speed 16 at the start of the scenario.

Further, Free Trader weapons are defensive in nature. The ship is a TRADER, not a combatant. Adding enough weapons to fight a raider when its defense is to RUN from a raider is not a TRADER. You are lugging around ordnance instead of trade goods.

The Free Trader as it is designed is adequate to its needs.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, March 13, 2021 - 01:24 pm: Edit

Which leaves us with the job of determining what other roles or tasks can the Free Trader hull be used for.

I need to go the module G and list all of the variants of the FT that have already been published.

At a guess, that would include ATP, prison transport.

Plus the Free Trooper.

Free Tanker.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, March 13, 2021 - 02:40 pm: Edit

Jeff Wile:

Why do you need to convert a free trader into a prison transport? What unique facilities does it have for such a role? How does being able to land on planets support that mission?

There is already an executive transport in Module R8. And given the Carrier and Free Trooper, Free Tanker, Free Prospector, Free Mine Layer, and Free Salvor, and Prime Trader (have I forgotten any?) the variants appear to be full.

By A David Merritt (Adm) on Saturday, March 13, 2021 - 03:40 pm: Edit

I would tend to see logistic units potentially getting one or two ph-3s, or ADD racks, as the war went on to counter drones and attrition units. Beyond that, what is added will have costs that are not justified on cargo units.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, March 13, 2021 - 03:47 pm: Edit

A David Merritt:

The Free Trader has two phaser-3s that are arguably enough for point defense against drones and can choose to take a 12 shot anti-drone which improves on that. Beyond that, you are saying that all freighters should have a refit that adds phaser-3s and ADD racks. In a sense, we have that with defense skids, but it is noted that not every freighter got a skid, and there are so many flavors of skids that defense skids are really some what rare.

In the end, the defense of the logistic units is the escorts, and those already have refits to improve their performance.

By A David Merritt (Adm) on Saturday, March 13, 2021 - 04:57 pm: Edit

Essentially what I was saying was that there would be limited refits for cargo movers, and yes, skids pretty much covers it. The cost of installing these refits on everything will cost far more than any return you would get, and placing bigger weapons, except for the occasional aux cruiser or Q-ship will be exceeding unlikely to happen, simply due to cost issues.

By A David Merritt (Adm) on Saturday, March 13, 2021 - 04:58 pm: Edit

One off designs for RPG playing, not withstanding.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, March 13, 2021 - 05:09 pm: Edit

Steve Petrick:

The purpose of listing existing variants of the free trader was to ensure no one wasted time discussing things you and SVC have already published.

One variant that I am sure has not been discussed is a support ship for Star Fleet Engineers Corps.

That ship could provide the same services as required by Star Fleet Construction Battalions.

Sure, any ship could deliver a battalion of engineers armed with hand phasers and what ever they can carry in their hands, but sometimes you need to move dirt, not vaporize it.

Sure, a phaser can drill a water well, perhaps even fuse the material into an improvised glass tube, but it can’t install a pump 100 meters below the surface at the end of an improvised glass tube.

A vanilla free trader can deliver trucks, trailers and bulldozers, but it needs fabrications box, works box to assemble the things needed for a new colony.

Geothermal heat exchangers to heat or cool buildings as needed.

Wells to provide fresh water.

Irrigation systems for farming or water distribution so ranches can get water to the herds.

Electrical system so power can reach all the places a colony needs it.

Perhaps the Engineers/Star fleet construction battalions will establish streets and a storm water system. Site and install concrete foundations for future buildings the colony will require.

A separate water sanitation system to keep waste water from contaminating drinking water.

The engineers will need a shuttle or a ship to deploy the defense satellites.

Even installing field tiles so there would be adequate drainage thus preventing crops from rotting in the fields during seasons that get more rainfall than normal.

Heck, they might even need to build a dam so to create a water reservoir.

Perhaps even build and install a water wheel to provide hydro electric power.

There needs to be a civil engineer, with all the necessary equipment tools etc to provide for all of the infrastructure a new colony requires. (Given that a whole planet is being colonized, one person might not be enough. A whole crew unit To support the civil engineer consisting of surveyors, mechanical engineer, electrical engineer, geologist, etc.)

Lots of things a service/support ship can do on the planet surface, that a small or large freighter (or a APT) can’t since they are not capable of landing.

And many of these things can be done before the colonists arrive. Probably must be done... you don’t want hundreds of colonists on your hands when you find out the local water supply is unsafe to drink.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Saturday, March 13, 2021 - 05:58 pm: Edit

I support the SPP position. If it was a mature design, I would guess that as time went on they got cheaper to build & operate. Better engines use less fuel and need less maintenance with the same performance.

By Jim Davies (Mudfoot) on Saturday, March 13, 2021 - 06:07 pm: Edit

Whilst those things need to be done and can't be done by a freighter with a vanilla cargo hold, I'm not sure that it has any effect at SFB scale. At most, half the Cargo boxes are replaced by Works. Which are hit on Cargo, so the real effect is nil.

The FT comes out in Y125, putting in in the same era as the D6 (Y122). The vanilla D6 was obsolete by Y175, so you'd imagine the FT would get an upgrade at some point.

I'd expect a Mk2 version to have things like 16 cargo, 1 extra APR or impulse, Aux Con and/or an extra shuttle (to allow an HTS). Its shields are pretty good (compare a Fed CL or Gorn DD) so an upgrade there is a luxury.

It's only the rather militarised ones operating in dangerous areas that would need any extra weapons or shields. Whilst they'd be defensive in intent, that doesn't necessarily mean ADDs and P3s because the best defence is sometimes a good offence. Though the law would restrict what civilians could have anyway.