I'm still waiting for my copy of C6 to arrive in the mail, but there are some clues in the preview PDF and in the various discussions here on the BBS.


It seems that the Paravians would fit in best with the Coalition, at least according to Mapsheet P. It has been suggested that this would drag the Inter-Stellar Concordium into the Alliance, or perhaps allow for a "private war" between the Paravians and one of their neighbours, while the other enters the General War proper.

(Without the luxury of a long period of isolation, the ISC would likely be in no position to launch the Pacification Campaign - or even be minded to do so. But they may have an excuse to start fielding those "war" classes of theirs much sooner than they did historically.)


The Carnivons are in a trickier situation. The "Carnivon Empire" version (where they hold a number of on-map provinces between Lyran and Kzinti space) seems to treat them as a non-aligned power, since they can't risk going to war against either neighbour without leaving the door open for the other to start getting adventurous. (Even the Klingons may not be in a position to guarantee that this wouldn't happen.)

The "Cluster Carnivons", on the other hand, are happy to act as a wild card, with their efforts to grab territory from the Klingons, Lyrans, and Kzintis alike.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, March 30, 2014 - 09:51 pm: Edit

Module C6 actually answers that, if indirectly.

If you use the on-map Paravians then they are Romulan allies (and the ISC join the alliance) and you use Map P.

The Carnivons are problematic as they will not join any cat species, so they won't ally with the Coalition because the Lyrans are there and they won't ally with the Alliance because the Kzintis are there. It gets worse in that there is nothing to balance them and any side they join becomes so powerful the game crashes and burns. About the only suggestion I can make is to assume the Kzintis were annihilated by the coalition which would let them join the Alliance.

The other option would be to use the off map raider option for both empires and form them into a third player force with the Orions.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, March 30, 2014 - 09:55 pm: Edit

Gosh, Gary and I agree!

By Matthew Potter (Neonpico) on Sunday, March 30, 2014 - 11:33 pm: Edit

The Carnivons of the Cluster version of history notes that in Y178, the Carnivons are co-belligerents with the Alliance. But 7 years later the Kzinti have completely lost their territory.

By Eddie Crutchfield (Librarian101) on Monday, March 31, 2014 - 09:22 pm: Edit

Hows this for the Carnivons, they ally with the Hydrans against the Lyrans, but have a neturality pact with the Klingons, but end up at war with the Kzintis, because the Kzinties are allies of the Hydrans. so they fight both cats at the same time.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, March 31, 2014 - 11:47 pm: Edit

Ed,

Dunno.

From SVC's comments, doesn't sound like a possibility.

About the only other option is if the Carnivons merge with the Kaltic States (norther 5 provinces of the Klingon empire with what ever on map minor and major worlds that happen to be in those provinces.

Frankly, not sure its either workable or defensible given the ship counts possessed by the Lyrans and Kzintis.

Might make an interesting "what if" scenario.

By Nick Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, April 02, 2014 - 10:14 am: Edit

Heel Nipper question.

(E24.211) and (E24.212), if I power the heel nipper for extended range, can it still rapid fire at size 6-7 units? If so, does this use .5 power per shot?

Also, does rapid fire work like a Ph-G for timing issues, I.e. it could fire all four shots on one impulse?

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, April 02, 2014 - 04:12 pm: Edit

Nick Blank:

The Heel Nipper when fired at targets of size class 6 or 7 operates basically in the same manner as a phaser-G. Each shot is using 0.25 points of the 1 point you allocated, and in the case of a heel nipper if you do not use all of the energy in the turn, the remainder is lost (E24.22).

Rule (E24.212) tells you that it can only fire four shots. Rule (E24.35) does not change this. The added point of energy does not increase the number of shots, whether at a size class 5 or larger or a size class 6 or smaller, it only increases the weapon's range.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, April 02, 2014 - 04:12 pm: Edit

Nick Blank:


The Heel Nipper when fired at targets of size class 6 or 7 operates basically in the same manner as a phaser-G. Each shot is using 0.25 points of the 1 point you allocated, and in the case of a heel nipper if you do not use all of the energy in the turn, the remainder is lost (E24.22).

Rule (E24.212) tells you that it can only fire four shots. Rule (E24.35) does not change this. The added point of energy does not increase the number of shots, whether at a size class 5 or larger or a size class 6 or smaller, it only increases the weapon's range.

By Nick Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, April 02, 2014 - 07:56 pm: Edit

SPP, Thanks.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Sunday, April 06, 2014 - 09:27 am: Edit

(R18.2) Module C6 Paravian BB - Annex 7G - The number of Admin should be 7 and not 6. There are 7 shuttle boxes on the SSD. - Ken Kazinski, 05 Apr 2014.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Monday, April 07, 2014 - 06:37 pm: Edit

(R18.10) Module C6 Paravian RMS - The unit's YIS (132) which is before the Paravian DN (165) which this unit is it a variant of. Shouldn't the DN be a variant of the RMS and not the other way around or not a variant at all. - Ken Kazinski, 07 Apr 2014.

By Matthew Potter (Neonpico) on Monday, April 07, 2014 - 08:37 pm: Edit

First sentence of (R18.10): The raid mothership actually preceded the design of the Paravian dreadnought (R18.6), but is still regarded as a variant of that ship.

By Charles Chapel (Ctchapel) on Monday, April 07, 2014 - 11:05 pm: Edit

SSD book, p136, the gunboat leader has both p3s identified as "4".

By Charles Chapel (Ctchapel) on Monday, April 07, 2014 - 11:11 pm: Edit

Thank you for the SJ10.0 byline. Star Fleet must be code for, "We don't need to have our name on every scenario."

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Tuesday, April 08, 2014 - 08:32 am: Edit

Mathew - That is the point either the RMS should not be a variant or the DN should be.

This creates the kind of inconsistencies that confuse players, especially new players.

By Matthew Potter (Neonpico) on Tuesday, April 08, 2014 - 10:51 am: Edit

Ken: There is a precedent for this sort of thing. Off the top of my head, the Kzinti CS is considered a variant of the BC.

Granted, I agree it's confusing. I don't know why we can't make all the Paravian DN-hulls a variant of the RMS (and the Kzinti CA-hulls variants of the CS). F&E sems to have cut to the chase by glossing over the CS as if it doesn't exist (at least, in my ancient version of F&E).

This sounds like your C6 note should leap into the "WHY" topic.

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Tuesday, April 08, 2014 - 11:14 am: Edit

It's probably due to the ADB design dates of the ships. The BC was done long before the CS therefore all the variants are off the BC not the older CS. Without G3 in front of me I'm pretty sure the CS to BC is a refit not a conversion.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Tuesday, April 08, 2014 - 12:37 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

F&E sems to have cut to the chase by glossing over the CS as if it doesn't exist (at least, in my ancient version of F&E).

---

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, April 08, 2014 - 01:27 pm: Edit

It's confusing because we're accounting for two very different timelines. In one, the RMS is the ship and the DN doesn't really exist because the Paravians raid rather than fight. In the other, the DN is the ship and the RMS doesn't really have anything to do because the Paravians are not doing raids from off map.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Tuesday, April 08, 2014 - 10:50 pm: Edit

Ryan, you correct. In SFB the Kzinti BC is a refitted CS. See (R5.R1), (R5.2) and (R5.3).

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Sunday, April 13, 2014 - 03:10 pm: Edit

(R18.12) Module C6 Paravian BCH - All units capable of aerodynamic landing are also capable of powered landings and should have a PL note. - Ken Kazinski, 13 Apr 2014.

(R18.12) Module C6 Paravian BCH - All ships able to land under engine power should have a crash landing bonus. - Ken Kazinski, 13 Apr 2014.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Sunday, April 13, 2014 - 07:26 pm: Edit

(R18.13) Module C6 Paravian BCS - All units capable of aerodynamic landing are also capable of powered landings and should have a PL note. - Ken Kazinski, 13 Apr 2014.

(R18.13) Module C6 Paravian BCS - All ships able to land under engine power should have a crash landing bonus. - Ken Kazinski, 13 Apr 2014.

(R18.14) Module C6 Paravian BCV - All units capable of aerodynamic landing are also capable of powered landings and should have a PL note. - Ken Kazinski, 13 Apr 2014.

(R18.14) Module C6 Paravian BCV - All ships able to land under engine power should have a crash landing bonus. - Ken Kazinski, 13 Apr 2014.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Tuesday, April 15, 2014 - 01:56 pm: Edit

(R18.15) Module C6 Paravian CC - All units capable of aerodynamic landing are also capable of powered landings and should have a PL note. - Ken Kazinski, 15 Apr 2014.

(R18.15) Module C6 Paravian CC - All ships able to land under engine power should have a crash landing bonus (LB). - Ken Kazinski, 15 Apr 2014.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Wednesday, April 16, 2014 - 08:47 am: Edit

(R18.16) Module C6 Paravian CA - All units capable of aerodynamic landing are also capable of powered landings and should have a PL note. - Ken Kazinski, 15 Apr 2014.

(R18.16) Module C6 Paravian CA - All ships able to land under engine power should have a crash landing bonus (LB). - Ken Kazinski, 15 Apr 2014.