---

Quote:

It's annoying when you post bizarre suggestions and selectively interpret the design team's responses in an effort to "talk around" the limits of a design.

---

---

Quote:

In one sense, (IMO) SFB might have been better off to never to have refits... that way the "vanilla" ship SSD's would have been all that was available.

That road, however was passed up infavor of a variable number of refits for various ships, not to mention a bewildering number of variants over the years.

Take for example the Fed CA... it has received the rear phaser refit, the AWR refit, the '+' refit... arguably the CC variant is little more than a command variant of the base CA design (with the addition of 2 more phaser 1's!)

Has it been decided that development of the CA is "frozen" and that there will never ever be another refit of the CA type?

---

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, July 06, 2006 - 10:03 am: Edit

MJC,

Klingon D5 is not a Fast Ship in the F&E sense. Its strategic speed is 6, while X-ships and "Fast Cruisers" like the CF are speed-7. There are a lot of ships with a 36-1 ratio of warp engine boxes to MC that are not "Fast". In fact, the Neo-Tholian NCL has 26 warp engine boxes for a 39-1 ratio and it still isn't "Fast".

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Thursday, July 06, 2006 - 10:14 am: Edit

War cruisers use "hot" warp. It is apparently simply a method to get a little more power out of an engine. The implication is that the adjustment cuts the engine's potential lifespan, but since the ship is going to be blown up before then, it isn't a big deal.

This application isn't perfect, however, as both the Sparrowhawk and ISC CL (for example) use the equivalent of "hot" warp, but apparently suffer no such problems. (Assuming they can survive long enough.)

Also, it is an open question as to what frigate use. Most of them have the "36 points of movement" that war cruisers have, but I don't know if they use "hot" warp, or the engines are just small enough that that is how they work.

Fast ships use "fast" warp. This warp allows the ship to gain extra stragetic speed and extra tactical power, but not extra tactical speed. The cost of "fast" warp apparently is that the ship cannot mount as many heavy weapons.

So, it would appear we have "fast" warp engines, "hot" warp engines, and normal warp engines that can all generate the equivalent of 36 movement points. They are not all the same.

By Michael Powers (Mtpowers) on Thursday, July 06, 2006 - 11:10 am: Edit

And I think we've had this discussion before, back when we were talking about "fast freighters" or some such nonsense.

Strategic Speed, in F+E, has as much to do with endurance as it does sheer movement speed. A Mack truck is not as fast as a Ferrari Testarossa, but the Mack isn't going to need to stop at every gas station it encounters. Maybe a War Cruiser can run faster than another ship tactically, but its antimatter injectors are built to .001-mm tolerances rather than .0001-mm; this means that your manufacturing process doesn't reject as many, but they burn out after a couple of weeks rather than lasting for five years.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, July 06, 2006 - 11:52 am: Edit

The subject of a Fast D5 is touched on in CL33 (Proposals Board, Pg 41) and gives a fairly difinative answer to the entire question.

By David Crew (Catwholeaps) on Thursday, July 06, 2006 - 08:50 pm: Edit

On the subject of refits (and SPP said this), in SFB refits are FLEET WIDE, not just for a ship. While the implementation may differ slightly from class to class, the refit program involves the whole fleet. So there is the Federation +, AWR and so on refits, the Klingon B, Kzinti C, Hydran fusion holding etc refits.

So talking about 'a refit for the DD' is not the SFB way - you'd need to make an arguement for a late war FEDERATION refit. Admirals do not think in ship classes, they think in fleets.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Thursday, July 06, 2006 - 10:11 pm: Edit

David, or Jeff

Do you want to open a new topic to discuss late GW refits?

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, July 07, 2006 - 12:16 am: Edit

Joseph, I cant speak for david, but since this was a "dead" thread, I tought it better to restart this with a new post rather than start another topic...

SVC has the ability to rename the thread, should he choose to, so my 2 quatloos worth of opinion (which admittedly doesnt carrymuch weight) is to just use this thread.

Admittedly, I was thinking just the DD... guess I'm just not thinking the way a Federtation Star Fleet Admiral looks at things!

