View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
OGOPTIMUS Captain
![](images/avatars/725069854f0279524c97e.png)
Joined: 10 Nov 2006 Posts: 980
|
Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 6:52 am Post subject: Fed CVA? |
|
|
So is the Fed CVA not official anymore (if it ever was)?
And that means that the 18 box engines never existed (outside of the special ones for the CF and DDF)?
Do all references to the CVA not mean the CVO flatbed design, and mean the SCS three nacelle dreadnought type ship?
Was there a reason for making the CVO unofficial? _________________ O.G. OPTIMUS
Newest Page | Newer Page | OLD Page |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
Sneaky Scot Commander
![](images/avatars/gallery/fed_command/Spitfire.jpg)
Joined: 11 Jan 2007 Posts: 475 Location: Tintern, Monmouthshire
|
Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 1:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
OGOPTIMUS,
If you mean "is the old Fed CVA with 36 warp and a movement cost of 1 no longer official" then the answer is yes, although a revised SSD was published in either SSJ#1 or CL28 (can't remeber which off the top of my head).
The only ships I've seen with the 18 box engines are indeed the CF and DDF.
All references to the Fed CVA should be taken to mean the 3-nacelle design based on the Fed DN.
The reason given for making the CV(O) unofficial was something to do with DF&E. The Feds were at some kind of disadvantage because they couldn't convert their DN to a CVA design which I guess didn't matter much during scheduled production when the CVA group was an allowable substitution versus the abilty to conduct a major conversion. I don't actually play DF&E as I didn't have 3 months to spare and a table the size of an aircraft carrier (although I really like the idea), so that may not be 100% accurate. _________________ Nothing is quite as persuasive as a disruptor pistol on slow burn and a rotisserie...... |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
djdood Commodore
![](images/avatars/gallery/fed_command/2204Washington.jpg)
Joined: 01 Feb 2007 Posts: 3413 Location: Seattle, WA
|
Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 10:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I had to ask this very question myself, about 4 years ago when I came back to the games. Sneaky Scot pretty much nailed it.
F&E drove the change and the change happened with the "Doomsday" 'Captain's Edition' of SFB. The reason is as he said - the Fed CVA couldn't be produced from conversions of DN's (which every other race could do).
A modified version of the original CVA (now called an 'Operational Carrier' or CVO) was indeed in Stellar Shadows Journal #1 (and is on the cover). |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
OGOPTIMUS Captain
![](images/avatars/725069854f0279524c97e.png)
Joined: 10 Nov 2006 Posts: 980
|
Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 10:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hmmmm. OK. Does it have a place as a conjectural design? or is it just a "hey this is cool!" type ship?
I ask since another conjectural ship I'm making is going to use the nacelles from the CVO, but most likely as "hot warp' versions, so I can coax a bit more power out of them. _________________ O.G. OPTIMUS
Newest Page | Newer Page | OLD Page |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
djdood Commodore
![](images/avatars/gallery/fed_command/2204Washington.jpg)
Joined: 01 Feb 2007 Posts: 3413 Location: Seattle, WA
|
Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The CVO (as with all things in SSJ) is 'conjectural'. It is usable in campaigns, etc., only with the permission of the opposing players. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
PanzerTC Lieutenant JG
![](images/avatars/10007634464ad4dad3a41d5.jpg)
Joined: 12 Oct 2009 Posts: 32 Location: DC Area
|
Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 8:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Intresting background.
Can anyone tell me how many Fighters and/or Shuttles the CVO can carry as a compliment?
Thanks. _________________ PanzerTC
"In planning, never a useless move; in strategy, no step taken in vain."
Ch'en Hao |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
Dal Downing Commander
![](images/avatars/161750976849e037d4bf8cb.gif)
Joined: 06 May 2008 Posts: 652 Location: Western Wisconsin
|
Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 11:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It had the same fighter wing that the current CVA has in SFB.
12 - F14 Tomcats
12 - A10
6 - Admin Shuttles
Note that now those Admin Shuttles would Probably be 2 SWAC 1 or 2 Multi Roll Shuttles and the rest would be plain jain Admin Shuttles.
