Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through February 19, 2014	25		02/19 09:54pm
	Archive through February 20, 2014	25		02/20 09:24pm
	Archive through February 22, 2014	25		02/22 09:21am
	Archive through September 14, 2015	25		08/12 01:38pm

Elsewhere on the BBS, I noted that one potential option for non-tactical warp combat would be to "zoom in" from the default 10,000km-diameter map hex scale used in both SFB and FC, to perhaps something like 1000kms per map hex instead.

Thus, at such a scale, the Earth would be about 13 hexes across, give or take - whereas Jupiter would be about 143 hexes across! In either case, combat in the vicinity of a planet would be even more impactful at this proposed scale than it is at the "standard" SFB/FC scale.

-----

At such a scale, this would allow for up to 10 hexes of movement per turn, to match Speed 1 at the "standard" map scale.

While all ships at the "standard" scale default to the same method of Impulse movement, regardless of their Move Cost for Tactical Warp movement, it might, or might not, be an option to say that, in this "zomed-in" scale, there is (or was) some sort of equivalent Move Cost imposed for units of a certain size.

Similarly, all ships at the "standard" scale have the same rules in terms of turning at Impulse speeds. This might, or might not, be the case here: perhaps there are, or were, certain ship types which were somewhat more agile, in terms of how many hexes they were obliged to move before they could pivot to port or starboard?

-----

In terms of why such a scale might - or might not - be of any use for actual ships, I took a moment to review a couple of the S-era SSDs to be found in Module Y1: First, for the Romulan Bolted Warbird (YR4.3A); and second, for the Paravian sublight heavy cruiser (YR13.2A).

-----

The SWB has eight Impulse boxes overall.

For argument's sake, if one were to assign an "Impulse Move Cost" of 1, to match its Move Cost at Tactical Warp speeds at the "standard" scale, this ship would then be able to go move no faster than Speed 8 at this proposed map scale. (Which would still round up to Speed 1 at the "standard" map scale.) Actually, this echoes the "Shadow of the Eagle" W- and Y-era hulls seen in Module R4J, which are somewhat slower than their counterparts in most other Alpha Octant star fleets.

Warp-refitted iterations of this hull have a Move Cost of D. This might not have any direct impact on the relative agility of this hull here. But, it might indicate that, if one were to set up a range of agility options, it would perhaps have to move farther per game turn before it was permitted to make its turn to port or starboard.

Offensively, the SWB has a (bolt-only) type-R launcher, plus four warp-targeted lasers. One could scale these back to an array of FH atomic missile racks (perhaps four of them?) in place of the plasma-R, and to remove the warp-targeting function from the lasers.

Defensively, the SWB has only 10 shield boxes per facing, plus the on-board armor. This could have been the same prior to the S-refit - or, perhaps, the shields were even worse, back in the day...

-----

By way of comparison, the Paravian SCA is more of a "full-sized" cruiser, akin to those seen in Federation of Gorn space.

It has 12 Impulse boxes - which, in the current proposed setup, would enable the ship to move the "full" 10 hexes per turn, if one assumes an "Impulse Move Cost" of 1.

In the W- and Y-era, Paravian ships with Tactical Warp engines have problems turning to port or starboard, depending on the amount of L or R warp engine damage that has been scored. This is rectified by the onset of the Middle Years, as seen in Module C6. In any case, an undamaged warp-powered Paravian heavy cruiser has a Turn Mode of B.

So, if one were to account for different "Impulse Turn Modes" at this proposed scale, the Paravians would be in whatever category was to be assigned to the equivalent Klingon warships. Whatever that might end up being. But would it be worth going so far to trouble sublight Paravian ships with Turn Mode issues based on damage to their "port" and/or "starboard" engines?

Offensively, the SCA has nine warp-targeted lasers and two quantum cannons. Reportedly, the Paravians used a "quantum blaster" on their sublight ships - so one might need to invent such a weapon, or perhaps step back to it from the quantum cannon, here. Along with de-warp-targeting the lasers, of course.

Defensively, it's noted in their YR-section that the Paravians were distinct in that their ships never used armour and always had shields. In any case, the SCA has 18-18-14-14-14-18 box shields: whether this was the same on their pre-S-era hull is another matter.

