Archive through January 21, 2025
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: Rules Questions:
To ask the Question "WHY?":
Archive through January 21, 2025
Reason why scanners and Sensors are basically static - diminishing returns. You spend X credits to improve the system by Y%, the next X adds Y/2%, third adds Y/4% ...
At some point you don't get enough improvement to be worth the cost ...
A thought...
Talk to the folks you game with.
I can imagine a simple scenario, perhaps a small squadron action (for some reason, 550 BPV comes to mind... 
) with one ship having an extra Sensor box with a "7" in it.
First one player has that advantage, then play again with the same forces, except the other player has the extra sensor point.
Do the same thing with the -1 Scanner box. Two battles, one with one player having one ship with the advantage, the other with the other player.
See what are the results from those fights. Might be a way to see why ADB, Inc. doesn't do those, or it may be a way to add to the universe.
(If nothing else, to quote a line from C4, it'll get you the keys to the simulator... )
Stewart, from the end of the early era to (I don't have the current edition of X-ship rules, but don't remember their Scanners and Sensors improving) the edge of current tech, the cost analysis rings a little hollow. Give the best gear you can afford is a staple of armed forces, its an absolute truth of military spending, the best gear from the lowest bidder. Thing is, detection, targeting, and surveillance is one place everyone chases the nines. Going after all those nines after the decimal point as it were. In 80 years there is not some improvement with a whole galaxy of eggheads?
I could accept that that it were 'abstracted out' via software patches and incremental instrumentation upgrades that fall short of a formal refit, I could accept that not that I would like it.
A Terran Warp Refitted Frigate (WFF) built in Y62 has the same Scanner and Sensor abilities of a Federation Battle Frigate (FFB) built 113 years later! Stipulated, the later does have more boxes in the track, but the 'best' is still the same.
A WWI US Clemson class, four stack Destroyer could train its guns at a modern US Zumwalt class Destroyer and theoretically even score hits, but The Zumwalt would have a massive radar advantage and weapons range advantage over it. (nevermind that one class was tested in war and the newer hasn't been, just assume the weapons work the way the salesmen promised) That's the meat in this WHY sandwich.
Jeff Anderson, that's how we fix the problem, if in deed there is one. Your getting ahead of me. I'm wanting to know why the Architect set the floor and ceiling where they did. After I get the keys to the house, there is no reason I can't go buy a sawzall.
Sadly, the folks I game with are effectively you fine people on this board that let me bounce my ideas off of, and a few brave souls over at SFBOL. Its hard to find players when your home for 48 hours and gone for 12 days, the honeydo list alone is sometimes more than 24 hours.
I will gently remind folks, I'm asking WHY, not how to fix a (perceived) failing. In effect I'm wondering if sticking to a base 6 probability count (d6) was something deeper or shallower at play. The sort of thing that makes the designer's brilliance so bright one can't see anything but the shine.
The first-generation X-rules were substantially revised in Captain's Log #23; these revisions were further expanded upon in Module X1R and properly integrated into the X-rule portion of the 2012 SFB Master Rulebook:
Quote:(XD6.34) EW Effect: Due to their advanced fire control, if an X-ship has more ECCM than its target’s ECM, it gets a special -1 modifier to its fire. This modifier obeys all rules relating to negative shifts (i.e., it may not cause a column shift for a phaser). This is cumulative with legendary gunner but not with an outstanding crew.
(XD6.393) EW Limit: X-ships no longer receive two “free” ECCM. Instead, they may generate EW (total ECM and/or ECCM) up to their sensor rating plus two.
Of course, I hope that there'll be a good opportunity to give Module X1 itself a proper update at some point.
-----
On a side note, it might be worth noting that sensor and scanner suites do function in different ways in certain different parts of the broader SFU.
For example, the Module C5 empires have overlapping FX and RX sensor/scanner arrays [(MD1.0)], as opposed to a single 360* suite. This provides its own pluses and minuses; for example, LMC ships cannot incorporate Aegis fire control.
