Currently the Game allows a bonus if a 5 ship sq is in the Hex with a base: Suggestion if a Hex has 6 bases MLB or larger then the Five sub bases will act in the same manner as a five ship sq for bonus

By Jean E. Sexton (Jsexton) on Sunday, February 11, 2007 - 08:12 pm: Edit

Charles has asked me to post this on his behalf. These are his opinions and thoughts, not my own.

++

When one starts a game with rules, one makes decisions and plans based upon those rules. To change a rule in midstream may result in carefully laid plans being upset and not enough time to fix the problems created as a result of the rules change.

Therefore Charles would like to open debate (with permission already granted from GHQ) about a time frame in which to implement the rule change above or ways to mitigate the impact it will have. He sees the following options:

A. Starting next turn, no more SC3 R1 ships are to be started in SBs. Ones already started in a SB may be finished. (GHQ's current preference)

B. There will be a three turn delay in the implementation. This allows empires to convert BSSYs and build SC3SYs appropriately. If GHQ sees attempts to sleaze huge number of builds of SC3 R1 ships, they can immediately go to option A.

C. Delay implementation until the start of the next game. (Charles's preference)

He would like to suggest this as an option if the overwhelming majority of the GC players go with A: Allow instant conversions of BSSYs and instant builds of up to 4 SC3SYs to mitigate the disarray of planned builds.

Charles L.

By Jean E. Sexton (Jsexton) on Sunday, February 11, 2007 - 08:24 pm: Edit

Now for my thoughts on the above.

No matter what, the insta-build of SC3SYs is a Bad Thing for small empires and will severely impact their ability to keep afloat. 2400 EPS is NOT a possibility for small empires to generate in a single turn for building SYs. Even throwing 600 EPs at the problem could be difficult were one so unlucky as to have chosen next turn for PT or RB!

Instant conversions of BS into BSSYs would not unbalance the game, since they are free. If we had known prior to the turn we could have given those orders.

My preference is for B. It will be hard on the small empires, but we do have the ability to convert a BS into a BSSY and to build at least one SC3SY to handle the situation if we need to. It means that Mike and John have a limited time frame to watch for sleazes (no racing out to build a FOP in each and every SB when you never did so before) and a means to handle anyone who feels tempted to do so. Since the problem has been identified, changing the rule does remove temptation from us all.

Jean

By Chris Reando (Sfbo11mav) on Sunday, February 11, 2007 - 09:01 pm: Edit

Option B seems resonable to me.

Mav

By Alexander Pitman (Dassadec) on Sunday, February 11, 2007 - 09:33 pm: Edit

Um, how did the discussion of possible SB builds transfer into a different rule concerning BSSY's?
Rule B8.42 has always been in the rules for as long as I've been playing. SB's (Star Bases) and its upgrades have always been able to only produce SC4 R1 units. If empires have been producing SC3 units at SB's, then they need to be penalized for that. Even starting a SC3 unit at a SB is a B8.42 rule violation.
BSSY's are a different base and are covered in the rules. Basically the BSSY takes half again as long to build a ship (SC4 = 2 turns, SC3/2 = 3 turns), and ships built at a BSSY cost +30% EP. (A 100EP SC4 unit would cost 130 EP to build at a BSSY and take 2 turns to finish.) You'll need to read over the rules to determine if the BS -> BSSY takes up a conversion slot. BSSY's can't be specialized or automated. The BSSY also adds into the Aversion number of a system.
A FRD is a 200 EP, SC3 ship that can build SC3 or SC4 units, Like the BSSY thay have longer building times. Unlike the BSSY the FRD can be Specialized, Automated, and there is no EP % increase in ships built there.

By Lane C. Freiberger (Lane) on Sunday, February 11, 2007 - 09:46 pm: Edit

I am for option C, hold off changes until the next game starts.

If option C will not fly option B will be a reluctant second choice.

