Archive through June 22, 2003
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Federation & Empire: F&E INPUT:
F&E Proposals Forum:
Units for Other Races:
Archive through June 22, 2003
This is part of an idea I worked on about a year ago. I needed to know how races not in F&E would work out.
FRAX
| Desig. | SFB # | Factors | Product | Cmnd | Date | Base Hull | Conversion | Build/Sub | Salvage | Notes |
| ACW | 32 | 6-7A/3-4 | C4 | 6 | 169 | CW(3) | From CW: 3 | Must Convert | | Stasis Field Generator Ship |
| BB | 8 | 20(4)/10(2) | C4 | 10 | 184 | BB(2) | None | (436.0) | | Battleship |
| BCH | 28 | 10/5 | C4 | 10 | 178 | BCH(3) | None | Schedule: 10 | | Basic hull |
| BCS | 30 | 10(3)P/5(1) | C4 | 10 | 180 | BCH(3) | From BCH: 5+6;From BCV: 5 | For BCH: 15+6 | | Battle Control Ship |
| BCV | 29 | 10(6)/5(3) | C4 | 10 | 179 | BCH(3) | From BCH: 2+12 | For BCH: 12+12 | | Medium Carrier |
| CA | 3 | 8/4 | C4 | 8 | 122 | CA(3) | None | Schedule: 8 | | Basic hull |
| CC | 9 | 9/5 | C4 | 9 | 143 | CA(3) | From CA: 2 | For CA: 9 | | Command variant |
| CF | 945 | 7-8F/4 | C4 | 8 | 160 | CA(3) | From CA: 2 | For CA: 10 | | Fast Cruiser (525.1) |
| CVA | 26 | 13(12)/7(6) | C4 | 10 | 174 | DN(2) | From DN: 2+24 | For DN: 19+24 | | Heavy Carrier |
| CVS | 18 | 3-8(12)/2-4(6) | C4 | 8 | 167 | CA(3) | From CA: 2+24 | For CA: 10+24 | | Heavy Carrier |
| CW | 4 | 7/4 | C4 | 6 | 168 | CW(3) | None | Schedule: 5 | | Basic hull |
| CWA | 7A | 6-7n/3-4 | C4 | 6 | 175 | CW(3) | From CW: 1 | For CW: 6 | | Heavy Escort |
| CWD | 37 | 6-7<6>/3-4 | C4 | 6 | 170 | CW(3) | From CW: 3 | For CW: 8 | | Drone variant |
| CWE | 7 | 5-7n/3-4 | C4 | 6 | 170 | CW(3) | From CW: 1 | For CW: 6 | | Heavy Escort |
| CWG | 33 | 3-7G/2-4 | C4 | 6 | 170 | CW(3) | From CW: 2 | For CW: 5 | | Commando variant |
| CWS | 38 | 4-7u/2-4 | C4 | 6 | 169 | CW(3) | From CW: 3 | For CW: 8 | | Scout 3EW |
| CWV | 5 | 3-7(6)/2-4(3) | C4 | 6 | 170 | CW(3) | From CW: 2+12 | For CW: 7+12 | | Medium Carrier |
| DN | 2 | 13/7 | C4 | 10 | 167 | DN(2) | None | Schedule: 17 | | Basic hull |
| DW | 10 | 6/3 | C4 | 4 | 135 | DW(4) | None | Schedule: 4 | | Basic hull |
| DWA | 14A | 5-6n/3 | C4 | 4 | 175 | DW(4) | From DW: 1 | For DW: 5 | | Light Escort |
| DWD | 11 | 6<5>/3 | C4 | 4 | 137 | DW(4) | From DW: 3 | For DW: 7 | | Drone variant |
| DWE | 14 | 4-6n/2-3 | C4 | 4 | 167 | DW(4) | From DW: 1 | For DW: 5 | | Light Escort |
| DWG | 17 | 4-6G/2-3 | C4 | 4 | 155 | DW(4) | From DW: 2 | For DW: 4 | | Commando variant |
| DWS | 12 | 4-6u/2-3 | C4 | 4 | 138 | DW(4) | From DW: 2 | For DW: 7 | | Scout 2EW |
