Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through April 01, 2021	25		04/02 08:48am
	Archive through April 03, 2021	25		04/03 01:19pm
	Archive through April 04, 2021	25		04/05 07:15pm
	Archive through April 06, 2021	25		04/06 11:40pm
	Archive through April 07, 2021	25		04/07 07:54pm
	Archive through April 09, 2021	25		04/10 09:19am
	Archive through May 25, 2022	25		05/27 08:22am
	Archive through July 30, 2022	25		07/30 03:16pm
	Archive through August 01, 2022	25		08/22 08:12pm

"Adding the Ph-3s, on the other hand, completely changes the dynamics of how a ship takes damage, what the offensive damage output is and can be, and (as noted above and something I missed) increases phaser capacitor capacity. It may not involve a new rule, but it has a greater impact on how a ship operates than does the CDS. That is a much higher risk to adversely impacting the game."

I'm not quite sure why we would expect that drone-less ships would operate exactly like the ships today. Removing drones does completely alter the dynamic.

Adding a couple PH-3 or ideally a PH-G in the place of the G drone rack solves the actual issues involved in removing drones:
-provides meaningful defense against both drones and plasma
-provides some additional padding again damage since Federation ships will now take more damage
-provides offensive firepower to make up for what is being lost when the drone rack disappears, this is critical on several later war ships
-follows the KISS principle by not creating yet another system

I would also argue that stellar shadows has a very big mix of realistic to completely scary content. E.G. the Federation ships with the extra warp engine? Clearly more game altering than Ph-G replacing G racks. Federation Fast BC, well probably could have gone in a R module as a ship that never was.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Thursday, August 04, 2022 - 10:58 am: Edit

Obviously, a drone-less Federation would operate differently than a Federation with drones. The tactics, damage capabilities, ability to deal with enemy seeking weapons, all of that is different. In fact, we talked about the implications of that earlier in the thread.

But, for the purposes of *only* looking at how a Federation ship takes damage, using the CDS means that the Fed ship takes damage basically the same as how it would with drones, but adding phasers means it would take damage differently. That was simply my point.

On the idea of increasing firepower, for most ships, the single drone rack isn't necessarily increasing firepower, but simply either using up enemy phaser fire or adding to drone defense. However, for the larger ships, excess drone racks are not converted to CDS, but rather to Ph-1s, so they do get some offensive compensation. But then, with a lot of CDS, a ship becomes highly effective against drones and should do enough damage to plasma to live longer.

On the subject of Stellar Shadows, remember that it is a large umbrella. It can range from "go nuts" (e.g. "add an engine", "X-class Andros") to something much more limited. This specific proposal is for an alternate history. Alternate histories are on the "much more limited" side of the range covered by Stellar Shadows. So, even though there is published Stellar Shadows material that goes nuts, the point of this submission is not that. It has to be bound by and acknowledge standard technology limitations. In fact, if either Steve said that the CDS was impossible technology, then I'd have to drop that and try something else.

But, no matter what, it will not be the case that every single Fed ship gains a Ph-G. I don't care how wazzo you wanna go, I don't see that ever happening. I don't think ADB is willing to take the risk of ever letting an official SSD have that. That suggestion falls in "dead horse" territory.

By James Cummins (Jamescummins) on Sunday, August 07, 2022 - 10:15 pm: Edit

Because of the Federation’s unique position and being required to be able to deal with drone/disrupter races, Plasma races and the Tholians. They developed a unique system based on their unique photon torpedoes and other standard technologies.

In an attempt to provide both the defensive capabilities of an ADD/drone system and the versatility to meet the federations diverse threats. The Federation created a small focused charge of contained phaser energy designed to destroy smaller targets. This charge was armed in canisters allowing for a gatling firing system, which fired the charge as a direct fire energy weapon. The launcher used a modified photon targeting system to enhance its accuracy on small targets, however it drastically reduced the range of engagement of a photon torpedo. Though it has a longer range than an ADD, it also does not auto-kill a large or armored drone. It is also a direct fire weapon and is affected by all effects that impact phasers.

