Archive through July 20, 2026
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: New Product Development:
Module J3: Back in the Cockpit:
Archive through July 20, 2026
Neutral planets buying fighters...
Respectfully, it's already handled in SFU Canon; the scenario "Tomcats Over Leebyah" is centered around it.
I would point out that Leebyah had some front-line fighters available to them.
What about the major powers (Feds, Klingons, Kzinti) selling deliberate second-rate fighters to minor planets?
Feds did have the ShenYang F-7. What about the Kzinti keeping SS in production for minor planets, even when they started phasing out HAAS for TAAS?
Another idea that I've had, but have been hesitant about bringing up, is a version of the B-52 that's armed with Type-H Drones. Basically, it's kind of like the way real world B-52s sometimes engaged in nuclear deterrence flights while carrying a pair of Hound Dog missiles under their wings, or some of the huge missiles Bear bombers carried around that were the size of fighter craft.
Given the historical comparison, I hesitantly suggest them, but fully accept they may be non-starters.
Is it not true that anything proposed for J3 must not cause changes to R-sections, thus no completely new fighters or ships? I thought before the Master Ship Books project started fleet lists all became frozen.
The theory of no changes to R-sections is simply not true. J3 can include new fighters and new ships. We add new ships to the game every month. I am not sure where the myth that J3 froze the fleet lists comes from. I made changed to the R sections when I finished editing the K rulebook.
New units aplenty have come out for empires after their MSSBs were published - the point of the MSSBs is to collate and expand an empire’s R-sections from products up to that point, with future products having R-sections already done to that standard and thus can just be integrated by players as they get them.
The idea that, say, the Hydrans, simply don’t get to have any new units after 2014 is…silly.
Well, aren't the Hydrans kinda silly? Or am I thinking of Hydran players.... 
Garth L. Getgen
Question:
Given that admin shuttles (and fighters and other types of shuttles) have a “Tow Bar” attachment to allow for towing disabled shuttles or fighters back to base, would it be possible for an admin shuttle (say on a colony or agricultural world or a mining colony) to tow a semi trailer of the same mass and shape as a shuttle?
If the towed semi trailer lacked engines, but did have a small power plant to provide life support, could farm animals and people survive in the semi trailer?
A regular shuttle has a cargo capacity of 0.35 cargo capacity, if the “semi trailer” could carry 0.65 cargo points (replacing the power plant , impulse engines etc.) the resulting tractor trailer shuttle combination would have the total cargo capacity of (0.35+0.65=1.0)
Small thing, but would make marginal colonies just slightly more likely to survive because of the more efficient ability to move cargo.
For example, a standard admin shuttle would require Three trips (0.35+0.35.+0.35=1.05) to move a bit over 1 cargo point to a ship in orbit (assuming you wanted to avoid using transporters.)
It is a quality improvement for admin shuttles.
Might have a similar effect on 2, 3 or 4 space shuttles. Dunno, that would be something for g.o.d. (Game over worked designer) to decide if it breaks the game…
Could be implemented by simply adding it to the commanders options list.
Why would I as a warship captain want to replace any of my admin shuttles with such a trailer?
Quote:The theory of no changes to R-sections is simply not true.
I mean, I've got a rough fit into this topic, but given that...for the slightest possible edit to an R-section...
...I'd LOVE if (R1.24A) got a single-word edit to make more sense of it.
Currently, it reads:
Quote:The mobile base consists of two special MB pods (on the SSD) and four others, which are usually cargo pods. (No more than one or two could be other types of pods, most often self-defense or repair, but any type of pod can be used except as noted below. To function as a supply point, there must be at least two cargo pods as part of the structure...
Here's the thing that doesn't make sense. Why define the condition 'to function as a supply point'? If a Mobile Base consists of 4 regular pods, and no more than '1 or 2' of those can be anything EXCEPT cargo pods...then unless my math is wrong, 4-1 or 4-2 both equal >= 2, so...every Mobile Base is de facto a supply point and it cannot be otherwise.
That's...weird. Also takes the fun out of building them. Sure, obviously, the vast majority of Mobile Bases WILL be supply points - but not 100% of them. A minor wording change could fix that.
Quote:The mobile base consists of two special MB pods (on the SSD) and four others, which are usually cargo pods. (Very rarely would more than one or two could be other types of pods, most often self-defense or repair, but any type of pod can be used except as noted below. To function as a supply point, there must be at least two cargo pods as part of the structure...
...and, FWIW, while we do have 'Repair Pods'...the only 'self-defense' pod I think I've seen is the Kzinti's R5.16. So...maybe a more-generic pod of that type? And maybe put it on a Mobile Base SSD other than the empty one in R1?
So...J3 could certainly be a place to drop some heavy fighter pods (for example) on a fully-built-out Mobile Base SSD. Or create a fighter-centric "self-defense pod". And then clarify the above R-section rule to allow the occasional non-supply-point Mobile Base...
I dunno, something like that.
Alex: so, just now seeing this....
