| Freighter crewing It always struck me odd on why Starfire freighters need as much crew as a warship of similar size. The only reason I could think of was the influence exerted by merchant marine unions, making the shipowners hire on more crew than necessary for the purpose of 'redundancy' and satisfying 'governmental safety regulations.' While some civilizations will have some reason to max out freighter crews others, looking at the bottom line, will want to minimize costs (especially crew pay and insurance) as much as possible. Instead of the triple capacity of a freighter's quarters for the crew I had my freighter designs needing only 1/3 as much crew as a warship of the same size. This reflects the automation process that's more feasible for a freighter than for a warship. A freighter is, after all, a huge mobile warehouse that needs little in the way of maintenance. You just have the command crew, engineering, and cargo specialists. The leftover crew quarters capacity can be used for marines, passengers, spare crew and for holding lifepods survivors. Also SY, SYM and MS modules on freighter hulls carry their own crew and don't count against the life-support of said freighters. Freighters and External Racks I followed the rule regarding the limit of XO racks on freighters (one per ten hull spaces, rounded down). This can be seen as a result of the strength of the freighter's hull. It can also be the result of the limits on a freighter's fire control system, or the fact that any more racks would block cargo hatches and interfere with efficient transshipping of cargo. Gunboat racks I treated different. They're sufficiently small enough (space-wise) to be mounted normally and not interfere with the regular functions of a freighter. This also makes large freighters useful as gunboat carriers, either for self-defense or for bringing complete squadrons forward for fleet replacements. Fighter, Armed
Pinnace, and Gunboat designators
* Applied to all subsequent
generation models.
** The Axis also developed the Escort Shuttle and designated them Stilettos. $ In the latter part of the Pulurtan War the Gander developed the AFSC3 & 4 and gave it the designation of Crusader. $$ Y'huv AFSC2s were called Wildebeest. The Gander Scorpion class of
gunboats was not named after the arachnid but for an
ancient land weapon that fire large metal-tipped wooden
bolts.
Hamthen AFSC were called Gars. The Ahlon used Gyst designations for their fighters and small craft, except for AFSC, which were called Needles. Dran figthers were labeled Duelists. Cazov 2nd gen assault shuttles (3rdedR) were called Hailstones. Ghern (former Sunrise Hegemony) had AFSC at the end of the Pulurtan War and called them Thunderbolts. Axis AFSC are called Dirks. Hazen AFSC are called Lancers. List of missile types used
by the major races and their allies in the Pulurtan War.
All ship-mounted missile types have HAWK (h) guidance. Note that (j) won't work in sprint mode.
HBM-1s, on both sides, were phased out of production once HBM-2s arrived in quantity. Pulurtan OWPs continued to use them for some time. The demands of the front often had rear-area OWPs send their HBM-1s forward. In turn these units were slowly restocked with the newer HBM-2s. For the CPS, the HBM-1s continued to be used by their Ghidran class DNs as well as all of the OWPs. Being on the bottom end to receive HBM-2s, the Ghidrans even got the HBM-1s from OWPs resupplied with HBM-2s. By the end of the war the typical Ghidran still had 50% HBM-1s in its magazines. The CBM continued to be used by the CSF after the introduction of the ERBM. Deployed on units that had just box launchers for their secondary battery, the CBM would be used in loiter mode until the firing unit was in capital missile range. Third generation missile pods, equipped with CBMs, were the pods of choice when carried by CSF warships. The lower stowage requirement and volley size made up for their shorter range. CSF units equipped with Wca initially carried a 75-25 mix of ERBM and CBMs. This arrangement allowed for full magazines at each maintenance cycle. After the war's sixth year all Wca units had just ERBMs, reflecting the increase capability of the CSF economy and industrial capability. Population Sizes Here's the in-house chart used to define typical population sizes in the Terp/Fen campaign.
Environmental Remediation and Terraforming, or How Many Garbage Bags To Clean The Planet In the campaign there came a time where the players had more money than they knew what to do with. After building Nth fleet after Nth fleet the spacemaster came up with ways for the players to put some of their spare change to use. The first of these was environmental remediation (ER). When a planet's population is bombarded to extinction, whether it's an outpost or in the billions, there's going to be some residual hazards for anyone intending to move in. Until some hazards are removed all of new population's revenue would go for perpetual decontamination. Additionally, population growth is impossible until all the hazards are removed. For example, a TL 3 outpost is emplaced on a type T planet that had a HT 4 colony wiped out by bombardment. With an EVM of 16 the outpost won't be able to generate revenue for export until 16 EVM points of the former colony's 67 points have been 'cleaned up'. It still can't naturally grow into a colony, but transfer of population is still allowed. In this example, the colony could only utilize 16 of its 51 EVM points for export. Until the remaining 51 EVM points are detoxified the colony can't naturally grow into a settlement. EVM points are remediated at a rate of 100 MC per point. Each point takes 1D10 months to be recovered. Any number of EVM points can be remediated at any one time, but each point is rolled separately for recovery. If damage was done by neutron warheads the cost is 50 MC per point. However, if the damage was inflicted by LTD 'dirty warheads' the cost is 300 MC per point. ER isn't necessary for populations based on O1 and O2 worlds and asteroids. Given the inherent conditions such populations, already used to functioning in hostile environments and living in relatively close proximity, can locate themselves on uncontaminated areas or colonize a new asteroid. Terraforming is used to make a harsh world into a benign one for the race inhabiting it. The requirements is a population of at least colony size. Initial cost is 20,000 MC plus 2,000 MC per month. While terraforming the population isn't producing EVM and can't conduct research. For each shift of a planet's habitability index (HI) in the direction of the inhabiting race's benign HI range roll one D10 and multiply the result by 1.5 (FRU). This is the number of months required for each shift in HI. If payment is disrupted for up to three months the process can be resumed for a fee of 10,000 MC. If the disruption is greater than three months then the process has to start from scratch. Given the fundamental differences between T and ST type worlds a native T race can't terraform a ST planet into a T-like world for its own use. Vise-versa for a native ST race. They can, however, terraform such worlds so that they can be amiable to races that can use them without penalty. Prime Movers - Imperial Freighters and Colony Transports In regards to cargo hold requirement for population transfers more is better. Carrying the most in the least number of hulls is better as well, resulting in lower maintenance costs. Imperial Freighters
for Colonization
If speed isn't a concern then go with the speed 3 FT4 design. For easier book keeping go with the speed 4 FT4. The FT8 and FT9 designs are practically identical in 1000 hold upkeep costs. It all depends if you want the option of being able to land on planets. The above designs are also useful as imperial freighters carrying trade goods. Just remove the appropriate number of holds to enlarge the shuttle bay. Colony Transports
This time around the best choices are the FT5 and FT8/FT9. The FT5 has the speed while the FT9 has overall lower maintenance. The FT8 does have the utility of landing on planets in its favor. Missile Defense Against Gunboats
* listed for effect against
large units. (L) = laser damage
** destroys fighters/small units normally but does 1 point damage to large units w/o an active drive field What it all boils down to is capability and cost. AFMs suffer no penalty engaging gunboats but have no penetration aids and are costly. The long-range AFMc2 is the most expensive missile on the list, save the Lt4 armed ERBM. For purposes of example let's set the stage at TL 15. With a typical squadron of 5 GB2s there are 5 Dxe with 6 shots each and the capability of combining three shots (10 max each with a 9 in 10 chance to intercept in this case) against one missile. Under the best conditions the maximum amount of EM any one gunboat could generate would be -4 (each gunboat carrying one f?4 w/five points and three points from movement). The intended target has a !4 and (Mi4), thus negating the penalties. Waiting until the optimum range of 13 is achieved, the target will have to fire at least 13 AFMs, trusting to the law of averages that 10 of those missiles to lock on. With 10 missiles and 10 tripled-up intercept rolls the odds of one getting through is 10%. Price-wise those 13 AFM4s equal 52mc, almost half the cost of a GB2. For the full saturation of 30 at least 38 AFMs would have to be fired for a cost of 152mc, 125% the cost of a GB2. From a cost angle firing as few missiles as possible to achieve the desired result. is desireable. Firing regular missiles at gunboats incurs a -3 penalty to the to-hit roll. To achieve the best results the missiles will again have to be fired at their optimum range. In the case of the capital missile that's a range of 18 hexes. Using the aforementioned conditions a minimum of 20 CMs would have to be fired to get the required 10 to lock on. With their own built-in EM the CMs stand a better chance; each of the ten missiles will have 20% of getting through. The odds get better if missile penetration aids are used, increasing to 30 and 40% with AMP1 and AMP2 respectively. Cost-wise its far cheaper than AFMs. 20 CMs with AMP2 cost 11.25mc. The downside is storage for the 20 CMs need a little over three times the magazine space than the 13 AFMs would require. Using Lt2-equipped CMs would increase the required number by 25 and the cost to 25mc but at least the missiles would still be able to damage units equipped with anti-laser armor. The advent of second-generation shape charge warheads offers a cheaper and more space efficient option. A second generation standard missile with AMP2 and SWC2 cost 0.9mc and is -2 for point defense to intercept. Like the AFM the SM2 maximum optimum range is 13 hexes. 20 missiles would be fire to achieve the required (average) 10 lock-ons. With all five Dxe fully committed each of those ten missiles has a 30% chance of success. It's a bargain for the price of 18mc, equaling 4.5 AFMs and just 15% the cost of a GB2. Higher up the scale is SM-Lt4. Each missile costs 3.2mc and has a -1 penalty to-hit, but benefits from being able to fully damage anti-laser armor and having a -3 for point defense to intercept. Anti-Laser Armor Layering Since damage is variable for most laser weapons this section will focus on the effects of a point-blank hits from fighter hetlasers (4), the regular laser buoy (3), Lt-3 (3) and Lt-4 (4) armed capital missiles and Lt-4 (2) armed standard missile 2.
Intrasystem Travel, or How Long Until The Next Bus Though it's not a factor in the game, I often wonder about small craft service in a system, especially those with bases guarding warp points as far as 300 light-minutes from a primary. For sake of example, let's place a habitable world in this system, at a distance of 15 LMs from the primary (the outer edge of the biosphere of a white star) and on opposite side from the warp point. A cutter moving at its cruising speed of 0.05c, and with a full load of passengers, only has a range of 144 LMs. Fully loaded shuttles, assault shuttles, and second generation assault shuttles move at a cruising speed of 0.067c have a range of 288 LMs. Pinnaces and second generation pinnaces at full load and with the same cruising speed have a range of 384 LMs. For our stoic warp point defenders, taking their rotation for planet-side R&R and duty assignments, this means using a shuttle since the majority of the time a shuttle will have enough life support for the distance involved. On those times when the destination planet is just out of range you'll need a small space station to serve as a way-point to recharge life support. The smallest station would be this - Hs(BbS)Qs 2.5 hull 33mc/0.7mc. For more utility change the BbS to a BbL, increasing the cost to 48mc/1mc, 4.5 hull. Far and away its cheaper in the long run than using the smallest and least-expensive personnel transport vessel, a 5-space type 0 freighter - (2)H(Lh)Q(Ic)(4) w/AC 39mc/3mc. In a system, especially those with multiple warp points, one can envisage a small constellation of the above mentioned micro space stations. This is especially true if direct travel between warp points is desired. At the far end of the spectrum you have warp points separated by as much as 600 light-minutes distance. For fully-loaded cutters you'll need four such stations, placed 120 LMs apart. Shuttles will need only two at 200 LM intervals while the long-legged pinnace will need only one at the 300 LM mark. This can also be applied to starless warp nexuses if one uses pinnaces to travel between systems. The Old Laser For its current incarnation in Starfire the shipboard laser became more useful at the lower tech levels. With a reach of twelve tactical hexes, doing three hits of damage at range of 1 and less, the laser dominates the field of battle until the introduction of the force beam. However, I think its a bit too powerful for a high-frontier industrial level race to have. It trounces the basic gun launcher for reach, has three-fourths the range of a basic missile and is more accurrate than a basic missile at all ranges. The range-12 laser should be made a Tech Level 2 system were it would fit perfectly alongside the standard missile, gun launcher, and gun/missile launcher. The old range-8 laser is a better balance for IND-2 and Tech Level 1. Both in range and effect it suits the tactical environment as well as technical sophistication of its development. To differentiate it from the improved L the old system should be designated Ln, the lower case 'n' signifying its industrial origins. Damage would be 2 from ranges of 0 to 3 and 1 from 4 to 8. It would still retain the range to engage fighters/small craft and be used in minesweeping. Unit cost would be 25mc and development cost 3000mc. 2nd Generation Pinnace and Assault Shuttle - Red Headed Stepchildren As small craft go the 2nd Generation Pinnace (pn2) and Assault Shuttle (ast2) are the red headed stepchildren of the Starfire universe. For starters, I believe the pn2 is misnamed and is actually a second generation armed pinnace. As it stand the pn2 gains 10 XO racks at the cost of some cargo carrying capacity. With that logic, why not devote all the cargo space to XO racks instead of just some of it? Since these XO racks make the pn2 into a 6 boat-bay point craft you might as well go and give it a fighter laser and remove the cargo and personnel capability. A more appropraite pn2 is one with an enhanced point defense and life support capability. Then there's the ast2. For double the boat bay points you get a craft that has 5 XO racks and an improved point defense mount in addition to its personnel and cargo capability. Being unable to warp transit and actually diminishing the number of assault shuttles that could be carried the ast2 isn't cost and space efficient. A logical increase in point defense sophistication and life support is more appropriate. If using the boarding combat rules from Crusade then these two craft make sense. Carrying marines and armed with external ordnance to take down shields Back to Terp/Fend Index Back to Front Page |