The firing arc is 360 to allow it to engage approaching drones from all directions.
Replace the ADD’s and ship drone racks with a direct fire Explosive Phaser mini-torpedo (EPMT). Set in a gatling launcher that holds four rounds which can fire one round per impulse. The weapon is an out growth of the photon torpedo, by a NSM manufacture combining a miniaturized photon torpedo launcher adapted with an explosive phaser warhead. The warhead detonates either on close approach to the target with a tightly focused discharge or in proximity using a less focused detonation. Thereby not requiring a direct hit on a small target, and eliminating some targeting issues with small units. However, as a side benefit the company designing the units also manufactured NSM’s/ TB’s and noticed the energy dispersal of the detonated could be adjusted to trigger the sensors of active NSM within the hex, thus a EPMT has a 2/6 chance of causing an NSM/TB detonation.

The device has multiple launch modes in stand mode the war head will do 10 points of damage to a size class 7 unit, 8 points of damage to a size class 6 unit, 4 points of damage to a size class 5 unit, and 2 points of damage to larger units. Like photons torpedoes or drones the warhead does not diminish with distance. The warhead does damage to Tholian Web in proximity or overload mode, in the same manner a NSM detonation will, at size class 7 damage yield, and the weapon is armed with phaser energy so it will damage a Plasma/ Quantum Wave torpedo again in proximity or overload mode. Allowing it to be effective against all the Federation’s opponents.

In proximity mode it will do half damage but will still also set off NSM’s with a 2/6 chance on every detonation just like the standard mode. In this mode it will also cause damage to Plasma and Quantum wave Torpedoes, and Tholian Webs. Overload mode can also damage Plasma and Quantum wave Torpedoes, and Tholian Webs.

On ballistic mode it is fired at a hex in an attempt to set off a mine in the hex or to damage a web in the hex. The normal to hit probability is rolled to achieve a successful detonation. It will no damage to any other unit in the hex, as it is not targeted on anything but the specific location in space.

The device needs 0.5 pts of power per canister to arm from the phaser capacitor grid of the ship. Once armed they can be held for free for 3 turns, then need to be armed again. In the start of a scenario, all four canisters are loaded and the ship has 1 or 2 standard reloads matching the timeline of drone/Add reloads, extra canisters may be purchased with commanders’ options. Reloading requires removal of the spent canister and replacing with new devices, and then arming from the phaser capacitor grid. The phaser capacitor grid was not enhanced for the EPMT system, as it was considered the power draw would not be continuous and minimal, and it also reduced the space required for the launcher by removing the associated capacitor system. Note that if all phasers are destroyed with the associated phaser capacitors, the EPMT cannot be armed.

To Hit Chart (failure to hit means not a miss but a failed detonation, so no mine effects)
Range.........0....1....2....3...4-5..6-8
Standard......-...1-3..1-4..1-4..1-2...1
Proximity.....-....-....1....1...1-3..1-3
Overload.....1-4..1-3...1....-....-....-

Overload warhead: the overload feature does 50% more damage thus 15 points of damage for size class 7, 12 points of damage to size class 6, 6 points of damage to size class 5 and 3 points of damage to larger units. The overload charge must be applied the impulse of firing, it cannot be held, if not fired it is ejected automatically from the launcher and detonates outside the ship causing both feedback damage and any mine effects. If it detonates in the hex of the firing unit, either by hitting a target or being auto-ejected, the firing unit takes half the overloaded warhead as feedback damage as if it were a size class 5 unit.

The canisters must be fired from a launcher, they cannot be loaded onto a shuttle to be used as a scatter pack. A Federation MRS would have an EPMT system without reloads replacing ADD and or drone rack.

Fighters would need to be modified balance the payload replacing drones with EPMT canisters. The fighter EPMT would have to be armed before launch and would only last 3 turns before needing to return to the carrier to be re-armed. They could recharge a cannister however that would drain the power of the onboard phasers for that turn.

