Perhaps such a setup could be offered in one (or both) of two ways: either as part of a would-be "dark future" product (as the Feds in the Darwin timeline deploy fast patrol ships from alt-Y198 onwards), and/or in a future "update" file supporting a certain "what-if" timeline from Module R4J.

That said, the two circumstances are quite different, as one timeline sees the Feds still follow the "Third Way" and only later be forced to adopt PFs; whereas in the other timeline, the "Feds" never went the Third Way and adopted PFs as soon as the technology became available.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Thursday, July 29, 2021 - 06:43 pm: Edit

That is not what I am suggesting.

I am not asking for an "alternative timeline", whether stand-alone or in combination with something else.

This request is only to define what the ramifications of using gunboats would be for the Federation. This isn't "alterative" anything. This is just "if the Feds used conjectural gunboats, this is what would happen". That's it.

A lot has been added to the game since K1. This is a request to update information around Fed gunboats to reflect that.

As a comparison, the Romulan Queen Freight Eagle is NOT part of an alternative history. It is just a ship that the Romulans chose not to make, but could have. No alternative history. No going down the rathole. Just a path not chosen. Now it is true that it was then used in an alternative history, but that alternative history was not required for the ship to exist. Same with the Thunderbolt. This is just asking to have that explored a little more, given all the new stuff in the game.

Now, if the results of this can be used for some random alternative history, or set of alternative histories, great. Wonderful. But that is not the point. I chose the product to associate this request with intentionally and deliberately. And it can't be used by those other alternative histories until its base form is addressed. I would very much like to keep the focus on that presentation.

Honestly, it could even be a Captain's Log article. It isn't really any different in concept from the CL articles expanding on particular monsters or giving more information on Operation Unity or expanding the Captain's Game Campaign.

The difference between doing it in CL and doing it in K2, is that in K2 we get the SSDs. In CL we just get told what they look like.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Thursday, July 29, 2021 - 07:06 pm: Edit

First, the ACS is going to be a heavy fighter/regular fighter combo (check the other empires), second, the NPF would become the HPF for the NCA PFT, the NHV would stay as an upgraded NVH (or neither exists) and third, the CVH is probably a no (any other CA PFTs out there?) ... For some of those ships, the F101 would sub for the F111 ...

As for 'alt-timeline', kinda has to be because it's a reversal of a previous decision (like most 'what ifs?') ... The Queen Eagles are based on regular production of King Eagle engines leading to WE variants being upgraded ...

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, July 30, 2021 - 07:23 am: Edit

I don't see Fed PFs as a viable "alternative history" project. They are just conjectural ships in the standard timeline.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Friday, July 30, 2021 - 12:01 pm: Edit

And without an alternate history, then the answers to many of Mike's questions will be "Whatever you think would be fun to mess around with" and PFT versions of the F-111 carriers he listed.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Friday, July 30, 2021 - 02:12 pm: Edit

So would it be better to keep any would-be Fed X1-ship PFTs in reserve for a potential Module X1B, or might they be worth considering here also?

Either way, while the Feds could use the pre-existing HDWX from Module X1R in a fast patrol ship tender configuration - or, for that matter, add a pair of "casual" PFs to the GSX from Module X1 - there might yet be some use for additional X-PFT variants in order to chase down Andromedan RTN nodes.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Friday, July 30, 2021 - 07:41 pm: Edit

As a fan, I like that ADB, Inc. has published "Conjectural" Federation Gunboats for those player campaigns that have the Federation using them.

Just like having the conjectural Battleships for everyone who wants them for THEIR campaigns is something else I appreciate.

The Federation also have easily convertable F-111 carriers that can make for a variety of Gunboat tenders; something simple enough that even I can do.

Just my 0.002 Quatloos worth.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Saturday, July 31, 2021 - 11:10 am: Edit

F111 vs A20 carriers?

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Monday, August 02, 2021 - 12:06 pm: Edit

Again, just to be clear, my ask is simply this:

Include PF versions of the F-111 carriers the Feds made.

Include PF versions of the F-111 carriers the Feds made. If this creates a new class, give comparable ships to everyone else, too.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Monday, August 02, 2021 - 12:11 pm: Edit

For a higher level explanation, I would very much like to see more done with gunboats. The best way to get a K2 published is to make sure there is content to put into it. Thus my various suggestions, including this last one.