One other option, would be to notify SVC or SPP and request that the thread be renamed to what ever people feel is appropriate.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, July 07, 2006 - 01:34 am: Edit

I don't think one can justify that the Admiralty do look to make fleet wide refits.
The Fed DD has no G-rack.

Why, because it hasn't got room or because the ship is already one mother of a destroyer and besides which players can buy a DDG+ and get a pretty good destroyer with drone racks.
Conversely the Fed FFG "refit" gained the DD+'s missing drone racks and nothing more having already had the point defense Ph-3s from it's inception.

If the Admirals see a fleet wide problem then they'll install a fleet wide refit but if the captains keep sending reports that the ship really needs X and lots of captains (commanding the same type of ship) are sending reports stating that X would be really handy, then the Admirals shall ask the naval architects to look into altering that one ship. Hence Carrier escorts get not only limited Aegis but refitted to have full Aegis probably because the captains of those ships demanded a better fire control system rather than the admirals saying;" this would be good for the entire fleet!" which it certainly would be.


An alteration to a specific aspect (like the Shield #1 of the Fed CL...how many other ships have a refit to their #1) of the ship if warrantted could and would (probably) be adopted as soon as a way to make the alteration was determined, if it was a question of just that ship type being weak in a particular area.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, July 07, 2006 - 11:30 am: Edit

David Crew:

Refits are not always "fleet wide". It is entirely possible to have a refit that applies to just one class of ships. What I have pointed out is that:

A: Obviously any ship can be improved in terms of the game by adding a point of power, or some additional shields, or additional weapons, or more reserve power, or etc. And simply adding these things to a ship under the guise of a refit is not a good thing for the game. It would simply trigger round after round of adding boxes or shields, leading to Frigates with Dreadnought shields for example.

and

B: Refits tend to be done to bring ships up to a fleet standard (Lyran Power Packs are an example of bringing ships up to a fleet standard as without the power packs many trimarans are woefully inferior to the catamarans in terms of their ability to shoot and move).

C: Refits are done in response to a change in the game (Federation Plus refit adding phaser-3s and drones in response to Klingon, Kzinti, and Orion improved drone speeds are an example of this).

Thus, a refit can be done to address a real need, but are not always done in order to allow some things to be less than their best. (the Kzinti CL, which has 18 warp and a 2/3rds movement cost is an example of this, and no, we are not considering changing the movement cost or adding more warp to the class. Another example is the Klingon E3 which would benefit immensely if we were to change its movement cost to 0.25 like that of the Snipe, but we cannot justify allowing the G2, which is the same hull, to have that movement cost.) And we do have ships that are "failed" refits (the Kzinti FH is essentially a failed refit of the FF that eventually lead to the FFK, which is itself actually a refit of the FF).

One could clearly go through the roster of ships and find ones that could be "tweaked" (adding offensive weapons to the Kzinti DDV, for example), but that is not a likely development path.

But ultimately we do refits for reasons, not simply because it would be "cool" (no one said this, I am using the quote marks to add a tone to the statement) to add some shields or a battery, or a drone rack or whatever.

Finally, adding boxes simply because there is "white space" on the SSD is just wrong. The white space does not mean that there is room, but that SVC decided to do something for artistic reasons after determining what systems the ship needed. The "Oh white space, I can use that to add X" concept has been such a bane on ship submissions that I (me) increasingly have a tendency when I do an SSD to try to crowd out any and all white space at the expense of mere aesthetics.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, July 07, 2006 - 01:16 pm: Edit

So you invented the FFB!?!

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, July 07, 2006 - 02:39 pm: Edit

Michael John Campbell:

Hunh?

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, July 07, 2006 - 11:55 pm: Edit

MJC:

(blink , blink)

I have read SPP's post 3 times now, and I have absolutely no idea how you made the connection that SPP invented the FFB?!?

(Heck, I don't remember who got design credit for the FFB... as I recall it was first published in a NExus magazine issue... possibly in connection with the frigate article (although I may be wrong about that aspect)...