The game concepts behind this suggestion:
1)Without drones the Federation
a.does not have the capability to create drone terrain
b.nor do they have a cost-effective method of countering drones
2)They will most likely need to move faster to avoid enemy drones/torpedoes
a.As their turn mode is not optimal, this device allows them a method to counter other terrain effects, such as webs and NSM/TB’s if required.
3)It provides a weapon based on their original technical expertise
4)The federation should play relatively differently than the standard designs. (Though as noted the fighter weapon buildouts will need to be reviewed)

Possible modifications to reduce effectiveness
1) Modify damage output against size class or specific targets.
2) Perhaps have the damage output degrade over the three turns of free holding unless recharged 0.25 points of phaser power each cannister per turn. Though this adds a LOT of bookkeeping.
3) Modify the number of canisters in the gattling launcher, or the rate of fire.
4) Reduce the firing arc to 90 degrees to match standard photon launcher arcs.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Monday, August 08, 2022 - 12:13 pm: Edit

This proposed weapon does way too much for a single weapon. I suggest going and making a topic in the New Rules section and working through it there. I don't think this is the correct topic to work through a brand new weapon suggestion that may not even be workable.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Monday, August 22, 2022 - 08:12 pm: Edit

For the record, suicide shuttles are still available to these Feds. Those are part of the normal operations of admin shuttles, and that doesn't change.

In case that wasn't clear.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, August 22, 2022 - 08:29 pm: Edit

It wasn’t .

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, September 17, 2022 - 10:06 pm: Edit

Mike West:

It seems the comments are not forthcoming at the same rate as before.

Would now be a good time to start talking about play testing?

Just a guess, but I would expect that drone less Feds will be somewhat weaker in combat than most traditional neighbors (kzinti, Klingon, Tholian,Romulan, Orion and Gorn.)

It would be good to verify or disprove.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Tuesday, September 27, 2022 - 04:36 pm: Edit

(Didn't see this until now for some reason.)

Sure, go for it!

Do note that it wouldn't be a bad idea to test not just the ships here, but also the ships in the other discussion. (I.e. where the drone racks are replaced by rear phasers instead of CDS.) A little "compare and contrast" would probably help.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Wednesday, September 28, 2022 - 08:53 am: Edit

One minor note: I forgot about the MRS because I never use them. Honestly, I am not sure how much they are actually used. Regardless, it would need to be addressed sometime. So ...

The MRS would have 2xPh-3 and 1xCDS(4). The CDS(4) operates under normal fighter rules given above.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Sunday, February 12, 2023 - 05:05 pm: Edit

OK. I have not forgotten about this. In fact, I have been silently working on this despite the fact it likely has a zero percent chance to ever be published. Regardless, I have updated it. (The stickied post should be updated in a day or so.)

The main changes:
- The link to R4J has been deleted. Instead there is now a new alternative history that gives a different reason for no Andorian drones.
- What was ALT2 is now the default alternative history. (ALT1 and ALT2 have been shuffled and have new numbers now.) It is the simplest option, so I now like it as the default.
- There is no F-1/F-8 fly-off. They just develop the fighters they were going to develop.
- ALT4 has been changed to not use gunboats. If the Federation has drone fighters, they just don't get gunboats.
- Also, ALT4 is slightly changed to not only replace any fighter/bomber ADDs with CDS, but also any fighter/bomber photons are the new fighter photons. I think this helps make the overall presentation more cohesive.
- The default gunboat is the two-photon version. This means the default gunboat configuration has two primary mounts, plus a CDS. The primary mounts can be photons, phasers, more CDS, or (for the scout) special sensors. There is an additional alternative design that has one photon and two CDS, but it is the alternative, not the base.

Other than that there might be some minor tweaks, but nothing major.

The reason for these changes was to try to make things fit together more cleanly, and to get rid of extraneous things that don't really add anything to the story (like the F-1/F-8 fly-off I was forcing in there).

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Monday, February 13, 2023 - 01:20 am: Edit

To be clear, the things that didn't change:
- The CDS rules.
- The photon rules.
- The ships themselves.
- The drone-less fighters.

The story for what is the main gunboat changed, but the actual gunboat designs did not.

It was the "fluffy" part that changed, not any of the "crunchy" stuff.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Monday, May 06, 2024 - 04:14 pm: Edit

Revisiting this topic again, and I have another thought that Gary may have mentioned much earlier, but I am not going to dig back and find out.

Instead of using the CDS as the secondary weapon, how about if they use a carronade-only (PLC) weapon? That requires no new technology, and would stay with the direct-fire only mantra for the Federation. Doing this, however, would have a few knock-on effects.

