Can I build a ship and do a conversion with a shipyard in the same turn? Or is it an either/or?

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Monday, February 29, 2016 - 03:46 pm: Edit

You can build and convert provided that the shipyard is working on the same unit. Examples:

Illegal:
build FF and convert a DD to something with the same shipyard

Legal:
build a FF and convert during build to FFS.

Also legal:
build as a FF, convert to FFS during build, apply one or more of: + refit, enhanced sensors or similar.

Typically you'd just direct build the FFS and note in the comments column that it is a conversion (conversion 1 of N, 2 of N; SC4 1 of N, ...).

By Lanny Smith (Lance1967) on Thursday, March 03, 2016 - 08:03 am: Edit

Does SY specialization affect conversions? For example, can I do a CA conversion at a DNSY?

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Thursday, March 03, 2016 - 09:19 pm: Edit

A DNSY can only work on DN type hulls. Starbases can do conversions and are often a better choice for doing conversions.

By Lanny Smith (Lance1967) on Thursday, March 03, 2016 - 10:20 pm: Edit

I'm trying to figure out a way to squeeze in one more conversion and the SB there is already slated for one. Thanks for all the quick answers!

By Lanny Smith (Lance1967) on Sunday, March 06, 2016 - 03:14 pm: Edit

Next rule question:

This has to do with minefields.

C4.10 says that a minefield can only be placed on a hex spine.
C4.20 says you can use AM to let several squadrons pass at the same time.
D2.34 states that squadrons using AM cannot leave the strategic hex in which they were assembled?

So how can AM let you cross a MX since it seems you would have to move from one hex to another to cross the minefield?

Thanks,
Lanny

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, March 06, 2016 - 03:39 pm: Edit

What are AM and MX?

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Sunday, March 06, 2016 - 09:02 pm: Edit

MX == minefield
AM == Assembly movement

Basically, you have several ways to cross a minefield in Galactic Conquest-
1) If the crossing squadron has a minsweeper (per the relevant note in G3 or similar chart) then they can move at speed through the minefield.
2) If the squadron has enough minesweeping shuttles they can also move unhindered. The shuttles may not survive the experience however.
3) You can glue several squadrons together via AM and as long as 1 or 2 apply, you can still move at speed.
4) You can, lacking a MS/MSS, run the minefield- this voids your ships' warranties and will result in damage.
5) You can just burn a movement point and cross that way.

John would have to answer the handwavium, but I assume that you are AM'd going through the minefield, but as soon as you are through and in the new hex, you are no longer AM'd.

In practice, 3 and 5 are the same thing unless there is a battle occurring in the hex you are leaving, or you are running into timing issues (speed 3 would move on segment 4, 8, and 12 with one of those being the "minefield" movement point, while the AM would move on 6 & 12 plus using the AM somewhere in there).

Note that a Local Minefield (LocMX) around a system or base is slightly different- then 3 and 5 are NOT the same. This is the most common version of the "battle" exception.

Disclaimer- there may be some corner cases I'm missing, but I think we are at the "i before e, except after c" level here.

By John D Berg (Kerg) on Sunday, March 06, 2016 - 09:17 pm: Edit

AM is a form reactionary movement allowing several SQ to act as one.
MX is a minefield.

The rule is referring to local MX.

By Lanny Smith (Lance1967) on Sunday, March 06, 2016 - 09:38 pm: Edit

Thanks!

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Sunday, March 06, 2016 - 10:24 pm: Edit

I've made note of the LocMX criterion for future reference.

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Friday, May 20, 2016 - 01:51 pm: Edit

In doing some mailbox cleanup, I've found a few things that players sometimes struggle with. I'm thinking of creating some examples of legal/illegal things (more extensive than are found in the rulebook) that I can point folks to. IMO I don't think these are interesting enough to publish in CL either as Conquest Notes or as standalone items. I do feel they would be helpful to lay out with more verbose explanations.

