Archive through March 16, 2024
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: Rules Questions:
Questions on Ships:
Archive through March 16, 2024
Actually, it doesn't even have a formal SSD. It is a hybrid SSD, and the refits are only mentioned in the ship description.
Were would the line item go? It's from a Captain's Log with no after action report topic.
Either the AAR high-level topic or email.
Good day all,
I do not see anything expressly forbidding it, but are the Early Years freighters able to use Skids or Ducktails? I know those were not created in the early years. But in a Y168 campaign I am running, some older freighters are still running around in use (any that are still serviceable).
Thanks
From (YR1.N1): "The freighters of the early years that remained in service in Y140 could be fitted with skids in the same manner as the large and small freighter (R1.68), but their designs (whether the large freighter or the small freighter) could not accommodate ducktails (R1.69)."
Thank you very much Jessica.
Why do Skiffs & Couriers have substantially worse turn modes than many frigates and even some cruisers?
It seems counter intuitive that they'd be less maneuverable.
They originally were designed as cheap freighters to tote stuff? And only later got the variants...
Rusman: My guess is it's because they're so narrow their engines are nearly centerline thrust. Wider ships can use differential thrust to turn sharper.
Garth L. Getgen
Robert Russell Lender:
Skiffs have a turn mode of "B" and are "nimble ships" which nominally gives them a better turn mode than most cruisers, but it is largely irrelevant. The main thing to take into consideration is HOW LONG they have been in service and what they were expected to do. Note that their armament covers the full 360 degrees so they are only maneuvering to avoid being hit. Ultimately there was no reason to invest the time and funds into improving the maneuverability of an old hull, and that is why they were eventually supplanted by PFs which carried more weapons and could be carried into combat. That at least is my opinion.
Another thing to remember is that both the Skiff (a personal favorite ship 
) and the Modular Courier are civilian ships and weren't made for agility in dogfights.
Perhaps a good reference might be the agility of eighteen wheelers compared to how tanks and IFVs can turn? Heck, even compared to Hummers, eighteen wheelers are pretty sluggish.
Oh! One other thing, Rusman, the Modular Couriers? The ones with fewer boxes in the "Ship" part of the SSD, despite having the worse turn mode ("C" vs. the Skiff having "B")? I have a GURPS: Traveller book on the Traveller universe Modular Courier. That craft (IMO, too small to call a "Ship") is basically an open frame with a cockpit on one end, a drive section on the other, and the middle holds a module held on by clamps and magnets. Not exactly the most securely assembled of space vehicles. My guess is that such structural weakness is compensated for by not allowing too tight of turns.
At any rate, I (personally) liked the question.
Apples and oranges comparison.
It is like trying to compete in a motorcycle motocross competition intended for all an terrain two wheel motorcycle in a 18 wheel tractor semitrailer intended for paved highways.
A really silly idea.
To quote my favorite Tanker...
"Always with the negative waves!"
Eighteen wheelers may better represent freighters (with Turnpike Tandems representing Ore Barges) and perhaps 3/4 or 5/4 Ton trucks representing Skiffs and Couriers, but we're still talking about civilian grade equipment compared to military, so there's no need to go (again) with the negative waves against some outside the box thinking
I may have missed it, but emotional appeals to SPP and SVC, to change how the game works, have , to date, been totally ineffective.
You might have found a weakness in SPP’s armor, by making a whimsical fantasy appeal… but legend has it that the only attempt on SVC’s stoic essence was inconclusive. No further data analysis exists as the body of the offender was never recovered.
Good luck! (I think you will need lots and lots!)
Mister Anderson…..
(Okay, okay, I’ll nix the Matrix Agent Smith voice)
You referenced my real world profession, inexpertly.
The analogy is tortured at best. Class 9 heavy haul trucks are not really a good comparison to a large basic freighter, nor a class 8 heavy haul truck a small freighter and so forth down to the smaller units mentioned.
A “turnpike double” does not require any additional horsepower from the power unit, it only permits the double carriage of long trailers otherwise restricted. And even these rules vary from State to State.
There is a rather complicated schedule of types, classes, and capabilities that go into interstate trucking, and this isn’t the forum for it, but I’ll say this…. Your cited examples do not match the real world reality you’re trying to build the foundation of your case for.
