Questions on Ships

Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: Rules Questions: Questions on Ships
  Subtopic Posts   Updated
Archive through January 02, 2008  17   01/08 12:52am
Archive through January 14, 2008  25   01/15 12:22pm
Archive through January 23, 2008  25   01/23 07:08pm
Archive through January 31, 2008  25   02/01 08:39am
Archive through February 03, 2008  25   02/04 02:03pm
Archive through February 06, 2008  25   02/07 04:09pm
Archive through February 18, 2008  25   02/19 08:00pm
Archive through February 20, 2008  25   02/26 08:22pm
Archive through March 09, 2008  25   03/22 12:22am
Archive through March 30, 2008  25   03/31 07:30pm
Archive through April 10, 2008  25   04/12 08:45am
Archive through April 17, 2008  25   04/17 07:55pm
Archive through April 24, 2008  25   04/27 01:26pm
Archive through May 19, 2008  25   05/25 03:48am
Archive through June 21, 2008  25   06/21 10:12pm
Archive through July 16, 2008  25   07/21 12:19am
Archive through July 22, 2008  25   07/22 11:12pm
Archive through July 28, 2008  25   07/28 03:33pm
Archive through August 17, 2008  25   08/18 08:20pm
Archive through August 25, 2008  25   08/27 04:47am
Archive through September 01, 2008  25   09/08 08:24pm
Archive through September 11, 2008  25   09/12 08:40pm
Archive through September 20, 2008  25   09/27 02:02pm
Archive through October 07, 2008  25   10/21 09:46am
Archive through October 27, 2008  25   11/02 12:44am
Archive through November 05, 2008  25   11/06 04:38pm
Archive through November 29, 2008  25   11/30 05:48pm
Archive through December 29, 2008  25   01/09 12:06am
Archive through February 01, 2009  25   02/08 07:45pm
Archive through March 12, 2009  25   03/12 11:00pm
Archive through April 17, 2009  25   04/19 01:25am
Archive through May 06, 2009  25   05/06 04:13pm
Archive through May 14, 2009  25   05/28 01:08pm
Archive through June 05, 2009  25   06/07 01:30am
Archive through June 12, 2009  25   06/12 04:28pm
Archive through June 19, 2009  25   07/03 08:06pm
Archive through July 14, 2009  25   07/15 02:41pm
Archive through July 25, 2009  25   08/04 09:01am
Archive through August 12, 2009  25   08/13 04:14pm
Archive through August 15, 2009  25   08/17 12:46pm
Archive through August 21, 2009  25   08/21 08:08pm
Archive through August 27, 2009  25   08/27 07:59pm
Archive through September 04, 2009  25   09/05 01:15am
Archive through September 26, 2009  25   09/26 07:15pm
Archive through October 12, 2009  25   10/13 09:39pm
Archive through October 17, 2009  25   10/17 10:46pm
Archive through October 21, 2009  25   10/23 09:11pm
Archive through November 11, 2009  25   11/17 02:23am
Archive through December 02, 2009  25   12/13 10:54pm
Archive through January 03, 2010  25   01/04 06:40pm
Archive through January 20, 2010  25   01/27 10:30pm
Archive through February 15, 2010  25   02/17 09:08am
Archive through March 10, 2010  25   03/11 04:18pm
Archive through April 04, 2010  25   04/05 11:47am
Archive through June 01, 2010  25   06/03 02:06pm
Archive through June 19, 2010  25   06/20 01:24am
Archive through July 04, 2010  25   07/05 11:08pm
Archive through July 10, 2010  25   07/14 03:05pm
Archive through August 06, 2010  25   08/10 07:13pm
Archive through August 21, 2010  25   08/23 12:34am
Archive through September 01, 2010  25   09/13 12:51am
Archive through October 03, 2010  25   10/05 10:42am
Archive through October 10, 2010  25   10/13 08:29am
Archive through October 15, 2010  25   10/18 09:13pm
Archive through November 16, 2010  25   11/20 11:05pm
Archive through November 22, 2010  25   11/22 05:37pm
Archive through November 24, 2010  25   11/24 09:17pm
Archive through November 27, 2010  25   11/28 11:22am
Archive through January 03, 2011  25   01/04 11:32pm
Archive through January 12, 2011  25   01/18 01:12pm
Archive through January 29, 2011  25   02/03 06:13pm
Archive through February 27, 2011  25   04/02 10:18pm
Archive through June 06, 2011  25   06/07 12:12pm
Archive through June 20, 2011  25   06/23 06:19pm
Archive through June 27, 2011  25   06/27 09:15pm
Archive through July 11, 2011  25   07/12 04:33am
Archive through July 18, 2011  25   07/18 07:13pm
Archive through August 22, 2011  25   08/24 10:38pm
Archive through September 13, 2011  25   09/14 02:35am
Archive through November 07, 2011  25   11/08 05:40pm
Archive through December 08, 2011  25   12/09 10:56pm
Archive through December 19, 2011  25   01/04 11:53pm
Archive through January 24, 2012  25   01/25 05:21pm
Archive through February 02, 2012  25   02/02 06:06pm
Archive through February 21, 2012  25   02/22 02:45pm
Archive through March 22, 2012  25   03/27 09:47pm
Archive through April 26, 2012  25   04/30 12:50pm
Archive through May 30, 2012  25   05/30 03:25pm
Archive through June 09, 2012  25   06/09 04:13pm
Archive through June 11, 2012  25   06/16 10:08pm
Archive through June 26, 2012  25   06/26 11:06pm
Archive through July 07, 2012  25   07/09 10:38pm
Archive through July 14, 2012  25   07/15 01:42am
Archive through July 23, 2012  25   07/23 04:33pm
Archive through July 24, 2012  25   07/24 05:05pm
Archive through July 26, 2012  25   07/29 06:09pm
Archive through August 23, 2012  25   08/27 06:38pm
Archive through September 06, 2012  25   09/07 07:13pm
Archive through February 13, 2013  25   03/11 08:44am
Archive through March 19, 2013  25   04/05 05:01pm
Archive through April 18, 2013  25   05/02 11:44am
Archive through June 25, 2013  25   06/26 02:26pm
Archive through July 22, 2013  25   08/06 09:27pm
Archive through August 31, 2013  25   09/16 05:49pm
Archive through October 13, 2013  25   10/14 09:18am
Archive through December 09, 2013  25   12/10 11:55am
Archive through January 13, 2014  25   01/16 05:47pm
Archive through February 01, 2014  25   02/07 11:14pm
Archive through February 16, 2014  25   02/20 09:42pm
Archive through February 28, 2014  25   03/20 06:06pm
Archive through April 19, 2014  25   05/05 12:24pm
Archive through May 28, 2014  25   06/14 06:10pm

