The description for the Heavy Fighter Module (R1.70) was missing for Module R8. I thought it had been published elsewhere, but I can't find it. What are the fighter supplies (booster packs, drones, etc) for the HFM?

If the internal fighter bay is installed on the Federation Starbase or Stellar Fortress, what are the fighter supplies for it? My assumption is twice the HBM (R1.4) or equal to the HFM (R1.70).

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Friday, March 10, 2023 - 09:57 pm: Edit

There is errata from Feb 2010 that the unit description is missing from (R1.70).

R1.70-R2 is listed in CL49, pg 86.
R1.70.R2 is listed in MSSB-R2, pg 146.
R1.70-R9 is listed in MSSB-R9, pg 102.
R1.70-R18 is listed in C6, pg 29.
R1.70-R19 is listed in C6, pg 65.
R1.70-R51 is listed in CL47, pg 93.
R1.70-R59 is listed in on ADB Web site for Canadi'ens.
R1.70-RB1 is listed in E3, pg 15.
R1.70-JR1 is listed in E4, pg 7.

I know I don't have all the MSSB references listed.

By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Friday, March 10, 2023 - 11:18 pm: Edit

The fighter supplies are not included in those rules.

By Douglas Saldana (Dsal) on Monday, March 13, 2023 - 06:34 pm: Edit

I'm a bit confused about the YIS for the Federation YCA.

The Captain's Log 52 Class History says the first YCA entered service in Y71 while the MSC lists Y79 as the YIS. While we might dismiss this as simply an unusually long gap between the launch of the prototype and the beginning of series production, the CL52 article also says that a total of 6 "Mark I" designs were built and that the "Mark II" design (which has an identical SSD) was introduced in Y77 with at least two being built prior to Y79. If we assume that Mark I production ended when Mark II production began that would be at total of 8 YCA in service prior to the YIS listed on the Master Ship Chart.

Also the Star Fleet Universe Timeline entry for Y79 states "Federation launches the first of the Republic-class cruisers" which appears to be a reference to the prototype which would directly contradict the CL52 article. Also it's strange that the Mark I's and Mark II's warrant distinct designations (despite being identical for game purposes) while the various upgrades to tractor and transporter technology (in Y79, Y80, Y100, and Y120) didn't warrant distinct designations (there is a Mark III and Mark IV but one is the YCC introduced in Y84 and the other, introduced in Y110, has non-game modifications).

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Monday, March 13, 2023 - 07:47 pm: Edit

It may well be a very long prototyping - especially as the Federation was doing all stuff to create the unified Star Fleet that wasn’t just building new ships. A years long process of getting it spun up as an organization, transitioning the member fleet personnel as those fleets spun down, etc.

Essentially, yes, the first YCA left the yard in Y71, the same year the United Star Fleet was created as a concept, and didn’t reach full, Federation-wide operational status until Y79. It and the YCAs were definitely busy in the mean time - but those ships were most likely always on specific missions related to the spin-up and integration of Star Fleet. Being used as training platforms, operating along assigned elements of member fleets, etc, such that they were not, for the purposes of (S8.0), available for general “patrol” use.

For the Mark I vs. Mark II, I think that is simply a matter if the Mark II being structurally different “under the skin”. After building the series of Mark Is the designers identified ways to change the design to make it more efficient to build: put *these* struts over *there*, use that design of power conduit from the warp engines, etc - the kind of stuff where a cut away diagram would show differences. The tractor and transporters upgrades don’t create different marks because they aren’t changing how the ship is built or laid out, just upgrading some easily replaced components and updating software.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Monday, March 13, 2023 - 08:18 pm: Edit

Good question, Douglas.

This is probably a dumb guess, but I can imagine the new ship having all sorts of problems with all the new technology, kinda like the teething problems SVC posted about the F-35 and T-14, over in "Real World Military."

"Problems took years to iron out and nearly led to the cancellation of the class on many occasions, but eventually the contractors got the bugs out and were able to put reliable ships out, only a hundred and fifty gazillion credits over budget!"

