Topic: Question regarding GSC  (Read 19158 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline TAnimaL

  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 771
  • Gender: Male
    • Combat Logs from the Cold Depths of Space
Re: Question regarding GSC
« Reply #40 on: April 09, 2013, 08:30:29 am »
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...

Offline TAnimaL

  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 771
  • Gender: Male
    • Combat Logs from the Cold Depths of Space
Re: Question regarding GSC
« Reply #41 on: April 09, 2013, 12:33:07 pm »
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


Offline Age

  • D.Net VIP
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2689
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question regarding GSC
« Reply #42 on: April 10, 2013, 03:10:31 pm »
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.

Offline Lieutenant_Q

  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1669
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question regarding GSC
« Reply #43 on: April 10, 2013, 06:20:26 pm »
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.
"Your mighty GDI forces have been emasculated, and you yourself are a killer of children.  Now of course it's not true.  But the world only believes what the media tells them to believe.  And I tell the media what to believe, its really quite simple." - Kane (Joe Kucan) Command & Conquer Tiberium Dawn (1995)

Offline Age

  • D.Net VIP
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2689
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question regarding GSC
« Reply #44 on: April 10, 2013, 06:26:59 pm »
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

Offline Lieutenant_Q

  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1669
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question regarding GSC
« Reply #45 on: April 10, 2013, 06:41:10 pm »
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.
"Your mighty GDI forces have been emasculated, and you yourself are a killer of children.  Now of course it's not true.  But the world only believes what the media tells them to believe.  And I tell the media what to believe, its really quite simple." - Kane (Joe Kucan) Command & Conquer Tiberium Dawn (1995)

Offline TAnimaL

  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 771
  • Gender: Male
    • Combat Logs from the Cold Depths of Space
Re: Question regarding GSC
« Reply #46 on: April 10, 2013, 08:19:40 pm »
Well, I thought we were talking SFB (& SFC).  :angel:  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.


Offline Age

  • D.Net VIP
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2689
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question regarding GSC
« Reply #47 on: April 11, 2013, 03:29:18 pm »
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.

Offline knightstorm

  • His Imperial Highness, Norton II, Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2104
Re: Question regarding GSC
« Reply #48 on: April 11, 2013, 06:39:50 pm »
The lower power cost of the ph-3 makes it better as a point defense weapon.

Offline TAnimaL

  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 771
  • Gender: Male
    • Combat Logs from the Cold Depths of Space
Re: Question regarding GSC
« Reply #49 on: April 13, 2013, 09:40:42 am »
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.

Offline TAnimaL

  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 771
  • Gender: Male
    • Combat Logs from the Cold Depths of Space
Re: Question regarding GSC
« Reply #50 on: April 14, 2013, 02:33:02 pm »
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.

Offline TAnimaL

  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 771
  • Gender: Male
    • Combat Logs from the Cold Depths of Space
Re: Question regarding GSC
« Reply #51 on: April 14, 2013, 02:45:42 pm »
For comparisons sake, here's the ship diagram for the SFB Fast cruiser. Compare and ontrast to the GSC diagram earlier in the thread.

Offline Lieutenant_Q

  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1669
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question regarding GSC
« Reply #52 on: April 15, 2013, 01:47:56 pm »
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?
"Your mighty GDI forces have been emasculated, and you yourself are a killer of children.  Now of course it's not true.  But the world only believes what the media tells them to believe.  And I tell the media what to believe, its really quite simple." - Kane (Joe Kucan) Command & Conquer Tiberium Dawn (1995)

Offline knightstorm

  • His Imperial Highness, Norton II, Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2104
Re: Question regarding GSC
« Reply #53 on: April 15, 2013, 05:47:44 pm »
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.

Offline TAnimaL

  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 771
  • Gender: Male
    • Combat Logs from the Cold Depths of Space
Re: Question regarding GSC
« Reply #54 on: April 15, 2013, 07:54:54 pm »
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.

Offline Starfox1701

  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1049
Re: Question regarding GSC
« Reply #55 on: April 16, 2013, 01:02:26 pm »
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

Offline Age

  • D.Net VIP
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2689
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question regarding GSC
« Reply #56 on: April 16, 2013, 06:59:31 pm »
You mean this one it looks like Fed/Klink type of criuser.

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

Offline Lieutenant_Q

  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1669
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question regarding GSC
« Reply #57 on: April 16, 2013, 07:27:16 pm »
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.
"Your mighty GDI forces have been emasculated, and you yourself are a killer of children.  Now of course it's not true.  But the world only believes what the media tells them to believe.  And I tell the media what to believe, its really quite simple." - Kane (Joe Kucan) Command & Conquer Tiberium Dawn (1995)

Offline Nemesis

  • Captain Kayn
  • Global Moderator
  • Commodore
  • *
  • Posts: 12929
Re: Question regarding GSC
« Reply #58 on: April 16, 2013, 07:53:14 pm »
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.
Do unto others as Frey has done unto you.
Seti Team    Free Software
I believe truth and principle do matter. If you have to sacrifice them to get the results you want, then the results aren't worth it.
 FoaS_XC : "Take great pains to distinguish a criticism vs. an attack. A person reading a post should never be able to confuse the two."

Offline TAnimaL

  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 771
  • Gender: Male
    • Combat Logs from the Cold Depths of Space
Re: Question regarding GSC
« Reply #59 on: April 16, 2013, 07:56:42 pm »
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  :D