First, it means that the Federation secondary weapon would protect their photons. This could likely require a special secondary rule stating that "PLC is hit on drone hits, rather than torpedo hits, on Federation ships". If not, then that's a cool little advantage for these Feds.

Second, it would likely require the Gorns to give the Feds the technology earlier than done historically. The development date doesn't need to change; just when the Feds can get it. Depending on the introduction date, there might have to be two fleet refits, instead of just one. The first, earlier fleet refit adds in the Ph-3s. The second, later refit adds in the PLC. If the Gorns give it early enough, maybe only a few older ships (like the CC and CA) have to split the refit up. Most other ships would not need to, as long as the Feds can get it by Y170 or so.

Third, it would give the option for fighters using a limited PLC weapon. It would have to be power limited (able to hold a charge of no more than one or two points), but would otherwise operate just like a standard PLC. And F-18-like fighter would carry two of these fighter-PLC guns and a pair of Ph-3s. It wouldn't be a particularly *good* fighter, but it should be better than a fighter running around with four RALADs. (Which could also be an option, too.) The neat thing about using the fighter-PLC guns is that the Feds could then provide those for use by the Gorns, too. It would change the nature of their fighters, but, really, Pl-D fighters aren't all that great, so it shouldn't be too terribly bad.

None of this will ever get published, but I was just thinking of a way to combine things in an interesting way.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Monday, May 06, 2024 - 10:23 pm: Edit

One question might then be: do these Feds adopt the ADD, and later (partially or fully) replace it with the PLC? Or would they not adopt the ADD at all?

Given the precedent of "Romulan" escort and other variants from the standard timeline, I would not be opposed to a partial PLC refit for Fed ships deployed to the Romulan front. Or, perhaps, to make this refit more widely available once the Andromedan War breaks out.

-----

For example: one could give the GSC a single ADD to start with (replacing the secondary hull's drone rack). The saucer-mounted drone racks in the historical "plus" refit would instead be two more ADDs. But, starting in Y170 (or in Y175, if the Gorns do not provide carronade technology any earlier in this timeline than they do historically), a would-be "carronade" refit would replace the port, starboard, and aft ADDs with L, R, and RH PLCs respectively.

(I say L and R to port and starboard, as if you check the 3D viewer for the GSC on Shapeways, the saucer drone mounts are quite restricted in terms of their arc clearances - which of course is no issue for drones or ADDs, but would be for a PLC.)

In this timeline, I would say that only GSCs deployed to the Romulan front would get the carronade refit initially. But when the Andros roll in, all surviving GSCs (and, by extension, the GVX and GSXs) would get the carronade refit for the duration of that conflict.

-----

As noted in the fighter carronade discussion thread, I would sooner prefer the carronade be under the same engineering limitations as a seeking plasma-F mount, in terms of how many (or how few) can be installed onto a given fighter frame.

That said, perhaps a carronade equivalent of the historical A-10 might be deployed to the Romulan front? There already is a G-10 for use by the Gorns, even...

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Tuesday, May 07, 2024 - 08:37 am: Edit

I would restrict ADDs to escorts and maybe the GSC. (The MS would just have to wait for the additional weapons.) Everything else would just get PLC when it comes on line.

On the fighter, the point is to have the PLC fighters NOT be like Pl-F fighters. They would be deployed like fusion or ion fighters: they are just standard fighters, not assault fighters. Also, they cannot have full five point charges as that is "bolting plasma from a fighter". It has to be restricted over a full PLC or it can't go on a fighter. I would expect ADD fighters to exist, but they'd be an alternative design (maybe for the planetary fighters), not normally used in mixed squadrons.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Tuesday, May 07, 2024 - 11:20 am: Edit

ADD are an "E" section weapon; Direct Fire.

Why shouldn't "Feds without seeking weapons" make use of them?

Hey, maybe the FRA in the Omega Octant didn't develop the SRC on their own; maybe it's a standard weapon for the Federation as well!

(As a weapon that can do SOMEthing to help fight on the Romulan border...)

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Tuesday, May 07, 2024 - 12:48 pm: Edit

Scout variants, such as the NSC, would also be good candidates to use ADDs instead of PLCs, if only to prevent blocking scout channels.