And having my last suggestion also have the effect of asking for whole new classes of ships that carry gunboats is great! This means that what I thought was one suggestion is actually more than one. That's a bonus feature, not a defect.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Tuesday, August 03, 2021 - 09:55 am: Edit

I wouldn't mind seeing a FF type of PFT. Perhaps a FF with ONE special sensor and a pair of PF. A few repair boxes.

IIRC the smallest ships currently having Mech Links are destroyers.

These ships used the pair of PFs in lieu of having any firepower of their own. Often were used as (fast) convoy escorts. Also moderately common wtih small Battle groups to provide some PF support and a scout sensor...

So (example) Klingon PFT baby.

E4. Replace both Disr with mech links. Replace drone with Special sensor. Replace a couple boxes in the after hull section with repair. Probably an APR (?) and trac/ trans/ whatever.

By Patrick H. Dillman (Patrick) on Wednesday, August 04, 2021 - 10:45 am: Edit

The problem with an FF type of pft is that they are too small. a PF is approximately 30 meters in length,(Source Klingon Deck plans) most Frigates are about 100 meters in length.

By Steven Zamboni (Szamboni) on Wednesday, August 04, 2021 - 02:23 pm: Edit

On the other hand, the things you can stack on a 90-meter hull...

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Wednesday, August 04, 2021 - 03:49 pm: Edit

The Gorn DD has been referred to as a mislabeled Frigate and was used as the hull for a PFT. Likewise, the Tholian PC was used as the basic hull for their PFT.

HOWEVER, I will point out that BOTH of those PFTs have SERIOUS shortcomings.

By Jack Bohn (Jackbohn) on Thursday, August 05, 2021 - 07:21 pm: Edit

And how weird was the Romulan fleet - the Battlehawk was considered a competing cruiser, but in Chickenhawk configuration could only carry three PFs and you needed two to make a PFT. So what are thoughts about putting a full formal flotilla on a frigate squadron? The Frigate Leader is the one that doesn't trade a heavy weapon for a special sensor. The other way, the frigates are refit to carry PFs that are casual to the rest of the fleet -- I feel like calling them "casual frigates."

Either way the crew has to really feel their status as attrition units; the survival of their tender is questionable for any battle.

What would be the tactics against a casual frigate? With a frigate-based carrier, a turn's massed volley could kill it, and prevent further sorties from its fighters, with tenders, I guess it depends on the EW environment, and maybe how often your admiral tells you, "If you're not killing ships, you're not getting the job done."

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Thursday, August 05, 2021 - 11:06 pm: Edit

Side note: I am pretty sure the Battlehawk has always been a destroyer. I don't remember (and am not going to look up) what the Warhawk was originally treated as, but by Commanders Edition both were destroyers.

By A David Merritt (Adm) on Friday, August 06, 2021 - 12:14 am: Edit

I've been playing since the Designers Edition, as far as I can remember the Warhawk always had a 1/2 move cost and was a DD,sized hull, although the first one was a carrier for Gladiators, IIRC.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, August 06, 2021 - 11:46 am: Edit

I'm not a big fan of more frigate-based PFTs (sorry, Mike). The problem is that it seems to go against the grain of established SFU history - that frigates were largely replaced by war destroyers because the frigates were too small and weak to survive in combat. It's true that the first PFTs were destroyer-based or frigate-based (at least for the Tholians). But all empires (including the Tholians) quickly fielded the far more survivable CW-based PFTs. It could be argued that turning the frigates into PFts with one special sensor (for long-range reconnaisance rather than close in tactical EW support) extends the useful life of the frigates by keeping them out of direct combat. But going by the general trend of fleets trying to make individual ships more capable and survivable (FF®DW, CW®NCA, DN®DNH), I'm not convinced. Those frigate-based PFTs still require a special sensor, which is expensive, and a PF flotilla; both of which are resources better employed on more capable hulls that are more survivable and can perform a wider variety of missions.