| DWV | 40 | 3-6(4)/2-3(2) | C4 | 4 | 165 | DW(4) | From DW: 2+8 | For DW: 7+8 | | Light Carrier |
| FCR | 44 | 3-5n [6]/2-3 | C4 | 3 | 168 | FF(4) | From FF: 1+6 | For FF: 4+6 | | Fast Resupply Ship |
| FF | 20 | 5/3 | C4 | 3 | 121 | FF(4) | None | Schedule: 3 | | Basic hull |
| FFA | 43A | 4-5n/2-3 | C4 | 3 | 175 | FF(4) | From FF: 1 | For FF: 4 | | Light Escort |
| FFD | 42 | 4-5<4>/2-3 | C4 | 3 | 137 | FF(4) | From FF: 2 | For FF: 5 | | Drone variant |
| FFE | 43 | 3-5n/2-3 | C4 | 3 | 170 | FF(4) | From FF: 1 | For FF: 4 | | Light Escort |
| LTT | 34 | 4-7T/2-4 | C4 | 6 | 170 | CW(3) | From CW: 3 | For CW: 6 | | Light Tactical Transport |
| MCW | 36 | 7+/4 | C4 | 6 | 170 | CW(3) | From CW: 4 | For CW: 7 | | War Mauler |
| PFT | 6 | 3-7uP/2-4 | C4 | 6 | 179 | CW(3) | From CW: 5 | For CW: 11 | | PFT | Scout 2EW |
| POL | 41 | 4/2 | C4 | 3 | 135 | POL(4) | None | Schedule: 3 | | Police unit |
| SCL | 25 | 8C/4 | C4 | 6 | 168 | CL(3) | None | Schedule: 9 | | Cloaked unit |
| SCS | 27 | 13(6)P/7(3) | C4 | 10 | 179 | DN(2) | From DN: 5+12;From CVA: 5 | For DN: 22+12 | | SCS | see (502.7) |
| SCW | 23 | 7C/4 | C4 | 6 | 168 | CW(3) | None | Schedule: 7 | | Cloaked unit |
| SDD | 22 | 5C/3 | C4 | 4 | 135 | DD(4) | None | Schedule: 6 | | Cloaked unit |
| SFF | 21 | 4C/2 | C4 | 3 | 121 | FF(4) | None | Schedule: 4 | | Cloaked unit |
| SMC | 24 | 8<5>C/6 | C4 | 8 | 170 | CA(3) | None | Schedule: 11 | | Cloaked unit |
| SR | 31 | 7-8u/4 | C4 | 8 | 160 | CA(3) | From CA: 5 | Must Convert | | Survey (8AF:1EW)(6AF:2EW) |
| TG | 19 | 4-8T/2-4 | C4 | 6 | 124 | CA(3) | From CA: 4 | For CA: 7 | | Tug |
Well, seems that not one else is interested, so allow me to add my $0.05.
Note: The CF is in SFT27, not C4. 
Why does the CVA and DN have 13 COMPOT? The DN (with AFD) might justify it, but most (all?) CVAs lose COMPOT in the conversion.
I see that your drone ships have 5 or even 6 points for DB, and simultaneously the Missile Variants aren't listed. My recommendation: Make the CWD and DWD normal drone ships (4 DB points), then add the CWM and DWM as a special ship. Allow Missile ships to use their DB points from the line, representing their ability to swarm any target with drones. Maybe a missile ship could only do this one round a turn? Thoughts? (I'll post stats for these and other Frax ship below).
I supposed the Frax CV / CVS would be an Interdiction CV with a single oversized squadron?
Do you have any thoughts on representing the Submarine units? (I have some, but I'm not savy enough on the rules as of yet...)
OK... Frax Units either changed from or added to the above:
| Designation | SFBRef # | Factors On Counter | Product | Cmnd (754.0) | DateAvail | Base Hull;Size (755.0) | Conversion Cost,Source | Build Cost orSubstitution | Salvage(439.0) | Notes and Special Cases;EW, Shock |
| CCX | 924 | 12/6 | P6 | 10 | 18? | CA (3) | From CC: 5From CA: 6 | For CA: 12 | 3 | X-Ship |
| CWD | 37 | 6-7<4>/3-4 | C4 | 6 | 170 | CW (3) | From CW: 3 | For CW: 8 | 1.25 | Drone Variant, Not a scout |
| CWM | 35 | 6-7<4>/3-4 | C4 | 6 | 170 | CW (3) | From CW: 3 | For CW: 8 | 1.25 | Missile Ship, See notes. |
| DSX | 913 | 4-9u/2-5u | P6 | ? | 18? | DW (4) | From DW: 5From DWS: 4From DWX: 3 | For DW: 10 | 2 | X-Ship; Scout;(3EW:2AF) (1EW:4AF) (1EW: crippled) |
| DWD | 11 | 6<4>/3 | C4 | 4 | 137 | DW (4) | From DW: 3 | For DW: 7 | 1.0 | Drone Ship, Not a scout |
| DWM | 15 | 4-6<4>/3 | C4 | 4 | 168 | DW (4) | From DW: 3 | For DW: 7 | 1.0 | Missile Ship, See notes. |
| DWS | 12 | 4-6u/2-3 | C4 | 4 | 138 | DW (4) | From DW: 2 | For DW: 6 | 1.0 | Scout, EW=2 |
| DWV | 40 | 3-6(4)/2-3(2) | C4 | 4 | 165 | DW (4) | From DW: 2+8 | For DW: 6+8 | 1.0 | Escort Carrier |
| DWX | 915 | 8/4 | P6 | ? | 18? | DW (4) | From DW: 3 | For DW: 8 | 2 | X-Ship |
| SMC / SCG | 24 | 8<4>C/6 | C4 | 8 | 170 | CA (3) | None | Schedule: 11 | 2.0 | Base Hull Type (SMC)Submarine, Cloak UnitMissile Ship, See notes. |
| SWX | 940 | 10C/5 | P6 | ? | 18? | SCW (3) | From SCW: 3 | For SCW: 10 | 2.5 | X-Ship; Submarine, Cloak Unit |
|
Peladine:
Looking through their ships (I hope to have my SIT [as reviewed and discussed by Chris Fant] uploaded tonight) I have found that they are in need of some help.
Tugs. I can't see the Peladine Tug (which can be found at www.peladine.com being converted from their CA. It's simply too much of a change. Perhaps Jessi can clear this up, but best I can see is that the Tug is a 4-6/2-3 while their CA is 9/5 (maybe a 10/5, but that's stretching it).
In addition, they currently do not have an LTT. The closest they have is a War Destroyer Transport, but I doubt it can carry those oddly shaped pods.
Question for Jessica: Can a FF or DD be converted to a DW?
Any one have any thoughts here?
42
Quick answers:
The Tug is not a CA variant, and cannot be converted from one. No LTT, I'm afraid; they just didn't go that route. Which does indeed mean that they have logistics issues, with a high reliance on civilian convoys.
Neither the FF nor the DD can be converted to a DW.
Thanks, Jessica.
From your perspective, would the TUG be limited to a CA slip in the construction docks, or could it be subbed for a CL?
42
I'd say it could manage in any SC3 Peladine slip.
Here's the Peladine SIT worked up by me with input from Chris Fant.
Here's the Frax SIT detailed above in a (IMHO) much easier to read format. I left changes and additions made by me in blue, everything else is Eric Stork's. (The red 13 on the CVA was a reminder to me to ask Eric why the CVA has 13 COMPOT... he never answered that either... go fig...)
Any one else want a SIT done? It gives me something to do at work .
42
Jessica: Not sure what to do with that Tug. Currently it is listed as a Substitution only for a CA. Perhaps the Peladine can sub a Tug for a CW as well, allowing them to make up for the lack of an LTT.
Thoughts or complaints?
42
I must have missed it. The DWS should be a 4-6 with a 1xAF/2xEW, 4xAF/1xEW I think. That or a 3-6 2xEW all the time.