Also, in keeping with their "pseudo-pirate" nature in this time period, this ship has six Cargo boxes and four Non-Weapon Option boxes. This "generalist" approach carried over to the W- and Y-eras, but was set aside in Module C6 for a set of more specialized warship variants.

-----

So, based on the sample S-era SSDs available in Module Y1, it would appear that there are certain opportunities to account for empire-specific quirks and tactical options, at least at the proposed 1000km per hex scale of combat.

Any thoughts on the above?

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Wednesday, August 12, 2026 - 12:13 am: Edit

I made a slight error above: the Paravian SCA in fact has 6 NWO boxes, rather than 4.

-----

In hindsight, I should probably try to explain a bit more about the "Impulse Move Cost" concept.

At the "standard" scale, only a single point of impulse power is needed to move a ship - or of reserve impulse power to accelerate it, if it had not used impulse movement earlier in the same turn - a single map hex per turn.

If one were to use the same rule at the "zoomed-in" scale proposed above, a single point of impulse power would still be enough to move up to the "full" 10 hexes of possible movement per turn.

However, I wasn't sure if it was wise for a Q-era ship to have the same amount of discretionary power as its later S-era counterpart. Not least since, if one were to remove the "warp-class" weapons (such as type-R plasma bolts, or quantum cannons) to make room for "sublight" alternatives, that might - or might not - leave an inordinate amount of spare power for other purposes.

So, I was wondering if there could be some way to make the impulse engines of this time period more "inefficient" in terms of their ability to move a ship at combat speeds, relative to what is seen in the S-era and beyond.

-----

In this, I was minded of some of the details about how Non-Tactical Warp developed for operational movement.

For example: in Prime Directive Romulans, it's noted that the "primitive" NTW which the Exodus-era Vulcans had developed had drastically slower "cruising" speeds than seen in later eras. Because of this, it took the exiles around 45 years, give or take, to get from Vulcan over to Romulus.

Much later on, the Romulans were able to replicate this slower "cruising" speed when they returned to the stars. It wasn't until much closer to Y1 before they "caught up" to the standard.

Meanwhile, over in what would later become the heart of ISC space, Module Y2 notes that each of the five "pre-ISC" species developed impulse engines that were short-ranged and unreliable: going any farther than 50-100 parsecs in a single trip was a risky endeavour. This locked the five planets into a series of squabbles over the Resource Worlds they could reach.

This was not corrected until well after the onset of Tactical Warp - at which point the concept of "warp equals peace" had already begun to be widely accepted in that region of space.

-----

So, it's clear that "current" impulse engines did not spring up overnight - at least in terms of operational movement.

In which case, perhaps it would not be entirely out of the realm of possibility for this to be so in combat terms, also?

By Nick Samaras (Koogie) on Wednesday, August 12, 2026 - 01:00 pm: Edit

Not really a fan of any scale were a class-M planet is more than 3-5 hexes. The old sublight rules had a six impulse movement chart (1 impulse gave you up to three hexes).

I would like to see that changed to an eight impulse turn (divdes better than six) with each point of impulse giving you one movement, for the points you mentioned above.

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Wednesday, August 12, 2026 - 01:16 pm: Edit

I just don't know that a Module Q could be that interesting - but maybe biased from the version first SFB editions that had it, when it was just...the same ships (basically) just handled differently, which...

I dunno.

I think the other thread Gary was referring to had the better proposal, as it let "sublight ships" meaningfully move on a regular SFB map. (No, I'm not biased at all, why would you ask?)

As to the 'purely sublight' combat of the VERY first steps (first Federation-Romulan war, for example) - easy enough to just say the weapons then were so INCREDIBLY primitive that it removed the damage multiplier, and now everything works from front to back with one additional rule section.

YMMV, of course, regarding how much that is worth.

By Douglas Saldana (Dsal) on Wednesday, August 12, 2026 - 01:38 pm: Edit

I like Nick's suggestion of changing to an eight impulse turn. That would make it a lot easier to port rules over from the main game and not have to write a whole new rulebook.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Wednesday, August 12, 2026 - 02:05 pm: Edit

If one were to set the game scale to 1/8 of the "standard" map scale - as in, to go to 1250kms per map hex - then 8 Impulses per turn sounds reasonable.

At such a scale, Earth would be just over 10 hexes across. Which I consider to be part and parcel of this era of play, personally-speaking - at least if one wants to play at a map scale which still places an emphasis on manoeuvre.

