Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through October 12, 2013	25		10/12 09:56pm
	Archive through November 04, 2013	25		11/04 01:10pm
	Archive through February 04, 2014	25		02/04 09:01pm
	Archive through March 30, 2014	25		03/30 09:29pm
	Archive through April 16, 2014	25		04/16 08:47am
	Archive through December 03, 2014	25		12/03 02:06pm
	Archive through February 10, 2017	25		02/10 02:10pm

I'm not typically minded to take note of mine warfare units, but I recently noticed something in Module C6 I wanted to ask about:

(R18.27) Paravian CWM: From what I gather, most Alpha Octant minesweepers have a strengthened #1 shield, in order to support their particular line of work. One can see this with the Paravian DWM (R18.40) and FFM (R18.51), as well as with the Carnivon CWM (R19.27). However, in my print copy of Module C6, the Paravian CWM has the same strength #1 shield as the standard Paravian war cruiser (R18.23). Is this intentional, or should the Paravian CWM have a stronger front shield? And if the latter is the case, would there be any sort of economic and/or combat BPV adjustment to account for this? - Gary Carney, 31 January 2018

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, January 31, 2018 - 04:31 pm: Edit

Gary Carney:

In the case of the Paravian CWM, it was an intentional choice. The normal #1 shield of a Paravian CW is 34 boxes, one box less than the damage the ship would receive from an NSM (the largest mine). Given the slow speed needed for minesweeping the strength of this shield, plus available battery power, plus reinforcement energy (made available by the necessity of moving slowly) was seen as sufficient to the task. If you checked all of the war cruiser/light cruiser minesweepers in the game you would stumble across at least one other (and maybe more than one) where that design decision was made.

The Carnivon war cruiser, on the other hand, has a normal shield of 30 boxes, and so was increased.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Thursday, February 01, 2018 - 01:12 pm: Edit

SPP:

Thank you for the clarification.

[I see that the Romulan SparrowHawk-D (R4.17) is in a similar situation; although it seems to be marginally less capable than the Paravian CWM at sweeping mines, it has a greater degree of flexibility in deploying new ones.]

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, February 01, 2018 - 01:16 pm: Edit

Gary Carney:

The SparrowHawk-D is an example of the positive and negative of Modularity. The Modules cannot bring additional shielding, so when you take off the "A," or "B," or "C," or "H," or etc. modules and install the "D" modules the shields are not changed. Also the base hull of the ship provides the weapons and tractor beams rather than being modified to the mission (by installing additional tractor beams or more phasers in place of heavy weapons). The positive is, of course, that if you need a minesweeper any SparrowHawk that retained modular status (not an "F" or "J" version for example) could be quickly converted to the mission, and if not needed for the minesweeping mission can be usefully employed in a combat or other role (such as a transport).

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Thursday, February 01, 2018 - 02:53 pm: Edit

SPP:

As it happens, your observation on the question of modularity has led me to speculate on how mine warfare might work over in the place the Paravians historically escaped to: were those Paravians to gain access to the quantum wave torpedo rules from Module C6, that might put them ahead of the curve (mine warfare-wise, at least) in that region of space also.

But, of course, such topics may be best left for another time and place...

-----

Oh, speaking of QWTs, would it be likely that the rules for them, and for the various "modern" Carnivon weapons also in Module C6, might eventually end up in a future revision of the "standard" SFB Master Rulebook?

At least, if one were to give the Omega-Paravians access to these same QWT rules, one would then not be obliged to list them in a future revision to the Omega Master Rulebook itself...

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, February 01, 2018 - 03:19 pm: Edit

Gary Carney:

Impossible to answer at this time. Sorry (honestly). Those are decisions still for some future date.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Friday, February 02, 2018 - 12:36 pm: Edit

SPP:

Understood, and thanks again.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Sunday, May 26, 2019 - 03:18 pm: Edit

This came up while discussing a new proposal, so I wanted to clarify matters, if I may.

According to the (R8.0) note in the Carnivon portion of Module C6, no Orion Cartel treats Carnivon space as its Home Territory, though the Cluster Cartel may treat it as part of its Operating Zone. However, under (G15.442), the Cluster Cartel (and their WYN "hosts") in the "standard" timeline has no separate "Operating Zone" as such; rather, that ratio is subsumed under its expanded Home Territory.

To clarify, would this mean that, in the "Carnivon Empire" timeline, the Cluster Cartel (and the WYN Navy) has:

a) 90% Klingon/Kzinti/Lyran/Carnivon weapons and 10% others;
b) 90% Klingon/Kzinti/Lyran weapons and 10% Carnivon and other weapons;
or
c) 70% Klingon/Kzinti/Lyran weapons, 20% Carnivon weapons, and 10% others?


Meanwhile, over in the "Cluster Carnivon" timeline (where the Cluster Cartel, and the "historical" WYNs, do not exist), which, if any, of the other Cartels would use the "on-map" territories which these Carnivons had seized from their neighbours as of Y185 as Operating Zones?

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Wednesday, July 17, 2019 - 01:41 am: Edit

Carnivon Ground Forces title bar is listed as '(R19.F)' instead of '(R19.M)'.

By John Hall (Fedf111fan) on Wednesday, May 13, 2020 - 01:02 pm: Edit

Were the boarding party diagram/charts for C6 ever developed?

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Friday, March 25, 2022 - 10:24 am: Edit

I'm not sure if this has been answered before already, but I can't seem to find it if so:

According to (FQ1.388), any phaser-equivalent weapon can damage a quantum wave torpedo, in the same manner as an Alpha Octant phaser can.

On the one hand, my understanding of (OE1.2251) is that, since the "damage ratio" for a QWT from Alpha Octant phaser damage is already 1:1, there is no additional benefit from the use of Omega Octant microphasers. Is this correct?

On the other hand, if QWTs count as "plasma-like weapons that are reduced by phasers", would the damage ratio required when using Magellanic warp-tuned lasers under (ME1.3321) be 2:1? Or is a QWT different enough from a plasma torpedo to have the same 1:1 damage ratio when fired upon by a warp-tuned laser as it has against other phaser-equivalent weapons?

Since microphasers might one day show up in the FC Omega project, and since warp-tuned lasers are in the FC LMC project as-is, I hoped to clarify the correct SFB interactions in case anyone wanted to try the preview Paravian ships from the FC Lost Empires Preview Pack against such opposition.

Not that there is any hurry to do so, of course.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Thursday, June 30, 2022 - 03:31 pm: Edit

According to (FQ1.141), Orion Pirates in "lost empire" Paravian timelines are permitted to install quantum wave torpedoes in "wing" option mounts.

If they do this, would QWTs use the same weapon arc options listed in (R8.R3) for disruptors and fusion beams; as in, the Orion player can set a port "wing" QWT to either FA or L+LF, and/or a starboard "wing" QWT to either FA or RF+R?

-----

Also, for the purposes of (R8.R5), would an Orion ship using "Mapsheet P" Paravian territory as their "home" territory be permitted to replace their drone racks with plasma racks (in this case, perhaps drawing from stockpiles sourced from operating zones in Gorn, Romulan, and/or ISC space)?

Or, as an alternative, might Orion ships in "Mapsheet P" Paravian territory be permitted to replace the drone racks with, say, LS or RS phaser-1s? This would be somewhat akin to the WYN "fish ship" ability to choose either drone racks, ADDs, or phasers for use in their "wing" mounts under (R12.1G).

By Benjamin Lee Johnson (Jedipilot24) on Monday, February 26, 2024 - 12:21 pm: Edit

In the Carnivon of the Cluster timeline, the Hydrans are attacked in Y168 and the Kzintis don't get involved in the war until Y171. So does this mean that the presence of the Carnivons in the Cluster results in the Kzintis and Hydrans having a weaker alliance? Or even that they just aren't allied at all?

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, February 27, 2024 - 01:25 pm: Edit

Benjamin Lee Johnson: The timeline is different because the facts on the ground were different. The Coalition did not attack the Kzintis first and the Hydrans did not intervene in. their war. Instead the Coalition executed their plans and invaded Hydran space in Y168. The Kzintis chose not to intervene in that war until the Coalition attacked them.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, February 27, 2024 - 03:46 pm: Edit

It will seem like I am trying to get you to buy an old issue of Captain's Log, but honestly if you can barrow a copy the cover story "Too Close to the Flame" was about the plan for the Coalition to attack the Hydrans first, but the son of the Lyran Emperor was killed in a skirmish with the Kzintis and changed the plans to attack the Kzintis first. We (I) simply assumed that the Lyran crown prince was not killed and the plans went forward.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, February 27, 2024 - 03:55 pm: Edit

Deleted by author.