Before suggesting something in Proposals, I want to check and see if this idea isn't already in the game, and I just missed it in one of the revisions:

Marine Assault Carriers

Like the LHAs and LPDs of the US Navy, it seems to me it'd make sense to have a hybrid carrier/marine assault ship. I don't recall any being in the game, but that doesn't mean they aren't already there (or "in the file".

I think it'd only work on Size Class 3 ships (or larger) to be effective, but I think they could be useful.

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Monday, August 29, 2022 - 01:21 pm: Edit

One thing that comes to mind when you mention that:

>> (R3.16) CARRIER-TUG (CVT): The Klingons were short of carriers as the General War began and converted several Tug-As (R3.9) into carriers; the conversion was more or less permanent. The Klingons had carrier pods (R3.15) available prior to Y168 to use in supporting ground assaults [carrying ground assault shuttles (R1.F3) and/or heavy transport shuttles (R1.F5)]; these were quickly modified to carry fighters when the Klingons realized their need for carriers.

Looking at the SSD, there are 5 transporters as well, and 9 cargo boxes. Perhaps the cargo could be partially filled with barracks to increase the number of troops carried? And then that amounts to something like an LHA? Perhaps a new carrier tug mission, ground support?

Or does this just boil down to being effectively the troop pod mission in game terms?

--Mike

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, August 29, 2022 - 01:55 pm: Edit

We don't really have such ships in SFU. You would have to convince Steve Petrick (and me) to add them to SFB before you could propose them for F&E. I for one don't see a need for them that's not already covered by other ships already in the game.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Monday, August 29, 2022 - 02:18 pm: Edit

This really feels like a case where you end up with one ship that doesn't do either role that well.

Let's say we use a CW hull for this variant (heavy cruisers being in too high a demand). Most commando CW's give up 3 or 4 attack factors to carry a single G. While CW strike carriers generally only give up a single attack factor, a look at the SSDs shows that a lot of the "fat" is given up to support the full fighter squadron and retaining the ship's direct combat abilities (allowing for empires with unusual variations).

What this says to me is that to maintain the G factor, there's not much left to fit in fighters. It's not just a matter of going "well it's -1 AF for being a carrier and -3 AF for being a commando ship" but also considering some of the background intangibles regarding ship capabilities, ones that basically say "ships are not just the sum of their boxes". IMO a 1-7(3)G would be generous napkin math baseline for such a ship, and the ship would be cramped and a pain to supply and maintain.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, August 29, 2022 - 03:32 pm: Edit

Joe wrote:
>>Marine Assault Carriers>>

Out of curiosity, what are you envisioning here, in terms of, like, an SFB SSD?

Like, a carrier type hull with a lot of marines, and then most of the shuttle boxes filled with Ground Assault Shuttles (GAS) and Heavy Transport Shuttles (HTS)? Or something more hybrid, with, like, a squadron of fighters and then another half dozen GAS or something like that?

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, August 29, 2022 - 05:03 pm: Edit

Players always have the option to use a tug with one troop pod and one carrier pod.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, August 29, 2022 - 05:13 pm: Edit

You guys are trying to reinvent the wheel.

You already have the GSC, Galactic Survey Cruiser.

Not labled but it turns out that the GSC meets the classic definition of a multiple role platform for power projection missions.

1. General role survey star ship.
2. carrier (iirc it is listed on an annex as a “True Carrier.” (Carries up to 6 fighter shuttles (normally F-18 fighters)).
3. Commando ship, able to carry and deploy ground troops. (Cargo space allows for crated tanks, trucks, artillery, and APC vehicles. (Might have to embark a two space shuttle HTS.
4. Not proposed anywhere that I know of, but the ship with special sensors could conduct traffic control role for established shipping .
5. With its internal cargo capacity, it could conduct combat resupply missions that normal freighter couldn’t dream of being able to complete
I imagine there are other missions, these are just what I thought of off hand with zero research.

I can appreciate what Joe S is trying to articulate here, but in my opinion, this could be better handled as a Captain Log history article on the GSC class. (There are some heavy scouts in the service of other empires that also might fit into this niche, but other than the Kzinti and Klingons, i do not recall of specific examples. The Romulans should have a variant in the super heavy cruiser line, I just don’t recall which one it might be.

By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Monday, August 29, 2022 - 11:09 pm: Edit

Alex,

I'm thinking of ships that are already in the US inventory. They aren't full carriers, they're really marine assault ships, But having some fighters on board as well can help support capturing planets, and gives the attacker something to take casualties on. I can see it being useful, say as a CW or CA with the capability.

