When we were reviewing the rulebook I did go on a fishing expedition for additional shipyard types. There are several "obvious" shipyard types one could propose-

"any size, as long as it is a R1 hull". Freighter hulls use cheaper engines, so one could well postulate the existence of a R1 only shipyard that costs less than the military ones

"police cutter". Police ships seem to rarely show up in GC. Partially this is due to funds. Partially this is due to yard scarcity. If there is a SY (or other way) to build police ships without using a SC4 SY, players may consider building them in larger numbers... B11.120 (National Guard ship production by Starbases) partially addresses this.

"fighter/shuttle"- sometimes you end up building Starbases simply for their ability to build those bombers that you are frantically churning out (pulling a regular SY offline is painful, particularly after you have SY specialization tech)

"workboat/skiff/interceptor/pf"- same argument as the ftr/shuttle one.

These concepts are filed away in my "things to discuss when we next update the GC rulebook". Given the scope of the changes in play already, I (wearing my player hat) suggest making note that the ideas exist, but that they didn't make the cut this time around. These could disrupt play balance so hold off on petitioning for them for now.

Footnote- I already have 29 items on my list. Some are wording fixes. Some are Romulan corner cases that we should codify for future NTW/W/Y/MY tech shifts. Some are notation standardization issues. Several are new annexes. Some sort of fix for IC to make it not a dead end tech is on the list (#4).

By Alex Aminoff (Aaminoff) on Tuesday, July 07, 2009 - 12:03 am: Edit

> F-SS are also go 26/50

Right... Surely this is a rules loophole that the GMs would close. Isn't the F-SS the suicide freighter loaded with explosives that you use to dock to an unsuspecting base and blow up? How does having a bunch of those in your merchant fleet gain you money?

By Jean Sexton (Jsexton) on Tuesday, July 07, 2009 - 12:42 am: Edit

Alex, you are limited in the number of MM conversions you may build. If you build those, you won't be building backups for your MM's "required" ships (the ones where if you don't have them Bad Things^TM happen) or the ones that help you during convoy raids. You may use things like the F-SS to bump your MM's income to a decent level quickly, but if you want to do MRR or defend your convoys, then you must make choices.

As for the F-SS in GC, it has a one-time effect in battle. It does help protect convoys and a system if someone attacks a system that has an SR that contains an F-SS.

It balances out in the end.

By Jean Sexton (Jsexton) on Tuesday, July 07, 2009 - 12:45 am: Edit

Rob, a commercial base is too big to move by tug. Remember that a mobile base is the largest thing you can move; a CB is substantially larger than an MB.

By ROBERT l cALLAWAY (Callaway) on Tuesday, July 07, 2009 - 01:35 am: Edit

Jeanie
according to the rule book a CB is equal to 3 MLB
there fore it should be possable to undock slot A disengade slot B and cut section E loose to get a shipping load of 3 MLB

By ROBERT l cALLAWAY (Callaway) on Tuesday, July 07, 2009 - 01:42 am: Edit

Alex in the first 5 to 10 turns the need is to build working freighters for TRH, FT for TPs and FSS to build the BPV total While additional F-RL, F-ML, F-EL, F-PL are desired the best rate of return early is F-SS During the early turns your MM conv are petty much usless because you don't make enough to be able to build the working freighter needed and spend large sums to build the speciality ships. rember 1 F-SS=the replacement of 4 F-S transfered to working freighters.

By Jean Sexton (Jsexton) on Tuesday, July 07, 2009 - 03:59 am: Edit

Rob, sorry, it doesn't work that way.

B11.70 A TCB = either

CB, MB, 3xCPL or
2xMB, 3xCPL

I cannot find the CB = 3xMB tonight, but that could be me being sick. I can find something that implies it, but the rule may be gone.

Think of it this way. A bunch of travel trailors may be able to substitute for a mansion, but while the travel trailors are mobile, the mansion is not.