As a warship captain, you wouldn't. But as a freighter captain (or potentially pirate captain), where every one of those shuttlecraft warp engines comes out of the profit side of your ledger? You might.
Additionally, a planet doesn't need to replace a shuttle to have a cargo trailer, you have one at Joe's farm, he takes his time loading it, and then hires a shuttle for five minutes and one trip to transport his goods to the local ground base, rather than needing to have the shuttle for hours and two trips for the same transport job.
And why would planet side cargo go any way except via transporter?
You'd need these things to compete with skiffs to tote stuff around the system.
Is this module for Star Fleet Battles or Merchant Fleet Accounting? ;)
Slightly more seriously: one of the things that helps make SFB and the greater SFU as rich and engaging as it is is that we do get the insights into the setting beyond the scope of just the wargame(s) - but there is “here is a neat bit of flavor that happens to have an SSD or similar” and then there is just getting way into the weeds. Shuttle-trailers are something that likely does exist and could have a scenario or three built around - but that’s stretching their SFB application real thin already.
For brainstorming “what hooks could we base a module around”…it’s the opposite of exciting.
Honestly, at this point I see a lot of suggestions that are more likely to apply to PD, than SFB.
Quote:For brainstorming “what hooks could we base a module around”…it’s the opposite of exciting.
eh, "exciting" tends to also mean 'complicated' or 'huge'
I mean, a Starbase is cool and all, but how many of us have ever done more than the one (1!) Starbase assault in our lives before deciding "nope, not doing that again..."
Things that are a "neat bit of flavor" tend to be a lot more USABLE in a scenario, so at least in the groups I've played in, hit the table more often.
Xander, I suppose you don't want to see the mega-scenario I have in mind: Fortress Earth
Still thinking about how to do it all with orbital defenses around Earth, multiple grounds bases on the Moon's surface, and space platforms at the Lagrange Points.
Garth L. Getgen
Well, that's the thing, isn't it?
CONCEPTUALLY they make for fun ideas to play around with.
IN PRACTICE, though...*shudders*
'What do you mean you only printed enough forms to track 300 drones at once?'
[/PTSD triggering]
SVC.....I guess I am remembering something from years ago about no more new ship modules or something after the MSSB project. Must be mistaken.
There are endless myths about what we did or might do, some spun from off hand comments by us that applied to a particular situation. And we have changed plans now and then.
SVC;
If you're open to (sometimes) changing plans, I would like to revive an older suggestion, the "Heavy RTN Hunter".
Consider the following as a hypothetical Klingon heavy RTN hunter. Start with the C8S. Replace the two disruptors on the center warp engine with Special Sensors. The ship's own integral firepower is now comparable to a (standard tech) heavy cruise. But it still has dreadnought-level shields and durability, carries a full Z-YC squadron and a full G-1 flotilla, and can find RTN nodes.
This hypothetical ship would not match the Kzinti SSCS. But it would probably be comparable, or even better than, a Fed GVX or Romulan FEX; lower tech but a larger ship that can absorb more damage, and carrying a stronger attrition unit complement. The modifications to the existing C8S are sufficiently minor that it could probably be converted fairly quickly. And it has the command facilities of a C8S so could serve as an "emergency" fleet flagship, if that's what the situation called for and no other CR10 ship were readily available.
Some empires, depending on their resources and ship availability, might base their Heavy RTN Hunter on a CVA, BCS, or BCV rather than a Space Control Ship. But the basic concept would be the same; start with a large warship that has substantial firepower in its own right and also carries a powerful complement of attrition units. Reduce the weaponry but add two special sensors, not for general EW support but specifically to locate Andromedan bases.
The cost of such ships means that they would be few in number and thus used against only the most important Andro sites. But although rare, they would have a significantly lower loss rate than cheaper-but-weaker RTN hunters.
It would need to be an SCS to have the firepower to take on a base. Interesting idea. Cool ship but extremely limited use speaks against it.
It seems that it would make sense as a relatively quick, Emergency change to existing ships. Although they would likely be one offs, as no empire would like more than one SCS/SPS type units off the front line at any one time. The BCS/BCV mod would be more likely.
These were used during the Andro War (no conflict with each other) and any given empire might have converted every SCS into a heavy hunter.
An "anti-radiation" or "HARD" drone that only damages a ship's sensors or scanners might be interesting. Like the real-world Wild Weasel, using them would help to allow friendly fighters to get closer to an enemy ship before being swept from space. Perhaps it could only be mounted on EWF's and have a burst radius that upon detonation temporarily reduces the scanner and sensor effectiveness. Making it have to actually hit the ship would mean, because they would be rare and expensive, that they almost never would actually make it to the target.
That's actually on the auto-reject list, Dennis.
The concept of grabbing a post-war SCS and swapping two heavy weapons for two special sensors seems to have met Petrick's approval.
I was thinking that going against a hidden RTN base I might rather have 12 PFs and no fighters than have 6 PFs and the best 12 fighters of the war. Does somebody want to do the math on that?