Suggest Stats for "D17" Ship - Unofficial !

[Finlos]

Quick view at Nomad's stats look good but I would argue the ship looks too bulky to warrant Turn 3 and definitely not Agile. Shields and Damage values may need to be adjusted but I'll compare later when I have more time.

 

[Nerroth]

The D17 was originally published as a conjectural unit in Stellar Shadows Journal #1; it was intended to be a bid from a rival design bureau to try and secure the heavy cruiser contract with the Deep Space Fleet.

(Star Fleet had a similar run-off in the Y120s; one design team put forward the OCA, based on a stretched old CL hull, as a potential alternative to the Constitution-class. Only a couple of them were built historically, as the Federation went with the iconic saucer-and-nacelle option instead; leaving a certain lost colony in a more distant part of the galaxy to do fun new things with the old Terran hulls...)

 

[Rambler]

I wanted a Klingon ship based on phasers and disruptors rather than drones - to me they seem to be far to prevalent in far too many fleets.

Phaser 2's seem to be just a waste of resources, the newer Klingon ships don't seem to bother with them - D5, D5W, C7?

Anyone else fancy making some stats up?

The D5W does in fact have TWO Phaser 2s each replaced a Phaser 3 as a way to get more offensive Phasers on the hull. Phaser 2 were a catch all for the Klingons they were both a Offensive and a Defensive System this is why early Klingons ships lacked Phaser 3s.

The Back story for the D17 is already in place. It is a competting design with the D7 to replace the D6s as the Heavy Cruisers of the Fleet. Looking at the renderings I think that yes the D17 is a touch more massive than the D7 but not by much.

As such it would have almost the same stats as the D7 as far as Weapons and Capabilites but should have a flaw that stopped it from becoming the Heavy Cruiser.

Without looking at the SSD and only seeing the rendering. What I figured it would have looked like at the time of the bid would have been. The big Disadvantage probably would have been the loss of the Agile trait. What can be seen are; Phasers, 3 Banks of 3 each, 1 maybe 2 ADD Hatches on the Neck, as well as, the Standard D7 Shuttle Hatch and Drone Hatch.

Turn: 4
Shields: 18
Damage: 24/9
Marines: 7
Craft: 2 Shuttles

Traits: Anti-Drone 1, Labs 4, Tractor Beam 3, Transporter 5

Phaser-2 : F,P,S : 3AD
Phaser-2 : F,P,S : 3AD
Phaser-2 : A,P,S : 3AD
Disruptors : F : 4AD
Drones : T : 2



Now a War Upgrade of the Hull might look like, based on improvements made not only to the D7 but the D7C as well.

Turn: 4
Shields: 20
Damage: 24/9
Marines: 8
Craft: 2 Shuttles

Traits: Anti-Drone 2, Labs 4, Tractor Beam 4, Transporter 6

Phaser-1 : F,P,S : 3AD
Phaser-2 : F,P,S : 3AD
Phaser-2 : A,P,S : 3AD
Disruptors : F,P : 2AD
Disruptors : F,S : 2AD
Drones : T : 2AD

Edit: Only had 3AD of Diruptors on the original changed it to 4.

 

[Da Boss]

thanks interesting

given that the d-17 is apparently an official ship I was really more interested in how people would stat and background the ship from the images shown.

On phaser 2's - so if they now have phaser 3's why are they bothering with Phaser '2s on new build ships - is it background or just habit?

I still like my stats better - especially since it does not have drones........

 

[Rambler]

thanks interesting

given that the d-17 is apparently an official ship I was really more interested in how people would stat and background the ship from the images shown.

But thats the point the D17 was a official ship. It simply was the Cruiser Development path not taken. As such there may actually be a handful of them in the Historical Timeline much like how the Federation Built 3 Strike Cruisers or the Kzinit built the 1 Long Lean Destoyer that was scrapped for DWs and CMs or the Lyran Golden Pup Destroyer.

On phaser 2's - so if they now have phaser 3's why are they bothering with Phaser '2s on new build ships - is it background or just habit?

It is simple Economics. Phaser 2 are cheaper than Phaser 1s and can cover the Defensive Role (by downpowering the gun) or be pressed into a Offensive Role if you get a Ship behind you.

I still like my stats better - especially since it does not have drones........

Historically if you don't want Drones on a Klingon just replace them 1 for one 1 with shuttles. thats what they replaced in the first place.

 

[Rambler]

thanks interesting

given that the d-17 is apparently an official ship I was really more interested in how people would stat and background the ship from the images shown.

But thats the point the D17 was a official ship. It simply was the Cruiser Development path not taken. As such there may actually be a handful of them in the Historical Timeline much like how the Federation Built 3 Strike Cruisers or the Kzinit built the 1 Long Lean Destoyer that was scrapped for DWs and CMs or the Lyran Golden Pup Destroyer.

On phaser 2's - so if they now have phaser 3's why are they bothering with Phaser '2s on new build ships - is it background or just habit?

