Mike, The K4E exists as the K4R (R4.10) which were converted to the K4D (R4.67).

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Sunday, June 02, 2024 - 02:59 pm: Edit

Yeah, I figured that out. The K4D is the K4E and there is no K4A, as the K4D never gets full aegis. My bad. (The Romulans are not the most consistent in their ship codes.)

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Sunday, June 02, 2024 - 03:43 pm: Edit

Should the Leader version be the K4C or the K4L? The others are both (C before refit; L after refit). However, the K4 leader gets no refit. So, should it be the K4C or the K4L?

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, June 02, 2024 - 05:28 pm: Edit

Recommend K4C unless ADB objects.

By Frank Lemay (Princeton) on Monday, June 03, 2024 - 12:11 pm: Edit

SPP,
The Klingon MDW is a mauler but I see no SHOCK value on the SSD in R10.
I know the MD5 has a SHOCK value of 13.

Would 13 be the value for the MDW ?

Thanks.

Cheers
Frank

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, June 03, 2024 - 01:46 pm: Edit

Frank Lemay:

The Klingon MDW has a shot rating of 17 as given in the ships subject to shock table (Annex #7S).

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, June 03, 2024 - 02:12 pm: Edit

Mike West:The Romulan K5R had five Phaser-2s, and according to its SSD never had any of them updated to Phser-1s. The Romulan K5C had two phaser-1 and a later up date had its remaining phaser-2s upgraded. I do no see any real reason the Romulan K4 series leader should not follow the same pattern, i.e., K4C would have the boom phaser-2s of the Klingon E4 upgraded to phaser-1s, and the later K4L would also have is RX phaser-2s upgraded. But then, I have often been accused of having a fondness for the E4.

By Frank Lemay (Princeton) on Monday, June 03, 2024 - 02:19 pm: Edit

Thanks SPP.
My aging eyes failed to find it in Annex 7S.

Cheers
Frank

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Monday, June 03, 2024 - 03:09 pm: Edit

SPP: Yes, but ...

The Romulan K4R did not upgrade its phasers at all. The K4R has only Ph-2s; no Ph-1s. Likewise, the Klingon E4C has only Ph-2s all around; no Ph-1s. Therefore, I was making the assumption that the K4C would just have Ph-2s all around with no upgrade taking place.

I looks like both the Klingons and the Romulans did not share your opinion of the E4 ...

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, June 04, 2024 - 03:03 pm: Edit

My opinion about the E4 s simply that the design appealed to me, especially the rewrite for the commander's edition which gave the ship an APR. It is still a relatively weak ship and cannot take a solid punch and continue to fight. But I like it. As to service with the Romulans. I admit to only looking at the base E4 to K4 and F-5 to K5. And based on that, I thought the Romulans might put some phaser-1s on a leader version of the E4. After all, they produced enough phaser-1 gyros for the Snipe, even a Snipe-A/P has phaser-1s. But if your research indicates that the Romulans did not make phaser-1s for the K4C/L, so be it.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, June 04, 2024 - 06:15 pm: Edit

Smaller ships can be more challenging to operate than larger ships.

The bigger the challenge, the more rewarding the victory.

My favorite has always been the much maligned and often overlooked Federation POL.

I once won a lunch bet proving that a single POL could beat the planet eater that ate Sheboygan.

Just a Quarter Pounder With Cheese, fries and a root beer, but it was enough for me.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, June 05, 2024 - 02:50 pm: Edit

I kind of like the notion that the Romulans might have upgraded the phasers on the K4C since they have the better capability to do their own upgrade studies of the hull.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Wednesday, June 05, 2024 - 04:00 pm: Edit

Again, my hesitancy is this:
- The Klingon E4 never received a K-refit. It always has Ph-2s and never had Ph-1s.
- The Klingon E4C did not get Ph-1s. (Unlike the F5C, which did.)
- The Klingon E4C did not get a K-refit. (Unlike the F5C, which did.)

The Romulans, with the exception of the KR-dreadnoughts, almost never put Ph-1s where the Klingons did not. Ergo, I just don't see the Romulans inventing a Ph-1 refit for the K4C in a way that the Klingons never even contemplated doing.

