Archive through July 13, 2021
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: Rules Questions:
Questions on Ships:
Archive through July 13, 2021
Yep - which is why I asked what is correct.
A guess, Ken...
Earlier in the book, it talks about the Y168 refit by saying (in part) of the B-refit, "These refits began to appear in Y165; most ships had received the refits before the Klingons entered the General War in Y168 and virtually all of them by the time they were committed to action..."
While I could be (and probably AM 
) VERY wrong, it implies to me that the Empire was probably starting the Early Base REfits (R1.R2) as early as Y158 at some of the most "At Risk" bases, but some in less threatened areas may have only received it as late as Y165.
Again, this is only a guess.
I believe that you have found an error made in the title; it also appears in other MSSB. As I recall, the Hydran book was first which refit is Y158 and appears to be the template. The Federation MSSB says Y160 in title. But most others have the Y158 in title rather than the correct year.
Sigh.
The Original Title of the rule as it appeared in Module R1 was "(R1.R2) EARLY BASE WEAPONS" and it listed all of the then extant empires to which is applied (with some exceptions, e.g., Andromedans, WYN LDR), and had various dates all through.
When I started doing the Master Starship Books I created rhw for the rule as I came to each empire and spelled out the situation in more detail. Since the (R1.R) was used for refits, I changed early base weapons in the Hydran book to "Y158 Early Base Refit," purring the year into the title.
The next book was the Federation and I did the same thing, except changing the year to Y160 which was the year listed for the Federation.
When I got to the Klingons, I thought the year was in the title and forgot to change it from the Hydran year. Same think in the Roman Book (which ew mistakes).
At least by the time I got to the Gorn Book I was getting so much static over the change that I just did the rule title as it appeared in Module R1.
Steve,
What is the correct year for the refits?
The year for each empire is different and is reflected in the text. The text is transcribed from rule (R1.R2) in Module R1.
There is a few issues with Module R4T.
In the SSD book, the NDL SSD shows a MC of 1.5 where the Master Ship Chart shows 1.25. Which one is good?
In the rule book, the Master Ship Chart is all screwed up on page 44, we seem to have 2 tables there
Marcel
I'm not rightly sure if this should go in "rules questions" or "ship questions", but is there an errata for SSDs somewhere? Also, is there an errata for the MSCs?
Specifically, I was looking at the Kzinti combat tug w/battle pods in R2. It's designation (pg 63 of the SSD book) is CBT, which does not seem to appear on my copy of the R2 MSC, nor can I find it in G2. I was trying to see if the movement rate was 1.0 in the MSC as well. The combat tug w/cargo pods is 1.5, which makes it seem strange that the battle pods would be lighter.
John Smith:
All tugs are listed in Annex #3A, which includes all pod weights. Kzinti Battle Pods are single weight. So two of them are "two pod weights" under the chart and thus the Tug has a Turn Mode of "E," and as listed on the SSD, a Movement Cost of "1". If it had CVA pods, or a SCS pod, it would have "three pod weights" and have a movement cost of 1.5 and a Turn Mode of E. This is why the SSD did not include the 1.5 movement cost chart. Note that the Cargo Pods are Single Weight also, and the SSD of the Combat Tug with cargo pods included the movement cost of chart of 1.50 because it is the Generic SSD of the combat tug and might have the Heavy Carrier Pods in place of the Cargo pods.
Thank you for that explanation.
Module R11, page 3 (R1.68) says that a huge freighter can only mount two skids but Captain's Log #52, page 114 says that a (R1.A35) Heavy Armed-Freighter (F-AH) can only operate skids if it has one in front of each pod - that is it must have four or none.
Does the Captain's Log reflect an update to (R1.68) to allow a huge freighter to carry four skids, or is the Heavy Armed-Freighter sufficiently different from the more general huge freighter it was based upon to allow the use of the larger number of skids?
James Cain:
Honestly, this was an effect of initial design and then the design of miniatures.
Originally, the SSD of the Large Ore Carrier showed it would four pods, two each in line on either side. Then the initial miniature came out and followed the SSD in the layout of the pods. So the assignment of the skids was limited.
Then a new miniature was done which posited the pods as not just side by side, but stacked. This resulted in the position of skids being revised (the lower pods had to make up for the space taken by the Skids on the upper pods.
Captain's Log #23, page 11 gives lower movement costs for small freighters and large freighters carrying shorter 120m (15 cargo box) or 80m (10 cargo box) cargo pods in place of the normal 200m (25 cargo box) pods. What is the movement cost of a (R1A35) Heavy Armed-Freighter (F-AH) carrying four skids and four 80m (10 cargo box) cargo pods in place of the four normal 200m (25 cargo box) pods?
How many skids can a (R1A35) Heavy Armed-Freighter (F-AH) carry if it does not have any pods and what is its movement cost carrying its maximum number of skids?
James Cain:
(R1.68) Freighter Skids
(written in the text)
A large or huge Freighter can operate with up to six skids if it has no pods.
Wayne,
I am familiar with that, but based upon SPP's post immediately above mine, it seems the (R1.A35) Heavy Armed-Freighter (F-AH) is at least partially different than the (R1.68) description for a huge freighter. (See my previous post, immediately above SPP's, to which SPP was replying.)
