By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, January 14, 2014 - 06:14 pm: Edit |
Research Teams/F&E Staff:
I want to do two independent audits of ALL empires' fighter introduction dates, base fighter module available dates, fist carriers and LAV/LAH/SAV/SAH available dates. While developing a scenario for CL48 I found inconsistencies with Gorn SIT data that just didn't make sense. I only want references that use actual data to backup any assertions so your source data can only come from Module G3 MSC (or equivalent), online SITs, F&E (7xx.0) series data, SFB R-Sections.
With an update to FO pending soon, I want to get any errors corrected. I want two independent parties to post their report here along with any strange findings. First two volunteers please speak up here and let me know when you can have the data available.
FEDS SEND
Use this format:
EMPIRE | Fed w/A-20 | Fed w/ F-111 | Klingon | Romulan | Kzinti | Gorn | Tholian | Orion | Hydran | Hydran w/X-Ftrs | Lyran | ISC | LDR | Vudar |
Fighter Intro Date | - | - | ||||||||||||
Fighter Module Dates (SIT/MSC) | - | - | ||||||||||||
SAV Dates (SIT/MSC) | - | - | ||||||||||||
LAV Dates (SIT/MSC) | - | - | ||||||||||||
1st True Carrier Ship | - | - | ||||||||||||
Carrier Dates (SIT/MSC) | - | - | ||||||||||||
Hvy Ftr Intro Dates (SIT/MSC) | ||||||||||||||
Hvy Ftr Module Dates (SIT/MSC) | ||||||||||||||
SAH Dates (SIT/MSC) | ||||||||||||||
LAH Dates (SIT/MSC) | ||||||||||||||
1st HF Carrier Ship | ||||||||||||||
HF Carrier Ship Dates (SIT/MSC) | ||||||||||||||
By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, January 14, 2014 - 07:09 pm: Edit |
I would volunteer, but I lack the G3 module.
By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Tuesday, January 14, 2014 - 09:31 pm: Edit |
Lyran (SIT/MSC)
Ftr Intro - Y165 (assumed/NF)
HBM - Y165 (OL/NF) [Y130 for shuttles]
SAV - Y168 (OL/NF)
LAV - Y165 (OL/NF)
1st - LCV Y167 / DDV Y169 / PV Y173=170 / CVL-CVT Y171 / CV Y172 / DWV-CVD 173 / CVM-CVP Y174 / CVA Y175 / NCV Y176 / LTV Y177 / BCV Y181
HvFtr - Y178F (AO/NHF)
HFM - NA (OL/NHF)
SAH - Y177 (OL/NHF)
LAH - Y178 (OL/NHF)
1st - CSV Y176 / CVH Y178F / NSV Y180
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, January 14, 2014 - 09:52 pm: Edit |
I just need the date and type of each empires' very first carrier and HF carrier - not all of them; one carrier and its MSC date. If two carriers are built in the same year the pick the largest carrier with the most fighters.
I want the dates of their base FIGHTER modules not shuttles modules.
What does OL NF NHF mean? IF the data is NOT available then report "No Data", for reporting data (SIT/MSC) such as "Y165/No Data". This reports that the SITs report Y165; the MSC has no data.
Please post in table format as requested as I don't have the time to reformat everyone's reports correctly.
By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, January 14, 2014 - 10:04 pm: Edit |
How do you post in a table format?
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, January 14, 2014 - 11:49 pm: Edit |
Use a "\" then "table{CUT & PASTE YOUR EXCEL DATA CELLS HERE}" with no spaces after the backslash and the word "table".
The parentheses {} are also required.