-----

For those ships which are to be given anti-drones, would it be fair to have them be ADD-6s prior to Y175, and refitted to ADD-12s thereafter?

-----

Over in the Trobrin Empire, implosion bolts and implosion torpedoes are damaged on "drone" and "torpedo" hits respectively. With that in mind, I would have no issue with a dedicated PLC weapon mount being damaged on "drone" hits also, and not just on Fed ships. (I dunno if this would count as an errata request or not, though.)

-----

As I just noted in the fighter carronade thread, perhaps one alternative option could be to allow the freezer on a carrier to hold two carronade shots, and to allow each shot to be one-point (loaded in a single turn) or two-point (loaded over two turns).

In which case, the earliest size-1 carronade fighter would only be able to install one such shot - but a more advanced fighter could install both shots. Yet, even so, it would not be able to fire both shots on the same turn.

This would still lean towards a modified A-10 (or G-10), in terms of how many weapon mounts are on the actual size-1 fighter frame. But it would still allow for an iterative approach, in terms of how often the fighter has to go back to the carrier in order to reload.

Presumably, by the time the A-20 (or G-20) would be available, a carronade version of that size-2 fighter could each have two shots loaded from its carrier's freezers at once - though while it would be able to fire both carronades at once, each carronade would still only be able to fire one shot per turn.

Unless, of course, the Feds and Gorns skip the Third Way and go directly to PFs instead...

-----

Speaking of PFs: since carronade shots count towards a plasma PF's limit of two launches per turn, would an all-carronade variant of the Thunderbolt be limited to firing two of them in a single turn?

Or, indeed, would a mixed photon/carronade variant also be limited, in terms of how many of these heavy weapons it can fire all at once?

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Tuesday, May 07, 2024 - 03:21 pm: Edit

I had overlooked the firing arc restrictions in (FP14.37) earlier: even if the plasma-F launcher has a swivel mount, the carronade shot is still limited to a 120-degree firing arc at best.

So, in the aforementioned GSC example, the PLC on the secondary hull would be RA rather than RH.

------

One aspect of this is which arcs the PLCs would be installed in, and what tactical implications these would have.

On the one hand, the likes of the CA would have its PLC installed in an RA arc, since the drone rack being replaced is set that way in the secondary hull (as also shown on Shapeways).

On the other hand, a ship like the DDL would have its carronades set to FA, since it would take the place of the historical FH plasma-Fs (which of course can also be used as FA carronades from Y175 onwards, historically-speaking).

In some cases, the engineering limitations might result in arcs which are less then optimal for a given hull type - since, in the case of drone racks at least, these had originally been placed with no thought of firing arcs in mind. Still, that would help make things interesting...

-----

I would still argue that, in a drone-heavy environment (i.e. on the Klingon front of the General War), it would be better to stick with ADDs rather than PLCs, not least once ADD-12s become available.

Anti-drones are more cost-effective against enemy drones, as well as against the attack shuttles the "western" Coalition forces are launching them from. And they are omnidirectional, as opposed to the aforementioned firing arc restrictions imposed by the PLCs.

Better, in my view, to keep the PLCs focused against enemies without drones - be it the Romulans, the "Mapsheet P" Paravians (in the appropriate "lost empire" timelines, that is), the ISC, or the Andromedans.

-----

Not least since, even in the case of the mighty Federation economy, there would be the matter of logistics.

If one assumes the Feds gain access to ADDs as early as Y140 - even if they don't use them as much as they are able to until a couple of decades later - this gives them plenty of time to prepare a manufacturing, transport, and storage network required to facilitate their use in Star Fleet, the Federation Police, the National Guards, and elsewhere.

By contrast, even if the Gorns were induced to sell PLC technology prior to Y175, it would take time for the Feds to reverse-engineer this tech (even with Gorn assistance), to establish mining colonies required to source the various materials being used, and to prepare the factories needed to construct them, and to distribute them to produce carronades in the quantities required, and even to build up the engineering knowledge needed to operate, maintain, and repair them properly while being used.

