The Andromedans began deploying new ground bases when their full scale invasion started in Y190 (but these were used in the LMC from Y170+). These ground bases were different in that they could land or deploy a full satellite ship, instead of just the MWPs as seen on the GPF equivalent.

They had a pad similar to the GPF station which could "dock" the appropriate satellite ship on. A transporter pad was also installed to allow the base to transport the ship at any time (or retrieve it). This allowed the Andromedans to "land" satellite ships on equal sized units, and not create a "nesting doll" effect where the satellite ship is larger than the unit holding it. This is similar to the GPF base docking MWPs.

They were relatively underarmed (by themselves) and relied upon other ground bases or an orbiting Satelite Base to provide most of the defense of them. The landing pads on them could not be "reconfigured" to hold multiple satelite ships, but could always hold a satellite ship smaller than it's capacity (i.e. a Viper could always be landed on a Large Satellite Base, but a Mamba could not be landed on a Small Satellite Base).

The existance of the bases was one of the hidden ways the Andromedans were able to recycle their damaged satellite ships and return to battle quickly with the Galactics with their Motherships. The Andromedans had hidden networks of ore and cargo sleds aquiring raw materials to transport to bases such as these which would repair a crippled ship and get it in fighting shape. When a Mothership arrived from a battle it would swap out satellite ships and return to combat (possibly getting repaired at a Satellite Base itself).

The bases did enable the Andromedans a hidden advantage against races using seeking weapons, as they allowed the ground base to land the satellite ship if it was being chased by a drone or torpedo. If the weapon could not lock onto the base (i.e. it was greater than 5 hexes away from the ground base when the satellite ship was transported), the weapon would aquire the planet's hexside where the base was located as it's target and impact harmlessly away from the ground base.

They came in three sizes, but are all considered "medium"/SC-4 bases, they take the same hanger space when carried as cargo in a Mothership as a small, medium, or large satellite ship respectively:

Ground Satellite Base Small (GSS): 2 PA, 4 Hull, TRL, 2 P2, Trans, Batt, 10 APR, 8 repair, 1 Bridge, 1 S-Hanger (large enough to fit one small satellite ship).

Ground Satellite Base Medium (GSM): 2 PA, 6 Hull, TRL, 2 P2, Trans, Batt, 12 APR, 10 Repair, 1 Bridge, 1 MD-Hanger (large enough to fit one medium satellite ship).

Ground Satellite Base Large (GSL): 3 PA, 6 Hull, TRL, 4 P2, Trans, 2 Batt, 14 APR, 12 Repair, 1 Bridge, 1 Large Hanger (large enough to fit one large satellite ship).

By Terry "Full Stop" O'Carroll (Terryoc) on Thursday, March 11, 2010 - 04:59 pm: Edit

Interesting idea, a specialised repair-type base.

But, being the nitpicking skeptic that I always am, I wonder if such a base is necessary for the Andromedans. How often are Andromedan satellite ships getting seriously damaged in normal combat for them, anyway? My understanding of Andromedan operations is that they used their incredible speed to attack soft targets (like convoys, mining stations, civilian facilities) and escape before any Galactic fleet units could react. When combat is small, an Andromedan's ability to clear its PA panels means it's probably not taking all that much internal damage, except maybe some leak, which it can self-repair.

I only have C2, but the Andromedan motherships in that product all have repair boxes already, and the Satellite Base has six boxes. Power to run these is obviously not an issue for Andromedans, they have plenty.

As far as materials is concerned, I'd bet that there were hidden Andromedan bases supporting each Satellite Base with fuel, food and other necessities.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, March 11, 2010 - 06:00 pm: Edit

"Medium" is a specific class of base, and still considered size class 5. At the very least you would need a different designation.

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Friday, March 12, 2010 - 10:43 am: Edit

I realized after SPP's comment that being SC-4 bases that means 90-degree shield arcs, IIRC.

So the PA banks would have to be doubled, 2 sets of 2 PAs for the S/M, and 2 sets of 3 PAs for the L.

The one issue with repair boxes, they only come with 50 repair points and then they have to be replenished (at least I remember it as 50 repair points). So an Missionary w/ 3 REPAIR can only repair 150 points worth of damage before it cannot repair anything else.

So that's where these come in, dropping off the crippled sat ship which the mothership can't fix anymore

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, March 12, 2010 - 11:32 am: Edit

Scott Tenhoff:

You are confusing "Scenario Repairs" and "Campaign Repairs".

(G17.14) TEMPORARY NATURE: Repairs conducted under (G17.0) during a scenario are temporary in nature, quick jury-rigged fixes to get the ship back into action. These repaired systems will fail (i.e., be treated as destroyed) after the scenario is over (although the contents of such systems, such as drones in a repaired drone rack, can be removed safely). Records must be kept in a campaign to denote the status of these repairs.

(G17.26) LIMITATION: No repair box can generate more than 100 repair points during a scenario. If a repair box is destroyed, its remaining points cannot be used unless the box is repaired, in which case it is still under the overall limit (including the points used before it was damaged).

(G17.133) OPERATIONAL REPAIRS require access to a repair facility or ship within the operational zone and are defined by (D9.4).

Basically a mothership can do fairly extensive repairs to its satellite ships between scenarios of a campaign with its existing repair facilities. It is just a question of whether or not there is enough time to access the (D9.4) repairs or not.

(D9.4): Between scenarios of the multi-scenario campaign games, the damage control rating of the ship may be used to repair various systems of the ship. (This procedure assumes that the ship can stop at a base or rendezvous with a repair ship between scenarios. In some campaigns where these facilities are unavailable, use of this section is prohibited.) This is done as follows; in the exact order given. In the case of power absorbers, see (D10.544).

So a Dominator could access 800 "temporary" repair points during a scenario (power permitting), enough to (for example) completely repair (temporarily) the warp engines of four Cobras. Or, put another way, enough to repair EVERY SYSTEM on Six Cobras except Warp engines, Sensors, or Scanners (and to fix any three boxes of those on each ship). The Dominator could try to repair itself, but in that case it would only be able to access a maximum of 200 repair points from its repair systems.

(G17.24) SELF-REPAIR: Bases, repair ships (including the Romulan SpH–R), Andromedan ships (with repair boxes), FRDs, and other ships with repair boxes can repair themselves during the course of a scenario, but each system requires four times as many repair points.

So, operationally, the ground bases you are proposing have little value (please note "little value", that does not mean valueless, but does suggest that the value level may be so low as to make them of little use).

What gives them the little value they have are the satellite ships that are "independent" (Recon Cobras, Pythons, etc.), but those are so relatively rare as to make deploying a network of planetary bases just to support them an expensive luxury. The existing Satellite Bases and such are adequate to that need.

So that leaves you with the "Fortress" option. That is to say a planet (moon or asteroid field) which is being fortified and will have some number of satellite ships permanently stationed there to ward off attackers, thus requiring a repair facilty of some sort.

But that gets you back to just deploying a Satellite Base and perhaps later upgrading it.

The other problem is that the bases are too vulnerable. Size class 5 bases are difficult to destroy because the attacker has to get close. But a size class 4 base can be targeted from long range (yes, you would have to allow for atmosphere effects, if there is any atmosphere, which alone could shorten the range some, but you do not have to close to within five hexes range to fire on a size class 4 base).

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, March 12, 2010 - 12:37 pm: Edit

By the way, this tactic does not work:

"The bases did enable the Andromedans a hidden advantage against races using seeking weapons, as they allowed the ground base to land the satellite ship if it was being chased by a drone or torpedo. If the weapon could not lock onto the base (i.e. it was greater than 5 hexes away from the ground base when the satellite ship was transported), the weapon would aquire the planet's hexside where the base was located as it's target and impact harmlessly away from the ground base."

Seeking weapons cannot target size class 5 bases from beyond five hexes range, but they can target a size class 4 base (or a ship landed) on a planet from 35 hexes range. So if you land a satellite ship by "transporter", the seeking weapon does not lose tracking (provided it and the controlling ship are within 35 hexes and have a line of sight to the base). It might be delayed by the atmosphere (and in the case of a plasma torpedo it could completely run out of range).

You are actually creating something of a rules conundrum that would have to be solved as part of publishing these bases. [If they were published, I am NOT (emphasis) saying they will or will not be published.] Technically you have established that the satellite ship and the base are both size class 4, so it is not a case of a smaller unit docking to a larger one, and the satellite ship is technically not inside the base. So you can be in a situation where the seeking weapon simply continues to track the satellite ship, and does not change its targeting to the base.

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Friday, March 12, 2010 - 01:59 pm: Edit

ok, regarding the repair rules.

Regarding the tracking. I would assume that the base is "pickup up" the satellite ship, that seeking weapons would lock onto it, instead of reacquiring the ship after transportation/landing. But okay, I guess we could figure that out if this decided as an acceptable submission.

re: being shot at range-35. Well I didn't realize that. Then the PA's should probably be 2x3 for the Small/Medium, and 2x4 for the Large.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, March 12, 2010 - 04:05 pm: Edit

Scott Tenhoff:

As noted, the difference is that when you transport the satellite ship to the base, the base is the same size as the satellite ship, so the satellite ship is not "docking to or in a larger unit" (paraphrase, not an exact quote). You are getting into a kind of a (C13.943) situation:

(C13.943) If seeking weapons are targeted on one of the ships (before or after the docking takes place), then when the ships separate each weapon will randomly select one ship as a target. If the ships are still docked, the seeking weapons hit both of them with the full effect of its warhead on both ships.
This effect (full weapons effect on both ships) does not apply to PFs docked to mech links (K2.41) [or to a PFT’s internal repair bay (K2.62)], ships docked to bases or FRDs, or units docked inside other units; see (F2.335).

It is questionable if the "ships docked to bases" text applies in this case. I think you intend (given the bases are size class 4) for the satellite ship to be a separate target outside of the base's PA panels (much the same as docking externally to a battle station or base station).

The rules are pretty clear that normally transporting a satellite ship aboard transfers the tracking of the seeking weapon:

(G19.48) SEEKING WEAPON AND PPD TARGETS: Any seeking weapons targeted on the Sat Ship accept the mother-ship as their target when the Sat Ship is transported on board, subject to any restrictions on the seeking weapons themselves [such as those in (F3.31)]. Seeking weapons targeted on a mothership do not transfer to Sat Ships when they are launched.

But you are creating a different circumstance (it seems) because the satellite ship is not inside the base (or mothership) as a result of the transporter operation, and thus the situation is not currently covered in the rules.

By the way, on repairs by a mothership:

(G19.26) REPAIR: The mothership may use its damage control to repair itself (D9.7) or a Sat Ship in the hangar; this is an exception to (D9.78). A Sat Ship in the hangar can use its damage control to repair itself, but not to repair the mothership. The repair boxes on motherships operate as in (G17.0); see also (G17.24). A mothership cannot use (D9.2) on a satellite ship (D10.541). For purposes of repairs under (D9.4), (G17.133), and (G17.132), use the damage control rating of the mothership to repair the satellite ships to reflect the use of (G17.0) systems between scenarios. Use the damage control rating on each satellite ship, then again on the mothership. Satellite ships without a mother-ship would use (G17.132) with their own DC rating; they probably would not have access to the facilities needed for (G17.133) repairs, but if they do may use them.

A mothership with a damage control rating of four could fix all control (I do not think there is a satellite ship with more than four control systems, but that is off the top of my head), all hull, a dozen power systems (warp, impulse, battery, APR, AWR), eight weapons (TRL, Ph-2, PA panel), and a dozen other systems (sensor, scanner, transporter, tractor, lab, etc.). And it can do this for every satellite ship and itself. A Dominator with a damage control rating of six would, of course, do better.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, March 12, 2010 - 07:25 pm: Edit

Equally obvious, there is a fundamental advantage in repairing more smaller satellite ships than repairing fewer larger satellite ships. The number of repairs I listed above are the same whether the mothership in question is repairing four Vipers, three Cobras, or two Mambas. So the Mothership could repair (assuming four Vipers)

A maximum of sixteen Control Systems (the four Vipers of course have only four total control systems), all the hull (sixteen boxes) on the four Vipers, a dozen power systems on each Viper (each Viper has seventeen power systems, so if they lost more than twelve they might be in trouble) for a total of 48 power systems, eight weapons on each Viper (each Viper has exactly twelve: seven PA panels, one TRL, and four phaser-2s) for a total of 32 weapons, and a dozen other systems (the probe, the transporter, the full sensor track, the full scaner track). So as long as a recovered Viper has five power systems and four weapons remaining (and has not taken more than one "excess damage" hit) at the end of the scenario, the Mothership can fully repair it. If this applies to all four of them, then all four will be fully repaired.

There would, of course, be troubles with two Mambas. Control and hull would be fixed, but a Mamba has 34 power systems, and a Mothership with a damage control rating of four would only be able to repair twelve of them on each Mamba (a total of 24 repairs on two Mambas compared to 48 repairs on four Vipers). Weapons are not much better as a Mamba has nineteen weapons and only eight can be repaired on each one (a total of sixteen repairs compared to 32 repairs on four Vipers).

So in campaign terms, any Satellite ship that takes more damage than the motherships can repair pretty much has to be taken back to the Desecrator for an overhaul. Your added repair bases would not change that. Naturally an Andromedan Commander can decide to use some ships without full repairs (risking their easier destruction).