By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, January 15, 2014 - 12:05 am: Edit |
Nifty, thanks Chuck. I'll see what I can get you in a couple of days.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, January 15, 2014 - 10:21 am: Edit |
EMPIRE | ISC |
Fighter Intro Date | Y170 |
Fighter Module Dates (SIT/MSC) | Y165 (SIT) |
SAV Dates (SIT/MSC) | Y168 (SIT) |
LAV Dates (SIT/MSC) | Y165 (SIT) |
1st True Carrier Ship | CVE |
Carrier Dates (SIT/MSC) | Y170 |
Hvy Ftr Intro Dates (SIT/MSC) | Y178 |
Hvy Ftr Module Dates (SIT/MSC) | Y178 |
SAH Dates (SIT/MSC) | Y178 (SIT) |
LAH Dates (SIT/MSC) | Y178 (SIT) |
1st HF Carrier Ship | CSV/DCS |
HF Carrier Ship Dates (SIT/MSC) | Y178 |
By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Wednesday, January 15, 2014 - 07:37 pm: Edit |
Chuck, the NF/NHF is the MSC saying when those fighters become available...OL is the OnLine SIT (AO being the AO SIT) [the non-OL SITs used 'varies' for the auxes]
As for the 'First', i started to assume you meant the 'first production carrier' but decided otherwise...
By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, January 15, 2014 - 08:41 pm: Edit |
After spending some time on this, I realized that you probably do need a person to be checking against G3 rather than the various products, as G3 is more likely to be accurate. I don't want to cause confusion, so I am going to cease work on this. My apologies.
By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Saturday, January 18, 2014 - 03:29 pm: Edit |
RuleNumber | EmpireName | N-F | N-HF | N-BM | N-BH | N-HD | N-PF | N-SCS | XSID |
R2 | Federation | 167 | 176 | 177 | 160 | 179 | 180 | 181 | |
R3 | Klingon | 167 | 176 | 173 | 167 | 177 | 179 | 181 | |
R4 | Romulan | 165 | 178 | 165 | 182 | 179 | 182 | 168 | |
R5 | Kzinti | 161 | 175 | 165 | 161 | 179 | 181 | 182 | |
R6 | Gorn | 167 | 178 | 170 | 169 | 179 | 182 | 182 | |
R7 | Tholian | 165 | 178 | 176 | 165 | 179 | 181 | 182 | |
R8 | Orion | 167 | 179 | 180 | 182 | ||||
R9 | Hydran | 124 | 177 | 135 | 134 | 179 | 180 | 182 | |
R10 | Andromedan | 167 | 175 | 169 | 182 | 176 | 188 | ||
R11 | Lyran | 167 | 176 | 167 | 167 | 176 | 178 | 182 | |
R12 | WYN | 164 | 175 | 164 | 176 | 181 | 182 | ||
R13 | ISC | 170 | 178 | 181 | 170 | 180 | 182 | 182 | |
R14 | LDR | 162 | 176 | 167 | 167 | 176 | 182 | ||
R15 | Seltorian | 167 | 176 | 167 | 167 | 179 | 186 | ||
R16 | Jindarian | 169 | 178 | 172 | 174 | 181 | 182 | 182 | |
R17 | Vudar | 178 | 183 | 181 | 173 | 177 | 183 | ||
YR18 | Paravian | 165 | 177 | 180 | |||||
YR19 | Carnivon |
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, January 18, 2014 - 04:23 pm: Edit |
Ken: I have no idea what the above means without notations or expainations.
By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Saturday, January 18, 2014 - 08:36 pm: Edit |
Chuck, I believe that those of the dates for fighters (N-F), heavy fighters (N-HF), bombers (N-BM), heavy bombers (N-BH), PFs (N-PF), SCSs (N-SCS), and X-tech/SBX (XSID) ... and also the auxiliaries that carry those items...
By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Sunday, January 19, 2014 - 08:42 am: Edit |
Chuck,, Steward has it right.
By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Sunday, January 19, 2014 - 02:19 pm: Edit |
There are a few notes I may have about Ken's list:
*The Romulan entry for the introduction of first-generation X-tech is set at Y168. It should be Y182 instead, according to the data in Module X1 and X1R.
