Forums of the Megaverse®

I regularly pledge Ryan Wolfe's starship poster Kickstarters and this time is an integrated starship called The Trinity . It is a pair of small cruiser/escort carriers that can dock with a larger cruiser carrier to form a larger ship. He previously did The Chimaerus which is three unique spacecraft that come together to form a larger ship that is more powerful than its component parts.

Question 1 is simple, would ships like this make sense in Phase World? I am not talking about larger ships that carry parasite craft like fighters, shuttles or even gunboats and the like but true integrated ships like these.

Question 2, have you created any integrated ships for Phase World.

My answer Chimaerus yes, Trinity probably not.

The Chimaerus functions just like a primary ship with 2 parasite craft attached. In fact if I ever get to run a Phase World campaign again I think they may start out with this as a player group ship.

Trinity is 3 fully functional FTL starships and I am not sure I see a purpose having them attach together and then detach.

Depends on the technologies involved. It might be easier for a larger starship to travel through FTL-space and resist being pulled out of it by mascons in real space, so if smaller ships can be attached to/become effectively a larger vessel, they wouldn't be as susceptible to being yanked around in FTL travel;.

Or, you could treat the integrated ship design like a carrier, with larger sub-ships in place of fighters. The smaller/weaker ships may not be able to travel through FTL as fast as the larger ship, or have the range/endurance of the larger ship, but trade off in being more agile or having a better acceleration/deceleration profile, so having them along for the ride is a good thing.
An integrated ship along these lines might be a military vessel with detachable cargo transports, or. a starliner that breaks up upon arrival to provide service to several different planets in a. system, or afford different views of a sight, depending on passenger class.

The hookup points are the big if, though...how long does it take to securely hook up and how vulnerable are the attachment points? Can they be universally oriented, or do the parasites have to be right- or left-oriented? And how vulnerable is the larger ship/gestalt to damage inflicted on one individual ship in the link?

taalismn wrote:Depends on the technologies involved. It might be easier for a larger starship to travel through FTL-space and resist being pulled out of it by mascons in real space, so if smaller ships can be attached to/become effectively a larger vessel, they wouldn't be as susceptible to being yanked around in FTL travel;.
...snip

There is also the point that unless all the ships' clocks are synced down to the 23rd decimal (or the nth degree or something), then the fleet/BG/squadron/division will come out of FTL all over the place.
P.S.: yes, most times this is ignored in fiction and games.

Warshield73 wrote:Trinity is 3 fully functional FTL starships and I am not sure I see a purpose having them attach together and then detach.

this is a common question for such craft, especially in the trek community and the USS Prometheus

The use I can think of for merging is if the power needed to go faster in FTL is notably less with one hull. IE, the power it takes to get one large ship going 7 ly/h is on par with what it takes three medium ships 6 ly/h.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:

taalismn wrote:Depends on the technologies involved. It might be easier for a larger starship to travel through FTL-space and resist being pulled out of it by mascons in real space, so if smaller ships can be attached to/become effectively a larger vessel, they wouldn't be as susceptible to being yanked around in FTL travel;.
...snip

There is also the point that unless all the ships' clocks are synced down to the 23rd decimal (or the nth degree or something), then the fleet/BG/squadron/division will come out of FTL all over the place.
P.S.: yes, most times this is ignored in fiction and games.

What I am focused on is the standard Three Galaxies tech described in the books. If people want to give information on their homebrew system as well that works too but they would want to spell out the relevant rules and information.

As for large ships being more resistant the rules as is just put that as a function of local gravity, ship size never comes into it.

As for the spread of ships I have always included that in my rules. I talked about them here on Contra-Gravitronic FTL Drives - Rules and Stats it is my rule #5. However if you have the computer control necessary to fly through space at thousands of times c than you can probably set a course that has your ships coming out fairly close to each other.

The only fiction I know that covers this in any degree is Honor Harrington but that uses a hyper space system not FTL.

taalismn wrote:Or, you could treat the integrated ship design like a carrier, with larger sub-ships in place of fighters. The smaller/weaker ships may not be able to travel through FTL as fast as the larger ship, or have the range/endurance of the larger ship, but trade off in being more agile or having a better acceleration/deceleration profile, so having them along for the ride is a good thing.
An integrated ship along these lines might be a military vessel with detachable cargo transports, or. a starliner that breaks up upon arrival to provide service to several different planets in a. system, or afford different views of a sight, depending on passenger class.

That is basically The Chimaerus so I largely agree with you. If you treat the costs of FTL drives in the Three Galaxies books as covering all sizes smaller than dreadnoughts than this type of ship only makes sense for small craft as any large ship is so expensive that adding even the fastest FTL drive is insignificant to the cost. But for my rules where FTL is based on mass than it works for all kinds of vessels. I love your idea of the star liner.

taalismn wrote:The hookup points are the big if, though...how long does it take to securely hook up and how vulnerable are the attachment points? Can they be universally oriented, or do the parasites have to be right- or left-oriented? And how vulnerable is the larger ship/gestalt to damage inflicted on one individual ship in the link?

I think all of these would depend on the design. For both of the ships above the hookups are substantial and for the Chimaerus they are completely covered by the parasites. I think with contra-gravity fields these hookups can carry the load of the ship pretty easily but the Trinity would would be the most vulnerable.

The Chimaerus is very specific, each ship has a place and only that ship in that place. The Trinity however can switch between sides and you could imagine having other types of ships to attach there as well. Both the parasites are carriers similar to the main ship but you could imagine a variant looking vary similar but being a light cruiser or other weapons platforms.

glitterboy2098 wrote:

Warshield73 wrote:Trinity is 3 fully functional FTL starships and I am not sure I see a purpose having them attach together and then detach.

this is a common question for such craft, especially in the trek community and the USS Prometheus

Yeah I found most Voyager episodes to be barely watchable but that was one of the worst. I think Spacedock compared it to a bad GI Joe toy.

