Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through July 07, 2002	13		07/07 11:06pm
	Archive through October 06, 2002	19		10/06 07:06pm
	Archive through October 13, 2002	23		10/13 06:35pm
	Archive through October 17, 2002	24		10/17 11:19am
	Archive through October 17, 2002	25		10/17 05:20pm
	Archive through October 18, 2002	25		10/18 03:00pm
	Archive through October 21, 2002	25		10/21 12:53pm
	Archive through August 15, 2003	25		08/15 01:12pm
	Archive through August 18, 2003	25		08/18 12:47pm
	Archive through August 25, 2003	25		08/25 12:18pm
	Archive through February 19, 2004	25		02/19 09:22pm
	Archive through February 23, 2004	25		02/23 01:49am
	Archive through February 25, 2004	25		02/25 09:39pm

Alan Trevor

---

Quote:

One suggestion concerning aesthetics. I believe it would look better if the exterior lines remained straight and instead the repair boxes were moved to the inside. Imagine that the junction between the two hulls is moved from its current location just below the FA+L/FA+R Ph-1s up to a line roughly equal to the two FA disruptors. The webcaster would be placed on that line between the disruptors and the four repair boxes would be in a 2*2 cluster approximately where the webcaster is now. I think this would make a more attractive SSD.

---

---

Quote:

How about lowering the bottom line on the SSD outline slighly and then moving the web generators and entire impulse engine down one row? This allows room to split the six box repair into three repair and three APR. Base BPV (prior to snare/webcaster refits) should probably increase to 150.

---

---

Quote:

Or if that's too much an even simpler solution would be to dump the two flank Ph-1s (LS/RS) and change those boxes to APR. This, incidently, would give the CCT exactly the same weapons and power as the CA/CAW (except that the CA has 24 warp, 4 impulse, 3 APR while the CCT would have 24 warp, 5 impulse and 2 APR - but 31 points generated plus three reserve in either case.) BPV shouldn't increase in this case since the loss of Ph-1s should at least cancel out the APR gain.

---

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 09:06 am: Edit

Robert Cole:

Actually, I think the Gorns retain all their weapons and power systems on the CCT. (I could be wrong, but that's my recollection from the last time I looked.) I can live with that as something unique to the Gorns, but in general the CCTs should lose some combat capability compared to the CCs.

I agree that a balanced reduction that costs both weapons and power is generally best. Which is why my final suggestion, which leaves the CCT with identical inherent combat power to the CA/CAW but retains CC Command Rating and adds PFT capability, seems to work for me. It loses four power and 2 Ph-1s from the pure CC, but retains sufficient repair capability to fully support the flotilla. The original Tholian CCT you proposed lost no weapons but six power, which I think was too unbalanced.

Any comments on my suggestion to upgrade the #4 and #5 phasers on the D7T to Phaser-1s, bringing it in line with the D7L?

By Robert Cole (Zathras) on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 11:09 am: Edit

---

Quote:

Actually, I think the Gorns retain all their weapons and power systems on the CCT. (I could be wrong, but that's my recollection from the last time I looked.) I can live with that as something unique to the Gorns, but in general the CCTs should lose some combat capability compared to the CCs.

---

---

Quote:

I agree that a balanced reduction that costs both weapons and power is generally best. Which is why my final suggestion, which leaves the CCT with identical inherent combat power to the CA/CAW but retains CC Command Rating and adds PFT capability, seems to work for me. It loses four power and 2 Ph-1s from the pure CC, but retains sufficient repair capability to fully support the flotilla. The original Tholian CCT you proposed lost no weapons but six power, which I think was too unbalanced.

---

---

Quote:

Any comments on my suggestion to upgrade the #4 and #5 phasers on the D7T to Phaser-1s, bringing it in line with the D7L?

---

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 11:22 am: Edit

My mistake. I had assumed the D7T was based on the D7C/D7L rather than the standard D7.

Regarding adding boxes generally; most of the Strike PFTs are based on CCs (rather than CCHs). Since the CCHs most definately do add boxes to the basic CC, I don't see it as a problem if the CCTs add boxes to the CC hull.

By David Kass (Dkass) on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 12:39 am: Edit

Short reply to a lot of comments (its been a busy week).

Alan, I for one was very disappointed in the conjectural ships in R5 and R7. I only have R10 because I received a free copy. J2 was borderline. I believe SVC stated that this disappointment was fairly widespread in the pre-R10 discussion (when NCA was going to be a mail-order only product--my impression was that R10 only happened because ADB "needed" an SFB product and decided at least half would be built ships).

Robert wrote:

---

Quote:

Here I disagree, as a normal PFT is pretty toothless by itself, so having the firepower of a CA along could be quite handy.

---

---

Quote:

I wouldn?t want to risk a normal PFT in an independent raid, however, the SPFT is powerful enough to fight in conjunction with the PFs, meaning that they all have a better change of survival.