*Speaking of Y182, the Seltorian fighter and PF introductory dates can be no sooner than that year, since they had no access to either kind of attrition unit prior to the Torch expedition's arrival in the Alpha Octant (and the agreement with the Klingons that provided the technology needed to build fighters and PFs, plus the mercenary pilots needed to fly those purchased fighters off of Seltorian carriers). That said, they may still need time to adopt each technology type (and to hire enough mercenary pilots to fly each type of fighter and bomber craft).
*The ISC YIS dates for medium and heavy bombers seem somewhat odd, since they are listed as getting a heavy bomber eleven years before a medium one. I don't have Module J or J2 to double-check the info listed there, however.
*Is that Paravian listing from CL28 or C6? Either way, the problem the Paravians will have is that, in the Alpha Octant, any alternate timeline which sees them remain in play in the modern era would inevitably lead to adjustments to the years of introduction for equivalent technologies by the Gorns, Romulans, and ISC. Even if only one of their alternate histories was to be given the highest priority in F&E terms, that listing would need to be offered alongside alternates for their three neighbours, too. Which means that, even as a simulator opponent, they may not be able to go into a list of "historical" factions.
*The problems noted above would be less of an issue for the Carnivons, since their side of the Alpha Octant is more warlike historically. They may still have two sets of data required, depending on which of the alternate Carnivon histories detailed in Module C6 were to be given precedence for F&E consideration.
*And is the Andromedan info based on the conjectural attrition units in Module C3A? Historically, the only such craft the Andros were known to field is the Mobile Weapons Platform, a rough equivalent to the Interceptor, which as noted has a YIS of Y176. (It's not clear if they had MWPs in service elsewhere at an earleir date and only introduced them to Alpha in Y176, or if they were local innovations in response to conditions in the Milky Way galaxy.)
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, January 19, 2014 - 06:26 pm: Edit |
I don't want ANY bomber data as ADB has stated that they are subsumed into F&E; that data just adds clutter and creates confusion.
(And I ask that we do not have discussion about bombers in this topic.)
Alternate History GW data for Paravians and Carnivons is okay.
I do not want any Andro data at this time.
By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Tuesday, January 21, 2014 - 11:11 pm: Edit |
Gary - yep re-checked the numbers and the Romulan XSID should be 182.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, January 28, 2014 - 11:19 pm: Edit |
Another historical research project…
1. Can anyone tell me how many Kestrel ships and types were sent by the Klingons to the Romulans? Include maulers sent back to the Klingons.
2. How many Kestrels and types were available at the START of the the GW Y168F?
3. How many Kestrels and types were available before ANY fighting just prior to the Romulan invasion of the Federation?
4. How many Kestrels were DOCUMENTED as destroyed during the GW; what and when?
By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Tuesday, January 28, 2014 - 11:44 pm: Edit |
Quote:1. Can anyone tell me how many Kestrel ships and types were sent by the Klingons to the Romulans? Include maulers sent back to the Klingons.
Quote:2. How many Kestrels and types were available at the START of the the GW Y168F?
3. How many Kestrels and types were available before ANY fighting just prior to the Romulan invasion of the Federation?
Quote:4. How many Kestrels were DOCUMENTED as destroyed during the GW; what and when?
Quote:The Romulans had refused to repair the Merciless, but instead insisted that the Klingons sell it to them. The Klingon Empire, knowing how close the Romulans had come to breaking away, did not want to give them any more reasons to be upset and agreed. Even now the Merciless was undergoing repairs and upgrades while it was converted to Romulan technology. Rumor had it that she was being converted to "X" technology.
Quote:(R4.206) K7RX BATTLECRUISER (K7X): Yet another attempt to produce a CX design, the K7X was equal to the FireHawk-X, but the supply of K7 (and modifiable KR) hulls was extremely limited as only three had survived the war and no more could be built. (This is something of a mystery as only three K7Rs are known to have been delivered and at least one was destroyed in combat. One may have been a Klingon D7 that "got lost" during the War, and Retribution may have originally been a KR.) These three were used by the Imperial Faction in the Civil War. Note that this ship, based on the D7B/K7R, is different from many respects from the Klingon DX, which was based on the D7C. The few Romulan KRC/D7C ships apparently did not survive the General War.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, January 29, 2014 - 04:34 am: Edit |
Gary:
I appreciate the effort, but what I need useful information; not a flood data to sort through to find what I need.
