One sword would be too close to the mirror universe, whic of course is why you wanted it.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Sunday, April 18, 2021 - 06:09 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

If those CapLog ships are not alternate timeline ships they do NOT belong here. A look at the index seems to indicate none of those caplog ships are alternate timeline ships.

---

---

Quote:

Historians have often asked "What if?" In this case, ...

---

By Mike Dowd (Mike_Dowd) on Sunday, April 18, 2021 - 06:33 pm: Edit

I concur with Mike West that the 'Black' series of ships -- i.e. the Eagles with Klingon engines -- is definitively an alternate history....

By Kosta Michalopoulos (Kosmic) on Sunday, April 18, 2021 - 07:24 pm: Edit

But is it a separate alternate history from what is explored in R4J? And does that matter?

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Sunday, April 18, 2021 - 07:37 pm: Edit

My position is that when CL39 was published, the idea of R4J didn't really exist, and the ships therein were simply general speculative alternative history. However, with R4J being published, a specific framework for that alternative history was given a presentation. As such, it is now the appropriate place to publish them. Especially since other venues are very unlikely to appear because of R4J. In other words, not only is R4J now the most appropriate place, but it is likely the only place. They will never make R13. So, put them here where they fit best.

Do note that these are not the Black series. The Black series are ships refitted to work with Klingon tech directly. These are an expansion of the King ship series.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Sunday, April 18, 2021 - 09:26 pm: Edit

It would be interesting to see how a potential Federation and Empire scenario might unpack the version of the General War which unfolds in the "reflection" timeline - in which there are few real allies, yet plenty of unfriendly co-belligerents.

Perhaps it might do with a modified version of the "uneasy coalition" (6HW.23) rules from the "lost empire" Carnivon preview in Captain's Log #51?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, April 18, 2021 - 09:41 pm: Edit

The black ships are not part of the five R4J timelines so NO.

Unbuilt variants are not R4J alternate timeline ships so NO, not even close.

If it isn’t specific to the five alternate timelines in R4J then NO it does NOT get added to R4J. DEAD HORSE.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Sunday, April 18, 2021 - 09:56 pm: Edit

Would the R4J Romulans consider building "fast" Eagle-series ships, if such things were possible engineering-wise?

If so, perhaps they could consider a "fast" version of the Queen Storm Eagle (with only one plasma-S torpedo instead of two), and/or a light dreadnought derived from the King Vulture.

For that matter, I was speculating elsewhere on the BBS as to what early (as in "Middle Years") battleships could look like. Might these Romulans consider an "Emperor Vulture" (or whatever they choose to call it), and/or some sort of Eagle-series light battleship?

-----

Actually, since there is a broader variety of "King" and "Queen" variants in these timelines, perhaps these Romulans might also build or convert a broader variety of Eagle-series first-generation X-ships also?

-----

On a side note, since the Romulans in most of these timelines tend to build Hawk-series ships eventually, I wonder if there's at least one timeline in which the DemonHawk won out over the Condor as their preferred choice of dreadnought. Not least if that enables them to finally deploy the infamous "REDHawk" configuration during the Andromedan War...

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Monday, April 19, 2021 - 01:11 am: Edit

Gary, while "Fast First Gen" Romulans sound interesting, my initial "Gut Feeling" is that their Cloaking Devices would suggest a committment to stealth raiders, as opposed to building "Fast Raiders;" as Fast Warships were historically built to be.

(But that's just one person's 0.02 Quatloos worth. )

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Monday, April 19, 2021 - 08:41 am: Edit

Steve,

Again, I am not talking about the Black Eagle ships. That was just an accidental reference made by Mike Dowd. He didn't mean that.

Every single ship in R4J is an unbuilt variant in the main timeline. There is literally no status difference between any ship in R4J and the ships in CL39 and CL39S. Every single ship could have easily been built in the main timeline, but simply wasn't. None of the ships in R4J are truly hard-tied to these five alternative timelines. They are identical in status.

