here ya go

By John D Berg (Kerg) on Thursday, May 31, 2012 - 08:03 pm: Edit

By ROBERT l cALLAWAY (Callaway) on Sunday, May 20, 2012 - 12:57 pm: Edit

A suggested rule change.
under the crrent rules any SB can build a single R1 SC4 unit. I suggest that it be allowed that it could build instead that races POL ship and only that class of warship and that it must be assigned to the SR of the MMR or to a deacated CD sq

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Sunday, May 20, 2012 - 01:11 pm: Edit

Rob- I've added that to my list of things to talk about, just in case it gets misplaced.

Wearing my Rules Committee hat, I might have an issue with Pol variants (but I've not researched the topic). Plain Jane POLs don't set off any alarms at first glance though.

By ROBERT l cALLAWAY (Callaway) on Sunday, May 20, 2012 - 06:14 pm: Edit

Howard if they are added to the SR automatical then they would take a MM conv slot if added to a CD sq then they would count as a navy conv slot. given the limited number of conv slots advailable it more likey they would be SR type

By Charles C. Coleman (Mwmiyd) on Sunday, May 20, 2012 - 07:29 pm: Edit

Would the POL be added to what can be built. i.e. you can build R1 SC4 or POL at an SB. Or would the POL replace the ability to build the R1 SC4?

I would still like to be able to build the R1 SC4 unit at a SB.

By ROBERT l cALLAWAY (Callaway) on Sunday, May 20, 2012 - 08:40 pm: Edit

You can build either, but you are still limited to one build per turn per SB. Thus either a F-PL or a POL/POLV can be build but not both on the same turn at the same SB

AA25 builds a POL AND LL33 builds a F-PL

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Sunday, May 20, 2012 - 10:33 pm: Edit

Since you can call up for military service pretty much anything in the MM, those Pol will eventually end up being pulled into military service. The only ways around that (which don't involve tracking how a Pol came into being) are assigning them to the local defense forces at the system or outlawing calling them up (perhaps with an exception for when the HW is threatened). You could also add a rule to the E section and MM basic requirements for having X Pol, I guess.

By John Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Monday, May 21, 2012 - 05:51 pm: Edit

Argh...

The rules say that the MM can build a POL ship. Only things get vague. It doesn't say that building a POL ship counts as a conversion. It is not an R1 civilian ship. Why do I get the feeling that one needs a civilian shipyard to build it with MM funds?

By John D Berg (Kerg) on Thursday, May 31, 2012 - 08:08 pm: Edit

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Monday, May 21, 2012 - 10:08 pm: Edit

The MM can use military shipyards to build stuff that it is allowed to build- those SC3 (or SC2) R1 units, Police ships, fighters for systems built via MRR that have not been brought up to speed, etc.

At present there is no MM specific SY (I've gone fishing asking about that with John in the past...).

A Police ship in and of itself is not a conversion- it is a base hull. Putting words in Rob's mouth-
a) By the book Pol have to be built at SC4 SYs, which are typically better used for HDW, DD, or FF hulls.
b) Unlimited Pol production @ SB/SP/SF would be (possibly) unbalancing. If we count Pol @ those bases as against the conversion limit, you cap it at 1-3 Pol per turn and force players to make a decision.

By Charles C. Coleman (Mwmiyd) on Tuesday, May 22, 2012 - 12:04 am: Edit

Howard, you forgot the first post:

By ROBERT l cALLAWAY (Callaway) on Sunday, May 20, 2012 - 12:57 pm: Edit


A suggested rule change.
under the crrent rules any SB can build a single R1 SC4 unit. I suggest that it be allowed that it could build instead that races POL ship and only that class of warship and that it must be assigned to the SR of the MMR or to a deacated CD sq

By John Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Tuesday, May 22, 2012 - 10:41 am: Edit

Ok, that has been clarified. The POL is a base hull and requires no conversion slots. Thanks.