Please note: Omega-based questions go in the Omega Q&A; Magellanic-based questions go in the The Magellanic Cloud Q&A.
By Matthew Potter (Neonpico) on Wednesday, May 28, 2014 - 11:09 pm: Edit

My (non-G3) Annex #10 says for the Tholians to see also "Civilian small freighter". I have always assumed that was a note for the WT. Module M uses the exact same schematic as the small freighter variants.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Tuesday, June 03, 2014 - 08:30 am: Edit

Thanks Mathew.

By Matthew Potter (Neonpico) on Tuesday, June 03, 2014 - 10:58 am: Edit

And I finally looked at the civilian small freighter, and the Tholian WT is noted there, right next to the Tholian Armed WT, Small Aux's, and the venerable F-S

By Shawn Hantke (Shantke) on Wednesday, June 04, 2014 - 03:34 pm: Edit

Is there a list of the ships that are described but don't have SSDs?

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Saturday, June 14, 2014 - 06:10 pm: Edit

The R-section for the Romulan DemonHawk modular dreadnought (R4.95) states that the ship:


Quote:

Cannot use F (Mauler), E/M (Aegis), or J (Pl-S) modules.




To clarify, are all of these restrictions applied against both SparrowHawk and SkyHawk modules with the same letter designation, or is any overlap confined to the role which is described in each case?

For example, is the DMH permitted to take the SkyHawk-F scout module (since it is not a Mauler module), or is it disbarred (since it is an "F" module) instead?


Also, if a DemonHawk takes SparrowHawk-C modules (and/or a SkyHawk-F module, should this be permitted), may the hull be classed as a "survey ship" if the Romulan player so wishes?

(While there may be too much demand for such a vessel "on the map" in wartime, perhaps such a configuration would have permitted the class to aid the Empire's recovery efforts in peacetime, had any been built and had survived to that point.)

