Archive through August 07, 2026
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: Rules Questions: Questions on Ships: Archive through August 07, 2026
By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Thursday, July 09, 2026 - 11:18 am: Edit

What, exactly, is the 'base cost' of a small and large freighter, without pods?

Reasons I ask - BPV of an F-S (which includes the standard cargo pod on its SSD) is 26/12.

BPV of an F-L (which includes two standard cargo pods on its SSD) is 61/18.

The "Civilian Cargo Pod" in Module R1 is listed at 14/10 BPV. (And noted as 'a small freighter is this pod with engines and command section attached', etc) That's...a problem, though?

It means the F-S is 12/2 BPV without it's pod...weird, but not unreasonable...but the F-L is 33/-2 BPV without its two pods? Negative 2 BPV? Hrm.

How to make sense of this?

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Thursday, July 09, 2026 - 11:58 am: Edit

Isn't there an SSD of the two freighters "in ballast" somewhere? If so, that should outright answer the question. If not, check the tug versions. They should help give a guideline.

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Thursday, July 09, 2026 - 12:18 pm: Edit

Quote:

Isn't there an SSD of the two freighters "in ballast" somewhere? If so, that should outright answer the question.



I could have sworn I'd seen the same, myself, at one point - but I'm not finding it, now, and the G3 Master Annexes don't seem to suggest such a thing is out there.

Quote:

If not, check the tug versions. They should help give a guideline.



Unfortunately I'm not sure how much those help, as they have that utility section in the center that brings a lot of power or tractors or other "functional" SSD boxes.

BPV for them is 18/14 for the small version, and 30/20 for the large (which, annoyingly, uses DIFFERENT utility sections than the small version)

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, July 09, 2026 - 01:56 pm: Edit

Freighters in ballast mode was done in the "Star Fleet Times" newsletter.

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Thursday, July 09, 2026 - 02:05 pm: Edit

Quote:

Freighters in ballast mode was done in the "Star Fleet Times" newsletter.



AH! SFT #43! THANK YOU! I could have *sworn* I'd seen these, before...sadly lost in some move. At least I'm not going crazy! (Well...)

Still, cheap enough on Warehouse23, lemme go pick that up, and...


*EEEK*

That did not help.



BPV of the F-S in ballast w/ducktail is a flat '15' and '18' for the F-L.

Working backwards...
The 'ballast' configuration DOES speed up the ship, so that explains some of the BPV increase.

Which makes the cargo pod even more confusing. With a BPV of the P-CC listed as 14/10 - that can't check out.

IE., if I have a 15/15 ship in ballast, and then +14 and +10 to that...assuming we take -3 combat PV for the reduced move cost, it should be at 29/22. Yet the F-S (with P-CC) is instead 26/12.

F-L is worse. If it's 18/18 in ballast, adding a pair of 14/10 pods, even with -3 combat PV for each from move cost reduction, it should be 46/32. Yet the F-L (with P-CC) is instead 61/18.

IMHO, the P-CC is too high a combat PV (it really should be '0', or close to it, not '10') and too low an economic PV.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, July 09, 2026 - 02:15 pm: Edit

Garth Getgen:

Hospital facilities INSIDE bases (included in the design when built) are obviously present. The question is "quarantine" as raised by at least one poster. But, quarantine is a concern for preventing "lab leaks" (Biological agents generally) not for outbreaks on a planetary surface. In this latter case you are more concerned with the spread of the disease through the populace ON the planet and not letting it OFF the planet. You might quarantine a planet (or a continent, or an island, or what-have-you, but the medical facilities that are generally dealing with it or on the planet, not in a specially built deep space hospital that is perhaps four or five sectors away from the planet with the outbreak. Note that the distance of such a facility matters as transporting patients to it would involve a percentage of the patients succumbing to the disease en route. There is no sense to building such large dedicated medical structures in space simply because the time to get the patients to them (from adjacent planetary systems) is excessive and would tie up far too many ships. Better to have such facilities in situ to take care of those in need.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, July 09, 2026 - 02:32 pm: Edit

Garth Getgen asked: How much time? Let's assume you have all the components in the system, with a tug or two. You see the enemy fleet approaching from several hundred light-years away, so you know you need extra defenses quickly. How much advanced warning do you reasonably need to throw the thing together?? A few hours? A day? More??