Also, the playtest Triangulum Galaxy empires in Module E2 and in CL23 each have a radically different sensor/scanner suite [(DN101.0)]: their sensor rating is always "6" and their scanner rating is always "0", but the combined sensor/scanner track marks the amount of natural ECM which affects the unit in question. (See this pair of playtest Triangulum SSDs for examples of this.) Plus, a Y154 refit provides M33 ships of Size Class 4 or larger with Advanced Counter-Counter Measures, or "ACCM", which can be generated instead of ECCM; a ship with at least two more ACCM points than a target has ECM points gains a -1 die roll modifier.
So it is possible to think of alternate means of considering what constitutes a viable sensor/scanner suite, beyond the "default" Alpha/Omega/M81 system.
There ARE active scanners/ sensors. They are called Special Sensors.
Also, the inferiority of Early Years sensor/scanner suites in the Alpha Octant manifests in other ways: be it in the reduced amount of ECM and/or ECCM which it can generate under (YD6.31); in the degree of Tactical Intelligence it can acquire under (YD17.0); in the reduced effectiveness of special sensors under (YG24.0); and so on and so forth.
Plus, there is the degree to which a ship's seeking weapon control capacity is affected by the presence (or absence) of seeking weapons installed, under (F3.2). To include empire-specific instances where a given fleet is noted as installing an upgrade in this manner; such as the Federal Republic of Aurora going from one-half of their sensor rating to equal their sensor rating in Y182 under (OR17.R2), in response to their improved miniaturization of shuttle bomb technology in that same year under (OJ5.112).
And there are cases where, even for an empire which appears to use the "standard" (or, at least, "standard" for the region of space it is operating in) fire control rules on the surface, there is enough of a difference "under the hood" to enable the integration of aim-improving support systems - such as the Iridani Questors' use of target illuminators under (OG12.0), or the Uthiki Harmony's use of target acquisition gear under (MD3.0) - which are unique to that empire.
In other words, the sensor and/or scanner tracks on a given SSD are only part of the overall picture of what a given ship in a given era (or area of known space) has (or does not have) in terms of its detection, tracking, and fire control capabilities.
Hi, there!
This is a why-question considering the design background of the space control ships SCS in SFB.
I recently read Norman Polmars book about Aircraft Carriers. In one chapter he speaks about new carriers design concepts with one them being the sea control ship SCS.
In SFB the SCS is a huge size-2 heavy carrier and one of the most powerful ships most empires fielded.
According to Polmar, the naval SCS is only about destroyersize with a helicopter air group and designed as an escort for supply convoys.
Two totally different concepts of carriers yet a naming that would implicate similar ship types in real world and the SFU.
Is the naming , or more accurately the abbreviation, only a coincidence or did the real world SCS concept play any role in designing the SFU SCS?
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Soeren Klein
The Izumo class is a "Helicopter Destroyer" or more accurately a mini "LHA."
One thing to keep in mind, Soeren, is that SFB carriers are often (usually?) fully combat capable in their own right and the performance of their fighters isn't as "Fleet Wrecking" as the capabilities of a full deck strike from a modern, or even back to WWII type carriers.
While I don't (currently) have a copy of the Norman Polmar book on carriers (ruined when a water heater exploded some quarter century ago), I vaguely recall that one aspect of the Sea Control Ship from back in the `50's was their servicing flying boat nuclear bombers. I've long wondered if THAT were the inspiration for the SFU SCS to have that designation.
(Then again, since I seem to be wrong about most everything nowadays, perhaps this ought to be taken with quite the grain of salt... )
There were a few "sea control ship" concepts that emerged from Zumwalt in the '70s, ranging from the T-CBL (in the 50,000 ton range, and which evolved into the CVV medium carrier design) to the actual SCS (in the 13,000 ton range). Both were conventional rather than nuclear designs, and neither was practical, inasmuch as they simply wouldn't have enough JP-5 storage capacity to sustain operations.
