Concur with Alex. The Snipe-B doesn't really get full value from the A-->B upgrade since the ship itself is an old, mediocre, retrofitted design that can't take full combat advantage of the added boxes.

So the A-->B upgrade is cheaper than it might mathematically appear otherwise.

--Mike

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Friday, September 24, 2021 - 03:16 pm: Edit

Alex,

Sure. And I am totally on board with that. Not a problem.

That said, refits almost universally *do* focus on the individual box count. The vast majority of refits can be calculated directly for the points they cost. And even the exceptions usually stay pretty close.

Of course, that is probably why the Snipe-B is presented as a new/separate ship, rather than a refit. Because of that separation (even though it is literally just one page), no one really pays attention to the cost difference. But combine those suckers and make the B version a refit, and the small BPV difference becomes glaring.

Also, I'd argue that those two points of power and two weapons are critically important for the Snipe. They give a massive boost in potential speed and dramatically ramp up the power level, plus those two Pl-F are huge because they are zero-power for their first shot. (They may never be able to charge them again, but that first shot is a big benefit.) That makes a huge difference in the performance of these diminutive ships.

P.S. The BPV of the SN-A with the rear phaser refit is 68, not 69. Point still stands even though the difference is 7, not 6.

P.P.S. Just to be clear, I am not arguing with the cost of the SNB. I would, however, be willing to argue that the SNA and SNP are probably pretty badly overpriced. And none of this is asking for a fix. I am just making an observation I haven't realized before about a ship I haven't paid much attention to before. That's all.

By John M. Williams (Jay) on Friday, September 24, 2021 - 03:36 pm: Edit

Speaking of refit values, I have always been baffled by the Gorn refits. Adding the plasma F's, the phaser 3's, and upgrading the G torpedoes to swivel S's costs 30 points on the CL but 40 points on the CA. As far as I can tell, the aggregate changes are the same to both ships, and except for the additional pod on the CA the base hulls are identical. What accounts for the difference?

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Friday, September 24, 2021 - 04:07 pm: Edit

Good question, Jav, and my best guess* is that it's something similar; the Gorn CA is one of those (rare?) "Overpowered and/or Undergunned Ships" that can make better use of the same additional/improved equipment than the "Better Balanced(?)" CL, and the "Better Balanced" BC is what the ship(s) were meant where the "Underpowered and/or Overgunned" CLF is wanting.

(*Eenie, meenie, miney, moe?**)

(** ... Or is it "Eenie, meenie, miney... HEY MOE!!" Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk... )

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Friday, September 24, 2021 - 04:47 pm: Edit

Another example of this might be a ship that has rear-firing phasers, if you add a pair of standard Ph-1, it might be worth, say, four points. Another ship that has no rear-firing phasers, if it adds a pair of tiny Ph-3, those could be worth SIX points because it adds so much more capability to the second ship. (Numbers pulled form thin air.)


Garth L. Getgen

By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Friday, September 24, 2021 - 06:53 pm: Edit

One argument for the Gorn CA>BC upgrade being more expensive than the CL>CLF upgrade is that the CL just doesn't have enough power to fully utilize the improvements, while the CA does.

Defining "discretionary power" as available power minus housekeeping and 16 hexes of movement, you get

CL: 14.33
CA: 18

Not sure if that fully holds water, but the 26% increase in discretionary power on the BC is the first thing that comes to mind.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Friday, September 24, 2021 - 08:20 pm: Edit

"That said, refits almost universally *do* focus on the individual box count."

The Snipe-B isn't a refit. It's a variant.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Friday, September 24, 2021 - 09:28 pm: Edit

Just because the Romulans called it a refit doesn't mean SFB treats it as refit that you can select for a given (RXX.??) ship. There are other examples such as the Kzinti CS to BC via the C-20 refit.

And the (R4.N4) and (R4.43) backgrounds never call it a refit but things like an upgrade or development of the earlier Snipe-A.

And then there's the matter that F&E thinks they are two different units

By Patrick H. Dillman (Patrick) on Monday, October 04, 2021 - 01:39 pm: Edit

Kinda of an obscure question. I've been working on a project in regards to cataloging the ships in each fleet. come across two that I can't find in either the NCC list or the ship names list.What hull types are the Ostrich and the Dr. Walker? the ones mentioned in CL#44 page 6.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, October 04, 2021 - 02:22 pm: Edit

Auxiliaries.

