Archive through May 30, 2024
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB General Discussions:
Archive through May 30, 2024
Umm...
...
Yeah...
Oops...
Well, looking back at my last post, it even looks to me to be somewhere between awful and offal.
Can we just, "Let's Pretend," like it never happened?
Perhaps its only saving grace... No, that's too strong a term. Perhaps its only (fill in the blank with a hopefully comedic term) is to make the upcoming REAL ship look better? Please? 
It was a bit of high spirits; the sort of enthusiastic "YAHOOO!!" that nerotypical people will normally filter out of their behavior, but which I sometimes have trouble doing.
Mike, do both for SFB and send them to me and I'll do FC for the July newsletter.
For the PGE, I am making the following changes:
- Make the HB into Ph-G with FA+L and FA+R arcs.
- Make the center FUS into Ph-G with FX arcs.
- Make the wing FUS into Ph-2 with unchanged arcs.
I just feel that the wing fusions should only become Ph-2s because their arcs are too limited and because putting seven Ph-G on this thing is just excessive. The Ph-2s help and it still gets five Ph-Gs.
I think the APR in the wings should remain. These are needed to help rearm any fighters it picks up (including its own) and are very useful in that role. However, I am very willing to convert the APR in the main hull to cargo, but I am not sure that the Hydrans would have done that. I guess I'll do it anyway, and SPP can direct me to change it back if he wants.
My main concern from the F&E front is that their numbers indicate only four fighters, not six. Reducing this to just four fighters would be a needless change that would look odd. Despite this minor mismatch, I would very much like to keep it as six fighters and just hand-wave any discrepancy.
Ken, I do need a rule number for it, and a YIS.
For the PGZ, I do the following:
- Delete all the heavy weapons.
- Delete all the APR, except the two in the rear wing.
- Delete the two shuttles in the main hull.
- Move the center phasers, bridge, and hull forward.
- Move the two batteries into the center opening created below the hull.
- Fill in the gaps between deleted boxes.
- Replace each pair of fighters in the side wing with an HTS.
- Replace the pair of fighters in the rear wing with normal shuttles.
This gives four cargo in each of the side wings and eight cargo on each side of the main hull, for a total of 24 boxes of cargo. That seems like a reasonable total, as that is the same as an entire Klingon or Kzinti cargo pod. The fighters are all removed because the F&E ship has no fighters. Ergo, they go bye-bye.
Again, I need a YIS for this ship. (I can figure out the rule number when I get the PGE rule number.)
EDIT: Looks like the rule numbers should be A22 and A23. Does that seem correct?
Mike:
Unless overruled by ADB, F&E counters are tied directly to the fighter count on the SSDs as we have a mandate from ADB to maintain continuity in the SFU. By claiming ‘handwavium’ we are then required to reprint the counter as it doesn’t match the fighter count. Back in about 2004, ADB told the F&E staff that all the then new Pegasus variants were going to be included in the new FO and AO products and told us the factors to be used on the counters and SITs which included the PGE. We saluted and included it as required, thinking ADB has an unpublished SSD on hand to match the the F&E factors given. My thought today is that there was intent to include the PGE in CL29 and that it was dropped due to space requirements or that they didn’t have an even number of Hydran ships to publish them as back-to-back Hydran SSDs.
Respectfully,
Chuck Strong
FEDS
So, just tell me how many fighters it should have.
It is unfortunate that the F&E ships are made such that they make the SFB ships do silly things. There is no reason for that ship to have only four fighters. It looks stupid that way. But, if that is what is needed, I will break the design to fit the F&E counter.
Is there an F&E effect of having cargo on an escort? If so, that will prevent the use of cargo, too.
I will make the ship look however it needs to look, but its value to the game takes a huge hit when it is forced to make absolutely no sense. Unless, of course, the point is to make a terrible ship. If that's the goal, then, ok, I guess.
Cargo would be spare parts for fighters.
There is a reason they built none.
Many Fed and a few Fish escorts have cargo for spare fighters and parts. I could see the how the Hydrans might consider a Pegasus for such a role after being driven into the old colonies but in the end that they must of had higher variant priorities for the hull.
Perhaps there was a thought that the ship could continue to haul standard cargo in some capacity? So fewer fighters and more cargo capacity as an (unsuccessful) compromise?
--Mike
Or….F&E could follow the SFB SSD design doctrine and increase the F&E fighter count from 2 to 3 and the back from 1 to 1.5. Having this number of hybrid fighters means it matches the Hydran destroyer escort. VULKAN sheet which does appear in FO is up for reprint (which is why we were looking at SSDs and ship lists to find some bonus items to add…when it was discovered this one was absent.)
The change to the counter, if approved, would require a slight (but easy) change to the Hydran SIT to increase the cost to build / convert (adding that extra hybrid).
Either way players win as we get the two SSDs.
You get the SSDs no matter what. I don't have to like the designs. I just have to make sure of what they are.
I guess I'll do this with the PGE: It still has six ready racks, but only four fighters. The other two have shuttles like a normal escort would. Need to make a note for that, but that seems like it fits the "the Pegasus is a weird beast" vibe the class should have. I'll also not convert any APR to cargo and just leave it as APR. The thought is that they thought it would be important for it to rearm fighters. Whether that is actually is useful or not is irrelevant; that was the plan.
Also, new question: The PGZ can carry a certain amount of EPs. How many cargo boxes does this imply? I can get anywhere from 16 to 26 without too much issue.