The one area that I can think of off hand is a legal squadron- The LO Legendary Officer, escorts, consorts, *EFO, X ships, X2, etc. all make things a bit hard to understand for players sometimes.

Feel free to shoot me an email with "topics".

By Kurt Byanski (Kurtski) on Friday, May 27, 2016 - 03:22 pm: Edit

Stupid Question of the Day: Are there any shortcuts to building FTs? Or does it take a SC4SY/SB/BSSY etc.?

By Kurt Byanski (Kurtski) on Friday, May 27, 2016 - 04:33 pm: Edit

Where does the fixed TP amount get calculated for treasury amount? Is it before or after the CAN/MRR/etc percentage adjustment.

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Friday, May 27, 2016 - 07:12 pm: Edit

FTs can be built, one per facility (and typicaly one per turn) at a SB or larger base, shipyard, BSSY, FRD, or similar structure.

Yes, building a "full set" for most empires can take several game years if they are starting from scratch.
===
I'll let John/Mike confirm, but I'd expect TP bonuses to be added in the same step as CAN/MRR if they are a percentage and beforehand if they are not (I'm not overly certain on the 2nd case and lack first hand data to review as I'm not sure I've ever had that corner case).

By Mike Incavo (Kavo) on Friday, May 27, 2016 - 11:33 pm: Edit

I concur.

By John Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Saturday, May 28, 2016 - 12:27 am: Edit

I may get in trouble...

To answer your question, they are summed together.


Sum the CAN, MRR and TP percentages.
Multiply the BEV by this number.
Add the result to the BEV.
Multiply the above by the mobility (FW, LW, PT, RB).


Example (using real numbers):

CAN-3 % is .25
MRR % is 0
TP % is .0225
BEV is 463
Mobility is PT (or 1)

The combined % is .2725
BEV x the above is 126.1675
BEV + the above is 589.1675
The treasury amount at PT is the above x 1.

The result is 589 (dropping the fraction).


As always, my spreadsheet to calculate this value is unofficial. There may be factors that I have not considered or just do not know about. That I got the same number as the Game Master gives me hope. Or was it just a coincidence! This message will self-destruct 10 seconds after being read.


SMILE

By Kurt Byanski (Kurtski) on Saturday, July 09, 2016 - 11:49 am: Edit

I have some questions concerning the following rule excerpt regarding LPs.

(A12.30) New Legendary Officers
a. Legendary Professor (LP): Shifts the die roll by one in the SFB (G22.0) chart. If on a ship, he can provide “cross training” benefits. This increases the chance for outstanding crew (+12%) and legendary officers (+10%). If assigned to a system where R & D is taking place, he improves any chance of success by 16% for one project each turn.

1) Does the LP shift the die roll for the LOS? The rule above does not specify the situations for the roll.
2) Does the LP also shift the roll for the secondary tables? (i.e. when there is a result of a 4,5,7, 9 or 10.)
3: If you roll a 2 twice in a row, do you still get one of each LO? (That would be quite the lottery win.)

This is important for the next turn. It should be noted, this is currently written to allow a and LP (or an LA acting as an LP) the ability to guarantee some form of LO every time there is a roll. Until the new table of LOs was added, the roll would have still failed on a "7".

Example Shifts
Roll (2): Stays a 2
Roll (3): Shifts to a 2
Roll (4): Shifts to a 5
Roll (5): Stays a 5
Roll (6): Shifts to a 5
Roll (7): New Table (Then try to shift to LX/TO)
Roll (8): Shift to 9
Roll (9): Stay 9
Roll (10): Shift to 9
Roll (11): Shift to 12
Roll (12): Stays 12

Thanks,

Kurt

By John D Berg (Kerg) on Monday, July 11, 2016 - 09:51 am: Edit

He does not modify the LEgOff creation roll.

By Kurt Byanski (Kurtski) on Monday, July 11, 2016 - 10:20 am: Edit

Bummer.

By Kurt Byanski (Kurtski) on Thursday, January 19, 2017 - 06:45 pm: Edit

CDKs look interesting, but I have a couple of thoughts/questions.

As reference GC Rule (B8.96) says "FRDs and CDKs: A fleet repair dock (FRD) [including an advanced technology fleet repair dock(FRX) and a construction dry dock (CDK)] can act as an SC3SY."

Why is the CDK limited to such a small hull for construction? It costs 600 EPS to build, takes three turns to build and is SC1. While, the FRD is 200 EPS to build and is only SC3. A BSSY is SC3, only costs 120 EPS and can build a SC2 ship.

In addition, SFB R1.80 would seem to indicate that the docks were used to produce SC2 ships..."Dry docks are designed to spread out their mass (which is still hundreds of metric tons more than the typical ship, even a dreadnought, being constructed within their frames) as much as possible, and to have as little inherent mass as possible."

With the cost and size of of the CDK compared to other non-SY construction facilities, and the extra turn for ship construction, wouldn't be reasonable to expand its construction capabilities.

By Kurt Byanski (Kurtski) on Thursday, January 19, 2017 - 06:49 pm: Edit

CDK Continued:

Therefore I propose the following for the CDK.

1) take four turns at 150 EPS per turn to build it.
2) Allow it to build up to 1xSC2, or 2xSC3 or 3xSC4 at a time.
3) It would still take an extra turn to build any ship(s).
4) Specializing would lock into a hull size/type unless you take a turn to change the specialization.

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Thursday, January 19, 2017 - 11:02 pm: Edit

I'll let John Berg or Jean chime in if they disagree with this. My take is that:

The designer intends for "real" shipyards to be the primary ship producing thing (ship being more accurately "true warship of modern design"). I have in the past lobbied for a FTRSY (and there is an obvious Workboat one for building INT/PF), and considered one for freighters (including their derivatives). [The FTRSY is because if you start building bombers and fighters in moderate numbers (like I did in U1 when the ISC invaded), your SB production is insufficient and using several SC4SYs becomes a necessity (less of a problem in U1 since at the time I had a choice between Snipe/BattleHawk hulls at more than list price, idling the yards, upgrading them to SC3 yards, or building cannon fodder in them. I suspect John Stiff was Not Amused when I built ~250 spaces of fighters every turn for every turn of his 'invasion').

SC2SYs take 900EPs and 4 turns. A CDK that can build SC2 hulls for 600EPs and 3 turns makes the SC2SY obsolete (with an extra build turn it is just as good- 1800EPs worth of yards gets you one SC2 hull per turn).

Furthermore, the CDK doesn't require a yard to produce if memory serves. A FRD is a "good deal" for a SC3 yard, but requires a SC2 slip (which could instead be building DN or BB hulls). That at least puts a limit on how many one can build (although they are cheap enough that a BSSY could be dedicated to building them).

Other than some corner cases (the Selts, perhaps) we have one "shipyard" one ship built per turn at best. That makes allowing a CDK to build more than one thing per turn a Bad Idea (note that 2xSC3 makes SC3 yards less cost effective, although not obsolete; 3xSC4s are a similar thing).

By Charles "Lucky" Coleman (Mwmiyd) on Thursday, January 19, 2017 - 11:22 pm: Edit

The FRD is cheap yes, good for the buck, but it is limited in the number you can have via the SD%. i.e. in U6 it is only 10% of your strategic reserve. This SD pool also includes the MM support units for MRR and anything else you have that is an R1 ship being used outside TP, TR and SR. with a 3000 bpv MM you can have 6 FRD max (note: you don't have enough SD% for MRRs or anything else).

By Kurt Byanski (Kurtski) on Thursday, January 19, 2017 - 11:35 pm: Edit

Agreed. The FRDs can cripple your SD and the MRRs are a better deal. The BPV of the CDK is only 10 and doesn't have the same impact. However the CDK costs 600 EPV, the same as a SC3SY, and produces the same ships at the same speed as a unit 1/3 of its cost.

It seems a SC1 yard ought to be able to build a bit more than an FRD can.