Archive through October 22, 2024
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB General Discussions:
Archive through October 22, 2024
Steve,
That's not what the ship is doing. Let me put it this way:
Every single non-Hydran escort has two ready racks with shuttles present. Every. Single. One. This is not a problem and is the way escorts are built.
The design I made for the PGE has this exact situation. It has two ready racks with shuttles present. Like virtually every carrier escort ever made in the entire SFU. It's unique flavor is that in addition, it also has four fighters present, each with their own ready racks.
So, really, this ship has nothing wrong or exceptional about it, nor is it doing anything that is exploitable by anyone else. It has two ready racks without fighters. This is done already in the game by everyone. It has four fighters with ready racks. This is done already by the Hydrans in all or almost all of their escorts. Neither is unusual or exploitable.
The uniqueness is doing both on the same ship. But, again, this is not exploitable by anyone. If any non-Hydran escort wanted to carry fighters, they could already. This doesn't enable anything they can't already do. If any other Hydran fighter wanted to have two ready racks without fighters, they can do that, too. Just buy two less fighters. So, for example, the Hydran DE could have this exact configuration by simply buying four fighters instead of six. In fact, every single Hydran escort can duplicate this configuration by simply buying two fewer fighters. (No one will do that willingly, but it is an option.) Again, nothing new, nothing exploitable, nothing exceptional.
I fail to see how this could ever cause any problem, other than for the sucker who buys this ship instead of a DE.
TL;DR
This is not setting any precedent of putting a ready rack into any admin shuttle boxes. This ship is just one that has the two permitted ready racks in shuttle boxes because it is a carrier escort AND it has four fighters of its own. While it is an unusual combination, it is simply combining standard carrier escort configuration with standard Hydran casual fighter configuration.
Sigh. Mike West. The Hydran Frigate has one shuttle, not two. It does have a ready rack in the shuttle bay. However, the Hydran Destroyer escort has 10 boxes set aside for shuttles. Curiously, these 10 boxes are marked on the SSD as six (6) with Stinger-2 fighter ready racks and the SSD shows these six Stingers as part of the ship. The remaining four (4) shuttle boxes are four Admin shuttles, and, curiously, do NOT have fighter ready racks. This SSD is in Module C1. I do not propose to go through my set of SSD books, but I think this pretty much settles the question.
OK, I'll delete the extra ready racks. I still fail to see the issue, but whatever, the ship sucks anyway, no reason not to make it suck more.
Stewart Frazier posted about the Pegasus serving as a sort of FCR a couple days ago. Given how many Hydran ships have fighters aboard, it does kind of make sense to me that they'd have something like that.
On the other hand, they do have the fighter conveyor pallet for their tugs AND having a Pegasus variant just for fleet fighter replacement due to the logistical need would scream to have the Kzinti have a dedicated ship for getting more drones to their fleet; something that would cause endless headaches as we try to get the balance out for Klingon drone use, Federation excessive luxury foods, Lyran catnip...
(Okay, those last two don't count and I'll try to leave the jokes up to people who are legitimately funny. 
)
There was the specific request for the two "missing" designs. And given how frustrating these two were to do, I am reluctant to create a new one from whole cloth.
Don't let that stop anyone else for submitting a design, though.
Per the Hydran MSSB, pg 52, " Four of these ships were built about Y160-Y166 by the guilds and were operated by the police. These had special sensors (G24.0) but were not intended for survey or combat support, but for wide area traffic control!" Later in the write up "[referred to as Pegasus scouts (R9.128)]"
This would imply that the PGZ us not the base hull, but the (R9.128) Pegasus Scout is the base hull.
Mike West: Just out of curiosity, why does the escort lack phaser ones?
Asto the Cargo hauler, the ship has almost the Cargo capacity of a small freighter, but has faster speed and is certainly better armed. Historical background would probably see the ship as a chokepoint in logistics, as unlike LTTs it cannot use pallets and carries the same cargo load, but is slightly less armed (Not counting the Mule's fighters). It also has a larger crew.
For the PGZ, I was just going by what Chuck Strong had described. If that has changed, and the ship no longer makes sense, ignore it and kill it. I'm good with that. That is also why it has no tug capabilities: that is what Chuck described.
I look at the PGZ as a predecessor of the LTT designs. So, it has internal space like an LTT, but can't carry pods or pallets. I imagine they would try to use it, see its deficiencies, and then both use another ship in that role and convert the ship to something more useful. I figure it is a pure historical footnote.
I can cut the crew if needed; I just left it the same because I didn't have an idea of what it should be. I guess I can cut the crew down to 24 to match the PGS. In fact, the PGZ is just a PGS that replaces the APR and special sensors in the main hull with four cargo on each side. They are otherwise exactly the same! And I didn't even do that on purpose; it just worked out that way. So, either the PGZ were made then converted to PGS; or they were PGS that were converted to PGZ, which failed in their intended mission and were later converted back to PGS. So, regardless of how they start, we now know what the PGZ were eventually converted into.
On the PGE, I didn't give it Ph-1s because no PG-variant I see has Ph-1s. The base PFT doesn't have Ph-1s, and none of the variants in R12 have Ph-1s. I based the PGE on the PGC. All I did was convert the heavy weapons in the main hull into Ph-Gs with bigger arcs and the wing fusions with Ph-2s with the same arcs. Then I was forced by the F&E counter to strip two fighters from the ship. The rest is just pure PGC. The Ph-2s from the base PGC remain Ph-2s, and the arcs on the new Ph-2s are too limited to waste Ph-1s on. So, no Ph-1s for the PGE.
As I observed in re the cargo hauler, it is inefficient, but I am not citing it as a reason to change.. Siply6 not a reason to build more, even if there is yard capacity. I would cut the crew as there is no reason for the, and probably also the Boarding parties
On the PGZ, I had already cut the BP from 10 to 6. I have now cut the crew from 28 to 24. Both of these now match the PGS, which is what I assume any surviving PGZ would have eventually been converted into.
The important thing to remember on both of these ships: they suck. From a meta-game perspective, they are designed to suck. This kills me on the PGE, as the PGE could have been a true hidden gem. It could have been a surprisingly nice little ship in the big pile of trash that is the Pegasus variants. But, no. It also must be another piece of trash in that big pile of trash.
Mike: Oscar would approve!
From ADB's Fighter Operations (2016) pg 10:
Quote:(440.8) SHIPS OF THE FOUR POWERS WAR
Hydran PGZ: This is the original Pegasus base hull. It is a cargo-only variant. It is not a tug or theater transport but they may support some tug missions: D (supply point like an LTT); H (economic transfer); V (special raid supply), and may transport personnel (DIP, ADM, etc.). PGZs can be converted into other PG variants.
Hmm. The YIS of the PGS (otherwise the earliest Pegasus variant) is Y145. The ships are very, very similar, so it would not be unreasonable that they were pretty much designed at the same time and they made whatever made sense at the moment. Given that, and the contradictions in the two claims, I'd say make the YIS Y145 so that both ships are "first".
Moved to appropriate ship discussion thread thread.
Odd question, i Just noticed the Klingon Battle Tug from advanced missions is showing a movement cost of 1, even G3 annex shows it having a movement cost of 1. Shouldnt it be 1.5 for carrying 2 battlepods?
Nope, most tugs carrying up to two pod weights retain their movement cost, it goes up if carrying ore than two pod weights (for the Lyrans, Klingons, Kzinti, and ISC). The Federation goes up to 1.5 with their heavy pods (PB, CVA) as well as other heavy carrier pairs …
It's a major deal. IMHO it makes battle tugs too powerful.
I'd say that ship has sailed. A long, long time ago.
Battle tugs are what they are. Their movement rates are what they are. If they are "too good", then make use of them and exploit it. If you are not willing to do that, then are they really too good?
But, it's all moot. It's not changing. It is what it is.
Actually, the Lyran and ISC tugs do increase their respective Move Costs when carrying two pod-weights' worth.
The Klingon fleet tugs (and, by extension, the Romulan KRT) and the Kzinti tug are relatively uncommon in Alpha Octant terms, so far as their respective abilities to carry two pod-weights' worth with no loss in Move Cost are concerned.
-----
Although, even they pale in comparison to the dreadnought and battleship Raid Motherships provided to the "lost empire" Paravians over in Module C6 - which can carry three or four pod-weights' worth respectively, with no loss in Turn Mode or Move Cost!
That said, the Paravians still have to make do with more typical Turn Mode and Move Cost restrictions when using their "standard" Tug.
-----
And in any case, if your tugs are being fitted with battle pods, regardless of whether this imposes a Turn Mode restriction or not, the question is: what's happening to your empire's logistics in the tug's absence?
There are plenty of other missions that the tug might otherwise be assigned to. Might one or more of those better serve your broader operational or strategic goals?
Or to put it another way: if your tug is being put into harm's way, how may of those other tasks would be left unfulfilled, were the enemy to succeed in crippling, or even destroying, the tug itself?
Gary,
Your point is valid in a campaign setting but it leaves unaddressed the question of whether (some)* battle tugs may be "too good" in a "Patrol Scenario".
*Personally, I like the Fed battle tug (and a few others) precisely because the increased movement cost makes it slow and cumbersome, which a battle tug ought to be. I don't object to battle tugs having a lot of fire power. But they really shouldn't be as fast as dedicated warships of a similar tech level.
Well, what're the Battle Tug turn modes, compared with regular warships?
What sort of firepower are they able to put down in their rear arcs (I mean, except the Gorn, of course)?
Even if they can go as "Fast" as regular warships, what happens if they get in a fight with a Frigate detachment?
With the exception of the Lyran Cougar Battle Tug (which is Turn Mode D), battle tugs are all Turn Mode E. Their rear-bearing weapons are about on par with actual dreadnoughts (Gorn excepted)... as is their vulnerability to maneuver if caught alone by a frigate detachment (which, because they are considered capital ships, should never happen as per (S8.331) in a patrol scenario).
Can anyone tell if there was a separate EA form done for the Vudar and if so where I can find it.
Eddie Crutchfield:
There was never an Energy Allocation form specific to the Vudar, I need to see about. having one done, perhaps in the next Captain's Log
What's the scenario where the Federation has captured a Falcon and is trying to get it away from the pursuing War Eagles? Also, what product is it in?