Archive through August 29, 2021
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: New Product Development:
Module K2: More gunboats:
Archive through August 29, 2021
In addition to leaders, all survey gunboats and all workboats also have a transporter.
Full-sized workboats come with a transporter and tractor. Not sure about the smaller ones based on interceptors.
Quote: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.
Is the idea of "weaponized workboats" included in that? The idea contains no new hulls, engines, or weapons. The intent is to pretty much make a super-small general purpose ship.
I ask because if it is under consideration, then there is no point for me to play with the idea, as SPP would make them with no input. But, if they are rejected, then I can play with them. Either way works. (And, yes, I fully understand that "They are not rejected out of hand" does not mean "They will be done". It just means you are not making a decision now.)
Workboats are what they are. A weaponized workboat is already in the game and is called a PF.
Quote:Workboats are what they are. A weaponized workboat is already in the game and is called a PF.
Yes, that is true to an extent.
The point is making a gunboat more of a stand-alone ship. Rather than having it focused completely on combat (a standard PF) or completely focused on not-combat (a workboat), I am looking for something more generally focused.
So, whether it is a "weaponized workboat" or a "general gunboat"; whether we take a workboat and trade out the cargo and Ph-3s for weapons, or we take a gunboat and trade out weapons for a tran and trac/shuttle, it doesn't matter: the result is the same. That's what I am looking for.
Honestly, I think I am working back toward my prior "police gunboat", but with a different rationale. Either way, I am trying to make a more capable gunboat that still retains combat power. Rather than being intended to work in "packs", it is intended to operate alone for the most part.
Mike,
If it's intended to work alone, but has less combat power than a full PF, what is it expecting to be able to fight? My proposed (deceased equine) long endurance PF had still been intended to operate in full flotillas. And even if weaker than standard PFs, a full flotilla should be able to see off an enemy cruiser. But a "weaponized workboat" by itself? What's the scenario in which it doesn't either flee or get crushed?
Or am I misunderstanding something about your concept?
I could see a "doctrine" type change, where you pick each empire's PF with the lowest energy weapons (drones or plasma-D for most), and declare that flotillas of that sort are sometimes operated as "long range flotillas" with no booster packs and the PFS replaced by a cargo PF (for stores, and because the PFS needs booster packs more than most and is horrifically expensive at 100 EPV as opposed to 25 EPV for the combat boats and 40 for the leader).
Wasn't the range limitation a combination of crew fatigue (having to wear pressure suits while on board) and "ionic charge buildup" on the engines?
I don't see how you can overcome the two limitations without a whole lot of handwavium.
"The point is making a gunboat more of a stand-alone ship."
The point is that is not going to happen.
Gunboats are gunboats, they are not stand-alone ships. That will not change. That cannot change.
There is no need to invent a long-range gunboat. I told you before, it's already in the game. It's called a standard gunboat without booster packs. (You could also use a Seeker or Striker skiff or if you want the hot tub and transporter and tractor you can spring for a PFQ.) There is no need for something new, no place for something new, and there is absolutely no crack through which this thing you seek is going to slip through.
You are barking up the wrong tree and that big dead branch is about to fall on your head. It's going to hurt. A lot.
So... do you want to move on to something else or keep barking until the branch lands on your head?
If I may ask:
What happened to the strike version of a PF Tender?
Since long range gun boats appears dead, can we bring the discussion back to just what a strike PFT actually is?
I thought everybody knew. It's a PFT without special sensors, keeping whatever weapons were removed from the base hull to make a spot for the special sensors.
Three are envisioned: CW, NCA, BCH.
What more is there to say?
The Fed Version? Names? Or will the Flatheads be out of luck?
And thank you for the quick response! Grin.
The Feds only allow Fralli to crew PFs.
On (rare) occasion, I've wondered about a weird parallel. As we know, when most folks built a CVA on a Dreadnought type hull, they later modified it to a SCS configuration.
There have been a (very) few CVA proposals based on a DNH, but to the best of my knowledge (and if I'm wrong, it certainly will NOT be the first time 
), they remain purely conjectural.