In any event, What has that got to do with the discussion? What difference does it make now (something like 15 years after the fact?!?), and what does the FFB have to do with a discussion about late General War proposed refits for the Federation Fleet (or even just the vanilla Fed DD?!?

By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Saturday, July 08, 2006 - 01:08 am: Edit

MJC, are you suggesting that the FFB has so little blank space that Steve Petrick must be responsible for it?

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, July 08, 2006 - 01:31 am: Edit

Yes it's a packed little outline.
But I was pulling legs.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, July 08, 2006 - 09:57 pm: Edit

Now that we have that all sorted out... lets get back to the subject at hand?!?

We already have a set of fleet wide refits for older designs (and this is true for both major and minor races, I think) in that as time marchs forward... older designs are upgraded to meet the threats of the future.

Recognising what SPP posted as relating directly to the original proposal... It might be more appropriate to ask this:

Has there been sufficient change in the technology of the various races ships (new construction) that there would be a justification for a Late General War Refit (or even a Very late General War Refit)?!?

Take the "+" refit for the UFP Star Fleet ships... the added G rack, Phaser 3's and (concurent) APR/AWR refits bring the CA, DD, CL etc clases up to the early GW "level" for combat against enemy refited ships and the new construction types available in years 168 to y 178... Does the Advent of PF's, X technology, XP refits, and increased threats from the Andromedans justify a new refit type?

If the answer is no, then we have little to discuss here... If the answer is 'Yes' or a qualified 'Yes'... then what shoud the refit have?

we already know that increased numbers of "G" racks lead to "munchkinism"... added phaser 3's (atleaset in the case of the Fed DD) may not be a solution (no more room in the tightly confined hulls).

How about refitting the "defensive Phaser 3's into either phaser 2's ("offensive/defensive" phasers) or additional phaser 1's? (assumes that they have the same arc's that the phaser 3's that they replace had).

There might be other ideas for a "lage GW" refit... I guess I'll have to think about it some more... perhaps a "NEW" type drone rack to replace the "G" rack? either has "more capacity" or perhaps a higher firing rate or some other enhancement...

Any other ideas or suggestions?

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Saturday, July 08, 2006 - 10:42 pm: Edit

Jeff,

Up thread I suggested a refit for the Fed CA/CC to bring these more to the CB level. Unless the CB has a different saucer, then adding 2x C-warp shouldn't be a problem. Adding the 2 additional PH-3s in the saucer and an additional drone rack may not be possible.

New drone rack: The GX rack increase the G rack to six spaces. I don't think a new drone rack is needed to replace the G rack. A C-rack fire 2x per turn (FD3.3); and can be upgraded to a CX rack for 6 points with three reloads.

Phasers: Up to four PH-3s can be converted to x PH-1s per the draft XP refit rules (XR3.12). Some or all PH_2s can be coverted to X PH_1s (2 points) or PH-1s (1 point) (XR3.13).

Photons: In CL32 on page 26 a Quantum Torpedoe was proposed by John Pepper, which allows for a 10 point standard. XP photon allows for fast loads. Suggestion: for NX ship can upgrade to either Quantum or XP but not both. For X-ships allow an upgrade to a Quantum X Torppedoe, which allows 10 point fast loads and 20 point overloads.

Andromedans: Y195
PH-2s: can fire 2x as a PH-3.
TRL: can be upgrade to a TRM.
New weapon: Combination of a TRL and PH-2; arms just like a TRL and on last turn one point of energy for the PH-2 is added; each weapon rolls seperately for damage; effect: allows either a variable or fixed number of the phaser damage points to leak through the shield.

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Saturday, July 08, 2006 - 11:11 pm: Edit

"as time marchs forward... older designs are upgraded to meet the threats of the future."

More likely, they're retired and replaced by newer, better classes of ships.

In F&E, there are a total of ten Fed DD's on the build schedule after S-168 ... and those are all DE's. Starting in Y175, they build DWA's instead.

About the only way a DD will live to see the end of the War is if it went into depot repair ... about the best use for it then is to turn it into a floating museum.


Garth L. Getgen

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, July 08, 2006 - 11:59 pm: Edit

Garth L. Getgen:

And that is the heart of the issue... SFB history indicates that the NCL's replaced the DD production hull for hull (IIRC).