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Sunday, June 15, 2014 - 09:42 pm: Edit

Gary, I believe that those are the SP-F/M/J and the SK-E...also the SP-U/SK-C (heavy fighter/PF) combination can't be used...

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Tuesday, June 17, 2014 - 01:22 pm: Edit

R1.86 General CUT - The way I read the rule the ship did not have drones until Y165. The SFBOL definition file has drones from the ships launch. Am I misreading the rule or should there be drones from Y130?

By Ed Meister (Edthefed) on Saturday, June 21, 2014 - 03:03 pm: Edit

When looking at the Master Fighter Chart, for most fighters (F-18 for example), there is listed the F-18, then F-18M. The speed is doubled, so I assume it has something to do with warp booster packs. But the fighters have higher damage points and BPVs plus also carry more drones. What does the "M" represent? I know "E" is for an EW fighter. And I understand the upgraded F-18B,C, etc. But I've been researching what "M" means and haven't been able to figure it out. Thanks!

By Matthew Potter (Neonpico) on Saturday, June 21, 2014 - 03:06 pm: Edit

M designates a Megapack is present. Those rules are introduced in module J2.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, June 21, 2014 - 03:51 pm: Edit

Ken Kazinski:

The opening text says "On most, but not all, ships of this type, the drone racks were phaser-2 LS/RS prior to Y165."

If you want to run a Kzinti Armed Cutter in Y130 you can decide to have type-A drone racks with Speed-8 (upgradeable to Speed-12) drones, single or double space. Same with a Klingon or a Federation or a WYN Armed Cutter. You can also decide to just go with the all phaser armament. In Y165 things change because faster drones start becoming available, and empires that used drones were more prone to using the drone armed version (again, Kzinti, Klingon, Federation, or WYN) and the plasma empires (Inter-Stellar Concoridum, Gorns, Romulans) started installing plasma-D racks, and any of these might also operate a phaser armed version still.

Even so, Armed Cutters operated by the Hydrans, Lyrans, Lyran Democratic Republic, Tholians, Seltorians, Vudar, and Jindarians would only operate the phaser-armed version.

The Andromedans and Orions would in general never operate Armed Cutters, although either might under "Special Scenario Rules" be operating such a ship in a specific scenario as some sort of deception operation.

Carnivon and Paravian Armed Cutters would be phaser armed versions (Death Bolts would not operate from such a ship) only.

It is not known if an Armed Cutter Variant was operated in the Omega Octant, but probably so although it may have been very different empire to empire than the standardized form used in the Alpha Octant, i.e., each empire in the Omega Octant may have had something that approximated the Alpha Octant Armed Cutter.

There were probably not Armed Cutters in the Magellanic Cloud given the size of the pinnaces, which with self-defense packs are about as close as they would probably get.

In Module C4: Frax; drone armed or phaser armed, Qari; drone armed or phaser armed, Triaxian; plasma-D armed or phaser armed, Sharkhunters; plasma-D armed or phaser armed, Barbarians; depends on empire being simulated, Flivvers; drone armed or phaser armed, Deltans; drone armed or phaser armed, Britanians; drone armed or phaser armed, Canadi'ens; plasma-D armed or phaser armed, [MODULE P6] Hispaniolans; drone armed or phaser armed, [STELLAR SHADOWS JOURNAL #1] Eighth Air Force: phaser-armed only.

Module E3 Boark Star League; phaser armed only.

Module E4 Peladine Republic: drone armed, plasma-D armed, or phaser armed.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Saturday, June 21, 2014 - 10:20 pm: Edit

Thanks Steve. I ended up re-reading the rule and taking each sentence one at a time to get the whole meaning.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Sunday, June 22, 2014 - 04:29 pm: Edit

This is less a question about ships than a question about SSDs. Have "corrected" SSDs for the D7-based X-ships ever been published? In the version of Module X1 that I have, the Klingon DX and DXD have #3 shields that are not the same strength as the #5 shields. The #3 shields on both those ships are 32 boxes but the #5 shields are 34 boxes. Similarly, in Module X1R the D7AX and MD7X have this same asymmetric shield arrangement. Finally, the Romulan KMRX has the asymmetric DX shield arrangement rather than the symmetric K7X arrangement. I have always assumed this asymmetry was an error and, while it isn't really a big deal, it has been a minor annoyance to me for years. (So why am I only bringing it up now? I'm not sure. I have this vague recollection that I may have brought it up some years ago but I can't recall for certain.)