(E1.20) is the reference to MM shipyards. Though in my opinion, the civilian SC2 shipyard should be included as there are R1 units that require such a shipyard for construction. Wouldn't it be nice for the MM to have it's own shipyards, freeing up the military's shipyards?

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Tuesday, May 22, 2012 - 01:50 pm: Edit

Ideally (IMO), you'd have two types of civilian shipyards-
a) the larger one that can build freighter or pod based ships (i.e. freighter based stuff like AxSCS, OAL, cargo pods, skids, etc.). They can only build the "civilian" grade or barely military grade ships based upon them. Maybe allow them to complete these units in a single turn instead of the two that a SC3/SC2 one would require by the book, as you are building blocks and putting them together instead of building a single ship from the keel up. Perhaps allow building of monitors in this yard too, although I'd not give them a faster build rate as they are military grade ships with slow tactical speed.
b) the SC4 Police ship yard capable of building military grade police (and only police) ships.

The uncommon (rare? nearly unique?) SC3 police ships like the D5I wouldn't be able to use these yards.

The reason I personally hadn't gone anywhere with this is that in my experience (which is admittedly not exhaustive), I almost always can get better bang for my buck building stuff other than Police ships -i.e. Q ships, AxCV, AxSCS, F-SS/F-SL, FRD. I've not gone fishing for such among the other players as I figure you might not wish to tell me I'm wrong. :-) Or maybe the Romulans just are chronically short on F-L/F-S so we never need to look for what to do with extra MM income.

Sidenote- the reason that we have a size class restriction is simplicity. John originally listed a bunch of hull types that you couldn't build. This broke when R8 (I think it was R8) was published and a bunch of new, and more powerful R1 units were published. Rather than having to constantly update the list as new ships come out, I suggested we go with the size class. While it means that there are a few corner cases that maybe should be on the other side, it at least doesn't break every time a new ship is published. [The fact that it slows down MRR support groups somewhat was also brought up- do you really want the UFP able to build nearly unlimited MRRs without burning military conversion slots (the GSC is a base hull)???]

By John D Berg (Kerg) on Thursday, May 31, 2012 - 08:09 pm: Edit

By ROBERT l cALLAWAY (Callaway) on Tuesday, May 22, 2012 - 01:58 pm: Edit

actually john it seems that the SB act as the civilian shipyards since they build or convert any F-S/L hull. in truth since they have the capability to do so they should be able to build the POL ships and more then just one FT or aux ships.
A Aux CVA/CV/CA are only base hulls out fitted with difference interior and since they can build 12 F-S and 6 F-L they should be able to create more styles with little difficulitie.
indeed they should be able to build FRD they have the docking points to do so

By ROBERT l cALLAWAY (Callaway) on Tuesday, May 22, 2012 - 02:05 pm: Edit

Second note: if POL ships were treated as support staff like fighters, PF, SAM, MLB ect they would simply be ordered build and assigned to the MM to act as convoy defenses they could not be asigned to the military would you send a pol cruier to IRAQ to hunt terroists?

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Tuesday, May 22, 2012 - 04:29 pm: Edit

Rob- a SB building a FRD opens up a very nasty can of worms, namely why would anyone build SC3 or SC4 SYs if they could use a SB to build FRDs? Sure the FRD takes 50% longer to build the ships, and it can not be refitted with auto-sy tech, but that EP savings goes a long way towards covering that cost difference even if you build 50% more capacity to compensate.

Given that freighter hulls are basically tug-like constructs (cargo pod plus bolt on parts, able to drop/pick up pods without a base in a few days/hours), that is why the F-S/F-L counts are so high for a base. The variant ones are the rare (single build per base) ones that require specialized effort to build, and even there you are not using military grade engines (harder to maintain, build, and more $$$) in most (all?) cases. Pol on the other hand are military grade ships, albeit slightly smaller than a FF.

