Archive through November 22, 2023
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: New Product Development:
Module C4R: Back to the Simulators:
MODULE C4R#:
Archive through November 22, 2023
Nick,
I believe the Sparrowhawk-L Light Command Cruiser has exactly the same weapons, shields, power as the Sparrowhawk-A. The SPL has a better CR, of course. But it's own integral combat power is the same as the SPA's.
Nick,
I forgot that the CA already has flag bridge. So, it's already a CC. However, I figured out how to do a CCH, so we're good. 
Two problem ships for the Barbarians, though, are the NCA and HDW. Both of them require three engines, which I guess means the "three engine" variants will have four engines? Weird, but OK. Not wild about the NCA either, and I haven't figured it out yet.
On the other hand, I think I finally have a very good handle on the HDW. Not just the Barbarian HDW, but *all* of the HDWs. I see how the conversions work now and I think I can convert any empire's DW into an HDW because the conversion is fairly rigid. Which makes me kinda conflicted because I really don't like HDWs. But I can now hammer them out pretty quickly. The hardest part is figuring out how to make the ship "bulge" to fit in the extra 14-16 boxes and where to place the extra engine.
Alan,
The SPL isn't really a fair comparison. The main reason is because it is a modular ship, which places constraints on how much can be changed. But definition, it means that you can't touch the main ship and have to restrict everything to the modules, meaning the change is going to be, of necessity, minimal.
(As opposed to the SKL, which made the changes in the base hull, not the module. Weird, but there we are.)
I don't know if it's worth going past the standard base hulls (DN/BC/CA/CL/DD/FF/POL) for 3-engines, if you do them at all. Things can get out of hand quickly.
Bear in mind that since the Barbarians were invented in the simulators of the Inter-Stellar Concordium, and that the ISC HDD and HDDX each have only two warp engines (at least as shown on their respective SSDs), there would be a precedent for the Barbarian HDW and HDWX to each be given a similar engine setup.
Also, since the ISC was given a "CA-" version of the Star Cruiser in the 2016 revision of Module C2 - a "Middle Years" variant which would have extended use over in the various "Mapsheet P" timelines in SFB Module C6 - one could offer "minus" or "unrefitted" versions of some of the Barbarian hulls, if such made them more reasonable for use in the Middle Years.
That said, even the "CA-" is still quite powerful for a Middle Years heavy cruiser; not least when compared to the unrefitted Gorn or Paravian CAs. So it would also not be unprecedented for the Middle Years Barbarian ships to still be a bit larger, and pricier, than the Middle Years standard seen in the western half of the Alpha Octant.
As for three-engine Barbarian hulls: I think it's one thing to offer such variants on a similar basis to what the Andromedan War-era ISC themselves do: say, when upgrading a DD to a CW, or an FF to a DW. In my view - such as it is - it's quite another to bother with three-engine "baseline" alternates to the existing two-engine ships, if literally the only difference is going to be the placement of said engines.
Or, to look at it from another angle: if there was to be a marked difference between a two-engine Barbarian CA and a three-engine version - say, if the latter was to be more Paravian-inspired (as in, be more agile and also be capable of landing on planets, yet also be more constrained engineering-wise than a hull designed to operate solely in open space) - then that might make things more interesting. Although, this might be tantamount to creating a second "Barbarian" faction, to run in parallel to the one known to exist thus far...
On a side note: speaking of Module C6, it might be interesting to see what kind of options a Barbarian fleet configured to mimic the "lost empire" Paravians and Carnivons might offer.
Gary I fear you are thinking too much into it. Three engine versions have already been published. They are, literally, the same number of warp boxes divided by three rather than two. They are a convenience only, based on the fact that three-engine ships are common in this part of the galaxy.
As Nick mentions, the three engine Barbarians are purely to allow for the slightly different way that three engines take damage over two engines. And, to get that comparison, you have to keep the rest of the ship the same.
Nick, quick question on the three engine DD: how was it divided? The DD has two eight point engines. How did the three engine variant divide that?
On the Barbarian HDW (not worried about X-ships at this point), it could have either 2x12 engines or 3x8 engines. Honestly, I like 3x8 better because that accentuates the difference between it and the CL.
The DD went with three six box engines.
And the CA (CAT) went with three ten-box engines.
To get a three engine Barbarian DD without the power curve of a DW you would have to do three five-box engines. This would make it unusual in that most DDs get at least 16 warp. The Fed and Paravian DDs are also 15-warp.
Uneven warp box count with the center warp engine getting a sixth box?
Something I should have noted yesterday, the Tri-DD loses two impulse boxes.
On the tri-DD, that makes sense. Thanks for the clarification!
Might want to confirm with Petrick that's not an error, as it should retain the DD (really DW) power curve.
The T-DD adds two warp, takes away two impulse, keeping the same total amount of power as the base DD.
I suspect that it is correct. Even if two more warp is tactically more useful.
It is absolutely intentional. The total power remains the same, so, yes, that was meant to be done.
On a previous subject, I am pretty sure I figured out how HDWs are made. They actually follow a pretty rigid pattern. That pattern is:
- Start with the DW (or DD if it is at a DW level).
- Add four APR*.
- Add four NWO.
- Add two OPT-RA.
- Add four hull.
- Add ten crew units.
- Increase shuttle bay(s) to four boxes total, installing ready racks into two of them.
- Increase shields to match CW shields.
- Increase warp to 24 boxes total in whatever combination works.
- Change movement rate to 2/3.
- Do NOT change original weapons or phasers. The only addition is the two OPT.
- All other systems are unchanged, though a box or two can be added if needed for aesthetics.
I have to go back again and check to see if the SSDE tracks are always update to CW level, too.
Noting the that the Orion HDW has no APR* and eight Cargo-NWO boxes.
Yes, there are a couple exceptions. Formulas like this are made to be broken and twisted. The formula still holds up, however.
Obviously the Orion is an exception. I think the Lancer one is a little odd. The Jagdpanther is extremely odd. However, from what I am seeing thus far, none of that applies to the simulator HDWs. I will note the Barbarian HDW looks very odd, but does follow the formula.
My mistake, I thought the DD and DD-T had the same number ow warp.
No problem. I wasn't worried about the DD-T until I remembered that the DD only had two 8-box engines which doesn't divide well. That's why I did the follow-up question.
Back to the simulator HDWs. I have found a problem ship after all: the Triaxian. With Triaxian ships, they are designed to work equally well no matter which shield becomes "forward". So, they are designed to work equally well whether the "forward" shield is the #1, #3, or #5. As a result, "two RA weapons" no longer makes sense. Putting them anywhere means the Triaxian just changes "forward" and now those RA weapons become forward weapons.
I see two ways to try and address this:
1) Just delete the two OPT-RA from the Triaxian HDW.
2) Give the Triaxian HDW three one-box weapons, each pointing in the potential RA direction.
The second option does give them extra forward weapons at all times, but also gives them the requisite RA weapon at all times, too. That said, I am definitely leaning toward option #1 as the ship is already a bit overgunned for its size.
Mike, standard HDW have ten boxes that can be configured; two OPT, four NWO, and four APR*.
What if the Triaxian, in keeping with their being built around the concept of "The Three," were to have three of each type?
Additionally, if it were to be equipped with three casual fighters, it would still be in keeping with "The Three" and still be able to field a full squadron of twelve fighters, if configured as a medium carrier.
Jeff,
You know what? I like that! So, that's what I'm trying.
One other odd little HDW note: Both the Qari and Triaxian cannot really "just add an engine". Their designs are rigidly designed around the number of engines they start with. So, in both cases, they simply get upgraded to CW engines.
For the Triaxian HDW what if you added a weapon to each of the three directions but delete the 360 plasma-D for balance?
Alternatively, turn the 360 plasma-D into two 360 optional weapons?
Those work, too. However, what I like about Jeff's idea is that it is *different*. It accomplishes the goals of the HDW, but breaks the formula. Now, turning a pair of APR* and NWO into a weapon and armed shuttle might be too much, I figured I'd start there.
However, if it is too much, I think turning the Pl-D into a pair of 360 OPT mounts is a nice solution. I'll go work that one up, too.
EDIT: With the two 360 OPT, it also means I have to break the shuttle symmetry to only have two fighters. Kind of a bummer, but there it is. The result is much more in-line with the other HDWs.
EDIT2: OK, with the two 360 OPT boxes, I simply deleted one fighter box to drop it down to two. Though, I did keep the original three boxes, so this has five shuttle boxes, not just four. Which is fine, because they can't convert to fighter boxes, so it just gets three normal shuttles instead of two. This configuration is very much more conventional for an HDW and scales its offensive potential back, which is probably necessary.
Which is too bad, as I kinda liked the unconventional approach.
Just noticed something on the Frax list of missing ships. Included as missing is the CVD. However, the existing CA-based carrier, though called a CVS in the rules and a CV on the SSD, is a CVD. It has no heavy weapons and carries 24 fighters. So, the CVD already exists.
What is actually missing is a "real" CVS, where it carries 12 fighters and keeps the CA's allotment of weapons.
Not a biggie, but I thought I'd note it.