Assuming the above-mentioned ships are not supposed to be asymmetric like this, have corrected versions been published? If so, where? If not would it be possible for ADB to publish a packet of these ships and sell them for a couple of dollars, the way they sell packets of extra copies of the Captain's Log SSDs?

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Tuesday, June 24, 2014 - 09:01 am: Edit

For the Armed Cutter (R1.86) I put this together.

Ph-X Phaser/Drone Empire
P1P2Barbarians Boark Canadi'ens Deltans Eighth Air Force Federation Hispaniolan Jindarian LDR Parivian Peladine Qari Seltorian Tholian
P2P2Barbarians Boark Canadi'ens Carnivon Deltans Eighth Air Force Federation Flivvers Frax Hydran Hispaniolan Hydran Klingon Lyran Peladine Qari Vudar
P2Drone ABarbarians Flivvers Frax Klingon Lyran
P1Drone ABarbarians Kzinti Wyn
P1Drone GBarbarians Deltans Federation Hispaniolan Qari
P2Drone GBarbarians Deltans Federation Hispaniolan Qari
P1PL-DBarbarians Canadi'ens Gorn Inter-Stellar Concoridum Peladine Peladine Romulan Sharkhunters Triaxian
P2PL-DBarbarians Canadi'ens Peladine


The Andromedans and Orions would in general never operate Armed Cutters.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, June 24, 2014 - 04:26 pm: Edit

Ken Kazinski:

There is no reason that a Federation Armed Cutter would not have the drone option prior to Y165 and thus operate type-A drone racks. Same goes for the Deltans, Hispaniolans, and Qari when type-G drone racks are not available. Further, the Peladine as they currently stand could operate a drone-A version. And any of these might have the phaser-2 and drone-A version.

Note that you have the Hydrans twice in your Phaser-2 (Ph-X) phaser-2 (phaser/drone) entry.

Civilian Cutters operated by non-governmental organizations in most empires might be the phaser-2 (in the phaser-X slot) version.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Wednesday, June 25, 2014 - 02:59 pm: Edit

Steve,

Thanks for the updates and correction.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, June 25, 2014 - 04:26 pm: Edit

Ken Kazinski:

You have to remember that armed cutters are "generic" and as such are not only operated by all (or almost all) empires (note that in your table even the Jindarians should be listed as a Caravan that has set up light housekeeping and local trade inside an asteroid belt might use some of these as protection for isolated, as in a different part of the asteroid field than the main ships, mines), but that within most empires some will be used by 'civilian non-governmental agencies.' Thus while a "drone variant" of the Armed Cutter might be very rare operated by Star Fleet or some other government agency (say the Police forces, or the exploration branch) such a variant might be used in Federation space even before Star Fleet formally adopted drones on a larger scale by a corporation. But do not think of them as just "fleet" units only used by the Navy.

Also note that in your table you have "Peladine" twice (back to back) in your P1/PL-D line.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Thursday, June 26, 2014 - 12:24 am: Edit

(R1.66) Module R08 General EPT - Per (G9.41) minimum crew units should be 2 and not 1. - Ken Kazinski, 26 Jun 2014.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Monday, July 07, 2014 - 07:53 pm: Edit

(R1.41) Module M General FTR - The unit description rule number should be R1.43. R1.41 is the rule for the Large Ore Processing Ship. - Ken Kazinski, 7 July 2014.

(R1.41-R18) Module C6 Paravian FTR - The unit description rule number should be R1.43. R1.41 is the rule for the Large Ore Processing Ship. - Ken Kazinski, 7 July 2014.

(R1.41-R19) Module C6 Carnivion FTR - The unit description rule number should be R1.43. R1.41 is the rule for the Large Ore Processing Ship. - Ken Kazinski, 7 July 2014.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Monday, July 07, 2014 - 10:36 pm: Edit

(R1.65) Module R8 General FTT - Shouldn't the Annex 3 entry be 10+10? Per the SSD, there are 10 passengers and the other 10 crew units are crew. - Ken Kazinski, 7 July 2014.


Add a Message


This is a private posting area. A valid username and password combination is required to post messages to this discussion.
Username:  
Password:

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation