A ship class I would like to see, The Phaser DNPF

[SneakyPete]

I know there may be no leeway within the StarFleet world to make a ship of this sort, but what I would love to see each fleet have is a Fast Light Phaser Dreadnought.

What I envision is a ship in the low 300 point range with 30+ shields and at least 40 Hull with no Primary Heavy weapon such as Photons, Plasma, or Disruptors but at LEAST 10-12 Phaser 1's available in either turret or APS arc combinations able to bring to bear on one target.
Rear phasers would be minimal.
Turn would be no more than 6 for any race.
Drones/ADD would be a maximum of 2 combined.
Romulan versions possibly would get an cloaking bonus to an 8" or 9" move since they generally have no ADD or drones.

The idea would be to have a ship that could shoot past the enemy and cause major problems in his rear, yet still be strong enough to survive that turn. Being designed for phasers only, using APE with the phasers only Power Drain, would have no negative effect. I have no idea how Mongoose scores ships for points but by just guesstimating based on similar traits on other ships this appears to be a pretty reasonable point cost.

Of course you could always Home Brew a ship if others you play with agree on it, but I thought I would mention it here to see what others think.

 

[Lincolnlog]

I saw an SSD in SFB for a Federation DNP (Phaser Dreadnaught). It was a pretty wicked ship.

 

[Nerroth]

The closest thing you are likely to see are the various light dreadnoughts, such as the Fed DNL (which has already been pre-approved for production in wave 2); if you want to get a sense of how capable the ship is, you can check its low toner Ship Card for Federation Commander. (As always, check the Squadron Scale version only; the Fleet Scale cards are irrelevant for conversion purposes, except perhaps in terms of gauging how many Marine squads a given ship will end up with in ACtA:SF.)

While there isn't a look at it in 3D form as of yet, the Romulan Shrike is another example of this same class of ship; as is the Lyran Desert Lion. (Essentially, they all keep the same engines as their non-Fast counterparts; but cut down on the amount of internal hull space, as well as their heavy weapons arrays.)

To be honest, the idea of everyone in the Alpha Octant using the same type of phaser boats seems a little too generic for my tastes; I like the various fleets to have more variety and distinctiveness, not less.

 

[locarno24]

To be honest, the idea of everyone in the Alpha Octant using the same type of phaser boats seems a little too generic for my tastes; I like the various fleets to have more variety and distinctiveness, not less.

Agreed. On the other hand, they would be doing DNPs for different reasons - whilst a 'flanker' with heavy phaser broadsides (I suspect you'd probably have the weapons mounted broadside rather than fore) makes sense for some fleets, others - those for whom phasers are not a primary weapon - may see it as the Galaxy's Biggest Point Defence Boat, and would be happy without the speed.

 

[billclo]

I would think that DN hulls are rare enough that having a specialty hull like an all-Phaser DN would be a very unusual thing.

This becomes apparent if you look at the rules for the strategic level SFU game - F&E. Generally each Empire gets to build one DN a year (Lyrans being a notable exception). DNs are expensive and few in number and not to be expended on an oddball specialty unit IMHO. Even building a DNL instead of a regular DN is not something that I've seen done often.

But if players want to have them in ACTA:SF then there's no real reason they can't make it so.

 

[SneakyPete]

I would think that just removing the massive heavy weapons systems, reducing drones, and eliminating excess labs, shuttles, marines, and such would free up enough energy resources and lighten the load to achieve a Fast rating.
Take a standard Fed DN hull, strip out the 6 photon banks, 3 of 4 Drones, and go with Labs 2, Tractor 2, Transporter 3, Shuttle 2, Marines 3. You would not even really need to add phasers although I would like to see the PH3 Turret upgraded to PH1 and ideally I would trade 15-20% of the Hull Damage and Shields for even more PH1's.

As some suggested there could be variations for other races in loadouts, mostly I view this as a Fed ship as my example suggests, a Wolverine on steroids.

To suggest the funds for building one would be a waste of resources is a bit of a stretch though. Phasers are the backbone of the Fed fleet with photons being a deterrent more than anything. Often wars are won by maneuver more than by actual combat, to be able to position yourself strategically or react to a threat quickly is a huge tactical advantage. In a far flung Space Empire having a ship that can respond to a distress 30% faster and still project a powerful presence would be priceless.

 

[Rambler]

I would think that just removing the massive heavy weapons systems, reducing drones, and eliminating excess labs, shuttles, marines, and such would free up enough energy resources and lighten the load to achieve a Fast rating.
Take a standard Fed DN hull, strip out the 6 photon banks, 3 of 4 Drones, and go with Labs 2, Tractor 2, Transporter 3, Shuttle 2, Marines 3. You would not even really need to add phasers although I would like to see the PH3 Turret upgraded to PH1 and ideally I would trade 15-20% of the Hull Damage and Shields for even more PH1's.

Doing what you propse will radically affect the way the DNs allocate damage in SFB and FC. As such stripping the "Padding" out of a ship to make a better combat version is almost a guaranteed Auto Reject by ADB.

I am not saying what you say is not reasonable just whatever happens in one system which is ACTASF, in this case, has to be possible and with a similar result in the other SFU systems. Stripping things like Labs and Shuttles will run afoul of a lot of things out there.

Also for all praticle purposes Marines have no weight in the SFU so reducing marines will not improve ship performance at all.

To suggest the funds for building one would be a waste of resources is a bit of a stretch though. Phasers are the backbone of the Fed fleet with photons being a deterrent more than anything. Often wars are won by maneuver more than by actual combat, to be able to position yourself strategically or react to a threat quickly is a huge tactical advantage. In a far flung Space Empire having a ship that can respond to a distress 30% faster and still project a powerful presence would be priceless.

Actually the Photon is the bread and butter of Federation Assult Doctrines not the Phaser. The Photons in SFB have a significantly longer range than what the were cut down to in ACTASF. Mathew chose what is really the maximum effective accurate range for a fleet duel. When it comes to base busting Feds tend to hang back about 24 inches and use the wonder weapons to pound the base into scrap iron. Something that was judge not necessry in a fleet game.

Also the Fast Raider Designs were found way to expensive as thes ships tend to get trapped behind enemy lines hunted down by wolf pack tatics and destroyed.

 

[Nerroth]

The key difference that would allow a light dreadnought to gain the Fast rating is down to the size of the actual hull, not necessarily the type of weapons mounted upon it. (This is in contrast to the fast cruisers, and the yet-to-be-ported over fast war cruisers; those have more powerful engines mounted on a hull of similar size to their non-fast brethren.)

(A fast ship has to cut down on the amount of heavy weapons it carries relative to its non-fast equivalent; but that is an effect of the reduced tolerances, not a cause.)


To go back to the Fed DNL example, the number of Hull boxes it has in (Squadron Scale) FC would translate into a Damage score of 48/16; putting it approximately half-way in size between the BC and DNG. However, it would keep the same Shield score, as well as the number of Marines and Shuttles; and only trims down on its other support systems to a fairly minimal extent.

If you wanted to fly an all-phaser boat in this type of class, you could use a house rule that replaces the photons on the offcial DNL with more phasers-1 in the same arc; but since the Federation has an offical light dreadnought in the setting (which has already been approved for future inclusion in the Starline 2500 range), it might be better to try and home-brew a variant of that than go to the trouble of trying to re-invent the wheel.


And at a strategic level, the key limitations for fast ships were that building one meant taking up room in the production schedule for a non-fast counterpart, and also meant fielding a ship with engines that are more difficult to operate and maintain than standard warp drives.

In F&E terms, a fast ship only moves one additional hex's worth in operational movement per turn; while it has its uses, it is counter-balanced by the reduced offensive potential of each class in question. (And in on-table terms, the tactical benefits of ships with the Fast trait is magnified in ACtA:SF than it is in either SFB or FC; since the latter two games have the same top tactical speed limit per turn that a ship, fast or otherwise, can go.)

It isn't until the dawn of advanced technology in the Y180s before you see ships that can go faster strategically and still be expected to outfight a "standard" modern warship of its displacement class; but even with those, the need to establish a whole new economy to try and support them (since many of the exotic mineral stockpiles and refined production techniques needed to build X-ships had to be built up almost from scratch) meant that no empire could replace its entire fleet with X-ships overnight.


For my part, I happen to like the idea of fast ships; I look forward to seeing the DNLs show up, and wouldn't mind some of the classes shown for SFB (but not yet for FC), such as the fast battleships and fast war cruisers, make it over at some later point.

(I'd be particularly interested in seeing if an ISC fast echelon could be worth trying out or not; perhaps to represent some of the fast response forces deployed along the Pacification-era cordons.)

But, even so, I still prefer fast ships from a given empire to at least retain part of what makes that empire distinct; photons on a Fed DNL, ESGs on a Lyran Desert Lion, PPDs on an ISC DNL, and so on. As I mentioned in my last post, I feel that each fleet in the SFU should have more points of distinction, not less; and in that sense, giving everyone the same type of fast phaser boat would be less interesting than ships which retain a broader variety of options.

 

[SneakyPete]

It is interesting to hear the historical reasons why a ship has to be built a certain way. As ACtA is my first SFU game experience I am unaware of a lot of this. Keeping fleets distinct is a good idea, but it would also be good if each fleet had several different kids of builds to mix up the tactics and keep the game interesting. The Romulans come to mind especially in this regard, with the old schoold Warbirds and the newer SparrowHawk variants.

The Fast Hawk comes closest to my initial idea (DNLP), albeit using Plasma instead of phasers. With both Plasma S being FH it gives it a nice broadside flyby ability to the enemy's rear, and if supported by something heavy like a Condor coming up the front it will keep the enemy from focusing all its energies on hunting down the FFH, especially if the FFH's run in pairs.
That would be scary, Plasma from the front and rear, although it would lose some power as the defender would be able to utilize defensive phasers that would not be in the arc if the attack came all from one direction.

Anyway, I am just thinking of strategic possibilities, thanks for the comments.

 

[tlee33]

if we could have our way, I'm sure we'd build ships without any labs, probes, shuttles, etc. and make all of the weapons forward firing but that's just not how ships are built.

I think if you really want ships with all phaser-I, you're better off working with the Orions.

 

[Keeper Nilbog]

And whilst all P-1 Orions sound good, there a one trick boat (a mix of P-1 and disruptors work better on the larger ships, especially Salvage Crusier). A Fast Crusier would be nice though, can't remember if the Orions got one (none in FC, and not sure if the yards would have the tech.)

 

[Captain Jonah]

A problem with this is that Phasers are more effective in ACTA-SF than they are in SFB/FC.

The fast ships DNs have less Phasers than the normal DNs just as they have less Heavy weapons.

In SFB taking the four Photons out of a fed cruiser and replacing them with Phaser 1s would do wonders for the power allocation but would hit the damage the ship does and also limit its range.

The same applies to other heavy weapons. In ACTA-SF the heavy weapons are less effective in regard to simple Phasers than they are in the other games.

So with ship designs coming from SFB/FC they will always have heavy weapons and you are very unlikely to see true Phaser boats.

 

[tlee33]

A problem with this is that Phasers are more effective in ACTA-SF than they are in SFB/FC.

The same applies to other heavy weapons. In ACTA-SF the heavy weapons are less effective in regard to simple Phasers than they are in the other games.

So with ship designs coming from SFB/FC they will always have heavy weapons and you are very unlikely to see true Phaser boats.

I kinda wondered why the phasers seemed so strong. I think what they need to do is maybe not allow phasers to bypass shields, only heavy weapons? it seems more logical since they don't have the impact of a heavy weapon.