Some Pol (SnP, L-Pol, no doubt others) are basically slightly stripped down FFs- still serviceable as warships if the chips are down (certainly as hex annexing gnats). Plus some enterprising minor empire (U3 LDR, cough) with 30% of military income in their MM income might decide to increase the size of their military budget by building speed 3 capable Pol in bulk if given the chance instead of the speed 2 (and lower AF/DF R1 hulls)...

By John Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Tuesday, May 22, 2012 - 05:14 pm: Edit

Howard, I like your idea! One generic MM shipyard that can build those needed ships that can not be converted from the standard FL/FS and a generic MM police SY. I appreciate the "Sidenote" for the "why" of things.

Rob's idea of substituting a POL for an R1 build at a SB is also viable. It beats building a separate SC4SY for this purpose.

Yet using a conversion slot for it would make it unattractive. Yes, there are better conversions available than the POL.

Restricting the POL to local defense or Convoy Duty in exchange for allowing the SB to build it might be viable.

The game from my point of view is approaching the point where the MM can afford to build these things. It would be my preference to use a MM shipyard rather than tie up a military shipyard for these purposes.

It is true that the military's first choice would be to have the DD class first, FF's second rather than the POL. But if the MM were to build them for local defense, Convoy duty, or military action, who am I to complain?

Maybe it was a ruse by the local police union to get them more police ships. Think about it. The military wouldn't want them, there are way better SC4 ships available. They said "hey, let's get the civilians to build them!".

Then there is this scenario - Over time, the MM budget becomes substantial. There is a glut of FL/FS and maxed out conversions. To spend these extra funds, the authorities created a variance in the zoning ordinance, allowing the military POL ships to be built by MM civilians at their own shipyard?

And there is the National Guard. SB's can build them (substituting for an R1 build), but they are limited in their use. Why not the POL thousands ask?

By Bennett Eugene Snyder (Planner) on Tuesday, May 22, 2012 - 10:55 pm: Edit

Here's a good question.
Why aren't Commercial or Triple Commercial Bases able to have shipyard variants like the BSSY?
These would then be able to build MM ships and possibly the Pol, since it isn't a military vessel.
The MM basically require SC4SYs for building F-L and F-S hulls, SC3SY when building F-OLs. The TCB could probably count as a SC3 yard.

By Charles C. Coleman (Mwmiyd) on Tuesday, May 22, 2012 - 11:30 pm: Edit

If it was used as a shipyard, it would deminish in its commerce ability and probably reduce the system down to the equivalent of a minor colony. Probaby not a trade you would want just to get a few POLs out.

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Tuesday, May 22, 2012 - 11:31 pm: Edit

Err, a SB can build 6xF-L and 12xF-S per turn (plus one F-L/F-S variant). That should be enough to get you pretty far. Far further than building normal shipyards would.

I can't say on CB/TCB/QCB SY variants

It must be nice to have built out your MM fully. I've got some horrible number of freighters to build (3-4 turns of full war production going just to F-S/F-L hulls, if memory serves). Then I should start on the FTs for TPs...

You can never have too many MM conversions- build your required stuff, plus a full set of spares, plus enough stuff to get your full MM income, plus the FTs for TPs. That is a lot of cash. Next up start building Monitors, and AxCVs. Oh, and MRR support groups (5-10 of them). If you get bored, the MM can build open space bases to act as an early warning system (or FEL/FES if you want cheaper defenses). And the MM can always build SC3SYs (which the military can pay to upgrade to SC2SYs)...

National Guard builds- presumably, there old boneyarded Y hulls around. What you are really doing is a major refurb job. :-) [The actual answer is probably to give all those R8 hulls a chance at being used in the game, as given a choice between a YCA (non-upgradable to a CA, speed 2) and a CL (speed 3), I'd be hard pressed to see a reason to build the Y hull in a shipyard instead of finding a similar R1 hull that I can build at a SB and not waste a SY on.]