By ROBERT l cALLAWAY (Callaway) on Tuesday, July 07, 2009 - 09:40 am: Edit

Jeanie it moduler.
It designed to taken apart, added to and changed
A CB can be seen as a prefab structure A TCB is a skyschraper. Plus since these are SC2 or smaller object there may will be some form of transporter that could move them see the history channel mega movers. other wise it would only need 150 points to upgrade a IC 2 CB to a TCB major a center section and a third CB. John can't have it both ways either A single CB is upgradable to TCB and is unmovable, but 2 CB can't. It begs the question of Why 3 CB are required nothing should stop the upgrade to TCB the 2nd CB should be only a stop on the route to a TCB and not the deadend that the IC makes it
For that matter I could agure that the TP should be declare a certain # of cargo boxes per turn and any MM ship could be assigned releasing the need to purchase FT for that duty only.
It a game jeanie but its moving out of john and mike control the system has been released to the world and hundreds of very bright people will be adding, subtracting, and chaging it. the Steves are going to be finding, just like SFB that the players are going to asking hard question and finding their own consents. Howard has already stated that he has 27 questions. I intend to try to make that list grow as does Ken, the John's and everyother player, GC is evoling and changing and question are not going away

By Jean Sexton (Jsexton) on Tuesday, July 07, 2009 - 10:39 am: Edit

Rob, just as an MB (which can be moved) can be upgraded to a BS and then a BATS, the CPP (which can be moved) can be upgraded to a CPL and then to a CB. These upgrades are linked into the bases so they cannot simply be "unhooked" and moved. Note that B4.10 states that a TCB is one unit.

With the Improved Colonies, I don't know if the GMs would allow a person to scrap the extra CB if it were no longer needed (i.e., one of the existing CBs became a TCB and the colony became a major).

I think that perhaps part of the problem is that what is equivalent to something is not what it actually is. Adding to a CB to make it a TCB is more of adding onto a house than linking two different houses.

I don't see that the campaign is moving out of John Berg's control anymore than ADB's games have moved out of their control. People may make suggestions, just as they always have, but ultimately John's decision stands. However, what a person chooses to add in the way of his own house rules is his business.

By ROBERT l cALLAWAY (Callaway) on Tuesday, July 07, 2009 - 11:58 am: Edit

Jeanie
First the second CB can be scrapped according to John.
Second there is a tech call QCB after 170 that adds a fourth CB to a TCB.
according B11.7 A TCB = CB, MB, 3xCPL or TCB = 2xMB, 3xCPL.
And what would happen if the second CB was converted into a second TCB how might this effect a system income?
Question that John has not dealt with in the past are going to be araising clarity of wording is going to be needed.
GC is a product of ADB the Steves will have a say in what happens to it.
If this is the eq of building a house then 2 CB are seperate wings to a center section and the upgrade should proccessed from there.

By Jean Sexton (Jsexton) on Tuesday, July 07, 2009 - 01:01 pm: Edit

Rob, I seem to be the liaison between GC and ADB. As long as we do not violate ADB, Inc.'s contract with Paramount, I doubt the Steves will have much to say. Our campaign rules are ours; others may look at it, may ask questions, may make suggestions, but since John Berg is the GC Designer, I think that John will retain ultimate control over this product. I can tell you that the Steves didn't do anything to the rulebook as published except donate the artwork and tell me what sort of margins were needed.

(sigh) I think we will have to agree to disagree about how the various commercial bases are done. The QCB tech's proper name is "Improved Commercial Bases" and it sees (to me) to be clearly not simply four commercial bases tied together.

Compare these stats:

1. Crew units: A CB has 80 crew, a TCB has 230 and a QCB has 288. Going from 1 to three saves 10, but going from 3 to 4 would save 32?

2. EPV: A CB is 100, a TCB is 350, a QCB is 438. So it costs 50 EP more to have 3 and only 38 more to have 4?

3. AF/DF: A CB is 4 AF/14 DF, a TCB is 11 AF/50 DF, a QCB is 15 AF/ 64 DF. So both the TCB and QCB are a point short of the multiples, but the both the TCB and QCB have 8 points more DF.