Hence why I would suggest that, for the first few years at least, the main focus would be on supplying the needs of the Romulan front - the one place where the enemy's use of cloaking devices would leverage the carronade to its maximum extent. (In effect, this would be akin to how the facilities needed by the Romulans to maintain their Kestrels are in those provinces closest to the Klingon Empire.)

Yet by, say, Y180 - or perhaps by Y185? - there might have been enough time for the Feds to have built up enough of an economy of scale to permit an unrestricted degree of access to carronade technology.

So, by the time the ISC Pacification and Andromedan invasion each take place, Star Fleet is in a better position to implement a fleet-wide carronade refit, should one be so required.

-----

Also: it might be interesting to determine if an "X-PLC" is derived from either a plasma-L or a plasma-F torpedo launcher, for use on first-generation X-ships.

While either a type-L or a type-F X-launcher can use rapid arming to arm a plasma-F warhead over two turns, the type-L can fast-arm an F-torpedo in a single turn - albeit with a two-point surcharge.

So in principle, one could allow an X-PLC to arm over three turns as normal; to add four points of power needed to fire it on the second turn; or (if the plasma-L launcher is the basis used) to pay the seven points needed to fire a fully-reinforced carronade shot in a single turn...

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Tuesday, May 07, 2024 - 03:55 pm: Edit

Wow. That is a lot of questions all at once. Let's see if I can knock out as many as I can with some unqualified assertions ...

- All current rules would be respected. So, PF limitations would be all be in force. Arcs will not change. Etc.

- ADDs are available to use for a photon-less Federation. That's already established. The real question is where it makes sense to do so. With the CDS modification to the ADD, then it makes sense to use it everywhere. If just pure ADDs, not so much. Assuming no CDS, I tend to use them pretty much only with escorts, and even then in moderation. (In the other proposal for a photon-less Federation, the escort R-variants are the primary escort designs.)

- I don't see an issue with widespread use of PLC by the Federation, assuming the technology is given to them by the Gorns. In SFB, when something is declared "available", it is flat out available. There is no "reverse engineering" or anything. The Feds license the technology and just make it. It would not take any more time to roll out than any other technology they roll out. And the date given for when the Feds get it, is the date they get to roll it out. All of the hidden pre-work has already happened. The Gorns don't just discover carronades in Y165. That is when the technology is rolled out. Assuming friendly cooperation, the Federation would be able to roll it out at the same time, if that's what both sides want. (I am not advocating that date. I am just saying it could be that fast if so desired.)

- Yes, arcs would have to be determined on a ship-by-ship basis. Sure. No reason to figure them all out right now. I want to see if it is viable first.

- I always plan for direct-fire Federation to use PFs. Since their fighters are always going to suck, they need the firepower.

- I am assuming the fighters would all have to be built new. There is no F-18, F-14, A-10, or whatever. It would be all new fighters. I would expect them to be radically different and built along the lines of Hydran and Vudar fighters, but with the PLC instead. Maybe even the conjectural LDR fighters.

Hope that helps.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Friday, May 10, 2024 - 11:04 am: Edit

In the historical timeline, several Federation refits are noted as being implemented over a number of years - to include being marked as "rare", "common", and "universal" in the R-section notes for certain starship types so upgraded.

For example, the "plus" refit was first available in Y165; yet only 20% of the fleet had this refit installed by the time the Klingons launched their invasion of the Federation in Y171. It would not be until Y175 that it would be considered as "universal".

Indeed, part of this delay was due to political issues in the Federation Council, as one of the numerous shortcomings attributed to then-Chairman Buckner.

Both the AWR and aft phaser refits were similarly rolled out over several years.

So I would argue that there is plenty of precedent for carronade refits to take time to implement across a "no-drone" Federation.

-----

Actually, I would say that politics might impact the timing for when the Gorns would provide access to carronade tech in the first instance.

Given that the carronade was designed to be proportionally more useful against cloaked Romulan ships, it could be that the Gorn legislature - which was historically wary of being caught up in the General War - would see it as being too much of a provocation to the Romulan government to sell this technology to the Federation, at least prior to the Gorns themselves entering the war in Y174.

(Yes, the Gorns sold limited numbers of plasma-F launchers earlier - but this is a weapon that can be used against a variety of opponents. While carronades can be used against non-Romulan ships also, it is a more overtly "anti-Romulan" application of this technology, or at least could be argued as such by the politicians and diplomats involved.)