Robert, been busy off-line with a bunch of eBay sales (Packaging, mailing, emailing, etc.) and I recently got my ADB order for replacing all my SSD books which I'm putting in a binder. Plus, I have to go over SSDs to see why I decided the way I did. I made that stuff up about a year ago, while I have them on file, no notes of "why this" or "why that". I'll get back to you in the week.
I'll also take you up on the SIT deal. I've got stuff for the other simulator races from a source or two and my own opinions.
As for the Peladine tug, I'd keep it as sub for the CA only. Unless there is some "racial flavor" reason, tugs always sub for CAs, partly to keep the numbers under control. If you can sub a tug for a lesser hull, like a CW or CL, it could be unbalancing. Why sub for a CA when you could sub for a CL/CW and get another CA or CA-variant?
OK, I'll step in and throw out an official Peladine ruling:
Tug can sub for either CA or CL, no more than one per year. The Peladine CL is a workhorse design that provides pretty much all of their good support ships (much like the D6 for the Klingons), which means that losing one to build a tug is still rather painful. Further, the Peladine do not have an LTT; they have to make the most of their Tug design, in conjunction with a comparatively higher utilization of civilian convoys.
Tug cannot sub for a CW; the CW slips were too narrow for the task (shorter "wings" on the CW than the CL).
Sounds good to me.
Another question for Jessica which "hit me" last night... can the CA be converted to a BC?
Also: I am currently working on a rather ambitious project and, if you have no complaints, I'd like to develop a "Pedladine in F&E" section. This would include OOBs, construction schedules, substitution rules, etc.
Currently I am leaning towards giving them a few provinces in southern Lyran space, separating the Lyrans and the Hydrans (in the same way [I believe] the "Kaltic Freestates" would separate the Klingon and Kzinti). I would welcome any input you might have as well.
42
The Peladine CA cannot be converted to a BC.
Robert, re: Pedaline SITS
Some questions.
Your DWD has it as "Sub for DW:8", yet it should probably be "Sub for DW: 5" DW's having a base cost of 4, 1EW=1EP, for a total of 5.
DWS should have "Sub for DW: 6", same as above, but 2EW=2EP, 4 for hull, total 6.
FFX, has "Sub for FF:9", should be "Sub for FF:8" as it's an 8 COMPOT ship.
HDW, has "Sub for DW:5+2", should be "Sub for DW: 5+1", as it only has 1 Hybrid Fighter Factor.
Tug is only a 4-6 (not having seen SSD now), but it replaces a CL(8 factor unit) or CA (9 factor unit).
CA, has "Cost:10", yet it's a 9 factor ship, so shouldn't it be "Cost:9"? that will then effect salvage.
MAL, has "Sub for CA: 12", yet it's a 10 factor ship, so shouldn't it be "Sub for CA: 10" (See D6M as an example).
Not to be critical of your hard work.
Not critical, this is a learning experience for me, and I appreciate the input.
DWD: Originally I had it at 2 EW, and apparantly I even thought of giving it 3 EW. I agree with you and will adjust.
DWS: That was just an honest mistake on my part. How would Chris' stat change (4-6 with a 1xAF/2xEW, 4xAF/1xEW) change this (if at all)?
FFX: If you say so. Truth is I guessed on this ship .
HDW: Right... I saw a fighter and thought "2=1" forgetting the Hybrid rule. I'll fix it.
The Tug is... well... truly unique. It isn't as large as the CA (it's missing the rear end to be exact). The ships is only armed with 2xPl-F and 6xPh-2... none of which can fire rear (LP/RP on the torps, FA on the Phasers). It's basically a DD with CA sized engines.
CA: I started the CA as a 10/5 and changed it on discussion with Chris. I forgot to adjust the costs. I'll fix it.
MAL: Good point. I'll fix it.
Thanks again for looking at it.
42
The Peladine SIT has been updated with the changes above - though I still forgot to change the SCX conversion section.
42
The stats on the DWS would not change the cost. It mimicks the Lyran DWS basically.
Robert, can you read Excel files?
Indeed I can - but only if they're in brail.
Ba dum dum.
42
Frax Missile Ships: Designed by Klingon engineers to test Captains, the Frax Missile Launcher was capable of firing its entire load out of drones in a very short amount of time (less than 1 SFB). To simulate this, Missile ships have the following benefits:
- Missile Ships have a number of DB points on their counter and use these points in exactly the same manner as Drone Bombardment (add to COMPOT at 0.1 EP per COMPOT per round) except they use them from the battle line.
- Missile Ships cannot be used in Drone Bombardment, though they may be used in conjunction with Drone Bombardment.
- There can be no more than 3 Missile Ships in any given battle force.
This gives the Frax player a DW (the MDW) with 8 COMPOT at the cost of .4 EP per MDW per round.
Any thoughts? Good? Bad?
Also: I've made some changes to the SIT (I mistook the DWM and CWM as the Missile ships, when they are actually Minesweepers), and will upload it tonight.
42
Robert, you should probably limit production to one per turn (or even year) by any means. Missile ships could prove overly powerful if tight production limits don't exist.
Also, instead of limiting how many Missile ships can be in the line, you might consider changing that to a requirement for two consort ships in the same manner as SFG, Mauler, and Troop ships. That way you won't have an battle force of three Missile Ships attacking things by their selves. That would be legal under your proposed rules. And the two consort ship rule pretty much limits a player to three ships requiring consorts unless he brings an admiral and spends a command point.
at .1EP/compot missile ships are something that can't be used to much.
also think about what the compot of these ships would be without useing their missiles, the cost of operations should probably be even higher then it the comments fo far (total compot is probably fine, but more of it in missiles)
OK, one item at a time:
Quote:(The red 13 on the CVA was a reminder to me to ask Eric why the CVA has 13 COMPOT... he never answered that either... go fig...)
Looking at the SSDs, the CVA has the same weapons, arcs and power available as the DN. So whatever the DN comes out to, the CVA should be also. The fighters use drones thereby consuming no power. At worst, maybe due to doctrine, the CVA loses 1AV, but I doubt it.
Robert Cole's Missle Ship rule: Other than the DMW (which Robert lists as the DWM) and the SMC (erratad name from SCG, should remove SCG from SIT), are there other Frax ships that have these missle racks (no CW variant)? Based on the description of the (R51.24) SMC, I might just say that the DMW and SMC get some type of mauler ability against bases like the Hydran FSP but the Frax ships suffer shock?
Frax SIT:
-Need symbol for BG capable ships (CW, FF, DW). STORK 22 Jun 03
-Need (7R51.0) section. STORK 22 Jun 03
Heh, heh, heh. Just sent Robert an email with my Excel 2000 SITS for all the other simulator races and some notes. Maybe it crashes his computer. 
Peladine SIT:
-Need symbol for BG capable ships (CW, DD, DW). STORK 22 Jun 03
-DWD is rule 42, not 48 (DDL). STORK 22 Jun 03
-DWD should also probably cost 1 to convert instead of 3 for same reason Scott listed regarding substitution. STORK 22 Jun 03
-Missing Peladine ships: SR, SRV (rules for survey ships in CL10 or 11, I believe). STORK 22 Jun 03
-Why do both the BP and DP add 2 to compot? The BP has better and more weapons and shields. BP might be better at 4-2/0. STORK 22 Jun 03
-TP should say T-POD. STORK 22 Jun 03
-Need (7JR1.0) section. STORK 22 Jun 03
I really have to question whether both the DWD and DWS should be on the SIT together. Only reason I can see is if the DWD can do drone bombardment, which it cannot.
Jessica, do you plan on working on F&E counters or would you like one of the "graphical experts" who've done F&E counters to try?
Thinking now, for all these races, there needs to be a (700.0) section, not necessarily fleets or (700.1) CONSTRUCTION, but at least (700.2) ALLOWABLE SUBSTITUTIONS and (700.3) PRODUCTION NOTES following AO format. And what do you call the (700.0) section for each race? Cannot number Frax (751.0), that's already an annex. (7R51.0) seems too long.
You really should be nice to Robert. His computer dies if ou look at it sideways........at least, it does every time I do
I'll have to look at Eric's post tomorrow (I had to sneak away from our guests to post here)... but I have started a Peladine OOB / Construction...
More details as I go along.
42