That at least is my .02 quatloos worth. I want there to be a Module K2 and will certainly listen to further arguments for these ships. But I don't think a good case for them has been made yet.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, August 06, 2021 - 12:05 pm: Edit

What makes more sense, at least to me, is additional "Space Patrol Ships". The Lyrans and Gorns already have such ships, which are Space Control Ships but with two PF flotillas instead of one flotilla and one fighter squadron. These may not be necessary for all empires. The Kzinti already have their (thoroughly awesome) "Super Space Control Ship", with two PF flotillas and a fighter squadron. So they might not need an SPS. Tholian fighters are carried in external hanger bays so deleting them doesn't free up internal volume for an second flotilla. Turning a Tholian SCS into an SPS migt not be worth it, depending on the specific internal systems that would have to be deleted. (I've got some ideas of what I would like to see the Tholians get in a Module K2, which I will post later in the Tholian proposal section.) But I could definitely see Klingon or Romulan interest in a Space Patrol Ship.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, August 06, 2021 - 01:38 pm: Edit

Are there any new PFs, rather than PFTs, that would be appropriate?

One that occurs to me, though it would require a rule change ((E15.13) TECHNOLOGICAL LIMITATIONS) would be to allow Seltorian PFs to carry web breakers. The web breaker seems to be a bulky weapon, based on how many ships can carry. Size Class-4 ships can carry one, SC3 ships can carry two, and SC2 ships can carry three. I can't think of any exceptions smaller than the Hive Ship-based "Battlewagon". One would think the Seltorians might have fielded a few "base assault" versions of their standard warships, with fewer particle cannons but more web breakers. these ships would be less useful in "open space" than standard warships but more useful against heavily defended bases. But I can think of no such examples. So maybe the fact that a web breaker-equipped PF would require a rule change is a non-starter. But if ADB would consider it, I suggest swapping out the particle cannon and one phaser-1 for a single web breaker, with no more than two per flotilla.

By Mike Dowd (Mike_Dowd) on Friday, August 06, 2021 - 01:50 pm: Edit

I know that this goes against "Steve and Steve" established doctrine, so please don't shut this down preemptively and summarily.

I feel that there was a missed opportunity to shape Carnivon doctrine into more of a "pack hunting" role. Yes, I know that ship sailed so long ago, it had the most advanced canvas sails known to man...

What I'm talking about was to have the Heel Nipper on their light vessels -- the fast and maneuverable ones that could get in and help "steer" the prey into the jaws of the heavy units and the Deathbolts.

To this end, could we consider a *simulator* version of the Carnivon PF that has a single HN on board? A flotilla of these could help ensure the destruction of ships by making them turn involuntarily turning into seeking weapons or disrupting fleet formations...

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Friday, August 06, 2021 - 01:51 pm: Edit

Alan, one thing to consider with the PF web breaker is that it's not just a SFB rules change, but an F&E one - and the F&E WB rule is very carefully tuned around the relative numbers of WB units present in a battle. Letting the Seltorians stack more WB units via PF flotillas breaks that rule.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, August 06, 2021 - 02:18 pm: Edit

Alex,

I'm not familiar with how web breakers work in F&E. (I am an SFB player who buys some F&E products but am less diligent about completeness. Which product are they in?) But this sounds like a bit of a "disconnect" between SFB and F&E. That's not meant as a criticism. I think such disconnects are unavoidable in two games of such vastly different scale. But I do note that the Tholians are much better able, from a purely technological aspect and ignoring total available resources, to defend bases against the Seltorians in the Holdfast than they ever were in their home galaxy. And the ability of Tholian PFs to replace their phaser-3s with web generators (maximum of two per flotilla) is a big part of that.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Friday, August 06, 2021 - 02:48 pm: Edit

It's more abstraction than disconnect. The F&E rules are written for Seltorians versus Tholians in our galaxy so the technological aspect is already factored in - mainly in access to attrition units and web tenders. A PF with a web generator does not provide any appreciable extra strength to a web in place due to the limited power of a PF - whereas a WB on a PF does make a significant reduction to the web's strength.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, August 06, 2021 - 03:02 pm: Edit

A PF with a web generator provides more power than a PC does and almost as much as a DD does. Granted, it is more fragile than either of those two ships.

But PFs can also form pinwheels. If a flotilla forms two, one around each web generator-equipped PF, the flotilla as a whole can put a lot more power into web reinforcement than a dreadnought or an X-cruiser can.