Topic: Question regarding GSC

[Captain Adam]

.

[TAnimaL]

In a latticework of coincidence, ("shrimp," "plate," "plate o shrimp") ...
I noticed today that on Memory BEta wiki the featured article is on the Nova-class  http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/Nova_class  , a science vessel. According to the STTNG Tech Manual, a Galaxy-class was considered a "Explorer" class, defined as a multipurpose vesssel  able to perform several duties at once, with extended range and duration, usually heavy cruiser-size or larger. The wiki (states/suggests) that Explorers, as the largest ships, are synonymous with Battleships.

GSCs were for survey and scientific missions, and in SFB, were converted to light carriers in time or war/conflict, so, yes, I believe the fighters are a response. When I get a chance later I could post the SFB ship description if you'd like.

(After noting here that SFB does not acknowledge TNG, or any ST after 1979) The size of a Galaxy-class alone makes it like Battleship, and it's use throughout the show indicates that it is not as inferiorly-armed as the GSC is compared to the CA. IMHO, I could see going two ways with it:

• Imagine a GSC combined with a BC. Full heavy weapon mounts, but with additional Special Sensors, labs, and a shuttle bay that could handle fighters
• a Battleship, with a LOT more labs, and sensors.

Since "Special Sensors"  from SFB have no function in SFC, maybe add more probes, built-in EW. Just some thoughts to start this rolling

[TAnimaL]

From SFB Advanced Missions:

[TAnimaL]

No doubt you have seen Lord Schtupp's TOS Galaxy-class model, which I love, if a pre-TNG version is what you're looking for. I made up some specs for this ship for my own use, iy anyone's interested.

[TarMinyatur]

HTS is a Heavy Transport Shuttle, about twice the size and durability of an Admin Shuttle. It could be loaded with a Ground Combat Vehicle or two Boarding Parties or various cargo items. It could not be used as a Scatterpack or a Wild Weasel. I don't remember if an HTS could be converted into a Suicide Shuttle.

[TAnimaL]

And MRS stands for "MultiRole Shuttle," a slightly more durable shuttle. It carries a few more weapons (a couple of drones or Plasma-D), is slightly faster and can lend some EW to it's host, something that can't be done in SFC.

Other than the shuttle conversionto fighters, there's no differences between a GSC and CVL. Both get the same + & AWR refit.

As far as SCS goes, to me, it's just a size issue. Any ship that is big enough to carry 4 PFs (6 in SFB) and 12 fighters can be called a SCS. (In SFB, there's a "Stellar Domination Ship," basically what you call a BB turned into a SCS. So, if it's a big ship, sure, it could be a SCS or SDS.

Given that a TNG Galaxy is sooo much bigger than a TOS CA it could easily be a SDS/SCS. While only seen once, we know that 1701D could carry a runabout (or more). Personally I was always bugged by how in SFB some ships could carry 6 PF without affecting it's movement cost, one reason I was pleased to see a PF flotilla "reduced" in SFC to 4. In SFB there are some CA-size SCS but I feel that function should be reerved for larger sized ships.

Just for giggles, here's the SFB diagram for a GSC.

[TAnimaL]

D'oh, forgot to mention, FWIW, a HTS can be used as a WW, but not as any other kind o shuttlte (suicide, scatterpack, minesweeper, lab)

[Lieutenant_Q]

Given that a TNG Galaxy is sooo much bigger than a TOS CA it could easily be a SDS/SCS. While only seen once, we know that 1701D could carry a runabout (or more). Personally I was always bugged by how in SFB some ships could carry 6 PF without affecting it's movement cost, one reason I was pleased to see a PF flotilla "reduced" in SFC to 4. In SFB there are some CA-size SCS but I feel that function should be reerved for larger sized ships.

The Enterprise dropped 3 of them off at DS9 in the Emissary.  It's shuttle bays were probably emptied to carry all three of those, but I could imagine them fitting two in the main shuttlebay.  Not sure where they'd squeeze #3, maybe one of the battlehull's bays, but both of those look extremely tiny for that.

[TAnimaL]

Thanks, I forgot about the 3 runabouts in "Emissary," and I agree about the secondary shuttlebays being too tight for them. But if you go by Rick Strenback's 1701D blueprints, the main shuttle bay on deck 4 wraps all the way around, with ceiling space taken out of deck 3. You can see it here:
http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/star-trek-the-next-generation-enterprise.php

but you can only see the thumbnails. Working from home today, so maybe at lunch I'll get out my hard copy and a ruler 

My point is that a Galaxy is so big, throwing a bunch of small ships in it or hanging on external mechlinks is not going to add to the movement cost at all. As far as other TNG matches for SFC ships, the lcars blueprint site http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/blueprints-main.php might give up some clues. Oberths and Novas for FF, Norway and Sabre for DD, Akira for CAs... All this reminds me of someone's SFC mod that included TNG ships and models. I'll have to dig around my files.

[Javora]

The Enterprise dropped 3 of them off at DS9 in the Emissary.  It's shuttle bays were probably emptied to carry all three of those, but I could imagine them fitting two in the main shuttlebay.  Not sure where they'd squeeze #3, maybe one of the battlehull's bays, but both of those look extremely tiny for that.

IIRC the 1701D has a spot under the saucer section for the captain's yacht.  Maybe they dropped off the captain's yacht where they picked up the runabouts and stored a runabout there.

[TAnimaL]

You do recall correctly, but the yacht was a different shape, sort of an elliptical saucer. Voyager and Equinox too had some sort of shuttle under their saucers that we sadly never saw used; the prevailing theory on Voyager is that it hadn't been installed yet when it got lost. The Galaxy also had lots of never-seen-used cargo hatches on the bottom that could be used for that, I suppose.

By the blueprints, the 1701D main shuttlebay is at least 60m wide and 70m deep, not counting the area that  wraps around the hull, wide and deep enough for many runabouts or PFs. There only seems to be about 6 1/4 m vertical space, so a runabout would just fint at 5.4m.

The TNG mod I was thinking of was Chris Jones' AGT mod for SFC1, which included many canon and conjectural TNG era ships, all set in SFC1 (so no Xtech), and included models and scripts. It's still up on gamefront if anyone's interested. The laptop I have SFC1 on isn't starting up right now, but later I could extract the shiplist from the AGT mod if you'd like to see it, Adam

[knightstorm]

The TNG mod I was thinking of was Chris Jones' AGT mod for SFC1, which included many canon and conjectural TNG era ships, all set in SFC1 (so no Xtech), and included models and scripts. It's still up on gamefront if anyone's interested. The laptop I have SFC1 on isn't starting up right now, but later I could extract the shiplist from the AGT mod if you'd like to see it, Adam

He also did one for OP called Universe at War.

[Age]

It was also noted that the GSC in the animated searies was the first ship to come with an actual warp core not coil.

[TAnimaL]

gee, I had forgotten about Galaxies At War, I think I d'loaded it and never installed, have to dig around

One thing non-players need to understand about SFB is that there are many, many rules. And by that I mean, many... There's a lot. There are some to keep things balanced about fleet limits and command-and-control limits, partly because somewhere sometime some players pushed the rules to the limit, and then a rule to officiate future disputes arose. (All this is one of seeveral reasons I'm glad to have moved on to SFC from SFB) So, usually, yes, Bases (BS, BATS, SB) are limited to one PF hangar module. I forget how hard and fast the rules were, but "officially" you could only have 1 PF flotilla (of 6) in a battlegroup of 11 (a game limit); each flotilla counts as 1 unit, so you could have 2 flotillas but only 10 ships. Fighter groups count in there too; it gets complicated. Remember also, that each of these units need to have a form filled out with thier energy plt for each turn. Does your brain hurt yet? One turn (32 impluses, or the time it takes to almost arm a photon fully) with 9-11 ships per side, would take an hour if you were lucky.

I love SFC.

I'm interested in your approach to "more than 4 PF aboard your carrier." I'm working on a ftrlist that has  what I call "Figher/Interceptors," or super-heavy fighters in SFB terms. Phaser1s, drone racks, speeds of 25+, damage rating of 25-30, and using the awesome Space: 1999 Hawks Atheorhaven made on Battleclinic.

[TAnimaL]

ah, the "Fi-Con" approach. I like it, but it does create that imbalance in the "repair a PF and it gains it's own PF back" part but that might not be a deal breaker. Let me ask you this: what happens if you recall "PF A" while its "PF B" is still on map? Does PF B disappear? Or wander off on its own?

I've wanted to try a version of this, with a fighter launching 2 fighters that launch 4 fighters, for a sort-of "whack-a-mole" overwhelming death by pinprick force...

[Lieutenant_Q]

That's the deal with multiple eras.  Even in SFC2 and SFC3, the Excelsior went from a BCH to just a plain CA.  Technology outstrips the hulls, and their original purpose changes to fit their new role.  Obviously some ships are too big to fall all the way down the chart, but the Miranda obviously went from an NCA (in ST:II) to a Destroyer or a Frigate by DS9.  I don't ever see the Galaxy or a Ambassador falling below a Cruiser, no matter what kind of tech advances come out of it.  (Unless Starfleet takes a page from the Galactic Empire and starts building ships that are 10 to 20 kilometers long)

[Lieutenant_Q]

Some considered it a Dreadnought, if you read the DC comics that came out at the time of STIII, the writers of the comics clearly thought the Excelsior was a Battleship. Gave it "Tracing Phasers", automated repair systems, heavy shields (at one point the Excelsior took several minutes of sustained fire from a Terran Empire Armada, and only took damage because she couldn't get her shields up in time)

I've always considered the Excelsior a Battle Cruiser, definitely a successor to the Constitution.  It probably was considered a suitable BCH while the Constitution was still in service.  But by the time the Ambassador and then the Galaxy came out, she would probably be reduced to a Medium Cruiser, or even a Light Cruiser.

[TAnimaL]

I'd mostly agree with that for the Ambassador in terms of classification but not size. By all metrics, \Excelsior is half-again to double the size of a Connie, making it DN or BB in TMP era, but by TNG, when that class is still flying, it's gotta be a Cruiser

Another way to look at it would be comparable to the Fed DN. It appears in 2249-50(?year -13?) and is a DN for that era but not not much more armed than a CA. The DN+ comes along and supplants it, later replaced with the DNG and DNH. It's always a DN (1.5 movement, a certain size) but gets better and better weapons or tech. Same thing with X-ships. The first ones like the Fed CCX in 2280 is an improvement over other ships of that time  but is a lightweight compared to the later X-ships of the Advanced era like the XCA & XCB.

I think you might be able to make those different eras work in the same shiplist but that's a personal preference and it might be easier to do it as you are. To read between the lines, are you scaling ships down as the years go by? So that a CA in TOS/TMP has a movement of 1 and 90-110 internals, and in TNG it's a frigate with a movement of 1/3 and 30-40 internals. Don't mean to rush you if you're not ready to reveal but I'm intriguied by that. Just getting bigger and bigger ships could get unwieldy for sure. A Galaxy has to be 4 to 6 times a Constitution.

ps I believe the tracking phasers and such are just a DC comic invention

[knightstorm]

A first season TNG episode (conspiracy) referred to the Ambassador class as a heavy cruiser.  Yesterday's Enterprise referred to the alternate Galaxy class as a battleship.

[TAnimaL]

not to quibble but we didn't see any of the other ships in "Conspiracy;" Ambassador-class 1701C wasn't seen until "Y'day's Enterprise"
Was there a line in "Conspiracy" that said Ambassador class?

edit: Yes, there was; Data says "It is an Ambassador-class heavy cruiser USS Horatio." We just didn't see one until they had the budget to build 1701C a few seasons later

[Lieutenant_Q]

Tracing Phasers were used in DC#10 (I'm pretty sure it was #10, might have been #9) by the Excelsior to find the cloaked ISS Enterprise as she was attempting to hide from the Excelsior after the Enterprise attacked a Starbase.  The Tracing Phasers bounced around a lot like the tracking Photon Torpedo launched from the 1701A in ST:VI until it found the Enterprise and then proceeded to pummel it.  It was just a DC invention, they actually took quite a bit of flak for it from fans, people wrote in asking what the heck they were, and DC's official response was, "Just like you had never heard of Transwarp Drive before, the Tracing Phasers are another new invention!"  Clearly, they didn't know what Phasers were supposed to be.

Anyways, back to the topic at hand.  Ship lists:
Hermes: SC/SC/Retired
Saladin: DD/FF/Retired
Oberth: NE(Non-Existent)/SC/SC
Miranda: NE/NCA/DD *
Soyuz: NE/NCL/FF
Constitution: CA/CA/Retired
Federation: DN/DN/Retired
Excelsior: NE/BC/CL
Excelsior II: NE/BCH/CM
Constellation: NE/NCA/HDW
Ambassador: NE/BCH/CA
Galaxy: NE/NE/DN
Nebula: NE/NE/GSC
Defiant: NE/NE/HDW
Intrepid: NE/NE/CL
Sabre: NE/NE/FF
Steamrunner: NE/NE/DD
Prometheus: NE/NE/BCH
Akira: NE/NE/CA
Nova: NE/NE/SC

* - I don't agree with the line of thinking that the Miranda seen in ST:II is simply a refit of a TOS era ship.  If that were the case the Miranda would not be seeing front-line action in the Dominion War, while the remaining Constitutions were relegated to National Guard status, if they were even re-activated in the first place.

There's a lot of overlap, especially when you consider that the central shiplist covers a time frame of almost 100 years, I think there is probably room in the TOS shiplist to take at the very least the first 6 movies into account.  When I was doing some work on a cross era shiplist, I considered using a Tech Level for the weapons/shields/hull, but this was for a game that was to be built from scratch, not something that was to be used for an already existing game that such modifications to weaponry couldn't be made.

[Lieutenant_Q]

The Akira probably has a similar modularity as the Miranda and Nebula does.  The Akira seen in First Contact had an ungodly number of torpedo launchers that, from a logistical standpoint, just doesn't make sense.  Unlike SFB/SFC you do have to carry torpedoes.  The configuration makes sense in the FC scenario, when you don't expect your ship to last more than three or four hits, you want to be able to throw every torpedo you have at the Cube as quickly as possible.  I know I hate having munitions go down with a unit.  But for a campaign, you don't want a ship running out of Photons after one battle, and in a protracted engagement, running out half way during the battle isn't good either.  I would probably still keep the Akira Classified as a CA, with an option mount that would normally be filled with Sensors, but for wartime purposes could be outfitted with EW equipment, or in the case of a one time battle, lots and lots of torpedo launchers.

Yeah, with the New Orleans still a relatively new ship, it would probably be a good FF (I didn't include it on the list because AFAIK it was never seen on screen), then I would classify the Sabre as either a FFB, or maybe a DW.  As for the Nova, I would still classify it as a SC, I would expect that they would probably be retiring the Oberths as the Novas are built.  Otherwise the Nova could probably be classified as a Scout (Battle) or a Heavy Scout.  Although from dialogue in Equinox, the Nova wasn't intended to be a long range ship, so maybe classifying it as a Scout might be a bit off, maybe a Survey Cruiser instead?

[Age]

I'm interested in your approach to "more than 4 PF aboard your carrier." I'm working on a ftrlist that has  what I call "Figher/Interceptors," or super-heavy fighters in SFB terms. Phaser1s, drone racks, speeds of 25+, damage rating of 25-30, and using the awesome Space: 1999 Hawks Atheorhaven made on Battleclinic.

I like this now this can take on those Cav. 3s.

[TAnimaL]

I think the discussion about the Nova in "Equinox" is that it was not a fast ship, not that it was not long range. As a more pure "science" vessel, I imagine it would stay on site for a longer period  but it's top speed was WF8 (TNG, about WF10 in TOS terms).

Of course, we know the real reason we see Excelsiors & Mirandas in TNG is TV budget, but since they do show up, I expect that they were made for a longer period and that some we saw were newer builds. (Maybe they kept a shipyard open as a political boon to someone) THe nice thing is that, really, you can do whatever you want with some of these ships. The Akiras and Sabres are rarely seen, the New Orleans never, and TNG Oberths, Mirandas, Saratogas, etc etc. could be completely different from their TMP counterparts. It's a blank slate really, make 'em what you want.

A late-era notion from SFB (for the never-completed revamp of the X2 ships) borrows from the HDW ships, with a set of option boxes onboard that could be mission configurable for different missions. We don't have the luxury of option mounts in SFC but if you had the time, one could make a few variants of these options for "flex use" ships like Akira and Nebula.

[TAnimaL]

Stellar Fortress is a new one to me, since I havfen't played/bought any SFB/F&E in a decade, but here's the description of the Sector Base from Module R8- System Defence Command

[TAnimaL]

Internally, a Sector Base somehwere between a BATS and a SB:
6 P4, 6 P3, 2 W1 (360 arc) and 2 W2 (360 arc), 3 W3; see above, {edit: the "double T" symbol means 1 of each, the "funny Y" means 1 LS, 1 RS, the LDR W2 is only 1 ESG]
36 Aux Power, 8 Btty, 8Lab, 8 Trans, 8 Shuttle, 44 Cargo, 44 C Hull Repair 8 Contorl, 75 Repair 6 "Fabrication", 2 Probe, 4 Special Snsors
Shields 60 all around + 18 Armor, plus the usual 2-3 Hangar/PF Bays for 12 Fighters and (6) PF, or 18 Fighters for non-PF races.

BPV 280 + hangars, crew 140, 24 BP, deployed in SFB Y175, which would be  "Late" era in SFC, about 5-7 years through the General War, so call it SFC Y 5 if you like.

As far as how it works, how it is deployed, etc., there's some wiggle room. (I never played with one) The Designer's notes are brief but maybe I'll lok thru some F&E stuff I have. Unlike SBs, ships can't dock internally for repairs, but there are external bays for repairs.

Hope some of this info helps

[TAnimaL]

I believe I understand your question, and the indirect but more complete answer is, "One is SFB and the one is Star Trek."

As far as SFB goes, the "original source" material is the ST Tech Manual by Franz Josephs, and the Fed Scout is a variant of the Fed DD. It became fized that "scouts' replaced the heavy weapons with Special Sensors which are susceptible to be blinded by weapons fire, moer so from heavies than from phasers. All ships got a probe launcher, scouts and survey ships got 2 sometimes, and SFC ported this concept to SFC.

(Sidenote: some Survey ships keep some heavy weapons, like the GSC and some scouts, like R-SPC & SK-F)

In Star Trek (ok, TNG and onward), the launchers serve multiple functions, able to fire probes and photon torpedoes.

I prefer that personally, but IMHO if you were designing a game version of Star Trek torpedoes, the rules would work differently than SFB photon torpedoes (like making them speed 96 missiles with an arming turn of 2 points and a launching turn of 1 point), but that's another discussion.

I would think, General War and later, into the Next Generation and beyond, that the consensus would be tht scouts and survey ships sometimes need heavy firepower and should have torpedoes. In TNG the launchers have dual functions, and in SFB, maybe that era (Y180 and later) they solved teh "blinding" issue.

Long and short of it, in SFC a unit needs probe launchers to launch probes, and Special Snsors don't do much, so load 'em up I say

[TAnimaL]

Hee, I guess the modelmakers at ILM forgot to put those on.

Since all this is retcon anyway, I suppose you could make the case that the Oberth-class is the exception to the rule. We've never seen any of those type ships fire torps, and most fan blueprints leave out a launcher. Perhaps there's some sort of "bomb bay" they drop out of, or from the shuttlebay. As a scout, in the Star Trek usage of the term, it must be cable of launching probes, but it was also established that these are science vessels with little combat ability.

There's evidence that the Federation takes a "high road" at times within Starfleet - they agreed to not develop or deploy cloaking devices in the Treaty of Algeron and got in trouble when they did (TNG "Pegasus"). One of several ways Starfleet differs from a modern navy. It's possible that Starfleet agreed to some "arms limitation" treaty in the TMP era that stated the Oberth-class was a pure science ship, sort of like Cousteau Society's Calypso but part of the US Navy. Just throwing out ideas.

[knightstorm]

F stands for frigate, S stands for swivel.

[knightstorm]

I think its that the launcher is designed to swivel to grant it greater weapons arcs.

[knightstorm]

Hee, I guess the modelmakers at ILM forgot to put those on.

Since all this is retcon anyway, I suppose you could make the case that the Oberth-class is the exception to the rule. We've never seen any of those type ships fire torps, and most fan blueprints leave out a launcher. Perhaps there's some sort of "bomb bay" they drop out of, or from the shuttlebay. As a scout, in the Star Trek usage of the term, it must be cable of launching probes, but it was also established that these are science vessels with little combat ability.

There's evidence that the Federation takes a "high road" at times within Starfleet - they agreed to not develop or deploy cloaking devices in the Treaty of Algeron and got in trouble when they did (TNG "Pegasus"). One of several ways Starfleet differs from a modern navy. It's possible that Starfleet agreed to some "arms limitation" treaty in the TMP era that stated the Oberth-class was a pure science ship, sort of like Cousteau Society's Calypso but part of the US Navy. Just throwing out ideas.

The Federation prioritizes exploration.  Hence the reason the Galaxy class is classified as an explorer.  I think most fed ships hold that classification with few exceptions.  Namely the Oberth and Nova classes, and the Defiant class which is believe is classified as an escort.  Also, the Galaxy class seems to also prioritize diplomacy over defense.  The way I see it, the class was designed during a period of relative calm.  There was an alliance with the Klingons, and the Romulans had gone into isolation.  While there were some minor border conflicts such as the Cardassian border war, there was nothing that could threaten the federations existence so defense was less of a priority.  That also helps to explain why they built the ship with a petting zoo.  The Galaxy class was obviously intended to show the flag and impress foreign dignitaries by showing them how much useless #@#% you can cram on a ship.

[TAnimaL]

TAnimal,

Plasma G stand for Gorns and the Plasma R for Romulans; then what's the F, S, X, E and I for?

I'm guessing X for X Era, E for Engine dampening and I for ISC??

Adam

The names R & G do go back to the early "pocket' editions of SFB, when there were just "Romulan" and "Gorn" torpedoes, but nomenclature was changed to just "R" & "G" by Expansion 2 or 3 in 1980. (The S was oringinally called the "G-II" then.) I suppose you could say the letters were chosed to match a name ("F" for "Fast", for example) but these names were never used in the Commander's Edition and onwards.

"Swivel" mounts are available for all torpedoes; originally the launchers are 120 degree arcs and expandable to 180 (except Rs) for an additional 2-3 BPV. Most, if not all, plasma ships in SFC seem to have swivel mounts.

I agree on the Federation's focus on exploration, but remember that the Oberth -class was seen in ST3, before an alliance with the Klingons. Now, SFB/SFC supposes a General War in the post-TOS/TMP era, and something happened between the laidback pajama-wearing Starfleet of TMP and the Hornblower/naval Starfleet of TWOK, so maybe the Oberths were designed during the TOS, when skirts were short and exploration was the thing. By ST3, something resembling detente or a Cold War at least let Starfleet relax a bit and start building them again. CLearly a durable design since we see them in use 78 years later but ready to be phased out by the Nova-class (and of course, because reusing models is cheaper in a TV budget).

[knightstorm]

I agree on the Federation's focus on exploration, but remember that the Oberth -class was seen in ST3, before an alliance with the Klingons. Now, SFB/SFC supposes a General War in the post-TOS/TMP era, and something happened between the laidback pajama-wearing Starfleet of TMP and the Hornblower/naval Starfleet of TWOK, so maybe the Oberths were designed during the TOS, when skirts were short and exploration was the thing. By ST3, something resembling detente or a Cold War at least let Starfleet relax a bit and start building them again. CLearly a durable design since we see them in use 78 years later but ready to be phased out by the Nova-class (and of course, because reusing models is cheaper in a TV budget).

When I was talking about the era of relative peace, I was referring to the Galaxy class, namely trying to explain why its a bloated cruise ship.  Seriously, the evacuation scene in Generations looked like the movie Airplane.  The Oberth and Nova classes were designed as specialty role ships.  As for the skirts, they were still short in the first season of TNG, only this time the guys were wearing them.

[TAnimaL]

Why are you laughing? I'm wearing one now...

[knightstorm]

Kind of odd if G is Gorn and R is Romulan, then why would Romulans have the advantage of downgrading their torpedos but Gorn can't do the same. Was there every a story that explained how Gorns obtained R torps?
It's so interesting how you can wiki just about everything except ADB/SFB material. That's classified.

Adam

I think its a game balance issue.  G and R torps are the heavy weapons of their respective unrefitted heavy cruisers.  The Gorn is faster and has more phasers, while the Rom has a massive torpedo.

[TAnimaL]

Again, the "G=Gorn" and "R=Rom" names go waaaayyy back and were never used after 1982. The Roms had big ones, and the Gorns smaller ones. The idea of downgrading came later in game design terms but the "timeline" of when the races developed them isn't the same and was retconned as the years have gone by.

Sorry if i was unclear on "F" for "Fast" - it wasn't a reference to speed, but how they could be "fastloaded" by larger size launchers; again, a term dropped from usage long time ago. In SFB, there is not really an "I" plasma, but special launchers on ISC ships that fire type "F" plasmas; same thing with a different name in SFC. The SFC plasma "X" torpedo is the SFB plasma "M" that is used only in X-ships, and unlike SFC, the "M" moves at the same speed as all plasmas (32 in SFB), not 40. (There have been attempts over the years for seeking weapons that move faster than 32 but the rules get very messy, so there's only one, the "hyperdrone" used by a "simulator" race.

The plasma-E, as far as I know, is just a SFC invention, although there are other weapons/systemes in SFB that can slow down a enemy ship. In the "Alpha Octant" of SFB (that is, the races we know from ST and SFC), there are only have phasers 1,2,3, & 4 (and G). The phaser M (almost but not quite a phaser4 that can be ship mounted) is a conjectural weapon only and not "officially real." There is also another set of races, the "Omega Octant," on the other side of the Gorn/Rom and ISC part of the galaxy, filled with all new species and empires, who have a variety of different phasers and weapons that may be impossible to ever add to SFC. (It's my guess that the Omega races are a backup set, in case, say,  a large media group were to ever decide to remove certain copyrighted material from usage by ADB, but that's just me)

It's so interesting how you can wiki just about everything except ADB/SFB material. That's classified.

Adam

Yeah, and there's a longer story and twisted history on that topic, but I won't be the one to say "Beetlejuice" three times...

[TAnimaL]

No problem, glad to answer. The god news about SFB and it's universe is that there's a lot of details. That's also the bad news

[Nemesis]

The names R & G do go back to the early "pocket' editions of SFB, when there were just "Romulan" and "Gorn" torpedoes, but nomenclature was changed to just "R" & "G" by Expansion 2 or 3 in 1980. (The S was oringinally called the "G-II" then.) I suppose you could say the letters were chosed to match a name ("F" for "Fast", for example) but these names were never used in the Commander's Edition and onwards.

"Swivel" mounts are available for all torpedoes; originally the launchers are 120 degree arcs and expandable to 180 (except Rs) for an additional 2-3 BPV. Most, if not all, plasma ships in SFC seem to have swivel mounts.

As I recall the S was for the swivel mount that only they had at the time and F was not fast but Fixed as it was in a stasis device "fixed in time".

[Nemesis]

Was there every a story that explained how Gorns obtained R torps?

Adam

You don't really need such a story as it is simply a matter of scaling.  The original R launcher was supposed to be so large that essentially with the War Eagle it was a weapon with a ship wrapped around it.  Improved tech let there be smaller devices generating larger plasma torps. 

[Age]

And MRS stands for "MultiRole Shuttle," a slightly more durable shuttle. It carries a few more weapons (a couple of drones or Plasma-D), is slightly faster and can lend some EW to it's host, something that can't be done in SFC.

Other than the shuttle conversionto fighters, there's no differences between a GSC and CVL. Both get the same + & AWR refit.

As far as SCS goes, to me, it's just a size issue. Any ship that is big enough to carry 4 PFs (6 in SFB) and 12 fighters can be called a SCS. (In SFB, there's a "Stellar Domination Ship," basically what you call a BB turned into a SCS. So, if it's a big ship, sure, it could be a SCS or SDS.

Given that a TNG Galaxy is sooo much bigger than a TOS CA it could easily be a SDS/SCS. While only seen once, we know that 1701D could carry a runabout (or more). Personally I was always bugged by how in SFB some ships could carry 6 PF without affecting it's movement cost, one reason I was pleased to see a PF flotilla "reduced" in SFC to 4. In SFB there are some CA-size SCS but I feel that function should be reerved for larger sized ships.

Just for giggles, here's the SFB diagram for a GSC.

Where can you look online to see more diagrams of other ships so I don't have to go ito shipedit?

I often wondered why there is no forward phaser type 1 and imo all Fed ships should have type 1 phaser no 2 or 3s.

[TAnimaL]

Sadly, there is no online source for official ship diagrams - ADB is very controlled in what game info it releases "for free," and in more recent years has been trying to clamp down on "unofficial" diagrams online (and many of the unofficial diagrams you would find online are much modified and altered from their SFC relatives), and making these "fan sites" remove those diagrams. So, opening the shiplist in Shipedit or Excel is the fastest way, I suppose.

I often wondered why there is no forward phaser type 1 and imo all Fed ships should have type 1 phaser no 2 or 3s.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean... Feds do have Phas1 and not Phas2; Phaser3 are meant for point defense and you only find a couple on each Fed ship. It'd be nice if there was more "empire" differences in phasers, but that's something that was actually eliminated in SFB back when, making the fleets more the same...

[TAnimaL]

Slow to recall this - the Xenocorp.net "Ship Guide v4.0" is a nice Excel spreadsheet that's a bit more organized than the plain ol' shiplist...

http://www.xenocorp.net/Fleets_Guilds/Starfleet_Command/NT_Ship_Guide_base.htm

[Age]

Sadly, there is no online source for official ship diagrams - ADB is very controlled in what game info it releases "for free," and in more recent years has been trying to clamp down on "unofficial" diagrams online (and many of the unofficial diagrams you would find online are much modified and altered from their SFC relatives), and making these "fan sites" remove those diagrams. So, opening the shiplist in Shipedit or Excel is the fastest way, I suppose.

I often wondered why there is no forward phaser type 1 and imo all Fed ships should have type 1 phaser no 2 or 3s.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean... Feds do have Phas1 and not Phas2; Phaser3 are meant for point defense and you only find a couple on each Fed ship. It'd be nice if there was more "empire" differences in phasers, but that's something that was actually eliminated in SFB back when, making the fleets more the same...

That Fed ships should have type 1 phasers no phaser type 3.

I was just wanting to know how labs are on each ship.Thanks for the link it doesn't mentioned labs.

[Lieutenant_Q]

Most Fed Ships after the introduction of the Medium Speed Drones were refitted to have some Phaser-3s put on them for Point Defense capabilities.  Phaser-3s are purely defensive weapons, and really, I'm surprised Feds don't mount more of them.

[Age]

Feds don't have Ph3, are you sure?

Yes I am as all ships have the same type of phasers.It is the same with transportors all Fed CAs have 6 transportors not 2,3 or 4 but 6.
http://www.ussenterprise.co.uk/enterprise/enta/entatech.htm

[Lieutenant_Q]

Considering that would be an X-cruiser... yes that's correct.  That's after the Federation developed a Technology that allowed the Phaser-1 to be fired as a Phaser-3 when dealing with Point Defense.  Before that piece of technology, you still needed separate Point Defense Phasers, otherwise you're tying up your Main Phasers to shoot down a Klingon Drone Swarm, and that's entirely inefficient.

I have no answer for the Transporters, I would assume that there was some balance reason for it.

[TAnimaL]

Well, I thought we were talking SFB (& SFC).    That link is to a fan-tech site and uses data from some semi-official specs listed in more recently done things like the "Starship Spotter" or the older Mastercom or Jackill data sheets. It's all fine and dandy, but it's not SFC. I bet EVERY Fed ship has P-3s once the General War hits stride, or Phaser-Gs in their place. In SFB/SFC. Which is the game we play.

One of the things that made SFB X-ships interesting was the way the phaser-1 had several uses - standard, overloaded, as "gatling" phasers. The superior point defense option was taken out in SFC, probably too messy game-wise, so they came up with the "phaser G2" in OP for X-ship point defense.

As far as labs go, in SFB/C a Fed CA has 8 labs, a GSC 10, NCLs 4, FF 2. The original DD also had 8 lab, but that's the ship that couldn't walk and chew gum, so 4 labs were replaced with APR, making it a nicer thing to be stuck in battle with. Mostly across the board, other races ships had fewer labs. In Trek, well, they don't really say. I "think" I remember Spock saying something about 7 labs on Enterprise but I'm not sure, and don't feel like walking upstairs to my library to comfirm that. Same with transporters - they never really say how many on the show, although maybe someone calls up from "Tranporter Room 4" in some episode.

I just think it's worth repeating -  SFC comes from SFB, and SFB was wriiten before a huge chunk of Trek was created. Things like labs or transporters that have a game function have been set up a certain way for balance, as Lt Q suggests, and changing them changes balance. Believe me, many suggestions have been made to the makers of SFB that go "I saw on an TNG episode where..." or "the Klingons had these weapons in this movie..." or "these blueprints show...", and these suggestions are Shot. Down. Immediately. They do no have the license to put those things in, they can't get the rights to, it changes the game "flavor," and most importantly, They Do Not Want To. It's someone else's sandbox that has some things from Trek and then a lot that's not. Sorta like the JJ movies, it's a different timeline.

So, if you want to make a Enterprise like another source has it, have at it. I've done a couple myself, it's fun. But some things will affect game play, that's all. Like the Police ship I made with 12 Phaser 4s and 30 warp. It was fun to fly, but not really fair...

Of course, another work-around for the refitted 1701 is in the "Spotter" - 12 RIM12C Phasers & 6 RSM14B Phasers. Make the "RIM12" P-1, and the "RSM14" Phaser 3. Makes it X-ship level without making it a BB. Just don't tell Keiron.

[Age]

Considering that would be an X-cruiser... yes that's correct.  That's after the Federation developed a Technology that allowed the Phaser-1 to be fired as a Phaser-3 when dealing with Point Defense.  Before that piece of technology, you still needed separate Point Defense Phasers, otherwise you're tying up your Main Phasers to shoot down a Klingon Drone Swarm, and that's entirely inefficient.

I have no answer for the Transporters, I would assume that there was some balance reason for it.

That is taking more canon into consideration from that link.

To TAnimal

I was wondering about Rom ship labs as well especially hawks and sparrows or sparowhawk?

When it comes to thae phaser I just change the 3 to a 1 works fine for both offence and defence.When playing SFC I usually end up have my 3s destroyed before anything else.I refer to them as weak 3s atleast for Fed especially vs Roms.

I have been playing Chris Jones Legacey UU Mod and the phasers are quite something in that game.

[knightstorm]

The lower power cost of the ph-3 makes it better as a point defense weapon.

[TAnimaL]

and with the nuances of the damage allocation system inherited from SFB, it's good to have a damage hit against "Phasers" to go to a lesser phaser whenever possible.

[TAnimaL]

Short answer - because in this case, SFC came first.

It seems there was a SFB Fed "CFS Fast Fleet Scout" published in Captain's Log 27 that came out in '03-04. I don't have that issue or any more info on it, but I imagine a Fast Cruiser with scout channels. The SFC Fire Suport Cruiser CFS is an invention of Taldren's, since 8 photons on a Heavy Cruiser violates a SFB rule on "shock effects." Personally I think that rule is silly, and while the Fire Support Cruiser is tough to use, I like the unique challenge it presents.

[TAnimaL]

For comparisons sake, here's the ship diagram for the SFB Fast cruiser. Compare and ontrast to the GSC diagram earlier in the thread.

[Lieutenant_Q]

The "War Destroyer" in my opinion was just something to call the New Destroyers, without actually calling them as such.  One thing that SFB didn't do, and probably should have done, was not go with the standard CA DD FF nomenclature, and taken the time to give them a class name.  Because now we have CA (Cruiser) ECA (Early Cruiser) NCA (New Cruiser) XCA (X-Cruiser)... what's next NXCA? WXCA?  And they did do it with Romulan, Hydran, and Klingons, why not do it with Federation, Gorn, Lyran, Kzinti, and ISC?

[knightstorm]

DDs were pre-war ships, that were built to carry on missions that didn't require a cruiser, but were too big for frigates.  After the war started, the yards which had built DDs were converted to producing War Cruisers.  When it became apparent that something was needed to fill the destroyer role, DWs were built in yards which had previously built frigates.

[TAnimaL]

War Destroyers, like War Cruisers, are a cross-the-board ship found among all fleets. I, too, would have preferred to see different fleets use different nomenclature, but that was set in stone many a year ago. Those "War" ships, which includes some other ships without "war" in the title, are not built to last for many years like standard ships. Rush production for the General War and all that, I guess like the "Liberty" ships in WW2.

The "shock rules" (D23.0, if anyone's wondering... ) pertain to any ship that is "overweaponed," like the Fed BCJ (6 photons), the R-Sparrowhawk-J (4 plasma S on a CW), the R Killerhawk (just too many damned weapons). If a ship susceptible to shock fires those weapons, a die is rolled, and after a certain limit is reached the ship suffers damage, and a breakdown like  on a failed HET. Like many things in SFB, it's a two page rule to cover a few ships in rare situations. Or, you could decide that those ships are built tougher, and ignore that rule. A rule I'm glad they didn't get into SFC, personally.

[Starfox1701]

Considering the parts then went into the Yeager I have always considered it a Marine landing ship. The Peregrine parts  make for great bays for grav tanks and such

[Age]

You mean this one it looks like Fed/Klink type of criuser.

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Yeager_type

[Lieutenant_Q]

Yeah, the designers of the "Yeager" took the primary hull of Voyager and the rear end of the Maquis Raider and slapped them together.  It was during a time where they were looking for other ships to be seen patrolling DS9.  I guess they got tired of the Miranda and Excelsior doing it.  I remember an article in the defunct Star Trek: The Magazine that detailed why the ship was made, but I don't remember the details of the article.

If I were doing details on such a frankenship, I would probably have it have a sturdy primary hull, and a good secondary hull, but there's a chance that a hit to the place where they welded (or whatever the 24th century version of welding is) the two ships together would be vulnerable to catastrophic damage.

[Nemesis]

The core difference between ship classes like destroyers and Light Cruiser and the "War" version is simple.  The non "War" versions were designed to last decades of peace time patrolling while being useful in war.  The "War" versions were attrition craft not expected to keep going like an energizer bunny.  No "Five Year Missions" for the "War" versions.

[TAnimaL]

I think the Yeager is a hot mess that's best forgotten. I didn't even realize that it appeared on screen until that above link...

I mean, seriously, it's like try to rationalize the "warp-driven parrot" seen on a LCARS screen in one TNG episode 

[Bernard Guignard]

The blueprints of the Uprated Federation class  shows that  while the Saucer is the same dia as the Constitution refit
the Bridge and  B-C deck structure are larger, the Secondary hull is slightly longer and she has Twin photon torp tubes
Fore and AFT

http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/blueprints/starship-design-sheet-10.jpg

[TAnimaL]

I like those choices, you did a nice job distributing them.

My only quibble, and it's purely a personal one, is the Constellation as HDW, because it's "my" ship that I've been flying since 1988. I see it more as a NCA, being as large as it it (305m), and I'll confess I don't know the Nitocris at all. Since there is a CB, Lexington can still go there, and there's a ship I can't quite remember at the moment, a 4-nacelle Fed, that could go into the HDW, but maybe it'll come to me later. That's just my 2 cents though, due to my bias.

[TAnimaL]

I can see it as an overpowered wartime NCL.

That's interesting, because that's exactly what a NCA is, in SFB terms - a overpowered wartime constructed ship to replace CAs, using NCL parts.

Now, that's not what I think a Constellation is; after all, some of them are still in service in the 2360s, which runs contrary to the "wartime construction" ethos.

[knightstorm]

I can see it as an overpowered wartime NCL.

That's interesting, because that's exactly what a NCA is, in SFB terms - a overpowered wartime constructed ship to replace CAs, using NCL parts.

Now, that's not what I think a Constellation is; after all, some of them are still in service in the 2360s, which runs contrary to the "wartime construction" ethos.

I get the impression that the Constellation class wasn't in continuous service, and that ships could be mothballed for decades before being reactivated.  Also, I don't think the liberty ship comparison is the best.  I think a better comparison would be the Independence class light carriers.  One was still in service in a foreign navy in the 1980s.

[TAnimaL]

making the Constellation a HDW is ok, just not what I'd do. As some alternatives:

The U.S.S. Apache FDX Destroyer by pneumonic81

The FCHE, also by pneumonic81

or the USS Baker HDW 4 engine variant by D'deridex

All nice 4 engine Feds.

[Age]

The Miranda is actually a NCM a medium cruiser wihch is just powerfull as large cruiser but has a smaller crew just like the Soyuz.

[Lieutenant_Q]

I would probably switch the Abbe (TACPOD) with the Saladin.  The Saladin is more of a true destroyer than the Abbe is, the Saladin is designed to take a bit of a beating, while the Abbe has more firepower, but seems far more fragile.

[TAnimaL]

I personally discount single-engine ships (not canon) but Saladin is sorta "grandfathered" in as part of Trek lore, so I like Saladins as older DDs and Abbe as the DW, like LtQ suggests, but I'd disagree over durability. The Abbe looks more rugged to me, and with the upper pod, has more variant possibilities than the Saladin.

I don't know all those ships by name, I'll have to spend some time on looking them over..

[Age]

Yes Age. We know the Miranda is a NCM but I need to fill an entire class not just one slot.

You still refer to it an an NCL instead of an NCM.What are you trying to do mkae up your own shiplist?I like the Chris Jones Shiplist in UU Legacey TOS/TMP era.

[TAnimaL]

By it's size, it sure seems big enough to be a DN or maybe even a BB, but there's no Excelsior in SFB; chronologically, it should at least be a X-BC, but there's none of those in SFB either. Use as you see fit.

[knightstorm]

Mr. Scott's guide to the Enterprise refers to the Excelsior as a BB.

[Starfox1701]

Excelsior is also referred to as an SCS in the Mastercom books. Considering that she has several large shuttle bays this is another possibility. It would fit as Excelsior's torpedo loadout is rather light for a ship here size in the tmp time frame. Ingrahm (NX-2001) also included a variant warp drive and mega phasers on the pylons

[Age]

I would say it is more like long range exploration cruiser and I don't think Starfleet has any DN or BBs.

[Age]

I am just referring to the canon od Star Trek as they don't DNs or BBs because a photon does the same amout of dmge fired from any ship.

I know you are talking about SFB/SFC.

[Starfox1701]

Starfleet calls BBs and DNs Explorers because it is more politically correct but there is no doubt the the Galaxy class is the Battleship of her age. 3 ten round burst fire torpedo launchers with a reload rat of 1 round a half second and more than 600 individual type X phaser emitters  in 12 arrays with 360X360 degree coverage and the power to put 3 or more beams on target with every firing do not a pure science vessel make. The Sovereign is even more well armed. with nearly a third more emitters of a more advanced type and 8 total torpedo launcher and a permanent complement of quantum torpedoes.

[Corbomite]

I think the Galaxy Class is a DN/BB hull, but not a true DN/BB because of all the passengers/families and science/recreation facilities. In Tin Man, the Excelsior Class captain chides Ryker for getting soft on 'that luxury liner' and in Yesterday's Enterprise Tasha Yar inadvertantly describes many of the differences between a wartime Galaxy and a peace time one; replicators on low power to save energy for defenses, greater shield heat dissipation rates etc. It is obvious that Starfleet has a wartime package available for all their ship classes that they cannot install unless in an actual wartime stance. Some ships, like the Defiant, that are built as pure warships cause them issues with their neighbors. Didn't Sisko have to do some fast talking to get the Defiant out of mothballs because Starfleet isn't allowed to build pure warships? And did you see how fast the Feds became militarized when they went to war with the Klingons and then the Dominion?

[Lieutenant_Q]

Given that the timeline changed almost immediately following the disappearance of the Enterprise-C it would stand to reason that the Galaxy class, which may have been in the drawing board phase at the time, was redone to remove all the luxuries and replace them with more combat facilities, as the Klingons were probably quite agitated that the Enterprise said they were responding to the distress call, but never showed... damn Federation Cowards.

Most of the older ships (Miranda Excelsior Ambassador) probably didn't need any refitting beyond keeping their technology level up to date.  The Galaxy and Nebula would have needed some kind of refit to drop all the non-essentials, but ships designed after Wolf 359 (And J-25) were already being designed with encounters with the Borg in mind, so probably didn't need any refit at all.

[TAnimaL]

I concur with Corbomite and Lt Q that the Galaxy-class is just a refit away from being a BB, and that the Federation is no stranger to war and its necessities, but rather than think they were "understating" it's role as a "politically correct" move, I think Starfleet has a different perspective than ours. How many times did Picard, Sisko  & Janeway et.al. say in an episode that "Starfleet's mission is peaceful exploration." They are not a military in the way we think (at Roddenberry's insistence). Yes, they use a command managerial hierarchy, and they prove that when they have to, like with the Klingons or Dominion wars, they can arm up and slug it out when they have to, but I don't think they are "hiding" their ship strengths. Starfleet is "allowed" to build warships, they just don't, until something like the Borg comes along. The only issue, IIRC, about the Defiant was that it had a cloak, which was forbidden to the Federation under treaty, so Sisko wasn't supposed to use the cloak in the Alpha Quadrant (but he did anyway). I suppose in  a way, that sort of treaty illustrates this idea - Starfleet was willing to go along with giving up cloak tech because they didn't want it; that is, until a rogue unit decided to build their own in secret anyway. (To retcon this, I think that the Pegasus and the phased cloak was a Section 31 action...)

It's worth noting, the "radio chatter" in ST:TMP at Epsilon 9 included a call to the "Dreadnaught Entante NCC-2120." So, there's seems to be DNs in Kirk's time at least.

[TAnimaL]

this is turning into a potato/pohtato discussion - it's not that the Galaxy isn't a well-armed, kickbutt ship (because it is), is that it's not a "battleship." It's not propaganda if the Federation sticks to it's principles either. They might use some naval parlance for ship types but it's not "military" vs "science." The error in thinking is that a scientific, exploratory ship can't also be armed to the teeth; based on what Starfleet has learned while exploring space, it's just smart.

When it comes to this game, yes, a Galaxy is like a BB, but that's just a slot to compare it to other races. Since all DN/SCS/CVA/BB share the same "Dreadnought" slot, that's were it should live in the shiplist.

I really do believe the Federation's Starfleet doesn't just switch classifications willy-nilly. In TNG times, there is a large ship called an "Explorer;" the Klingons or Dominion might consider it a BB, but not the Fede. They don't do war until they have to.

[knightstorm]

The Galaxy class is probably at least a DN in terms of firepower, however as I have said previously I tend to view diplomacy as being prioritized above combat in its design.  All of that useless #$%% like petting zoos is meant to impress diplomats.

[knightstorm]

The days of zoos and barber shops are gone. Lol

Well, they would still need to have their hair cut, and real navies do have barbers so I don't see them getting rid of it.  Then again, they could probably use the holodeck.  A barber would probably be easier to program than an EMH.

[Corbomite]

I really do believe the Federation's Starfleet doesn't just switch classifications willy-nilly. In TNG times, there is a large ship called an "Explorer;" the Klingons or Dominion might consider it a BB, but not the Fede. They don't do war until they have to.

Indeed. In STIII the Klingon refers to the Enterprise as a Federation Battle Cruiser, when the Feds simply call it a Heavy Cruiser.

[TAnimaL]

all new ship designs have no more family members, no zoos, only combat, Sovereign, Defiant, Akira, etc... The days of zoos and barber shops are gone. Lol

Well, we don't really know that, or probably ever will, sadly. It does seem in ST8-10 that the Sovereign  is set for combat as Picard laments "Remember when we used to be explorers?", and clearly Defiant is a warship, but we never saw inside Akira, Steamrunner, etc. For all we know, after the Dominion War, Starfleet returned some ships back to family-capable. Voyager seemed to adapt very easily to being in a situation where families and children were on board.

Like a barbershop, those amenities aren't unnecessary frills, (or worse, just "smoke-and-mitrrors" to fool outsiders to the ship's real power), but helpful for the crew during long missions, whether combat or exploration. Just like modern naval carriers having gyms, movie theaters, lounges with Xboxes, an arboretum, a bowling alley, and lounges would be a necessity. Like in "Galaxy Quest" when Allan Rickman's character is asked right after a battle, "Where are you going?", he snarls, "To see if there's a pub on this ship!"

[Age]

STO/Star Trek Online classifies al of them as Cruisers even up to the Sovvy.I ma not sure how right they are but seeing as they have to get a license to use any ship.They might want to know what is.The Excelsior doesn't seem to be that big from the Ent-A as seen in the ending of ST6.

I would even say the K'Tinga is a Cruiser being the klingons best ship in the late 23C.

There wasn't much known about the ships of TMP era ships as there wasn't searies dedicated to that era so this could be explained.

The SFC community has listed the Galaxy and Sovvy as DN and Vorcha.

The Defiant I would say is Tactical escort.

Don't forget the Excelsior was desinged for transwarp travel which could mean a bigger engineering section as well as cargo holds.