Peter,

More like the latter. Enough marines to qualify for a G factor, and enough fighters for 3-6 fighter factors. I haven't looked at SSDs yet to be honest, but that's my thinking at the moment.

Jeff,

The GSC is a survey ship, and not really what I'm thinking of. Not looking for scout functions, rather the carrier and marine functions. Only the Fed gets the GSC. I could see at least the Feds, Klingons, Roms, and Gorns wouldn't/couldn't have them, albeit without the scout/survey channels.

You can technically do this now with tugs, but I'm thinking of more of a permanent solution.

By Mike Dowd (Mike_Dowd) on Monday, August 29, 2022 - 11:22 pm: Edit

Well, the Hydrans *do* have the Outrider in its SRG configuration (R9.31B) with scout functions, 25(+4) boarding parties, 2 commando teams, 3 HWS and 3 ground combat vehicles, in addition to 4 GAS, 1 HTS, 2 Admin and a pair of Stingers.

In F&E terms: 2-6(2)G[scout diamond]/1-3(1)

By Douglas Saldana (Dsal) on Tuesday, August 30, 2022 - 12:16 am: Edit

Aren't LHAs and LPDs primarily helicopter carriers? The SFB equivalent of a helicopter would be a GAS or GBS, not a fighter.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, August 30, 2022 - 08:05 am: Edit

Over Here, Joe!

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Tuesday, August 30, 2022 - 10:07 am: Edit

Joe, you just reiterated your proposal, and didn’t address any of the points I brought up.

By Mike Dowd (Mike_Dowd) on Tuesday, August 30, 2022 - 10:25 am: Edit

Playing Devil's advocate here Douglas; but can't the Marines operate F-35Bs from LHA / LPDs?

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, August 30, 2022 - 10:38 am: Edit

@Joe: I like this idea. I don't think I've seen anything like it in the game, except for the the ability of HDWs to be configured to have both marines and fighters. However, HDWs are mid-late war, and I could see a CGV - type ship being useful for securing a couple of nearby star systems (think one F&E hex).

The Hydrans have G ships with fighters already, but many Hydran ships have fighters.

I know SVC didn't sound all that impressed in his first post, above, but personally this idea has a fresh feeling to me - unless I'm missing a ship type too (other than HDWs).

In F&E a CGV would have the ability to serve as the G-ship for securing multiple captured enemy planets in one F&E hex. Pick your number (maybe less than all, or like two systems in a capital hex, or whatever).

The CGV would also make an excellent raider. Place the CGV in the raid special commando raid slot, and it now self-escorts with its fighters, making it more likely to be able to successfully score a G attack on a BATS, for example - or to use Gs to cripple a lightly defended MB.

The more I think about this idea the more I like it. Well done, even if SVC doesn't bite.

-T

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Tuesday, August 30, 2022 - 11:36 am: Edit

To counterpoint myself a bit:

It might be viable by starting with an interdiction carrier base, and dropping the second squadron for the Marine complement and supporting shuttles for a 3-8(6)G baseline. Which does get into “this is a pretty niche role for a heavy cruiser hull”, but could be an R13 worthy ship.

The issue as a raider is that would require it to be designated as being able to operate without regular escorts on raids, and that becomes a question of if empires would risk such a resource intensive non-fast ship in such a way.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Tuesday, August 30, 2022 - 12:23 pm: Edit

US Navy CVA can operate up to ninety aircraft. SFB CVA operate twenty four fighters (plus ADMIN).

SFB roughly a third US Navy.

IIRC, US Navy Marine Assault ship has a dozen Osprey and... Eight? CH-53

IF we analogize GAS for Osprey and HTS for CH-53, then the shuttle compliment aboard most existant commando ships already reaches the one third of the US Navy ratio.

Sure, I'd LOVE to see a full squadron of a dozen GAS riding in to blast a strongpoint with Wagner blaring, but regrettably that only happens in Apocalyptic movies nowadays.

By Douglas Lampert (Dlampert) on Tuesday, August 30, 2022 - 02:30 pm: Edit

The FHA Tripoli has loaded at least 16 F-35 at once, and they were planning to go up to 18-20.

So, an "equivalent" Marine carrier in SFB would have about 6 fighters, probably F-18 (as SFB has no F-35B equivalent), these would probably replace some of the usual shuttles.

