From An old SFB Player.

[Flash]

I'm an old Star Fleet Battles Player and Fasa Trek player. I still love the tactical play of SFB. I initially avoided the new Trek RPGs until recently when I bought a used copies of the new PG and NG. I just recently purchased Starships. It took alittle while but I figured out the character system in CODA. (reminds me of a toned down D20)
Anyway, while I like the ease of ship building in Starships, I hated the combat system, and don't get me started on combat stat generation.
As I was searching for Trek info. My search led me here. Steven, your design system is what the doctor ordered. While WARP combat is fun, I always felt sub-light was better, especially in system and SFB avoids Sublight. I'm considering conversion rules using a modification of SFB and Starfire 3rd ED Rev.
A few questions.
1. Has anyone made conversions to spacedock with the the new tech lists from starships?

2. In spacedock it says that torpedos follow a target until it hits or misses or I presume the ship manages to break the lock. So, if two ships are on a head on collision course, and ship B dodges Ship A's torpedoes, Do the torpedoes continue to look for Ship B or just lose there lock?

3. Is it possible to load single torpedoes or Missile on a fighter with "ordanance" rails?

Thanks,
Flash

[Steve Long]

Glad you're enjoying the book!

I can't speak to #1. In #2, I believe the torps would keep after Ship B, but it depends on the GM's judgment as to what suffices to break a torpedo lock.

Re: #3, I suppose it would be possible. Take a look at the Dominion War Sourcebook, also available here at TrekRPG.Net, which has a writeup of the Starfleet Attack Fighter, which carries six one-shot launchers.

[JALU3]

A . . . a fighter question.

If you look at the states for the Peregrine, otherwise known as the Starfleet Attack Fighter, not to be confused with the Marqui Courior, you can not that she cares 6, I repeat 6 photon torpedo tubes. She lacks shielding, and can be more then easily swatted out of the sky due to her extremely low threshold shielding, making whatever crews a Peregrine expect a very short expected combat life span.

However, in battle, as seen in the Vanguard v D'Deredix simulation you will not that the harrassing fire of the fighters can weaken even the strongest shielding significantly and make a great destraction from the heavy guns, the starship that carried them into battle.

[Flash]

What I'm asking about the "missiles" is... can you hang a missile, rocket, torpedo etc... on a launch rail? In SFB Drones are launched from racks or from fighter launch rails. I find it Ironic that drones in SFB and torpedoes in Spacedock behave similarly. I like that.

[Steve Long]

There are no such thing as "launch rails" in Spacedock, though you could certainly make up your own stats for 'em if you wanted to.

The Peregrine is not the same thing as the Starfleet Attack Fighter. The SAF writeup in the DWS definitely has six one-shot torp launchers. As far as I can recall, I've never done an SD writeup of the Peregrine, because it's never been seen on-screen.

[KillerWhale]

The issue with the SAF and the Peregrine is quite meddled. But I'm positive that the SAF we saw in "Sacrifice of Angels" is indeed the Peregrine-class fighter. The Maquis raider, or courier that the Encyclopedia labels as Peregrine in error is a Ju'dai class (sp?) as established on screen by a Voy ep (Infinite Regress? The one where maquis members get repressed memories back).

Just my two cents

[Siroth]

On the Peregrine/fighter question, the official word is that the ship used by Chakotay in VOY's "Caretaker" was named Liberty and was Antares class because it says so in the VOY novel "Pathways" which is one of the few Trek novels accepted as canon by Paramount. Yes, I know it has also been called "Zola" and classified as both Ju'day and Peregrine class. I prefer to latter too, but the former are more official though people seem to ignore the reference. See this article for a discussion (skip down to the bit about "The Maquis Ship")
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/inconsistencies3.htm

Incidentally, the ship Chakotay uses seems identical to the one used by Eddington in DS9's "For the Uniform".


As for the fighter, I'm not sure which class it is, but I prefer to call it Peregrine class for the simple that the the above ships obviously aren't.

With regards to Spacedock, however, I do wonder why there are six torpedo launchers on the Fighter in the DWS book. I mean, what use are they? Sure, six torpedoes are good, but wouldn't it be better to have just two launchers with a spread of three each? With most torpedoes you'll want to make a single multifire shot and then forget about them, but the way Multifire is described in Spacedock you can only take one Mutlifire per round and each torpedo launcher must be able to fire at least half the total number of torpedoes fire (round down). Since each torpedo launcher on the fighter has a spread of only 1, that would suggest you could fire only 3 torpedoes in a multifire (3/2=1 1/2, round down to 1). You could fire the rest separately, but you'll suffer heavy multiple action penalties, particularly if you also want to use the phasers.

Is it just me or does that the idea of having six launchers a bit? It seems to me the crew would be better off having a single launcher with a potential spread of 3 on each side of the ship instead, and it would even cost less SU as well...

Am I missing something?

[Steve Long]

Well, if you're thinking I made up those launchers (I'm not sure if you are or not), you're missing the canonical or quasi-canonical evidence for them. I didn't make 'em up; I just wrote 'em up to match what we know. I have no idea why Starfleet would prefer that configuration.

[Cptn. Taggart]

Hmmm? Why would fighters have single torp launchers? Although not covered in the rules, perhaps it is due to the fact that fighters need to stay light for maneuverability. Since they are in space they are effectively weightless but, once accelerated to near light speeds, they can acquire a relative mass greater than their actual weight making every ounce count. So the fire control systems needed for a spread style launcher is a factor. In my opinion, I like the drama of a potential PC flying in, dodging enemy fire and launching a torpedo at optimal distance. This gives the feel of the classic fighter Vs. capital ship duels from life and literature. It adds tension and difficulty.

While I havent looked at the DWS fighter much, it would allow the pilot to keep power to shields or maneuverability rather than be concerned about firing spreads which do cost extra power.

And lets not forget the climatic battle scene where the fighters have launched all their ordnance and everyone is asking, "hasn't anyone got any torpedos left?"

I cannopt speak to question 1. in reference to question 2 however, I normally rule that a torpedo will follow for three rounds. Each round I let the Tac officer make a roll for the torpedos self guidance system [note, I said for the torpedos, not his, guidance] If it misses the third time then it is out of fuel and is considered out of play. A very Dramatic maneuver can sometimes shake a torpedo in my games, but it depends on the situation.

[Siroth]

Originally posted by Steve Long
Well, if you're thinking I made up those launchers (I'm not sure if you are or not), you're missing the canonical or quasi-canonical evidence for them. I didn't make 'em up; I just wrote 'em up to match what we know. I have no idea why Starfleet would prefer that configuration.

Hmmm, I guess it's one of those areas where canon doesn't fit so well into the Spacedock rules, and I admit that I looked at the logic of it purely from a perspective of what made the most sense rules-wise. Canon cannot be ignored, however, so I'd agree there. Thanks for the answer, though. I guess I'll just make an footnote to the multifire rules then. That should solve the problem.

[Flash]

I guess the hard part is that cannon gives us all a place to start, but by definition each of our RPG becomes non-cannon. So we can choose what we want or don't want. So, If I decide to use SFB as my alternate timeline so be it. If I want a game after the Dominion wars so be it. If we aren't sure what do in a certain situation we go to the experts and hope they have answers.

Let's face it Star Trek is full of inconsistences. I think a lot of things were done because it was cool, but drives us nuts as roleplayers who want rules to be governed by.

It seems to me as a fighter with 6 individual tubes they were trying to get the "feel" of launch rails, but this would be the problem... Torpedos are launched by accelarator tubes at least from the pictures of the Tech Manual. So if I'm using Launch rails... they can't be accerator tubes so torpedoes power cost would be 5 per torpedo. Lauch speed depends on launching vehicle plus acceleration number (to be determinined?)

Which begs the question.... If using tubes, why not do a X-Wing fighter, 2 launch tubes with essentially an automatic reload of the launcher? instead of 6 indivial tubes, except for cool factor?

[USS Kochanski]

My guess would be that rails are less complex, and thus less prone to failure than fewer tubes with reloaders. They probably are easier to make too.

[IceGiant]

And the problem the the X-wing comparison is that normal photon torpedoes are 2 meters long and 1 meter wide. Where Proton torpedoes are much smaller being able to be stored in the fuselage of the x-wing.

My opinion as always.

[Flash]

I wasn't doing an exact comparison. Sheesh.

On to other things...
Has anyone tried to convert ships from Starships to Spacedock? I simply don't like their combat system, but I do like the variations in systems.

So, does anyone know how to add Phase Cannons or Spacial Torpedoes, Etc?