|
Post by Liam Thompson on Apr 1, 2009 21:21:38 GMT
Over the past few days I've come to the realisation that I've been going at this a little thingy-eyed. In the process of trying to create canon-style ships, I believe that I am deliberately handicapping myself compared to the other Full Thrust ships. After all, none of the ships detailed in FB1 or FB2, other than the Merchant and Support Vessels on page 42 of FB1 have Cargo space, Science Lab space nor Passenger space. Thus, by attempting to include those portions in my ships I am effectively forcing myself to pay more points (through additional MASS) for my ships of approximate equivalent effectiveness. In response to this, the only thing I feel I can do to rectify this is to create two versions of each ship; one for use in pick-up games and one for use in campaigns/specific scenarios. They would be statistically identical with the exception that the campaign ships would actually include the Cargo/Science/Passenger spaces; in a pick-up game, a player is not going to include Freighters or Starliners, whereas in a campaign they are much more likely to do so and that's where the C/S/P spaces actually make a difference. I am aware that a larger MASS ship generates a larger Crew Factor, but I'm hoping that people will be willing to overlook that little fact. If it helps, perhaps you could think of the ships in a pick-up game as coming from an alternate-Mirror Universe (where the Terran Empire lasted long into the 24th Century and somehow, inexplicably, maintained the same level of technology as the mainstream universe) where they don't need such silly things as C/S/P space I've also decided that trying to create ships with an equivalent armament to their canon counterparts (such as my Sovereign with its 16 Phaser Banks) is somewhat silly and overly restrictive in a system as loose as Full Thrust so my ship designs won't be direct translations (and it doesn't help that the majority of the ships I wanted to do don't have extensive details published about their actual armaments). I'm also considering removing the Class-F Shuttle, Vulcan Long-Range Shuttle, Constitution and Constitution-Refit ships from the list; in the 24th Century all of the other ships have been seen at least once whereas those four ships seem to have been completely retired. I could, however, create a separate side-list for Original Series/Movies 1-6 era ships. I'm not sure what I'm going to do about this, but I'm throwing it open for suggestions. I've also come up with a general description of the Ship Design Doctrine that each race will be following. Again, comments would be highly appreciated as I'm not 100% that I'm correct in my analysis of the fleets. Note that the descriptions of Hull values are as appropriate to the FB1 rules (though will not necessarily be a direct percentile conversion of the MASS as described in FB2), whereas the description of Thrust values are subjective compared to the FB1 fleets. General Rules- Unless otherwise noted, Beam batteries, Needle Beams, Pulse Torpedoes, Submunitions Packs and any other non-weapon equipment not mentioned below are available to all fleets.
- Unless specifically noted otherwise, the following options are not allowed: Salvo Missile Launchers/Magazines/Racks, Nova Cannons, Wave Guns, Minesweepers (except on specific minesweeper ships), Missiles, Reflex Fields, Cloaking Fields.
- Whilst Hanger Bays are allowed, Star Trek ship doctrine generally does not use fighters of the size that FT Fighters represent. No ships may include Fighters, with the exception of Reman ships (if I convert any up), unless they are Interceptor Fighters only.
- As an addendum to the above, there must be a reason that the fleets of the Star Trek universe don't use FT-style fighters, and the only conclusion I can come to is that they have superior PDS-equivalents. Therefore, there will likely be an equal or greater number of PDS systems on ST ships than on their FT equivalents.
Ships in Star Trek seem significantly more manoeuvrable than their FT counterparts. Accordingly, my ships will all receive the Advanced Drives (normally used by the Kra'Vak and Sa'Vasku) as detailed in Fleet Book Two to represent this. This has been rescinded, following further research into the nature of Star Trek impulse engines.
- The sensor systems detailed in More Thrust will be used (at the MASS and points costs detailed within). Likewise, ECM packages are available though few fleets use it (Obsidian Order-/Tal Shiar-run ships, Borg vessels, and certain individual Non-aligned ships come to mind).
- Screens will generally appear on all ships representing their Shields. Generally, Level 1 Screens are for smaller ships whilst larger ships will have Level 2 Screens unless a note is made in the individual fleet lists.
Federation- Average Hull values
- High Thrust values
- No Armour except on dedicated warships (i.e. Defiant-class ships)
- Weapons are to include as many arcs as possible with the exception of dedicated warships (i.e. Defiant-class ships)
- A broad mixture of weapons to be used. Salvo Missile Launchers are to be used to represent Quantum Torpedoes (Sovereign- and Defiant-class ships only)
- A single Defiant-class ship, a single Oberth-class ship, and a single Galaxy-Refit-class ship may each take a Cloaking Device
Klingons- Strong Hull values
- High Thrust values on the smaller ships (i.e. B'Rel, K'Vort) with low Thrust values on the larger ships (Vor'cha, Negh'var)
- Armour is to be applied liberally
- Any, and indeed perhaps all, ships may have a Cloaking Field
- Weapons are to be primarily focussed in the forward arc (F only)
- TNG-era (and ENT-era if I ever convert any ships of that time period) Klingons will be able to ram on a 4+ (rather than a 6) and have a lesser chance of Striking the Colours. TOS-era Klingons are unaffected and use the standard rules for both situations.
- Unofficial rule: when participating in a Boarding Action, Klingon ships divide their current Damage points value (i.e. Hull remaining) by 3 (rather than 4) to determine their Boarding Factor (either in defence or as a Boarding Party) to represent their skill in close combat.
Romulans- Poor Hull values
- Moderate Thrust values on all ships
- No Armour
- All ships have Cloaking Fields
- Weapons may have any arcs but will likely be focussed in the forward arcs (FP, F, FS)
- Significant Missile (regular and needle only) capacity on the larger ships
- Perhaps allow a Wave Gun on the larger ships, representing the Romulan Plasma Torpedo as seen in TOS' Balance of Terror? Or would these be better represented by PTLs/SMLs?
Cardassians- Super Hull values
- Moderate Thrust values on all ships
- Large amounts of Armour
- Level 1 Screens only
- Weapons may have any arcs but will likely be focussed in the forward arcs (FP, F, FS)
- No Pulse Torpedo Launchers but Missiles (regular) are allowed
Borg- Huge MASS values far beyond that of standard ships (for Cubes, at least)
- Super Hull values for Cubes and Tactical Cubes, Strong for the Borg Queen's Vessel/Borg Diamond/Borg Octahedron, Average for the Sphere, Poor for the Scout Vessel and Probe (assuming that I convert any of these models up)
- No Armour except on a Tactical Cube and Sphere
- Weapons will generally have 360-degree arcs, or at least be able to fire in all directions through multiple mountings
- Needle Missiles are allowed
- Technically, these shouldn't have Command Bridge section to be destroyed
Dominion- Strong Hull Values
- High Thrust values for the Attack ships, lower for anything bigger (if it gets converted)
- Armour as desired
- Attack ships' weapons are generally forward arc (F) whilst larger ships have more general arcs
- If post-Breen alliance, a moderate amount of EMP Torpedoes (representing Energy Dampening Weapons) are allowed. No Needle Beams
- Able to ram on a 4+ (rather than 6+) and will never use the Striking the Colours rules
- Unofficial rule: when participating in a Boarding Action, Dominion ships divide their current Damage points value (i.e. Hull remaining) by 3 (rather than 4) to determine their Boarding Factor (either in defence or as a Boarding Party) to represent the Jem'Hadar strength and skill in close combat.
I don't own enough of the other fleets' models to consider giving them a general Ship Design Doctrine (yet).
|
|
|
Post by Liam Thompson on Apr 3, 2009 16:24:19 GMT
I was having some issues with the Federation fleet (mainly due to the issues mentioned in the previous post), so I decided to do something a little different and statted up the Klingon fleet. Any feedback would be highly appreciated.
D7-class Heavy Destroyer - 214 points Intended to represent a 23rd Century ship brought out of storage. Beam Batteries represent Disruptor Cannons and Pulse Torpedo Launchers represent Photon Torpedoes. The Cloaking Field represents a Cloaking Device and Screens represent Shields. Unlike the other ships presented here, the D7 does NOT have the Advanced Thrust Drives to represent its older engine systems (I’ll likely do a similar thing for my Constitution/Constitution-Refit ships when I do my Federation fleet).