So, this is basically an optional (hasty) refit of an existing commando ship that installs a half squadron of fighters with ready racks in place of some of the shuttles.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Tuesday, August 30, 2022 - 03:13 pm: Edit

I think trying to come up with conversion ratios for real life vessels to SFB ships is a red herring. It’s better to use the existing class as an inspiration for “How would the SFB equivalent look in the context of SFB ship design?”

Giving up the shuttles would compromise the ability of the ship to act in a commando role. It’s not just about having a bunch of troops, but the ability for them to get places and have organic shuttle support.

By Douglas Lampert (Dlampert) on Tuesday, August 30, 2022 - 04:02 pm: Edit

Giving up transport aviation and depending on the amphibious vessels to land marines is exactly what the USN LHA ships do when they want to carry fighters. True back when it was harriers for the fighters and helicopters for the transport, true now when it is F35-B for the fighters and ospreys for the transport.

They can still land marines (as can a commando ship with 6 fewer shuttle spaces), as both types of ships have alternate methods available, but they have more trouble doing so and it may be riskier. The tradeoff is that they can operate fighters if they need them.

It's a mission choice. That's how it works with the equivalent USN ship, so for me, that's what it inspires in the SFB equivalent ship.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Tuesday, August 30, 2022 - 04:44 pm: Edit

I'm looking at it from the standpoint that an F&E G factor is more than just X amount of troops (SFB boarding parties), but the supporting shuttles and combat vehicles carried by a commando ship, operating organically. It's not just a matter of making a singular landing, but of the days or weeks of operations that an F&E combat can represent. Six fewer shuttles is, for most commando ships, their entire shuttle complement, and then some.

The proposal here is for a ship that can operate as a commando ship *and* has a fighter squadron (of whatever size but I think 6 fighters would be a minimum) as its standard role. Just taking a commando ship and saying "For this mission they replaced most of the shuttles with fighters" is just an SFB special scenario rule where a given existing commando ship embarks X fighters instead of shuttles and operates them without ready racks.

The next step from there would be giving commando ships ready racks in at least some shuttle boxes so they can operate fighters effectively when needed, but that amounts to a refit and not a new ship class (and opens the "if we're gonna do this to commando ships why not X,Y, and Z ships?).

Which leaves a ship that in, SFB terms, is a ship that doesn't give up any marine support to add the fighters as a standard complement alongside.

By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Tuesday, August 30, 2022 - 04:54 pm: Edit

Completely spitballing this, but one place where it occurs to me that an SFB empire might do something along these lines is the Feds converting 1 or 2 NVLs into commando carriers, The NVL is a pretty lousy carrier and once the NVS comes into service, I could see some admiral coming up with ideas to make the older ships more useful. Yes, an NVL can be converted to an NVS, but that doesn't mean someone wouldn't have pushed to divert one or two NVLs for other uses that were popular with influential admirals or political leaders.

In any case, take an NVL, convert 2 APR and 1 lab to barracks and 2 APR to cargo. Reduce the deck crews to 8 and increase the boarding parties to 30 + 6. The shuttle bay retains 8 ready racks, but the normal load would be 4xF-18, 2xHTS, 4xGAS, 2xAdmin.

Does this fit with the general concept folks are proposing?

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) on Tuesday, August 30, 2022 - 05:44 pm: Edit

i like IT.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, August 30, 2022 - 06:20 pm: Edit

The Feds, Lyrans, Klingons and Kzintis can use tugs to do this by having one carrier pod and one troop pod on the tug. In my game with Ted, I actually have one Fed tug in this mode.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Tuesday, August 30, 2022 - 06:30 pm: Edit

I don't have J2 at hand (no PDF), but off the top of my head I could see taking the Fed CVD, as an example, keeping the saucer as is and converting the engineering hull fighter boxes to four shuttles (combining with the existing admins for, say 2 admin, 4 GAS, and an HTS), four barracks, and four cargo as a good starting point. In the specific case of the Feds, keeping the fighter group in the saucer gives some interesting color about Star Fleet getting more use out of that saucer design and there being less pressure to just make another strike carrier if the fighter group was in the engineering hull.

By Dal Downing (Rambler) on Tuesday, August 30, 2022 - 06:50 pm: Edit

The 1+1 pod ideal I actually played a similar modified AuxCV in this mode. I liked it.

Reusing a NVL Hull I like will take a look at that later tonight.