4. Docking points: A CB has 7, a TCB has 28, a QCB has 32. So there is an increase of 7 points for the TCB and only 4 for the QCB?

All evidence points to the additions being not a complete CB, but to modifications/additions/renovations of the original station. After Y170, a person could go directly from CPL to QCB by adding the missing 388 EPV over three turns, but they would miss having the CB and TCB (thus missing the income from the system). (I asked once, because I was curious and decided very quickly that it wasn't a good move for me.)

I think my interpretation is valid since John has stated that the CB/TCB cannot be moved (and we know the CPP can be). We know in SFB that an MB is the largest base that can be moved and it is SC3. A CB is SC2, so the implication is that it isn't going anywhere once built.

By John Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Tuesday, July 07, 2009 - 01:19 pm: Edit

Scrapping the extra CB when it is not needed anymore - I knew that!

(The IC club's ear perked up at the mention of improving the tech for the future.)

By ROBERT l cALLAWAY (Callaway) on Tuesday, July 07, 2009 - 02:08 pm: Edit

All true jeanie, However I shall admit to having to much fun tugging on john's beard and censured because I perfer to leave the rest to your imagation and the other poor sods who are shaking their heads over this conversation.
But in all honesty the IC rules suck the letters TCB stand for triple commercial base while the make up the TCB can vary by title it indicates a grouping of three CB and a central node which they are hung on to.
A TCB maybe considered to be the local cilvin eq to a SB.
It a transfer station, resuply depot, main custom/trade nexus for the system general ecomony actitity. It size is a reflextion of the amount of money/goods that past though it port in a given priod of time. It would also act as a general repair location of the cilivan traffic.

got to go more latter

By John D Berg (Kerg) on Wednesday, July 08, 2009 - 09:43 am: Edit

Rob, I think we can end the talk about CB and the like being moved. They are just too big.

Besides if tthey could be moved it would require too many tugs and too much time.

So let's leave it at no moving bases.

Also note that many of the ideas in the bampton que could very well be incorperatec into a supplement at a later time.

As for IC, it uses are limited, but if u wanted to have, or needed to have, the benefits of a small empire, IC is thre only way to go, and still grow.

Some empires may have powerful trading rules that require them to remain small.

By ROBERT l cALLAWAY (Callaway) on Wednesday, July 08, 2009 - 10:04 am: Edit

acual John I do agree with you. At least 6 tugs and even at 3 hexes a turn the distance would require 3 turn min. As you are well aware the status of bases purchase mix for the Lyran has been a sore point since the start of the game and untill the GCB arrives scrapping is not an option.
Indeed I have considered a R&D project to permit a second TCB in system acting in a more commercial form as a fabercater, mm shipyard, transshipping point (like a SB able to build a any size R1 unit or Tug variant)

By John D Berg (Kerg) on Thursday, July 16, 2009 - 08:37 pm: Edit

This is the offical GC system ruling.

The HDX CANNOT be converted from any preexisting HDW hull. It must be built from scratch.

jberg

By William Gary Glattli II (Wglattli) on Friday, July 17, 2009 - 12:04 am: Edit

Fine by me. I assume this also covers the HDD to HDDX as well.

Thank you for addressing this.

Gary

By John Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Thursday, August 13, 2009 - 05:10 pm: Edit

I have a question.

While there is no doubt that SR's (or equivalent) are in supply in a MRR hex (with proper requirements -- E4.20), are other squadrons (or non-MRR base) considered to be "in supply" if they are in the same hex?

Thanks,

John

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Thursday, August 13, 2009 - 09:00 pm: Edit

Units required to support the MRR (SR, F-OP, F-OL, F-PL, etc.) are in supply. Your random DN/CC/whatever squadron is not. The only one I'd punt to the GMs is what happens when you have a mixed squadron doing MRR work? I.e.:

CA, 3xCW, 3xSR is doing MRR. Clearly the SRs should be in supply. It is a coin toss on the CA/CW hulls. You would presumably have done this so that when your MRR group is attacked by the enemy, it is harder to for them to off it.