The truck I’m driving right now, given the correct permits and trailer could easily move a M1A1 Abrams MBT in excess of the nominal legal weight limits imposed on interstate trucking.
I would turn slightly better than the Aux Box and worse than the Gorn, and my zero to 60 time would be measured in minutes not seconds, but I could do it.
The equipment matters less than the licensing. And if your suggesting that the Steve’s try to out complicate the DOT….. Our collective laughter will be heard on the International Space Station.
Incidentally, since trucking units came up… During StratCon last year, sitting across from SVC at the BBQ supper, I mentioned in passing a desire to see a civilian utility cargo transportation unit more capable freight wise than an FDX and yet smaller than a freighter. I don’t recall his exact answer to me but he thought the matter was easily handled by the various APTs in service all over the place. I really wish I could better remember his answer, but as I was overtaken by events a more precise version of his answer was forgotten. The gist was each design for its designed purpose , even if you don’t see that purpose at once.
Respectfully, Mister Guthridge (you're right; it doesn't have the same ring to it ), I wasn't proposing any change. This thread is called, "Questions on Ships." All I was attempting to do is give an analogy to reinforce why I think things are good the way they are in The Game.
(BTW, back in the `90's, I drove long-haul as well. Had to find something else when I got blacklisted by the dispatchers for NOT going over hours. I guess I was supposed to put fraudulent entries in my logs, but as yet another manifestation of my AS, I just couldn't do it.)
(`Course, I was bad enough to end up with Hunt, so that may also explain a lot... )
As far as something able to haul more than an FDX and be smaller than a freighter/free trader, might I suggest having fun with a crayon and graph paper, like I do sometimes? While I've yet to come up with something our Hosts would publish (shipwise), it's still something that has its own enjoyment for me.
That was not very respectful.
Crayons.
Well, that does explain a few things.
Are planetary defense systems (such as the GBDP Ground based Phaser-4) only purchased and deployed in six-packs?
I think fighter bases or missile bases are tagged for individual sale. The direct fire bases are marked on their SSD's in a boxed set format. I just wasn't sure if that was for convenience or purpose.
They do seem to have individual price tags, so I'm guessing I can pop one or two out and ring them up at the cash register?
I hope that someday this community can find it in their hearts to forgive my total ignorance on this matter, thank you.
Can the planetary control base be built from individual elements (GWS + Ph-4 + fighter + PF)??
[progress over time?]
IIUC the direct-fire bases are shown that way on the SSD for convenience, because they will most often be deployed equally around a planet so there are no blind spots.
There is also an article in a back issue of Captain's Log that deals specifically with the evolution of the defenses for a planet.
Stewart? Your question suggests (to me) the idea of a set of ground bases linked by a power grid, but I suspect that's not what you're asking.
What I suspect you're wondering about is if a small base on a planet can be upgraded over time, much like an orbital base can be upgraded from Base Station to Battle Station to Sector Base.
Given the aforementioned upgrades in space, it seems highly reasonable that the "Progress over time" upgrading of a ground base ought to be pretty par for the course.
Joe? I think Terry hit the nail on the head. Sure, I suppose it'd be possible for there to just be one GBDP on a given Class-M planet, but it'd be just begging for someone to approach the world from the blind side, so Our Hosts reasonably figure there'll be an even deployment of the heavy weapons around the planet.
HOWEVER, mobile defenders (i.e.: the expensive fighter shuttles) may be in limited numbers, even on a world that's got more guns than some of my whacko survivalist friends from high school (seriously, the family of one of them had fifty Garand rifles and a fully functional M-1919 in their home), especially if the planetary leaders didn't see a need for a squadron or three to patrol the outer fringes of the star system.
I can easily picture two neighboring star systems, one with all its economic assets on a single planet, which they defend with no fewer than four GBDP per hex side (shudder), but with no real need for outsystem patrolling, they only have a single, small ground fighter base with a half squadron of F-20s, meanwhile their neighbor system has a resource poor inhabitable world, but tons of mining in a rich asteroid belt, so they have NO phasers defending the planet, but two dozen F-4 fighters, and a dozen F-16s, plus a squadron of B-17s to go out and protect the widely spread economic assets in their asteroid belt.
On a personal note, if I was playing against you, as long as the planetary (system?) defenses made sense, I'd be cool with whatever you assembled, and would hope we'd have an enjoyable game.