I still need to know YIS for both ships.
Update: The PGZ design that looks good now has 20 cargo. Is that an appropriate number to match the counter? I can easily make it have anywhere from 12-20 cargo boxes. To get more requires even more compromises, but I can get all the way to 26. So, I just need a number of cargo boxes to include.
Mike:
Take a look at the PGF (R9.A5) as it has FOUR fighter bays...and if the Hydrans are converting for the PGZ then how is that any different for the PGF?
PGZ YIS: Y160; Carries 7 EP of internal cargo but it CANNOT carry any pods. If you are going with 20 Cargo, then that is a near match with the LTT that also carries 7 EP of internal cargo.
PGE YIS Y174
I like the idea of this odd duck having 6 ready racks and yet only 4 of its own fighters, to me that screams carrier escort support ship.
I don't have my copy of Captain's Log #25 to hand, but I somewhat recall the Pegasus class history article printed there speaking of the class being of Middle Years origins. Something about the scout variant being first used by the Guilds as traffic control units?
In any case, Module G3 lists the PGS as having a YIS date of Y145, though the Hydran SIT for F&E lists it as Y160. (Perhaps the Guilds kept it to themselves initially, with it only being made available for use by the Hydran Navy at the latter date?)
So, while the provisional SIT entry in said PDF suggests a YIS date of Y150, I would ask if the SSD could have a revised YIS date of Y134 - thus enabling it to play a support role during the first liberation of Hydrax.
If an F&E counter exists, follow it.
It would almost be simpler to use this as an FCR variant (cargo and few fighters) …
On the PGZ, if 20 cargo works, then I think that ship is ready to go. I have even included a little note saying it isn't a tug.
On the PGE, I will check the PGR. But unless I see something weird, I think what I have will work, even it is a bit odd. Still a missed opportunity, though.
Thanks for the YIS dates!
With the PGF, it still has a two box shuttle bay in each wing. It's just that it needs an HTS for some reason, so that's why it only has four fighters. A carrier escort doesn't need an HTS or normal admins in that shuttle bay; it needs fighters and ready racks. So, to be clear, the PGF does have all three wing shuttle bays. It simply repurposes one of those shuttle bays for something it needs in its flagship role.
With the PGE, there is no such need. It is going to have those three wing shuttle bays and the original two one-box bays in the main hull. So, the shuttle boxes are not going anywhere. Also, don't forget that the main hull has all six fighters. Why on Hydra would the designer remove two of those fighters on a carrier escort that carries its own fighters? The designers at the Pegasus ship yards were morons. They truly sucked at their jobs.
Anyway, I am going with my last description for the PGE. It will have six ready racks, but only four fighters. I will also change none of the APR to cargo, even though it should. It should have either four or six cargo boxes, but that is not possible either. This ship could have been a truly cool escort. Now it makes no sense. You're better off with a DE (a SC4 escort) in its place. At least the DE designers were smart enough to put six fighters on it. But, it is what it is, I guess.
Chuck,
You said above the YIS of the PGZ is Y160, but the SIT chart extract you quoted from even earlier said Y150. Which is correct? I'm going with Y150 for now, but can change it if you and SPP want it changed. (I have no dog in that fight. I'm just putting it together.)
Mike:
Sounds like the Guilds had more than a little graft involved....
The SIT data can change to meet whatever data ADB wants the SFU data to report including whatever year in service. This ship was allegedly used by the Guilds as a cargo carrier and later modified for military purposes. When the F&E staff asked ADB what ship was the base hull of the PGS/PFT (for salvage and production costs) we were told that it was the PGZ (a ship we had not heard of before). Which then led us to ask for the SIT data for the PGZ which ADB provided. Whatever the case, I’m glad that this is being resolved. Thanks.
I submitted both ships, and kept them in line with the counters. There may be some corrections to be made, but both will likely end up being Newsletter ships (either one at a time or together).
The Pegasus had to wait a long time to find it's one, true destiny as a PFT!
A disappointing escort, a disastrous Cruiser, and a wrong-headed flagship-scout-cruiser surely points to Guild incompetence (or designer ship history without introducing a game-changer to traditional fleet choices).
But are the number of casual fighters a problem of design, or doctrine? That is, does the Admiralty want to save the price of two fighters per escort, or is there some engineering difference between being able to land and service six squadron fighters in battle and being able to carry six of your own for months on end? Something perhaps not shown on the SSD, lost between the Cruiser and the Escort. (I should say chosen on the path from freighter to Cruiser, but not to Escort.)
Considering I am giving it six ready racks, but only four fighters, I have to assume it is just general strategic doctrine that the ship should have two of those ready racks available for use by carrier fighters. And with all of its power, it should be able to power those ready rack rechargers. Of course, I don't know how many fighters come back twice, so I doubt it actually makes a difference. But that is still likely the general idea behind the odd deployment.
I think you need to rethink this. Otherwise you get into the question of why EVERY ADMIN SHUTTLE BOX DOES NOT HAVE FIGHTER READY RACKS. In simple terms a Ranger could re-arm 12 fighters so it does not matter that the Lancer Destroyer is destroyed, you can still rearm three of its fighters. Lets not forget all those Hunter FFs. Ultimately there is a cost to having all these ready racks AND DECK CREWS without fighters year after year. So frankly I cannot in good conscience approve this design decision.