Add that to the time it would take to start the process of providing carronade tech to the Feds, and one could argue in favour of making PLCs first available to the Feds in Y175, in line with the historical offering.

So, to use the "plus" refit as an example, perhaps the carronade roll-out could be "rare" (and, again, mostly on the Romulan front) in Y175; "common" (or rather, "common" enough to start showing up in numbers against the Klingons and Lyrans) by Y180; and "universal" (at least for those hulls which would benefit from such an installation) by Y185?

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Wednesday, May 15, 2024 - 11:51 am: Edit

I was looking over the carronade rules with a different empire in mind, and noticed something interesting: according to (FP14.533), carronades can be used to sweep mines.

In SFB Module C6, the "lost empire" Paravians deploy minesweeper variants which retain the full quantum wave torpedo mounts of their respective "base" hulls. QWTs are themselves quite useful at sweeping mines... so long as the captain of the ship in question isn't tempted to go looking for trouble against Gorn or ISC opposition, thus preventing the admiralty from using the ship when mines need to be swept!

(It isn't formally stated just yet, but I would expect the Paravians of Omega to lean heavily into this kind of minesweeper design also.)

In any case, once the PLC is adopted here, perhaps these "no-drone" Feds might consider revisiting one or more of their own minesweeper variant designs, in order to more fully leverage the opportunities provided by the use of the carronade in this capacity?

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Wednesday, May 15, 2024 - 04:25 pm: Edit

Sure, why not on the minesweepers? I dunno. If they don't have drones, CDS, or extra phasers, something is better than nothing, so, sure?

As for the YIS date, that is actually kind of a secondary point. The primary point is if the idea is even viable? The YIS can be fine tuned and the "political environment" can be anything we want. This is an alternative history, after all. We can make whomever do whatever to make the story work out how we want.

Sorry, but in these cases, I am more of a "figure out where you want to get, then arrange the scenario to get you there" than a "change one thing and see what happens" kind of guy when doing these changes in SFU. The reason is because we just don't have the full range of freedom when working with the SFU. Certain things have to be certain things, so when using the second path 99.8% of what "would happen" would be impossible to implement. So, rather than do that, figure out where you want to go, and make the story end up there.

So, getting back to YIS, the key point is when do we want the Feds to get the PLC? It can be anywhere from Y165 on onwards. Which works best and doesn't leave huge openings for the Feds (or Gorns or Romulans or Klingons) to get absolutely stomped because of a lost capability is what determines which YIS date is used. If these Feds are going to have fighters using some form of PLC, then they have to get it early enough to make that happen. And that ain't Y175. If the Feds aren't going to have PLC fighters, then Y175 works as well as anything else.

Again, figure out what the goal is, then figure out how to get there. All possibilities are not an option in the SFU. So, find one that will work and then run with it.

(In all honesty, the best option for a direct-fire only Federation is probably the one that is just phasers, photons, and ADDs, with the refit drones replaced by RH Ph-1s. No new rules. Ships are fairly straight-forward, though they fly noticably differently. The only problem is the fighters, which is solvable in a couple of ways.)

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Tuesday, June 04, 2024 - 12:13 pm: Edit

While thinking about how one might look at a Federation and Empire scenario (or few?) through a reflected lens, I was minded of what options there might - or might not - be here for the Federal Imperium, as opposed to the United Federation of Planets.

-----

In the Reflection Universe from Module R4J, the Gorns never develop the carronade firing option prior to the onset of first-generation X-technology. Although they do gain access to mauler technology.

Both of these things happen since these Gorns are allied to the Logic-Romulan Republic. Which also means that, since the Gorns find themselves fighting against the Federal Imperium during the General War, these "Feds" would not have been in a position to gain friendly access to Gorn plasma technology in any event.

Further, this means that the Federal Imperium has two plasma empires to fight against - well, three, if you count the ISC Pacification.

But, there might be another option, courtesy of this timeline's "Orion" - or rather, "Paravian" - pirates: the quantum wave torpedo!

