Archive through September 02, 2018
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: Rules Questions:
SFB Rules Q&A:
Archive through September 02, 2018
the planet in question would be using the largest of the gas giants (7 hexes per side.) in the pack released some thirty years ago with a name that eludes me, but I think it was module W1 or its pre-cursor.
sorry about being non specific but in almost all cases here I am talking specifically about a Hydran force. as per your (Steve P) fighter count fleet.
When I flew Hydrans in a campaign I acquired the habit of having the one true carrier I had in most of my squadrons buy as many deck crews as it could and beam some of them to the hybrid carriers on Turn 1. It mitigates the problem a little.
Jon Murdock:
It is also illegal.
It is illegal to move deck crews between ships?
Oops. Well, good thing I lost horribly in that campaign or I would feel bad now.
Jon Murdock:
My apologies. I am in error. I was thinking of the text at the end of (J4.814), and that pretty specifically only applies to the deck crews in (J4.814). So I am wrong in this instance as there is no other (that I can find) extant rule prohibiting carrier deck crews from being moved between ships and still operating as carrier deck crews.
I may have been remembering a discussion with SVC on the issue, but if so, it is still not a rule in the book (at least it is not one I can find).
Jim Howard:
The CVM in question would be a Cossack (medium cruiser hull carrier), not a Mohawk-V [new heavy cruiser hull (technically a heavy carrier but not in the Star Fleet Universe)].
REPLY: The only difference in terms of fighters between a Cossack and a Mohawk-V is that the Cossack was never upgraded to the Antelope Hunter war destroyer escort, continuing to operate with Aegis Hunters, and so as a group has two fewer fighters (24) than the Mohawk group (26). The Mohawk group as a whole may have more endurance (able to sustain more damage) and more raw damage projection capability, but it does not compare to a true heavy carrier group built around a size class 2 heavy carrier.
The battle force does indeed have a command point allocated since the scenario in question is a planetary attack including full Klingon occupation forces (large gas giant/major industrial planet). Two Klingon battle stations (one on either side of the planet), 30 defense satellites spread evenly around the planet, two large fighter ground bases, six ground based defense phaser-4s, plus the Klingon Fleet defense force (fought on four Star Fleet Battles maps joined together.
The whole scenario comprises test bed Hydran vessels and new kit coming online for the Hydrans in October Y175 i.e., the first of each medium cruiser class fielded (so this is a ‘sort of’ special battle group in its own right (a once tried strategy).
With heavy Klingon defenses, an additional Ranger replaces the missing escort (if I were to play with the Iron Duke ever, it would always be fielded with one or two New Aegis Cruisers and one or two Antelope Hunter aegis war destroyer escorts) and since (in Federation & Empire) there are a larger number of nearby Hydran and Klingon forces the scenario assumes hiving off other escorts to fight a bigger fleet action in nearby deep space. This may even develop into a mini campaign scenario.
REPLY: Under the (S8.0) rules, the force is illegal, as noted. The (S8.0) rules require that the carriers arrive with the escorts historically available to it as listed in its ship description. While Federation & Empire does allow you to substitute a real warship as an escort, it also imposes penalties for doing so, which is a pretty good reason why it is not generally allowed in (S8.0). There is no way to "halve" the offensive firepower of a ship in the tactical game. (Note that technically Federation & Empire also penalizes you for NOT putting a real warship into a carrier group if the carrier group is short an escort, because the missing escort still takes a "command slot.") Thus in Star Fleet Battles a player might want to replace all of the escorts with heavy cruisers because there is no penalty for doing so, thus the rule in (S8.0) specifically disallows doing so. A carrier must have its legal historical escorts. War destroyers were a late addition to the Hydran fleet, and their appearance as escort variants is slower to allow for production to slowly provide them (if the earlier ones also survive). Some lower priority carriers, even though size class 3, never got an Antelope Hunter aegis war destroyer escort as their smaller escort (see the Trooper and the Cossack for example) and soldiered on with the more expendable Aegis Hunter. Even some higher priority carriers would still be found operating Aegis Hunters late in the war (shown as an alternative escort) because Buffalo Hunter war destroyer production was historically so late in starting (see also the Kzintis and their DWE/DWA, and the Klingon FWE). See the Cavalier, which from Y180 on might have as its small escorts two Antelope Hunter aegis war destroyer escorts, or two Aegis Hunters, or one of each. Everyone wants the best (see "Panther syndrome" among World War II players), but the game background provides that you often fight with the fleet you have, not the fleet you wanted. Note that the New Escort Cruiser/New Aegis Cruiser is far more common because the Horseman war cruiser was actually in production before the General War began, thus virtually every size class 3 or larger carrier gets one of these (there are some exceptions).
Now, as always, these are the "patrol scenario rules," and a "campaign" can result in exceptions. If your campaign produced Buffalo Hunter war destroyers early, and that resulted in a surplus of Antelope Hunter Aegis war destroyer escorts, then in your campaign more such escorts would turn up in carrier groups. That would be a product of your campaign. But if you are using the patrol rules to create a scenario outside of the artificial constraints of what your campaign’s production and loss situation has created, then (S8.31) is specific. The carriers MUST have the fighters AND ESCORTS historically available in the year of the scenario as provided in their ship descriptions.
And, yes, your own playing group can choose to use some rules and ignore others, such as some players ignore the electronic warfare rules in normal play, or do not use fighters or PFs in normal play, or use the Federation PFs in normal play. But if you are asking me if your force is legal under (S8.0), I have to answer; "no, rule (S8.31) says what it says." And there is nothing in the (S8.0) rules allowing the replacement of an escort by a non-escort. Again this is because unlike Federation & Empire there is no penalty for doing so (no reduction in the offensive firepower of the ship), so in tactical play it is simply not allowed. Again, a campaign’s operations can have effects that the players would have to work out.
I have to write a bunch of fiction along two timelines (Y172 and late Y175) to reflect BEM mentality, friction between the guilds and the monarchy.
The way I have seen it with all the reading and looking at what the Hydrans seemed to get wrong all the time in the timeline. the Hydrans tend to act too soon and come unstuck at a strategic level. despite better kit (in fewer numbers).
The PFT replacement would move the scenario to a later time period (to include the mega fighter packs too).
Steve P, I was not building this force using standard Star Fleet Universe flavor but by personal preference and the scenario idea, i.e., who would use an Aegis Hunter when Antelope Hunter is available (BPV issues and balance aside). In war rarely is a battle "balanced" (usually one side forces the issue with greater odds in their respective favor). or are about (except by the fact that all ships and classes are sparse for the Hydrans throughout the general war after the loss of the capital).
REPLY: As has often been commented, scenarios tend to be about those times when both sides had some chance to win, otherwise why would anyone play them. We do not generally do scenarios (for example) about the 50 times the Orion ship plundered a lonely freighter (who would bother to play the freighter captains?). We do scenarios about the time "something went wrong" and the Orion had to actually fight. The freighter was a Q-ship, the Police arrived sooner than expected (or both), a Space Dragon attacked, another Orion tried to "jump the claim." Yes, we did "The Mighty Hood Goes Down." How many times have you played it? But generally, even if one side is definitely going to lose "in the traditional sense" (player A’s force is going to be annihilated no matter what he does), we have to include some goal that player A might accomplish to claim (at least as far as the scenario is concerned) that he "won." (Player A’s force was annihilated, but he scored a point of internal damage on the opposing player’s dreadnought, so he "won the scenario"). But, yes, no military wants to have a "fair fight." Military people want unfair fights, because while they are willing to fight for their country, and perhaps be killed, they hope to kill enough of the other side that they themselves do not have to die. Successful commanders lose as few of their own forces as they can, and honestly if the enemy can be convinced to surrender due to our overwhelming force so that no one on either side is killed, that is a good thing.
So in real life while M1 tanks were available in Gulf War I, the U.S. Marines still had M60 tanks when they arrived. While the U.S. had armored divisions with M1 tanks when Iraq invaded Kuwait, the first U.S. troops in were the lightly armed airborne and air mobile forces.
The Howlers are used (probably with a Valkyrie replacing one and a scout another leaving one leader and three normal Howlers) because the opposition is very tough, with heavy defenses and therefore the wonder PF if available would be used for this fight above others in the local area/theatre of action.
