This concept is, indeed, already in SFB and F&E. Enjoy the published materials.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, May 08, 2024 - 02:25 pm: Edit

Pre-positioned ships would be a matter of where their need is expected. How quickly the troops to operate the equipment can be mobilized and moved to the equipment and take control and ready it for service (clean out all of the materials for storage and fix anything that has since broken, lets not talk of the damage by civilian contractors who may have seen an opportunity to steal. Finally, if you are going to secure such ships from raids by pirates, taking the above into account, you will have the ships loaded with their sets of brigade (or division) stores located at a Starbase. Such bases are conveniently located and well defended Seriously, I do not see any reason not to have them there.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, May 08, 2024 - 06:09 pm: Edit

Mike,

Thank you, I knew I was forgetting some things.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, May 08, 2024 - 09:15 pm: Edit

If you are looking to add something to the game, perhaps a design study of the heavy lift ship that carried the U.S.S. Cole (no relation to SVC so far as I know…) home after that terrorist boat bombing years ago. Happened somewhere in the middle east in a harbor during a port visit If I Recall Correctly (IIRC)

Anyway, the ship had a wet deck that they could ballast down so the U.S.S. Cole could be positioned on. Once secured, the pair of vessels sailed to the United States to a state side ship yard.

As it is now, you either have to tow the damaged ship with a tug or other warp capable vessel, or send a FRD or other repair ship. A FRD would be terribly slow.

Not always possible during combat.

A fast heavy lift tug type that could reach faster speeds than a regular tug or a FRD could fit the bill.

Perhaps named in honor of a deceased ships chief engineer with a Scottish accent? Just a thought.

By Shawn Gordon (Avrolancaster) on Thursday, May 09, 2024 - 08:35 am: Edit

Is there already a recovery freighter?

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Thursday, May 09, 2024 - 10:15 am: Edit

Shawn? There is the Salvage Tug (in Module R8), various Skids (R11, IIRC), and the Armed Recovery Transport (R12, again IIRC) based on the APT.

While none of these are labeled as "Recovery Freighters," they all do (or help with) that job.

By Shawn Gordon (Avrolancaster) on Thursday, May 09, 2024 - 11:49 am: Edit

Thank you. I have all of those modules, but I'm nowhere near them and couldn't remember if there was a recovery auxiliary or not.

Would the salvage tug, recovery skid(s), and recovery transport not fill the role Jeff Wile is suggesting?

By Douglas Saldana (Dsal) on Thursday, May 09, 2024 - 12:29 pm: Edit

I think the closest equivalent to what Jeff Wile is talking about is the Old Galaxy Pirate ships which can actually tuck captured freighters under their wings rather than towing them.

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Thursday, May 09, 2024 - 02:14 pm: Edit

Terry O'Carroll, what advantages are you thinking of when you said that anchored webs have advantages over globular webs? Please don't just send me to the rulebook. I have done my research and am interested in what I may have missed.

I know that anchors aid in faster spinning of circular webs over globular webs. The Tholians can have every web spinning ship available aid in spinning the web, and they can dump any extra energy into strengthening the web before the circle is completed. This doesn't take into account the use of Web Casters which can speed this up significantly. This advantage is lost should the enemy choose to destroy even a single asteroid and force the associated web to dissolve.

A globular web can only have a maximum of 2 ships spinning the web during any individual impulse, although they are able to pass the baton to other spinners so long as there are only 2 ships spinning the web. (G10.121) mentions the 2 ships spinning the globular web, and (G10.1162) mentions passing along the anchor status to another ship. (G10.125) says that the globular web cannot be reinforced until the circle is closed. These rules make anchored linear circles much faster to construct and strengthen than globular webs.

Globular webs cannot be opened to allow for non-web capable ships to pass freely, whereas linear webs can be by more than one method. A single ship can cause the collapse of 2 segments, and 3 ships can be positioned to limit the collapse to a single hex of web.

Asteroids have their uses as well, but we need to keep in mind that they are individual asteroids and not asteroid hexes, so there are no navigational hazards to consider. Asteroids can support a single ground base, but in neither of the two scenarios with asteroids as anchors are there any asteroids hosting ground bases. Ships can dock to the asteroids, and can do so with a downed shield against the asteroid and be positioned away from the enemy base. This utility is only minimally useful, and more useful to the enemy as the Tholian ships can simply move behind the next inner web to become invulnerable to direct weapons fire. The Tholians wouldn't pay to have an advantage to be used by the enemy. (I didn't ignore that an enemy ship which docks a downed shield on an asteroid anchor is then stuck in the web.)

If I missed any advantages of anchored web over globular webs, please let me know what they are, especially if those advantages justify the 450 BPV of having 18 of them as in (SH6.0) and SH110.0).

