G3 is very nice. Steves: thanks for all of the hard, probably tedious, work.

By Richard Sherman (Rich) on Saturday, March 07, 2009 - 12:14 am: Edit

Excellent product. Worth the wait, for sure. Two questions on Fed stuff:

1. Why does the Fed DD not have it's year in service? Is it changing because of the DD(M)?

2. On the fighter chart, what does the little "" mean by the A20 drones? I couldn't find it on the key (I'm presuming it means that the racks can be paired to carry type-IV drones, or...?)

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, March 07, 2009 - 08:38 am: Edit

Richard Sherman:

Are you telling me there is no "Year In Service" date on the Federation DD at all? There should be a "Year In Service Date", even if it was adjusted for the DD(M). That change in service date is one of the things that will be listed in the "what changed between G2 and G3" items that will be posted when I finish making the list. There were not a lot of such changes, but there were some.

As to the Fed A-20, I "think" you are referring to the symbol for the fighter having a capability to swap some drones for type-IVs, and that symbol IS in the key. Maybe it does not stand out well enough, but the text is there and has that symbol at the start of it. It just was not possible to do anything but a symbol and a note that basically said the fighter could make some type-IV exchanges and to see the rules for that specific fighter type. Fighter type being key since the A-20F has the same drone capabilities as the A-20, but does not list them, you have to go back to the A-20 to see how its drone loadouts work. (Four drone rails, all able to carry type-III drones, and thus able to be fitted with type-I, type-III, and type-VI normally, but the type-I or type-III could be fitted with MW modules, and any two adjacent rails could be paired to carry a type-IV frame, and any such type-IVs could be fitted with MW modules.) But other fighters have differences (the Federation F-111, for example, does not actually pair the drone rails, but in order for its type-III rails to carry a type-IV frame the adjacent type-I rail has to be left empty, but it all winds up being the same, i.e., you give up two drones to carry a type-IV frame, and the type-IV frame could handle MW modules).

With the differences, we had to refer you back to the rule for each fighter, and as covered above, that is what the note in the fighter legend says to do. And there is a note with that symbol (there has to be, I showed it to SVC and got his approval right after I selected the symbol and created the text, and hit the save key, and then reread the text looking for typos . . . so it has to be there, but I will not be able to look and see for sure until I get back to Amarillo about 12 hours from now (allowing for breakfast and stops on the way back).

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Saturday, March 07, 2009 - 09:58 am: Edit

Fed DD: No Year in Service listed. Ryan J Opel 7 Mar 09

Gorn Banner Listing. The banner listing for the Gorns says G6 not R6. Ryan J Opel, 7 Mar 09

Andro Banner Listing. The banner listing for the Andros says E10 not R10. Ryan J Opel, 7 Mar 09

[edited by request to change Jan to Mar -- J.Sexton]

By George Duffy (Sentinal) on Sunday, March 08, 2009 - 12:06 am: Edit

MFC: Hydran Kingdom: No listing for the St-2P. George Duffy 8 Mar 09

This is the fighter where it has it's fusion beams replaced with a Ph-2. It was listed in CL#21

(This is not the St-2p, which replaces the Ph-G with a Ph-3, but keeps the fusion beams)

B^)

By Gary Bear (Gunner) on Sunday, March 08, 2009 - 10:29 am: Edit

Does after action go here or in the G4 topic?

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Sunday, March 08, 2009 - 12:08 pm: Edit

Oh, I'm sooooooo appreciative that you put in landing abilities in the MSC, not the separate Annex. (Since I asked for it...)

The updated timeline was a nice boon too.

By Roger Rardain (Sky_Captain) on Sunday, March 08, 2009 - 09:11 pm: Edit

I got mine late last week.
A very nice product.
I like the Master Weapons Chart and the Chart Compilation.

My only complaint is that G3 has so many pages that when placed in page protectors it barely fits in an 1 1/2" binder.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, March 09, 2009 - 11:44 am: Edit

I suppose the easiest thing for me to do is say that the reported items so far are just minor glitches, but the truth is that I am embarrassed they slipped through. I hope there are no other problems.

Gary Bear:

This is now the after action topic, but you will forgive me if I hope you have not found anything more than has already been reported . . . those are embarrassing enough.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, March 09, 2009 - 11:53 am: Edit

Richard Sherman:

The "note" on the double headed arrow symbol used to denote drone rails that can be configured to carry two-space drones somehow changed between "Microsoft Word" (the document under which the notes for the fighters was created and which still shows it as a double arrow) and "page maker" (the document used to publish the Microsoft Excel files, the Microsoft word file being pasted into it at the end) into a division symbol. It is there, the last note BEFORE the EW pods text.