I'm inclined to agree, generally speaking. On the other hand, running off the CL22 article, it mentioned having 2 GBDP's (roughly 1 per battalion). The impression I got was that it was talking individual bases, not 6 point defensive systems. Furthermore it suggested that economically, missile bases might replace some of the phaser bases if/when the local bean counters have a say in it.
I must also consider playability, nobody will want to assault a starbase with an additional, planetside arsenal of 6 or 12 P4's or missile bases.
In a more developed campaign, such a thing could be whittled away at. But for my current purposes, effectively a patrol scenario, such 360 degree resources would likely be totally insurmountable.
Recently, while attempting to recruit a new player, he declined on account that Star Fleet Battles lacked sophistication . . .ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha! Whew, more? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
My current set up was going to be 2 missile bases, 2 P4 bases, 1 large bomber base, and 2 garrison bases. Plus 5 defense satalites and the starbase.
My opponent has countered with six P1 bases replacing the P4's entirely. And going with 3 missile bases, but downgrading the B1 bombers from 6 units to 3. Also, reducing defsat count to 3.
And that's another thing, what is up with 5 defsats?
Okay, I'll ask the dumb thing...
Why not just forego the planet and have the Starbase sitting in open space? No PDU, just the base, its mobile defenders, its minefield, and its attackers? If you're dealing with what's effectively a Patrol Scenario, it'll simplify things (slightly ).
As to your prospective new player, might I suggest that he, without really considering what he was saying, might have used the phrase, "Lacking sophistication" in a blind panic when facing the true sophistication of the game as a "Mirror Reflex," in which he was saying the exact opposite of what he was subconsciously (or unconsciously) feeling?
As far as the five DefSats go, in the unit description, IIRC, it says three in low orbit, two in high orbit. For me, I think of it as three in a low equatorial orbit and two in a more polar orbit. Given their function as transporter repeaters, it enables full global coverage to eliminate any blind spots in service.
(Think of it as for dead zones in cell phone service?)
Ah, I was thinking offensive coverage, not practical coverage on the defsats. That makes sense now.
As for your question why, Jeff, I'm reminded of that line from The Count of Monte Cristo: it's complicated.
My group, made up of 2, sometimes 3 people, have long wanted to play the Admiral's Campaign (U3.0). Both of my would be opponents are convinced that assaulting a starbase is futile. So we set out to play a series of starbase assaults to see what we think. We e pect to have occasional local terrain issues in our campaign and thus, in our starbase series wanted to test that too.
Originally, we set up a base and a planet/moon, but that game was stopped as we felt we'd made errors in set up. Since we'd stopped anyway, I wanted to follow up on one of my pet peeves that has bugged me for decades.
I've thumbed thru SSD books a thousand times, looking at all the cool stuff, bases both military and civilian, ground bases, etc, but my groups and games have never integrated all that fun looking stuff. So I figured, as long as we were starting game 3 over anyway, why not give a little life and character to the planet?
Time will tell if that was a wise decision or not. But it's an aspect of the game I've always wanted to experience and I'm hoping to have a fun run at it.
Okay, this might get REALLY scary, but can you imagine a minicampaign featuring three scenarios being played at the same time? Scenario one features an assault on a base, scenario two features an assault on a planet, and scenario three features an intercept of responding forces.
The attacker has "X" BPV available, and it can be pretty high (), but the defender has a higher BPV available, but some of it MUST be spent on the base in scenario one and some must also be spent on planetary defenses for scenario two.
Fleets in all three scenarios must abide by the Command Point limitations and the attacker must inform the defender of the total movement cost of each of the three groups.
Attacker and defender have the option of having a ship disengage from a given scenario to go to reinforce their group in another scenario, arriving an agreed upon number of turns later (i.e.: both players can agree on five turns transiting from scenario one to scenario two and vice versa, four turns for going between two and three, and three turns for going between one and three). Ships "In Transit" can conduct continuous damage repair, and all arrivals must also abide by the command point limits.
By necessity, the three scenarios must be played simultaneously, although if one game gets a couple turns ahead, as long as units going from one to another won't arrive before leaving their origin (basically, no more than three turns apart, for the time it takes to get from scenario one to three and vice versa).
While I think it MIGHT be fun, I'm also thinking I need a check up from the neck up for even THINKING of something this outrageous. What do you all think?
You would also use the time between scenarios to reload weapons.