I am not sure that a standard AuxPFT isn't already doing the Sustainment Tender job. But if it's just one or two SSDs, we might.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, March 30, 2026 - 05:40 pm: Edit

Oops.

---

Quote:

... while nominally not as powerful as the true PFT...

---

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Monday, March 30, 2026 - 05:43 pm: Edit

SVC, I think Alan and I are approaching the same idea from different directions. Yes, AuxPFTs are good enough to do the job most of the time, but there enough times when something more capable of operating at or near the front would be useful.

I’m thinking of something along the lines of the NCA strike PFT, but perhaps trading out some weapons or other capabilities for a small increase in support capacity (and a possible off-SSD bonus). Something meant to stand in the battle line and allow a few more PFs to be used when there otherwise wouldn’t be enough true tenders to support that concentration of gunboats.

What Alan is describing sounds to me like a ship or pod that provides “just behind the front” repair and refurbishment for damaged PFs to better keep tenders supplied. Something that isn’t vulnerable or slow like an auxiliary, to support action where it is the most intense.

By Douglas Saldana (Dsal) on Monday, March 30, 2026 - 08:56 pm: Edit

Alan's concept of a "sustainment tender" sounds similar to the "aircraft maintenance carriers" operated by the Royal Navy in WWII all of which were converted carriers that couldn't actually operate aircraft in combat but had aircraft repair facilities superior to those of standard carriers.

I'm thinking such a ship would not have special sensors (probably replaced by cargo) and would not be considered a "true PFT" but, nonetheless, would have mech links and repair facilities for a full flotilla. These ships would likely have a higher repair limit than what is listed in K2.612.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, March 30, 2026 - 11:26 pm: Edit

Douglas Saldana:

You might want to verify your statement about maintenance carriers unable to operate aircraft in combat…

Specifically, H.M.S. Unicorn (not the Leda class frigate built in 1824, and operated as a depot ship for 140 years.)

The one that participated in the Salarno landings in 1943 if I recall correctly.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, March 31, 2026 - 01:11 am: Edit

Alex, the concern there (and digging deep into my military education) is that the situations where you "need this thing" are going to be few, and the time it takes to get it there will be long. The best you would be able to do is predict that Operation Pegasus (or whatever) is going to be so wicked that you need to send this and other unique support ships to that theater before the need.

I will grant that strategically it might be useful in a real world situation. Other than a scenario where a raid targets it, I don't see much use for it on the game table. This is not even close to being a "tentpole"; it is a page-filler at best used only strategically or in one special scenario.

I am sure the Marines have a "mess kit repair auxiliary cruiser" but I don't see anybody being excited about paying for the SSD.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, March 31, 2026 - 01:21 am: Edit

The F&E rule for the sustainment tender is going to be very short. "For every six individual PFs lost in battle in that hex, you get one of them back for free."

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Tuesday, March 31, 2026 - 09:43 am: Edit

So far as the prospect of dedicated HDW PF tender configuration SSDs is concerned:

If there is enough room taken up in the SSD book without them, or if it was best for them to be set aside for a dedicated "HDW (and/or HWX) configurations" module later on, well and good.

But, if it turns out that there is a use for HDWP SSDs here after all, I might have two questions:

Firstly, would this also be an opportunity for the Federation to get a dedicated SSD for the infamous "HDWZ" (two special sensors plus 4 F-111 mech-links) configuration, not least for use against Andromedan RTN nodes?

And secondly, would it be best to keep any HWXP (and, in the case of the Feds, "HWXZ") configurations aside for, say, a future Module X1B - or should they go in this product also?

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Tuesday, March 31, 2026 - 11:25 am: Edit

I agree the sustainment tender is more of a scenario target then something to include in a patrol force

Any thoughts on the flotilla control ship concept?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, March 31, 2026 - 02:07 pm: Edit

The flotilla control ship isn't defined well enough for me to have an opinion but it doesn't sound like something people would be excited to buy.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Wednesday, April 01, 2026 - 11:53 am: Edit

For a "sustainment tender", why not use a variant of the fast naval transport? It was made to more rapidly deploy cargo. Make it into a PFT and you get a faster AuxPFT. That way you cover everyone with a single ship.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, April 01, 2026 - 12:12 pm: Edit

I don't know that sustainment work for the FNT but a FNPFT has some merit.

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Saturday, April 04, 2026 - 12:24 pm: Edit

A Sustainment Tender seems more like a F&E proposal than a SFB one. It sounds like a rapid DLR ship if it in a battle hex, but not one to put in a battle group.

I'm not advocating for or against it.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Sunday, April 05, 2026 - 02:17 pm: Edit

I'd suggest that there are sustainment tenders based on free trader and frigate hulls. Both can flush engines and do repairs that "casual pf tenders" cannot.

So the FFT based ones can maintain fleet speeds and accompany aquadrons or second echelons of fleets (where the fighter conveyor ships, tankers, Commando ships, mine sweepers and such live). Not exactly in the line of battle, but close enough to come forward as needed without counting against command limits...

The FFT ones wander around the "sorta safe zone' behind the immediate front and accompany convoys. Feed new PFs forward as damaged ones are brought back from the front/ combat squadrons... Maybe they have a crew unit of trainers that travel between local detachments...

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Sunday, April 05, 2026 - 04:17 pm: Edit

An all-PF version of the "Planetary Control Base". Not sure what it should be called. "Planetary Patrol Base" doesn't sound quite right to me.

Delete the fighter squadron, add six more mech-link tractor "Landing Pads" and a few more Repair boxes. It would be an analog to the Gorn and Lyran "Space Patrol Ships"; essentially SCSs with the fighter squadron replaced by a second PF flotilla; and would only be deployed to very important planets.