By Patrick H. Dillman (Patrick) on Monday, October 04, 2021 - 02:25 pm: Edit

Okay. Same types?

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Monday, October 04, 2021 - 02:42 pm: Edit

The Ostritch is a AuxCVL as mentioned in SH136.

The Dr. Walker in a hospital ship (FHL).

By Patrick H. Dillman (Patrick) on Monday, October 04, 2021 - 04:41 pm: Edit

Thank you Ryan and SPP.

By Dan Bivona (Admiraldan) on Friday, October 22, 2021 - 11:50 am: Edit

Question on the Y2 MSC: the F4 has a YIS of Y78 but the F4J has a YIS of Y75. Is that correct that the penal variant of the F4 was produced first?

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, October 22, 2021 - 06:10 pm: Edit

Dan Bivona:

This has been reported before, but I do not think we have come up with any real resolution of the issue.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Saturday, October 23, 2021 - 10:46 am: Edit

First F4J was built as a regualr warship, but there were so many "teething" problems that it quickly became a F4J...

By Dan Bivona (Admiraldan) on Tuesday, October 26, 2021 - 10:54 am: Edit

SPP: Thank you!
Mike Grafton: LOL - works for me!

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Tuesday, October 26, 2021 - 11:44 am: Edit

Note that my comment is NOT official/ Just saying. But I can see that as a reasonable explanation.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, October 30, 2021 - 10:02 pm: Edit

That, or the F4 prototype (produced up to 2 years earlier than the YIS date under the second called “prototype rule” ), had so many design flaws, construction mistakes and quality control issues that all three of the original F4 hulls were assigned as penal variants since any fatalities among the crew would be “just deserts” to the condemned prisoners.

The eventual “rebooted” F4 (improved model) that were given to the Deep Space Fleet, did not suffer any of the design Flaws, construction mistakes or quality control issues as all members of the naval architects, shipyard personnel and test pilot programs were arrested, tried convicted and sentenced to penal duty on board of the initial F4J hulls.

(It goes without saying, that the new architects, shipyard personnel and test program crew learned VERY QUICKLY the price of failure. The improved F4 hulls were renowned throughout the ISF and DSF as having few (or no) issues reported.



(It should be noted, that the three year period between, the F4J and the F4 YIS dates include a 1 year “delay” while the Imperial Klingon military justice caught up to...(ummm errr ah...) I mean the Loyal, Dedicated and Diligent Klingon Investigators examined the facts and established correction policy.)

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, October 31, 2021 - 02:15 am: Edit

or it is just a typo

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Sunday, October 31, 2021 - 11:30 am: Edit

I like our revisionist history...

By A David Merritt (Adm) on Sunday, October 31, 2021 - 11:56 am: Edit

Personally, I think the above F4J suggestion is a wonderful addition to SFU history.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, October 31, 2021 - 05:18 pm: Edit

But it doesn't work. The F4 would still exist in a given year and (when found defective) converted to and F4J in a later year.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, October 31, 2021 - 06:54 pm: Edit

Is it unthinkable that a totalitarian government (such as the Klingon Empire) might not want to advertise that there were ANY problems with the F4 production?

We should remember that the data source material is Federation. We have no data to tell us how the Klingons reported it to their own people.

The names and nomenclature is all Federation, and the enigma of how the F4J has an earlier YIS date than the F4 is Federation data, not Klingon.

It ***could be*** simply a matter of the F4J was spotted first in year 75, and the first time the Federation encountered theF4 in squadron strength was year 78.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Sunday, October 31, 2021 - 07:14 pm: Edit

Standard F4 lack an emergency impulse drive for the boom.

Could the first F4s launched have had that system but it was later deleted as an unnecessary expense for standard F4?

As an aside, I pulled their SSDs up and looked at the two ships side-by-side. Aside from the emergency impulse, the biggest thing that jumped out at me was the F4J having no lab spaces; that was what became the boom security station.

Could the first F4 (either standard or penal model) have had the scientific facilities of (what became recognized as) the standard F4 AND the emergency impulse engines of (what became recognized as) the Penal variant, and only later were the two models differentiated?

It's a thought