MASS: 52 Hull: 13 Armour: 3 Thrust: 4 FTL: Yes Point Defence Systems: 2 Fire Control Systems: 2 Weapons and other equipment:
- Beam Batteries: Class 2 (FP, F, FS) x 2, Class 1 (360)
- Pulse Torpedo Launchers: (F)
- Cloaking Field
- Level 1 Screens
B'rel-class Light Cruiser - 276 points Generally used as a scout, the B’rel is lighter armed than the D7 but is much quicker and more manoeuvrable which ought to make up for the lower amount of firepower. It will be atmospherically streamlined with a small amount of cargo space in campaign play.
MASS: 64 Hull: 18 Thrust: 6 (advanced) FTL: Yes Point Defence Systems: 2 Fire Control Systems: 2 Weapons and other equipment:
- Beam Batteries: Class 2 (FP, F, FS) x 2
- Pulse Torpedo Launchers: (F)
- Cloaking Field
- Level 1 Screens
K'vort-class Battlecruiser - 510 points General mainstay of the 24th Century Klingon fleet. Will be atmospherically streamlined and will have a small amount of cargo space in campaign play.
MASS: 119 Hull: 32 Armour: 8 Thrust: 4 (advanced) FTL: Yes Point Defence Systems: 3 Fire Control Systems: 2 Weapons and other equipment:
- Beam Batteries: Class 3 (F) x 2, Class 2 (FP, F, FS) x 2
- Pulse Torpedo Launchers: (F) x 2
- Cloaking Field
- Level 1 Screens
Vor'cha-class Battleship - 875 points Command cruiser. The Enhanced Sensors represent the greater amount of sensor power available to the higher end Klingon ships whilst the Needle Beams represent weapons capable of taking advantage of these more advanced sensors (“Target their weapons!” for example). The higher level of Screens represent their better shields. Will have a medium amount of science labs and cargo space, a small amount of passenger transport, and a small amount of ortillery bombardment capabilities in campaign play.
MASS: 200 Hull: 38 Armour: 10 Thrust: 4 (advanced) FTL: Yes Point Defence Systems: 4 Fire Control Systems: 3 Weapons and other equipment:
- Beam Batteries: Class 3 (FP, F), Class 3 (F), Class 3 (F, FS), Class 2 (FP, F, FS) x 2
- Needle Beams: (F) x 2
- Pulse Torpedo Launchers: (FP, F), (F, FS)
- Cloaking Field
- Level 2 Screens
- Enhanced Sensors
Negh'Var-class Superdreadnought - 1056 points Top of the range ship; the Klingon flagship is of this class. Will have a medium amount of science labs, cargo space and passenger transport as well as a small to medium ortillery bombardment capability in campaign play.
MASS: 243 Hull: 69 Armour: 18 Thrust: 2 (advanced) FTL: Yes Point Defence Systems: 5 Fire Control Systems: 3 Weapons and other equipment:
- Beam Batteries: Class 4 (F), Class 3 (FP, F, FS) x 3, Class 2 (FP, F, FS)
- Needle Beams: (F) x 3
- Pulse Torpedo Launchers: (FP, F, FS), (FP, F), (F, FS)
- Cloaking Field
- Level 2 Screens
- Superior Sensors
So, what do people think?Obsolete rules left here only for the record.
|
|
|
Post by Liam Thompson on Apr 5, 2009 22:34:48 GMT
Okay, back to the Federation. Here's a repost of the Shuttles already posted, but updated according to my new outlook and without their campaign additions, not to mention now with ship diagrams.
Rather than penalise the older designs by using less effective engines, I've assumed that they represent more up-to-date versions utilising a similar hull configuration.
SD103 Type Shuttlecraft Courier - 37 points Intended to represent a Work Bee-cum-shuttle (as seen at the end of Star Trek: Generations). The PDS represents its tiny self-defence Phaser. In campaign play will have Passenger Transport (tiny), Cargo Space (tiny) and Atmospheric Streamlining.
MASS: 10 Hull: 2 Thrust: 6 (advanced) FTL: Yes Point Defence Systems: 1 Weapons and other equipment:
Class-F Shuttlecraft Courier - 42 points Intended to represent a standard shuttle for ferrying personnel. Its lone armament is more for defence than offence. In campaign play will have Passenger Transport (small) and Atmospheric Streamlining.
MASS: 11 Hull: 2 Thrust: 6 (advanced) FTL: Yes Fire Control Systems: 1 Weapons and other equipment:
- Beam Batteries: 1 (360)
- Level 1 Screens
Vulcan Shuttle Courier - 37 points Intended to represent a long range shuttle dedicated to ferrying personnel. Like the SD-103, its armaments are for self defence only. In campaign play will have Passenger Transport (small-moderate).
MASS: 10 Hull: 2 Thrust: 4 (advanced) FTL: Yes Point Defence Systems: 2 Weapons and other equipment:
Type-6 Shuttlecraft Scout - 53 points Intended to represent a upgraded shuttle that ferries personnel. Unlike the shuttles seen so far, the Type-6 is armed well enough to be able to make a small contribution to a battle. In campaign play the Type-6 will have Passenger Transport (tiny-small) and Atmospheric Streamlining.
MASS: 14 Hull: 3 Thrust: 6 (advanced) FTL: Yes Fire Control Systems: 1 Weapons and other equipment:
- Beam Batteries: Class 1 (360) x 2
- Level 1 Screens
Class-2 Shuttlecraft Scout - 53 points An alternative weapons fit of the Type-6. The Submunitions Pack represents a small quantity of Photon Torpedoes. In campaign play the Class-2 will have Passenger Transport (tiny-small) and Atmospheric Streamlining.
MASS: 14 Hull: 3 Thrust: 6 (advanced) FTL: Yes Fire Control Systems: 1 Weapons and other equipment:
- Beam Batteries: Class 1 (360)
- Submunitions Packs: 1 (F)
- Level 1 Screens
Again, comments and criticisms are welcome.Obsolete. Left here for the record.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen Mawson on Apr 6, 2009 12:48:24 GMT
Interesting.
Just for comparison purposes I thought I'd post up a couple of my NAC varient ships.
Cambridge Class Light Cruiser
Mass: 51 Hull (Average): 15 FTL: Yes Thrust: 6
Systems: Beam Batteries: Class 2 (FP, F, FS) x 5 1 Firecon 2 PDef Level 1 Screens
Cost: 172
Drake Class Battleship
Mass: 120 Hull (Average): 36 FTL: Yes Thrust: 4 Armour: 5
Systems: Beam Batteries: Class 3 (F + FS) x 2, Class 3 (FP + F) x 2, Class 2 (AP, FP, F) x 2, Class 2 (F, FS, AS) x 2 Pulse Torps: F x 2 Firecon x 2 PDef x 3 Level 1 Screens Cost: 405
|
|
|
Post by mike on Apr 6, 2009 16:36:13 GMT
Very intersting Liam
Just a couple of points
Firstly, I'm not at all sure about the advanced drives
I'm not convinced that ST ships are actually that much more manoeuvrable than standard FT designs.
Certainly some of the smaller dedicated warships appear to have a fairly tight turning circle, but that may just be a result of very large main drive for the mass of the ship.
Secondly, regarding your logic for the lack of fighters
I agree, that would obsolete the use of fighters. However, the disigns you have put up have nowhere near enough point defense for this to to be true.
Take it from somebody who uses fighters: three squadrons of attack fighters (and I have a carrier design that packs that) will easily swamp the five point defence lasers you have equipped the largest superdreadnought with.
To justify that logic you need to be looking at half a dozen or more PDS systems and an area point defence system on every ship.
The MASS cost for that could be prohibitive, but you're welcome to try.
Thirdly, ramming / boarding rules
Personally, I wouldn't muck around with them that much.
Partially because house rules can radically change the mechanics of the system, which we shouldn't be doing until we have a "feel" for how it works as published.
But mainly because, quite frankly, these things rarely (if ever) happen in FT anyway -- you just can't get close enough without your opponant's consent.
Finally, regarding cloaking devices
By all means use it if you wish (and I agree it's standard kit for some ST fleets), but be aware that the FT cloak is not the same as the ST cloak.
The big difference is that with a FT cloak, the cloaked ship caonnot see outside of its own cloak -- read the rules carefully.
|
|
|
Post by Liam Thompson on Apr 6, 2009 19:41:57 GMT
Some very good points Mike, which I shall address here. Advanced DrivesHaving done a little research into this after you brought up this point it seems to be the case that you are correct. Trek ships have a main (impulse) engine which provides the majority of thrust, but only in a forward direction, aided by a multitude of thrusters around the ship to provide directional control, which is pretty much how Full Thrust engines are described as working. I had previously assumed a greater degree of control over the engines, more in line with the Kra'Vak advanced drives, but it appears I was wrong. In retrospect, watching an episode of DS9 where the Defiant performs significant manoeuvres right before making a decision about manoeuvrability was probably not the best of ideas... However, a few ships seems to possess significant turning capabilities (specifically Defiant-class ships and Prometheus-class (when separated under Multi-Vector Assault Mode) as well as possibly B'rel-class and/or K'vort-class ships); would I be better off trying to represent this manoeuvrability with higher Thrust factors or by allowing those ships (and those ships alone) the advanced drives? Point Defence SystemsAs a relative Full Thrust newbie, this is an area where I was hoping you'd be able to help me out with; alas, your relative quietness over the past fortnight left me with no option but to try and forge ahead without your advice. To be honest, the MASS that PDS require is pretty much negligable on the size of ships we're talking about here so adding a significant number of them wouldn't be an issue. Ramming/BoardingDo note that page 22 of FT2 (i.e. the core rulebook of second edition) states that, as an option, "players may agree that certain scenarios and/or certain races may make ramming attacks more likely, and hence reduce this required die roll for them" (emphasis mine). Worf's actions in Star Trek: First Contact demonstrate that Klingons, if forced into a dire enough situation, would consider ramming a viable (and apparently honourable) tactic. Likewise, the destruction of the USS Odyssey in The Jem'Hadar and the casualties inflicted on the Klingon fleet in Tears of the Prophets shows that the Dominion (or, at least, Jem'Hadar possibly led by Vorta) are willing to use suicidal ramming tactics to destroy their enemies. Hence, I increased the chance of being able to ram with both of these races accordingly, as the rulebook encourages. For Boarding actions, however, no such addendum exists, hence why I listed it as an 'Unofficial rule'. I felt that those two races, both being known for their prowess in melee combat, should be naturally better at Boarding actions (both in attack and in defence). I'm willing to forgo it for the moment but would love to see Klingon and Dominion ships be better at Boarding actions at the end of the day. The Striking the Colours rules, which are significantly vague to begin with, are another area where both of these fleets would have a reduced (or, in the case of the Dominion, no) chance of surrendering. But that's a discussion for a later date, once we've gotten the basic rules nailed. Cloaking FieldsBear in mind that the Cloaking Field was specifically written for a Star Trek, according to Jon Tuffley (i.e. the author of the rules) on his own website, in the More Thrust FAQ. I am fully aware that the Full Thrust Cloaking Field is not identical to a Star Trek Cloaking Device, however it is the closest thing I have to it; I am attempting to create viable ships using the official rules, without resorting to house rules and home made weapons. I personally would prefer something a little more like Trek canon, but I don't have a choice. A house rule modification that could work would be to remove the limit that you have to specify in advance how many turns you stay cloaked for.
Looks like I've got a little work to do, rewriting the already posted ships, before I go any further.
|
|
darkangel1(Darrell)
Gates of Antares
Master of the Ravenwing
The Dark Angels the First Legion the true Angels of Death
Posts: 1,060
|
Post by darkangel1(Darrell) on Apr 6, 2009 21:05:35 GMT
AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!! too much info dont understand!
|
|
|
Post by Liam Thompson on Apr 6, 2009 22:26:16 GMT
The re-statted Klingon fleet according to Mike's feedback. I've taken the liberty of assuming that the answer to manoeuvrable ships is a high Thrust value rather than Advanced Drives, but that can be amended if necessary. The description of the classes (e.g. Light Cruiser) is the approximate equivalent based on the points spent on armament and the amount of Hull boxes (amended in this case by the fact that Klingons generally have Strong Hulls) and not on its MASS rating (which has been increased as necessary to allow the appropriate systems (such as Cloaking Fields) to be added). It is more for my reference than anything else.
B'rel-class Light Cruiser - 373 points Generally used as a scout, the B’rel is lightly armed but is quick and manoeuvrable. Beam Batteries represent Disruptor Cannons and Pulse Torpedo Launchers represent Photon Torpedoes. The Cloaking Field represents a Cloaking Device and Screens represent Shields. It will be atmospherically streamlined with a small amount of cargo space in campaign play (enough to carry two Humpback Whales at the least ).
MASS: 93 Hull: 18 Thrust: 8 FTL: Yes Point Defence Systems: 5 Area Defence Firecontrol: 1 Fire Control Systems: 2 Weapons and other equipment:
- Beam Batteries: Class 2 (FP, F, FS) x 2
- Pulse Torpedo Launchers: (F)
- Cloaking Field
- Level 1 Screens
K't'inga-class Heavy Cruiser - 416 points Additional research has shown that whilst the D7 is no longer used in the 24th Century, the K't'inga is. The K't'inga shares an almost identical hull to the D7 so I'll be using my D7 models as K't'ingas instead. A late 23rd Century ship design, the K't'inga has proven reliable throughout the 24th, surpassing such contemporaries as the D12 Bird of Prey design.
MASS: 101 Hull: 26 Armour: 6 Thrust: 4 FTL: Yes Point Defence Systems: 6 Area Defence Firecontrols: 1 Fire Control Systems: 2 Weapons and other equipment:
- Beam Batteries: Class 2 (FP, F, FS) x 3
- Pulse Torpedo Launchers: (F) x 2
- Cloaking Field
- Level 1 Screens
K'vort-class Battlecruiser - 645 points General mainstay of the 24th Century Klingon fleet. Will be atmospherically streamlined and will have a small amount of cargo space in campaign play.
MASS: 158 Hull: 32 Armour: 8 Thrust: 6 FTL: Yes Point Defence Systems: 7 Area Defence Firecontrols: 1 Fire Control Systems: 2 Weapons and other equipment:
- Beam Batteries: Class 3 (F) x 2, Class 2 (FP, F, FS) x 2
- Pulse Torpedo Launchers: (F) x 2
- Cloaking Field
- Level 1 Screens
Vor'cha-class Battleship - 885 points Command cruiser. The Enhanced Sensors represent the greater amount of sensor power available to the higher end Klingon ships whilst the Needle Beams represent weapons capable of taking advantage of these more advanced sensors (“Target their weapons!” for example). The higher level of Screens represent their better shields. Will have a medium amount of science labs and cargo space, a small amount of passenger transport, and a small amount of ortillery bombardment capabilities in campaign play.
MASS: 211 Hull: 38 Armour: 10 Thrust: 4 FTL: Yes Point Defence Systems: 8 Area Defence Firecontrols: 1 Fire Control Systems: 3 Weapons and other equipment:
- Beam Batteries: Class 3 (FP, F), Class 3 (F), Class 3 (F, FS), Class 2 (FP, F, FS) x 2
- Needle Beams: (F) x 2
- Pulse Torpedo Launchers: (FP, F), (F, FS)
- Cloaking Field
- Level 2 Screens
- Enhanced Sensors
Negh'Var-class Superdreadnought - 1120 points Top of the range ship; the Klingon flagship is of this class. Will have a medium amount of science labs, cargo space and passenger transport as well as a small to medium ortillery bombardment capability in campaign play.
MASS: 262 Hull: 69 Armour: 18 Thrust: 2 FTL: Yes Point Defence Systems: 10 Area Defence Firecontrols: 1 Fire Control Systems: 3 Weapons and other equipment:
- Beam Batteries: Class 4 (F), Class 3 (FP, F, FS) x 4
- Needle Beams: (F) x 3
- Pulse Torpedo Launchers: (FP, F, FS), (FP, F), (F, FS)
- Cloaking Field
- Level 2 Screens
- Superior Sensors
Obsolete. Again, left here for the record.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen Mawson on Apr 7, 2009 9:00:22 GMT
Liam, how are you working out the hull on those ships?
Given the masses specified and assuming the hulls to be strong (which takes up 40% of a ships mass) I'd expect them to have the following values:
B'rel: 37 K't'inga: 40 K'vort: 63 Vor'cha: 84 Negh'Var: 105
At lot of those values don't seem to match the mass of the ships for any hull integrety. The K'vort appears to have a weak (20%) hull, the B'rel is just below weak , the K't'inga between weak and average (30%), the Vor'cha between fragile (10%) and weak and the Negh'Var between weak and average.
Incidently I'm much less a fan of fighters than Mike, and I wouldn't nessessarily recommend plastering all your ships with a massive number of Point Defence Systems and Area Defence. A better strategy is to have a few designated anti-fighter/missile ships with plenty of P-Def and A-Def and use them to cover the rest of your fleet.
|
|
|
Post by wstevens on Apr 7, 2009 10:16:32 GMT
What about Kazon-Nistrim or any Kazon faction, Talaxian, Vidiian, Species 8472, Krenim Imperium, and Hirogen ships? Being Delta Quadrant races excepting Species 8472 which sort of has their own medium of space, I suppose not much contact would be had, but what about "a what if"?
|
|
|
Post by Liam Thompson on Apr 7, 2009 13:12:49 GMT
Stephen: I'm taking the average of the Hulls given in FB2 for the designated class (e.g. Light Cruisers) and amended them so that they are all the same percentage. Then, I multiplied that number by 4/3 to get the equivalent of a Strong Hull. In most cases, I've taken some of that Hull and changed it for Armour (rather than adding it on top), usually at a ratio of 4:1 (i.e. I convert 20% of the overall Hull into Armour). In other words, they have Strong Hulls compared to their class contemporaries, not their MASS. For example, for the Negh'Var, I averaged the four given Superdreadnoughts, multiplying the ones with a Strong Hull by a factor of 3/4 to get the equivalent of an Average Hull. This gave me (57 + 80*3/4 + 75 + 88*3/4)/4 = 64.5 (rounded up to 65). Then 65*4/3 = 86.67 (rounded up to 87). 87/5 = 17.4 (which I apparently arbitrarily rounded up to 18). Hence, the Negh'Var has 69 Hull and 18 Armour. As stated before, the MASS has no correlation on the class or Hull of the ship. For example, if you look at the B'rel (which actually has an Average Hull), then 40% of the MASS is taken up by it's Thrust value, 10% by it's FTL drive, 10% by the Cloaking Field, 30% by its (Average) Hull and 5% (or 3 MASS, whichever is greater) for the level 1 Screen Generator. That leaves me only 5% of the overall MASS to fit its weapons and other equipment (i.e. 3 MASS of a 60 MASS top-end Light Cruiser); to allow me the weapons I felt it ought to have I had to arbitrarily up the MASS of the ship (which also upped the cost of it). I think I'm still too stuck on the concept of direct armaments, as the B'rel has 2 Disruptor Cannons and a Torpedo tube, which I currently have mine armed with. As for using specific anti-Fighter ships, when in Trek have you seen such a concept? Almost all ships seem to be designed to be self sufficient. Even transport ships (such as Kasidy Yates' Xhosa) have an armament considered enough to defend them from your average pirate and it only seems that in times of war do transports need escorts. The only time I consider any kind of FT-style fighter action to have occurred is during the TNG episode Conundrum, where the Enterprise-D breezes straight past three ships and instantly annihilates each one with a single Phaser blast. Warren: As I explained earlier, this project is for me to use my collection of ships. As it stands, out of all the ships you've mentioned, I only have a smattering of Kazon ships to choose from and none of the others. Ergo, it seems somewhat pointless for me to create stats for them seeing as I'll never use them. Whilst I don't have a complete collection, here is a page that lists all of the Star Trek Micro Machine models that I could potentially have at my disposal; ignoring the Silver and Bronze Collector's Edition models, the only models I don't own at least one copy of are the (Caretaker's) Array, Bajoran Sailing Vessel, HMS Bounty, Kazon Torpedo, and the USS Excelsior (NX designation - I do own a copy of the NCC designation). I suppose I could do some of those as an exercise, but seeing the difficulties I currently have I reckon that could be a long way off. On the other hand, if I manage to pick up a few more Kazon ships, I may well consider writing a fleet list for them.
|
|
|
Post by wstevens on Apr 7, 2009 13:56:55 GMT
Hey Liam that sounds interesting - but I must echo Darrell's exclaimation that a lot of it is a bit over our heads for the moment. I'm getting pieces of info in my head but its quite a lot of info overload. I suppose it would be easier just to choose one faction and learn their ship rules. If the Voyager series was anything to go by then the Kazon ships were / are pretty useless.
On another note will you be allowing the Borg cubes to modulate to counter hull defenses and for their own defense?
|
|
|
Post by Liam Thompson on Apr 7, 2009 14:21:38 GMT
I don't really think that it is over your head, Warren. After all, the main rules are only 9 pages (page 3 to 12 in the main rulebook). Additional rules are available to read in the rest of that rulebook, as well as More Thrust, Fleet Book 1 and Fleet Book 2, with the ship design rules I'm using found in Fleet Book 1. The problem is that I'm trying to create my own set of ships, compatible with the existing FT ships, yet true to the way that Trek ships have been depicted on our TV screens. As for the Kazon, their primary strengths were the fact that they had some massive ships (despite inferior technology) but also had numbers on their side. Those would probably be the things I'd decide to emphasise in a Kazon fleet list (making the large ships massive but the smaller ships cheap so they could swarm). As for the Borg... there are no rules within the core Full Thrust rules to cover shield and weapon modulation. I hadn't really gotten around to them yet, but I suppose that I was probably just going to have a silly amount of MASS for their ships, and Hull integrity to match, and a silly amount of weapons. I haven't given the Borg a good think over yet, but suggestions are always welcome!
|
|
|
Post by Stephen Mawson on Apr 7, 2009 14:52:21 GMT
I've just re-read Fleet Book II, and I've noticed the alteration to the ship design rules. My ships have been designed using the Fleet Book I rules, so hull integrity is a fixed percentage of mass (going up in 10% increments from 10% to 50%). That explains why I thought your hull figures looked a bit odd, they're fine I'm just using slightly older rules to build my ships.
I would tend to agree. The issue here is perhaps not so much how to construct viable full thrust analogues of Star Trek ships, but more how to do so in a fashion that allows them to be competitive compared to standard full thrust ships.
|
|
|
Post by mike on Apr 7, 2009 14:52:36 GMT
OK Liam, a few more words of advice -- use or abuse as you see fit
First - drives systems
Yes, that makes a lot more sense -- this will make your smaller attack ships (destroyers, cruisers, etc) both fast and manoeuvrable
The price, of course, is that they are relatively lightly armed for their size -- large drives are very heavy
This is actually one of the main problems with FSE (French faction from FB1), whch i s why they are heavily missile armed (missiles pack one hell of a punch for their MASS at the price of being one-use weapons)
As with everything in FT, it's a matter of priorities
Second - PDS
This would certainly obsolete fighters and salvo missile -- even the FSE would have trouble getting through that little lot
Again, it's a matter of priorities
You'll have a massive advantage against a predominantly missile/fighter armed fleet (like the FSE), but you may find yourself out-gunned by be more traditionall beam/pulse-torp armed fleets (like the ESU or NAC)
Steven made some very interesting suggestions regarding point defence and, although it's by no means the only way to go, it would certainly make life difficult for fighters
I think the import point here is that even if you don't use fighters or missiles, you really have to take them into account because somebody else will -- trust me on this, I once lost half my fleet to one missile salvo due to inadequate point defence (granted that was from an FSE fleet who pack lots of missiles, but the lesson was clear -- you need point defence)
Third - shields/armour
I note you've gone for multiple shield and quite a lot of armour, and I agree that does fit with what we know about Klingon ship design -- these are warships, not exploration ships
Again, it's a trade-off between attack and defence
Shields and armour take up a lot of MASS, and that leaves you a little light on weapon systems
That said, it's not necessarily wrong -- it may allow you to withstand the onslaught long enough to shoot back
Finally - hull boxes
Personnally, I don't have a problem with what you've done here (although it does seem a little overly complicated) as long as the MASS values all add up -- in the end this is a points-buy system, so as long as the points add up it's legal
What you may not have realised is that you have ended up with weak-to-average hull integrity across the entire fleet (see below) -- if that was your intention, or if you're happy with that, that's fine
B'rel (mass 93, hull 18, integrity 19%) K't'inga (mass 101, hull 26, integrity 26%) K'vort (mass 158, hull 32, integrity 20%) Vor'cha (mass 211, hull 48, integrity 23%) Negh'Var (mass 262, hull 69, integrity 26%)
The trouble with weak hulls is that the ship won't take too much punishment before it starts to fall apart
Of course the pay-off is that you get more space for weapon systems and therefore pack a bigger punch
So, another trade-off
|
|