FEDS and F&E Staff require additional time to evaluate these reports below. Recommend ADB go ahead and update SIT without these until the next round. 21 Apr 2015

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Saturday, April 11, 2015 - 09:22 am: Edit

ISC CA: According to a technology Q&A listing on page 112 in the Large Print Edition of Captain's Log #48, "The first ships with test PPDs were flying in Y167." To account for this, the YIS date for this class should perhaps be adjusted from Y160 to Y167. - Gary Carney 11 April 2015.
SVC HAS A QUESTIONS: what does the MSC say? I haven't looked but I bet iy says Y160. If that IS the case then Petrick would have to agree to change SFBF first.

ISC CAT: Prior to Y167, the "pre-PPD" version of the "base hull" CA was functionally equivalent to the CAT. To account for this, the YIS date for this class should perhaps be adjusted from Y165 to Y160. - Gary Carney 11 April 2015.
SVC HAS A QUESTION: what is your source for this premise?

ISC CS: To account for the correct year of introduction for the plasmatic pulsar device in ISC service, the YIS date for this class should perhaps be adjusted from Y162 to Y167. - Gary Carney 11 April 2015.
SVC REFERS TO THE NOTE TWO ITEMS ABOVE IN RESPECT TO THE MASTER SHIP CHART.

ISC CLB: The MSC and SSD for the CBR (as the CLB is designated in SFB Module R11) list the YIS date for this class as Y189, rather than Y184 as presently listed in the June 2012 ISC SIT file. (Historically, these ships were designed to supply critical components to semi-isolated cantonments, which had been cut off from the ISC proper at the onset of the Andromedan invasion.) Also, the current attack and defence factors listed are the same as those for the CLF, though this class would be liable to have this adjusted due to its reduced phaser suite, its lack of a forward-mounted plasma-S torpedo, and its additional pair of rear-mounted plasma-F launchers. (Since the ISC SR has a functionally similar weapon suite, I might suggest the CLB's revised factors as being 4-8F/2-4 based on that example.) - Gary Carney 11 April 2015.

ISC DW: According to the data published in SFB Module R9, this class' SFB reference number is 81, its historical YIS date is Y187 (though the data plans existed as early as Y170), and its Command Rating is 4. (Since this ship class is said to follow a similar design history as the CW, it should be noted that according to the ISC HCW R-section in SFB Module R12, only one "test model" CW was built in Y187; the war cruiser class did not enter full production until Y189. It may be that the Y187 date here similarly refers to a single "test model" DW, and that it was not until Y189 before war destroyers entered full production alongside the CW class.) - Gary Carney 11 April 2015.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Monday, April 20, 2015 - 10:04 pm: Edit

ISC CW: To follow up on the historical note about the CW in the HCW R-section entry from SFB Module R12 (which I referred to in the DW line item from my last post), I would suggest that the CW add "Limit of one in service prior to Y189" to its Notes and Special Cases entry, akin to the limit imposed on the GVX on the Fed SIT (but, in this case, on a more time-sensitive basis). - Gary Carney 20 April 2015

ISC CWX: The current Notes and Special Cases listing for the CWX states that this was one of the "system" classes of ship converted out in the semi-isolated cantonments (which formed out of the remnants of the various Pacification cordons which the Andromedans struck against during the first waves of the invasion). According to the CWX R-section, this class was instead among the "war" hulls built in (what remained of) ISC home space; this particular class first appeared in response to an Andromedan assault on Q'naabia. (Those DD conversions undertaken in the cantonments led to the NDD; no X-ship version of that hull type yet exists in print, though one could perhaps envision a would-be "NDX" following the same conversion process as that established for the NAX in SFB Module X1R.) - Gary Carney 20 April 2015

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Tuesday, April 21, 2015 - 07:04 pm: Edit

ISC: Destroyer: FLG: YIS date is listed as Y142; should be in (or after) Y160. Rationale: As per the Early Years ISC data in SFB Module Y2, Y3, and YG3, the ISC remained at an Early Years technology level prior to Y160. - Gary Carney 21 April 2015

ISC: Monitors and Pallets: MON: YIS date is listed as Y140; should be in (or after) Y160. Rationale: As per the Early Years ISC data in SFB Module Y2, Y3, and YG3, the ISC remained at an Early Years technology level prior to Y160. - Gary Carney 21 April 2015

ISC: Large Auxiliaries: FTL: YIS date is listed as Y120; should be in (or after) Y160. Rationale: As per the Early Years ISC data in SFB Module Y2, Y3, and YG3, the ISC remained at an Early Years technology level prior to Y160. - Gary Carney 21 April 2015

ISC: Large Auxiliaries: FHL: YIS date is listed as Y120; should be in (or after) Y160. Rationale: As per the Early Years ISC data in SFB Module Y2, Y3, and YG3, the ISC remained at an Early Years technology level prior to Y160. - Gary Carney 21 April 2015

ISC: Large Auxiliaries: REPR: YIS date is listed as Y159; should be in (or after) Y160. Rationale: As per the Early Years ISC data in SFB Module Y2, Y3, and YG3, the ISC remained at an Early Years technology level prior to Y160. - Gary Carney 21 April 2015

ISC: Small Auxiliaries: FTS: YIS date is listed as Y120; should be in (or after) Y160. Rationale: As per the Early Years ISC data in SFB Module Y2, Y3, and YG3, the ISC remained at an Early Years technology level prior to Y160. - Gary Carney 21 April 2015

ISC: Small Auxiliaries: SAL: YIS date is listed as "Y125??"; should be in (or after) Y160. Rationale: As per the Early Years ISC data in SFB Module Y2, Y3, and YG3, the ISC remained at an Early Years technology level prior to Y160. - Gary Carney 21 April 2015