The other issue is that it is one thing to put a full Ph-1 onto a Snipe where it never had phasers before. But it is quite another to take a low survivability ship with "good enough" phasers and upgrade them to Ph-1s. The Ph-2s are already there. The ship isn't very good. Live with what you got and use those Ph-1 components on a more effective ship.

BTW, I got this approach from Petrick. When we were working through the K1 gunboat (the Romulan version of the G1 gunboat), I wanted to put Ph-1s on that little boat. But Petrick used the example of the K4R to show that the Romulans just aren't going to upgrade "good enough" Ph-2s on disposable ships. And the K4C is just as disposable as the K4R.

Putting this all together, I just don't see why the K4C should have Ph-1s.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, June 05, 2024 - 05:10 pm: Edit

Lots of things can be done, but SFB has a lot of history and tries to Make decisions consistent with the history as possible. PFs are, ultimately far more expendable and with shorter life span than even a Klingon G2. E4s have a much longer lifespan, but still less than a D5, much less than an F5. In any event, I could have seen the K4C having phaser-1s (it is not a G1L for example), but I am convinced that based on the established Klingon and Romulan histories I accept that it would retain the phaser-2s, but I cannot help but lust over those phaser-1s.

By Dal Downing (Rambler) on Thursday, June 06, 2024 - 05:02 pm: Edit

Okay curious question time. Why are all the Romulan Eagle Ships (SN,BH WE) Turn Mode D? The Snipe is even a D + Nimble.

By Nick Samaras (Koogie) on Thursday, June 06, 2024 - 05:50 pm: Edit

They are relics from the sublight era.

By Robert Russell Lender (Rusman) on Thursday, June 06, 2024 - 05:55 pm: Edit

Hello all,

A few Freighter questions please. Recently, I was perusing the lovely artwork for Backgrounds and stumbled on this...

http://www.starfleetgames.com/wallpaper/Booster-31-32-33-Panorama%201440.jpg

At the far bottom right is a freighter variant with EIGHT pods. I thought the largest freighter was the Large Ore Carrier and it's variants with four pods total. But the picture clearly shows eight pods on this ship. What ship is this?

Behind & portside from the Kzinti tug is a freighter with a big oval shaped pod and a much larger than standard command hull section. What ship is this?

Below the Tholian Mini-Tug is a freighter with two pods end to end style like a Federation tug hauls its pods. What ship is this?

Am I missing a recently released module with new freighter types? Just wondering what these freighters are and would appreciate some feedback on them.

Thanks in advance and have a wonderful day.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Thursday, June 06, 2024 - 06:19 pm: Edit

You are misinterpreting the picture.

The freighter in the bottom right has four pods. You are looking at the dark band around each of the four pods as a separation between two small pods. It isn't. It is just a band of paint, but unlike the red bands, they are light blue with a black stripe. But the freighter only has four pods.

Likewise, the pod under the Tholian mini-tug is just a single pod freighter. Probably just a standard small freighter.

I don't remember what the ship behind the Kzinti tug is, but it is a standard already published ship; nothing extraordinary.

But you are just letting the decorative bands fool your eyes. They are standard existing freighters.

EDIT: I am going to take a wild guess and say that the ship behind the Kzinti tug is a Fast Naval Transport.

By Robert Russell Lender (Rusman) on Thursday, June 06, 2024 - 07:40 pm: Edit

Mike,

I went and did a zoom in shot of this and I see what you are talking about. They are definately just standard sized pods with painted bands around the middle of the cylinders. Thanks for pointing that out.

The one behind the Kzinti tug may well be the Fast Naval Transport. I really can't think of anything else it might be unless there is a new ship in some product or unless Adam Turner was just taking some creative liberty with his image artwork.

Thanks very much

By Robert Russell Lender (Rusman) on Friday, June 07, 2024 - 03:01 am: Edit

I zoomed in again on the image and now have a followup question...

If that's the Fast Naval Transport (or whatever it is), what are the apparent side hull painted labels 1 through 8 for? Are they some kind of bay doors or what?