The Queen War Eagle is no more hard tied to R4J than the Queen Falcon, as either was completely possible irrespective of the history, and both are legitimately unbuilt variants (since they feature the exact same change to an existing base hull). That one was associated with CL39 and the other isn't is more an side-effect of when they were thought of, not that the Queen War Eagle "could only happen in R4J" and the Queen Falcon isn't. Another example: the Early King Eagle. That ship is highly likely to have existed in the main history, though we don't know it yet. Since we know King Eagle/birds have always existed, it would be quite natural for an Early King Eagle to have existed briefly before the full King Eagle was designed and all existing Early King Eagles were retrofitted to the full design. (They need command cruisers for their Eagles, and 3 KRCs just aren't going to cut it.)

Also, if they are not added to R4J, they will likely never be formally published. They will simply become forgotten CL39-only ships because they will never rise to the point of being published in a standard R-module, including and especially R13. It is disappointing to know that those ships will never see the light of day considering they are core components of R4J. Especially the Queen Falcon which is relegated to a CLS; it isn't even at the level of a "real" CL ship.

Gary,

No, I don't see expanded Eagle X-ships. Why would they? They have all of the Hawk series ships they want and the Eagle ships don't even have real plasma advantages over them anymore. Sure, they would make the occasional Eagle X-ship of opportunity, like is done in the main history, but I don't see any reason to expand that.

Besides, R4J is the last place you will likely see any of these alternative histories. R4J is not meant to be a platform from which a whole new series of ships are to be added over time. It is intended to be a one-shot that scratches a particular itch and is done. I am just happy it had a chance to see the light of day, even if some of its ships will never be formally published; they are at least referenced within it.

By A David Merritt (Adm) on Monday, April 19, 2021 - 10:44 am: Edit

Given the number of units in R4J based on the units in CL39, and CL39S, it would be nice to see them formally published somewhere sooner, rather than latter.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, April 19, 2021 - 11:33 am: Edit

They are not identical in status, and the idea that if they aren't added to R4J they will never be formally published anywhere is just not valid.

When I say DEAD HORSE you better pay attention.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Monday, April 19, 2021 - 11:37 am: Edit

OK, if you say so. I look forward to seeing them in R13.

Anyway, on a different (but related) topic, one cool use of the K/Q-series ships is to allow Romulans to have a much more capable and comprehensive fleet of Eagle ships. Using this, in conjunction with the existing K/Q ships, lets Romulan players only use Eagles if they want. Kinda of a cool extra function to the module.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, April 19, 2021 - 01:12 pm: Edit

Mike, if you wanted those in R4J you should have said so three months ago. They cannot be added now; they have no counters and we'd have to rewrite their histories. It's not like we developed this product in secret. You were part of it from the start and could have, any time last year, spoken up.

Your theory that unbuilt variants from the main timeline and alternate timeline ships are no different is just wrong.

Your idea that ships in Captain's Log are a lower status than ships in R-module is completely wrong and contrary to everything ADB ever said on the subject. They have EXACTLY the same status. When people say they want to playtest something (and by way, few if any of them actually playtest anything we give them to playtest) we tell them to playtest things from Captain's Log because those are readily available and there is time for them to be tested again before they show up in a module. That does NOT give them a "lower status" and we have said so many times.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Monday, April 19, 2021 - 01:39 pm: Edit

I just think a clear note or two that points to the CL issues rather than having to hunt through the MSC to find these few ships is all that's really needed.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, April 19, 2021 - 01:45 pm: Edit

Why would you need a note for the CL ships if you don't need a note for every Romulan ship in the entire game? (Which would be absurd.)

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Monday, April 19, 2021 - 02:09 pm: Edit

Mainly because there's over fifty Captain's Logs that most people don't integrate together for easy reference the way they do with modules. As I suggested, just a line in (Z59.1) to the effect of adding Captain's Logs 39 (and supplemental) and 51 to list of products required to use it to its fullest extent.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, April 19, 2021 - 02:16 pm: Edit

I don't understand why you need it, but if Petrick wants to add this (which isn't really valid) I guess he can. Not much point and it just seems like you're trying to use it to prove something that just isn't true.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Monday, April 19, 2021 - 02:57 pm: Edit

I'm not trying to argue anything Mike West or anyone is re: the status of CL ships re: being more official or not. If anything, in the context of that discussion, adding that reference in (Z95.1) is just underscoring that CL published ships are just as real as module published (just in a position where they can be more easily revised as they haven't been module published).