There were multiple evolutions of the Heavy Freighters and the skid rules were kind of caught in the middle.
The original Heavy concept was essentially an extended Large Freighter, with two skids up front and two pairs of pods trailing behind (the "train"). The pods could be replaced with three skids on either side, meaning no real difference between Large and Heavy in that configuration. Three skids and a pod on each side seems to be illegal, so perhaps the clamping mechanisms on the skids have a limit on the amount of torque they can withstand.
The SL2500 line was to introduce a stacked freighter, two pods up and two down. This would allow four skids, one in front of each pod. In theory, this should allow 12 skids, but the SL2500 model with its huge front and rear plates was never released and the skid rules never challenged.
Slimmer versions were modeled, however, that show the Jumbo and Heavy Freighters as essentially Large Freighter hulls with extra pods clamped underneath. These seem to get away with a skid in front of each pod, but the skid rules don't appear to allow stacks of skids in the lower clamp positions. (I don't think we ever discussed the clamps being hinged so the podless six-skid configuration doesn't leave quite so much stuff flapping in the breeze.)
The artwork for the Large/Heavy has also changed over time. The older versions looks like it has two Small Freighter control modules in the front, while newer versions have a single wide control module. (There's a barrel of space monkeys the size of a small planet hidden in that original artwork.)
The models I did for the jumbo and heavy freighter metal miniatures, the first in the "stacked" configuration that actually made it into production, included details in the clamps for the lower pods to indicated a degree of adaptability - "hinged" as it were to allow for the pods not being there (running as a 2-pod configuration) and possibly for slightly different lengths of pods (which the rules don't get into, but fluff text has).
Does the BPV of Freighters include there pods? Can in a scenario a freighter buy a ducktail with COs?
Freighters as SSDs include the pod or pods they are shown with.
Skids and Ducktails are not found in the Commander's Options, you purchase them as part of your purchase of the ship, e.g., you start with the small freighter and also purchase a skid and/or a ducktail and then you calculate your commander's options.
The article in Captain's Log #23 specifically noted that pods of less than the normal pod size, or greater than the normal pod size were used by Small Freighters, which only carried one pod. There is nothing in the article that noted such pods were used by the larger freighters, whether two pod (large freighter) three pod (jumbo freighter) or four pod (heavy freighter). Only small freighters are mentioned and a movement cost was provided in both cases (1/5th per hex for a small freighter with the short pod, 1/4th per hex for a small freighter with the larger pod). Economics prevented their being used on the larger freighters which would have been uable to swap a single pod as was the Norm and result in the freighter waiting for such pods to show up, wasting time and money. A small freighter could drop its one pod and simply pick up another pod regardless of size. The upshot, as noted, was there were not very many of these small and large pods.
A heavy freighter can carry 2 skids with its four pods (R1.68) in Module R11), whether the heavy freighter is a freighter, or an armed variant. If the heavy freighter is carrying skids in place of a pod, it can carry three, or six, and in such configuration no pods (R1.68) in Module R11. Again, this rule was written when the only "picture" of the heavy freighter showed the four pods, two by two. so the rule was written. Then a miniature was done for Shapeways that provided for stacked pods (two above and two below) rather than the starline freighter which had all four in the same plane. So we looked at doing four skids for it.
Ahh all good then for me any way
The ability to stack cargo skids could also have obsoleted many of the short pods over time, as their combined box count rivals the capacity of the less efficient short pods. Big stuff travels in big pods, small stuff gets packed into skids and mix-matched as needed for the next route.
Short pods for cargo too big for a skid yet unworthy of a full-size pod is going to be smaller market, likely mostly along routes that large freighters don't bother. Tramp Steamers may also have captured much of this market, being able to take on odd-size cargo more efficiently than the pod-packers can juggle their routes.
Steve Zamboni:
Probably not. There are a LOT of Skids, and the article said only 10% of freighters had skids. While there are thousands of freighters, you are spreading the types of skids over them. How may have Accommodation skids? Or Repair Skids? or Lie Support Skids? or Production Skids? or Manufacturing Skids? Or recovery Skids? Much less Cargo Skids. And remember only one in ten freighters have a skids at all.
Did the Klingon ISF not have any penal ships between Y105 and Y139? Did the ISF send personnel to DSF penal ships during this time frame?
Reference data:
D6J, LD4J, and D4J were available but seem to only have been used by the DSF and not the ISF. The last D3J was scrapped in Y104 and the last F3J was destroyed in Y105. The DSF kept the F4J till Y139 but did transfer the survivors to the ISF in Y139. The F5J did not come out till Y136 and was unlikely to have been transferred to the ISF before the F4J was. The E4J did come out in Y135 and was available to the ISF by Y144 according to the description of the F4J.
Seriously, the ISF could have used Q-ships for the mission, or just skiffs for Colony Defense (before gunboats).
I have to admit that we did not really notice the gap in ISF penal ships until you mentioned it. Not sure if we will do anything about it. I do not know if there is really anything small enough for the ISF to operate as a penal ship, and large enough to have some chance of survival (penal ships are not suicide ships).