Kestrel | Date | Smarba # | Y168F | Y173S | War Losses | War Loss Dates | War Loss Dates |
KC9 | |||||||
KRC | |||||||
K7R | |||||||
KR | |||||||
K5 | |||||||
K4 | |||||||
KRT | |||||||
-D6M |
By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Wednesday, January 29, 2014 - 02:52 pm: Edit |
In that case, I'll see what I can do:
Kestrel | SFB reference | Date | Smarba # | Y168F | Y173S | War Losses | War Loss Dates | Notes |
KD4 | R4.117 | Y160 | 12 | unknown | unknown | unknown | unknown | "National Guard" hull type, transferred to Great Houses prior to General War, exact transfer window unknown. |
KF4 | R4.118 | Y160 | 20 | unknown | unknown | unknown | unknown | "National Guard" hull type, transferred to Great Houses prior to General War, exact transfer window unknown (but earlier than that for KD4). |
K7R | R4.35 | Y167 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | unknown | "At least" one of the three noted as destroyed during the General War in (R4.206); the surviving hulls were converted into K7Xs. |
KRC | R4.32 | Y165 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | unknown | All three hulls "apparently did not survive the General War", according to (R4.206). |
K7X | R4.206 | Y183 | 2 | n/a | n/a | 0 | n/a | Advanced technology conversions of two surviving "original" K7Rs. (This line entry does not account for the third known K7R, which is listed below.) |
K7X* | R4.206 | Y183 | 1 | n/a | n/a | 0 | n/a | D7K Merciless, a Klingon ship trapped in Romulan space after Operation Wedge; served in its Klingon configuration there until Y182, and (likely) converted into a K7X in or after Y183 (according to Betrayal at Oxvind-V story fiction). |
K5W | R4.A22 | Y192 | ~10 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | Klingon F5Ws transferred through a joint Fed-Klingon arrangement during the Andromedan War; conversions/transfers could have been made as early as Y176. |
KCW | R4.A23 | Y192 | 1-3 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | Romulan K5Ws converted to this variant post-transfer; conversions/transfers could have been made as early as Y176. |
KVW | R4.A24 | Y192 | 1 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | Romulan K5W converted to this variant post-transfer; conversion/transfer could have been made as early as Y176. |
KEW | R4.A25 | Y192 | 1 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | Romulan K5W converted to this variant post-transfer; conversion/transfer could have been made as early as Y177. |
KXW | R4.A26 | Y192 | 1 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | Romulan K5W converted to advanced technology post-transfer; conversion/transfer could have been made as early as Y183. |
By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Wednesday, January 29, 2014 - 07:24 pm: Edit |
Gary, I don't think the K7Rs or KRCs came with the original transfers with the Treaty (Y159-160)...
K5R | R4.05 | Y160 | 12? | 8 | 8 | ? | ? | 4 K5 to K5S/K5L |
K4R | R4.10 | Y168 | 0 | 12 | 12 | ? | ? | |
KR | R4.04 | Y160 | 9 | 6 | 6 | ? | ? | 3 KR to KRM |
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, April 02, 2014 - 09:55 am: Edit |
Research Teams/F&E Staff:
Can anyone cite a reference as to which FREE Pegasus ships were produced in the Old Colonies and and the year each type was produced? I seem to recall we put something together at one point but do not recall its disposition.
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Wednesday, April 02, 2014 - 10:03 am: Edit |
I'll tag on this when I get home from work this afternoon Zulu time.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, April 02, 2014 - 10:14 am: Edit |
(525.318) See SIT for YIS of the various variants available. Rate of production is 1 per year beginning in Y172.
Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation |