CODA: Achilles Class Battlecruiser

[JonA]

Hello all,

This is my personal design for the Achilles Class cruiser.

Please note: I have made some modifications from the original design from the Dominion Wars game.

I also realise that this vessel is a pure warship (it's up to you if you want to use it in your setting but I personally have only two of them in Starfleet and they only saw action in the last 6 months of the war, at which point they were mothballed at the Beta Antares shipyards pending another war situation).

Achilles Class Battlecruiser

Battlecruiser
Commissioned 2375

Propulsion Data:

Impulse System: FIG-2 (.9c) (C)
Warp Drive: LF-50 Mod 1 (9/9.5/9.99) (E)

Hull Data:

Structure: 40
Size/Decks: 8/16
Length/Height/Beam: 612/100/416
Complement: 340

Operational Data:

Atmosphere Capable: No
Cargo Units: 40
Life Support: Class 5 (F)
Masking system: Mon-refracting Plating
Operations System: Class 5 (F)
Separation System: No
Sensor Systems: Class 4 (+4/E)
Shuttlebays: 1
Shuttlecraft: 8 size worth
Tractor Beam: 1 Fv
Transporter: 4 standard, 4 emergency

Tactical Data:

Beam Weapons: Type XII (x4/E);
Type XI Pulse (x2/E)
Penetration: 8/6/5/0/0
Torpedo Launchers: Mk 25 Micro – Quantum (x6/E)
Mk 95 DF (x3/E)
Missile Penetration: 8/8/8/8/8
Defensive Systems: FSQ-3 (F)
Protection/Threshold 18/6

Miscellaneous Data:

Maneuver: +1C, +0H, +4T
Traits:Flaws: Vulnerable System(Sensors), Design Defect (Warp Drive, Sensors). Edges: Pulse Upgrade, ACB Jacketing

[Snake_Plissken]

you can only have one penetration value per weapon type.

[JonA]

Could you clarify?

Realistically you can't consider micro torpedoes to have the same penetration as full size torpedos can you?

As for the the phasers the penetration values are for the Type XII banks and the Type XI pulse banks.

And where exactly is that rule that states you can only have one type of phaser array and one type of torpedo launcher.

The Achilles has six dorsal mounted micro launchers for bombardment purposes as well as three standard torpedo launchers (two on the saucer section and one aft) for more firepower. Ditto for the phasers. It has two standard phaser banks on the top of saucer section and another two on the underside. The ship also has two pulse phaser arrays on the saucer section.

So I can't see why you shouldn't have multiple penetration values if your using different phaser arrays/launchers on the same vessel.

[Sea Tyger]

Snake is right. Using your numbers, your missile penetration would be (based on a 36 offense) 7/7/7/7/7.

Now, since you're only able to launch quantum torpedoes out of Mk75 of better torpedo launchers, your Quantum penetration would only be based on 30 offense, or a penetration of 7/7/7/7/7. Which means that you need to decide if you want to keep those 6 micro torp launchers...or get rid of them and save the space.

[Snake_Plissken]

The system, as Don often points out, is abstract. That means when you calculate a weapon system's OV (either beams or torpedoes) you add up all of the individual systems' (like the Cardassian C-GDM-1 disruptor or the Federation Type VIII phaser) OV for a SINGLE OV factor for the whole weapon category (either beams or torpedoes)

in this case you have:

phasers:

Type XII x 4 - OV: 11 x 4
Type XI x 2 - OV: 11 x 2

total OV: 66, which on table 1.18 gives you a penetration value of: 7/7/6/0/0

you bought the pulse trait, which modifies the penetration value to: 8/6/5/0/0

torpedoes:

Mk25 micro x 6 - OV: 1 x 6
Mk 95 DF x 3 - OV: 10 x 3

total OV: 36, which on table 1.18 gives you a penetration value of: 7/7/7/7/7. However you made them quantum torpedoes so you use the last column giving a final penetration value of 8/8/8/8/8

[JonA]

Originally posted by Snake_Plissken
The system, as Don often points out, is abstract. That means when you calculate a weapon system's OV (either beams or torpedoes) you add up all of the individual systems' (like the Cardassian C-GDM-1 disruptor or the Federation Type VIII phaser) OV for a SINGLE OV factor for the whole weapon category (either beams or torpedoes)

in this case you have:

phasers:

Type XII x 4 - OV: 11 x 4
Type XI x 2 - OV: 11 x 2

total OV: 66, which on table 1.18 gives you a penetration value of: 7/7/6/0/0

you bought the pulse trait, which modifies the penetration value to: 8/6/5/0/0

torpedoes:

Mk25 micro x 6 - OV: 1 x 6
Mk 95 DF x 3 - OV: 10 x 3

total OV: 36, which on table 1.18 gives you a penetration value of: 7/7/7/7/7. However you made them quantum torpedoes so you use the last column giving a final penetration value of 8/8/8/8/8

Far enough but the design for this type of vessel (and I've ripped it off from another Star Trek game which obviously will be incompatible with the Starship design system created by Decipher) means I've had to take some liberties with the design process.

To be honest I think your sticking to the rules too religiously and letting it impact on the design.

The Achilles' main feature is it's "Phalanx" array of micro torpodo launchers but it also has main torpedo launchers for more heavy ordanance. Given what you're saying about working out two offensive values (one for Beam and one for Missile weapons) doesn't work for this design so i've discarded it. I can't accept that I add the offensive value of both the micro torpedo launchers and the Mk 95 units. That means that when my CO decides to let loose a barrage of micro torpedos they do the same damage as the larger torpedos.

Sorry, no chance. In order for me to realistically show the difference in ordanance I decided to work out penetration levels seperately for the two type of missile launchers used.

Same goes for my phaser array. I specifically wanted there to be two seperate phaser systems (your traditional beam emitters) and a pulse system. The reason, it's a warship, and therefore it needs to have as many different ways of delivering different damage.

I understand that most ships have one type of phaser array and one type of missile launcher and I therefore see the design system is sadly lacking in allowing for different types of systems to be integrated.

You design your starships your way. I can't see any real flaws in my design (aside from I've not designed it religiously using the rules and made some allowances for the intent of the ship) that will make starship combat not work.

My opinion.

By all means visit h

http://www.simonsays.com/dominionwars_site/Frameset.htm

and then design version and show me your version of the Achilles and we'll see how they compare.

[Snake_Plissken]

and I've ripped it off from another Star Trek game which obviously will be incompatible with the Starship design system created by Decipher

-not necessarily.

To be honest I think your sticking to the rules too religiously and letting it impact on the design.

-It's your game; you're allowed to change as many or as little of the rules as you see fit. Within the standard CODA starship rules your design doesn't fit.

I can't accept that I add the offensive value of both the micro torpedo launchers and the Mk 95 units. That means that when my CO decides to let loose a barrage of micro torpedos they do the same damage as the larger torpedos.

-Again, its an abstract system. You only fire either beam weapons or missile weapons or sometimes both, in a very generalized fashion. The spirit of the system isn't about firing the ventral aft port type IX phaser at that Dominion ship in the aft arc. If you want that kind of detail you'll need to seriously rework the rules. I'd suggest instead that you use wargame rules for starship combat in your RPG sessions. I can suggest easily either Full Thrust or Starmda, the latter being a very easy port to Star Trek RPGing. In this instance, why would you want to fire micro-torps when the quantum torps are more powerful? Also firing on different ships, different weapon systems together, or different weapon systems together at several opponents constitute either Multifire (T), Multiweapon (T) or Full Attack (C) maneuvers which are covered in the NG.

and I therefore see the design system is sadly lacking in allowing for different types of systems to be integrated.

-the system is, by far and to the very best of my knowledge, the best starship combat system ever designed for a RPG. By a long shot. On top of that, IMVHO it perfectly captures the flavor of ST starship combat AND also manages to bypass all the self-imposed neo-canon precepts that would ruin the 'tightness' of the system.

I think you really need a wargame.

I can't see any real flaws in my design

-my view is that a ship design is only 'correct' or 'wrong' solely based on the author's intent. I was merely pointing out that it was 'wrong' from a rule-wise perspective.

[JonA]

Originally posted by Snake_Plissken
-

The spirit of the system isn't about firing the ventral aft port type IX phaser at that Dominion ship in the aft arc. If you want that kind of detail you'll need to seriously rework the rules.

But the current system isn't very descriptive or exciting is it? But I see what you mean. I've tried to develop to specific a design based upon the established design of a vessel including the varying systems. I'll adjust my design in my original post to reflect the rules.

-

-the system is, by far and to the very best of my knowledge, the best starship combat system ever designed for a RPG. By a long shot. On top of that, IMVHO it perfectly captures the flavor of ST starship combat AND also manages to bypass all the self-imposed neo-canon precepts that would ruin the 'tightness' of the system.

And as for combat I agree, it's very quick, simple and effective. What I'm talking about is the starship design rules. I just think that the system could be easily tweaked to allow more creativity in what weapons you stuff into your design.

As for why would I want the micro launchers then visit the write up on this class on the link I provided. It explains the reasoning behind having both Quantum launchers and micro-quantum launchers.

[Snake_Plissken]

and then design version and show me your version of the Achilles and we'll see how they compare.

PRODUCTION DATA

Origin: Federation
Class and type: Achilles-Class Heavy Cruiser
Year launched: 2371

HULL DATA

Structure: 40
Size/decks: 8/21
Length/Height/Beam: 621/153/282
Complement: 295

OPERATION DATA

Transporters: 8 standard 8 emergency
Cargo units: 80
Shuttlebay: 1 A
Shuttlecraft: 8 size worth
Tractor beams: 1 FV
Sensor system: Class 4 (+4/E)
Operations system: Class 4 (E)
Life support: Class 3R (DD)

PRODUCTION DATA

Impulse system: FIG-7 (0.95c/D)
Warp system: LF-41 (6/9.2/9.6/D)

Tactical data

Beam primary: Type XI (x5/E)
Penetration: 7/5/5/0/0
Missile primary: Mk95 (x2/E)
Penetration: 6/6/6/6/6 (quantum)
Deflector shield: FSS
Protetcion/treshold: 17/5

MISCELLANEOUS DATA

Maneuver modifiers: C +2 H +0 T +2

EDGES AND FLAWS

Pulse weapon upgrade; monotanium plating


edit: removed micro-torps

[buck rogers]

How about doing the stats for the Cardassian Dreadnaught, the Hutet -class. That ship looked pretty cool.

[JonA]

:')

No fair.

Looks like i'll be using your design.

I'm gonna give up trying to design starships now.

[JonA]

Originally posted by buck rogers
How about doing the stats for the Cardassian Dreadnaught, the Hutet -class. That ship looked pretty cool.

Yeah,

Just don't ask me. I can't design starships for toffee.

[Snake_Plissken]

I'll adjust my design in my original post to reflect the rules.

Why? If that's how you conceive the ship to be then by all means you post it the way you want. Some people, like I do, may point out what is wrong rule-wise not to nitpick but to help the designer. I'm sure that if you go over some of my posted designs you'll find your share of mistakes. You mentionned earlier that I followed the rules 'religiously'. I don't. For instance I often give myself an allotment of 5 extra space 'freebie' pts if I want to do a canon design but I'm tight on space. I also use the definition of fighters differently and I also fiddle with the size requirements or the availability dates.

No fair.

Looks like i'll be using your design.

I'm gonna give up trying to design starships now

Again why? I never said my design was better than yours, it is merely different. I like moderation in my ships, must be my wargaming background. That's all. Different, not better.

Just don't ask me. I can't design starships for toffee.

No-one said that. Why don't you give the Hutet a try?

[Snake_Plissken]

ah you see nobody's perfect as I probably made a mistake with my version of the Achilles.

According to the rules I'm pretty sure I can't pick micro torps and quantum-capable launchers and combine their OV together under the quantum column.

OTOH, the two Mk95 launchers' combined OV is 20 so the 4 micro-torp launchers didn't change anything in the OV bracket and were only added as 'text flavoring'.

anyways...

[buck rogers]

You should listen to snake. Everybody has there own style for building ships. I have designed ships from Babylon 5, Battlestar Galactica, Star Wars, heck I even did the Jupiter 2 (both versions), and the Discovery One from 2001. I did it out of curiosity and bordem, but they make great alien starships to encounter. Anyway lets face it if the "real" Star Trek visual effects people can reuse their ships over and over why can't we use ships from other Sci-Fi universes? Back to the point I encourage you keep designing ship JonA, and look forward to seeine that Hutet-class dreadnaught