Maybe clearing up what ship that actually is would answer my question. Or maybe the plot just keeps thickening.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Friday, June 07, 2024 - 09:46 am: Edit

I just dug out and checked the FNT SSD (from R12). There are four separated rows of cargo boxes in the main hull. Presumably, those labelled hatches are either end of each of those four rows. So, they are likely hatches to access the cargo spaces. (I assume the shuttle hatch would be hidden from view on the bottom of the ship.)

Note that this implies nothing on game play. It is just an artistic impression of how to most easily access the cargo in the ship.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Friday, June 07, 2024 - 10:08 am: Edit

Totally new question, unrelated to the above freighter discussions.

Is there a production limit on warp engines by size?

Let's take the Federation NCA. It is built using two NCL engines and one FF engine. Is there any particular non-technobabble, in-universe reason it couldn't have been built using two CA engines?

I am not looking to change the NCA. I have no desire for that. I am only using this ship as an example because I know it extremely well. I am asking because of a different ship for a different empire I am working on.

Same for the HDW. Is there any particular non-technobabble, in-universe reason it couldn't have been built using two NCL engines?

As a follow-up, is there any non-technobabble reason the NCA couldn't just use five frigate engines? Well, other than "Wow! That's an ugly ship!"

Ooo! For that matter, why doesn't the NCL use four frigate engines? That would have saved the Federation an absolute ton of money! They wouldn't have had to waste time and resources to develop a whole new warp engine (and a "hot" one at that). They could have just used what are presumably the cheaper, easier to build frigate engines and been done with it. As an added bonus, ADB could have said they had the Stargazer before the Stargazer even existed!

(Totally valid meta-game answers to the various follow-on questions include:
"No one thought of it."
"We wanted the weird engine configuration."
"We thought this looked cooler."
I am not looking to change anything that already exists. I just want to know if new ships can take a different approach when it makes sense to do so.)

By Robert Russell Lender (Rusman) on Friday, June 07, 2024 - 10:51 am: Edit

Well, I might say the engine nacelle mounting hard points were not strong enough to safely hold a CA engine (same for the HDW holding CL engines).

Maybe embedding a new hard point on bottom where the FF engine goes was all they could muster on the ship.

Conversely, there may have been no space to include the extra mounting points for five FF engines.

Not quite technobabble, but that would be my assertion.

By Will McCammon (Djdood) on Friday, June 07, 2024 - 12:27 pm: Edit

There have been references that the CA engines are expensive and somewhat difficult to build (being the bulk of the cost of a fleet tug, etc.)

While the NCA probably could have used them (and the NLF did), they weren't amenable to wartime mass-production the way the NCL engine was.

Mounting point strength seems to be a factor, but not an insurmountable one when really desired (as in the case of the NLF).

The pattern seems to be that difficulty and costs increase with engine power and size. The (very) pre-war FF engine seems to have adapted well to being produced in vast numbers.

As to why using a few larger, more expensive engines, than more, cheaper engines, I'd hazard that it has something to do with technobabble. Possibly that fewer does the job more efficiently, using less "fuel" and requiring much less maintenance.

As to why the quite sizable HDW used FF engines, that one I think was more for commonality with its stablemates to keep it aligned to the FF logistics and support network. It and the DW are in some ways overgrown FF derivatives, so the loss in operational efficiency could be balanced by a big increase in logistical efficiency.

By Will McCammon (Djdood) on Friday, June 07, 2024 - 12:41 pm: Edit

To confirm Mike's answer to one of the questions above, yes, that is Adam Turner's interpretation of the FNT fast naval transport.

I'm not sure if SVC had done his line-art when Adam built his model, or not. If Adam was just working from the SSD, then this model, with a lot of SFU freighter influence, was a reasonable representation.

SVC's line art is a much less modular-looking design, with a very angular front end. The model built for ADB's Shapeways store interpreted SVC's line-art, with some influence (the cargo bay doors and some other things) from Adam's.
https://www.shapeways.com/product/LV7KFLQ95/omni-scale-general-fast-naval-transport-fnt-wem?optionId=237322031&li=marketplace