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, May 09, 2024 - 05:00 pm: Edit

John Christiansen: If you lay globular web it is globular web. If you want to open a gap for whatever reason (an allied ship wants entry, you want to fire some weapons at a distant target, you want to lure the attackers into your carefully laid trap such as a cluster of NSMs, etc.) the web becomes vulnerable (a key ship gets blown up and another ship was not in position to take up anchor status for example). These weaknesses can occur with anchored web laid around a base, of course, but in the case of web laid in segments there is always an anchor. If the web from hex A to hex F is opened for a bit by an anchoring ship moving a few (hexes C to E) hexes to allow passage and the anchoring ship is destroyed, the web is still anchored by the asteroids in hexes A and F(this assumes a circular web ). Yes, the web will collapse to the anchors, but it will not collapse beyond them and it is relatively easier to repair that stretch of web than to rebuild the entire layer of the cake, not to mention powering the rebuilt layer back up.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Thursday, May 09, 2024 - 06:22 pm: Edit

So far as unorthodox tug units go, the "lost empire" Paravians in Module C6 have dreadnought- and battleship-sized Raid Motherships. These are capable of carrying their full pod-weight amounts with no reductions in their respective Move Costs or Turn Modes.

That said, over in Federation and Empire, pod-carrying tugs are not any slower than "unloaded" tugs in terms of their operational or strategic movement rates - unless they are transporting a fleet repair dock, or are "overloaded" in terms of the pod weights they have been assigned to carry.

In other words, even if a "standard" Alpha Octant tug or LTT is slowed down by its use of pods (or other things it is carrying) at a tactical (SFB or FC) level, for the most part it can "cruise" and/or "dash" as normal once it successfully disengages.

Also, since crippled ships over in F&E retain most, if not quite all, of their uncrippled movement rates, that game system does not directly account for the concept of towing a ship back to the nearest repair facility, as opposed to letting to get there under its own power.

Although, there is an interesting "mission" which a tug or LTT can be assigned, courtesy of F&E Planetary Operations: to serve as a repair tug. This enables the unit to change the status of a single allied ship per battle hex from "destroyed" to "crippled". As in, once the ship has been so rescued, and if it isn't destroyed again in subsequent battle rounds, the owning player might later attempt to have the ship escape to a friendly repair facility under its own power.

This can be a dangerous action for tugs or LTTs trying to rescue ships of equal or larger sizes than themselves, however; the greater the number of "size steps" involved, the more likely the transport is itself crippled, or even destroyed, in the attempt...

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, May 09, 2024 - 11:15 pm: Edit

Douglas Saldana is correct.

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Friday, May 10, 2024 - 03:35 pm: Edit

SPP, I appreciate the response, I really do. I understand the point you were making, and have even made that point to others giving them the relevant rule numbers as well.

My original question is, "Why do the Tholians only "sometimes" put asteroid anchors in their webs?" Asteroid anchors are found only in 2 published scenarios, and those were written by people in ADB. The only other Tholian asteroid scenario was written by a player and submitted, and those asteroids were not yet anchoring webs. All other Tholian scenarios with webs around bases or planets either omit the mention of asteroids or they specify globular webs.

Added to the first post I made on this subject is the discrepancy I found in the beginning web strengths of low-power generator buoy supported webs being mentioned as both Strength 0 (G10.8) and Weapons Status 0 strengths (G10.833). They are not the same.

I also proposed a change to the low-power generator buoy rules. The low-power generator buoys currently are mentioned only in abstract, so I suggested that they be required to be mounted on asteroids and that they only affect linear webs. This would not affect the playability of any published scenario in any way. The globular webs in the mentioned scenarios simply get asteroids with low-power generator buoys assigned at their corners with no changes in the scenarios' orders of battle in any other way.

For (S8.0) pickup scenarios involving the Tholians defending a base or planet with pre-existing webs, this would require that the Tholians buy the asteroids if they want the webs. This would provide continuity to all of the published scenarios and would put 2-strand buzzsaws on an economic parity with wedding cakes. The only part of the rules which might have to be changed is the statement in (G10.821) which states that points can be saved by using a globular web. From a single scenario aspect, this is true. From a more long term look during which someone has to power the webs using fuel and ships, this is more dubious. People are taking this to mean that a whole lot of points (450 BPV) can be saved and then spent on other things which pack a punch. Even if a base or planet can maintain an adjacent web at the non-combat low power minimum levels, this still allows for 300 BPV extra reinforcement of the Tholian defenses. This results in the Tholians having an exceptionally strong defense with the given BPV that no attacker can overcome in a single scenario.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Friday, May 24, 2024 - 06:30 pm: Edit

Can someone locate the Hydran Pegasus Escort SSD?