---

By David Kass (Dkass) on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 12:55 am: Edit

Marc, sure a CWS (which most races have) has "excess" power, but its on a CW hull so it doesn't have the power curve of a fast cruiser. Even without the fast engines, a CA based scout (eg the D6S or GSC or even the D6E) are incredibly powerful (more powerful than the CWS--they have more discretionary power at moderate speeds). I haven't had a chance to play with the NCA based scouts but they look to be rocking--at least they're very rare. Giving them fast engines and a PF flotilla will make the insane.

I don't see 6 sensors as being accepted. There are very very few scouts with more than 4 (and most are special cases or grandfathered). Even a fast heavy scout wouldn't need more than 4 special sensors (4 requires 34 power--7x4 + 6 ECM for the ship--to use them fully and even a fast scout can't afford that much power).

I doubt even 4 special sensor will fly. The fast cruisers all lose 2 heavy weapons (they do gain 2 phasers). And since even most CA scouts only have 4 channels, the fast versions are going to have to lose some to account for this weapon loss. Especially if you're also converting the fast ships into PFTs at the same time (ie adding extra mech links and repair).

By the time PFs come around, most standard fast cruisers are dead and unavailable for conversion. A few races build a NCF (NCA based fast cruiser) or two, but they're noted as being extremely expensive (due to the specialization). So I don't see even those races building more to convert to PFTs. I suppose one race might have converted one to a PFT variant sometime in the Y195 timeframe to hunt down Andro bases. But I'm still very leery of the design idea--I'm extremely concerned that it will be overpowering.

By David Kass (Dkass) on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 01:00 am: Edit

I did have an idea for a new class of PFT. I'm currently not sure whether it would work or not.

An X-ship based PFT. I'm thinking here of converting the X-scouts into a PFT version. This would be in the Y192 or so timeframe as Andro RTN hunters. These may have many of the problems I'm concerned about for Marc's fast PFT ideas. But they'd be on the size class 4 hulls. These would not be X-PFs, just standard PFs (much like some X-ships carry casual PFs).

I don't see the Klingons building one (they never built a size class 4 PFT). Or maybe going all out for them and doing it on a D5X hull (it would make one sick ship in that case). I don't think the ISC have a size class 4 PFT either, so they probably wouldn't build one either.

By Robert Cole (Zathras) on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 01:59 am: Edit

David Kass:

---

Quote:

?!?? The PFT has all the PFs to provide its firepower. Just about any PFT can take on anything up to a DN sized ship by itself and expect to win. A DW squadron would be a doable fight.

---

---

Quote:

I wasn't clear about firepower, what I meant to say was that a X-DD has the firepower to handle most things it will encounter on a patrol and most of the rest will run over even a strike PFT. So the firepower increase of the strike PFT isn't useful in the patrol role.

---

---

Quote:

I'm not sure why you think the extra 10% shields and internals of the strike PFT will help it survive more than the scout channels of the standard PFT (I'm referring to a CW-PFT here). The force will have 25% or so additional offensive firepower, but I don't see that as killing sufficiently faster to make up for the risk in combat. So, for me, if it would be unsafe to send the CW-PFT, it would be unsafe to send the strike PFT.

---

---

Quote:

So basically your strike PFT are for players who don't like Lyrans, Klingons, Romulans or ISC. And who don't like fighters. And who don't like special sensors (if formally playing without special sensors, PFs are illegal anyways--see the rule levels). This doesn't seem to be that large of a population of players. Even in that case, you could still bring them as an independent flotilla (or three). It does require opponent agreement, but I'd usually agree if the reason was explained.

---

---

Quote:

I'd suggest comparing your new ISC strike PFT to the existing PFT. To me, the two special sensors on the existing one make up for the few losses. As I said before, I can see introducing a PPD armed variant of the existing PFT, but why bother with a new class?

---

---

Quote:

I like the ROC and Lyran BCH, but I'd like to keep them as unique designs.

---

By Robert Cole (Zathras) on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 02:02 am: Edit

---

Quote:

I did have an idea for a new class of PFT. I'm currently not sure whether it would work or not.

An X-ship based PFT. I'm thinking here of converting the X-scouts into a PFT version. This would be in the Y192 or so timeframe as Andro RTN hunters. These may have many of the problems I'm concerned about for Marc's fast PFT ideas. But they'd be on the size class 4 hulls. These would not be X-PFs, just standard PFs (much like some X-ships carry casual PFs).

I don't see the Klingons building one (they never built a size class 4 PFT). Or maybe going all out for them and doing it on a D5X hull (it would make one sick ship in that case). I don't think the ISC have a size class 4 PFT either, so they probably wouldn't build one either.

---

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 11:21 am: Edit

David Kass: I like the Scout PFT X idea.

With regards to the Klingons, Robert Coles idea is good but I can certainly see a D5X converted to the role; the PF squadron being the fire power replacement for those systems taken by the scout sensors.

Of course, such a units would require some sort of deep space fast resupply for the PF's lost in combat. Which then could lead to some interesting scenarios.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 11:30 am: Edit

This may be a bit overboard but I wonder if the concept of larger X-units with expanded squadrons is worth considering. This would redefine the old squadron rules but being based on an X-ship in the RTN hunting era this could be acceptable.

Consider the Kzinti BCX with special sensors, some cargo and repair. The expanded PF squadron could be one as follows:

8 PF including a Leader and Scout (6+2)

8 PF with two Leaders leading two short squadrons.

8 PF divided into two four unit Wings. (In the RTN hunting role the PF would be without their Tender so a Leader and Scout might not be deemed necessary.)

I like the last idea best.

By David Kass (Dkass) on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 12:58 am: Edit

Robert,

As far as comparing the ISC CCT and PFT, remember that the 2 extra F-torps are under the rear firing restrictions and thus not very useful (since the PFT already has 4 of them). The extra warp needs to be balanced against the fact that the PFT has a 2/3 move cost (so that at speed 30, the PFT actually has more "excess" power than the CCT has).

The net is really some phasers and expendables (I count the Flag in this category) for a pair of special sensors. The CCT is probably the marginally better ship, but IMHO, it is very close (I am a fan of EW, so I value the special sensors).

My thought on the CVF is that it appears as a cheaper replacement for the CV with almost all the same firepower. It can be built in the more common CL shipyards instead of replacing a CA or CC production. I'd suggest the same reasoning would make the marginal improvement of the CCT over the PFT not worth it for the ISC to produce.
I think we're miscommunicating on the firepower issue (I'm otherwise willing to agree to disagree). I'm not referring to the extra offense of the tender, but the DEFENSE.

Based on the history, it appears that PF raids/strikes were regularly used against targets capable of destroying cruiser sized ships (even if the raid was otherwise successful). If this was not the case, even the standard PFT would participate in the raid (sure it doesn't add much firepower, but any addition is worth it).

The alliance races (at least) could not afford to lose ships like this (especially since losing a tender also cost all of its PFs).

If the target can kill a standard PFT, it can kill a strike PFT. Given its EW capabilities, I would argue that a standard CW based PFT is actually harder to kill than a strike PFT, despite being a slightly more fragile hull.

Therefore, the strike PFT cannot accompany its PFs on raids/strikes. Its loss cannot be risked.

Therefore, it is forced to raid in the same manner as a standard PFT. But it cannot do so because it lacks the special sensors required for PF raids/strikes.

Therefore, the Strike PFT is actually a worse PFT for independent operations.

It is true that for certain personal preferences, the strike PFT provides squadron level options not otherwise avaiable. I'm more than willing to agree to disagree on whether or not they should be included (with the exception of the Klingon and ISC ones which appear to be redundant).

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, March 01, 2018 - 02:03 pm: Edit

New things are needed for module K2 I imagine.

Here's a thing I thought up.

Strikeboats:

During the Andro war developed by the ISC to bolster their firepower however they could.

Basic idea, while not advanced technology units themselves, technological advances allowed smaller and more efficient engines to become available. Sort of a hybrid between starship and fighter concepts, these units carried drones and heavy weapons on external hardpoints, but utilized phasers as star ships do.

Somewhat midway between a PF and FF in size, these were size five units that could operate independantly. They used more automation than earlier starship designs so were able to function with a smaller crew.

Move cost 1/4, generally 12 warp, 2 impulse 2 apr, with two batteries (these were advanced tech) with six capacity. Otherwise no advanced technolgy on these units.

A Lyran strikeboat would have three disruptors with two charges each - these could fire as an overload if both charges are used, as well as four spaces of external drone mounts. This ship could launch all of its drones or fire all of its heavy weapons in a single turn.

A Hydran equivalent would use fusion beams with four charges, three charges can fire an overload out to range three, and four charges can fire an overload to range eight.

Maximum range for direct fire weapons is 15.

Forward shields are 15, rear are 12. Perhaps five crew-units (one of which is two boardig parties).

These units are nimble. They have built in EW systems as PFs do.

Drone and heavy weapons hardpoints can be reloaded/recharged, it takes deckcrew actions to do so (as well as the normal amount of energy for heavy weapons).

These units can operate independantly as starships do. They are constructed at shipyards for perhaps 1.5 EP each (in F&E terms), production is limited to three a turn, can substitue three for an FF once per turn.

By Jon Murdock (Xenocide) on Thursday, March 01, 2018 - 02:32 pm: Edit

It is an independent unit with limited charges on its weapons? How does it get recharged? Tender? Base? Do they operate in flotillas? Do they take up a command spot each? How would these be deployed?

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, March 01, 2018 - 03:34 pm: Edit

It can power the charges, but they have to be loaded via deck crews.

By Jon Murdock (Xenocide) on Thursday, March 01, 2018 - 04:04 pm: Edit

So it powers the charges and deck crews inside the ship load them manually into the tubes. Why don't they just hook the weapon to the power system directly?

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, March 01, 2018 - 05:14 pm: Edit

To save space by not using starship rated heavy weapons systems. One drawback of these types of systems (in my proposal). Probably the weapons and drones are represented as 'ready racks shuttle boxes' on the SSD, one for the heavy weapons, one for drones, which are destroyed on shuttle or torpedo/drone hits. They do not actually contain (or are able to contain) shuttles.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, March 01, 2018 - 05:22 pm: Edit

The idea of the battery power and weapons rules is that these are made to strike quickly with a good amount of firepower and then run, unless fighting relatively week or immobile opposition, as reloading takes time.