Omegasgundam wrote:The use I can think of for merging is if the power needed to go faster in FTL is notably less with one hull. IE, the power it takes to get one large ship going 7 ly/h is on par with what it takes three medium ships 6 ly/h.

We have no rules on FTL to cover this but I could definitely see it but it is almost a Stargate SG-1 kind of system. FTL in that is based on power so regular fusion engines you can pop around the galaxy, drop in a ZPM and no you can go between galaxies in days. This is how I run FTL in Phase World but nothing in the rules about it.

Warshield73 wrote:

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:

taalismn wrote:Depends on the technologies involved. It might be easier for a larger starship to travel through FTL-space and resist being pulled out of it by mascons in real space, so if smaller ships can be attached to/become effectively a larger vessel, they wouldn't be as susceptible to being yanked around in FTL travel;.
...snip

There is also the point that unless all the ships' clocks are synced down to the 23rd decimal (or the nth degree or something), then the fleet/BG/squadron/division will come out of FTL all over the place.
P.S.: yes, most times this is ignored in fiction and games.

What I am focused on is the standard Three Galaxies tech described in the books. If people want to give information on their homebrew system as well that works too but they would want to spell out the relevant rules and information.

...snip...

The only fiction I know that covers this in any degree is Honor Harrington but that uses a hyper space system not FTL.

FTL has the same timing limitation. If the fleet clocks are out of synch then they don't end up in the same end locus. Of course 'slowing down from ludicrous speed' before actual 'stopping' does give ships time to adjust their speed to match each other (and avoids any stashed helmets).....if their sensors worked in FTL flight or near c conditions.

And no...wasn't giving any "house rules". Just some possible 'real world considerations' to expand on the things taalismn said. (If I had house rules I wanted to state I would of giving actual rules. Along with a notification that they were my house rules.)

As far as the Rifts game, their is too little rules about FTL travel to not have house rules to add to the all but barren landscape of rules that PB gave the rifts game.

In the HU2 MW setting rules about FTL travel: There are a few. But there are a few contradictory rules within that rules set. As such they too need to have some house rules just the rectify the contradictions. The only house rules I have for these is for one set of acceleration number is for strait line 'run to jump/FTL' acceleration and the other set of acceleration numbers is for maneuvering/combat accelerations. And the other being about overloading a ship's drive; by overloading with cargo or towing another ship; will decrease the hauling/towing ship's top speed.
➢If the example ships were using the HU space setting rules, with my house rules, then the core ship would need drives rated to the total tonnage of all three ships to go its rated max 'speed factor' while loaded down with the pair of parasite ships.

To answer the question: In the Rifts Rules for FTL travel is there any "real" reason to be able to link up multiple starships as with the example models? No.

I'd say both types may have merit in a 3Gs setting depending on what ideas one has in mind.

Large ships with parasite craft already have some precedent in our own contemporary tech, so not going to belabor the point of circunstances where such a thing might be useful and adaptable to a Phaseworld's context.

About the second example, where all involved ships do FTL capacity, i'd say the idea can still have merit, such as in a case where not all ships have the same range, speed or autonomy, meaning the different models might cover with their strenghts cover for each others' respectives limitations like a carrier for its aircraft complement & vice-versa, for an example.

Alternatively and now entering into the terrain of technobabble & stuff, it could be that having multiple CG fields synchronized in certain arrangements might allow for some degreee of power multiplication, drag reduction or any of a number of edges where the whole turns out greater than its parts, so to speak.

Warshield73 wrote:Trinity is 3 fully functional FTL starships and I am not sure I see a purpose having them attach together and then detach.

I've made that argument so many times about the U.S.S. Prometheus from Voyager's Message in a Bottle episode, but there are people on the Internet (to no one's surprise) who lose their heads defending it even though it makes no logical sense. So I'm in total agreement there.

That said, my whole takeaway from Phase World is that it's the Rifts to the Rifts setting. That is, it's even more ridiculously over-the-top, unbalanced, and unhinged than the base game. So there being a culture or two out there that created ships like that, I honestly have no problem with it. They wouldn't really be much better than proper capital ships tailor-designed to be fortresses (the whole "every new feature introduces even more weaknesses" philosophy), so it'd just be a quirky aspect that would add some color to a scene.

Though there could be new tactics created when attacking civilizations unfamiliar with the technology. For example, imagine a massive ship approaching your world. You fire your Big Weapon™ and boom! Success! Radar shows the weapon hit and the ship has been broken up, with different parts floating off in seemingly random directions. But uhoh, wait, what's this? Those parts are coming together in a formation and unleashing hell from multiple directions now? Oh snap, **** just got real. Ground control is losing their minds trying to scramble a new plan to defend themselves...

Something like that, you know?

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:FTL has the same timing limitation. If the fleet clocks are out of synch then they don't end up in the same end locus. Of course 'slowing down from ludicrous speed' before actual 'stopping' does give ships time to adjust their speed to match each other (and avoids any stashed helmets).....if their sensors worked in FTL flight or near c conditions.

And no...wasn't giving any "house rules". Just some possible 'real world considerations' to expand on the things taalismn said. (If I had house rules I wanted to state I would of giving actual rules. Along with a notification that they were my house rules.)

I agree with you. While I cover a lot of this in my house rules regarding nav space it is definitely something to keep in mind and one of the many problems of using FTL vs something like hyperspace.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:As far as the Rifts game, their is too little rules about FTL travel to not have house rules to add to the all but barren landscape of rules that PB gave the rifts game.

I say this a lot but Carella created a great setting but he really didn't do much regarding rules. My biggest complaint with Kevin is that when freelancers came along wanting to write books with new spacecraft I would have asked them to really define the rules for all of this. Even if it required some rewrites of the original spacecraft it would have solved a lot of problems going forward.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:In the HU2 MW setting rules about FTL travel: There are a few. But there are a few contradictory rules within that rules set. As such they too need to have some house rules just the rectify the contradictions. The only house rules I have for these is for one set of acceleration number is for strait line 'run to jump/FTL' acceleration and the other set of acceleration numbers is for maneuvering/combat accelerations. And the other being about overloading a ship's drive; by overloading with cargo or towing another ship; will decrease the hauling/towing ship's top speed.
➢If the example ships were using the HU space setting rules, with my house rules, then the core ship would need drives rated to the total tonnage of all three ships to go its rated max 'speed factor' while loaded down with the pair of parasite ships.

Acceleration, and deceleration, is probably the single biggest thing missing from the FTL and sub light rules. I am OK with there being some sort of limit to sub light speed but it needs to be much higher and acceleration needs to factor in.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:To answer the question: In the Rifts Rules for FTL travel is there any "real" reason to be able to link up multiple starships as with the example models? No.

Again I largely agreed with you about The Trinity, I always thought the Chimaerus made sense, but I was reminded of something this evening.

DB 12: Dimensional Outbreak, page 160 to 164 has the Naruni Conquistador which can link up with 4 Espandon gunships. When linked together the ship gains sub light speed and improved rate of fire for the main weapon. FTL speed is not affected. The description says that Shields are more powerful but there are no shields in the description and how much more powerful is not stated.

I have a lot of problems with these ships, the biggest is just the power sprint we see with this cruiser on its own being more powerful than anything in its class but it does seem to give an advantage for chimera ships.

SolCannibal wrote:I'd say both types may have merit in a 3Gs setting depending on what ideas one has in mind.

Large ships with parasite craft already have some precedent in our own contemporary tech, so not going to belabor the point of circumstances where such a thing might be useful and adaptable to a Phaseworld's context.

To me externally mounted craft are really no different than say fighters in a hanger. I think about something like the Destiny in Stargate Universe were the shuttles are mounted externally avoiding the need for large hangers. I could see small ships in the Three Galaxies having shuttles or boarding craft in external cradles to save space that might normally have to go to a hangar bay.

SolCannibal wrote:About the second example, where all involved ships do FTL capacity, i'd say the idea can still have merit, such as in a case where not all ships have the same range, speed or autonomy, meaning the different models might cover with their strenghts cover for each others' respectives limitations like a carrier for its aircraft complement & vice-versa, for an example.

I would largely agree with this. Again, if you take the FTL drive prices in DB 6 as covering everything smaller than a Dreadnought regardless of mass then this makes no sense. At those prces anything larger than a destroyer is already so expensive that the price difference between the slowest and fastest drive is barely noticable.

If, however you think mass, not just speed, must affect the cost of the drive then having ships with a slower drive link to a ship with a faster one would make sense.

SolCannibal wrote:Alternatively and now entering into the terrain of technobabble & stuff, it could be that having multiple CG fields synchronized in certain arrangements might allow for some degreee of power multiplication, drag reduction or any of a number of edges where the whole turns out greater than its parts, so to speak.

All of this is pure technobabble so why not. Given how little we know about FTL in PW this is as good as anything else.

Crimson Dynamo wrote:

Warshield73 wrote:Trinity is 3 fully functional FTL starships and I am not sure I see a purpose having them attach together and then detach.

I've made that argument so many times about the U.S.S. Prometheus from Voyager's Message in a Bottle episode, but there are people on the Internet (to no one's surprise) who lose their heads defending it even though it makes no logical sense. So I'm in total agreement there.

Yeah this ship was just ridiculous. I mean we see the Galaxy class being able to separate the saucer section and that made sense. Put civilians in the saucer and the drive section now has better acceleration, maneuverability and stronger shields than the combined ship. The saucer needed a warp drive as a sub light escape ship made no sense, but the advantage was clear. The multi whatever attack system was just horrible so this ship was pointless.

Crimson Dynamo wrote:That said, my whole takeaway from Phase World is that it's the Rifts to the Rifts setting. That is, it's even more ridiculously over-the-top, unbalanced, and unhinged than the base game. So there being a culture or two out there that created ships like that, I honestly have no problem with it. They wouldn't really be much better than proper capital ships tailor-designed to be fortresses (the whole "every new feature introduces even more weaknesses" philosophy), so it'd just be a quirky aspect that would add some color to a scene.

Rifts has problems because it sought to combine so much with magic and tech. The system needs an update true but making any system with realistic tech that doesn't just crush magic is tough. Phase World, as well as any space game, has a problem if it wants to incorporate fighters, power armor, magic and superpowers into a system with realistic speed and weapons ranges.

Crimson Dynamo wrote:Though there could be new tactics created when attacking civilizations unfamiliar with the technology. For example, imagine a massive ship approaching your world. You fire your Big Weapon™ and boom! Success! Radar shows the weapon hit and the ship has been broken up, with different parts floating off in seemingly random directions. But uhoh, wait, what's this? Those parts are coming together in a formation and unleashing hell from multiple directions now? Oh snap, **** just got real. Ground control is losing their minds trying to scramble a new plan to defend themselves...

Something like that, you know?

I think new tactics would be a possibility but for this to make sense I think there has to be an economic and strategic advantage as well.