Tholian U1 & U3

By Jean E. Sexton (Jsexton) on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 12:01 am: Edit

Alex, if you look at B8.42 it doesn't seem to forbid all SC3 R1 ships (F-OL seems to be an example of one that would be permitted). For empires that do much in the way of MRR, the change would hurt since the choice must now be made to build it in a SC3SY (losing a warship), build in a BSSY (costs more and takes longer), or build in a FRD (takes longer and the FRD counts against the transfers in SD or military).

I can't find the BSSY increases the aversion roll rule. Can you help me out? That one will make choices more difficult.

By ROBERT l cALLAWAY (Callaway) on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 01:06 am: Edit

THE CONVERSATION RATE OF THE MM WHICH IS WHAT MOST OF THE SHIPS LISTED ARE (2) THAT ALL THE BIG SHIPS FOP/AUX-PFT ECT WHEATHER YOU TAKE A F-L AND CONVERT IT F-PL OR BUILD IT DIRECTLY DOES NOT MATTER YOU STILL ONLY GET 2 PER TURN THE ABLITY TO BUILD MONITERS AT THE SB COULD BE HANDLED IN THE SAME FASHION NO MORE THEN 2 PER TURN. THE BSSY DO NOT COME INTO AT ALL
IT SEEMS THAT THIS RULE ONLY CALIRTFY CURRENT PRACTICES AND ADD MONITERS TO THE MIX

By Paul Abell (Canuck) on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 01:21 am: Edit

Guys,

I am for option A. Stop all activity at once.

-- Paul

By John Burton Steele (Johnsteele) on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 08:49 am: Edit

I say just do what the G.M.s have implimented. They say it begins now so it begins now. Rules clarification are ment to balance the game.

John B. Steele

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 09:25 am: Edit

The GC rule was written before R8 (and R7?) was published. This lead to loopholes like- "you can not build an AuxCVA, but you can build the larger HAV version". There are a number of others like this.

I had suggested two wordings to John- one with an explicit list (which could well break the next time something interesting is published), and one that just rules out the larger size classes which would make things simpler in the rules.

Yes, this does thottle the production of MRR groups. Given what is happening in U2 and what the Romulans can do in U1 (and probably could have done in U2), this is probably a good thing in the long term. As several people remind me from time to time, this is a game of conquest, not surveying.

By kyle berg (Jin1) on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 03:53 pm: Edit

I like A, But I'll go with B if A doesn't work out.

By David Boucher (Mahukka) on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 10:16 am: Edit

I am for option A. The rules state that the larger ships (SC3, SC2) must be produced in SY's (BSSY and FRD included). Everyone knew the rules when the game started. If some decided to push the rules and it ended in a violation, why give them time to reset their game plan? They knew they were violating the rules. If you are willing to take the chance, you must be willing to suffer the consequences.

By John Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 12:53 pm: Edit

Well, before the latest change, it was my understanding that a SB could build one specialty freighter. This aided minor powers because they do not have many shipyards. I thought that this was the intent of the rule change. The first thing I did was build a SB (Triaxians U2) to take advantage of this rule change.

As far as violating the rules, well, the game masters enforce the rules, so, a violation is not possible.

Perhaps it was the major powers that caused the rule change, as they have the economic power to build lots of SB's and thereby specialty freighters en mass. I'm speculating here. While it helped minor powers, the rule really helped the major powers.

As the change only effects the SC3 freighters, I'm ok with it.

By John D Berg (Kerg) on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 06:52 pm: Edit

I keep this thread open for another 2 days.

By ROBERT l cALLAWAY (Callaway) on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 09:53 pm: Edit

Unless a major empire has more then 2 conv per turn the number of starbases matter only in the fact that they have more posablity of where to build them them in the ablity to flood the market with them in short this rules chain can be considered hot air because it does not change that fact and has no effect except to clarity which ships are allowed to be built

By John Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Saturday, February 17, 2007 - 01:18 am: Edit

Let me ask some questions. I recall that I am still "green" in Galactic Conquest. (I'm getting confused the more I read the rules.)


Are the "auxiliaries" considered a MM conversion? (AxCVA for example.)

... the large auxiliaries are unique. In theory, it does not seem possible to convert a SC4 hull to a SC3 hull.

... yet the small auxiliaries are a SC4 hull. So, in theory, it is possible to convert.