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Wednesday, May 23, 2012 - 09:26 am: Edit

Given that a BSSY no longer functions as a BS, a *CBSY would not count as a CB, IMO. It would give Rob something to do with that second CB at an IC that was upgraded to a major though. :-)

By John Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Wednesday, May 23, 2012 - 11:23 am: Edit

H'mmm a TCBSY? 30% more in price and an extra turn to build. I was contemplating the "generic" specialized automated compact MM SY. Ah well, it is not allowed at the moment.

By ROBERT l cALLAWAY (Callaway) on Wednesday, May 23, 2012 - 02:40 pm: Edit

I like this idea it could work, either that or upgrade the second CB to TCB adding rev to a planetary system or get 300 pts for QBC reseach

By John Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Tuesday, May 29, 2012 - 10:30 pm: Edit

Is the GC rules proposals restricted? I.E. there is no "add a message" part there.

By John Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Thursday, May 31, 2012 - 09:01 pm: Edit

OK. It looks like everything is here.
In summary:

1) substitute a POL build for a FT at a SB.
2) a generic civilian SY that may build any civilian ship.
3) a civilian POL only shipyard
4) a TCBSY for civilian ships (similar to the military BSSY).

By John D Berg (Kerg) on Thursday, May 31, 2012 - 11:42 pm: Edit

1) substitute a POL build for a FT at a SB.

Some POL ships are just as good or better then military equivalent (L FLG for instance).
I just dont like the idea of building them so easily at a SB.

I think it really isnt needed bc you can simply follow the current rules and just build a SC4SY.

I think since the current rules allow you to build POL(at a limited level) we dont really have a need to build them elsewhere, faster.

Make a choice....do you want a DD or a POL. These are what makes a great admiral IMHO.

By John D Berg (Kerg) on Thursday, May 31, 2012 - 11:45 pm: Edit

2) a generic civilian SY that may build any civilian ship.

Sounds fine if it only builds R1 units and not bases. No pol ships (for reason described above).

They would have to follow all the rules on SY.

How much would it cost?

By John D Berg (Kerg) on Thursday, May 31, 2012 - 11:48 pm: Edit

4) a TCBSY for civilian ships (similar to the military BSSY).

An interesting idea, however whats the drawback?
If it is a busy making ships then what is it NOT doing?

By John Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Friday, June 01, 2012 - 12:36 pm: Edit

I'll let Rob defend the POl proposal.

2) Generic civilian SY:

OK, I suggest that the MMSY cost 200 EP (from MM funds) and takes 2 years to build. It needs to be a SC2 SY after all, but, freighters cost way less than BB's. It does not need to be too sophisticated.

3) The MMPOLSY would cost 100 ep (from MM funds) and takes 1 YR to build. Only a POL could be built (by definition).

4) The drawback would be that like the BSSY, only one is allowed per system. It would take 30% more to build civilian ships and take an extra turn. I see no economic impact. I consider the ability to build a freighter slowly over time as part of the general economic activity of a system. Note, a limiting factor is that the anticipated builds would be considered conversions.

Only MM funds can build them and only MM funds are used to build the R1 ships. I.E. Military funds are not allowed at civilian shipyards.

By ROBERT l cALLAWAY (Callaway) on Saturday, June 02, 2012 - 03:50 am: Edit

1. a BSSY cost 120bpv it can build SC2 ship
2. using a CBSY would cost 100.
3. a SB can build any speciality Freighter a POL would just be part of the rotation
4. many races get a discount for building FF class ships the POL would be needed to have this advantage otherwise a FF/DD is worth far more for the space and resources expended.

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Saturday, June 02, 2012 - 02:43 pm: Edit

Rob- Freighters are made up of bits and pieces. They are capable (at the strategic level, not tactical) of adding/subtracting pods, ducktails, and other bits. They are akin to a box of Legos (tm) being assembled. Police ships are monolithic ships- short of a shipyard or the like, you can't swap out parts you don't want for ones you do. The single variant hull allowed (typically ones that are permanent conversions), represent getting out the welding and other specialized gear/staff that is likely to be have limited availability.