If you look at a ship like the Trinity I can see where the two smaller ships might have say really limited crew space, supplies, fighters and cargo. Just make them fast attack ships that when seperated from the central ship are really maneuverable and have crazy acceleration. Maybe the central ship would just launch fighters and have all the amenities for long voyages.

Crimson Dynamo wrote:snip....

from Phase World is that it's the Rifts to the Rifts setting. ...snip

Literally....
The 3G books are the secondary setting of the Rifts Game.

Yeah, no sh*t.

But that's clearly not what I was referring to with that comment. Which, you know, was f*cking clarified in the very next sentence.

i could see some appeal to the 'battle rider' concept.. you have a mothership with FTL (possibly even an adapted freighter), used to move docked frigates/gunships that are sublight only. lets your nation obtain a larger number of combat ships (the gunships) for defense while still maintaining some degree of strategic/offensive mobility. and the gunships can operate for longer periods of deployment than fighters.

Warshield73 wrote:Question 1 is simple, would ships like this make sense in Phase World? I am not talking about larger ships that carry parasite craft like fighters, shuttles or even gunboats and the like but true integrated ships like these.

Ultimately it is going to come down to the functions of the sub-units and the purpose of linking up.

I would also suspect that you have to be able to support the cost of such a feature as multi-role tends to mean more expensive over more limited use vehicles and possibly the psychology of the race/designer.

I would also point out that Rifts does have several designs on Rifts Earth that fall under this general category of multi-integrated platforms:
-CS Firestorm Death's Head Transport in CWC (the C&C version, possibly the original to if one count's just the separation feature)
-NGR has two mobile base units (one in SB3, other in WB31)
-New Navy (pre-Cat. US Navy by extension) Ticonderoga in Underseas
-Japan has a 'bot that might qualify (it has a detachable drone)
-NG also has at least one 'bot that might also qualify (head section detaches as a hovercraft, but the 'bot itself becomes unusable w/o it giving it a strong TranzorZ-vibe IMHO) in SB1o

Warshield73 wrote:Question 2, have you created any integrated ships for Phase World.

Short answer: No.

Warshield73 wrote:Trinity is 3 fully functional FTL starships and I am not sure I see a purpose having them attach together and then detach.

Probably for times when the "extended range, increased power, enhanced FTL capabilities" that get mentioned but not explained/detailed as far as I can see on the linked to page (and I only skimmed it so I might have missed it).

glitterboy2098 wrote:this is a common question for such craft, especially in the trek community and the USS Prometheus

Which can be seen as a possible evolutionary development of the Saucer Separation feature seen in use in TNG (and used to fight the Borg in a 2-parter), so the basic technology isn't new to the Trek universe (ship can separate into smaller ships).

Being able to attack from multiple angles would prevent an enemy ship from concentrating shield power to a given angle of attack, but at the same time you'd think that Photon/Quantum Torpedoes could be modified to achieve the same result (IIRC ST Torpedoes tend to not demonstrate much maneuverability/course change acting like a stereotypical "dumb" torpedo instead of a guided missile it could be).

ShadowLogan wrote:Probably for times when the "extended range, increased power, enhanced FTL capabilities" that get mentioned but not explained/detailed as far as I can see on the linked to page (and I only skimmed it so I might have missed it).

It wasn't explained because it makes absolutely no sense. The only way that would work is if the power sources for each individual ship were grossly more powerful than what the ship itself needed, thus allowing the "unity of ships" to do that. Worse still, they'd also have to engineer the smaller ships so they specifically couldn't access/make use of all that extra power, expressly so that the UoSs could demonstrate better performance.

It also means the 'main' ship of the unity had the exact opposite construction. And since the smaller ships were specifically designed to be underperformers that means all their excess energy generation was more at risk for the entire union, as taking one of those while they weren't forged together took out a relatively HUGE chunk of resources for the whole, all for exactly zero actual gain.

In other words, it'd be like designing a speed boat so that it housed a fusion cell capable of powering a battleship, but only using it to power the two onboard motors it normally has with no access to the excess energy. Oh, and then having a battleship powered by the same type of power source, but specifically designing its engines, shields, and weapon systems so that they actually need three fusion cells to work at their full strength.

There's no other way that the concept works.

Worse still, the fleet itself would have been much better off with a singular battleship with three of those fusion cells built into it so that its weapons, engines, and shields all worked at full efficiency. Then either designing a docking system for smaller ships (you know, like a carrier) or keeping the improved power source on the smaller ships and giving them engines/shields/weapons that can take advantage of them themselves.

There's a reason we don't have vehicles like this in the real world, and it's not because it wouldn't be possible. It's just dumb.

Which can be seen as a possible evolutionary development of the Saucer Separation feature seen in use in TNG (and used to fight the Borg in a 2-parter), so the basic technology isn't new to the Trek universe (ship can separate into smaller ships).

The saucer separation tech of the Enterprise-D was a glorified escape pod, not an ingenious tactical weapon. It existed because Galaxy class ships were designed to house civilian families on missions of exploration. It wasn't a ship of war; all of its weapons were purely defensive in nature, at least as far as design goes.

Being able to attack from multiple angles would prevent an enemy ship from concentrating shield power to a given angle of attack, but at the same time you'd think that Photon/Quantum Torpedoes could be modified to achieve the same result (IIRC ST Torpedoes tend to not demonstrate much maneuverability/course change acting like a stereotypical "dumb" torpedo instead of a guided missile it could be).

Yes, having more ships is better. UNLESS doing so weakens all three ships from when they were forged together a singular whole, having stronger shields and weapons. Which is why the Prometheus was a colossal failure never spoken of again even in Star Trek despite it's "brilliant" performance.