Jeff, I think what you're remembering was the planned conversion of Commencement Bay-class escort carriers into tenders for Martin P6M SeaMasters, a plan that ended when the P6M was cancelled in 1959 (in favor of the Polaris missile program).
If I recall correctly, the Spanish Navy's Príncipe de Asturias was the closest anybody came to implementing some of the ideas from the SCS studies.
The Thai Chakri Naruebet was also inspired by them (and derived from the Príncipe de Asturias), but is scaled-down so small it has always been essentially useless (and a glorified yacht for the Thai royal family).
Mike and Jeff!
Yes, Izumi, Principe de Asturias and Chakri Narubet were the ships mentioned by Polmar as the only actually built version of the SCS concept together with USS Guam as a test bed before refitted back into an amphib.
What got me startled reading this chapter: I knew the SCS from StarFleet Battles as the most powerful carrier, second to only few other ships, with the strongest fighter group to control the space around it, with acknowledging the different game dynamics of fighters compared to the real world as Jeff mentioned.
When Polmar introduced the SCS concept of Zumwalt I expected to find a similar ship, to say a bigger, more powerful concept of the Essexes or Forrestal carriers of that time. I was surprised to find a rather small concept more like an escort carrier with helicopters for ASW and a few VSTOLs for bomber defense. But no strike capability like the larger Forrestals or later Nimitzes.
(No mention of that flying boat).
That is where my question comes from. Did the designer had the real world SCS and it’s supposed combat role in mind, when designing the SFB SCS and is there a reason that the conceptual escort carrier SCS evolved into a major warship in SFB, stronger than any other carrier in the game? Or is the naming a coincidence and the designer simply needed a good powerful sounding name for a new ship.
Thanks for the replies so far, everyone.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Soeren Klein
One thing navies excel at is refusing to agree on terminology. Take note of the fun everybody had up until the 80s with the term "frigate".
The title Space Control Ship was derived from the title Sea Control Ship but that was about all the connection there is. The SFB version and the real world version have little if anything in common.
Well, spelling, at least!
Here's something I've been meaning to ask for a while, but kept forgetting to do so.
Why can't escorts rearm energy-based heavy weapons on fighters ((J4.897)? Similarly, why can't escorts assigned to heavy fighter carriers have ready racks for heavy fighters ((S8.318)?
The (S8.318) answer is that the escort "might" be transferred to a different carrier, or the carrier operating heavy fighters "might" also be operating single-space fighters. But it seems a little dubious as justification. Lots of things "might" happen. But in the escort's intended role, it will be less effective than an escort designed to service heavy fighters (or heavy-weapon carrying single-space fighters). It would seem to me to make more sense to have the escort group of a Fed CVA (to take one example) consist of a mixture of escorts; some designed to service F-14s and some designed to service A-10s.
Note also that SFB already accepts the concept of "role-specific" escorts in some cases. Consider for example the Federation "R" escorts, designed for use on the Romulan front. Compared to their "standard" counterparts, they have fewer Type-G racks and more phasers. From there, is it such a large step to escorts designed to handle heavy fighters or heavy-weapon armed single-space fighters, and assigned to groups for which that configuration is appropriate?
In the second case, the analogy doesn't work.
If you have an FFE or FFR, even though the FFR is "intended" for the Romulan border and the FFE is "intended" for the Klingon border, each can go to the "wrong" border and still be effective. However, a DE that has A-10 ready racks is useless for any carrier other than a CVA.
The analogy is a false equivalency.
Historically, the "non-standard" fighters were so seldom employed that putting dedicated ready racks onto escorts would be a fools errand to try and always keep that escort with a single carrier; there would be no ability to shift it around if the need arose.
Now, there is a single exception I could be convinced would be useful: Federation heavy fighters. Unlike any other empire's heavy fighters, Federation heavy fighters were widely and frequently deployed. As such, moving escorts around would not be so problematic. Unfortunately, this breaks down because it can't be addressed by simply swapping out a ready rack. The typical Federation heavy fighter is the F-111 which is exclusively deployed with mech-links. That makes the whole effort moot.
