Wing Commander RPG

Good Monday, Wingnuts. Time for the weekly WCRPG update.

This last week was a fairly rough one. I lost two full days to work on account of my son being fairly ill (ill enough to warrant his pediatrician ordering chest x-rays to check for pneumonia after flu and strep tests came back negative; no pneumonia as it turned out, just a particularly severe upper respiratory infection). As a result, I spent the entirety of what week I had available in Chapter 6.2.3 (and by extension, Chapter 7.2.2). Monday saw the completion of the initial accessories list in 6.2.3, though I've since been back through the notes I have on Privateer and Privateer 2 and noticed some things that were missing, so I'll eventually need to go back and add them to the list. I also continued to tweak the Weapons Station accessory; I've not yet responded to starfox1701's last post on his battleship and I seriously need to do so at this point. I'll say there were some suggestions I liked and some that I didn't, and have been working accordingly. Monday also saw initial rules for gun enhancements for capital ships and a correction to the AAA/SAM module. Tuesday I worked on Guns, work that carried over to Wednesday. On Wednesday, I moved over the information I'd gathered on capship guns to 7.2.2 and decided to begin correcting the Wake-class example in 7.2 (a dumb move as it turned out). Wednesday also saw initial work on the "light ordnance" table (missiles and mines), which is still not complete as of today. Thursday and Friday were the days I lost, though Friday did see some work done on the "heavy ordnance" table (torpedoes and capship missiles, with some work on special weaponry). I was able to finish the heavy ordnance table on Saturday, and finalized the number of entries in the light ordnance table yesterday evening.

One milestone that was reached (inadvertently, mind you) this last week was the creation of the first WC universe vehicle using the game's vehicle creation procedure. I need to determine a price for Manned Insertion Pods, and I figured the best way to do that would be to go ahead and create the spamcan as a vehicle. It didn't take me very long to do and in the end I got a price of roughly 1,640,000 credits, comparable but cheaper than most of the other heavy ordnance in the game.

Work in 6.2.3 is getting fairly close to completion at this point. What's left to do is to finish filling in the data on the light ordnance table, make any final corrections or additions to the accessories table, copy over the relevant sections to 7.2.2, and start work on the non-starfaring vehicle weapons section. 7.2.2 will need the information copied over from 6.2.3 and the addition of a few more Guns. It will also need a review of the Pods and Bonuses sections. Once 7.2.2 is finished, I'll need to go back over both the vehicle and capship creation chapters to make sure nothing significant has changed and I will most definitely need to rework both example vehicles. After that point, though, I can begin populating the craft catalogs.

Unfortunately, because I decided to start working on the Wake-class example again and did not finish, 7.2 was sent back to Draft status this week, and with no chapters finished, that means a net loss to the game's completion status. Hopefully that can be rectified by the end of this week.

WCRPG sits at 70.91% complete as of this morning.
 
Almost there, starfox1701...I need to rework my Wake-class example in 7.2 and the Rapier-I example in 6.2, but after that I should be able to give your battleship another crack. Pretty sure the prices I've got for pretty much everything are too low at the moment, which is one of the things I want to check. But it's about the only thing; the non-starfaring weaponry in 6.2.3 can wait for the moment.
 
Yep. Nice things about fan projects...you have as much time as you need.

The re-work of the Rapier-I example is going well. Hit a snag yesterday but I think I know how I'm going to smooth it out.
 
Alright y'all...I'll put it to you: the price of the Wake-class at 11,999,007,600 credits. Too high? Too low? What do y'all think?

For reference and with the conversion factor I've been using, that would equate to USD 55,795,385,340. That's about ten times the cost of a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier, and it's still less than the 73 billion credit price quote Bandit LOAF gave me when I was starting this project out for a full fleet carrier.

Now to get back to that battleship...
 
Well the cost of thing is highly dependent on energy prices. From the tech standpoint starships arn't heavily dependent on refuling and they have fusion tech so things should actualy be fairly cheap compairitivly. I supose it would also depend on where the ship is built. I would imagine that a Wake built in the UOBW would cost more then on built in the ConFed core.
 
Probably all true...I'll put it a different way; the 12 billion credit cost is solely for the construction and outfitting (including the fighter compliment) of a Wake-class built at a Confederation shipyard. Cost of fuel has not been figured into it at all.

The conversion rate WCRPG uses is $4.65 per credit; lemme throw that out there before someone asks that question.
 
Alright. I think I'm finally ready to respond to this message. Long post ahead; fair warning.

I think you may be on to somthing but is see a few problems.
first
3. TORPEDO - specifically for heavy ordnance or specialized equipment.
ok this is a bit to ambigous. There is the problem that these weapons can very widly in size and that will effect the number of rounds that fit in a given volume of space alot. How about this

3. TORPEDO - Heavy antiship/antistation missiles
4. CAPITAL SHIP MISSILES - Massive weapons with standoff range and onboard target aquisition gear. (TAG) Theas can attack the surface of planets too.
5. MINES - Stand alone ordinace with limited movement capabilities and sofisticated TAG. These are normaly used as area denial weapons or as part of fixed fortifactions.
6. SPECIAL - specifically for anything that's not a gun, missile, mine, or torpedo.

Okay, I'll grant you that calling it "torpedo" is ambiguous. I'm not thrilled about the idea of having so many subdivisions, however...

Let's try this:

2. LIGHT ORDNANCE - for missiles and mines
3. HEAVY ORDNANCE - for torpedoes and capship missiles
4. SPECIAL - for non-projectile weaponry. Considering making this for heavier guns as well, such as the capship plasma and PTC.

That's the set I've got in the current revision anyway, and it seems to work pretty well. I simply limit Capship missiles to capital ships and group them in with heavy torpedoes, and wrangle missiles and mines together.