Discounting base POL hulls (not ones with extra fighters, special sensors, or other goodies) is probably something that we should do- the cost of a FF is in the ballpark (after a 20% discount) of many POLs, and in some cases cheaper... As John B noted, the FLG versions have some extra abilities that make them very tempting to use in the military fleet (how many Hydrans would drool at building Pegasus class POL ships with MM funds?).

John B- any QCB/TCB/CB acting as a SY would be able to act as a CB one step lower (QCB -> TCB; TCB-> CB; CB-> nothing) for system economic output.

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Saturday, June 02, 2012 - 03:06 pm: Edit

Alternative proposal idea-
SB can't build anything other than FTR/INT/PF.
Allow CB to build 4xF-S & 2xF-L.
Allow TCB to build 6xF-S & 3xF-L plus 1xF-S variant.
Allow QCB to build 8xF-S & 4xF-L plus 1xF-? variant (small, large, jumbo, or huge).

FedEx, FT/APT- can be sub'd for the F-x variant @ TCB/QCB.

Cargo pods for tugs can be subbed for F-S one for one; F-L @ two cargo pods for one F-L. Other "light" pods (battle, CV, SR, scout, etc.) can be subbed for 3xF-L (or 6xF-S). Klingon style pods would be built in pairs. Mon pallets count as "light". Heavy pods (double weight Fed, triple weight Klingon) would take the full production of the TCB (other than the F-S variant).

Use the MMPOL numbers from John S's proposal. Pol (base hull) takes one turn to build and get the 20% FF discount; discount increases to 35% when you get SYSPEC. Can not use autoSY. Can not use compactSY. Size- 2 SY "points". MMPOL SY can not be scrapped or upgraded.

FLG, FRD, Mon (sans pallets), POL-X- all require military SYs due to size/complexity/doctrine/politics/whatever handwavium.

By ROBERT l cALLAWAY (Callaway) on Saturday, June 02, 2012 - 07:16 pm: Edit

Howard:
I was responding to john stiff note that a MMSY should be two hundred and take an exter turn the BSSY cost 120 and can handle any ship up to a SC2 so paying 200 for a MMSY is not workable idea
the BSSY can do all of that at comperable cost and build warsships.
The POL ship is worthless in GC because the amount of resources and time used is not the best bang for your buck the LYRAN FF COST 67 has the discount cost 54 and can act as a sponge for poor crew units. place them with a YDH/DNE on CD and they can cover the empire.

By ROBERT l cALLAWAY (Callaway) on Wednesday, July 11, 2012 - 10:53 am: Edit

For future action:
that all races without a SR be given a theorical one to even the playing field

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Wednesday, July 11, 2012 - 12:59 pm: Edit

Rob- I had a note in my things to address file to deal with campaign conjectural hulls, which typically include SRs, tugs, and some other similar corner cases for various empires.

While not every empire needs a full range of variants(ex: scouts based on FF, DD, DW, CW, and CA hulls), denying them any scouts/SRs/MS/etc. seems counter productive.

By John D Berg (Kerg) on Wednesday, July 11, 2012 - 04:03 pm: Edit

Its not hard to get basic tech like that, but maybe in the next game. Some empire that did not have SR had other advantages to compensate.

By John D Berg (Kerg) on Saturday, July 28, 2012 - 08:16 am: Edit

Let us know what you guys think and if you see any rules issues. I put it in more formal rules order later after bugging it out.