While the CVA, CVS and CVB carrier groups did have DE's assigned to them... we dont "KNOW" (emphasis, not yelling) that they were new construction... they could have been part of the mothball reserve fleet and been activated leaving "just" the 3 that historically appear to be part of the MB reserve. (In much the same way that the early DN "activations" were ships from the MB reserve rather than as new construction.)

(actually, I could see a non historical option for the Federation player to have 18 DD class ships in the MB reserve...10 of which were "scheduled" to be carrier escorts, 3 "left overs" (the ones that were left in the MB reserve) and 5~ "others" that were used somewhere else for some other mission... (Scouts?!? maybe...))

I could see a DL being built as a replacement DD (replacing combat loss prior to the actual shooting start of the GW) and after the federtion joins the GW, I could see DL being built until replaced by the FFB/DW types.

And since it doesnt take up a NCL slip... it gives the federation the ability to build 6 COMPOT hulls at a time when they would ordinarily have to choose between a 5 COMPOT FFG or a 7 COMPOT NCL.

I admit, its only a 1 COMPOT difference per hull, but still, 1 COMPOT is still one COMPOT.

By Lee Winstead (Gonzo) on Sunday, July 09, 2006 - 12:19 am: Edit

It could also be a proposed design that never really got put into production because of the introduction of the war destroyers. Maybe one or two were built, and that's it.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, July 09, 2006 - 12:37 am: Edit

Lee, The DW class YIS was (IIRC) 175 or 176 (approximately)... the YIS for the proposed DL is year 165... how do you justify not building the DL for the 8 years prior to the prototype DW build date of Year 173?

After all, no one in year 165 even knew what a DW was... it wouldnt have existed until years later.

I would freely admit (and privately agree) that once the DW was in production... all future production would be the DW... IMO it is a far superior design and I would prefer to have DW's rather than DL's... but that isnt what our choice would be...

between year 165 to (atleast) 173 (and possibly not until 176) the choice is DL's or nothing... not DL or DW.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, July 09, 2006 - 12:45 am: Edit

Joseph, sorry, some how I missed your post... I didnt mean to ignore you!

Yes, thank you I think all of the points you made are relevant to the thread.

I wasnt thinking that we had to mandate a XP refit for all ships... I was thing upgrading GW technology to bring the ships up to the level of late GW combat (say post year 180 for a ball park time frame).

IIRC Bases (bats and Star bases) received a shield refit after year 180... I wonder if a general shield refit for star ships might not be the "route to go"... after all the bases got such a refit... would the fleet be far behind such an event?!?

(Note, I am not telling any one that thats what we should do... I am pointing it out as an option.)

By Jay K Gustafson (Jay) on Sunday, July 09, 2006 - 12:49 am: Edit

Just wondering what the WYN would do with a FED DD very happy modifcations.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, July 09, 2006 - 01:46 am: Edit

You know, I can see the whole XP thing not existing in an alternate universe.
Then if you had some kind of super Ph-3 upgrade ( similar to the Ph-6 being propossed for X2 (basically a slightly weaker Ph-2 able to fire out to R25)) that could rapid pulse as 2Ph-3s for drone defense (with or without X-Aegis), then the simple Ph-3s of these ships could keep pace with advances in technology ( specifically speed 32 drones ).
Perhaps other race would need a little change ( like ADD racks can fire type VI drones as though they were E-racks and G-racks might follow suite and maybe a refit would be had making all Ph-2s into Ph-1s) and you should be able to keep up with a CLa+ being still in the same league as an NCLa+ and a CCa+ being in the same league as a BC (until those ships get said same refits but atleast the enemy D7W won't be such a threat to your CCa+ until it gets a similar refit).

By Ed Crutchfield (Librarian101) on Sunday, July 09, 2006 - 08:51 am: Edit

Another point to this discussion is the new information on the Fed DD in the new CL, apparently the DD was designed for 4 photons, but only built with 2 originally, so perhaps out modifications should start at that point, since according to the description most of the DDs at the beginning of the war were what were known as the DDM from the CL.