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Tuesday, March 14, 2023 - 07:47 am: Edit

Or the problems the USS Ford had post construction before going on "war cruises"

By Douglas Saldana (Dsal) on Tuesday, March 14, 2023 - 09:27 pm: Edit

The other thing I wished the article would have addressed is a possible relationship between the WCL and the YCA. The article notes that the YCA "established the familiar 'saucer and nacelle' shape used by subsequent classess" but I think it would be more accurate to say it established the Federation's unique "saucer with engineering section" motif (at least for cruisers and larger ships) since there's nothing special about nacelles (most empires use them) but only a handfull of empires use seperate engineering sections.

In that case, there is a clear resemblance between YCA and the WCL with its spade-shaped forward section (an evolutionary step towards a saucer) connected by a narrow neck to an engineering section. None of the other warp-refitted Federation ships (with the possible exception of the WDD) have any resemblance to this arrangement. Perhaps an article on the history of the CL might explore this further.

By Frank Lemay (Princeton) on Sunday, March 26, 2023 - 11:51 am: Edit

Question re the Kzinti SRIV.
It has 4 A racks prior to Y175.
The Y175 refit indicates the racks are now 2 type B or 2 type C.
Does this mean it still has 2 A racks and the Y175 has the option of placing 2 type B or 2 type C racks?

Or is it 2 type B and 2 type C racks thus eliminating the A racks entirely?

Thanks.

Cheers
Frank

By David Jannke (Bigslowtarget) on Sunday, March 26, 2023 - 10:34 pm: Edit

SSD in R12 shows two Bs replace 2 As and 2 Cs replace 2 other As.

By Frank Lemay (Princeton) on Monday, March 27, 2023 - 09:10 am: Edit

Thank you.

Cheers
frank

By David Finan (Bbanzai) on Monday, March 27, 2023 - 07:09 pm: Edit

I am trying to track what module/ product a Fed DDV came out in carries 10 fighters after refit it carriess 12. Checked all the stuff I have including J1 and J2 as well as the annex, cant find anythign called DDV for the Feds matching that description.

By David Bostwick (Zarquon) on Monday, March 27, 2023 - 07:33 pm: Edit

Federation DDV is R12 p14

By David Finan (Bbanzai) on Monday, March 27, 2023 - 10:07 pm: Edit

Yup local friend shoed me the SSD, couldnt find the thing the electronic G3 Annex. Has that been updated to include R12? I may need to donwload the latest version from Warehouse23 again.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Monday, March 27, 2023 - 10:40 pm: Edit

G3 covers Basic Set, Advanced Missions, Modules C1-4, Modules R1-R11, and Modules F1, F2, J, J2, K, M, X1, X1R, Y1, and Y2

By David Finan (Bbanzai) on Tuesday, March 28, 2023 - 02:23 pm: Edit

Thanks Ken, explains why I couldnt find it in there!

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Tuesday, March 28, 2023 - 04:48 pm: Edit

Two quick questions. I can't remember where this information is to be found.

1) What type of drone rack does the Federation GSC have prior to the introduction of type-G drone racks?

2) What type of drone racks do the Federation MS have prior to the introduction of type-G drone racks?

Thanks!

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Tuesday, March 28, 2023 - 06:05 pm: Edit

Good questions, Mike.

Per Federation MSSB,

GSC (R2.16)

Refits: Prior to Y153 there is no drone rack (BPV is reduced by three points). From Y153 to Y159 the drone rack is a type-A drone rack, which is replaced by a type-G drone rack (no change in BPV) in Y160.

For the Minesweeper (R2.21), things aren't as clear in the MSSB. However, it does state that the first conversions (standard CL to MS) were done in Y158 AND the MRB, in the last paragraph of the section on the type-G drone rack does say, "Anti-drones are not available prior to Y140 (E5.0), type-VI drones are used prior to Y140."

Rightly or wrongly, I would infer that the MS was always built (well, outfitted when converted) with type-G drone racks.

If anyone knows better, please correct me.