ISC: Small Auxiliaries: SAC: YIS date is listed as "Y150??"; should be in (or after) Y160. Rationale: As per the Early Years ISC data in SFB Module Y2, Y3, and YG3, the ISC remained at an Early Years technology level prior to Y160. - Gary Carney 21 April 2015

ISC: Small Auxiliaries: SAO: YIS date is listed as "Y125??"; should be in (or after) Y160. Rationale: As per the Early Years ISC data in SFB Module Y2, Y3, and YG3, the ISC remained at an Early Years technology level prior to Y160. - Gary Carney 21 April 2015

ISC: Mobile Support Units: CONVOY: YIS date is listed as Y119; should be in (or after) Y160. Rationale: As per the Early Years ISC data in SFB Module Y2, Y3, and YG3, the ISC remained at an Early Years technology level prior to Y160. (It is unclear whether the concept would have existed for the ISC at that time.) - Gary Carney 21 April 2015

ISC: Mobile Support Units: APT: YIS date is listed as Y125; should be in (or after) Y160. Rationale: As per the Early Years ISC data in SFB Module Y2, Y3, and YG3, the ISC remained at an Early Years technology level prior to Y160. - Gary Carney 21 April 2015

ISC: Mobile Support Units: PTR: YIS date is listed as Y130; should be in (or after) Y160. Rationale: As per the Early Years ISC data in SFB Module Y2, Y3, and YG3, the ISC remained at an Early Years technology level prior to Y160. - Gary Carney 21 April 2015

ISC: Mobile Support Units: Commercial Convoy: YIS date is listed as Y130; should be in (or after) Y160. Rationale: As per the Early Years ISC data in SFB Module Y2, Y3, and YG3, the ISC remained at an Early Years technology level prior to Y160. (The concept of a commercial convoy may not have been relevant to the "pre-contact" ISC in any event.) - Gary Carney 21 April 2015

ISC: Mobile Support Units: SAF: YIS date is listed as Y150; should be in (or after) Y160. Rationale: As per the Early Years ISC data in SFB Module Y2, Y3, and YG3, the ISC remained at an Early Years technology level prior to Y160. (The ISC may not have developed such a concept prior to contact with the "insane" empires.) - Gary Carney 21 April 2015

ISC: Repair Docks: FRD: YIS date is listed as Y139; should be in (or after) Y160. Rationale: As per the Early Years ISC data in SFB Module Y2, Y3, and YG3, the ISC remained at an Early Years technology level prior to Y160. - Gary Carney 21 April 2015

ISC: Bases: BS(N): YIS date is listed as Y120; should be in (or after) Y160. Rationale: As per the Early Years ISC data in SFB Module Y2, Y3, and YG3, the ISC remained at an Early Years technology level prior to Y160. - Gary Carney 21 April 2015

ISC: Bases: MB: YIS date is listed as Y139; should be in (or after) Y160. Rationale: As per the Early Years ISC data in SFB Module Y2, Y3, and YG3, the ISC remained at an Early Years technology level prior to Y160. - Gary Carney 21 April 2015

ISC: Bases: BTS(N): YIS date is listed as Y130; should be in (or after) Y160. Rationale: As per the Early Years ISC data in SFB Module Y2, Y3, and YG3, the ISC remained at an Early Years technology level prior to Y160. - Gary Carney 21 April 2015

ISC: Bases: SB(N): YIS date is listed as Y150; should be in (or after) Y160. Rationale: As per the Early Years ISC data in SFB Module Y2, Y3, and YG3, the ISC remained at an Early Years technology level prior to Y160. - Gary Carney 21 April 2015

ISC: Planetary Installations: PDU: YIS date is listed as Y119; should be after Y160 (specifically in or after the year by which warp-powered fighters became available to the ISC). Rationale: As per the Early Years ISC data in SFB Module Y2, Y3, and YG3, the ISC remained at an Early Years technology level prior to Y160. - Gary Carney 21 April 2015

ISC: Planetary Installations: PGB: YIS date is listed as Y119; should be in (or after) Y160. Rationale: As per the Early Years ISC data in SFB Module Y2, Y3, and YG3, the ISC remained at an Early Years technology level prior to Y160. - Gary Carney 21 April 2015

ISC: Markers and Special Units: Prime Team: YIS date is listed as Y120; might be in (or after) Y160. Rationale: As per the Early Years ISC data in SFB Module Y2, Y3, and YG3, the ISC remained at an Early Years technology level prior to Y160. (It is unclear whether or not the Concordium adopted the Prime Team concept prior to learning of its use by the "insane" empires.) - Gary Carney 21 April 2015

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Tuesday, April 21, 2015 - 08:33 pm: Edit

YR13.01 says the ISC could have upgraded to current standards if they had encountered someone prior to their introduction of GW tech. Since we do not have EY rules I'd leave the dates as is. Ryan J Opel

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Tuesday, April 21, 2015 - 08:57 pm: Edit

While it is true that the Concordium could have built their first "modern" (Tech Level 12) units earlier than they did historically - or, for that matter, have had their first "war" classes (like the CW and DW) crop up much sooner than they historically did - I would argue that, as shown with the Romulans (and with the current crop of "Y160" ISC ships), the specifics of the main timeline's affects on ISC development should be acknowledged.

On the other hand, there may be a point further down the line by which it may be worth looking into which units might have first appeared and when, should there be a chance to more fully flesh out the alternate "Paravian timelines" featured in SFB Module C6 and previewed for F&E in CL48.