SFT 36

STAR FLEET BATTLES

STAR FLEET TIMES ONLINE -- Issue 36

ENGINE-MOUNTED WEAPONS
A CASE STUDY IN THREE PARTS
PART I: THE MOVERS AND SHAKERS

For years, Alliance players have complained that "our ships lost their weapons when converted to variants, but the Coalition ships did not lose theirs!"

This complaint was only partly valid. The Lyrans certainly lost their weapons just as fast as any Alliance race, and even the much-maligned Klingons lost their weapons more often than not, despite the fact that the disruptor mounts were outside of the "main hull volume" and hence it was relatively difficult to convert them into anything like barracks. The Romulans seem to have been the main culprit and this was due to their unique modular designs.

Even so, perception is more important that reality (just ask any politician) and if the Alliance players want variants that retain full heavy weapons (mounted on the engines) then they shall have them (if only in the case study; don’t expect these "alternate weapons designs" to ever become real).

HOW THIS CASE STUDY IS ORGANIZED

There are 31 ships in the case study, covering most of the relavant cases. (We could have done 62 more but these would have been the older pre-war ships no one wants anyway.) Nine of these ships are in this issue, 11 in SFT37, and 11 in SFT38. For those whose subscriptions run out with SFT36, you will have to resubscribe or go to the web site for the other 22. If your subscription ends with SFT37, you’ll find it folded up and mailed with SFT36, but you’ll have to get the last ships from the web site or a renewed subscription. If your subscription ends with SFT38, you have all three parts (and are doubtless waiting for the Scary Ships of SFT39). Note that in order to shoehorn one more ship into the issue, SFT37 and SFT38 do not have a "mailing wrapper" on page 12, but have another ship. Also note that only a few of the usual news items are on page 1 of those two issues (since they were mailed with SFT36, what was the point of repeating ourselves?) but some of the "case study" data is repeated there for your convenience (and in case someone finds one of the three issues without also finding the other two).

SHIPS IN SFT37

Federation	DW Minesweeper, New Heavy Fighter Carrier, New Command Cruiser, Commando DW.
Gorn	BDD Minesweeper, Heavy PFT, Heavy Commando Destroyer, Commando BDD.
Kzinti	DW Minesweeper, Medium PFT, Medium Commando Cruiser.

SHIPS IN SFT38

Hydran	New PFT, New Commando Cruiser.
Federation	NCL and DW (alternative weapons)
Gorn	Heavy DD & Battle DD (alternative weapons)
Kzinti	Medium Cruiser (alternative weapons)
Hydran	Mongol & Tartar (alternative weapons

GENERAL NOTES ABOUT THE SHIPS

The ships in this case study (SFT 36-37-38) have their heavy weapons mounted on the warp engines, freeing up internal hull volume for use for other things (usually more weapons or more power). We used creative approaches here. The Feds and Kzintis gained drone racks, as these do not require more power. The Hydrans (who are always short of power) used their extra hull space for two extra APRs (except in one case).

These ships are non-historical. They are conjectural, as the owning races never even conceived of such designs. For all we know, there actually was some valid engineering reason why these designs are impossible from an engineering sense (although if the Klingons can mount disruptors on warp engines, one really has to ask why the Kzintis never figured it out). These ships can be used in your gaming with permission of the relevant judges, campaign masters, and opponents as may be required in each case.

We did not bother with a Master Ship Chart since the data is entirely the same (except that the explosion strength is increased by one point in all cases).

The "playtest rule numbers" all include a "Z" as the middle digit. While never done before, it was appropriate in this case (and allowed us to make all of the minesweepers 9Z4 and so forth) and we hope it does not confuse you.

We have dispensed with much of the normal verbiage from the ship descriptions as it would amount to repeating "based on the idea of putting the weapons onto the engines and using the liberated space for more systems" 31 times. Instead, the ship descriptions used to explain our theories in what was added to each ship.

SHIP DESCRIPTIONS AND DATA (SFT36)

(R2.9Z3) FEDERATION LTT: Instead of mounting photons (which would have produced a dangerous but one-dimensional battle-transport), Steve Petrick selected drones. This did not add to the chronic power shortage and was more useful in defending a tug. In the case of a battle transport, the drone racks add an extra dimension to the attack.

(R2.9Z4) FEDERATION NEW MINESWEEPER: Once again, Steve Petrick selected drones instead of the photons seen on the Z-version of the standard NCL in SFT38. His theory here was that drones are vastly more useful in minesweeping than photons are.

(R5.9Z3) KZINTI MEDIUM TRANSPORT: Here we see the full offensive punch offered by the CM (Z-version) class as a whole. With three disruptors (albeit with difficult arcs) and plenty of drones, these ships are dangerous and multi-threat!

(R5.9Z4) KZINTI MEDIUM MINESWEEPER: Here we see disruptors where one might have expected mine-busting drones. Steve Cole felt that the ship already had plenty of drones to tackle mines, and gave it disruptors to force back any enemy ship that tries to interfere with the mission. Power is not a problem since the minesweeper must be nearly at a dead stop to sweep mines anyway.

(R5.9Z8) KZINTI COMMANDO WAR DESTROYER: The Z-version of this ship retains the two disruptors (mounted FX on the center engine) that it lost in the real universe.

(R6.9Z3) GORN HEAVY DESTROYER TRANSPORT: This ship was given a pair of S-torps, despite the power problems that could result, because the whole point of the exercise was to provide worthwhile offensive weapons. Plasma-D racks might have made some sense for a defensive unit, although their arcs would have been restricted to FH and the value of this in defense was somewhat dubious. Due to the internal volume required for cargo, there was no room for the extra batteries to fast-load the torpedoes.

(R6.9Z4) GORN HEAVY DESTROYER MINE-SWEEPER: Again, a pair of S-torps were provided to give the offensive punch that is the real point of this case study. One might wonder if the captain would leave the S-torps unloaded to use them as damage protection for the more useful plasma-Fs?

(R9.9Z3) HYDRAN MULE LTZ: The basic Hydran Z-design was based on moving two weapons to the engines and adding two APRs in their place in front. While the LTZ does not have the original nose-mounted fusion beam (given up for cargo volume) it did retain the other two fusion beams.

(R9.9Z4) HYDRAN MEDIUM MINESWEEPER: As with the LTZ, the NMZ retains the two engine-mounted fusions and the two added APRs, but loses the nose-mounted fusion beam.

Updated 3 November 1998