By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Tuesday, March 28, 2023 - 06:54 pm: Edit

The GSC SSD states it has a Type-E Drone Rack Y140-Y152; there is an ammo track for it on the SSD.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Wednesday, March 29, 2023 - 12:52 pm: Edit

I found what I was looking for on the early Fed drone racks: it's in G3.

At the end of the Federation section, note N7 says, "Prior to Y167 the type-G drone rack on this unit is a type-E drone rack. There is no change in the unit's BPV."

Interestingly, no ship ever received an "N7" notation, though it would obviously apply to the GSC and MS.

So ... basically, it's all over the map.

New question: we now have at least three answers to the question I asked earlier: Which one is correct?

Do note that the MRB (FD3.0) states that type-G drone racks entered service in Y165. It also says type-E drone racks entered service in Y160. None of the answers seem to recognize that, either.

As a result of that, it would appear that the correct answer should be the following:
- Delete the drone rack prior to Y160 for a small BPV reduction. Add in a type-E drone rack in Y160. Replace the type-E drone rack with type-G in Y165.

But, honestly, for the GSC at least, it would make more sense to just give it a type-A drone rack from the beginning, then replace it with a type-G drone rack in Y165. Why? Simple: probe drones. The drone rack was always intended to support the GSC's primary function and the type-A can be used that way and the type-E cannot.

However, none of the answers I have seen here align with either (FD3.0) or the simple logic of the GSC.

(And the MS couldn't have been initially built with type-G drone racks because the ship pre-dates the rack by a full seven years. That's a little too long for the "prototype" rule.)

By Randy Green (Hollywood750) on Wednesday, March 29, 2023 - 07:20 pm: Edit

Mike, Jeff's research;

"Refits: Prior to Y153 there is no drone rack (BPV is reduced by three points). From Y153 to Y159 the drone rack is a type-A drone rack, which is replaced by a type-G drone rack (no change in BPV) in Y160." at least partially aligns with your logic.

-Randy

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Wednesday, March 29, 2023 - 08:45 pm: Edit

But the type-G rack isn't available until Y165. And it contradicts references to the use of type-E rack. Thus the confusion.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Wednesday, March 29, 2023 - 09:43 pm: Edit

(YFD3.0) states "The type-E drone rack was available for service at the same time as other drone rack types but was not operationally deployed. The rack was used to launch type-VI drones to use as targets for other weapon systems and to test developing technologies."

Steve Petrick posted this on 2/5/2008 17:07:00

---

Quote:

The problem is a conundrum. Why would a type-E rack be developed before a type-B or type-C rack?

Generally, ADD racks are way, way too powerful against slow or moderate speed drones. So the general concept is that the type-E was in fact not developed as an anti-fighter drone rack, but was the original anti-drone rack. Fits in as a nice technological break. It was withdrawn from service after the ADD rack was developed, and then returned to service in response to mines (employed by minesweepers) and later fighters.

Problem is that it would require a lot of changes to SSDs (Klingon D7Cs would originally be built with two type-E drone racks, Kzinti battle Pods would originally have type-E drone racks, etc.) not just the Fed GSC having a type-G drone rack that needs to be replaced (either an earlier refit perhaps first installed after Y150 to use probe drones) or a type-E rack later replaced with a type-G rack.

It is not just that one ship (the Federation GSC).

The anomally you are dealing with is that the game system did not spring up complete overnight. Lots of things have been added that no one ever previously thought of when the first pocket edition was done (like partial X refits for exmaple).

---

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Saturday, April 01, 2023 - 01:06 pm: Edit

For the Klingon Centurian PF variants listed in HF207:

What is the year in service?
What is the War Ship Status? I am assuming it would be Purchase.


The Centurian's had P1's, why wouldn't the Klingon's have not left the P1's instead of removing them to put in P2's?

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Saturday, April 01, 2023 - 01:29 pm: Edit

Since the Klingon's struggled to efficiently manufacture a lot of P1, perhaps they removed the P1s from the Centurions and put in P2 instead? The Cents are PFs and are probably going to die quickly, so better to put in P2 that you don't mind losing? And then the P1s are available for other Klingon ships that need them?

--Mike