Are the "extra-large" (or "heavy") freighters considered a MM conversion? They are unique, like the large auxiliaries (SC3).


Are Q ships considered a MM conversion?


I see a new class of Auxiliaries in the most recent Master Ship Annex. (I don't know what an OAL 316/228 is, but I want one!)


(The one time I tried to build more specialty freighters than my MM conversion rate, the GM corrected it. By dumb luck, I don't think I ever tried building more than 2 "auxiliaries" during a turn.)

By John D Berg (Kerg) on Saturday, February 17, 2007 - 10:22 am: Edit

generally if u study G2 u can tell whats a conv by the way they are set up in the charts.

the FOL is the base hull in the heavy section, the FL is the base hull in the Large section and the FS is the base hull in the small section.

rarely if u read the rule on a given ship it may say otherwise.


YOu can't convert a large to a small or vice versa.

Q ships are not conversions.

By J. Joseph Felten (Jfelten) on Saturday, February 17, 2007 - 01:28 pm: Edit

Here are my 2+ cents.

Building any specialty freighter based on a standard freighter hull should be and always has been limited by the merchant marine conversion limits. I hope the GM's have always enforced that limit. Building R1 units such as FRD's, and Q-Ship's should not count as "conversions".

Philosophically speaking, I don't see why a SB that can build 12 large and 12 small generic freighters per turn couldn't also/instead build the SC3 freighter conversions like the L-OF (Civilian Large Ore Freighter). From the F-OL SSD it is simply a large freighter with two generic large freighter cargo modules mated together and double size engines (or is that simply two sets of regular freighter engines?). Since freighters in SFB are basically modular, this seems pretty trivial to build from an SFB universe perspective. As a DN can fit in a SB, physical size shouldn't be a limiting factor.

Other freighter variants range from relatively minor differences (L/S suicide freighter (basically a freighter loaded with explosives), etc.) to what, by the SSD, are more major conversions (AuxCV and AuxPFT for examples). For something like the simple armed freighters that have no major in-game impact, why not let people build them without restriction at SB's if they wish? If they want to spend the extra EP's they end up with a slightly tougher and slightly faster cargo freighter. I have no trouble with that.

A major issue with freighter conversions is the impact on MRR. But I'm not sure freighter conversion restrictions are a good way to limit MRR. MRR is already somewhat limited by survey cruiser conversion limits.

The proposed rule change obviously will hurt small empires. A SC3SY is a major expense for them and in very limited supply. Giving up cruiser hulls to build specialty freighters so they can pursue MRR does seem somewhat unfair to me. Likewise they are less able to afford the +30% cost to use BSSY's.

Some alternative suggestions.:
1. Allow (all?) R1 units to build in SC4SY's regardless of actual size class.
2. Allow (all?) R1 units to build in CWSY's regardless of actual size class.
3. Excuse the +50% time and +30% cost of building in a BSSY for R1 units.
4. Offer a new MMSY that is cheaper than a SC3SY (say 400EP and 2 turns to build) but can only build R1 units (any size class).
5. Allow SC3SY's to build any R1 unit in 1 turn. A F-OL simply can't take as long to build as a BCH.
6. Allow SC3SY's to build two R1 units at once.

Ships like the National Guard units and auxiliary cruisers are another issue. My personal opinion is that they are enough like regular warships that they should build like them. But if treated like regular warships, why would anyone ever build them? And do we care?

Whatever the final rule change is I request that it be written very clearly so there are no doubts about it even for those with rusty SFB knowledge. A few examples wouldn't hurt, especially for units like FRD's and F-OL's.

By John Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Saturday, February 17, 2007 - 02:34 pm: Edit

Ah Mr. Berg, I do not study very well, hence the questions. There is a problem for the F-L as the "large" base ship, as it is SC4 and the "large" auxiliaries are SC3.

I would assume that you are saying that they (the SC3 large stuff) can not be converted per sey, but they may be built new and count as a conversion.

Could one convert an F-OL to any SC3 auxiliary?

May Q ships be built by the MM? I am unsure if they are considered a military class ship or a "police" ship, which the MM is allowed to build.