The second problem is here
ARC COVERAGE
1. HARDPOINT (only type available in the Metal Age) - single weapon gun/missile only. Guns can only fire directly ahead.
2. SPONSON - Weapon covers a single combat arc.
3. BARBETTE - Weapon covers two arcs.
4. LIMITED TURRET - Weapon covers three arcs.
5. TURRET - Weapon covers all four arcs.
None of these trems have anything to do with arc coverage. Most are literally all types of gun mounts. That said mount type is also important info important and needed information. Limited turrets should be droped because this is a kind of open armored vehical turret and thay arn't used anymore because they compromise crew protection. Barbette should be droped from the list because it means the same thing as sponson in old termanology and in for modern naval weapons means this

In warships from the age of the dreadnought forward, the barbette is the non-rotating drum beneath the rotating gun turret (properly known as the "gunhouse") and above the armoured >deck on a warship. It forms the protection for the upper ends of the hoists that lift shells and their propelling charges (e.g. cordite) from the magazines below

Well, I kinda like this terminology. Yes, I understand that they all refer to different turret types, but going with a set of specific terms lets a GM know at a glance what kind of firing arc a weapon will have

For the record, there's second definition of a barbette (the next paragraph down in the same Wikipedia article you quoted); that's the one I was going with:

When applied to military aircraft, largely in aviation history books written in British English, a barbette is a position on an aircraft where a gun, or guns, are in a mounting which has a restricted arc of fire when compared to a turret, or which is remotely mounted away from the gunner. As such it is frequently used to describe the tail gunner position on bombers such as the B-17 Flying Fortress, with American English aviation books usually describing this position as a "flexible" gun mount, when the term "turret" itself is not used.

Tubes in Privateer were used as a housing for missiles in addition to acting as a launcher; I need them to act as a magazine type to keep consistent with that usage.

More than anything, though, I want to use the terms I've selected for added flavor.

Now we still need to sort out the firing arcs. Now I agree with the decision to limit th gunfire to 2D. I spent about 2 years back in the 90's trying to make Star Fleet Battles a 3D game and gave up because I concluded that a CGI enviroment was th only place you could do somthing like that and keep the game playable. That said you are still going to need more then 5 arc definitions. The arc of a weapon really shouldn't effect the cost. This is because the mount type determines the mobility of the gun to chase tragets; however it is the physical location of the weapon the determins how much of the sky it can actually see. Fireing arc definitions are tied heavily to the movement system. This is because movement determins where the target ends up in relation to the gun. So How exactly are the ships going to move? Is it a hex based system like most, or somthing more free form? At any rate each gun mount will have to have the arc assigned individualy based on mount loaction. Here are some examples.


ARC COVERAGE
1. F - Front the 60 degree arc defined by the hex in front of the ship.
2. A - Aft the 60 degree arc defined by the hex behind the ship
3. LF - Left Front the 60 degree arc to the front and left of the ship.
4. RF - Right Front the 60 degree arc to the front and right of the ship.
5. LA - Left Aft the 60 degree arc to the back and left of the ship.
6. RA - Right Aft the 60 degree arc to the back and right of the ship.
7. HEM - Hemisphereical 180 degree arc. thes can be centered on 1 of the 6 60 degree (also called primary) arcs or the left or right in which case the edge is along the ships centerline.
8. OTS - Over the Shoulder 300 degree arc centered on 1 of the primary arcs and can fire into all other arcs except the 1 directly opposite the centered arc.
9. C - Center very narrow arc only covering the hex row down the center of 1 of the primary arcs.
10. S - Side 120 degree arc centered on the ships left of right side.
11. 360 - 360 degree arc.
Examples in use.
FHEM - Front hemisphere
LAOTS - Left aft over the shoulder
AC - Aft centerline
RS - Right side

Well......the combat system is set up so that a player group can choose how they want to handle it. Movement (and therefore shooting) are dependent upon the grid type selected, either a physical grid (which makes combat like D&D), an abstract grid (which makes combat more like a miniatures game), or no grid (which makes combat more like what you see in early video RPGs like Dragon Warrior or Final Fantasy I). For the physical grid, the default is an orthogonal grid. I have tried to put in rules for hex grids if that's what players prefer to use (largely because I've been playing TacOps and the hex grid has grown on me a bit), but for the most part, the rules assume the use of the orthogonal grid. Starfleet Command III, instead of Starfleet Command I/SFB.

The general combat system rules are here. The sub-Chapters of Chapter Nine that follow handle the specifics for the various scales of combat, with Capital Ship combat handled in Chapter 9.4. Those rules are complete, though I have in recent days had reason to consider revising them a bit; notably, rules for combat in asteroids and minefields is missing, as are the rules for commodity dropping when pirates/transports are destroyed. I also like the idea of weapons being able to fire into "hemispheres", though that's going to take some rather substantial tweaking to implement.

The other thing about the weapons stations is that I will be extending them to vehicles (actually, it's the other way around - I will be extending the vehicle weapons stations to capital ships). Vehicles and capital ships are largely treated the same way by the game, with capital ships being a very specialized form of space vehicle. So the same terminology will have to apply to both.

What I can offer is a compromise for those who want to use a hex grid, and say each type of mounting can cover a certain number of degrees. The more I gave this issue thought, the more I realized something like this is actually required. I mean, you have a choice of orthogonal or hexagonal grids, which means there needs to be a system in place to handle both types of grids...

So, with that in mind, the Arc Coverage (flavor text) becomes:

1. HARDPOINT (only type available in the Metal Age) - single weapon gun/missile only. Guns can only fire directly ahead (up to a ten degree cone).
2. SPONSON - Weapon covers a single combat arc (between 10-90 degrees).
3. BARBETTE - Weapon covers two arcs (between 91-180 degrees).
4. LIMITED TURRET - Weapon covers three arcs (between 181-270 degrees).
5. TURRET - Weapon covers all four arcs (between 271-360 degrees).

Armored Dual Gun Sponson x 32 ((10 Port, 10 Starboard; Mass Driver), (6 Fore, 6 Aft; Neutron Gun))
Hex Missile Turret, Double Bank x 2 (12 ImRec, 12 IFF each, standard) Mag size is a guess, and I still haven't been able to figure out just what a "CASE" system is supposed to be.
Armored Dual Gun Limited Turret x 16 ((8 Fore/Port/Aft; Antimatter Gun), (8 Fore/Starboard/Aft; Antimatter Gun))
Armored Triple Gun Turret x 9 (<final heavy gun selection>)

Again, let me know if I've got a mistake here. Does this whole thing sound like something that'd work better than what I have now?
Ok so there are a few changes

Weapons Station x 63

1. Armored Dual Gun Turrets x 32 [(10 LHEM, 10 RHEM; Mass Drivers), ( 6 FHEM, 6 AHEM; Neutron Guns)]
2. Hex AA Missile Launchers, Double Bay CASE x 2 (360; 100 ImRec, 100 IFF each, standard) CASE stands for Cellular Amunition Storage Equipment. It is for containing ammo explosions in the magazine. It blows all the explosive force out into space. The army uses it on tanks and the navy on AEGIS ships. The magazine is destroyed but the ship and the weapon system survive.
3. Armored Dual Gun Turret x 16 [(8 LHEM; AMG), (8 RHEM; AMG)]
4. Armored Triple Gun Turret x 9 [( 5 FOTS, TBD), (2 LHEM+A, TBD), (2 RHEM+A, TBD)]

I think we getting closer What do you think of the changes?