Also, this might fit better as an all-PF version of the X-tech "GPCX" from Module X1R. With 12 PFs on a single ground base, I wouldn't expect to see these until PF production had been going on for a while, i.e., after the X-tech era had already started.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Friday, May 01, 2026 - 05:03 pm: Edit

I was looking at the MRNs last night and got hit by an odd thought...

There're MRN pallets armed with Type-E Drone Racks (MRN-K), extra drones (MRN-D), and ADDs (MRN-E). Did the Kzinti also have standard Needle flotillas so armed?

Would any of these variants also replace the Disruptor with the Type-E Drone rack or ADD?

Going hypothetical for a moment, we know about the famous Klingon Bounty Hunter flotilla, with the specialized anti-fighter Gunboats. Given how the Kzinti relied on their carriers for survival, the Hydrans have so many Stingers, and the Federation Carrier Groups practically dominated during the mid-war period, it's understandable that the Klingons would have such specialists.

Would the Kzinti also field an analogy to them? Admittedly, they'd be pretty useless against the Lyrans, BUT there's always the potential use of an "Escort" Gunboat variant as a casual gunboat aboard a real escort.

Tentative thoughts: replace the Drone-A on a standard Needle with Drone-E OR ADD-12, replace the Disruptor with a Ph-1 (retain the FA firing arc). PROBABLY no Leader version. No AEGIS (already listed as a non-starter ).

IF a Leader version is produced, possible explanation is that some element within the Pentarchy was concerned about a possible post-General War conflict with the (economically) aggressive Federation and wanted something akin to the famed Bounty Hunters to counter Federation "Super-Fighters."

For that matter, what about the Klingons having a G-1 variant armed with ADDs (ADD-12s? ) replacing the Drones (and maybe even the Disruptor?) for service against Hydran Stingers, on that front?

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Friday, May 01, 2026 - 10:26 pm: Edit

I can get on board with a K variant of the standard Needle that uses type-E drone racks in place of the normal ones and then (maybe) replaces the disruptor with a Ph-1. I'm OK with that. To make it perfectly analogous to the Klingons, the disruptor would remain. But, using the Ph-1 as a differentiator works for me, too.

And even if the disruptor isn't changed, it is still worth making the K variant of the standard Needle, even if it is functionally the same as the corresponding MRN, because it would be able to be mass produced, which no MRN could be.

Assuming I am understanding the suggestion correctly, I like the idea!

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, July 22, 2026 - 06:21 am: Edit

Heavy Hunter, version 2: DN hull with 12 PFs and with two special sensors replacing heavy weapons.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Wednesday, July 22, 2026 - 08:18 am: Edit

I thought that 12 PF ships were on the auto reject list. Just like 12 heavy fighter ones are.

Not saying that this isn't a logical thing or welcome. But I can see these being the default DN after their introduction.

And that leaves the Feds in the doghouse. Unless they get a "third way" heavy hunter with 2 heavy fighter squadrons & a 12 F14s...

Alternately they lease PFs from the Orions, Gorns and Kzinti & hire Skoleans to man them.

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Wednesday, July 22, 2026 - 10:42 am: Edit

---

Quote:

DN hull with 12 PFs and with two special sensors replacing heavy weapons.

---

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Wednesday, July 22, 2026 - 11:31 am: Edit

I think pushing double flotilla ships to a mid/late Andro War development is a reasonable relaxation of the standing reject list. I don’t have my physical books at hand so I can’t look at the Kzinti SSCS and check how much it follows the proposed pattern versus exceeding it - but it would very easily be the “proof of concept” ship, showing that it is possible to have the command and control and the logistics support to operate two flotillas off one DN hull, based on technology improvements that didn’t bear fruit until the Y190s (see also: Fed carrier battle groups as a similar case).

If the SSCS exceeds the standard heavy hunter pattern, then it can remain as a unique ship, with later Kzinti double flotilla hunters conforming to the standard pattern - the Kzinti accepted extra expense and maintenance requirements of the Goliath as matter of pride in having such a powerful ship, but don’t want to pay that extra cost for subsequent ships.

This also gives room for the fighter+PF pattern heavy hunters to come first, then once the Goliath shows it’s possible to operate two flotillas, other empires follow suit.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, July 22, 2026 - 12:07 pm: Edit

So far, this kind of ship is just an idea, and this product is more likely to be done after me than by me.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, July 22, 2026 - 12:19 pm: Edit

I note that besides the Kzinti SSCS, there are already two "Stellar Domination Ships" (an SCS but with two flotillas instead of one PF flotilla and one fighter squadron) in the game, as "real" ships rather than "conjectural". The Gorns and Lyrans each have an SDS. Either of these ships would just need to reduce weaponry and add a couple of special sensors to qualify as a "Heavy Hunter, version 2".

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, July 22, 2026 - 12:28 pm: Edit

Somewhat more whimsically, the Seltorians could use their "Battlewagon" as is for a Heavy RTN Hunter. It already has special sensors and carries four PF flotillas. Its... somewhat specialized... weapon suite wouldn't perhaps be very good against Andromedans. But it's a HUGE ship with better shields than a dreadnought and enormous power for EW and shield reinforcement. It could at least take quite a pounding while the four PF flotillas dish out the pain.

Biggest problem (other than historical implausibility) would be the low speed.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, July 22, 2026 - 02:49 pm: Edit

I'd have to check but I think the Selts were golnre by the time the RTN was understood. The question is what happened to the Battlewagon?