REPLY: Essentially, if you can see the enemy coming (even on long range scanners) they are already too close to set up a base of any kind (including ground bases phasers, much less orbital/deep space MBs). Bases, even MBs, can be established where you THINK the enemy might come (for whatever reason, such as a capital planet or a valuable shipyard what-have-you) months in advance.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, July 09, 2026 - 02:34 pm: Edit

A David Merritt ASKED: Perhaps a OAL would be a better mobile hospital.

REPLY: Again, I am not sure what is gained over the existing hospital freighter besides engines?


A David Merritt ASKED: As far as a mobile base is concerned, I would think it would be more economical to send an LTT and a convoy of military engined freighters carrying all the parts for the LTT to assemble, send it in one go. Have a trained and formal group assigned to this would be a good idea for efficiency, and likely be small in number, 1-3 depending on Empire.

REPLY: Sounds like you are trying to define the Engineers of Federation & Empire. Note that freighters with military engines are still slower than a fleet tug or LTT carrying a (mobile base) pod. Having such formal groups standing around doing nothing waiting for the call to build something while otherwise sitting on the parts to build is a poor use of resources and that makes it inefficient.

A David Merritt SAID:Tholians, LDR, Orions, Jindarians, and Andros need not apply for these.

REPLY: Noted.

By A David Merritt (Adm) on Thursday, July 09, 2026 - 03:10 pm: Edit

By Steve Petrick (Petrick)

Quote:

REPLY: Sounds like you are trying to define the Engineers of Federation & Empire. Note that freighters with military engines are still slower than a fleet tug or LTT carrying a (mobile base) pod. Having such formal groups standing around doing nothing waiting for the call to build something while otherwise sitting on the parts to build is a poor use of resources and that makes it inefficient.



F&E; fair, however I was thinking more SFB or PD here.
Formal groups; hence the small number, even if just setting up Complats, SAMs or Civilian BSs, with time off between jobs, and maintenance, The Federation, ISC, Lyrans, and Klingons could likely keep three of these busy, the Romulans and Hydrans two. The Gorn can likely afford two, but the Assemblage wouldn't likely pay for it in peace time. The Kzinti and WYN one each.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Thursday, July 09, 2026 - 07:48 pm: Edit

For the record: I have zero desire to be part of the crew of the U.S.N.S. Plum Island.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Friday, July 10, 2026 - 09:50 am: Edit

New question: what is the abbreviation for the Vudar Electron fighter? I can't find it anywhere, and I have absolutely no idea where my copies of the counters are.

Thanks in advance!

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Friday, July 10, 2026 - 11:22 am: Edit

Previous conversation:

Spent some time with a spreadsheet last night, running numbers, and I think the issue is the P-CC pods values.

Obviously working out point values is mostly voodoo, but there is no way I can make any of the freighters or other SSDs that include them "work" with the listed 14/10 point values.

Rather, I think 16/2 comes out closest to what would be needed for the published SSDs to correctly math out. (Assuming sliding combat PV loss due to speed change, this works out to a resulting 31/12 BPV for the F-S...so it's currently slightly under-costed economically, while the F-L comes out to 50/19...making it slightly over-costed economically and under-costed combat PV.)

Close enough, anyway, to take the numbers and run with them to work out the other pod costs. Stay tuned...

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Friday, July 10, 2026 - 01:09 pm: Edit

Quote:

what is the abbreviation for the Vudar Electron fighter? I can't find it anywhere, and I have absolutely no idea where my copies of the counters are.



My (unpunched, early printing) Module F2 just has the counters as 'FTR'. The R-sections don't help.

I assume since the Vudar had 4/5 different fighter types, it simply didn't make sense to differentiate them on the countersheet.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Friday, July 10, 2026 - 11:04 pm: Edit

Mike,

There is no abbreviation for any of the Vudar fighters. See F2, pg 23 & 46.