Okay...so now that I've adjusted the system again, here's what we would wind up with:

Weapons Station x 63
-Armored Dual Gun Sponson x 32, 20cm Armor [41,600]
-Portside Hemisphere x10; 180 degrees; Mass Driver, Heavy Long-Range (5/3/45), [100,000].
-Starboard Hemisphere x10; 180 degrees; Mass Driver, Heavy Long-Range (5/3/45), [100,000].
-Foreward Hemisphere x6; 180 degrees; Neutron Gun, Defensive (3/11/250), [300,000].
-Aft Hemisphere x6; 180 degrees; Neutron Gun, Defensive (3/11/250), [300,000].
-Armored Dual Gun Sponson x16, 50 cm Armor [50,800]
-Portside Hemisphere x8; 180 degrees; Antimatter Gun (Experimental) (1/8/300), [8,000,000]
-Starboard Hemisphere x8; 180 degrees; Antimatter Gun (Experimental) (1/8/300), [8,000,000]
-Armored Hex Light Ordnance Turret, Double Bank x2, 50 cm Armor [10,600]
-Turret x2; 360 degrees; Image Recognition, Civilian Grade x100 (6/9/170; Friend-or-Foe, Standard x100 (8/12/170), [350,000,000]
-Armored Triple Special Limited Turret x4, 50cm Armor [18,550]
-Portside Hemisphere + Aft x2; 225 degrees; Mass Driver Cannon, Very Heavy (Experimental) (2/25/1530) [3,300,000]
-Starboard Hemisphere + Aft x2; 225 degrees; Mass Driver Cannon, Very Heavy (Experimental) (2/25/1530) [3,300,000]
-Armored Triple Special Turret x5, 50 cm Armor [23,188]
-Forward; 300 degrees; Mass Driver Cannon, Very Heavy (Experimental) (2/25/1530) [8,250,000]

Total Weapons System Cost: 381,784,138 credits

This of course, assumes the Very Heavy Mass Driver for the main batteries. It turns out to be substantially cheaper than the Neutron Guns. I may need to adjust what you proposed for the heavy guns actually; you've got Mass Drivers stronger than Neutron Guns, when in universe its usually the other way around.

The "experimental" designation of some of the guns is a workaround for their service entry dates, a special case I'm making just for this ship. Simply put, those guns didn't exist prior to the TK war, and no other ship from the era has them (otherwise, Confed would likely be using them on other designs by the time of WC1).



Okay...so after all the adjustments, here's the final set of in-game statistics I was able to come up with:

====

Name: Montana/Vanguard-class Battleship (Proposed)
Service Date: 2630
Make: Medium Dreadnought
Size Class: 26 (a.b.b.v. 252,205,133.95 m^3)
Strength Index: 77,100
Cost: 23,634,270,280 credits
HD: 78/67/86
Initiative: +8 (Eighth Class Engine)
Maximum Speed: 150 kps (Primary), 35 kps (Auxiliary)
Combat Speed: 1 (Primary), 1/5 (Auxiliary)
SHP: 20,000 (Tenth Class Shields, Phase)
AHP: 9,250 (185 cm Titanium)
Crew/Passengers: 2345 Crew (39 Senior and Flag-Grade Officers; 78 Junior Officers, NCOs and WOs ; 2228 Enlisted) / 87 Passengers
  • Accommodations: 850 100 m^3 Staterooms
Cargo Capacity: 10,000 m^3
  • -Cargo Arrangement: 10,000 m^3 from chassis
Hangar Capacity: 2,051,200 m^3
  • Hangar Arrangement: 1,710,000 from accommodation space, 41,200 from cargo space, 300,000 from accessories
  • Fighter Compliment: 30 F-27/A Arrow-V Light Fighters, 2 Hermes Marine LCs + 8 large, 4 medium and 1 flag shuttle.
Weapons Stations: 63
  • Armored Dual Gun Sponson x 32, 20cm Armor
  • Portside Hemisphere x10; 180 degrees; Mass Driver, Heavy Long-Range (5/3/45)
  • Starboard Hemisphere x10; 180 degrees; Mass Driver, Heavy Long-Range (5/3/45)
  • Foreward Hemisphere x6; 180 degrees; Neutron Gun, Defensive (3/11/250) 24x25
  • Aft Hemisphere x6; 180 degrees; Neutron Gun, Defensive (3/11/250)
  • Armored Dual Gun Sponson x16, 50 cm Armor
  • Portside Hemisphere x8; 180 degrees; Antimatter Gun (Experimental) (1/8/300)
  • Starboard Hemisphere x8; 180 degrees; Antimatter Gun (Experimental) (1/8/300)
  • Armored Hex Light Ordnance Turret, Double Bank x2, 50 cm Armor
  • Turret x2; 360 degrees; Image Recognition, Civilian Grade x100 (6/9/170; Friend-or-Foe, Standard x100 (8/12/170)
  • Armored Triple Special Limited Turret x4, 50cm Armor
  • Portside Hemisphere + Aft x2; 225 degrees; Mass Driver Cannon, Very Heavy (Experimental) (2/25/1530)
  • Starboard Hemisphere + Aft x2; 225 degrees; Mass Driver Cannon, Very Heavy (Experimental) (2/25/1530)
  • Armored Triple Special Turret x5, 50 cm Armor
  • Forward; 300 degrees; Mass Driver Cannon, Very Heavy (Experimental) (2/25/1530)
Further Accessories and Pods: 41
  • Capship Systems Adapter
  • Backup Shield Generator Mount
  • Class Ten Shield
  • Hospital Module
  • ECM-3 Module
  • SWACS Module
  • Repair Bay Module
  • Aux Reactor Mount x1
  • Sixth Class Engine
  • Eighth Hangar Bay Module
  • Carrier Systems x4
  • Phase Shield Generator
  • Tractor Beam
  • Ramscoop
  • Tracking Computer
  • Inertial Target Tracking System
  • Expendable Pod Mount x22
  • Escape Pods x22 {2816 x 0.195 m^3}
Chassis Accessories: Ion Engine, Impulse Engine, Matter/Antimatter Reactor, Akwende Drive, External Docking Port x2.
Flaws/Bonuses: None
Notes: None

(Bleeding forum software won't let me keep any of my indentations, dammit. Sorry if it's not wholly readable).