(The banging you hear is my beating my head against the wall in frustration.)

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, March 09, 2009 - 12:06 pm: Edit

Richard Sherman:

I have now gone and looked at the "Pagemaker" file, and the double arrow shows there also, which means (hard as it is to believe) the double arrow became a division symbol when the "Microsoft Word" file pasted into the "Pagemaker" file was converted to a PDF, as the double arrow symbol is "true" in the original "Microsoft Word" file and in the "Pagemaker" file, but becomes a division symbol in the PDF, but none of the double arrow symbols in the "Microsoft Excel" file changed.

By A. David Merritt (Adm) on Monday, March 09, 2009 - 12:17 pm: Edit

So.... would you like to buy a hammer? BIG GRIN

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Monday, March 09, 2009 - 12:35 pm: Edit

SPP,

I picked up my G3 Saturday. I commend you for an excellent product. Don't be so hard on yourself as the few items mentioned are minor. There is a huge amount of fine detail that is a great help. I really like the fighter charts, which include Captain's Log material. Again thanks.

Question: The BPVs for Federation CVA and SCS have changed (I think 210 and 221)? I presume this correct as a while back the old BPVs were mentioned as being to low.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, March 09, 2009 - 02:00 pm: Edit

Joseph R. Carlson:

Yes, those BPVs are changed, they are listed in the change file for what changed between G2 and G3, but I need some time to finish it before I can post it.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 10:15 pm: Edit

SPP,

Thanks.

By Dale McKee (Brigman) on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 10:26 pm: Edit

I have to say I am displeased to see BPVs being revised at this late date, such that the SSDs are no longer correct. I also loathe the retconning that has spawned the Fed DDM. When do the Gorn, Klingons and Lyrans get gimped next?

That said, overall it is a great product, and the quality is greater than that of G2. I can tell a lot of hard work went into it, it shows. Other than revisionist retcons, I'm pleased with my purchase.

And, by the way, the cover art is incredibly cool.

By Jon Berry (Laz_Longsmith) on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 11:51 pm: Edit

Fed DD: Year in Service should be Y129, as per the MSC update in CL#33, p103. Jon Berry 11 Mar 09 (Addenda to Ryan Opel 07 Mar 09)

By Jim Plummer (Bigjimp) on Friday, March 13, 2009 - 02:07 pm: Edit

I finally received G3 a couple of days ago. I am very pleased, and glad I waited (patiently), instead of buying G2 last year.

By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Saturday, March 14, 2009 - 11:04 am: Edit

Federation F-104JE - Listed twice. Should second one be F-104SE? - Wyszynski 14 March 2009
Federation F-104JEM - Listed twice. Should second one be F-104SEM? - Wyszynski 14 March 2009

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, March 14, 2009 - 04:14 pm: Edit

John Wysynski:

You are correct in both cases, J and S look just enough alike on the computer screen in Helvetica Font that I missed it.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Sunday, March 15, 2009 - 12:53 am: Edit

Shouldn't the items we missed be moved to the G4 topic so they can be tracked?

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Monday, March 16, 2009 - 05:30 pm: Edit

I have had a chance to look through all the annexes - I am very impressed by all the good information in the product.

I like all the new annexes/tables.

By Dave Bank (Dirk) on Friday, March 20, 2009 - 08:36 pm: Edit

I just got a copy of G3, and first I would like to say it's an impressive compendium. Clearly, a lot of hard work went into it, and I congratulate (and thank) those responsible.

There is a formatting issue I would like to bring to ADB's attention, perhaps to be addressed in G3A or G4 or whatever.

The page breaks, or lack thereof, in G3 result in no handy way (if one has the loose-leaf version) to insert page separators. For example, if I want to put some tabbed dividers in my binder, I have no way to easily divide sections - because most of the time, one section ends on the front of a page, and the next section begins on the back side.

As a result, I can insert dividers, but a page from one section or another will end up on the "wrong" side of the divider.

With my copy of G3, the only way for me to deal with that would be to photocopy the specific pages in a one-sided format, thus creating a gap into which I could insert the divider.

It would be helpful if, in developing future revisions, there was some consideration for this situation.

Again, I'm very happy with G3 as a whole.

By John Erwin Hacker (Godzillaking) on Friday, March 20, 2009 - 10:29 pm: Edit

Dave Bank:

I concur with you on the seperation of the sections. It would have been wiser to put some real good artwork or something else on those pages so that deviders could have worked but that is hindsight now.

As a whole though G3 is a real good product

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, March 21, 2009 - 07:22 pm: Edit

That would have increased the retail price and delayed the product (by three months, due the the "announcement cycle" which requires a three month delay for any change to a previously announced price in an as yet unreleased product), which is why it wasn't done.