Federation Commander

Nerroth wrote: *Since the D7C has been re-named the D7L on account of its wartime refit, should the KRC be similarly re-designated as the KRL? (Prior to the B-refit of Y170, the KRC had G-torps in place of the KRL's Plasma-S launchers.)

Ummm no at the time the Klingons sold those older D7C they were not D7L. And since there is not a refit upgrade for the KRC why would we call it KRL? This seems like unnecessary mudding of the waters,

Thanks Nerroth - great job on CL#49 by the way.

Dal Downing wrote:

Nerroth wrote: *Since the D7C has been re-named the D7L on account of its wartime refit, should the KRC be similarly re-designated as the KRL? (Prior to the B-refit of Y170, the KRC had G-torps in place of the KRL's Plasma-S launchers.)

Ummm no at the time the Klingons sold those older D7C they were not D7L. And since there is not a refit upgrade for the KRC why would we call it KRL? This seems like unnecessary mudding of the waters,

Actually, in SFB, there is a KRL. The KRC has Pl-G torpedoes; the KRL has Pl-S torpedoes. That what is upgraded (phasers on the D7L and plasmas on the KRL) is irrelevant; there was a KRL and technically, that is what the all upgraded version of the ship is properly called in SFB.

In FC, however, that distinction is ignored. In FC, there is no D7L or KRL; there is only D7C and KRC. (Just like there is no D7B or D7K; there is only the D7.)

So, really, either name can be used and basically be correct.

this is something that is becoming a very sore subject over on the legacy board in the ACTA board.

And those are the very people who wanted refits so they could have multiple cost options for the same ship.

I do not disagree with this. i just hope this does not get out of hand.

Some ships will get two options, most get one, a few get three.