-----

First off: yes, I am aware that the QWT is a seeking weapon. But if anything, it's quite a simple one to use, at least when compared to drones or plasma torpedoes. Indeed, one could say that it's almost... Omega-like in its simplicity.

The way I see it, 90 percent of the motivation to create a "seeking-weapon-less" Fed is really about making a "drone-less" Fed - with maybe another one to five percent about making them "plasma-torpedo-less" in the process.

Having the Federal Imperium gain access to QWT technology from the "Paravian" pirates - through fair means or foul - would in and, in and of itself, go a long way towards addressing this issue. Not least since, as shown with the various "lost empire" Paravian fighters and gunboats in Module C6, they are quite usable as attrition unit weapons also.

Now, there might be a different kind of concern: I don't know if Paramount would be best pleased with ADB offering a "Fed" ship with a heavy weapon that has the words "quantum" and "torpedo" in the name - despite the on-screen weapon so named being quite different to the SFU's QWT. But still, if that is a deal-breaker for such a concept, fair enough.

-----

To go back to the GSC example: one could replace the three drone racks with LF+L, RF+R, and RA QWT mounts respectively.

For other Fed ships, one might wonder if any "torpedo" variant hulls would seek to retain access to AWR refits, if only to help arm overloads.

Further, in the case of the Federation battlecruiser: would a QWT-armed "BCT" variant have the same kind of shock rules as the BCJ? Or would it be as shock-free as, say, the BCF? Either way, if the Shapeways 3D model is any indication, only the "gun deck" QWTs would be FA; the saucer mounts would either both be RA, or perhaps be split into L+LR and R+RR launch arcs.

And, once again, a QWT-heavy range of minesweeper variants would be on the table, just as they are over in Module C6.

-----

On a side note: depending on which year the Federal Imperium gained access to QWTs, might a would-be "Federal Viceroyalty of Aurora" have access to such weapons (in place of short-range cannon) over in Omega?

Or, might there still be a prototype Klingon ADD system aboard the "Paravian" raider cruiser they find themselves contracting with, thus leading to the same SRC as seen historically?

It would be amusing for QWT-armed Omega-Paravian (and/or Zosman) raiders to show up in Auroran space - only to find the locals launching QWTs of their own back at them!

-----

So, might it be an option to consider the quantum wave torpedo as a replacement for drone racks and type-F plasma torpedoes in the Federal Imperium?

Or might those "Feds" require some other means of going "drone-less" (and/or "plasma-less"), should anyone bother wishing to do so?

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Friday, June 07, 2024 - 08:55 pm: Edit

No.

The Imperial Federation is in opposition to the Paravians, whether pirate Paravians or more traditional Paravians. This is because they aren't going to genocide their lizard-ish members. And because the Imperial Federation isn't in favor of the chaos created by pirates. They don't believe they need to either tolerate or work with pirates.

In addition, there was no indication or intention for the pirate Paravians to share their tech with anyone. They might steal tech from others, but they aren't selling their unique tech. There's no gain for doing that, so they won't. Also, unlike Orion pirates, Paravian pirates don't "welcome all". They will work with local agents, but the pirates themselves are Paravians.

Finally, the whole point of this proposal is to pull the Federation tech back to its roots of phasers and photons. Just swapping drones for QWTs is not that, and is in fact even worse than that. So, whether the standard Federation or the Imperial Federation, if you are getting rid of both drones and plasmas, you're not going to suddenly add in QWTs. That is, to say the least, counter-productive.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Monday, June 10, 2024 - 12:08 am: Edit

I wanted to reply to your last post in more detail. However, since I also didn't want to derail this topic any more than was necessary, I posted my thoughts here instead.

For the purpose of the topic of this discussion, I revert my stance (such as it is) back to favouring the carronade option for the Federation.

Although the Federal Imperium might still have to make do with some other direct-fire option (Phaser-3s? ADDs? Something else?), due to the aforementioned absence of pre-X PLC technology in the Reflected version of events.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Tuesday, June 11, 2024 - 12:50 am: Edit

Honestly, you bringing up the Federal Imperium makes the PLC less viable for what I was thinking. As such, this proposal stays with the CDS and all it implies.

(There is a separate proposal for just replacing drones with rear facing phasers, so that one exists, too.)