It is simple Economics. Phaser 2 are cheaper than Phaser 1s and can cover the Defensive Role (by downpowering the gun) or be pressed into a Offensive Role if you get a Ship behind you. Also there are many F5s, D6s, D7s and C8s built during the war that kept being built with Phaser-2s.

I still like my stats better - especially since it does not have drones........

Historically if you don't want Drones on a Klingon just replace them 1 for one 1 with shuttles. thats what they replaced in the first place.

 

[Da Boss]

thanks interesting given that the d-17 is apparently an official ship I was really more interested in how people would stat and background the ship from the images shown.

But thats the point the D17 was a official ship. It simply was the Cruiser Development path not taken. As such there may actually be a handful of them in the Historical Timeline much like how the Federation Built 3 Strike Cruisers or the Kzinit built the 1 Long Lean Destoyer that was scrapped for DWs and CMs or the Lyran Golden Pup Destroyer.

Yeah thats interesting but as I said the my point was I was interested in what could be done with a new ship shape, what poeple could do with it- especially since it apparently does not match the ships appaearance for the official one.

On phaser 2's - so if they now have phaser 3's why are they bothering with Phaser '2s on new build ships - is it background or just habit?

It is simple Economics. Phaser 2 are cheaper than Phaser 1s and can cover the Defensive Role (by downpowering the gun) or be pressed into a Offensive Role if you get a Ship behind you. Also there are many F5s, D6s, D7s and C8s built during the war that kept being built with Phaser-2s.

Why not replace with Phaser 3's was my quesitons on New builds

I still like my stats better - especially since it does not have drones........

Historically if you don't want Drones on a Klingon just replace them 1 for one 1 with shuttles. thats what they replaced in the first place.

Nah thats boring - If I ever get my Klingon fleet I will do a full alt fleet listing without resporting to drone spam................. Don't worry it will be unofficial :roll:

 

[TJHairball]

The flaw could simply have been being too expensive. :wink:

 

[adm]

:shock:

Lyran Golden Pup Destroyer.

:shock:

Ahem

Golden CUB Destroyer.

You cur.

Lyran Player :mrgreen:

 

[Rambler]

:shock:

Lyran Golden Pup Destroyer.

:shock:

Ahem

Golden CUB Destroyer.

You cur.

Lyran Player :mrgreen:

Cub, pup whatever. You all look like walking throw rugs to me. :twisted: I have a faceful of Hellbores with your name on it.

 

[Rambler]

Yeah thats interesting but as I said the my point was I was interested in what could be done with a new ship shape, what poeple could do with it- especially since it apparently does not match the ships appaearance for the official one.

SVC already stated he will probably change the layout of the SSD to match the render. After all up to this point the D17 is a obscure footnote which they have enough room to tweak its backgroud to make it fit. One or 5 old D17 running arounds can be manged just like 3 Strike Cruisers or 4 Battle frigates were.

On phaser 2's - so if they now have phaser 3's why are they bothering with Phaser '2s on new build ships - is it background or just habit?

It is simple Economics. Phaser 2 are cheaper than Phaser 1s and can cover the Defensive Role (by downpowering the gun) or be pressed into a Offensive Role if you get a Ship behind you. Also there are many F5s, D6s, D7s and C8s built during the war that kept being built with Phaser-2s.[/quote]

Why not replace with Phaser 3's was my quesitons on New builds.

And I answered that the Phaser 2 is a poor man's compromise. How long do you think a D7 would survive with 3 Phaser-1s and 6 Phaser-3s? The D7 was designe to line up a oblique shot on its enemies so it could bring 3 Phaser-1s, 3 Phaser-2s, and 4 Disrupters to bear at a range just outside of Overloaded Photon Range where photons accuracy degrades. When used in a squadron those side firing phaser help to establish interlocking fields of fire to minimize incoming drone fire while only using half the power a normal Phaser-2 would.

 

[adm]

Hrrrmmmm..........It may be time for a BBQ, it's certainly summer like here. :lol:

 

[Sgt_G]

The D17 was designed about the same time as the C7, by which time the Klingons had figured out how to make Phaser-1 cheaply and reliable enough to mass produce them, so the idea that the D17 should have Phaser-2 mounted does not fit the history.

That said, if you want to say that the D17 is actually an older design (perhaps someone blue the dust off the blueprints and updated them), then you can use that to explain why it might have had Phaser-2.

 

[Da Boss]

The D17 was designed about the same time as the C7, by which time the Klingons had figured out how to make Phaser-1 cheaply and reliable enough to mass produce them, so the idea that the D17 should have Phaser-2 mounted does not fit the history.

Thanks - that what I thought makes sense.

to clarify the purpose of this thread I had no interest in what ADB where or where not doping with their ship - it was intended to see what ideas people would / could come up with using the image as pure inspiration.

 

[scoutdad]

Actually, on the Phaser 2 / Phaser 1 debate:
I'll have to do some research to find where it's at, but the fluff in one of the SFB modules explains the difference between the Phaser-1 and Phaser-2.
Both use the same emitter / firing mechanism, but the Phaser-1 has a better targeting system.

 

[Ben2]

Is there an SSD of the ship knocking around that can be converted to ACTA?

 

[Nerroth]

Is there an SSD of the ship knocking around that can be converted to ACTA?

Stellar Shadows Journal #1

At this rate, I'm starting to wonder if the disclaimer in my sig is working a little too well...

 

[TJHairball]

The D17 was designed about the same time as the C7, by which time the Klingons had figured out how to make Phaser-1 cheaply and reliable enough to mass produce them, so the idea that the D17 should have Phaser-2 mounted does not fit the history.

That said, if you want to say that the D17 is actually an older design (perhaps someone blue the dust off the blueprints and updated them), then you can use that to explain why it might have had Phaser-2.

I mean, based on what was said earlier, I thought we were talking about a competing design proposal for the D7, which carries phaser-2s:

The D5W does in fact have TWO Phaser 2s each replaced a Phaser 3 as a way to get more offensive Phasers on the hull. Phaser 2 were a catch all for the Klingons they were both a Offensive and a Defensive System this is why early Klingons ships lacked Phaser 3s.

The Back story for the D17 is already in place. It is a competting design with the D7 to replace the D6s as the Heavy Cruisers of the Fleet. Looking at the renderings I think that yes the D17 is a touch more massive than the D7 but not by much.

As such it would have almost the same stats as the D7 as far as Weapons and Capabilites but should have a flaw that stopped it from becoming the Heavy Cruiser.

Based on that and the picture, I would go with something like this. It's shorter and more compact than the D7, though not necessarily smaller overall. The hull volume is very close to the same. It needs to match or beat the D6 in its important qualities, but needs to somehow be inferior to the D7. I'm thinking that price tag and re-tooling costs would be the important part. If it has a vastly superior phaser arsenal, it would be a gimme.

If the D5's smaller size with the same power lets it carry slightly stronger shields, this should have stronger shields, too, it's quite a bit more compact. In fact, it's even more compact than the D5, so we can imagine that the hull form was optimized for effective shield strength given the power of shield generators. A smaller and more compact hull is easier to turn, so I would stick with Turn 4 Agile.

With those distinctive slab-like sides, totally unlike the rest of the Klingon fleet, I'd want to make it Armoured, something that would stick out as unusual, rather than increasing its damage score. Tough hull plating and heavy use of automation to avoid relying on as many slave race personnel [explaining the unusual, possibly non-detachable command boom] would make it more expensive than the D7, which, for something that on paper only carries the same guns and similarly powerful shield generators as the D7, would make it a losing bid against the D7.

Throw in something small - say, a reduced capacity for chucking marines at the enemy, because increased automation decreased the living space - and you're golden to explain why it was the losing bid.

Turn: 4
Damage: 20/7
Craft: 2 Shuttles
Shields: 24
Marines: 6
Traits: Agile, Anti-Drone 1, Armoured, Labs 4, Tractor Beam 4, Transporter 4
Weapons:

• Disruptor (F) 4 AD
• Phaser-1 (FPS) 3 AD
• Phaser-2 (FPS) 3 AD
• Phaser-2 (APS) 3 AD
• Drones (T) 2 AD

With an edge in toughness and phaser arcs, it would probably be worth around +15 points from the D7 and -10 from the D5W, which carries superior offensive weapons, according to my calculations (by which the D7 ought to be dropped a bit).

 

[scoutdad]

I have SSJ #1 out in teh man cave. I'll hash out a stat block based on that SSD after dinner.

 

[scoutdad]

Here's a direct port (as close as one other than MSP can get) from the Stellar Shadows SSD:

Klingon D17 Battlecruiser 175 points (D17)

Turn: 4 Shields: 18
Damage: 22 / 8 Marines: 6
Craft: 2 Shuttles Traits: Agile, Anti-Drone 1, Labs 4, Tractor Beam 3, Transporter 5

Weapon: Range Arc AD Special
Phaser-1 18 F, P, S 3 Accurate +2, Kill Zone 8, Precise
Phaser-2* 12 F,P,S 3 Accurate +1, Kill Zone 4, Precise
Phaser-2 12 A, P, S 3 Accurate +1, Kill Zone 4, Precise
Disruptors 24 F 4 Accurate +1, Multihit 2
Drones 36 T 2 Devastating +1, Multihit d6, Seeking
*As they are blocked by the bridge structure, these Phaser-2s cannot fire directly along the prow of the D17.

The relevant box counts are virtually the same between the D17 and the D7, the main difference being the inability to fire along the hex row directly in front of the ship due to the larger bridge / boom structure. Point values are close as well... depending on refits chosen.
I chose to represent this by disallowing any fire that will run across the bridge structure when measured from stand peg to stand peg. Any other parts of the forward arc are valid firing arcs.

This alone would have made it a secondary choice to the D6/D7