I cannot locate it and have exhausted all the usual locations (or at least where information has pointed). I thought it was in CLog 25, 28, or 29 but it is not there.
It also seems missing from the H-MSSB.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Saturday, May 25, 2024 - 04:54 pm: Edit

There is no such creature, Lar. There's the scout, carrier, flagship cruiser, light cruiser, survey cruiser, commando scout, PF tender, and X-ship PF tender, but no escort.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Saturday, May 25, 2024 - 09:16 pm: Edit

No such ship you say ... Hmm ...

But would such a ship make sense? I mean as much as any of the other variants. Some are pretty lack-luster. Would an escort stand out in the mix?

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Saturday, May 25, 2024 - 09:26 pm: Edit

The Hydran Pegasus Escort it is in F&E and has been for like forever. Which is why we are looking for the SSD.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, May 25, 2024 - 10:33 pm: Edit

Does the MSIT give a rule reference? Or just say 'future'?

Mike, sounds like the July newsletter ship.

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Saturday, May 25, 2024 - 11:48 pm: Edit

The SIT says CL29 but it's not there. Might have been planned but then cut.

Mike,

If it is in the newsletter please be sure to run it by the F&E staff since we already have a counter printed for it.

4-7(2) ESCORT/2-4(1)ESCORT

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Sunday, May 26, 2024 - 01:31 am: Edit

CL29's Hydran SSDS are the:

FFT - Transport Frigate (R9.A11)
CW(C) - Hydran-Lryan War Cruiser (Captured Ship) (R9.A12)
DW(C) - Hydran-Lryan War Destroyer (Captured Ship) (R9.A13)

Here are all the ships with Pegasus in the name. Wasn't there an article on the Pegasus class?

Rule Complete	Unit Type	Unit Name	SSD PageNo
R9.12	PFT	Pegasus PF Tender	K- 45
R9.125	PGC	Pegasus Light Cruiser	R12- 71
R9.127	PGF	Pegasus Flagship Cruiser	R12- 73
R9.126	PGG	Pegasus Commando Scout	R12- 72
R9.122	PGR	Pegasus Survey Cruiser	R11- 66
R9.128	PGS	Pegasus Scout	R12- 74
R9.90	PGV	Pegasus-V Light Carrier	J2- 56
R9.214	PGX	Pegasus-X Advanced Technology Fast Patrol Ship Tender	X1R- 64
R14.A3	PGC	Pegasus Light Cruiser	CL41 Pg- 113

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Sunday, May 26, 2024 - 02:47 am: Edit

Yup,

The F&E Staff has looked everywhere for it and can't find it. Certain it's unknown, never built variant.

By Jack Bohn (Jackbohn) on Sunday, May 26, 2024 - 10:27 am: Edit

The Class History in CL#25 doesn't mention such a use, but it's not the intention of such articles to rule out inventing one now. Merely as a practical matter, there's no mention of changes to the SSD of which ship. There was only one Light Cruiser version built, and that wa destroyed in it's first battle. Perhaps this was a "demotion" of the Flagship Cruiser, or a pre-commissioning redesign of a PGV to escort one of its sisters.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Sunday, May 26, 2024 - 12:52 pm: Edit

Okay, IF we have established that this ship is not YET in SFB, what would it take to present it, even if it's listed as "Conjectural?"

Normal (Hydran) policy for turning a ship type into an escort is to use the Fusion Beam armed variant, replace the Fusion Beams with Gatling Phasers, and install Aegis. HOWEVER, the Pegasus Light Cruiser (R9.125) is a mixed armament ship.

Given the F&E combat stats for the ship, 4-7(2) ESCORT/2-4(1) ESCORT, might I suggest taking the Pegasus Light Cruiser configuration, replace all three Fusion Beams with Gatling Phasers, remove the two Hellbore Cannons, replace the four main hull APR with eight Cargo (giving the ship the same ability as many Federation escorts to carry extra fighters as stored cargo), and replace the two APR in the central fin with two additional Fighters in a continuous bay with the Fighters in that fin.

This is only an off-the-cuff idea; if some of you who more regularly play Hydrans have a better one, please feel free to put me in my place.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, May 26, 2024 - 03:17 pm: Edit

Jeff, see my 10:23

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, May 26, 2024 - 05:59 pm: Edit

Note also that there is also the 'original' Pegasus-Z cargo hauler (not a tug) which has also no SSD. When the staff asked what the base hull of the Pegasus was (for inclusion in the then new SITS), ADB told us that the PGZ was the original Guild transport ship and was included as part of the the ~2004 update to the Fighter Operations.


From SITS:
Designation: PGZ
Ref#: Future
Factors: 3-7/0-4
Product: FO
CR 6
YIS: Y150
Size: PGZ(3)
From: None
For: DD: 7
Salv: 1.750
Notes Original, non-tug cargo variant of Pegasus; carries 7 EPs; Base Hull.