This all said, the one possibility I could see is if you wanted to suggest that Federation escorts after the introduction of the F-111 gained a refit that installs a ready rack on one of their tractors. I would actually get behind that. However, it would require fiddly rules explaining that this ready rack operates like other escort racks, and that the escort still only has two deck crews which can either work the mech link ready racks or the shuttle ready racks, but not both at the same time. I don't see this idea getting past the Petrick test, but this is still the best chance I could see happening.
Mike, I don't really buy that argument.
Quote:However, a DE that has A-10 ready racks is useless for any carrier other than a CVA.
So... build enough to support your CVAs, and that's it. Don't assign them to your CVSs or CVBs.
But... suppose the CVA is knocked out but the "DE-10" survives? First of all, is that all that likely? The CVA is based on a dreadnought and is far more robust than any escort. And the escorts are there to protect the CVA, interposing themselves between it and the attackers if necessary. While this doesn't guarantee the CVA will survive, I suggest it would be rare for the CVA to go down while the escorts survive. Still, it could happen. So... assign the "DE-10" to another CVA, giving that ship an extra escort, at least until a new CVA is available.
And I don't believe it matters whether the heavy fighters were "widely deployed" or not. If an empire deploys heavy fighter carriers at all, it should deploy them with escorts suited to the task at hand, rather than escorts that can't properly support the heavy fighters, but "might" be transferred elsewhere.
But even if that "DE-10" is deployed to a protect a standard CVS for some reason, it still has weapons and Aegis. It can still protect the carrier even if it can't support the fighters. Certainly "not optimum". But then, deploying a CVA with no escorts capable of handling A-10s is also "not optimum". And the CVA is vastly more expensive and more important than any CVS or CVB. If I'm going to deploy CVAs at all, I want to optimize its escorts for that specific role.
Just to be clear, I'm not proposing new escorts that can reload heavy weapons. I'm just asking "why" the choice was made, since it always seemed a little strange to me.
A guess on my part, but as SFB developed, there was always a concern about SOMEbody getting a little something special that nobody else did.
Rather than have whiny munchkins complain to them incessantly, SVC and SPP chose to implement blanket rules on some subjects.
With regards to your specific, Ready Racks for Assault Fighters on Escorts, not every race makes extensive use of the heavier Assault Fighters. The Klingons and Kzinti only have half squadrons on their CVAs, for example.
(Once the Klingons retired the Z-1 from normal frontline service, that is...)
While Hydrans have their Hellbore armed fighters, they only make up two per squadron; again, not a majority.
With the blanket rule that no escort can operate Ready Racks for Assault Fighters, there won't be the Munchkinwhines for adding them to Klingon/Kzinti/Lyran/WYN carrier escorts...
... Followed by (more) Munchkinwhines for increasing the number of Assault Fighters on board CVAs, their inclusion in squadrons on CVSes, CVWs, DWVs...
(Again, that's just MY best guess, so it's probably wrong... )
The escorts (we figured) didn't have the power connections in the shuttle bay without really expensive modifications. Congress would not pay for them since the carrier already had them.
Congress?
Generic term applying to all empires in one form or another.
Seems to lack creativity, I suspect you could get most legislatures to approve such a program.
Just imagine the possibilities for graft/pork in a system that will quite possibly never be used for real (as the fighters would certainly rather return to the CVA and assualt fighter losses are usually extremely heavy), and the likely to never be used system is very expensive in places that are hard to inspect or check.
Figure the mods have a split BPV cost, maybe -1 BPV per such ready rack and +20 EPV per such ready rack and the system actually functions correctly if you roll a "12" on 2d6, roll when each charge should be loaded, and if you fail then that charge is bad and the fighter systems downcheck it.
Of course, this would be roughly equivalent to saying that no player will ever choose such a ship, but you can't have everything.
Wrong topic.