By ROBERT l cALLAWAY (Callaway) on Saturday, February 17, 2007 - 02:49 pm: Edit

JJ is correct in several items however the AUX-CVA is a conv slot.
As for the F-AL I have alway held that SFB has never treated them correctly. They have alway been treatied as unchanging a 150 F-AL is the same as a 180 F-AL, yet during this 30 year period the general war was waged by most of the known galaxy those ships should have become the mainstay of the MM fleets and they should hav received upgraded weapons equal to a PF (rom cent) three statis box heavy weapons and at least 2 add class weapons. freighters are expensive and slow and during a war vunerable to raiders and the failure of them to arrive when and where needed means the fleet units that depend on them die also. So providing upgrade weapons means in the long run few loses, and more enemy resouces devoted to find and killing them.
Note Alex has stated in his posting of the 11th that the FRD has no penlity except longer build times toward building SC3/4 ships (ie a 100 point ship in a BSSY is 130 points but only a 100 in the FRD this uncorrect as far as I know other wise I would be building dzs of them as they cost 2/3 of a sc4sy and 1/3 of a sc3sy and 2/9 of a sc2sy which they also can build)

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Sunday, February 18, 2007 - 01:14 pm: Edit

B8.83- FRD can not be automated

B8.95- FRD functions as a SC3 SY, 50% longer build time, can not move while building, CAN be specialized.

A FRD is thus a somewhat slower and less effective SC3 SY (due to construction speed and inability to be automated).

===

One could argue that randomizer tech is the answer to how MM units improve.

Personally, I'd have no problem with being able to use Q ships and armed freighters to meet working freighter counts (perhaps capping them at 5% of the overall total) at a prorated rate.

We are also at present (so far as I know) ignoring skids, ducktails and the freighter engine upgrades all of which come into play under R8. The skid/ducktail options could be reasonably argued to increase the AF/DF of some freighters by +1. The uprated engines potentailly do the same (and could be argued to increase the chances of a convoy escaping being found; or perhaps reducing freighter requirements since the ships are 25% or more faster).

===

Examples- feel free to write up any you want to (I have one for prototypes that I need to put the finishing touches on). A place to put them (so one doesn't have to sift the back archives) is 'Opening Soon!'... Heck, I'll even volunteer to proof read what you write to track down grammar and clairity issues.

===
John S:

Less than half of the "Large Auxilaries, Large Freighters" (per the G2 listing on page 13) are size class 3- CVA, PFL, SCS, OAS. The other 13 entries are size class 4. The four SC3's are the ones most likely to have combat utility.

The box count doesn't really seem to justify the change in size class. No other rational (to me)
pattern seems to justify size classing- not BPV, not EPV, not crew units...

===

A OAL would, under this proposal, be a conversion during construction of a "FOL". Note that under that G2 reference, the FOL (and FOP, OAL, and several others) are SC3 varients of the FOL.

[I'd provide more complete listings, but I don't want to run afoul of copyright issues.]

===

Q ships are an R1 unit- see page 14 and 15 of G2. They do NOT count as conversions.

===

The OAL (and its smaller OAS model) are essentially a mobile base with engine pods attached. They have some utility vs. fixed location bases (no freighter support requirement for one).

===

By John D Berg (Kerg) on Sunday, February 18, 2007 - 11:01 pm: Edit

John, I think howard covered all your q, right?


JJF, There are already rules waiting to be used for someone who wishes to use R and D to make the MMSY and /or the Civies SY.

Fore example--

New tech- System defense initiative (SDI). With this tech any National Guard ships can be built at a SB in lieu of a R1.0 unit. 1xSC3 or 2xSC4 National Guard ships can be built per turn at a SB or its equivalent. Once built they may placed under a bases command and removed from military/merchant navy. The Max number of NG ships is 6/system of any size class and 1 conv of each size class. The cost od the NG ships cannot be reduced for any reason and the cannot have special crew. Once assigned to a system they cannot be moved. They act as FTR for purposes of same hex combat. They become part of system defenses and will not need RX MV to assemble with friendly forces.