In fact, the only thing the Prometheus demonstrated was that they could potentially build capital ships operated by just two people, and those people didn't even need to be people people, just AIs. In other words, drones as powerful as capital ships. That was the real (unintentional) takeaway from the experiment, which hilariously was also completely ignored by Starfleet.

glitterboy2098 wrote:i could see some appeal to the 'battle rider' concept.. you have a mothership with FTL (possibly even an adapted freighter), used to move docked frigates/gunships that are sublight only. lets your nation obtain a larger number of combat ships (the gunships) for defense while still maintaining some degree of strategic/offensive mobility. and the gunships can operate for longer periods of deployment than fighters.

In my games I have each major military controlling large numbers of container transports the big ones about a kilometer long. In peace time they just haul freight but in war time they can do what you describe. I have a habitat module that is the size of one of the super cans and it connects to sub light assault craft. Patrol boats, gunships, and even a torpedo boat that fires a kind of energy-based torpedo. They can be dropped in large numbers into a strategic system with all the supplies they would need for 3 or 4 months.

These ships can also be carried by actual carriers to reinforce fighter and bomber squadrons but in those ships they are carried in large internal hangars on the ventral surface.

I think the "battle rider" or simple parasite gunship is the most likely type of chimera we would see in the Three Galaxies.

ShadowLogan wrote:

Warshield73 wrote:Question 1 is simple, would ships like this make sense in Phase World? I am not talking about larger ships that carry parasite craft like fighters, shuttles or even gunboats and the like but true integrated ships like these.

Ultimately it is going to come down to the functions of the sub-units and the purpose of linking up.

I would also suspect that you have to be able to support the cost of such a feature as multi-role tends to mean more expensive over more limited use vehicles and possibly the psychology of the race/designer.

I would also point out that Rifts does have several designs on Rifts Earth that fall under this general category of multi-integrated platforms:
-CS Firestorm Death's Head Transport in CWC (the C&C version, possibly the original to if one count's just the separation feature)
-NGR has two mobile base units (one in SB3, other in WB31)
-New Navy (pre-Cat. US Navy by extension) Ticonderoga in Underseas
-Japan has a 'bot that might qualify (it has a detachable drone)
-NG also has at least one 'bot that might also qualify (head section detaches as a hovercraft, but the 'bot itself becomes unusable w/o it giving it a strong TranzorZ-vibe IMHO) in SB1o

Yes I thought of these a few times and truthfully two examples stood out:
1- Is CS Firestorm. The idea that the 2 smaller units are needed to transport the larger section but when it gets to where it is going the smaller units separate and become more maneuverable and versatile. I think something like this might be interesting for mobile bases and I have something like it that is towed by 2 destroyer class vessels that acts as a forward operating base. Maybe a larger mobile platform towed by 2 or 4 light cruisers into areas that you would not want to risk slow moving cargo ships might also work.

2- Is the Ticonderoga. My problem with that ship is it doesn't seem to gain any benefit to having its two subs attached but it is inline with the Naruni Conquistador which can link up with 4 Espandon gunships in DB 12: Dimensional Outbreak, page 160 to 164. When linked together the ship gains sub light speed and improved rate of fire for the main weapon. FTL speed is not affected. The description says that Shields are more powerful but there are no shields in the description and how much more powerful is not stated.

ShadowLogan wrote:

Warshield73 wrote:Question 2, have you created any integrated ships for Phase World.

Short answer: No.

Like I said most of mine lean towards the parasite craft and in fact my early creations may not actually count as Chimeras as the loss of the small ship has no real impact on the functions of the main ship.

ShadowLogan wrote:

Warshield73 wrote:Trinity is 3 fully functional FTL starships and I am not sure I see a purpose having them attach together and then detach.

Probably for times when the "extended range, increased power, enhanced FTL capabilities" that get mentioned but not explained/detailed as far as I can see on the linked to page (and I only skimmed it so I might have missed it).

The stats for all of Ryan's ships are simple so that that you can apply them to any game system. Since we have so few ships for Phase World and almost none in the hero ship category and absolutely zero with any floor plans, I have really made use of these over the last few years for my convention games. In this case the Trinity acts a lot like the Naruni Conquistador as far as game stats.

ShadowLogan wrote:

glitterboy2098 wrote:this is a common question for such craft, especially in the trek community and the USS Prometheus

Which can be seen as a possible evolutionary development of the Saucer Separation feature seen in use in TNG (and used to fight the Borg in a 2-parter), so the basic technology isn't new to the Trek universe (ship can separate into smaller ships).

Being able to attack from multiple angles would prevent an enemy ship from concentrating shield power to a given angle of attack, but at the same time you'd think that Photon/Quantum Torpedoes could be modified to achieve the same result (IIRC ST Torpedoes tend to not demonstrate much maneuverability/course change acting like a stereotypical "dumb" torpedo instead of a guided missile it could be).

In Star Trek this kind of ship makes no sense, IMO. It just seems like it would be too vulnerable in the connections between ships and the redundance of things like engineering, bridge, and warp engines just waste cubage and mass that could be used for weapons.

The technology in Phase World though is very different from Star Trek though so I think it works there.

Crimson Dynamo wrote:It wasn't explained because it makes absolutely no sense.(...)

With the available information I do not think we can say if it makes sense or not. The altered performance in terms of range/power/FTL may be nothing more than compared to the individual components could muster alone.

Crimson Dynamo wrote:The saucer separation tech of the Enterprise-D was a glorified escape pod, not an ingenious tactical weapon. It existed because Galaxy class ships were designed to house civilian families on missions of exploration. It wasn't a ship of war; all of its weapons were purely defensive in nature, at least as far as design goes

Actually the Saucer separation tech is part of the NC-1701 Enterprise (Constitution-class) design from TOS-era, it just doesn't get referenced in the show, but does in other media (I have instructions for a model circa the 70s that references said ability, it also make an appearance in at least one TOS setting novel... "Flagfull of Stars" written 1990 set pre-Motion Picture).

It's hardly a gloried escape pod, its more like Shuttlecraft in terms of capabilities (for the -D). An escape pod is typically a one-and-done item, where a shuttlecraft can be recovered (and the Saucer Section could be recovered).

Crimson Dynamo wrote:Yes, having more ships is better. UNLESS doing so weakens all three ships from when they were forged together a singular whole, having stronger shields and weapons. Which is why the Prometheus was a colossal failure never spoken of again even in Star Trek despite it's "brilliant" performance.

In fact, the only thing the Prometheus demonstrated was that they could potentially build capital ships operated by just two people, and those people didn't even need to be people people, just AIs. In other words, drones as powerful as capital ships. That was the real (unintentional) takeaway from the experiment, which hilariously was also completely ignored by Starfleet.

I do not dispute that the Prometheus approach is flawed, there are simpler ways to achieve the same effect, but the basic thinking of being able to attack from multiple angles is sound it is the approach chosen to achieve that is questionable.

Warshield73 wrote:Like I said most of mine lean towards the parasite craft and in fact my early creations may not actually count as Chimeras as the loss of the small ship has no real impact on the functions of the main ship.

The parasite approach as you call it likely going to be more cost effective that a Chimera, so I can see why we haven't really seen something like this in PW though I'm surprised we see it on Rifts Earth.

Warshield73 wrote:In Star Trek this kind of ship makes no sense, IMO. It just seems like it would be too vulnerable in the connections between ships and the redundance of things like engineering, bridge, and warp engines just waste cubage and mass that could be used for weapons.

Upto this point no one has been able to exploit the docking connections on any known Fed. Starship with the technology AFAIK. And starships do have redundancy built into them (even as far back as TOS, you had Auxiliary Control that could replace the bridge, and engineering is shown to be capable of replacing the bridge on DS9 and TOS) so it's hardly wasted vol/mass. Warp Drive might be an issue, but then you also have starships carrying warp capable craft in shuttlebay(s) so you already have to make allowances for extra warp engines though maintenance is likely going to be a mess on the Promethus vs other ships that don't bother with secondary warp engines.

The technology is there in Star Trek to make it work, just like in Phaseworld. The real question is if it is actually viable since any issues that appear in Star Trek are also likely to rear their head in PW (or other settings) as you have to have redundant location/systems. Me personally I don't think they work without a given reason for the feature to be present that actually works (the Rifts Earth designs I mentioned IMHO don't work in terms of justification).

ShadowLogan wrote:

Crimson Dynamo wrote:It wasn't explained because it makes absolutely no sense.(...)

With the available information I do not think we can say if it makes sense or not. The altered performance in terms of range/power/FTL may be nothing more than compared to the individual components could muster alone.

Crimson Dynamo wrote:The saucer separation tech of the Enterprise-D was a glorified escape pod, not an ingenious tactical weapon. It existed because Galaxy class ships were designed to house civilian families on missions of exploration. It wasn't a ship of war; all of its weapons were purely defensive in nature, at least as far as design goes

Actually the Saucer separation tech is part of the NC-1701 Enterprise (Constitution-class) design from TOS-era, it just doesn't get referenced in the show, but does in other media (I have instructions for a model circa the 70s that references said ability, it also make an appearance in at least one TOS setting novel... "Flagfull of Stars" written 1990 set pre-Motion Picture).

It's hardly a gloried escape pod, its more like Shuttlecraft in terms of capabilities (for the -D). An escape pod is typically a one-and-done item, where a shuttlecraft can be recovered (and the Saucer Section could be recovered).

Crimson Dynamo wrote:Yes, having more ships is better. UNLESS doing so weakens all three ships from when they were forged together a singular whole, having stronger shields and weapons. Which is why the Prometheus was a colossal failure never spoken of again even in Star Trek despite it's "brilliant" performance.

In fact, the only thing the Prometheus demonstrated was that they could potentially build capital ships operated by just two people, and those people didn't even need to be people people, just AIs. In other words, drones as powerful as capital ships. That was the real (unintentional) takeaway from the experiment, which hilariously was also completely ignored by Starfleet.

I do not dispute that the Prometheus approach is flawed, there are simpler ways to achieve the same effect, but the basic thinking of being able to attack from multiple angles is sound it is the approach chosen to achieve that is questionable.

Indeed. Either some form of smart missile/torpedo or, for something more byzantine, transporting autonomous phases banks to various places for multiple flanking actions seem like far more feasible solutions while sacrificing little to nothing by comparison.

Like I said before, there's a reason vehicles like this don't exist in the real world. And it's not because it's impossible to construct them, it's just that they have zero benefits and a whole heap of problems/inefficiencies. It's way better to just have a capital ship and a host of fighter/utility vessels (aka, a modern aircraft carrier, a battlestar, or similar ship), or just a single ship built to fully utilize all of its systems (aka, destroyers, tanks, etc.) and deploy multiples as needed.

The whole Volton concept is just dumb, dumb, dumb. Just for the whole "Aww drek, they took out the green kitty; now what are we gonna do?" problem alone.

Have you checked out the Naruni ships in Dimensional Outbreak? There is a cruiser that has I believe four destroyer type ships that dock with it, makes the cruiser a little more formidable by giving it a boost at expense to destroyers.

May be something to look at.

ShadowLogan wrote:

Crimson Dynamo wrote:It wasn't explained because it makes absolutely no sense.(...)

