Fed CVA?

OGOPTIMUS · Post by **OGOPTIMUS** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 6:52 am

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?

Sneaky Scot · Post by **Sneaky Scot** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 1:00 pm

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.

djdood · Post by **djdood** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 10:08 pm

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).

OGOPTIMUS · Post by **OGOPTIMUS** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 10:45 pm

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.

djdood · Post by **djdood** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:13 pm

The CVO (as with all things in SSJ) is 'conjectural'. It is usable in campaigns, etc., only with the permission of the opposing players.

PanzerTC · Post by **PanzerTC** » Wed Oct 14, 2009 8:32 pm

Intresting background.

Can anyone tell me how many Fighters and/or Shuttles the CVO can carry as a compliment?

Thanks.

Dal Downing · Post by **Dal Downing** » Wed Oct 14, 2009 11:24 pm

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.

PanzerTC · Post by **PanzerTC** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 2:36 pm

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.

mjwest · Post by **mjwest** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 6:03 pm

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.

Dan Ibekwe · Post by **Dan Ibekwe** » Sat Jun 18, 2011 9:45 pm

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.

Dal Downing · Post by **Dal Downing** » Sun Jun 19, 2011 6:48 am

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?

ctchapel · Post by **ctchapel** » Sun Jun 19, 2011 5:13 pm

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.

Ravenhull · Post by **Ravenhull** » Sun Jun 19, 2011 6:44 pm

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.