Gee wiz. I was looking at the prices on the minis and frankly, they aren't bad at all. So they went up a couple of bucks here and there.
I work in the medical device industry. You should see those price increases.
And the fighters still rock. They cost about a candy bar a piece. I promise you, if you ate a dozen candy bars you'd regret it.
But a dozen fighters? Heck yeah, still very worth the money.
Anyway, gonna get me some SFU minis!

By Guillaume Williams (Uioor1) on Monday, January 23, 2023 - 09:30 am: Edit

Is there a general timeline of the GSX Sakharov's explorations anywhere? Planning to use it as a reference for a piece of fan-fiction I'm wanting to write.

EDIT
Also, any further reference material on the GSC and GSX classes that isn't found in their respective R reference entries would be appreciated!

By Charles E. Leiserson, Jr. (Locutus) on Monday, January 23, 2023 - 02:26 pm: Edit

Captain's Log 51 has an incredible write-up of the Sakharov's entire history, focusing heavily on the expedition to the Omega octant.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Monday, January 23, 2023 - 04:48 pm: Edit

The initial concept of sending NCC-1821 USS Sakharov to the Omega Octant and back again was in the Seventh Cycle (Y205-Y221) portion of the Omega timeline, which was first published in Star Fleet Battles Module Omega #5 and later added to the 2011 revision to the SFB Omega Master Rulebook.

However, that version of events had the Sakharov arrive in Omega via a temporary wormhole - which, according to Bruce Graw's Omega's Lost Futures article in Captain's Log #36, was a side-effect of the efforts by the as-yet-unpublished Scon (a species native to subspace) to manifest themselves in the physical realm.

The concept of wormholes in the SFU was nixed on the BBS a while back, as it was deemed to be too close to the post-1979 Franchise for comfort. Although, it has been suggested to use Vortices, of the kind seen in the cover story from Captain's Log #38, in their stead.

In any case, by the time Nick Samaras' class history article was written and published for Captain's Log #41 - which covers most* known Federation survey cruisers in service from the Y120s onwards - a "revision of the data tapes" saw the Sakharov arrive in Omega via the Lesser Magellanic Cloud, along a dormant Andromedan Rapid Transit Network route.

It was this CL41 version of events - which, to be clear, I had no hand in establishing - that was used as the basis of my Voyages of Discovery article in Captain's Log #51.

*This article does not cover the National Guard survey cruiser Amerigo Vespucci from SFB Module R11, nor the old survey cruiser Magellan - though to be fair, the latter ship was introduced in Captain's Log #53, years after the class history article was committed to print. And, of course, I hope that the long-awaited SFB Module X2 might leave the door ajar for Star Fleet to field a would-be "XGS" class of second-generation X-survey cruisers at some point in or after Y205...

By Guillaume Williams (Uioor1) on Monday, January 23, 2023 - 06:09 pm: Edit

I see. CL51 was already on my wish list, but hearing that bumps it up to #1 on things to purchase next.

Thanks for the help!

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Tuesday, January 24, 2023 - 07:30 am: Edit

The advantage of vortices is that they move and are temporary. Note I designed them to be either spatial or temporal. So they move you WAY over yonder or they move you in forward back in time right there.

So version 1 puts you in touch with foreigners (as in my story) or version 2 allows a temporary time machine (which might explain the Hydran thing)...

By Guillaume Williams (Uioor1) on Tuesday, January 24, 2023 - 08:38 am: Edit

Hmmmm, that might actually be useful for what I'm currently working on. So information on vorticies, or at least we see them, in CL 38. Anywhere else?

(And what Hydran thing are you referring to?)

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Tuesday, January 24, 2023 - 10:25 am: Edit

I'm guessing it's a reference to the (SL285) Conquest's Gate scenario in Captain's Log #40: a simulator exercise in which a time-travelling Hydran X-ship is pitted against a fleet of Early Years Klingon ships.

Also, it might have seemed that I was somewhat underselling the class history article in Captain's Log #41 - but if you are interested in the various GSCs, CVLs, GSXs, and suchlike, it's definitely an article worth reviewing.

And speaking of CVLs, one of those features in the cover story of Captain's Log #54...

By Guillaume Williams (Uioor1) on Tuesday, January 24, 2023 - 11:51 am: Edit

Oh! I remember seeing that scenario now. There's a playtest version available in the Playtest page on the main site.

Good to know that CL 41 is worth my time at the moment too. Will keep it on the short list of "Things to get soonish"

By Shawn Gordon (Avrolancaster) on Tuesday, January 24, 2023 - 09:58 pm: Edit

Wait, did Conquest's Gate get Olivette Roche'd or was it always a simulator thing?

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Saturday, January 28, 2023 - 05:58 pm: Edit

The playtest scenario is SP802.0.

By Guillaume Williams (Uioor1) on Sunday, January 29, 2023 - 08:03 pm: Edit

Just got my R7 book and was flipping through it, when a question hit me. Why is the Klingon Light Dreadnought C5, and the Early Dreadnought C6, when the C5 was built 17 years after the C6? Was there some particular reason why the Klingons chose to skip 5 and go to 6, then come back to it later?