My stance is it would just be a handy reference for someone with the module to immediately know which specific Captain's Logs the module assumes access to for full use without hunting through the MSC. The fact that I overlooked it (in part cause I wasn't even sure what the BattleHawb-B's designation was since it's not in the R-section) and had to ask kind of shows where I could have used/needed it.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, April 19, 2021 - 06:09 pm: Edit

Like I said, Steve Petrick can add it if he feels it needed.

By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Monday, April 19, 2021 - 09:06 pm: Edit

R4J B&W SSD Page 39 - The Type says COHB with a BPV 90/50 but the MSC says 107/67. It appears that the ship is COH (Moduel M) with a veil device; the COH has the cloak refit, but the BPV does not match at 97/57 vs 95/55. The COHB has both the cloak and engine refits. - Wyszynski 19 April 2021

R4J B&W SSD Pages 41 and 42 - The Type says WHB with a BPV of 87/60 but the MSC says 97/70. The type should just be WH, with the WHB having the engine refit. - Wyszynski 19 April 2021

R4J B&W SSD Page 43 - The Type says PELB with a BPV of 73/40, but the MSC says 103/70. The type should be PEL, with PELB having the engine refit. Also the BPV should be 72/40 to match the current PEL (Module AM). - Wyszynski 19 April 2021

R4J B&W SSD Page 46 - The Type says FLGB with a BPV of 97/75 but the MSC says 107/88. The type should just be FLG, with the FLGB having the engine refit. Also the MSC is not computed right, it should be 107/85; the extra 3 is the phaser refit. - Wyszynski 19 April 2021

By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Monday, April 19, 2021 - 10:29 pm: Edit

Comments on my previous post: As the COH, WH, PEL, and FLG are published as real ships, the new SSD should just be the B versions with the engine refits incorporated.

This does not solve the veiled COH. This is contemporary with the EKE, ERE, and STE. Maybe it should have its own SSD as ECOH.

By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Monday, April 19, 2021 - 10:54 pm: Edit

There should be an Early War Eagle (like EKE, ERE, and STE). The R4J MSC has two "WE" entries with YIS of Y126 and Y150 for the veiled and cloaked versions. The WE (cloaked) in the main timeline has an YIS of Y162. SSD would be same as Basic Set, but would have notes on veil and appropriate YIS; also match phaser refit to Y171 like STE. These early WE also have the more limited transporters and tractor beams.

By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Tuesday, April 20, 2021 - 07:12 am: Edit

My comment above on an early War Eagle is general covered under (R4.JR7), (R4.JR8), (R4.JR9), and (R4.JR10) on page 15. Did not digest it until morning.

Perhaps a couple of sentences under "ROMULAN MIDDLE YEARS WARSHIPS (MY-TECH)" heading on page 25 to point to the above refits. It would help tie these two section together.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Tuesday, April 20, 2021 - 01:58 pm: Edit

So far as "fast" ships go; I should add that the Romulans currently have a number of Hawk-series "fast" hulls, such as the FastHawk and Fast SparrowHawk, to choose from. Although it is mentioned that construction of the latter was delayed for years because, as noted above, a standard Romulan cruiser with its cloaking device already made for a good raider.

"Fast" ships can be of varying degrees of use, be it either as raiders or as first responders. While the cloak would help Romulan "fast" ships in the former category, the ability to respond quickly to enemy raids or incursions (not least those launched by enemy "fast" ships) would be helpful also.

-----

So far as first-generation X-ships go; with a larger proportion of the Romulan fleets in these timelines being comprised of Eagles, not least due to the near-absence of Kestrels in most cases, I would argue that it would be somewhat more likely for a few Queen War Eagles and Queen Storm Eagles to be upgraded as "line" X-ships. Or perhaps for a few Regent Eagles to be considered for upgrade also.

Or, to look at it another way, given how useful a pair of plasma-Ms can be compared to a single plasma-R, perhaps even a limited run of Eagle-series X-ships in these timelines could see at least one of the King Eagle-Xs fielded historically be swapped out for a Regent Eagle-X?

-----

In the long run, if room to add new ships to Module R4J itself is limited by the recently-printed countersheets, but if there were enough additional alternate timeline Romulan ships out there to warrant consideration elsewhere, could a "Module R4J2" be a potential future option?

If so, perhaps, like Module C3A, it need not necessarily require its own countersheet, if that would otherwise be a deal-breaker.