Also the 12 A10 could be replaced with 6 double sapced A20s but that would make it a Space Control Ship. _________________ -Dal
"Which one of you is the Biggest, Baddest, Bootlicker of the bunch?"
"I am."
"ARCHERS!!! THAT ONE!!!!" |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
PanzerTC Lieutenant JG
![](images/avatars/10007634464ad4dad3a41d5.jpg)
Joined: 12 Oct 2009 Posts: 32 Location: DC Area
|
Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 2:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dal,
Thanks for the information.
I'm looking at trying to gear some of my purchases towards what I can actually field in games.
I'm grateful for the repsonse. _________________ PanzerTC
"In planning, never a useless move; in strategy, no step taken in vain."
Ch'en Hao |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
mjwest Commodore
![](images/avatars/gallery/fed_command/romkrlogo_new.jpg)
Joined: 08 Oct 2006 Posts: 4075 Location: Dallas, Texas
|
Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 6:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dal Downing wrote: | Also the 12 A10 could be replaced with 6 double sapced A20s but that would make it a Space Control Ship. |
Not exactly. A CVA with 6 A-20s in place of the 12 A-10s is just a CVA with A-20s. The SCS is a whole other type of ship.
Of the CVO ship, note that the whole subject of those warp engines is totally conjectural. Putting those warp engines on a normal pure combat ship and leaving it with a movement rate of 1 is game breaking. Making the engines better would put the result in the same arena as the "let's give the Fed FJD ships an extra warp engine for fun" type ships. _________________
Federation Commander Answer Guy |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
Dan Ibekwe Commander
![](images/avatars/gallery/fed_command/Hydran2.jpg)
Joined: 08 Mar 2007 Posts: 453 Location: Manchester UK
|
Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 9:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: | Putting those warp engines on a normal pure combat ship and leaving it with a movement rate of 1 is game breaking. |
True. Could not the move cost have been retconned upto 1 1/4? The CVO is significantly larger thn a CA.
Obviously, this does not address the F&E DN-to-CV conversion issue. _________________ We are Hydrans! NO ONE LIKES US! |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
Dal Downing Commander
![](images/avatars/161750976849e037d4bf8cb.gif)
Joined: 06 May 2008 Posts: 652 Location: Western Wisconsin
|
Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 6:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dan Ibekwe wrote: | True. Could not the move cost have been retconned upto 1 1/4? The CVO is significantly larger thn a CA.
Obviously, this does not address the F&E DN-to-CV conversion issue. |
Actually doesn't the recent addition of a DNV in Captians Log make the nerfing of the CVO kind of pointless? Couldn't we now just say apon further review the first 3 Fed CVAs were in fact CVO (with Hot Warp Engines) but once the War kicked into full swing all susequent CVAs were built with the 3 Engine Configuration or if a conversion it became a DNV? And as the war moved on and CVOs were over hauled / rebuilt they were converted to the 3 engine CVA because the 2 engine comfiguration was to hard to maintain or repair? _________________ -Dal
"Which one of you is the Biggest, Baddest, Bootlicker of the bunch?"
"I am."
"ARCHERS!!! THAT ONE!!!!" |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
ctchapel Lieutenant JG
![](images/avatars/9017345974dfbfbf4d1924.jpg)
Joined: 16 Jun 2008 Posts: 84 Location: Federal Way, WA
|
Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 5:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I felt that the CVO should be a varient of the BCH, after the Feds loose the MacArthur. The forward hull is slightly larger on the BCH, by 2, and the aft hull is increased 24 boxes, which account nicely for the 2 squadrons of fighters. Also at this time the engineering staff has gotten better at putting 10 pounds of stuff in a 5 pound can. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
Ravenhull Lieutenant Commander
![](images/avatars/gallery/fed_command/L-FarStars.jpg)
Joined: 28 Jan 2007 Posts: 231 Location: Mobile, AL
|
Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
While the CVO had an interesting flavor, I can see and easily accept why they changed things. As for a SC3 CVA, I did like the idea behind the overloaded carriers in J2 with them completely gutting the ship in the process. _________________ NOLI UMQUAM VIM TURBARUM STULTORUM DEPRETIARE.
Donovan Willett, USS Alabama |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
|