What is the tactical movement capability of a Small Exploration Freighter (FES) in Galactic Conquest? In my last turn (in U5), John told me that they had a tactical speed of 1 (2 on a TR using DTM).

According to my reading of D1.10 in the rulebook, they have 4 warp + 1 impulse for 5 power. At a 1/3 movement cost, we get (5 * .33 = 15). According to the chart in D1.10, speed 15 can move speed 2 on the GC map (or speed 4 on a TR using DTM).

I posed this question a couple of months ago to the rules committee but have never received a satisfactory answer. So... just how fast CAN my FES move guys?

Gary

By ROBERT l cALLAWAY (Callaway) on Tuesday, June 08, 2010 - 11:07 am: Edit

did you pd for life support which drop your speed below 15?

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Tuesday, June 08, 2010 - 09:05 pm: Edit

My recommendation to the relevant parties was that this is clearly an error on our part when we wrote that rule- the SnipeB is not a "fast" ship, no matter what D1.10 says; and the Federation Express should not be able to leave X ships in the dust (speed 5 vs. speed 4).

By William Gary Glattli II (Wglattli) on Wednesday, June 09, 2010 - 05:45 am: Edit

'the SnipeB is not a "fast" ship, no matter what D1.10 says'

This is true... but then again, speed 2 is nowhere near as fast as speed 4. I still need an official answer though.

Can the FES move speed 2 or only speed 1?

Gary

By John Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Wednesday, June 09, 2010 - 12:53 pm: Edit

I am in agreement with Gary. As a rule of thumb, I've assumed that all freighters could go speed 2 on the strategic map. (I haven't looked at freighter SSD's in years. Perhaps John divided 5 by 1/2 and got 10?) The FES is one freighter that would be used on the strategic map.

Besides, a strategic speed of 1 is sublight. You just need an impulse engine to do that. An FES is better than that!

Perhaps this is the place to bring this up?

Should the FAL, FAS (and the fighter and PF auxilleries) be an exception to the speed 2 max? They have the warp capabliity to move 3 (if memory serves). I know it would be a rule change, but, is it worth considering?

John

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Wednesday, June 09, 2010 - 08:27 pm: Edit

I believe I brought up some of the military Aux hulls being able to do speed 3 when we were working on the rulebook and I think John ruled that they were speed 2 to keep people from bulking up on Aux ships (I might be thinking of another related discussion though).

I can't find the dialog in my mailbox though (a bit too many messages in that folder), so I could be wrong.

By William Gary Glattli II (Wglattli) on Wednesday, June 09, 2010 - 09:22 pm: Edit

For what it is worth... maybe you should have just made a rule which says R1.0 hulls use the D1.10 calculation with a '-1' factor added in with a provision that no ship can be reduced in speed to less than 1?

I would like an official ruling because, if the FES can only move speed 1, then I wasted perfectly good starting EPs on them when I prepped my initial U5 build and they will basically be worthless to me now.

Considering that the number of FL and FS variants had limits on the number you could build at the start of U5, I would have probably built a number of FEL's instead of FES's and built a larger number of FS variants to deal with the MM requirements.

Oh, by the way... anyone seen or heard from John Berg lately?

Gary

By John Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Wednesday, June 09, 2010 - 10:12 pm: Edit

Ah well, John saw thru my plan to bulk up on AUX's before I thought of it! (I had to ask anyways.)

I suspect John is grading papers (being a teacher, etc.). Some school systems go thru the middle of June?! Perhaps the U5 due date corresponds with the end of the school year.

I see that you wanted a jump on MRR's. I can see the need for more speed.

The ISC SR is a conversion of the CL. I was only allowed one for the setup. Guess how many I originally wanted! Anyway, I went from a peaceful prospector to a militant military bent on conquering minor systems. Perhaps this was a better choice as it allow the ISC to stare down the GORNS!

John

By William Gary Glattli II (Wglattli) on Thursday, June 10, 2010 - 06:13 am: Edit

Actually, I purchased 4xFES as part of my initial setup solely for the intention of using them as scouts. I saw a LOT of hexes of map I wanted to survey in as fast as possible and this was the only type of scout ship I could build in any real numbers for my setup.

In my humble opinion... building Exploration Freighters for the purpose of doing MRRs is inefficient and a waste of resources.

Gary

By John Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Thursday, June 10, 2010 - 11:31 am: Edit

The ISC was only allowed 1 scout with the initial setup (a conversion of the DD). My single SR and SC went work immediately.

You have to admit, they (FES, FEL) cost less than a SR. So naturally, they are less efficient. But, once the MM is self-sufficient and the priority conversions are finished, then the FEL is a nice option for the MM.

The ISC point of view is that using MM funds to do a MRR (i.e. 6xFEL) is a bonus. One day, the MM will be able to fund all of the MRR requirements. In the early stages of the game, the military has to step in and do the funding, assuming one wants to go in this direction of course.

So, for now, the military SR is the priority of the moment so to speak. After all, the military has the bucks, not the MM!

This opinion has been brought you free by the ISC Civilian Accounting Office!

By William Gary Glattli II (Wglattli) on Thursday, June 10, 2010 - 12:07 pm: Edit

I look at it in a different light. The military provides the SRs to do the MRRs. The Merchant Marine provides support ships... and more importantly **pays to upgrade the system and bring it online as a major**.

Also, your strategic reserve is constantly being depleted to provide more freighters to make new trade routes... The MM, in my humble opinion, NEVER has the resources to make exploration freighters. Their resources are too tied up to waste like that.

Gary

By ROBERT l cALLAWAY (Callaway) on Thursday, June 10, 2010 - 01:42 pm: Edit

You forget Gary that a F-EL is required for a MRR to grow as are a F-OL, F-OP, and a sm station who name escapes me at the monent.

The true problem is that SR can't be build in the first 10 turns because of the needs of Scout ships. Just as the MM has a problem that FT are the ship of chose for TR diverting resourses that could be used to upgrade systems.
14 FT cargo could easily fit in a few F-L freeing up hundreds of BPV with only a couple of hexes between trade partners travel time would not be effected

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Thursday, June 10, 2010 - 08:51 pm: Edit

Scout? SR? What are these things. I don't get any of them (by the book) for years. 3xF-EL is perfectly serviceable for an MRR while it'll take a long time to pay off, those multiple turns of income at +15%, +15.75%, etc. make the wait worthwhile.

By John Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Thursday, June 10, 2010 - 09:49 pm: Edit

Gentlemen!

I see many opinions. This is why we play the game!! The GM in his wisdom designed the game with a lot of flexibility.

Argh!

The SR functions as a scout ship! (As the FEL and FES do.) The Master ship annex has the diamond under the notes.

No SR, no SC, no Warp? (Sigh)

You have the cloak, a lot of conversions (modular design) and the R! The ISC does not have these things?!

John

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Friday, June 11, 2010 - 08:04 pm: Edit

Lacking scouts, how does the Romulan Star Empire do much of anything outside their space? Yeah, sure they can taunt some neighbor into surveying a route to their space so they can counter invade, but that is kinda stupid given the force density and mobility differential..

Yes, cloaks, maulers, and modular ships come in handy once they can be built. Getting there is a challenge, shall we say.

By William Gary Glattli II (Wglattli) on Monday, June 14, 2010 - 02:49 pm: Edit

Outstanding rules committee discussion smorgasboard. That is what I am going to call this post, as that is what it concerns. Besides, we all know they don't have enough to do as it is... right?

1) HDWX discussion. Some of the rules concerning their construction have already been addressed, but another question that I posited to the committee was concerning whether or not there were any limitations on the number of these units which can be in any X Squadron (ala rule C19.40). The rationalle behind me asking this is that, IF you could pack as many HDWX's as you wanted into an X Squadron, then there would be NO real incentive to build ANY of the other SC4 X ships at all as the HDWX's have the highest BPV of all the SC4 X ships.

Howard and John felt that this would just lead to an escalation in power for X Squadrons and that there should be SOME type of limitation imposed for these units. Howard noted that the non-X HDW's are pretty much interchangeable with the regular CW class ships. He proposed that the HDWX count against the CWX limit in C19.40 on a one-for-one basis.

I personally feel that this would be an acceptable proposal and feel that a decision needs to be finalized on it... since a final decision was never really reached.

2) Rule C19.40 clarification. In the discussion concerning the HDWX and whether or not they should be limited in numbers for X Squadrons, it became clear to me that I was TOTALLY clueless as to what rule C19.40 was actually saying. I proposed to John and Howard that this rule should be explained to the player base... just in case there were others who did not understand it either. The actual rule is:

* * * * *

(C19.40) An elite X-squadron may contain up to four SC3 hulls. This increases to five if they are war
cruiser hulls or to six if they are light cruiser class hulls. Elite X-squadrons may carry more PFs than normal
(C20.21).


* * * * *

Assuming I understand what Howard was telling me, this is actually an EXCLUSIONARY rule. In other words, if you are going to have one type of x-ship from that list in your X Squadron, then the other types are EXCLUDED from being in it and cannot be used. For example, you could have a CCX and 3xCAX in a SQ... but the CWX and CLX (and HDWX, if the ruling stated above in topic '1' is approved) would not be able to be included. If you wanted to say, have a SQ with a HDWX-C (CAN 10) ship and a combination of 4 more CWX/HDWX, then the larger X hulls (CCX, CAX) would not be allowed to be part of that SQ. I had always read that rule to mean something different so I was a little surprised to find out that this is what it meant. Note that if I screwed up here, Howard can come along and straighten me out...

3) I won't go into length on this, but we need a ruling on freighter speeds... especially concerning small freighter variants. Anyone reading lately would understand why I would like to see this addressed.

Well, that is all the rules discussions that we have had lately (that I can recall anyway), so I guess I will just end it there. Hope to hear from the rules committee on these topics soon.

Gary

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Monday, June 14, 2010 - 06:01 pm: Edit

On the SC3 X ship limits. It is more precise to say:
qty 4 SC3 X ships (of any sort, i.e. those based upon- CA, NCA, CW, CL, etc.)
or
qty 5 SC3 X ships (CWX, CLX, or similar non CA/NCA types, and smaller than those types)
or
qty 6 SC3 X ships if they are CLX based.

So, you can have: 4xCAX or 2xCAX + CWX + CLX (for example) under the "max of 4" version. Or you can have 5xCWX or 2xCWX + 3xCLX (for example) under the "max of 5" version, or you can have 6xCLX under the "max of 6" version.

You could not have: 4x CLX, CWX, CAX; nor would 4xCAX, CWX, CLX be legal.


There are probably some empire specific corner cases (the KEX may be an example) but for the majority of the SC3 X1 hulls the cut offs should be pretty obvious.

Allowing up to 4xCAX + 5xCWX + 6xCLX in a single squadron is not what I was assuming the rule meant when it was written.

By William Gary Glattli II (Wglattli) on Monday, June 14, 2010 - 06:08 pm: Edit

"Allowing up to 4xCAX + 5xCWX + 6xCLX in a single squadron is not what I was assuming the rule meant when it was written."

That is not what I thought it meant either when I first read it. I thought it meant that a legal SQ COULD have: 4xCAX, 1xCWX, 1xCLX...

Like I said in my post, choosing the smaller SC3 X ships excludes the possibility of having the larger SC3 X ships. Therefore the rule is exclusionary.

Gary

By John Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Monday, June 14, 2010 - 07:11 pm: Edit

The second generation maximum limit is spelled out clearly:

"(C21.49) The maximum size of an elite second generation X-squadron is 3xXCA, 6xXSC4."

In searching the rule book, I could not find a maximum limit for a first generation X-squadron. These days, there are SC2 X-ships available.

From what Gary explained, it sounds like that mixed squadrons (x-ships and x-war cruiser) would revert to the x-ship limit of four SC3 hulls. If the SC3 ships were all CWX, then five are allowed. If the SC3 ships were all CLX, then six are allowed. I.E. to get the extra SC3 hull, they need to be of the same type.

However, because of (C19.50), the maximum x-squadron size is implied to be the CAN, with EFO being allowed. One asks, if a LO is present (+3 CAN), then it looks like a DNX (I am assuming it has a CAN of 10) could command 13 CAN slots of HDWX (assuming that Howard's recommendation is not in effect), which is 19 HDWX.

So, 20 ships is the maximum x-squadron limit.

I.E. DNX(LO),19 HDWX! (It should be noted that a regular DN (LO) commanding 19 DD is allowed.) A DNX(LO),CCX,18HDWX is a possibility (still 20 ships).

Assuming a CWX commands 8 then 5CWX,6xDWX would be allowed. Of course CWX,12xHDWX would be the maximized "HDWX" squadron. Are 6xHDWX worth 4 CWX?

The down side is that construction rates are limited "(C19.10) An empire may build 1xSC3 and 1xSC4 X-ship for every ten major systems it owns (minor colonies count as half a major system)". I do not know the procedure for a SC2 x-ship, nor the procedure if one has less than 10 majors (or more than 10 but less than 20). Perhaps this needs to be addressed by the rules committee as well. (Though my guess would be that you need minimum of 6 majors for 1 SC3 and minimum of 4 majors for 1 SC4. Well, it adds up to 10 majors.)