====

Couple of quick notes, things I know you'll point out:

The name covers both possibilities. A Montana-class battleship has some historical significance; I had a Vanguard-class in SFRPG (and it too was an early era ship). So either name works; lemme know which one you finally decide upon.

The cost does not include the onboard fighter compliment; ordinarily it would.

Couldn't tell you how this ship's Strength Index rates against other ships, but that's mainly because I haven't done much of any yet. The SI of the Wake-class is 7,790, if that tells you anything.

The numbers given for the specific crew are comparable in proportion to those of an Iowa-class battleship. I didn't include the marine or fighter detachment complements, I just realized...

Accommodation Spaces can be set up to handle more than one person using the system as it stands. Stateroom size and larger can house up to three persons without the need to invoke "hot-bunking", which in-game would invoke a DC penalty on pretty much everything anyone might try to do. I know you mentioned a six-person capacity for the crew in your initial notes; this was the best I could do without having to invoke the penalty.

The complement of Arrow-Vs is in-universe; it's considered a "venerable design" by the time of WC3. These of course would probably be an earlier model with the speed of the later models (WC4) but crummy armament (ala Armada). The rest of the craft really don't exist in universe; those would need their own sets of stats.

The weapons stations for the ship's missiles are an approximation. Now that I understand what a CASE system is (it is something I'd heard of before, just not something I knew the name of), the way something like that would be set up in the system as it stands is with however many Armored Light Ordnance Turrets you would need for each individual missile, with no specified magazine size (i.e. a single missile per turret). There isn't enough available accessory space on this chassis for 400 such weapons stations, something I may need to address.

Accessories: the Capship Systems Adapter is specifically required for the Engines (150 kps is fast for a Medium Dreadnought chassis). The Backup Shield Generator Mount and corresponding second Class Ten Shield were necessary to get the shields up to the desired 2000 cm equivalent level. I switched to the Eighth Hangar Bay Module (from the Quarter) when I took another look at the desired fighter compliment (still can reduce the hangar space if you'd like, of course; there is one more smaller size module available and I've shoved a fair amount over from accommodations and cargo). Engines in-game refer to the "Engine System", and so include the individual reactors, piping, thrusters and so forth; the system does not track specific amounts of power production, just speed and fuel efficiency. That's why I switched things over to a single Auxiliary Reactor Mount; that single mount will cover the entire auxiliary system, with a Class Six Engine providing the indicated 25% performance.


For all the trouble this thing has given me, it's still just the first draft...lemme know if you want to make changes or if you have further questions. This has been a good test of how things are working so far if nothing else. I am liable to not work on this again today, of course (mainly because I haven't spent any time today working on the game itself).
 
Ok I have some concerns. I think you might be tring to make the system too genaric at the expence of realisum. I also think you might be piling to much on the GM in the current combat system. I'm used to table top systems which have much more ridged rules for these sorts of things. It helps to keep abuses to a minimum and speeds play along.


Weapons Stations: 63
  • Armored Dual Gun Sponson x 32, 20cm Armor
  • Portside Hemisphere x10; 180 degrees; Mass Driver, Heavy Long-Range (5/3/45)
  • Starboard Hemisphere x10; 180 degrees; Mass Driver, Heavy Long-Range (5/3/45)
  • Foreward Hemisphere x6; 180 degrees; Neutron Gun, Defensive (3/11/250) 24x25
  • Aft Hemisphere x6; 180 degrees; Neutron Gun, Defensive (3/11/250)
  • Armored Dual Gun Sponson x16, 50 cm Armor
  • Portside Hemisphere x8; 180 degrees; Antimatter Gun (Experimental) (1/8/300)
  • Starboard Hemisphere x8; 180 degrees; Antimatter Gun (Experimental) (1/8/300)
  • Armored Hex Light Ordnance Turret, Double Bank x2, 50 cm Armor
  • Turret x2; 360 degrees; Image Recognition, Civilian Grade x100 (6/9/170; Friend-or-Foe, Standard x100 (8/12/170)
  • Armored Triple Special Limited Turret x4, 50cm Armor
  • Portside Hemisphere + Aft x2; 225 degrees; Mass Driver Cannon, Very Heavy (Experimental) (2/25/1530)
  • Starboard Hemisphere + Aft x2; 225 degrees; Mass Driver Cannon, Very Heavy (Experimental) (2/25/1530)
  • Armored Triple Special Turret x5, 50 cm Armor
  • Forward; 300 degrees; Mass Driver Cannon, Very Heavy (Experimental) (2/25/1530)

Well honetly this listing has confused the crap out of me. How many guns are we actully tallking here? It looks like to me that you have duplicated several of the gun entries.

Name: Montana/Vanguard-class Battleship (Proposed)
Service Date: 2630
Make: Medium Dreadnought
Size Class: 26 (a.b.b.v. 252,205,133.95 m^3)
Strength Index: 77,100
Cost: 23,634,270,280 credits
HD: 78/67/86
Initiative: +8 (Eighth Class Engine)
Maximum Speed: 150 kps (Primary), 35 kps (Auxiliary)
Combat Speed: 1 (Primary), 1/5 (Auxiliary)
SHP: 20,000 (Tenth Class Shields, Phase)
AHP: 9,250 (185 cm Titanium)

Ok I think Vangauard would work best for the class name. Service date needs to be moved up. first units came on line after the start of the war so 2636-2638. I'd also like to change the make to Fast Battleship. Now for the questions
1st watare the Strength Index and HD?
2nd why list the internal volume? Mass effects movement, not volume.

This of course, assumes the Very Heavy Mass Driver for the main batteries. It turns out to be substantially cheaper than the Neutron Guns. I may need to adjust what you proposed for the heavy guns actually; you've got Mass Drivers stronger than Neutron Guns, when in universe its usually the other way around.

Used the WC2/WC3 guns formone of LOAF's posted online lists to make my heavy weapons extrapolations. I copyed it to a text doc but can't get at it right now cause its traped on a HD thats not booting:( It showed the mass drivers did a tiny bit more damage but the Neutron cannons shot further and used a bit more power. That actually makes since when you consider that a mass driver shell is alot bigger then a neutronium pellet but because of the neutronium pellet's much higher density it will have a higher inertia and there for greater reliable range. Also a rail gun; which is what a mass driver is; uses far less power then a grav field sling like the neutron gun.

The rest seams to be ok.
 
Well honetly this listing has confused the crap out of me. How many guns are we actully tallking here? It looks like to me that you have duplicated several of the gun entries.

It'd be easier to read if it was indented properly. Since I just found the indentation button on the forums, maybe this will help a bit:

Weapons Stations: 63
  • Armored Dual Gun Sponson x 32, 20cm Armor
    • Portside Hemisphere x10; 180 degrees; Mass Driver, Heavy Long-Range (5/3/45)
    • Starboard Hemisphere x10; 180 degrees; Mass Driver, Heavy Long-Range (5/3/45)
    • Foreward Hemisphere x6; 180 degrees; Neutron Gun, Defensive (3/11/250)
    • Aft Hemisphere x6; 180 degrees; Neutron Gun, Defensive (3/11/250)
  • Armored Dual Gun Sponson x16, 50 cm Armor
    • Portside Hemisphere x8; 180 degrees; Antimatter Gun (Experimental) (1/8/300)
    • Starboard Hemisphere x8; 180 degrees; Antimatter Gun (Experimental) (1/8/300)
  • Armored Hex Light Ordnance Turret, Double Bank x2, 50 cm Armor
    • Turret x2; 360 degrees; Image Recognition, Civilian Grade x100 (6/9/170; Friend-or-Foe, Standard x100 (8/12/170)
  • Armored Triple Special Limited Turret x4, 50cm Armor
    • Portside Hemisphere + Aft x2; 225 degrees; Mass Driver Cannon, Very Heavy (Experimental) (2/25/1530)
    • Starboard Hemisphere + Aft x2; 225 degrees; Mass Driver Cannon, Very Heavy (Experimental) (2/25/1530)
  • Armored Triple Special Turret x5, 50 cm Armor
    • Forward; 300 degrees; Mass Driver Cannon, Very Heavy (Experimental) (2/25/1530)
So you have 20 dual mass drivers, 12 dual neutron guns, 16 dual antimatter guns, and 9 triple very heavy mass drivers. Unless I've (once again) screwed something up, that's what was in the initial description. Doing the math..... 40 + 24 + 32 + 27........there are a grand total of 123 individual guns divvied up amongst 61 different mounts.

The gun ratings...haven't said what the numbers mean.....the first is refire, the second is range, the third is damage. For example, the Heavy Long-Range Mass Drivers have a 5/3/45 rating. That means that they have the potential to hit five times any target up to three range units away (3000-4000 km), causing 45 points of damage with each hit.

Of course, adding the mounts back up, I'm getting 59, not 63. Crap....what have I got screwed up..........

Ok I think Vangauard would work best for the class name. Service date needs to be moved up. first units came on line after the start of the war so 2636-2638. I'd also like to change the make to Fast Battleship. Now for the questions

Okay, service date to 2636 (I should change that to "service entry date to clarify it") and she's the Vanguard-class. Were they all taken out of service in 2638, does that reflect when the last one ate too many torpedoes, or was that simply when the last one entered service?

As for "Fast Battleship", I can add that appelation to the Name stat...the Make stat refers specifically to the chassis and chassis weight selected during the creation process. Might be another term I could use to clarify that...well crap, how about "Chassis/Weight"?

1st watare the Strength Index and HD?

Both are explained in Chapter 7.2, under the "Record the ship’s vital stats" step. Here are the relevant entries:

Strength Index (SI): Strength index is a measure of how powerful a ship is and how well it rates in combat alongside other capital ships. A ship’s strength index is a combination of its shield hit points, armor hit points, and combined strength of all of its onboard guns. This value is the most basic method for "keeping score" and helps determine whether or not the ship will withdraw from combat if given the opportunity.

Hit Difficulties (HD/BHD/FHD): Several factors determine how difficult it is to actually hit a ship, including the ship’s size, mass, and ability to accelerate. How hard it is to hit and cause damage to a capital ship is represented by its hit difficulty. The lower the hit difficulty, the lower the result needed on a d% roll in order to damage the ship. Capital ships, like vehicles, have three hit difficulties: normal (HD), "blast" (BHD), and "flat-foot" (FHD). Each ship chassis has a base HD rating, which is modified by Armor effects, Engine effects, and the ship's Size Class.

Basically, what those numbers mean is that the Vanguard-class has a very strong combined offense and defense (what you'd want in a battleship) but it's also pretty easy to hit (with a base HD of 78, a weapon fired at a ship of the Vanguard-class will hit it 78% of the time at point-blank range).

2nd why list the internal volume? Mass effects movement, not volume.

Three main reasons. First, I don't have a formula for figuring up a ship's mass (although I tried to work something like this into SF3, I'm not as sanguine that the system would translate over very well at all). Second, as mentioned in the description above, the effects of mass have been worked into the ship's hit difficulty ratings. Third, the Bounding Box Volume (b.b.v., approximated in this case) is how one determines into what Size Class a ship falls and so the volume is what's been listed traditionally (in SFRPG). For as much as the specific volume value gets used in-game, it probably could be omitted completely of course.

I copyed it to a text doc but can't get at it right now cause its traped on a HD thats not booting:(

Agedum, quod sugit.

Do you happen to remember which gun list you were using? The one I'm going off of (the one that I used for the gun list in Chapter 6.2.3 anyway) came from the CIC Gun Chart.

Used the WC2/WC3 guns formone of LOAF's posted online lists to make my heavy weapons extrapolations....It showed the mass drivers did a tiny bit more damage but the Neutron cannons shot further and used a bit more power. That actually makes since when you consider that a mass driver shell is alot bigger then a neutronium pellet but because of the neutronium pellet's much higher density it will have a higher inertia and there for greater reliable range. Also a rail gun; which is what a mass driver is; uses far less power then a grav field sling like the neutron gun.

Here's what the CIC Gun Chart says:

Mass Driver Cannon 4.5 cm 12 nJ 3,000 .30 WC1, WC2
Neutron Gun 3.0 cm 20 nJ 2,500 .35 WC1, WC2

Mass Driver Cannon 2.6 cm 6 GJ 3,740 1,100 .60 3.4 Privateer Manual
Neutron Gun 6.2 cm 18 GJ 3,060 900 .65 3.4 Privateer

Mass Driver Cannon 2.0 cm 18 nJ 2,500 2,000 .15 1.25 Armada
Neutron Gun 1.8 cm 22 nJ 4,400 2,400 .133 1.83 Armada

Mass Driver Cannon 4.5 cm 12 nJ 2,000 .30 WC3
Neutron Gun 4.0 cm 15 nJ 4,000 .45 WC3 (Console)

Name Damage Energy Range Speed Rec Dur Model

Well, crapbiscuit.....according to the gun chart you're completely right......

I am forced to wonder where the CIC got their numbers on their chart...because quite frankly, those damage ratings look reversed to me. In the documentation for all of these games, the neutron gun is described as the heavy, energy-sucking hitter, and the mass driver as the mid-range gun.

Of course, I grew up using Secrets of the Wing Commander Universe as my primary guide for the early games, and it listed the Privateer ratings only (the only one of those that says Mass Drivers are weaker). So I could easily be the one who needs to shift his paradigm here.....

Ok I have some concerns. I think you might be tring to make the system too genaric at the expence of realisum. I also think you might be piling to much on the GM in the current combat system. I'm used to table top systems which have much more ridged rules for these sorts of things. It helps to keep abuses to a minimum and speeds play along.

Well, I've been using this combat system for a few years now, and it does work. I feel it's no more or less complex than some of the other combat engines I've seen out there (if you want a true butt-buster of an RPG combat system, check out Kenzer & Co.'s Aces and Eights). Having said that, I do agree that there are some things in it that could stand to be refined a little better...things like movement bonuses for maneuvers, Core Damage determination and structural fatigue rules (systems damage in general), and so forth, little things that seem to take too long to resolve. I do have plans to revisit the combat engine in the future (even though it's technically "done", enough changes have been made since I was working on it and enough things were left out that I wanted to add in that I need to go back through it).

Is there anything specific that you see that needs to be changed or clarified, or that you think just needs to be dropped outright? If so, what would you suggest? I'll say what I told the guys who helped me build SFRPG; don't spare my feelings, I'd prefer you to be honest.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It'd be easier to read if it was indented properly. Since I just found the indentation button on the forums, maybe this will help a bit:

Weapons Stations: 63
  • Armored Dual Gun Sponson x 32, 20cm Armor
    • Portside Hemisphere x10; 180 degrees; Mass Driver, Heavy Long-Range (5/3/45)
    • Starboard Hemisphere x10; 180 degrees; Mass Driver, Heavy Long-Range (5/3/45)
    • Foreward Hemisphere x6; 180 degrees; Neutron Gun, Defensive (3/11/250)
    • Aft Hemisphere x6; 180 degrees; Neutron Gun, Defensive (3/11/250)
  • Armored Dual Gun Sponson x16, 50 cm Armor
    • Portside Hemisphere x8; 180 degrees; Antimatter Gun (Experimental) (1/8/300)
    • Starboard Hemisphere x8; 180 degrees; Antimatter Gun (Experimental) (1/8/300)
  • Armored Hex Light Ordnance Turret, Double Bank x2, 50 cm Armor
    • Turret x2; 360 degrees; Image Recognition, Civilian Grade x100 (6/9/170; Friend-or-Foe, Standard x100 (8/12/170)
  • Armored Triple Special Limited Turret x4, 50cm Armor
    • Portside Hemisphere + Aft x2; 225 degrees; Mass Driver Cannon, Very Heavy (Experimental) (2/25/1530)
    • Starboard Hemisphere + Aft x2; 225 degrees; Mass Driver Cannon, Very Heavy (Experimental) (2/25/1530)
  • Armored Triple Special Turret x5, 50 cm Armor
    • Forward; 300 degrees; Mass Driver Cannon, Very Heavy (Experimental) (2/25/1530)
So you have 20 dual mass drivers, 12 dual neutron guns, 16 dual antimatter guns, and 9 triple very heavy mass drivers. Unless I've (once again) screwed something up, that's what was in the initial description. Doing the math..... 40 + 24 + 32 + 27........there are a grand total of 123 individual guns divvied up amongst 61 different mounts.

The gun ratings...haven't said what the numbers mean.....the first is refire, the second is range, the third is damage. For example, the Heavy Long-Range Mass Drivers have a 5/3/45 rating. That means that they have the potential to hit five times any target up to three range units away (3000-4000 km), causing 45 points of damage with each hit.

Of course, adding the mounts back up, I'm getting 59, not 63. Crap....what have I got screwed up..........

Looks good to me.

Okay, service date to 2636 (I should change that to "service entry date to clarify it") and she's the Vanguard-class. Were they all taken out of service in 2638, does that reflect when the last one ate too many torpedoes, or was that simply when the last one entered service?

The date I was thin is between 2636 and 2638. Planing and construction wouldn't start till after the battle of McAuliffe. I'm not sure how long it takes to build one of these as they are way bigger then any ships we have today. Any info on that?

Well, I've been using this combat system for a few years now, and it does work. I feel it's no more or less complex than some of the other combat engines I've seen out there (if you want a true butt-buster of an RPG combat system, check out Kenzer & Co.'s Aces and Eights). Having said that, I do agree that there are some things in it that could stand to be refined a little better...things like movement bonuses for maneuvers, Core Damage determination and structural fatigue rules (systems damage in general), and so forth, little things that seem to take too long to resolve. I do have plans to revisit the combat engine in the future (even though it's technically "done", enough changes have been made since I was working on it and enough things were left out that I wanted to add in that I need to go back through it).

Is there anything specific that you see that needs to be changed or clarified, or that you think just needs to be dropped outright? If so, what would you suggest? I'll say what I told the guys who helped me build SFRPG; don't spare my feelings, I'd prefer you to be honest.

Well my experiance in RPGing used Battletech or Warhammer 40K universes's games for the resolving alot of combat. The RPG served as much to generate combat games as it did a story telling device. As such I don't have experiance with this kind of system.
 
Looks good to me.

Alright, then.

Unless I'm mistaken, that's all the issues we had with the Vanguard. Unless you say otherwise, I'll make it the first submission for Chapter 7.4 as soon as I can get to it (a few days, perhaps).

The date I was thin is between 2636 and 2638. Planing and construction wouldn't start till after the battle of McAuliffe. I'm not sure how long it takes to build one of these as they are way bigger then any ships we have today. Any info on that?

Not really...best I can do is point you towards Star Trek's Enterprise-D; based on its dimensions, it would fall into Size Class 24, and according to the Star Trek Technical Manual, her design and construction took a total of 20 years. The Vanguard is bigger but the universe is vastly different, so take what you will from that.

I don't think twenty years would be a practical length of time for the WC universe at all. I mean, the McAullife Ambush was in 2634...twenty years would be 2654......you've got a bigger ship, which would take longer (probably entering service just before the war ends - if the shipyards where it is being built aren't blasted into oblivion first, mind you - and it probably would've had its hull converted over to a carrier given the tenor of the war). So, let's not say that's the case.

Well my experiance in RPGing used Battletech or Warhammer 40K universes's games for the resolving alot of combat. The RPG served as much to generate combat games as it did a story telling device. As such I don't have experiance with this kind of system.

Battletech and Warhammer 40k? No experience in games such as D&D/Pathfinder, the Star Wars RPG, GURPS, Palladium or any of the White Wolf games then?
 
Good Monday, Wingnuts. Time for the weekly SFRPG Update.

Had another slightly truncated week this week, due to some personal issues I had to deal with this weekend that required some travel. It was a very productive week nonetheless, with significant progress made in Chapters Six and Seven (capital ships and vehicles). The focus of my work remained in Chapter 6.2.3. After the last update, I was able to finish filling in the light ordnance table and add some of the additional accessories from the Privateer games that were missing up to that point. Finishing up these tables allowed me to make the corresponding updates to the capital ship tables in Chapter 7.2.2, with work on that Chapter drawing to a conclusion on Tuesday. This work also included the addition of the set of guns that starfox1701 proposed earlier. With nothing left in Chapter 6.2.3 besides the non-starfaring weapons table remaining, I decided to begin my final rechecks of Chapters 6.2 and 7.2 (the creation procedures for vehicles and capital ships, respectively) for internal consistency after seeing that particular table with the weapons I would ultimately want to add. These checks ultimately involved some alterations to the chassis restrictions in Chapter 6.2.2 (vehicle users), the preamble of Chapter 7.2.1 (capital ship chassis), and the Fightercraft and Transport chassis in Chapter 6.2.1, and a change to both creation procedures (I moved the assignment of any design flaws up in the procedures). Some additional changes to the vehicle accessories lists in Chapter 6.2.3 and 7.2.2. By the end of the day on Wednesday, however, the internal consistency checks were complete, I was able to re-complete the Rapier and Wake-class examples and finally move Chapter 7.2 back to completed status. Along with this effort, I was able to complete a final in-game set of statistics for the Hornet, Rapier-II/G and Sabre, all of which will ultimately appear in the vehicle catalog in Chapter 6.3. A few additional changes were made to accessories in 6.2.3 on Thursday as work resumed on the non-starfaring weaponry, and I was able to complete a first draft of starfox1701's Vanguard-class Fast Battleship. Work on the non-starfaring weaponry continued on Friday and I would've likely have finally had it all completed that afternoon, had it not been for a chatty co-worker (that's a different story, though). As of this morning, I need to fill in the data for about half-a-dozen non-starfaring missiles; otherwise that chapter is complete. I'll likely have it finished later today.

Since the creation procedures and tables for starfaring craft are complete, however, I feel comfortable with making the official first call for submissions for WCRPG's non-canonical catalog chapters (Chapters 6.4 and 7.4). If you have a homebrew vehicle or capital ship design that you would like to see added to the game, you can either submit the craft's statistics directly or you can work through the procedures to try and build the in-game statistics. I will take any submission for any craft, but there will be a review process involved to make sure the final product is as you like it. The non-canon chapters are strictly for fun, they're a great way to show off your creativity and let other people play around (literally) with your ideas. They also help me test out the procedures for mistakes and helps me to gauge whether the procedures are as clear as I think they are.

Master plan for the coming weeks remains the same. I'll finish up Chapter 6.2.3, then head on to Chapter Five.

WCRPG sits at 72.73% complete as of this morning.
 
Not really...best I can do is point you towards Star Trek's Enterprise-D; based on its dimensions, it would fall into Size Class 24, and according to the Star Trek Technical Manual, her design and construction took a total of 20 years. The Vanguard is bigger but the universe is vastly different, so take what you will from that.

I don't think twenty years would be a practical length of time for the WC universe at all. I mean, the McAullife Ambush was in 2634...twenty years would be 2654......you've got a bigger ship, which would take longer (probably entering service just before the war ends - if the shipyards where it is being built aren't blasted into oblivion first, mind you - and it probably would've had its hull converted over to a carrier given the tenor of the war). So, let's not say that's the case.

Actual construction of Enterprise only took 8 years; from 2350 to 2357; in peace time and was on a long lead and debuging scedual. Starfleet was able to finish 6 half done Galaxy spaceframes and get at least 1 Galaxy class hull built from schatch between 2371 and the start of the Dominiom war in 2373. So if ush came to shove I would hope ConFed could get it done reasonable fast; maybe 3 years?

No experience in games such as D&D/Pathfinder, the Star Wars RPG, GURPS, Palladium or any of the White Wolf games then?

I'm familur with all of those in passing, but have never played any of them.
 
Actual construction of Enterprise only took 8 years; from 2350 to 2357; in peace time and was on a long lead and debuging scedual. Starfleet was able to finish 6 half done Galaxy spaceframes and get at least 1 Galaxy class hull built from schatch between 2371 and the start of the Dominiom war in 2373. So if ush came to shove I would hope ConFed could get it done reasonable fast; maybe 3 years?

It'd be possible to get it done in three years, but I think five to eight years or more would be more reasonable for something of this size (the Vanguard is about four times the size of the D, after all). I suppose it would depend on just how advanced the whole shipbuilding process had become by the 27th century....

Let's me do some extrapolation and get back with you.

I'm familur with all of those in passing, but have never played any of them.

(Oh boy, how best to put this.....)

WCRPG will have more in common with the games I listed than with miniatures games like Battletech, Warhammer 40Kor Battlefleet Gothic or simulation games such as SFB, where combat is the point of the game and a great deal of in-universe realism is both valued and necessary.

There will (hopefully) be a number of different types of players playing WCRPG. For some of them, they're going to want a gaming experience high in realism with a fair amount of combat. Some of them, however, may want to emphasize the story and have combat as an incidental thing to get done and over with as soon as is possible. Because my goal is to target as many potential players as possible, I've had to generalize a lot of things in the game; this does sacrifice some realism but in return it gives the system tremendous flexibility. I leave it to the player groups to decide how they want to do things. Yes, I'd like to cover every possible player; no, I don't think it's actually possible. It's a compromise; best way to put it.

Now that said, it's well known that Dungeons & Dragons (from which all RPGs sprang) got its start as a variant of a miniatures game called Chainmail, so a lot of the same principles still apply, so if there are some things that you think can be added without overly complicating things, I will definitely give them due consideration.

For the record, I play role-playing games for the story; I write them usually because the universes for which I want to tell the stories don't have their own official RPGs anywhere. That and because I enjoy doing it.
 
WCRPG will have more in common with the games I listed than with miniatures games like Battletech, Warhammer 40Kor Battlefleet Gothic or simulation games such as SFB, where combat is the point of the game and a great deal of in-universe realism is both valued and necessary.

There will (hopefully) be a number of different types of players playing WCRPG. For some of them, they're going to want a gaming experience high in realism with a fair amount of combat. Some of them, however, may want to emphasize the story and have combat as an incidental thing to get done and over with as soon as is possible. Because my goal is to target as many potential players as possible, I've had to generalize a lot of things in the game; this does sacrifice some realism but in return it gives the system tremendous flexibility. I leave it to the player groups to decide how they want to do things. Yes, I'd like to cover every possible player; no, I don't think it's actually possible. It's a compromise; best way to put it.

Now that said, it's well known that Dungeons & Dragons (from which all RPGs sprang) got its start as a variant of a miniatures game called Chainmail, so a lot of the same principles still apply, so if there are some things that you think can be added without overly complicating things, I will definitely give them due consideration.

For the record, I play role-playing games for the story; I write them usually because the universes for which I want to tell the stories don't have their own official RPGs anywhere. That and because I enjoy doing it.

Without a good grounding in how all the game mecanichs are going to enteract I'm uncertain if I'd even know where to begin. Also I don't want to hold up the development of the game tring to cram in aspects that might work better as a stand alone combat system too. That would just be selfish on my part.

It'd be possible to get it done in three years, but I think five to eight years or more would be more reasonable for something of this size (the Vanguard is about four times the size of the D, after all). I suppose it would depend on just how advanced the whole shipbuilding process had become by the 27th century....

Let's me do some extrapolation and get back with you.

This will give you a chance to workout a formula for construction time in general.
 
Without a good grounding in how all the game mecanichs are going to enteract I'm uncertain if I'd even know where to begin. Also I don't want to hold up the development of the game tring to cram in aspects that might work better as a stand alone combat system too. That would just be selfish on my part.

Alright. If you do have an idea for something you'd think would be cool, though, go ahead and say so. And feel free to ask questions about why this or that has been set up the way it has; I don't mind, and it may help me reanalyze and come up with something even better.

This will give you a chance to workout a formula for construction time in general.

Good point.

First extrapolation formula I worked on is definitely out...we don't want the Vanguard to enter service after the freakin' Nephilim War is over.......
 
Okay....here we go, I've got a baseline. Quoth the article on the Bengal-class from WCPedia:

"However, in 2642, Terran Confederation military command authorized the conversion of remaining in-production hulls to a heavily revised second flight design. The first of the new ships, the TCS Tiger's Claw (CV-07), was commissioned at the Trojan IV shipyard two years later (2644)."

So Tiger's Claw took roughly two years to build under wartime conditions. She's also SC 24 (same Size Class as the Enterprise-D)

Now from the Midway-class article....well, that's just one sentence: "Midway was laid down at the TSY Arcology circa 2676".

We know Midway was commissioned in 2681; that's five years in peace-time. Midway is a ship whose bounding box I haven't calculated yet; I'll do that later this morning. Probably have an answer for you for the Vanguard later today.

EDIT: Midway is going to be Size Class 27, one SC up from the Vanguard. It was a good thing one of the designers had pictures of the ship's aspects up at CIC; otherwise I would've had to go home to get the pictures and it would've been tonight or tomorrow.

Okay...so based on those figures, I can come up with a quick extrapolation formula.....based on the figures and assuming no real advances in shipbuilding technologies, you're looking at a 42 to 54 month time frame, give or take a few months based on wartime conditions. So if construction began in 2636, you'd be looking at some time in 2639 for the Vanguard to enter service at the earliest, with 2640 being a little more likely.
 
So based on the start date of the war as 2634.235 and using the US WW2 BB development projects as a template of sorts I, come up with the folowing development time line.
2634.235 Start of the War
2634.270 Drastic Losses over the 1st 30 days lead to the release of a number of specifactions for new warships to fight the war. These included specifacations for a new class of fast Battleship to searve as a heavy taskforce escort aand heavy combatant.
2635.042 Naval Specifacation Board chosses design study FB-2627A173, and asigns hull numbers BB 65 - BB 69 to 5 hulls approved in initial order.
2635.078 Hull BB 65's keel is laid in the Sirus Naval Yards.
2635.365 Spaceframe for BB 65 approaches 80% complete. Hull plate approaches 35% complete. Main and auxilery reactor instalation complete. Instalation of several major frame assembelies differed till after instalation of monopoles and jump drive. Major crew spaces 40% complete.
2636.365 Spaceframe remains at 85% complete pending final instalation of main drives. Hull plating at 75% pending spaceframe completion and final interior instalation.
2637.365 Final drive componets and framing members installed on .273. Hull plating completed on .334. Hull BB 65 christened TCS Vanguard on .345. Instalation of ship armaments begins .350.
2638.210 Weapons instalation complete. Main and secondary systems complete checkouts.
2638.234 TCS Vangaurd begins shakedown cruise.
2638.241 TCS Vangaurd completes major sublight engine tests. Jumps to Sol system completeing Jump Drive tests. TCS Vangaurd is certified Deep Space worthy.
2638.248 TCS Vangaurd docks at Jupiter HQ to take on amutition.
2638.250 TCS Vangaurd departs for outer system weapons range.
2638.260 TCS Vangaurd completes weapons test.
2638.263 TCS Vangaurd returns to Jupiter HQ weapon system are certified opperational.
2638.272 TCS Vangaurd arrives at Terra and takes on airwing and Marine contengent.
2638.275 TCS Vangaurd Departs to begin workups and final shake down.
2638.306 TCS Vangaurd Completes final shakedown and enters Luna Naval Yards for final fitting out and shakedown repairs.
2638.340 TCS Vangaurd is commisioned as BB -65 and certified fully opperational and combat ready.
2639.014 TCS Vangaurd arrives at Vega Sector command and goes on active duty.

So What do you think?
 
Back
Top