Jack Taylor wants this ship, although he wants it for a tournament ship which I will never allow. Anyway, if you want the ship as a rare but historical unit, I don't see why it couldn't happen once.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Friday, July 18, 2025 - 02:52 pm: Edit

The NAL is an unbuilt variant, and that feels like it points to the Federation not believing a heavy cruiser with the split armament to be worthwhile. They would undoubtedly have plans for CAL on file - especially as the DDL was made. If we want to make it a limited production warship, make it a one-off pre-General War variant? Mayhaps tied into the ramp up of DDL production? And then that ship was subsequently converted into one of the CVDs or the like for its sub-par combat performance? Explaining why it’s more of a historical footnote and providing more explanation of why no NALs were made? (Spitballing on the CVD, it, or any other such conversion, would of course have to be confirmed as not contradicting any history of the classes involved, just adding “Oh, this ship spent a few years as a CAL it turns out.)

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, July 18, 2025 - 04:38 pm: Edit

Alex,

But the Feds built three Bismarck class heavy battlecruisers. So they did see some value in large cruisers with some plasma armament. Of course, the BCF has the same photon suite as the BCG, with the plasma torpedoes replacing Type-B drone racks rather than photon toroedoes.


I should probably confess that I am biased. The BCF is actually my favorite Fed battlecruiser.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Friday, July 18, 2025 - 06:02 pm: Edit

That’s why I specified “heavy cruiser with split armament”. Two plas-F on top of a full spread of photons is a *very* different proposition.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, July 18, 2025 - 08:48 pm: Edit

Would there be CAL and could it eventually upgraded to a CCL?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, July 19, 2025 - 03:21 am: Edit

yes and no

By Eddie E Crutchfield (Librarian101) on Saturday, July 19, 2025 - 11:19 am: Edit

For the DDL the replacing photons is a nice choice just because of the power curve once armed. The CA is a different animal I would prefer more power a wartime refit with additional power, say replace 4 of the labs in the saucer with AWR and then to balance out somewhat replace the 2 apr in the after hull with labs, net gain of 2 power with still a good lab ability. And I also prefer the BCF over the others.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Saturday, July 19, 2025 - 12:03 pm: Edit

The expanded background on the DDs establishes that only five were built with all four photons installed, most being built to the DDM “two photons and extra Tribble storage” pattern. Over the Y160s these ships were fitted with additional weapons, be they photons, drones, or plasma - see (R2.A23) in CL #33 or the Fed MSSB.

The DDL has a YIS of 166, meaning a CAL could exist that early as well (if not slightly earlier) - the DD hull is a CA saucer in design so replacing two photons on a CA would be an easy enough swap. Certainly more so than replacing reactors/labs in two locations. As I said, at the very least Star Fleet would have had the design on file and in simulators, making it an unbuilt variant.

However, the point of this exercise, as stated in SVC’s post, is to make this a historical design, even if a rare one. Given that, we could easily say that some time during the late Y160s, while the DD upgrades were ongoing, Star Fleet authorized a single CAL to see how it would perform in actual service. There is even the possibility of it predating the DDLs, with Star Fleet wanting to test how well the saucer structure handles being fitted with plasma on a larger and more rugged ship, though that is a bigger addition to the background.

Also, the BCF is irrelevant here, because it is a heavy battlecruiser, not a heavy cruiser, and doesn’t appear until over 15 years later. Again, the entire point of the exercise here is finding a historical niche for the design in question. That doesn’t require it to be an optimized, or even a particularly good design - it can very much be something Star Fleet tried and went “Yeah, that went about as well as we expected,” and was either lost, converted back to a CA (likely during repairs), or converted to some other design. I suggested to a CVD, as that could be done by doing a CCV style modification to the rear hull while, as long as the saucer was being opened up to pull the plasma launchers, conversion to the CVD saucer could be done at the same time. Plus it adds a bit of color to the history of the CVD class.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, July 19, 2025 - 01:29 pm: Edit

Remember that the availability of Plas-F is the Gorn treaty, which sets an earlist date of Y157, and probably Y166 is about as good as it can get. Given that the DDL was the first experiment, I would think Y168 is more likely. USS Hastings is a good pick; it's an older 1600-series cruiser upgraded to 1700-standards. It has no published history, so an open book with blank pages to be filled.

By Dal Downing (Rambler) on Saturday, July 19, 2025 - 03:34 pm: Edit

SH56 Surprise Package establish the KUBLAI was refitted in Gorn Space in Y165. I agree that Fall? Y168 is as early as a Fed would consider a Heavy Cruiser could be fitted out.

Historically, I wonder if the Feds would have considered a Heavy Torpedo for a CA (2 Photons 1 Plasma G/S). Over time it was determined the Heavy Torpedo was too much trouble, and really didnt leave up to expectations. 2 years later Spring of Y170, Hastings was converted to the more standard 2 Plasma F configuration.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Saturday, July 19, 2025 - 03:48 pm: Edit

Would you wish for the ship to have its plasma torpedoes mounted FP or LP/RP?

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Saturday, July 19, 2025 - 05:54 pm: Edit

The 2xPL-F could be installed FA just like the photons they replace. Perhaps the limited firing arc made the conversion easier, but contributed to the failure of the design?

--Mike

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Saturday, July 19, 2025 - 07:24 pm: Edit

The DDL has its launchers mounted with FP arcs, I’d imagine a CAL would be identical.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, July 19, 2025 - 10:02 pm: Edit

I agree.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Saturday, July 19, 2025 - 11:27 pm: Edit

Reasonable. For grins and giggles, though, IMO, it might be fun to see the dynamics of the LP/RP arcs and how differently the ship would fly and fight.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Tuesday, July 22, 2025 - 10:14 am: Edit

I helped get the NLL (and DWL) done. There were people that wanted it because of the utility of the Plasma Carronade. I wanted to argue against it, but the existence of the NAL undercut all of my arguments. It just prevented me from any kind of justification against making an NLL. So, therefore I advocated for it. (I was cool with the DWL because it was a destroyer.)

However, I think that a Federation cruiser that loses half of its photons to only gain two Pl-F is making a very bad trade. There are so few Pl-F that the Federation gets to use at all (because they can't make them), and they provide so much more utility on other ships that more effectively use them. I honestly don't think the Federation would have ever make a 2xPhot/2xPl-F version of the CA. And I honestly don't think the NAL (and thus the NLL) should exist either, but I never got to make an argument on that one.

I just don't think the Federation would make such a CA variant. I suppose, in order to get one published, you can say they tried it for a couple years, but it sucked and they converted it back to a standard CA and put the Pl-F somewhere more useful. But I really don't see the Federation signing off on this ship.

And, no, the BCF and DNF are not valid comparison points. Both of those ships replace drones with Pl-F, not photons. That is a much more reasonable and valid idea for a cruiser.

By Dal Downing (Rambler) on Tuesday, July 22, 2025 - 04:37 pm: Edit

Definitely F upgraded to FP.

Mike West since when have Plasma F been limited. I thought iirc 1/3 of the FFs and DWs on the Eastern Front were Plsma Variants. Like Drone FFs and DWs on the Western Frony

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Tuesday, July 22, 2025 - 11:05 pm: Edit

Dal, for about all of Captain's Edition. (U7.28) lists plasma-F as a foreign technology for the Federation, and (R2.43), the Fed FFL, says the plasma launchers are limited in number and supplied by the Gorn. All the plasma classes indicate they were built in limited numbers, like five or less (if at all).

And Mike, you are making the case for for this ship not needing to be anything more than a historical footnote.

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Wednesday, July 23, 2025 - 12:38 am: Edit

How about this for a ship history?

USS Hastings, NCC-1621, a Republic Mark-IV class heavy cruiser. When it's sister ships were being upgraded to full Constitution Class standards it was decided to try installing Gorn Plasma weapons in place of two of the photon torpedoes. Converted at Fleet shipyards at Mars with the exception of the Plasma-Fs the ship then headed to Gorn Space at the end of Y167.

She became a one off conversion not because it wasn't successful but because of the need for heavy cruisers and the scarcity of Plasma launchers.

After weapons install and testing at Ghdar-I in Y168 she was then assigned to the Fourth Fleet in Y169 (assigned here since we know all the ships in Third Fleet on Day One and 6th on Day of the Eagle and why put it on a border that isn't going to see much action aka 5th Fleet). Heavily damaged sometime in the first months after the Klingon invasion and sent to the 4th Fleet SB for repair. With the plasma weapons completed wrecked and no way to quickly get replacements the plasma-Fs were replaced with on-hand photon launchers and the ship returned to duty in Y172.

She was a one-off conversion not because the design didn't work but because of the need for heavy cruisers for the war and the scarcity of plasma launchers.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Wednesday, July 23, 2025 - 03:28 am: Edit

I dunno. I would think that "the design didn't work" is a completely valid statement. But maybe that's just me.

And, yes, the idea of the availability of Pl-F to the Federation being very limited has always been part of the Captain's Edition, to the best of my knowledge. It's rare, the Feds can't/don't make them, and they are difficult to repair because they don't have a full supply line for them.

At least in Federation Commander, the *only* reason anyone wanted Pl-F on Federation ships is because of the Plasma Carronade. No one cared about using the Pl-F as an actual Pl-F.

By Eddie E Crutchfield (Librarian101) on Wednesday, July 23, 2025 - 11:22 pm: Edit

The use on cruisers is questionable, but on a ship like a DDL with limited power it is a nice addition. Master ship book shows 8 one of which is the Kublai which was refitted in an earlier version with2 Gs.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Thursday, July 24, 2025 - 12:09 am: Edit

Question: Does this modified CA use the same 'Plus Refit' as the standard Federation CA, including the Drone Rack (that the DDL lacks)?

In short, can it channel a "Peladine Plus Photons" vibe? Can it have a Scatter Pack blossom alongside a pair of Plasma-F Torpedoes?

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Thursday, July 24, 2025 - 11:06 am: Edit

The other plasma “leader” variants follow the normal refits for their classes, and the FFL, NLL, and DWL all already provide the plasma+drones experience. I see no reason why the CAL wouldn’t follow the same pattern.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Thursday, July 24, 2025 - 11:58 am: Edit

In retrospect, it's unfortunate that the concept of the plasma carronade did not exist at the time the first Federation plasma variants were being considered in "real-world game design" terms.

Personally, I would have preferred the Gorns to have gone ahead with extracting the carronade function into the proposed "PLC" noted in (FP14.11), and for that to have been the weapon exported to the Federation for use on the Romulan front.

Or even for the Feds on that front to have been given the choice of using them in place of drones, rather than alongside them, on a given ship. (Akin to how FRA ships eventually get to choose between short-range cannons and type-B tachyon missile racks elsewhere in the galaxy.)

But, alas.

-----

As for this proposed ship, I admit to not being entirely enthused about the prospect. But, I suppose it wouldn't be the worst option to consider, as a one-off for its class of ship.

On a somewhat related note: would a one-off "CLL", based on the Texas-class light cruiser, be worth offering also - if only as a design study? (Possibly not, but I figured I might as well ask...)

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Friday, July 25, 2025 - 12:03 am: Edit

A CLL would be awful. It already is severely under armed and has horrible shields. This would make its firepower even weaker and excessively short ranged. I really don't see that ship as a win at all.

Besides, if the Gorns or Romulans captured the ship, it would likely have two Pl-G. This is defensible and potentially usable. But two Pl-F? That's just bad for any cruiser, even just a light cruiser.