Federation Commander Forum Index Federation Commander
A NEW fast paced board game of starship combat!
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Fed CVA?

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Federation Commander Forum Index -> Other Amarillo Design Bureau Products
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
OGOPTIMUS
Captain


Joined: 10 Nov 2006
Posts: 981

PostPosted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 6:52 am    Post subject: Fed CVA? Reply with quote

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


NEW Page | OLD Page
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Sneaky Scot
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Posts: 383
Location: Thornbury, Gloucestershire

PostPosted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 1:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
djdood
Fleet Captain


Joined: 01 Feb 2007
Posts: 2922
Location: Seattle, WA

PostPosted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 10:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
OGOPTIMUS
Captain


Joined: 10 Nov 2006
Posts: 981

PostPosted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 10:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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


NEW Page | OLD Page
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
djdood
Fleet Captain


Joined: 01 Feb 2007
Posts: 2922
Location: Seattle, WA

PostPosted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
PanzerTC
Lieutenant JG


Joined: 12 Oct 2009
Posts: 32
Location: DC Area

PostPosted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 8:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
Dal Downing
Commander


Joined: 06 May 2008
Posts: 552
Location: Western Wisconsin

PostPosted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 11:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
PanzerTC
Lieutenant JG


Joined: 12 Oct 2009
Posts: 32
Location: DC Area

PostPosted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 2:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
mjwest
Commodore


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 3479
Location: Dallas, Texas

PostPosted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 6:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Dan Ibekwe
Commander


Joined: 08 Mar 2007
Posts: 452
Location: Manchester UK

PostPosted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 9:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
Dal Downing
Commander


Joined: 06 May 2008
Posts: 552
Location: Western Wisconsin

PostPosted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 6:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
ctchapel
Lieutenant JG


Joined: 16 Jun 2008
Posts: 60
Location: Federal Way, WA

PostPosted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 5:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Ravenhull
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 28 Jan 2007
Posts: 231
Location: Mobile, AL

PostPosted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 6:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Federation Commander Forum Index -> Other Amarillo Design Bureau Products All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group