Question:
There is a special Federation note "N7". It says that a ship with that note used Type-E drone racks instead of Type-G prior to Y167. Only problem is that no ship has that note (as far as I can tell).

So, was this note supposed to be added to the GSC? (Which is the only ship I can think of to which it could apply, as the FFG is specifically exempted by having note N8.)

By Robert McCartney (Rob62) on Sunday, March 22, 2009 - 12:05 am: Edit

I was looking over the Master Fighter Chart in G3 and I noticed that I couldn't find a listing for the Vudar fighters from Module F2 (Electron, Tachyon, etc.) anywhere in G3 unless I looked in the wrong place. The MFC ends with the Jindarians. I searched this site but couldn't find a post about this. Maybe I searched in the wrong place. Does anyone know if there is a listing in G3 for the Vudar fighters or if they might be in G3A? I thought Module F2 was covered in G3, but I know I could be wrong. I'd appreciate any responses. Thanks.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, March 22, 2009 - 01:06 am: Edit

I noticed on the Plasma weapons chart on the MWC, that there are two entries for GL. I assume that the top one should have been just G?

By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Sunday, March 22, 2009 - 11:04 am: Edit

I had the same reaction to the Plasma chart. I then realized that there is a space in the first one for "G" or "L". It could be clearer.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, March 22, 2009 - 02:35 pm: Edit

I figure it was supposed to fit the same patern a for the Type-S plasma above.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Sunday, March 22, 2009 - 03:17 pm: Edit

Yes, the Vudar fighters were somehow missed. As noted in the book, all blame for that rests solely on my shoulders.

The Plasma Torpedo Table includes all plasma torpedoes that operate under the normal plasma torpedo rules for movement and warhead degradation, i.e., it does not include the Veltressai plasma torpedoes as these have unique warhead reduction ranges (0-4 for the first reduction as opposed to 0-5 for plasma-Ds) or the plasma-K torpedoes because they have unique damage capabilities.

The Plasma Torpedo Table included the data for the Triaxian Long-Range plasma-S (SL) (FP51.33), Triaxian Short-Range plasma-S (SS) (FP51.34), plasma-G torpedo (G L), plasma-L torpedo (G L), Triaxian Long-Range plasma-G torpedo (GL) (FP51.33), and Triaxian Short-Range plasma torpedo (GS) (FP51.34).

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Sunday, March 22, 2009 - 04:28 pm: Edit

Mike West:

Best guess is there was a computer crash or some other interruption while I was working on that part. Off the two of my head, two ships should have had that note: Federation GSC and Federation MS. It would apply to some Federation Generic Units, but those were covered by the "Type-E" note where it was needed.

By Robert McCartney (Rob62) on Sunday, March 22, 2009 - 06:28 pm: Edit

SPP: Thanks for the response.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Sunday, March 22, 2009 - 08:41 pm: Edit

SPP: Thanks!

By Andy Vancil (Andy) on Wednesday, March 25, 2009 - 12:17 am: Edit

Technology Timeline, Y120: "The Orions still this technology the same year." should be "steal this technology", er, I mean "independently develop this technology" Andy Vancil 24 March 2009

Technology Timeline: The ISC apparently extended the range of their transporters to 40,000 km in Y129, Y136 and Y155. Was this various member races, or just redundant statements that got paired with the tractor beam extensions? Andy Vancil 24 March 2009

Personally, I would have been happy to lose the whole "Convenient Chart Compilation Pages" section in exchange for having page breaks separating the races in the MSC and separating the major annex sections. As it is, any additional material (not to mention existing material from Omega and Mag) will be difficult to integrate. Would it be possible to print on demand a loose-leaf version that has better pagination?

Other than that, an impressive product.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, March 25, 2009 - 04:55 pm: Edit

Andy Vancil:

The Orion thing is, as noted, my fault. Probably just too tired when I typed it and when I proofed it. (If you look on page #144, you will find a case where I spelled "marked" as "makred", and despite proofing the page several times, missed it.)

The ISC thing is one of those case of trying to copy something, paste it where needed, and then make the changes, i.e., I had a standard "tractors and transporters" text for when the ranges change and pasted it where needed, then went back, changed the distances as needed and deleted things. Apparently when I did the ISC . . . something happened. The correct dates are in YR13.014, i.e., their transporters are range 20,000 to start, go to 30,000 in Y118, to 40,000 in Y136, and to 50,000 in Y158. The enteries for transporters to be range 40,000 in Y129 and Y155 should be deleted.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Tuesday, March 31, 2009 - 12:51 pm: Edit

Before writing this as a line item in the G4 topic, I thought I would ask first ...

The Lyran HFF is listed as being a RPW, but that doesn't jibe with the HDD or with the ship writeup. Should it not be LPW like the HDD?

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, April 01, 2009 - 02:22 pm: Edit

Mike West:

Something somewhere got confused, as both were LPW in Captain's Log #37. Reading the ship descriptions, it seems both (the HFF and the HDD) should have been RP2 (designed for regular production, but only two were built) however.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Wednesday, April 01, 2009 - 02:56 pm: Edit

That's what I thought (on the RPW being wrong; hadn't thought about RP2).

Thanks!

By Peter Thoenen (Eol) on Monday, April 20, 2009 - 03:37 pm: Edit

Just FYI its not often I complement you all on a good solid product but G3 prob one of the better products I have seen out of ADB in a couple years .. its truly a solid product I will use and not one of those items I simply collect and set on the shelf .. def a major improvement over G2 also ... just want to let you all know.

It's not all griping ;)

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Thursday, June 11, 2009 - 11:14 pm: Edit

OK, while looking for something else, I noticed the Qari bombers. Not to sound insulting, but are the entries mistaken? I figure either they are just placeholders for the real versions, or something was missed (like KKMs in the "Other Weapons" column). If not, the Qari bombers are actually worse than their own single space fighters!

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Tuesday, August 18, 2009 - 11:22 pm: Edit

SPP,

The Master Patrol Ship Chart doesn't have the ISC listed in my copy.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, August 22, 2009 - 01:59 pm: Edit

Joseph R. Carlson:

I do not know how that was missed, and how it was not reported er your report. I have included it in Module G3A, but it was too late to include it with the Supplement to Captain's Log #39.

Mike West:

The Qari Bombers were published back in Module G2. I do not (sorry) have a record of complaint from you in the after action for Module G2.

In Y168 the Qari single-space fighter is the MiG-21 which carries 1.5 spaces of drones (1xtype-I and 1xtype-VI). The comparable bomber in service at that time was the TU-16 which carried four spaces of drones (2xtype-IV) and had twice the phaser armament, albeit one FA and one RA.

In Y177 the Qari had two size-one fighters. The MiG-23 which carried three spaces of drones (2xtype-I and 2xtype-VI) and the MiG-29 which carried six spaces of drones (4xtype-I and 4xtype-VI). The TU-22 which entered service that same year carried eight spaces of drones (4xtype-I and 2xtype-IV) and had twice the phaser armament (albeit half of them are RA rather than FA) of those fighters.

So I am unsure precisely why the Qari bombers are worse than a single space Qari fighter.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Tuesday, August 25, 2009 - 03:18 pm: Edit

I have never "reviewed" G2 (or G3 for that matter). What happens is that when I look something up, if I notice an incongruity, I will report it (e.g. Fed N7 note). I am not looking for issues, I simply report them when I trip across them.

In the case of the Qari fighters, I was checking all heavy fighters while reviewing the various "superiority" heavy fighters for CL. That is when I noticed the simulator heavy fighters and the Qari in particular. You would never have a report on the Qari fighters from me, as I never had reason to look at them before.

(You did, as a counter example, get a report from me on the Kzinti heavy fighter because I did have reason to look at it while the F-101 discussions were happening.)

As for my comment itself, I will have to double-check tonight (I don't have G3 at work). I may have indeed confused the type-IV drones with type-VI drones. Since pretty much none of the other fighters have "type-IV" drones listed (they only get a special note about paired rails if they can carry them), my mind must have just read them as "type-VI". I will post tonight either way.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Tuesday, August 25, 2009 - 11:20 pm: Edit

Update: Yup, transposed the type-IV drones with type-VI drones. They aren't as bad as I thought. Note that they still aren't *good* when compared to other drone bombers, but they are at least better than their single space fighters, unlike I claimed above. My bad.

(The Su-24 does suck, but that isn't necessarily a problem.)

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - 01:47 pm: Edit

Mike West:

As I often note, we are all of us human and subject thereby to error. I am the last person to cast stones, particularly since my mistakes are often all so embarrassingly public.

By Nick Samaras (Koogie) on Sunday, September 20, 2009 - 09:33 pm: Edit

Annex #8 Simulator Use - Missing cost of Proton Torpdeo - Nick Samaras, 20 Sep 09

Annex #9 - No repair cost is listed for Proton Torpedo - Nick Samaras, 20 Sep 09

By Jason Langdon (Jaspar) on Sunday, October 04, 2009 - 01:40 am: Edit

SPP re: ISC PF chart said:
"I do not know how that was missed, and how it was not reported er your report. I have included it in Module G3A, but it was too late to include it with the Supplement to Captain's Log #39."

I recently bought G3 and just noticed this. Will it be offered as a free download or in some other free form? Or will we need to get it by buying it?

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, October 06, 2009 - 04:17 pm: Edit

Jason Langdon:

PDFs of the missing fighters from Module G3 and the ISC PFs have been sent to Eric Olivarez for posting (they were just sent today). They should be uploaded sometime soon.

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Friday, November 27, 2009 - 11:39 pm: Edit

[posted in G4 topic, where it should have been.]