The weird parallel these thoughts sent me on was wondering about a, well for lack of a better term, "Optimization" of a DNH (much like what the Romulans did with their Condor to make the ROC) as a parallel to SCS class ships? The optimized DNH, when compared to a SCS, loses the fighter squadron to gain heavier personal firepower.
Visions of Fralli crewed Federation PF gunboats.
In a departure from normal rules and practice of every other major or minor Empire in the, the Federation Star Fleet bestowed names on these Fralli crewed PFs... (often in French, or at least an atrocious French accent.)
Le Bombe.
Cherrie Jubilee.
Baked Alaska.
Chocolate Flambé
Fralli S’mores.
Who needs numbers painted on the hulls?
They don't need booster packs, the crew members are all wired into the engines.
Pity about tech sloshing rules... we could have “Fralli powered Mauler” PF’s.
But, Jeff, the poor Fralli would burn out and die.
Oh, wait ... yeah, never mind.
Garth L. Getgen
Actually, I may be totally wrong about this.
Many people, when watching a Federation PF, crewed by Fralli, streaking across the sky, burning brightly, might well be moved to say “Oh, my, how beautiful!”
How ironic.
There have been proposals to upgrade the Lyran PFs but none have been acceptable to ADB. That being the case, I at one point proposed that the Lyran PF BPV was a bit too high, and should be reduced a bit. I compared the Lyran (37 combat BPV / 42 with shield refit) to the Tholian (38 / 43) and Gorn (40 / 44) and showed, I think (or at least, I don't recall anyone challenging my analysis), that the Lyran, while not hopeless, wasn't really competitive with either of those.* I therefore suggested that since it wasn't going to be upgraded, some BPV reduction for the Lyran might be in order. I do recall SPP commenting on the proposal but don't think either he or SVC ever said definitively "yes or no". So I want raise this again for Module K2.
I note there is precedent for a later module to revise the BPVs from an earlier one; note that several X-ships had their BPVs increased in Module X1R.
*It could be claimed that the Gorn and Tholian are kind of the cream of the crop among PFs (except for the special-case Orions and the don't-really-exist Feds). But ultimately I think comparing the Bobcat to other empires' PFs would yield similar conclusions. The Bobcat isn't hopeless, but it probably is a little overpriced.
Part of the problem is scaling at that size
The Lyran PF is 16 power, one battery, two heavy weapons, two phaser-2s and two phaser-3s (7) for 37
The Klingon G1 is 15 power, one battery, one heavy weapon, two drones, two phaser-2s, one ADD (4) for 38
The Kzinti PF is 15 power, one battery, one heavy weapon , two drones, one phaser-1, 2 phaser-3s (4) for 37
The Hydran Harrier is 16 power, one battery, two heavy weapons, three phaser-2s, one phaser-G (8) for 37 [Hellion trades two fusion for one hellbore (7)]
(power needed for normal full weapons)
There might be enough here for a shift of one (two?) BPV for one of those ...
A problem in this comparison is that the drone users' BPV does not include the drone costs(+4 BPV ).
I could see the Harrier being bumped to 38 BPV due to the phasers, otherwise the BPV(after drone costs) is quite accurate in a one to one comparison.
I do feel that the Lyran shield refit is overpriced and should be dropped to +4 BPV.
The problem you will find with BPV adjustments to published ships is that you'll need a lot of evidence for the change, and even then the change has to be relatively substantial. The problem with gunboats is that changes under 5 points just aren't going to be worth the bother.
Fundamentally, it will likely be nearly impossible to get the BPV of any gunboat changed, even if justifiable.
(For example, the BPVs of the non-combat variants are implemented inconsistently and should really be standardized. But the work required likely isn't worth the effort, even when K2 is done.)
Mike,
You may be right. I think five points is clearly too much of a change for the Bobcat, and a change of one or two points may well, as you say, not be worth the bother.
I'd love to see some variants on the "Heavy Frigate" hulls that were competitors to the DWs in some navies for this mission...