-----

On the other hand, I am still very much not in favour of the concept of Impulse-powered ships being allows to "sprint" across the board at anything faster than Warp 1 in the middle of a battle.

Their operational movement should, in my view, be limited to either approaching a battle before it begins, or withdrawing from it once it ends.

Now, it's possible that this might lead to a set of "running battles" across a given star system, as ships chase one another from one planetary orbit to the next. Even so, the individual encounters would, in my view, still play out as discrete battles, in game terms.

-----

In the long run, it might be that a different game system - such as a "zoomed-in" version of A Call to Arms: Star Fleet, perhaps - might be preferable to some than one scaled down from "standard" SFB or FC.

However, I don't see why different varieties of game system can't eventually co-exist, just as they do for Tactical Warp combat at this time of typing.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, August 12, 2026 - 02:36 pm: Edit

SVC catches up

Zoom in scale; I am not saying "no" but this is a new idea that needs discussion

eight impulse turn: okay by me

Spring during combat; no, the tech doesn't support it

Let's get an SFB version done first, then ACTA

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Wednesday, August 12, 2026 - 09:45 pm: Edit

Another potential detail I wanted to address:

-----

In the Early Years, there is a difference between "standard" warp-targeted lasers, as seen on starships; and "light" warp-targeted lasers, as seen on sublight Romulan fighters. The former laser table is listed under (YE21.3); the latter table is detailed under (YE21.43).

In hindsight, I might have preferred that those laser mounts that were historically replaced with phaser-3s had been given the "light" laser type instead: with the "standard" laser mount kept as a forerunner to the phaser-2. Not least since "standard" lasers take up the same "full" weapon mount space as a phaser-2, as opposed to the "half-space" taken up by a phaser-3.

It might be a few decades too late to do anything about this for S-era ships. However, perhaps it could be an option for those "future phaser-3" mounts in this era to have been "light" lasers, prior to the onset of S-tech?

For example: those nine lasers on the Paravian SCA become five phaser-2s and four phaser-3s on the WCA. I would prefer that a would-be "QCA" only have the five "future phaser-2" mounts be "standard" lasers, and for the other four to be "light" lasers instead.

This is the kind of detail which could benefit from a more "zoomed-in" scale of play, and (I might argue) would fit the technological progression of the base hulls more neatly.

Any thoughts?

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Thursday, August 13, 2026 - 12:32 pm: Edit

Just my two cents worth...

I would not like to see a change in distance scale.

SFB is a game of maneuver. The draw for Module Q would be the need to maneuver to get to the extremely close ranges where the weapons will be effective. This could make it more similar to Star Fleet Marines (or, if I might reference a game from another publisher, albeit one who has a record of being friendly with ADB, Inc., Ogre)

It could also, theoretically, be played on a single panel (of the six) of a standard map.

This will also make it (theoretically?) possible to do a game where sublight units are facing a fantastically advanced enemy ship; a ship with the new, amazing "W-Refit!!"

By Douglas Lampert (Dlampert) on Thursday, August 13, 2026 - 12:57 pm: Edit

Pure sublight, if you don't change scale, a turn is effectively little more than a single impulse, which makes it, "Move or tac, decide if you want to shoot or not, fill out EA," rinse, wash, repeat.

[Possibly with some added complexity due to the ability to fire prior to movement and tacs being at a time of the ship owner's choice, you might need as many as 3 firing steps, one for impulse 1 shots, one for 8-impulse delayed, one for impulse-32 shots after movement. With a possible tac prior to each if you have an impulse tac.]

Which means that "Fill out EA" needs to be utterly trivial or you spend way to much time on that. This is likely to be easy enough, movement cost is "1" unless you aren't moving at all for example. Life support is fixed cost. I'm not sure sublight even has shields, I think something in the lore says it's armor back then.

Tactical decisions will be largely limited to when to launch fighters and missiles, and to whether to power lasers or any heavy weapons and when to fire heavy weapons.

Edited to add: And missiles and fighters are nearly useless if you can move in reverse, as ships can simply avoid them at the cost of the 1 power they were using on movement anyway. So if not changing scale, probably sublight needs to not be able to go in reverse.

By Nick Samaras (Koogie) on Thursday, August 13, 2026 - 01:43 pm: Edit

Prefer no change to scale either. I'm okay with fudging those things. We do them in SFB now to make the game work (like bases orbiting a planet at the speed of light, hit and run raids that would probably take several minutes in real time but take place seemingly in seconds). We can instead say that a turn represents a longer period of time than it does in SFB.

To me the appeal of this game is just a simple starship combat game that takes place in the familiar universe we've come to love. Short turns, less things to do in a turn, no complex weapons or systems. I don't need any fancy vector movement or such.

Any adding of a faster than light unit should just revert back to a standard SFB game (i.e., sublight units move once per turn).

However, the above is all just me and what I would look for in a sublight game.

By Douglas Saldana (Dsal) on Thursday, August 13, 2026 - 01:49 pm: Edit

In regards to scale in the old Q.0 sublight rules:

"The scale of the game is changed to reflect the slower movement rates. A movement rate of 20 hexes per turn would represent the speed of light, but no ship in this game may move faster than six hexes per turn." (text quoted is in Pocket, Designer's and Commander's Edition).

It was never explicitly stated if it was the time scale, map scale, or a combination of both that was changed.

In regards to reverse movement:

In the old sub-light rules missiles and fighters had a higher maximum speed than ships. Missiles were speed 12 (moved twice an impulse), fighters were speed 9.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Thursday, August 13, 2026 - 10:22 pm: Edit

The current atomic missile rules under (YFD18.0) represent iterations with "much faster engines" that were used in "the early stages of the tactical warp revolution". Although the Gorns were relatively slow to move past them towards "warp-class" plasma bolt launchers.

Part of this revolution included the means to track combat happening at warp speeds - something which was only possible starting with the S-refit.

At the "standard" scale, "S-era missiles" move at Speed 2 (moving in Impulses #8 and #24) with a maximum range of six hexes, and the launching ship must stay within 12 hexes to maintain guidance. But, again, these are with "faster" engines and with "warp-tracking" sensors installed; prior to this, no doubt the speeds and distances involved would be severely curtailed.

So, whether it's in terms of how said missiles would operate, or in how far from the launching ship they can be guided, these would be scaled back in the Q-era relative to what we know for the S-era and beyond.

-----

That said, some of the details would perhaps stay the same.

"S-era" missiles are destroyed by two points of damage, and score four points of damage upon impact. I might suggest keeping that as-is.

"S-era" missiles must be launched in the 120-degree arc the launcher is facing, though the tracking arc extends to 180 degrees. I would suggest keeping these the same, also.

-----

Speaking of warp-tracking: this might be a good excuse to limit the operation of Vulcan phaser-1s in this era.

Once warp-tracking becomes a thing, they would gain the ability to target an enemy unit out to the full 75 hexes, as seen in later time periods.

But, if one assumes that the Vulcans have the same "sub-light" tracking systems as other Federation species in the Q-era, they would have a severely reduced maximum range at which they can fire this weapon.

This might also be the case for Q-era Vulcan special sensors: they would be similarly curtailed by the lack of warp tracking capabilities.

So while Vulcan ships might still be relatively valuable during the First Federation-Romulan War compared to ships from the other major planets, this would prevent them from drastically overmatching any opposing Romulan warships, as they might be able to do with full warp-tracking capabilities.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Wednesday, August 19, 2026 - 11:01 pm: Edit

So far as heavy weapons of this era are concerned:

A number of fleets used atomic missiles: the Terrans, Romulans, and Gorns. And perhaps the Klingons and Kzintis also?

The Vulcans had ship-mounted phaser-1s (which, by the standards of the day, could be classed as both "medium" and "heavy" weapons in their own right) and special sensors. I would prefer they not augment these with atomic missiles, personally-speaking.

Whereas the Paravians had their direct-fire "quantum blaster".

Also, as per Prime Directive Federation, the Andorians developed missiles with targonite warheads, in approximately the same time period as their initial development of non-tactical warp drive. In game terms, it would be interesting if these missiles were distinct from the "default" atomic missile standard in some manner.

Beyond this, there are other potential options to consider.

-----

In early Federation space, the Alpha-Centaurans, Rigellians, and Orions might have used the same atomic missile racks as the Terrans.

But, then again, they might not have done so.

-----

In the case of the Carnivons, it would make sense for them to have a pre-death bolt seeking weapon type, which was perhaps more powerful yet which had a de facto two-turn arming procedure.

Conversely, heel nippers only affect Tactical Warp engines, whereas disruptor cannons did not appear on Carnivon ships until the Y-era. So I would not expect to see NTW-era predecessors of these weapons here.

-----


For the Lyrans and the Hydrans, I would personally prefer they each make use of some sort of direct-fire heavy weapon, rather than be added to the list of atomic missile users shown above.

In the case of the Hydrans, one might expect a forerunner of the nova cannon. I'm not sure if a pre-hellgun type of weapon would have existed also.

As for the Lyrans: ESGs only started to appear on their Y-era ships. So whatever weapon they had here would be something they replace with disruptor bolts on their W-era hulls.

-----

Over in pre-ISC space, perhaps the Q'naabians (who would later develop the "warp-class" plasma drone) had their own unique missile type in this technology era also.

In the case of the Veltressai: in the W-era, their development of the plasma-V torpedo is said to have been an unexpected development of plasma technology, from the viewpoint of the other four pre-ISC planets. So, it would appear that whatever heavy weapon they made use of prior to this was of some other type: either as a direct-fire weapon, or (if they must) yet another missile type.

The other three pre-ISC species - the Korlivilar, the Pronhoulites, and the Rovillians - should, in my view, each get their own type of direct-fire heavy weapon instead.

-----

So, are there any thoughts as to which new (or, rather, old) weapon types ought to be made available in this era - and who in the Alpha Octant should make use of them?

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Thursday, August 20, 2026 - 06:42 pm: Edit

Different races use different magazine sized missile racks? Different number of racks? Different number (and firing arc) of lasers? Race 'A' has four missile racks with four missiles each, two lasers FA and one laser 360, while their enemy has two missile racks with five missiles each and four lasers, on FA+L/R and RA+L/R arcs? The two ships would have TOTALLY different dynamics.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Thursday, August 20, 2026 - 10:21 pm: Edit

In most cases, the W- and/or S-era SSDs currently in print for the various Alpha Octant empires would cover the question of laser arcs well enough.

Indeed, in the case of the Gorns, their earliest warp-refitted hulls still had lasers and atomic missiles on them; only later did the "-I" refits emerge with phasers and plasma bolts installed.

Although I would still like to see a ship-mounted "light" laser type created, akin to fighter-mounted lasers, to go "back to" from each W-era phaser-3 mount.

-----

Speaking of the Gorns:

In the case of the Gorn WBB (which, despite the branding, is in fact a heavy cruiser), the ship has two pairs of missile racks, one on each side. Each pair of missile racks is swapped out on the WBI for a single plasma-G bolt launcher.

So, to go back to an earlier post, there is enough reason for a Q-era Romulan Warbird to have had four missile racks in place of the plasma-R - or, indeed, in place of the Stormbird's pair of plasma-Gs.

-----

One major exception to the above would be the Hydrans.

It's noted that their W-era hulls were designed and built by the Guilds, in separate facilities from the royal shipyards used to construct the prior "sublight" fleet.

Which, in a sense, makes the Hydran W-era hulls more akin to the "warp-driven" ships shown for the pre-ISC planets, as opposed to the "warp-refitted" hulls used by most other Alpha Octant empires.

In other words: whatever the Q-era Hydran ships are going to look like, it won't be a simple matter of working back from their W-era hulls. In fact, they might have entirely different hull shapes, too.

-----

And, of course, there is the matter of what the "leftover" Old King hulls in early Klingon service looked like.

There isn't much data in print on this, though we know that they did not follow the same "manta ray" template which the Klingons pioneered with the D1 and F1.

It would be interesting to catch a glimpse at what those "precursor" vessels looked like - not least in case we ever see an "ancient empires" product at some later date.

By Nick Samaras (Koogie) on Thursday, August 20, 2026 - 10:45 pm: Edit

Kzintis I would prefer atomic missiles for obvious reasons. Not sure about Klingons

No missiles for Hydrans and Lyrans. They need something different. Everyone using the same weapons would kill my interest quickly.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Friday, August 28, 2026 - 11:43 pm: Edit

The question of Q-era shielding popped up elsewhere on the BBS.

With this in mind, I took another look at the Romulan YR-section data in Module Y1.

-----

According to the available data, some of the "base hulls" presented in Y1 are said to have first appeared in such-and-such a year: Y20 for the Warbird; Y25 for the Hawk; and Y50 for the Vulture.

On a side note; if the above YIS dates hold true, that means the Vulture was too late to take part in either the First Gorn-Romulan War or the First Federation-Romulan War.

-----

No YIS date is listed for the earliest Snipe hulls, however. Which might allow this diminutive vessel to have a year-in-service date far back enough to account for the Romulans' earliest return to space.

Speaking of which: per Prime Directive Romulans, the Empire was able to duplicate the ancient (and very slow by later standards) Exodus-era impulse drives in -Y189. Which was at least enough for them to reach Remus, and to consolidate what would later be knwon as their capital region.

However, they did not advance to "full" NTW drive technology until Y3, at which point they were able to begin their broader expansion in real earnest.

-----

For all four hull types, it's noted that shields were added to each of them (just) prior to the Second Gorn-Romulan War. Sicne said war broke out in Y62, that might mean a YIS date of Y60 or Y61 for the first shield refits.

What is not yet clear is exactly how strong these shields were. It's possible that they started at the same strength as the S-era designs, which emerged in Y66 (in the midst of the war itself). So, ten boxes per facing on the Warbird, for example.

Or, it could be that the totals were lower again: maybe 5 boxes per facing on the "QWBs"?

-----

In any case, it would appear that the Romulans fought two of the most formative wars in their history without the use of shields.

What, if anything, this might mean for the Q-era Gorns, or for the various Federation planetary fleets of the era, remains to be seen.

Although, in the case of the Vulcans at least, I would not be surprised if they had refined their starship technology to the point of possessing some kind of shield technology by Y1. Even if it need not necessarily be as strong per facing as seen on their W-era hulls

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Saturday, August 29, 2026 - 10:17 am: Edit

---

Quote:

What, if anything, this might mean for the Q-era Gorns, or for the various Federation planetary fleets of the era, remains to be seen.

---

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Monday, August 31, 2026 - 10:20 pm: Edit

I see no issue with the Gorns developing shields at the time they historically did.

From their perspective, their loss of the First Gorn-Romulan War would have made it clear to them that they would need to innovate in order to counter superior Romulan numbers, in the event of renewed full-scale hostilities on that border. Which, in hindsight, is exactly what enabled them to win the next three Gorn-Romulan wars.

Plus, they would no doubt be all too aware of the Paravian use of shields on their starships. While we don't yet know whether or not the Gorns ever managed to capture a Paravian ship in this era, such an occurrence might well have helped them understand the mechanics of how shield generators function, or at least help further them along that same developmental path.

-----

On the side of the Romulans, we don't yet know if they had learned about the existence of the Paravians by this time period.

However, their ongoing "privateer" raids across the Gorn border would no doubt help them again valuable intelligence on that front.

Meanwhile, it appears that there was at least a certain degree of awareness as to what was happening on the other side of the Federation Neutral Zone. Although, how much of this involved running undercover Romulan operatives in UFP space, or simply tuning in to the various "open-space" news service broadcasts, is also something that has yet to be clarified here.

And in any case, it's one thing to gather actionable data from one's opponents. It's another to be able to properly integrate it. So even when faced with the Gorn use of shields from Y50 onwards, and/or keeping tabs on their use (or otherwise) by the various Federation planetary fleets, it might still have taken the Romulans another decade or so to figure out how to adopt such a system for themselves.

-----

In the case of the Klingons, we have at least four iterative steps at which they might, or might not, have first adopted shield technology.

Were there any functioning shield generators on the "warmed-up" Old King ships? Or, if not, was it the D1/F1; the D2/F2; or the D3/F3 on which they were first able to operate shields?

Speaking of which, it's noted that the first Klingon ships of their own design - which, in this case, might be the D1 and/or the F1 - entered service in Y17.

-----

And also:

I suspect that, for both the Klingons and the Kzintis, their respective W-era hulls did not enter full series production until Y65.

As in, while the first prototype warp-refitted D3 might have appeared in Y63, and the first prototype Kzinti WCA in Y64, it would not have been Y65 before ships of these classes met one another in battle.

But, while not a topic for this thread, I suppose one could experiment with a prototype "D3-" with atomic missile racks in place of its jump racks, and/or a prototype "WCA-" with atomic missile racks instead of type-A racks.