Should x-ship squadrons be limited?

I say no.

It will be many many game turns before the first x-ship can be built. Every race can build them if they so desire. Then again, why not build an "outstanding" elite x-squadron, as long as one is spending the bucks!!

Of course, one asks, should the Jindarian BBV be outlawed? That is a one nasty ship!

My opinion is "not official".

I just enjoy "pontificating" occasionally!!

John

By William Gary Glattli II (Wglattli) on Monday, June 14, 2010 - 10:26 pm: Edit

I have done a LOT of thinking through the years on the most efficient way to build and deploy X ships, and I personally believe that the main limiting factor for X Squadrons is the construction rate (both new construction and conversions).

Assuming Howard's HDWX proposal becomes part of the rules... I feel that a CCX, 3xCAX is (production wise) the best "core" to build an X squadron around. After that, how fast can your empire build the necessary number of SC4 X ships to fill out that SQ?

The HDWX (and its ability to be a PFT variant) will have no bearing on this SQ as you are using the larger SC3 X ships. Most races will have to choose between a DWX, FFX, and a SCX for their SC4 X ship. Since the rules committee ruled on ways to make "non-war" class DW's, I feel that the DWX (and the ability to produce the hull that can make use of the SC4X conversion slots) is the way to go.

Needless to say, the larger an empire is (system wise), the easier it will be to produce the necessary number of units to fill out your X squadron.

Gary

By John Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Tuesday, June 15, 2010 - 12:27 pm: Edit

I had a horrible dream last night. If one has less than 10 majors, then maybe you can not build x-ships at all. Not even a SC4 x-ship?

By ROBERT l cALLAWAY (Callaway) on Tuesday, June 15, 2010 - 01:26 pm: Edit

We'll be happy to sell you one

By William Gary Glattli II (Wglattli) on Tuesday, June 15, 2010 - 03:19 pm: Edit

Not certain about the less than 10 majors... the rules committee will have to weigh in on that one. Remember though that you WILL have the SC3X and SC4X conversion slots available to you regardless of how many systems you have.

Gary

By John Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Wednesday, June 16, 2010 - 11:13 am: Edit

True, building x-ships is in addition to converting regular ships to x-ships.

At least I can dream safely tonight, knowing that no matter how many major systems I have, I can still convert two ships to x-ships. (Thanks)

The rules for the DNX (or shall I say the SC2 x-ships) will need to be developed. There is a lot of game time to do this, so there is no rush.

By John Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Wednesday, June 16, 2010 - 12:52 pm: Edit

Now that I’ve been perusing the rule book most of this week, I have a question.

(A13.00) FUSION BOMB TECH.

The rule states:

“Once attained, this tech allows an empire to fire an area-of-effect weapon.”

“When launched during a combat round, it will do 2 points of damage directly onto all units in the battle (but not reinforcements that are waiting to enter the battle).”

Does “all” mean all enemy units? Or (I’m dreaming again), every unit, i.e. even friendly ones?

I ask because the description of the weapon states that any reinforcements are not effected. And that it does no damage to units on the planet. This leaves the question of how does it affect friendly orbital bases, defense satellites, your local minefield, and friendly squadrons that would be defending the system? (I am hoping the answer is that the weapon is a “smart” fusion bomb and does not affect friendly units.)

I am assuming that it does not matter which hex side the weapon is on for purposes of a battle. I assume the weapon could hit even an enemy raid on the system’s weakest side (the weakest side being at GM’s discretion of course).

An enemy may attack the system and associated defenses. It is allowed for an enemy to only attack units in the hex, bypassing the system altogether. And of course an enemy could blockade the system also bypassing the system as far as combat goes.

So, is the FBGB weapon allowed to shoot at enemy units blockading the system?

Is the FBGB weapon allowed to shoot at enemy units in the hex?

I ask because it is an area-of-effect weapon.

There is supporting evidence, (A13.30) FBIV. The FBIV device is mobile. The FBIV weapon can fight in open space, doing damage to all enemy units (at least those not designated as reinforcements). Further, the mobile weapon can attack a system, and I assume damage every enemy unit present.

Take Drone Bombardment (A10.40f),” As long as they are in the same or adjacent hex as an enemy unit, they may use ½ of their AF.” This is a form of attack that can hit a unit without actually being physically present at the site of the battle.

Is FUSION BOMB TECH like Drone Bombardment in that it is allowed hit a target in the same hex?


John