I have mentioned this before, but here is the formal request for these ships.

Basically, the only PF tenders that have been formally published are the NCL-based PFT and the SCSA. However, there are several other ships that logically would also be PF tenders had the Federation decided to use gunboats. To reflect that, I would like to see the following ships formally published:
- NPH (NCA): base ship is NHV
- PFT (CA): base ship is CVH
- P-PFT (pod): base is P-HVL
- DPF (DW): base is ADW
- GPF (GCA): base is GVH
In all cases, the base ships are F-111 carriers. To make the conversion, simply modify the mech links for gunboats, replace the cargo with repair, and, if necessary, add two special sensors. All of these are obvious variants. Do note that the DPF only carries three PFs.

In addition, it would be good to see the following, also:
- SDSA: A version of the SDS with a flotilla of gunboats. (Basically, like the SCSA.)
- ACSA: A version of the ACS/DCS that replaces the heavy fighters with gunboats.
- NDSA: A version of the NDS with gunboats.
- BCSA: A version of the BCS with gunboats.
Again, all mech links are converted from F-111/A-20 to gunboats and cargo is converted to repair.

All of these ships are blatantly obvious conversions. In fact, they were all specifically built in order to make this conversion. But, for some reason, the gunboat versions of these ships were never made. This is the request for that to happen.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Wednesday, September 13, 2023 - 03:29 pm: Edit

Technically speaking, it is also possible to operate the Federation HDW, HWX, and DVL as PF tenders.

So far as first-generation X-PFTs are (or would be) concerned: since Star Fleet is otherwise short on X1-ships with a Move Cost between 0.5 and 1, perhaps the Feds would double down on fielding "HWXPs", to a much greater extent than seen in the Klingon or Romulan fleets. (Indeed, I'd argue in favour of this being the case with the historical "HWXZ", not least when the time comes to chase down Andromedan RTN nodes.)

Which might still leave room for the odd MC 1 X1-ship PF tender design, akin to the Romulan FireHawk-EX Admiral Centius from Module X1R.

As for where such Federation PFTs (and X-PFTs) could be published: perhaps in a would-be "dark futures" module? (Of course, Module R4J offers an alternate means by which such SSDs might be used...)

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Wednesday, September 13, 2023 - 04:21 pm: Edit

If someone wants to add to the list with appropriate ships, I'm fine with that. I just don't want the actual base list to get lost.

However, I don't see the point of including the HDW or HWX, as they are already as present as they are ever going to be. I don't think any other empire has a PFT-specific SSD for either ship, so I don't see why the Feds would need or want one. We know how to create them. They are already taken care of.

I assume you mean the DVA, not the DVL. The DVA is intentionally not included on the list as it doesn't qualify. The DVA is equivalent to the CVA with A-20s instead of A-10s. It is NOT an SCS in any capacity. It has no cargo/repair. It is not in the list on purpose.

Where to publish them is a completely different discussion. It could be K2, it could be Dark Futures, it could be the occasional handful in a few Captain's Logs. Who knows. The point is that they are "missing" and I would like to see them, not to try and use them as leverage to get a project done.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Wednesday, September 13, 2023 - 04:50 pm: Edit

Apologies: I actually meant the DLM.

While the Star Lynx historically never got built, I once proposed converting the Star Lion into a variant along the same lines during the Andromedan War.

In which case, perhaps the "dark future" (or "Federal Imperium") version of this hull might appear as a PF tender, as opposed to an F-111 carrier.

-----

The point I was getting at was not to ask for dedicated PF tender SSDs for the HDW, HWX, or DLM.

But rather, to say that the existence of the HWX, in sufficient numbers, might lessen the need for Star Fleet to deploy dedicated X-PF tender hulls of a size smaller than Move Cost 1. As in, rather than try to invent an X-tech version of, say, the Federation NPF, a gunboat-operating Star Fleet might build more HWXPs.

To put it another way: the Romulan SaberHawk-X is limited by being a Size Class 4 hull, so it can't match the plasma output of the SparrowHawk-EX. In contrast, the X-photons on the Federation HWX are just as powerful individually as they are on a Size Class 3 X1-ship. Plus, it has three of them as standard; even the GVX, the most powerful ship the Feds can historically use to uncover the RTN, has only two.

So while a PF tender variant of, say, the Federation NAX would be a welcome addition to the above list, perhaps Star Fleet could get by without a new Move Cost 2/3 (or MC 3/4) X-PFT hull if they were obliged to do so.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Wednesday, September 13, 2023 - 05:04 pm: Edit

Again, let me try to keep the focus on the topic at hand: Building PFT variants of existing, published PFT analogs. Period.