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Monday, July 13, 2026 - 01:44 pm: Edit

Question on (R1.32E) in Module R1.

In Module R8, the Small Hospital Freighter (R1.61) and Large Hospital Freighter (R1.62) both have their crew segmented into types - specifically, the addition of 'Medical Staff' and 'Patient Crew Units'.

The Hospital Module (R1.32E) in Module R1 does not - it just shows 12 crew units. Module R1 was published quite some time, ago - if the Hospital Module were to be updated to the R8 details, what would be the Medical Staff/Patient breakdown?

The ratio on the two freighters seems to be 12 staff per 30 patients (Not divisible! why?!) along with 11 crew units added per pod (crowded!), so...maybe 2 crew, 3 doctors, and 7 patients?

Or...are the 'Medical Staff' and 'Patients' meant to be INCLUDED in the 'Crew Units' count, in the same way Boarding Parties and Deck Crews are, not a distinct thing? (Which would then bring up the question - what is the conversion rate of a Medical Staff or Patient TO a 'Crew Unit'? We know BPs and Deck Crew are 2:1, but that ratio doesn't work, here.) (G9.416) makes me think this isn't the case, though, and Staff and Patients are handled distinctly from 'crew'...

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Friday, August 07, 2026 - 01:13 pm: Edit

Spinning this question into its own topic, from another thread...

When, exactly, DID the Klingons add the (FD3.6) racks to their ships, replacing shuttles? The rule doesn't say! Nor what to do before this point. It simply states:

Quote:

The “F” drone rack (known as the “jump rack”) was a Klingon invention used to add drones to ships not originally designed for them. The drone racks seen on the B10, C9, C8, D7, D6, F5, and E4 are actually type-F racks replacing shuttles.



The timing on this is a bit baffling, as the "F" rack ALSO appears on the warp-refitted D3 (Y63) and D4 (Y78). I'm assuming the SSDs in Module Y1 must be some later version of those ships, AFTER the jump-rack was introduced, then? But when was that? (YR3.2) and (YR3.4) make it clear that the D3 and D4 were 'out of service' by the time UIMs were invented, which was Y165. So assuming (big assumption) they were in service RIGHT UP until that point, it means somewhere between Y63 and Y165, jump racks were fitted across the fleet (explaining the Y1 SSDs we have with the jump racks on both ships).

Given the D7 SSD (Y135) notes it starts with jump racks, itself, that narrows it down even more - at some point between Y135 (D7 YIS) and Y165 (latest possible out-of-service for the D4) is when the jump racks were added.

Soooo...what IS that exact date?

And...before that date, whatever it is...per (FD3.6), the Klingons had shuttles instead of jump racks on their ships? How does that effect their BPV?

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Friday, August 07, 2026 - 01:57 pm: Edit

(FD3.6) was written before the Early Years modules. As noted, going as far back as the warp-refitted D3, the Klingons were mounting F-racks in shuttle bays, and doing so as a fleet wide deployment with few to no exceptions within a class. While a few early warp-refitted D3s probably operated without F-racks, remember that the D3 was an existing class refitted with tactical warp - they likely were given F-racks with the concurrent new warp capable drones as part of that refit.

This points to the subsequent generations of ships (D4 to D6 to D7 in the case of cruisers) being designed with “we’ll keep the shuttle bay at about the same size, and just keep mounting F-racks in half of it” as intentional. Why not just add A-racks? Mayhaps the particulars of how the hulls are laid out (Klingon ships being noted as being more cramped than most empires) meant A-racks could not have been added elsewhere in the ship without losing other weapons. Or the F-racks were seen as capable enough in the era of slow drones so they were the cheapest option to install. It wasn’t until the Y160s, as drones started to become a greater threat, that the Klingons came up a way to replace the F-racks with A-racks as part of the B-refit. I imagine it would be something along the lines of being able to plug an entire module with the A-racks into a portion of the shuttle bay, versus the F-racks being bolted to the floor of the bay.

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Friday, August 07, 2026 - 02:09 pm: Edit

Perhaps I shouldn't have brought the Y-Modules into the question - I was just fishing for any kind of dates that would work.

The Klingons might have had an F-4 Phantom II moment, there, after all - jump-racks on your Early Years ships, then decide 'hey, these suck, and now we've got these spiffy long-range disruptors, so we'll remove them from our next generation of ships!'

...only to realize, very quickly, 'actuall, wait, no, we do need those', and now it's back to F-racks, since the ships were 'not originally designed for [drones]'.

Not sure that answer the original question, though.

Y122 - D6 enters service without drone (per (FD3.6))
Y135 - D7 enters service without drone (per (FD3.6))
???? - Klingon ships lacking them are refitted with type-F 'jump racks' replacing shuttles (FD3.6)
Y165 - Klingon ships start receiving the B-refit, which switches the type-F to type-A racks
Y175 - Klingon ships start receiving the Y175 refit, switching the type-A to type-B racks

The question is that '???' date. When is that? And what is the effect on the ship's BPV before that?

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Friday, August 07, 2026 - 02:14 pm: Edit

Or, again, (FD3.6) was written before we had any of the Early Years material, and is thus outdated in its description of the history of the usage of F-racks.

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Friday, August 07, 2026 - 02:28 pm: Edit

So one of three possibilities:

A) Rules and everything as-written are fine, just the Y1 SSDs reflect a 'refitted' version of the ship, and the jump racks weren't actually installed until some time between Y135 and Y165 even on the D3 and D4 cruisers

B) Rules and everything as-written are fine, and the Klingons pulled a "we don't need guns for dogfights, anymore, we've got MISSILES, now!" with the concept of drones. So they DID exist on the Y-era ships, but the GW-era ships were initially launched WITHOUT them because the Klingons thought they were no longer useful...only to add them back at some point because they DID need them, after all.

C) The rules are wrong and we should just chuck (FD3.6) entirely.

It sounds like you are suggesting C, while I think either A or B would be more satisfying for the setting. A or B just needs a date for when it happened, though, and clarification on what to do beforehand.

By Douglas Saldana (Dsal) on Friday, August 07, 2026 - 02:31 pm: Edit

I think it would be interesting for the Klingons to have the option of more or fewer F-racks as a Commander's Option. Likely, the SSDs show the optimum balance between jump racks and shuttles but there might be mission-specific reason for altering that balance.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Friday, August 07, 2026 - 02:34 pm: Edit

The part of (FD3.6) I am pointing out as being wrong is entirely descriptive background, which can be easily changed without chunking the rule entirely. And it would hardly be the first time some part of the background got updated based on subsequent material that has been released and re-examination of the source tapes.

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Friday, August 07, 2026 - 02:39 pm: Edit

Quote:

I think it would be interesting for the Klingons to have the option of more or fewer F-racks as a Commander's Option. Likely, the SSDs show the optimum balance between jump racks and shuttles but there might be mission-specific reason for altering that balance.



That'd certainly be an interesting change.

FWIW, the R-sections almost even support the idea.

(YR3.10) states:
Quote:

Records indicate that a single type-F (FD3.6) drone rack was retained in the shuttle bay, something of a compromise as the ship captains selected to command these ships were aghast at the otherwise slim armament.



...and in (YR3.15):

Quote:

The drone racks on the D4C early command cruiser were still an ancillary system, intended for easy removal to allow more shuttles to be carried

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Friday, August 07, 2026 - 02:45 pm: Edit

Mission-specific enough that it would be a very reasonable scenario special rule, but not something ship captains get to do as part of selecting Commander’s Options.

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Friday, August 07, 2026 - 02:55 pm: Edit

Quote:

The part of (FD3.6) I am pointing out as being wrong is entirely descriptive background, which can be easily changed without chunking the rule entirely. And it would hardly be the first time some part of the background got updated based on subsequent material that has been released and re-examination of the source tapes.



Perhaps. For my money, I'd rather keep (FD3.6) as-is, and simply accept that the Klingons decided at some point between the EY and MY era that "drones are for cats, we don't need 'em!" ...only to later change their minds and have to refit them back into their fleet after designing a series of ships without them.

Less needs changing that way, and it adds some flavor to the setting.

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation