Proposal topic for updates to the (S8.x) rules governing Patrol Scenario conditions and restrictions.

See the most recent update for (S8.0) Patrol Rules on the ADB website.

By Gary Bear (Gunner) on Friday, April 25, 2008 - 12:43 pm: Edit

Need to add the (S8.28) BATTLE GROUPS rules from CL #31, assuming that they have advanced from playtest-status.

By Gary Bear (Gunner) on Friday, April 25, 2008 - 12:52 pm: Edit

As the R-Section text for the Romulan KILLERHAWK (R4.37) states that "Only two such ships were built (as replacements for lost dreadnaughts),...", should these ships be considered under the (S8.331) limit for one SC2 (even though they are SC3) and not under the (S8.333) limit as a Heavy Battle Cruiser?

As these were replacements for lost Dreadnaughts, you wouldn't see the Romulans deploy a KILLERHAWK and a DN in the same fleet. Instead, it should follow the same employment pattern as a Dreadnaught, since that's what it's strategically and operationally replacing.

Additionally, as a DN fleet flagship replacement, a KILLERHAWK would not be deployed independently (which a BCH can) but would always have the 3 escorts per (S8.331).

Thoughts?

(No, I'm not trying to "screw" the Romulans, I'm trying to get the rules and the background text to match. They have BCHs in the SUPERHAWK, ROYALHAWK, and NOVAHAWK (and the conjectural KCR) ships giving them more BCHs than any other race by a long margin.)

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, April 25, 2008 - 01:24 pm: Edit

Except that no everyone managed their fleets the same. One DN is a strong but general doctrine but the Romulans may very well have deployed thier Killerhawks in sometimes unusual ways.

Consider their government and their very long border during the General War.

What you want, it seems, is to reclassify the Killerhawk as a DN. The thing is that any BCH could be used as a replacement for a DN given it's command rating.

The Romulans may have more types of BCH's but not necessarilly more BCH hull built (I'm not sure exactly).

The number of types of BCH tends to reflect what I said above about considering their government where several great Houses rally for power, each supporting their own particular Hawk design.


I'm all for Battle Groups in S8.

By Gary Bear (Gunner) on Friday, April 25, 2008 - 01:39 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

What you want, it seems, is to reclassify the Killerhawk as a DN.

---

---

Quote:

The thing is that any BCH could be used as a replacement for a DN given it's command rating.

---

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, April 25, 2008 - 01:50 pm: Edit

I'd be OK with allowing the Killerhawk to be considered as either a BCH or a SC2 unit.

By Gary Bear (Gunner) on Friday, April 25, 2008 - 01:57 pm: Edit

From the STARSHIP NAME REGISTRY of 7 May 2007.

Federation: 11; 8 BCH, 1 BCV, 2 BCS
Klingon: 10; 5 BCH, 2 BCV, 3 BCS
Romulan: 16 + 2 KH; 9 BCH, 4 BCV, 3 BCS, 2 KILLERHAWK
Kzinti: 6; 4 BCH, 1 BCV, 1 BCS
Gorn: 4; 3 BCH + 1 BCS
Tholian: 0 BCH
Orion: 10 BCH (over 10 Cartels)
Hydran: 9; 6 BCH, 1 BCV, 2 BCS
Andromedan: N/A
Lyran: 3 BCH (and 6 BCs) [I think we're missing some names]
WYN: 0 BCH
ISC: 0 BCH

< edited to correct Romulan total >

By Gary Bear (Gunner) on Friday, April 25, 2008 - 01:59 pm: Edit

Looks like the Romulans built way more BCHs (16) plus the 2 KILLERHAWKs than the next best race (11 for the Feds).

< edited >

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Friday, April 25, 2008 - 02:42 pm: Edit

I'd like the attrition units changed from individual fighters (ie 36 fighters) to 3xSquadron flotillas.

The rule is currently 1PF/1hvy ftr=2ftrs.

Then also the Fed 3rd Way incorporated into SFB.

By Gary Bear (Gunner) on Friday, April 25, 2008 - 02:53 pm: Edit

How do you then account for casual PFs?

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, April 25, 2008 - 03:08 pm: Edit

Is there any support to count heavy fighters 1:1 with standard fighters? They aren't worth 2:1 and the smaller carriers are self limiting.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, April 25, 2008 - 03:16 pm: Edit

The romulan superhawk, novahawk and royalhawk are CCs (check their SSDs) whose cloak inflates their BPV to BCH range. They stand in for BCHes in scenarios but they're not.

The romulans have no BCH hull except possibly a converted C7.

By Gary Bear (Gunner) on Friday, April 25, 2008 - 03:39 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

(S8.333) ... For purposes of this rule, the Romulan KillerHawk, SuperHawk, RoyalHawk, and NovaHawk are BCHs. ...

---

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, April 25, 2008 - 03:47 pm: Edit

Killerhawk, sure.

The other's no IMHO. But that ship has long since sailed. I am not proposing a change now.

It's just an itch that bothers me now and again.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, April 25, 2008 - 03:57 pm: Edit

Gary,

But as long as we're discussing a revision to S8.x, that raises the question of whether the Superhawk, Novahawk, and Royalhawk ought to be treated as BCHs or whether they ought to be treated as CCHs instead. At least as regards their capabilities I agree with John Trauger. The Novahawk, despite having (due to the cloak) the same BPV as the Gorn BCH, can't really do the same job. It's just too short on firepower compared to what the Gorn has.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, April 25, 2008 - 04:18 pm: Edit

Was S8 written before the CCH class? Perhaps with the advent of the CCH class it would be reasonable to update (S8.333).

By Dale McKee (Brigman) on Friday, April 25, 2008 - 05:44 pm: Edit

Whatever happened to 'no addenda'?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, April 25, 2008 - 06:10 pm: Edit

Nothing. This is just free speech.

A CCH would be handled just like a CC so the only change I can see is that the rule be written "CC/CCH" when the master Senario book is done (or on the next S8 web page update).

By Gary Bear (Gunner) on Friday, April 25, 2008 - 06:13 pm: Edit

How can you not have addenda to (S8.0) when races, ship classes and other things (drogues, etc.) keep getting added to the game?

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, April 25, 2008 - 10:17 pm: Edit

S8 should be considered as every new offical SSD is released.

By Dale McKee (Brigman) on Friday, April 25, 2008 - 11:08 pm: Edit

I don't mind "addenda" covering new ships and items. I don't like "addenda" revising existing ships and situations that have existed in SFB for over a decade.

By Gary Bear (Gunner) on Friday, April 25, 2008 - 11:23 pm: Edit

It just happened with the Lyran DN/BCH PFT issue.

Speaking of, that needs to be updated in to (S8.34), hopefully as a better written rule than the discussion paragraph that was presented.

By Dale McKee (Brigman) on Saturday, April 26, 2008 - 12:04 am: Edit

Gary, I know. And I am really not trying to pick a fight with you. I've said my peace, I'll leave this to the masses - and ultimately, the Steves. ;)

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Sunday, April 27, 2008 - 12:24 pm: Edit

Back when the X1R topic was hot, there was some discussion concerning escorts for CVXs. I think (going from a possibly faulty memory here, and not wanting to put words in his mouth) that SVC indicated he would consider the possibility of allowing unescorted carriers (not just X-tech carriers) against Andros. The problem is that, although there are some escorts that are useful against Andros, there are also a number that are mostly wasted BPV/CR slot. The Andros don't use seekers, they have their Mobile Weapons Platforms but overall they rely on attrition units less than the Alpha Octant powers do, and the DisDevs mean that formation and maneuvering considerations are different against the Andros than they are against races that maneuver in normal fashion.

Two questions:

1) Should S8.31 be rewritten to allow different escort options (including no escorts - even for carriers that don't normally have that option) against Andros only?

2) Are there other S8.x rules that make sense in a Middle Years or General War context that don't make sense against Andros, and are perhaps candidates for an "against Andros only" modification?

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Sunday, April 27, 2008 - 04:31 pm: Edit

In Captain's Log 36 there is a rule, (J16.0) Megafighters on Patrol on page 69, that covers megafighters in S8.0 patrol battles. The intent of the rule is to limit the number of megafighters, since they are supposed to be rare. The general rule is that in a patrol battle, no more than 12 "fighter equivalents" can be megafighters, with some special exceptions for the Feds and Hydrans, who relied more on fighters than any other race.

I have no problem with the rule, except for this sentence.

---

Quote:

For this purpose a heavy fighter counts as two fighter equivalents, a medium bomber as three fighter equivalents, and a heavy bomber as four fighter equivalents.

---