There are already several ships published in the game right now that are obvious, stated PFT analogs. I would like to see actual PFT versions of those ships. That's all this topic is about.

This is not about Dark Futures. This is not about hypothetical X-PFTs. This is not about X-versions of PFTs that don't exist. This is not about making a hypothetically optimized X-PFT future that may or may not make any sense. This is not about any of that stuff. It is just about getting PFT versions of existing, published PFT analogs.

As for the GVX, I didn't include it because I forgot about it. Even so, I don't know if it even qualifies, as it doesn't have cargo that can be converted to repair. (It does have cargo, but that's its GSC-related cargo, not F-111 related cargo. It doesn't really count.)

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Wednesday, September 13, 2023 - 06:18 pm: Edit

For comparison's sake, the Federation COV in Module M converts four of the GSC's ten cargo boxes to Barracks boxes.

Presumably a would-be "GPX" could do something similar: though whether it would be better to go with a repair-to-cargo ratio of 4:6 (keeping more of the ship's operational range, yet reducing its repair capacity) or 6:4 is another matter.

Although, even if a GPX was not viable, a "standard" GSX could still be given a mech-link refit, enabling it to use a leader PF and a survey PF in peacetime, or a PFL and a "standard" PF in combat against the Andromedans.

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Wednesday, September 13, 2023 - 07:49 pm: Edit

You've missed the obvious "testbed" PFT. Based off the CLV, akin to the Z-DD->Z-PFT. :D

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, September 13, 2023 - 08:09 pm: Edit

I don’t see a need for this. Players HATE hypothetical not-real ships. The NCL version would seem to be all you need for campaign conjectural use, the rest would be useful only as filler which most players would resent.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Wednesday, September 13, 2023 - 10:07 pm: Edit

If it's a no-go, so be it.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, September 14, 2023 - 12:31 am: Edit

I am willing to be proven wrong by an outpouring of player support, but I don't see it happening. Other than Gary Carney (who wants "special" things) I don't see anyone who cares. Scott had an idea that a CL testbed might make sense, and the DWP with three PFs might be argued as needed for campaign conjecture. If you want to spin those up I'll see if there is an open newsletter spot sometime.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, September 14, 2023 - 09:52 am: Edit

The one "conjectural" Fed PFT that I think is most needed is the GVX-based version. In a non-historical campaign in which the Feds do build PFs, they will need something to counter their opponents' X-tech tenders.

A GVX-based PFT would be an expensive but extremely capable unit, and the Feds could afford it.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Thursday, September 14, 2023 - 10:16 am: Edit

Well, if these PFTs are really that unwanted, can I just post them on my website?

Also, I'll send in the DW-PFT today. I already have it made. It is an obvious variant. No one gets credit for it.

I'll leave the CL-testbed to whomever actually cares about it. I honestly assumed that neither the CL or DD would have every been made into PFTs. They each have much, much better variants to support and by the time of the PF they are extremely rare. I would expect that the testbed would be either an NCL-PFT or a DW-PFT, which are hulls they have a-plenty and at least one of either should be handy in drydock for conversion. All those DDs should be DEAs and all those CLs should be CLSs. Making either into a PFT is an opportunity lost and a tremendous waste of resources.

I don't care about the GVX. Good luck to whomever wants to make it.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Thursday, September 14, 2023 - 10:36 am: Edit

While talking about these hypothetical PFTs, however, I do have a question on the CA-PFT. All cruiser-PFTs (of any size) get two special sensors. The F-111 carrier for the CA does not have special sensors. So, for this ship, what would be done when converting to a PFT?
- Replace two photons with special sensors.
- Replace the two FH Ph-1s with special sensors.
- Replace the two flag boxes with special sensors.
- Just add two special sensors without removing any other boxes.
- Be different and operate without special sensors.

Feel free to speculate or advocate for your favorite answers. A "real" answer for either Steve would be cool, though.

My personal choice is to replace the flag bridge with special sensors. No CA-PFT have flag bridge. All CA-PFT have special sensors. As such, that exchange seems to make the most sense to me.

Thanks!

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, September 14, 2023 - 12:28 pm: Edit

Mike, some years ago, you proposed a Federation Light Cruiser variant using a CA/DD type saucer, a scaled down secondary hull and two ten point warp engine nacelles with a movement cost value of 2/3 =0.67.

As I recall, the proposal had referred to losing out to the Original light cruiser sublight conversion.

Do you suppose the two or three prototypes that might have been built for a fly off competition ended up in in the mothball fleet reserve? Perhaps overlooked from being activated for the General War due to having non standard warp engines?

Not quite a CA variant, but if you dusted off your old Light Cruiser design, equipped it with modern NCL 12 warp point nacelles/engines, added two warp power boxes in the saucer like the latest DNG and Heavy Command Cruiser designs you would be approaching what a CA hull is.

Plus, using existing saucers and secondary hulls might eliminate the need for a size class 3 slipway.

From a Star Fleet History POV, it ties up the middle years ship design hiccup of the OCL/CL thing, and completes the story of what eventually happened with the first three CL Light Cruiser Hulls.

The Kzinti Hegemony did a variation using their DD / Destroyer design that also ended up as a PF tender.


So did the Hydrans with the Pegasus design.

If you still have the CL SSD, posting it would allow people to comment and suggest improvements for the PFT conversion.

Plus, changing the warp engines to the NCL type, eliminates the non standard warp engine complaint.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Thursday, September 14, 2023 - 12:45 pm: Edit

Since the battle control ship PF tender variant has no special sensors, there is a precedent of sorts for not installing sensors into a PFT variant of the CVH.

If one were to install a pair of special sensors, however, I would prefer they be swapped in for other "external" boxes on the ship, as opposed to an "internal" box. In which case, I would sooner lean towards losing two of the photons.

Historically-speaking, it's worth noting that by the time fast patrol ships entered service, many (though by no means all) of the surviving CA base hulls had been converted into command cruisers; their place in the "line" had for the most part been taken over by the NCA. So it's quite reasonable, in my view, for the Feds to treat a CA-(or rather, CC-)derived fast patrol ship tender variant as a command platform.

Indeed, this might explain the difference between the historical CVH and NHV design-wise; the latter (with its special sensors) was intended to be more of a lone raider, whereas the former (with no sensors) was envisioned more as a squadron leader or fleet flagship.

-----

Also, since heavy war destroyers were already a thing by the time the Feds (would have) considered fielding PFs, I would find it interesting for the "testbed" ship to have been one of those hulls.

If the PF Tender modules work out, well and good. If they don't, it would be cheaper and easier to remove them and to re-configure the HDW into a different configuration, as opposed to ripping up a "fixed" PFT testbed and converting it into a different mission variant.

Which would mean no new SSD would be needed to model a would-be "testbed" Federation (or Federal Imperium) PF tender...

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Thursday, September 14, 2023 - 01:18 pm: Edit

Gary,

Battle Control Ships have no relevance to the discussion on the CA-PFT. BCS ships operate under completely different rules and expectations as any other CA-PFT. So, if you look at, say, the Klingons, the C7-BCS looks and operates differently than their CA-PFT. However, the C7-BCS works like all of the other BCS class ships for other empires (including the hypothetical Fed BCS-PF). So, it doesn't matter to this discussion.

When you look at the CA-PFT of literally every other empire that has one, they have a pair of special sensors. It would be extremely odd for the Fed CA-PFT to not have a pair.

Likewise, literally no other empire has a CC-PFT. I can't imagine that they have never been suggested, so it would appear that ADB has no interest in such a class, either. Therefore, if only to prevent such a ship class from being introduced for every single other empire, what the Feds end up with should be a CA-PFT, and not a CC-PFT. As such, the flag boxes need to go.

Now, given the above (which either Steve could blow up at either point), it would appear that the Federation CA-PFT should:
1) Have a pair of special sensors.
2) Not have any flag bridge.
In order to make both of those happen with minimal fuss, it would appear that swapping the flag bridge to the special sensors is a reasonable approach.

Plus, to keep with a Federation theme, while it is incredibly common for NCL and NCA variants to toss photons off the ship like they were radioactive to the crew or poisonous or something, CA variants do not. The CA-PFT should be keeping all four of its photons.

On the other hand, if we want to make a new CC-PFT class of ships that does have full CC capability *and* carries a full flotilla of PFs *and* does not use special sensors, then let's go for it. Even so, the Feds should still have a CA-PFT in addition, so my question still stands.

Jeff,

In case you forgot, that submission was shot in the head, the head cut off and put on a pike, the body burned, and the burnt bones ground into powder. I don't think basing anything on it would be useful or productive at this point.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, September 14, 2023 - 01:31 pm: Edit

Mike W.
k.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, September 14, 2023 - 06:04 pm: Edit

You should do the battle control ship sometime; it is an "everybody" thing. I don't see a CA-PFT as a good use of a heavy cruiser hull and not everyone has one (nobody needs one).