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Sunday, January 29, 2023 - 11:10 pm: Edit

Honestly, don't overthink it. The game originally had the E4, F5, D6, D7, C8, and C9. The G2 and E3 were also included in the mix very early. Everything introduced into the game, irrespective of its in-game YIS then have to fit around that numbering scheme. After all of these years, there are some odd results.

As for the in-game reasoning, just use the same explanation given for the two D5s: there was an unbuilt C5 that was designed, but never made at the appropriate point of time. Later, when needing a new number, and not having any available, they just picked the old number that had been assigned, but never actually produced. So, there were actually two C5 designs, but we only have the second.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Monday, January 30, 2023 - 11:52 am: Edit

Kinda like the D5 and LD5 (from R8, IIRC)?

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Monday, January 30, 2023 - 01:40 pm: Edit

Yes. Those were the "two D5s" to which I referred. The difference would be that I think the LD5 was actually produced. The theoretical proto-C5 I made up in my previous post would have been completely unbuilt.

By Douglas Saldana (Dsal) on Monday, January 30, 2023 - 01:47 pm: Edit

Do the Klingons actually use these designations or are they just Federation reporting names? Sure, Klingon characters use these designations in the published fiction but since were are reading their dialogue "in translation" (rather than the original Klingonese) it doesn't really prove anything.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Monday, January 30, 2023 - 02:21 pm: Edit

My understanding is that they do. I could easily be wrong.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, January 30, 2023 - 02:37 pm: Edit

If memory serves me correctly, the D4 was the last of the Early Years cruisers and as the timeline moves into the Middle Years, the Klingons intended to produce two cruisers. The D5 would be the light cruiser and the D6 would be their heavy cruiser. But for several reasons, the D5 proved unsatisfactory; much weaker than the D6 and not all that much less expensive. The D6 turned out to be both more powerful and also more cost effective, giving more "bang for the buck". So the Klingons standardized their cruiser production around the D6, until the D7 was developed.

Much later the Klingons, using new technology, especially the "hot warp" engines, produced an extremely good light cruiser. Since the original D5 never entered serial production (one or two prototypes may have been built for testing - I don't recall for sure), that designation was available for the new cruiser.

By Mike Dowd (Mike_Dowd) on Monday, January 30, 2023 - 03:10 pm: Edit

I believe (at work, books not available) that 3 original D5s were built, then redesignated LD5, named after 3 different warrior colonies and sent to each respectively as a garrison and (possibly) training ship.

Their flaw wasn't economics, it was that the 2/3 warp engines were especially prone to breakdown even after short sorties, hence they needed to stay near repair facilities at all times.

The Klingons also did a partial M tech upgrade to the old C4 DNs, upgrading all systems except the engines to M standards. In my head canon, perhaps the same flaw that killed the D5 light cruiser was cropping up in the new engines for the C5, and FORCED them to keep the old C4s (as C4b) in service to provide heavy CR 10 units?

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Monday, January 30, 2023 - 04:00 pm: Edit

Guys,

That wasn't my point. The particulars of the LD5 are irrelevant. It doesn't matter *why* they were a failed design. It just matters that they *were* a failed design. My reference to it was simply to note that this approach was taken before. Simply put, the approach is this:
- Name was used for a design that would be historically and numerically appropriate.
- This design fails or isn't built.
- Later design needs a number and none are available. The failed design's number is then used.
It doesn't matter why the design failed. All that matters is that it exists so it can explain why the number was originally "skipped" so it could be available for later use.

And, no, this is not a request for an "LC5" design. The ship would suck (as required for its "failed" status) and I would rather see ships that don't suck. Or at least are useful for something other than explaining the weird use of a particular number.

By Guillaume Williams (Uioor1) on Tuesday, January 31, 2023 - 12:50 am: Edit

Haven't gotten a chance to fly it yet, but I think the Klingon E7 Heavy Cruiser is one of my favorite ships in the game, at least concept and design-wise. It has a silly-ish look to it and the idea of taking the frigate/destroyer and making it a Heavy Cruiser is funny, but it still manages to retain a nice charm to it.

Can't wait to give it a shot at some point, probably against monsters since I haven't anyone to play with at the moment. If it turns out it's just as fun to fly as it is to look at and think about, I think I'll have to pick up CL35 for the drone and scout variants for added fun (I think that's what the E7D and E7S are).

By Joseph Jackson (Bonneville) on Tuesday, January 31, 2023 - 10:19 am: Edit

I think the E7 would be fun in a fleet action, heading up a small to medium force. Perhaps against a simulated Frax held planet, with some good defenses.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Tuesday, January 31, 2023 - 11:18 am: Edit

Guillaume, the E7D (drone bombardment with scout sensors) and E7J (penal) have since been published in Module R12. There has been no E7S published to date that I can find.

By Guillaume Williams (Uioor1) on Tuesday, January 31, 2023 - 11:33 am: Edit

oop. Yeah, misread the entry in G3, thought it said E7S, not E7J. My bad

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Tuesday, January 31, 2023 - 11:43 am: Edit

Figured it was that or just a typo in your post