"I don't see the ADD being upgraded to a better weapon. Load it with type-VI drones and be done with it."

Okay, please excuse me if this seems "Ensign Redshirt obvious/dumb" BUT...

A gunboat on an attack run against an Andromedan launches the type-VI from its ADD along with two type-I drones from its drone racks. What does this do to the Andromedan counter-drone plan? Does the presence of the third drone make him/her think this is a G1D? His/her lack of lab capacity to identify every incoming drone* leaves a VERY high probability that the (mostly harmless) type-VI will be assumed to be a (less harmless?) type-I. Launching the type-VI from the ADD and only one type-I from the standard racks leaves the gunboat with the second drone rack still open to launch at point blank range for a potentially uncounterable drone strike with the Andromedan not expecting it.

(*Satellite ships lack LABs and mother ships would be facing multiple gunboats; far too many potential incoming drones for them to have their few labs identify all of them.)

Type-VI drones in ADD racks against Andromedans can be a powerful tool.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Monday, August 09, 2021 - 11:04 am: Edit

Alan,

OK, cool.

I am absolutely on board with a set of "BCS, but without the fighters" ships. They should be hard-core combat ships with a full flotilla. Love to see them.

As for "CVS, but with fighters", it turns out I already proposed that above. When I asked for just a "Fed CVH, but with PFs, not F-111s", it turns out I was asking for "CVS PF Tenders" or "Combat CA-based PF Tender" (same thing). So, it looks like we are asking for the same thing there!

BTW, the *first* "Combat CA-based PF Tender" should be a Lyran CA with six PFs, not just four. No reason they should be stuck with only the prototype just because they has the first attempt.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, August 09, 2021 - 01:01 pm: Edit

I was thinking CWs. Need a generic category

PFT = Patrol Fast Tender
GBT = Gunboat Tender
PST = fast Patrol ship Strike Tender

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Monday, August 09, 2021 - 01:08 pm: Edit

As a late GW/into Andro War strike ship, they would also make a lot of sense as NCAs. If anything, being a variant that was largely found only as NCAs and not earlier hulls could be some interesting background color.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Monday, August 09, 2021 - 01:20 pm: Edit

If cruiser-sized "strike" PFTs (with no special sensors) were to be made a thing, might that also lead to a new configuration for heavy war destroyers also?

As in, a configuration that retains the current PFT-config APR/AWR* and NWO choices, yet replaces the pair of special sensors in the OPT boxes with a pair of RA phaser-1s (or drone racks or whatnot).

Such a configuration, were it to be permitted to exist, might then require a new "letter" to be assigned over in Federation and Empire.

-----

Of course, any would-be HDW configuration would carry over to the various HDWX hulls also. Would any other first-generation X-ships be built or converted to follow this proposed "strike" PFT mission?

If so, they might be useful in the "pre-Darwin" portion of the Andromedan War, as first responders to reports of Andromedan raids. "Post-Darwin", their lack of special sensors would prevent them from searching for RTN nodes directly, but perhaps they could be assigned to backstop such operations in the same manner as the Federation advanced heavy fighter carrier from Module X1R.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, August 09, 2021 - 02:12 pm: Edit

Gary,

Isn't that already a legal HDW configuration? Unless I'm missing something, this doesn't require anything new.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, August 09, 2021 - 02:38 pm: Edit

The Andros have their MWPs but they are more comparable to an Interceptor. Actually, even compared to a typical Interceptor, the MWP is slow and under-gunned. It makes up for it be being harder to kill, with its PA panels. But it's no match for a real PF. How about an upgrade to the MWP?

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Monday, August 09, 2021 - 03:14 pm: Edit

In Federation Commander and in Federation and Empire, modular configurations tend to be offered as "pre-cooked" Ship Cards (in FC) or as SIT entries and/or counters (in F&E). However, not every potential HDW/HWX setup in SFB necessarily transfers over to such game systems: the main focus of my question would be whether or not a "strike PFT" config here would qualify as such over there - and if so, how it might best be accounted for.

-----

The Andros have conjectural Adder PFs, plus conjectural upgrades to the MWP, in Module C3A.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, August 09, 2021 - 03:21 pm: Edit

The key word being "conjectural"... I was suggesting an actual upgraded MWP, perhaps only ever encountered in the LMC.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Monday, August 09, 2021 - 03:57 pm: Edit

Andro PFs are the conjectural upgrades to MWPs (RC10.PF). Since the Andros don't actually upgrade anything, just deploy larger versions of things, there could be a case for a heavier MWP, but not a better one of the same size.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Monday, August 09, 2021 - 07:17 pm: Edit

Hmmm, interesting. Let's take a semi-serious look at what should be an easy, the Lyran CAP. By the SSD we need two more tractors, and two repair bays with 2-4 repair boxes.

Unfortunately, those trades aren't always one-to-one as some things take a lot more space than others. Plus there would need to be eight spots along the outside of the CA for the six PFs and the two bays (plus the bays need to be bigger than the PFs they serve, after all some of the parts may be hanging out at weird angles due to combat).

The other thing not much mentioned about is fuel as the Lyran design does not have a lot of places to be stored (and PFT need more as it also has to supply its PFs). Plus that extra fuel might interfere with those eight required PF/bay locations.

So going with NCAs is easier as there is already CW-PFTs that can be converted into NCA versions ...

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Monday, August 09, 2021 - 09:11 pm: Edit

I'm good with NCA combat tenders. I still want the fighter-less BCS, though.

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Monday, August 09, 2021 - 09:28 pm: Edit

>> One big thing that SVC has always pushed was the idea that no all empires need to have an entry into every class idea.

This adds diversity and flavor to the game.

--Mike

By Steve Stewart (Stevestewart) on Tuesday, August 10, 2021 - 04:39 am: Edit

I do like the idea of the PST being based on the NCA hull. Nice bit of flavour.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, August 10, 2021 - 09:42 am: Edit

Has it ever been established how long it takes a base or tender to flush out the ionic charges that PF engines build up? Neither (K0.123) nor K6.0 address (unless I have missed something) this issue.

I started thinking about this question as I was pondering the possibility of a "long endurance" PF. These would be significantly less powerful than the standard PFs but could operate for much longer and at greater range from the tender. (K0.21) RANGE: states that typical PF missions last about 48 hours. I envisioned a long endurance PF having a maximim mission duration of a couple of weeks. But again, it pays for this by being less powerful in combat than a standard PF.

The long endurance PF has warp engines of an advanced design, giving it 8 points of power. But these engines are not compatible with WPBs. It thus has 4 points less power than a standard PF with WPBs intact, though it partially makes up for this by the fact that it doesn't suffer the increased engine damage that WPBs cause. Also, it doesn't build up ionic charges.

The long endurance PF loses either one "normal sized" weapon or two "small weapons" like phaser-3s, and picks up an additional hull. The extra hull represents extra fuel, oxygen (or other respiratory gas - for Tholians, Hydrans, etc.), food, and water.

Long endurance PFs do get all the standard PF EW advantages.

While obviously inferior in combat to existing PFs, these long endurance versions have far superior range. I see them as being a late development (ISC Pacification / Andromedan Invasion) that were deployed in limited numbers for special missions.

By Patrick H. Dillman (Patrick) on Tuesday, August 10, 2021 - 10:25 am: Edit

---

Quote:

Has it ever been established how long it takes a base or tender to flush out the ionic charges that PF engines build up? Neither (K0.123) nor K6.0 address (unless I have missed something) this issue.

---

By Patrick H. Dillman (Patrick) on Tuesday, August 10, 2021 - 10:28 am: Edit

LOng endurence gunboat exist theya are called U1s.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, August 10, 2021 - 10:35 am: Edit

Hmmm... I don't recall the U1. What product is it in?

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Tuesday, August 10, 2021 - 10:51 am: Edit

Can't recall off the top of my head where the U1 reference is, but IIRC, that's the designation for the Klingon Workboat.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, August 10, 2021 - 11:06 am: Edit

If it's the workboat, it's not really the long endurance PF I'm proposing. It does have long endurance... but almost no combat capability (two phaser-3s for weaponry). A Klingon long endurance PF would still have 11 points of power in total (8 from the warp engines, 2 impulse, and 1 from APR), as well as one point of reserve power, and two phaser-2s, an ADD, and either two drone racks or one drone rack and one disruptor.^* This falls short of the standard G1 in combat capability but far exceeds the workboat. A full flotilla (including a long endurance PF Scout) would still have reasonable combat power.


^*I'm not sure which would be better. The reduced power would seem to indicate dropping the disruptor and retaining two drone racks. But PF drone racks don't have reloads and the longer mission profiles might argue for keeping the disruptor because it would not run out of ammunition.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Tuesday, August 10, 2021 - 11:20 am: Edit

For a long-distance gunboat, I think we already have the basis available. Based on the workboats, we know that normal gunboat engines can work just dandy long distance when configured for such. So, no reason for new engines that would cause significant production and maintenance costs.

Instead, a "long-distance gunboat" is, in game terms, just a gunboat that can't use booster packs. There you go! That is effective what a workboat is.

Now, if you want to make this a more effective design, you will likely reduce the number of weapons. But, that's fine. I would also strongly recommend the inclusion of a transporter. Those would be much more useful.

So, while I think such a gunboat configuration would be cool, and I wouldn't mind seeing it, I do think it should use normal PF-sized engines.

Or ... let's approach this from the opposite direction: we know workboats are long-distance capable. Let's just "weaponize" workboats. Leave them pretty much as-is, but swap out the four cargo boxes (five for the ISC!) for weapons. The result will be a well-rounded little ship (including a transporter and tractor/shuttle), but still have some effective weapons. More comprehensively, include the Ph-3s in with the cargo boxes and optional include an APR in the mix with the added weapons.

Thinking about it more, I think weaponized workboats would give you want you want without requiring any new engines of any kind. Looks fun!

EDIT: In fact, assuming SVC rejects the idea of "weaponized workboats", I'm gonna make a whole set and post them to my website! Woot!

SVC SEZ: Don't, Mike, just don't.

By Patrick H. Dillman (Patrick) on Tuesday, August 10, 2021 - 11:30 am: Edit

the U1 is in the G1 deck plans for Gurps Prime Directive.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, August 10, 2021 - 01:27 pm: Edit

Long-endurance gunboats: You already have them. Just leave the WBPs at home. No change to engine size will be considered, neither will a new hull design with different weapons. This is a Dead Horse.

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Tuesday, August 10, 2021 - 03:59 pm: Edit

>> including a transporter

Do any existing PFs have a transporter?

Apologies, it's been a few decades since my last SFB PF game.

--Mike

By Patrick H. Dillman (Patrick) on Tuesday, August 10, 2021 - 04:05 pm: Edit

All gunboat leaders have a transporter as well as a tractor.