By Dal Downing (Rambler) on Thursday, September 14, 2023 - 07:22 pm: Edit

Just my 2 credits...

SCS no stick to A20s
BCS yes
CA PFT no Just not enough hulls to go around.
NCA PFT yes
NCL PFT yes
DW PFT yes
OCL PFT Questionable same as CAs.
GCV Would stick to F111s.
HDW Questionable lack of hulls.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Thursday, September 14, 2023 - 07:49 pm: Edit

Dal,

SCS is already done and in the game. It is the SCSA.
BCS? OK. I'll submit it right after fixing the DW-PFT. I'm cool with that one!
CA-PFT is a no? OK. I'm actually fine with that.
NCA-PFT kinda sucks, actually. If we are winnowing down, there is no reason to build it over an NPF. So, I'll just skip it.
NCL-PFT is, of course, already in the game as the NPF.
DW-PFT is submitted and now in revisions. (Not the ship. My SSD style is old and needed updating.)
OCL-PFT is again something I disagree with.
GCV/GVX I'm not that interested in and, unlike any of the others here, would require some actual design thought.
HDW is, for all intents, already in the game. No one has a dedicated SSD for an HDW-PFT and the rules tell you how to build one. It works fine for the Federation HDW. So, no real need for this one.

As an aside, missing are:
DCS - might not be worth the effort as it is using the CA hull again. However, everyone else *does* have these.
NDS - The NCA version of the DCS. Again, it is pretty simple and straight forward.
But then, I have no idea if anyone ever actually uses DCS class ships. They would be a nightmare to use, and ridiculously expensive. Just not sure even the published versions are actually used.

So, in summary, I guess the two ships that are actually worth the effort are the DW-PFT and the BCS-PF. Which is cool. They should make nice newsletter fodder if nothing else.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Thursday, September 14, 2023 - 08:08 pm: Edit

It occurred to me that one could, in theory at least, produce an historical X1-technology version of the NHV. (This might be a more direct counterpart to the aforementioned FireHawk-EX than the GVX would be.)

In which case, one could then use it as the basis for a "nice to have" NAX-PFT hull - thus giving the "dark future" Federation, or the "Reflection Universe" Federal Imperium, a Move Cost 1 X-PF tender without running into the kind of trouble faced by a would-be "GPX" variant.

So, while a would-be "NHVX" ought to be requested in a separate thread, I would ask for an "NAPX" variant SSD to be considered in this one.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, September 15, 2023 - 03:35 am: Edit

DAL:

How can the Feds operate F-111s AND PFs at the same time? I thought that was prohibited...

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Friday, September 15, 2023 - 08:21 am: Edit

The answer varies depending on which alternate timeline is being discussed.

On the one hand, the "Reflection Universe" timeline published in Module R4J sees the place of the Federation taken up by the warlike Federal Imperium. Since those "Feds" have no qualms about using Interceptors or fast patrol ships, they adopt this technology when it first becomes available to them - and thus never develop the "Third Way".

On the other hand, the "dark future" encountered/created by the CVL Darwin in a certain scenario from SFB Module X1 was expanded upon in SFB Module C3A and dramatized in the cover story from Captain's Log #54. In that alternate timeline - or rather, in that alternate branch of the "standard" timeline - the Federation is driven out of desperation by the pressures of the Andromedan invasion to revisit the concept of gunboats, adopting them in alt-Y198.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Friday, September 15, 2023 - 10:18 am: Edit

Chuck,

F-111s are prohibited when PFs are introduced "normally" at Y181. When introduced in Y181, the Feds lose the F-111, SWACs, and the Third Way. That seems to be a very hard rule.

But, as Gary points out, if PFs are introduced late (as in his example, Y198), then options open up. In this case, for all intents, there are no PFs so the Feds track their standard historical path, which includes F-111s, until things finally change.

So, you understanding is fundamentally correct. It is just that there can be variations if the baseline assumptions are twisted hard enough.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Friday, September 15, 2023 - 10:53 am: Edit

On a side note:

It turns out I had already requested would-be "NHVX" and "NAPX" (and/or "NHAX") designs in a pre-existing post - which I had completely forgotten about!

Still, while I hope the "NAPX" can be considered here, at least that saves me the trouble of typing up an entirely new request thread for the other onetwo...