CV Strike I

This tech allows you to launch a group of FTRS from one hex away, and only one hex. CV Strike cannot be used if the CV is in the same hex as the target for the CV Strike. Static defenses may use CV Strike. The CV must have defined escorts. A unit with at least 2 special sensors must be with CV SQ. When a CV Strike happens the FTRS making the attack may ignore assembly rules. Any and all FTRs arriving may attack together. They attack for a single round of combat. The FTRs fight at “Suicidal” without the loss of DF. If the launching SQ is successful in a SSJ then the attack happens as if the FTRS had plotted a WS. If regular combat occurs in the same segment then the CV strike is resolved first. Regardless of the skill of the CV or FTRS, a SQ of FTRS may make up to 1 CV Strike attack per turn but not within 4 segments of any other CV Strike they make. This technology is not available until a successful R and D project has been conducted. The MV of FTRS using a CV strike does is NOT considered MV for the activation of RX.

CV Strike II

This tech adds to CV Strike I by allowing the bombers on bases/systems to use CV Strike I. INT/PF may not use any form of CV Strike.

By John Coleman (Aligato) on Saturday, July 28, 2012 - 01:01 pm: Edit

If a SQ uses its full MF to reach a point one hex away from its intended target, it would be my assumption that MV of the FTS in a CV Strike would count against the SQs MF, making it inelegible to attack the intended target that turn unless RX is activated by the SQ.

By John D Berg (Kerg) on Saturday, July 28, 2012 - 03:41 pm: Edit

Good point.
The way its written now is that an effective attack (with just the FTRS) can be accomplished 4 hexes from a target. 3MV for the SQ and one more for the FTRS.

Note- You still need to R an D the tech.
And they only attack for a single round.

I dont think it is unbalanced,

how about others?

By Charles C. Coleman (Mwmiyd) on Saturday, July 28, 2012 - 04:13 pm: Edit

I like the Idea of the fighters being able to go the extra hex after full MV is used by the CV.

Would there be any extra cost (besides the R&D) for the CV to have this option?

By John D Berg (Kerg) on Saturday, July 28, 2012 - 05:23 pm: Edit

no extra cost

By ROBERT l cALLAWAY (Callaway) on Saturday, July 28, 2012 - 07:51 pm: Edit

So seg4 nn32-seg8 pp32-seg 12 qq32 seg 12 FSMV RR32?

By John Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Saturday, July 28, 2012 - 08:42 pm: Edit

I like the idea.

Ack, the wording...

"a SQ of FTRS may make up to 1 CV Strike attack per turn but not within 4 segments of any other CV Strike they make."

If the FTRS make their 1 CV strike per turn then surely they cannot strike again, by definition.

What did you really mean to say? I am assuming that a second group of FTRS may not make a CV strike within 4 segments of the first FTRS' CV strke - or something to that effect.

I assume that FTRS intending a CV strike can do nothing else during the turn. To go to the extra hex would require a lot of special preparation, etc. Or could they?? This is not stated.

Example, enroute to the target hex, the CV group has a battle and wins. Would the FTRS be allowed to defend the CV group even though they have planned a special mission? If they do defend the CV group, is the special mission scrubbed? Could they both defend and do the special mission?

Does the "target" need to be defined specifically? Or is this at the FTRS discretion?

Example, one of the Races that has early fighters is expecting an attack their system, but they don't know what is coming or when. They have boo ku FTRS at their disposal. They group the all of the FTRS into three groups. Each MV, they do a CV strike on a hex with one of the groups. The first MV, nothing was found. The second MV, presto, the enemy fleet is there. The third MV, nothing was found as the enemy is in the same hex as the system.

All the FTRS will know is the expected enemy is the target.

By Charles C. Coleman (Mwmiyd) on Saturday, July 28, 2012 - 08:47 pm: Edit

John S.

I think what he was saying was if the FTRs made a CV strike on Segment 12 of 166.1 then they cannot make a strike on Segments 1, 2, or 3 of 166.2 . Their first opprotunity to make another CV strike would be at least 4 segments after their last (and not within the same turn) which would be 166.2 segment 4.

By Roy Steele (Klingon_Emperor) on Saturday, July 28, 2012 - 10:24 pm: Edit

I think it is too powerful to allow any and all fighters to strike anything...lets say a HW with 48 ground fighter bases what would you do against something as massive as that?