With the available information I do not think we can say if it makes sense or not. The altered performance in terms of range/power/FTL may be nothing more than compared to the individual components could muster alone.

Lets be honest, most of the things in these systems don't make any sense in a real world sense. The idea of space fighters for instance is kind of ridiculous that's why Trek doesn't use them in most instances.

In Phase World the advantages of this will be whatever the designer wants especially with what we see with the Naruni Conquistador.

ShadowLogan wrote:

Crimson Dynamo wrote:The saucer separation tech of the Enterprise-D was a glorified escape pod, not an ingenious tactical weapon. It existed because Galaxy class ships were designed to house civilian families on missions of exploration. It wasn't a ship of war; all of its weapons were purely defensive in nature, at least as far as design goes

Actually the Saucer separation tech is part of the NC-1701 Enterprise (Constitution-class) design from TOS-era, it just doesn't get referenced in the show, but does in other media (I have instructions for a model circa the 70s that references said ability, it also make an appearance in at least one TOS setting novel... "Flagfull of Stars" written 1990 set pre-Motion Picture).

It's hardly a gloried escape pod, its more like Shuttlecraft in terms of capabilities (for the -D). An escape pod is typically a one-and-done item, where a shuttlecraft can be recovered (and the Saucer Section could be recovered).

The Saucer section is fully functioning spacecraft all on it's own and while it can function as an escape pod on grand scale it really is the heart of the Galaxy class with all the science and diplomatic functions stored there. The drive section has only one function, blow crap up. This is driven home in the Dominion War where we see Galaxy class ships leaving the yards with large sections of the saucer empty using it for Peregrin fighters or cargo.

ShadowLogan wrote:

Crimson Dynamo wrote:Yes, having more ships is better. UNLESS doing so weakens all three ships from when they were forged together a singular whole, having stronger shields and weapons. Which is why the Prometheus was a colossal failure never spoken of again even in Star Trek despite it's "brilliant" performance.

In fact, the only thing the Prometheus demonstrated was that they could potentially build capital ships operated by just two people, and those people didn't even need to be people people, just AIs. In other words, drones as powerful as capital ships. That was the real (unintentional) takeaway from the experiment, which hilariously was also completely ignored by Starfleet.

I do not dispute that the Prometheus approach is flawed, there are simpler ways to achieve the same effect, but the basic thinking of being able to attack from multiple angles is sound it is the approach chosen to achieve that is questionable.

I think we can all agree that even if the chimera concept is viable the Prometheus is a comically over complicated.

ShadowLogan wrote:

Warshield73 wrote:Like I said most of mine lean towards the parasite craft and in fact my early creations may not actually count as Chimeras as the loss of the small ship has no real impact on the functions of the main ship.

The parasite approach as you call it likely going to be more cost effective that a Chimera, so I can see why we haven't really seen something like this in PW though I'm surprised we see it on Rifts Earth.

The ones in Rifts are a mixed bag. The Ticonderoga with its attached subs act more like parasite craft to augment their Manta Reys. The CS Firestorm is the one that makes the most sense. You have a mobile base that is mostly supposed to stay in place. If you put the necessary reactors and engines on it those resources are wasted the entire time the base is stationary, but when you put that on detachable units you have stripped down transports that can function move troops and supplies around the battlespace. Really it is just more advanced version of transport helicopters flying artillery and base materials into forward positions.

To me the firestorm passes the two most important test of vehicles like this: 1) Can each section function fully on its own? and 2) Does combining them serve a purpose that a single section on its own couldn't?

ShadowLogan wrote:

Warshield73 wrote:In Star Trek this kind of ship makes no sense, IMO. It just seems like it would be too vulnerable in the connections between ships and the redundance of things like engineering, bridge, and warp engines just waste cubage and mass that could be used for weapons.

Upto this point no one has been able to exploit the docking connections on any known Fed. Starship with the technology AFAIK. And starships do have redundancy built into them (even as far back as TOS, you had Auxiliary Control that could replace the bridge, and engineering is shown to be capable of replacing the bridge on DS9 and TOS) so it's hardly wasted vol/mass. Warp Drive might be an issue, but then you also have starships carrying warp capable craft in shuttlebay(s) so you already have to make allowances for extra warp engines though maintenance is likely going to be a mess on the Promethus vs other ships that don't bother with secondary warp engines.

The technology is there in Star Trek to make it work, just like in Phaseworld. The real question is if it is actually viable since any issues that appear in Star Trek are also likely to rear their head in PW (or other settings) as you have to have redundant location/systems. Me personally I don't think they work without a given reason for the feature to be present that actually works (the Rifts Earth designs I mentioned IMHO don't work in terms of justification).

I guess I should have been more clearly, it can work in universe it is just needlessly complex and if fails both tests I stated above.
The difference between the Prometheus dividing into four sections and a ship having auxiliary control is massive:
1) An auxiliary control is almost never as good as the actual Bridge. Worf talks about this in DS9 episode Starship Down where he is forced to take control from engineering.
2) Auxiliary control is usually manned by the main bridge crew limiting the number of extra crew needed.

The Prometheus requires a full bridge for each section and a full bridge crew for each section unless the other sections are just remote control which adds in its own problem.

Crimson Dynamo wrote:Like I said before, there's a reason vehicles like this don't exist in the real world. And it's not because it's impossible to construct them, it's just that they have zero benefits and a whole heap of problems/inefficiencies.

The thing is the functions of these vehicles do exist in the real world:
-Spacecraft with boosters to achieve orbit
-Helicopters that transport artillery, refueling stations, and FOB materials
-Spacecraft that are launched from the back of larger transport jets
-Even Tugboats

All of these are examples of the same jobs that a lot of these Chimera would perform. You also have to take into account that this is space not air or water. No gravity or air drag or water to put stress on the structure. Add into that

Crimson Dynamo wrote:It's way better to just have a capital ship and a host of fighter/utility vessels (aka, a modern aircraft carrier, a battlestar, or similar ship), or just a single ship built to fully utilize all of its systems (aka, destroyers, tanks, etc.) and deploy multiples as needed.

It depends on what you want it to do. In Battlestar Galactica the big ships never move. I just finished watching the series on Peacock and they just stand still and shoot at each other for the most part. In Star Trek, Star Wars and Phase World maneuvering, even dodging, is a key to battle.

A Battlestar like ship that could separate into a fast maneuverable attack cruiser and a slow hangar section for the fighters. Useless in BSG but might be worth it in PW.

Crimson Dynamo wrote:The whole Volton concept is just dumb, dumb, dumb. Just for the whole "Aww drek, they took out the green kitty; now what are we gonna do?" problem alone.

I think this is an important point and it goes to my tests for vehicles like this each function on its own and when they combine is it useful. Yes take out Green kitty and no Voltron but you still have 4 lions which can function on their own. The question is does the ability to break into smaller parts justify the extra construction costs or does the power gained by combining them worth the expense.

Anthanatos wrote:Have you checked out the Naruni ships in Dimensional Outbreak? There is a cruiser that has I believe four destroyer type ships that dock with it, makes the cruiser a little more formidable by giving it a boost at expense to destroyers.

May be something to look at.

Yeah I forgot to mention it in the OP but I did post about it on August 11th. Thanks for the reminder though.

This is the kind of Chimera that makes sense to me. It is already a large cruiser, extremely expensive, cruiser but in order to take full advantage of the main weapon you need more power. You have these patrol destroyers that work great on their own, they are by far the toughest ships in their class in the game, but plug them into the cruiser and the added power is now available for the weapon.

Warshield73 wrote:The thing is the functions of these vehicles do exist in the real world:
-Spacecraft with boosters to achieve orbit
-Helicopters that transport artillery, refueling stations, and FOB materials
-Spacecraft that are launched from the back of larger transport jets
-Even Tugboats

All of these are examples of the same jobs that a lot of these Chimera would perform. You also have to take into account that this is space not air or water. No gravity or air drag or water to put stress on the structure.

None of those really qualify.

The boosters on a spacecraft (or extra fuel tanks on jets) are not individual ships. They literally just give some extra fuel then are disposed of due to their unnecessary weight in order to give more functionality to the actual ship (not less by losing it). The old 747s that served as a launching platform almost qualify, until you realize they didn't actually improve each other's capabilities in any way; it was just a more reusable version of a booster jet that had to be detached or the main ship (the shuttle) would never even achieve orbit. They weren't a singular whole at any point, and they certainly didn't make themselves into a more formidable vessel while connected. (There's also a reason why it was abandoned even before the Shuttle program was scrapped.)

Helicopters and transport vessels are just that; they only carry other things somewhere and then leave. At no point do they tap into their cargo's power/weapon systems, augmenting their own to transform them into a super vehicle.

And tugboats are just a combo of the two above. Nevermind that they're never actually attached to begin with. It's like saying you've created a chimerical vehicle when you t-bone a car or something.

It depends on what you want it to do. In Battlestar Galactica the big ships never move. I just finished watching the series on Peacock and they just stand still and shoot at each other for the most part. In Star Trek, Star Wars and Phase World maneuvering, even dodging, is a key to battle.

While I'm not disagreeing with you, that's not entirely true. The Adama Maneuver is a prime example, followed immediately by the Pegasus coming in to save the Galactica a short while later.

Regardless, that wasn't the point I was making. A battlestar is just an example of a carrier that transports ships, each of which does their own specific task separate from the carrier. They're never "one ship" in that the support vessels aren't plugged into the carrier signficantly amplifying its capabilities. It's literally just a carrier. Which is a completely viable and useful role for a ship.

A Battlestar like ship that could separate into a fast maneuverable attack cruiser and a slow hangar section for the fighters. Useless in BSG but might be worth it in PW.

Why would you want to cripple the cruiser with the hanger section when you could just have them functioning on their own as individual ships? What happens to the hanger with the cruiser is destroyed? What's the point of a hanger that just sits there doing nothing on its own?

(In before you counter your point in another thread about how 'cheap' contragravity systems are.) (::hides::)

I think this is an important point and it goes to my tests for vehicles like this each function on its own and when they combine is it useful. Yes take out Green kitty and no Voltron but you still have 4 lions which can function on their own. The question is does the ability to break into smaller parts justify the extra construction costs or does the power gained by combining them worth the expense.

It does not. What makes more sense is to build a few lions that are fully functional on their own, and a fully-formed Volton that doesn't have to break apart. Then deploy them as needed by their individual mission. A Glittery Boy and a small fleet of SAMAS makes more sense than five SAMAS that form into a Glitter Boy, but only if all five SAMASes are fully functional; lose one and, again, what's the point of their ability to form into a Glitter Boy? When you could just have an actual Glitter Boy called in if the SAMAS get in over their head.

Again, there's a reason why the latter is actually a tactic employed in the real world rather than the former. Engineering know-how has nothing to do with it. We could easily build 'chimerical' vehicles if we wanted to, but no military on Earth has ever concluded that it was a good idea. If it were, it'd be found everywhere.

I have to agree with the above.

Ships of that nature really don't make a lot of sense. HOWEVER, given the nature of Phase World and the multiverse in general, there's no reason to let that get in the way of including them. While they might not be feasible or practical by any measure of those words, they would still be fun and fun is the whole point of a game.