There is some opportunity for abuse if the CA/CW hulls were allowed to be in supply (think staged assault force). 3 (or 4) SRs could make some minor attacks, but their effectiveness is somewhat limited (and SRs being varients for most empires are themselves limited in volume).

By John Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Friday, August 14, 2009 - 11:19 am: Edit

You are close to my idea. A separate military SQ defending the MRR. If they fend off the attack the MRR continues.

Conversely, if they are in the same SQ, the MRR is always disrupted when attacked.

Lets ask that question too. Is a mixed SQ, doing an MRR, in supply?

I do not think a one hex closer staged attack will matter, if one wanted to do this. An entire row of MRR hexes, maybe. But, that would make the MRR's a BIG target for attack in my opinion.

I suppose that is a seperate question: are CW/DW clase ships are allowed in a MRR hex? (It is an OMA after all.) Lets ask that one also!

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Friday, August 14, 2009 - 09:48 pm: Edit

The DW/CW answer is pretty clear- no. My example of CA, 3xCW, 3xSR should have been along the lines of CA, 3xDD, 3xSR.

A few empires may have exceptions (the SparrowHawk based SR for example is rather useless as an SR if it can not go into an OMA hex).

Pull out your U2 map. Count how many Federation systems can be reached from Kzinti/Klingon space with speed 3 ships. Count how many can be hit when HPM is in play and your strike force can move 4...

I stated it poorly, but you separate military squadron defending the MRR group(s) was what I assumed you had in mind.

So to summarize for the GMs:
a) SRs, and required support ships are in supply per the rules.
b) Additional warships that are allowed to be in OMA hexes which are in the same squadron(s) as the SR(s) performing a MRR- are they in supply. I suggest no (KISS).
c) Additional squadrons that can legally (no CW/DW hulls) be in an OMA hex and in the same hex as an active MRR. I suggest no to avoid "creative" use of MRRs.

By John Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Saturday, August 15, 2009 - 11:05 pm: Edit

b) should be an interesting explanation which ever way it is ruled! (This was Howard's variation!)

If true, then it lends credence to c).

There are better ways to invade with speed 3 or 4 ships than via a MRR (assuming the answer is yes to supply). Just move em! There is enough fuel to do this. An open ended trade route comes to mind (to take advantage of DTM).

Of course, once released from Fed limitations, the neighboring borders are equally attackable.

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Sunday, August 16, 2009 - 12:00 am: Edit

Timing John, timing. Do you have any idea how long those SnipeS's were parked on the border (and the other ships were parked one hex back)? [Hint: my records say Y163.1, so four years.] Being in supply allows you to attack/counter attack at any time, and with three full turns of supply before you are unable to move.

By John Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Sunday, August 16, 2009 - 03:42 pm: Edit

No, no idea.

I now know to patrol borders!

I now know to patrol them with a scout (can see further)!

The U2 Emperor enjoyed hunting them!

I did know something was up when the ISC strategic minefields disappeared, not to mention entire border hexes.

Beware of the mighty Snipe -- they are old and slow, but boy are they persistent.

By William Gary Glattli II (Wglattli) on Thursday, October 08, 2009 - 01:20 pm: Edit

In a conversation exchange from the General Discussion thread, John Stiff raised a point that I have been wanting to get discussed for some time. In there he noted:

"I suppose the question should be, could one use the unused SC2 conversion slot for a lesser one? After all, the SC2 shipyard can build a lesser ship. Just food for thought."

A reading of the rulebook does NOT address this possibility and I have, frankly, been curious about if this can be done. I THINK I have done this occasionally in the past and the GM has never had a problem with it, but I still think it needs to be codified in the official rules. So, with this in mind...

** Question to the rules committee **

Can conversion slots for larger size classes be used to construct variant ships of smaller size classes? (i.e. SC2 slot to build a SC3 or SC4 variant, SC3 slot to build a SC4 variant) In my opinion the CW and DW conversion slots should remain exclusive to their own particular hull types, but I guess the rules committee should review those also.

Gary