REPLY: As noted, you need your opponent’s permission to use Howlers (R9.PF3). And Howlers probably are not available at all prior to Y181 (which is their year in service date). The rules are specific that only two (2) flotillas of them were in existence at any one time (one fighting the Lyrans and one fighting the Klingons), so it is unlikely that a flotilla would have been in service prior to Y181.
Sorry for this rambling response.
REPLY: My apologies for an even longer respone.
Jim.
I have played the Mighty Hood goes down three times, generally with a new player playing the Klingons.
In no case did the Hood get away. :p
Richard B. Eitzen:
Funny thing is, I knew the rules, and escaped with the Hood the first time I ever played the scenario. I am actually responsible for the tactics, because that was exactly what I did, and the Klingons depending on their overwhelming firepower simply did not anticipate or divine my intent to disengage when I flew directly at them. And at the end of Turn #2, thanks to the damage they did to my engines, I was able to disengage. I seem to recall the expression on the Klingon player's face when I escaped with the Hood was priceless. It should be noted that I am responsible for both side's tactics, as the Klingons pretty much had no tactics prior to that point. (You have overwhelming force, go in and kill the Fed scum, what is he going to do about it? What do you mean he got away?)
Looking at the scenario, it should be pointed out that my victory (and it was a victory) was only "tactical." I escaped, and while the ship was damaged, it was not crippled.
I was stuck in a campaign that had no restriction on Howler production or replacements. It's a quick way to run out of opposing players.
I will say "Free For Alls" can be amusing.
I recall one that, at the end of the battle when we had to break up and go home, I was the most powerful force on the map, because I had three (maybe it was all four, memory fades over time) intact admin shuttles in a game that started with six cruisers. (I seem to recall the second most powerful ship was a Hydran that had one admin shuttle and an armed probe launcher, but was moving so slowly on its remaining power that it had no chance against my shuttles finishing it off before it could bring the probe launcher to bear on any other target. It was too far away to destroy my otherwise derelict ship before my shuttles could close in and destroy it.) Of course, I deserved to be defeated because my ship was derelict because, tired as I was by that time, I had improperly handled the last enveloping plasma torpedo the Gorn ship had launched before it was reduced to a weaponless, powerless, hulk, but was not yet destroyed itself. Given the state of my shields, I allocated all of my available power to General Reinforcement, only afterward realizing that if I had applied it as specific reinforcement to some of my still existing but very weak shields I would have taken fewer points of internal damage.
I have also won the Mighty Hood Goes Down scenario. I don't remember many details of it because it was 25 or so years ago, but I do remember that, just like SPP, engine damage was one of the reasons that I was able to disengage.
I played The Mighty Hood Goes Down as the Klingons and captured the Hood virtually intact. We used Advanced Boarding Party Combat. The Hood flew right at me and I tractored her. Knocked down a shield and promptly put 15 boarding parties on on turn one and 15 more turn 2. By the end of turn three she was mine!
James Everett:
As noted, I got away because I had a plan to do so, and the Klingons were mostly relying on raw firepower and pretty much caught flat-footed.
Did your Federation opponent attempt to arm the photons? Was he using maximum ECM? Did he allocate for negative tractor?
I can understand that the tactics I used would fail if a Klingon player anticipated them (either because he was foresightful or because he read the tactics).
It is a risk, but if you catch the Klingons off guard (which I did) and keep the batteries, you can at least repel one or two transporter operations (if you do not wind up using the batteries for negative tractor, or losing them to internal damage). And erratic maneuvers should cause at least five of the transporter attempts to fail (not to mention that they could cause a tractor attempt to fail), so that you can rally the militia to fight the boarders as you flee.
But you have to have a plan, and if the Klingons are not expecting it (old Hydran Proverb: The best surprise is the unexpected) it can work.
It's been a while so some of the details may be fuzzy. I planned on a capture from the start. One ship, the anvil a D6, did not charge disruptors to add that power to tractors. I estimated what his EA would be to get how much energy he had for neg. tractor so I allocated that +1. The CA got to range 1 on the anvil ship and lost the tractor auction. My drones occupied his phasers. The other two ships got within range 5 knocked the facing shield down and then all three sent in the marines at 5 bp ea. I don't remember any EW or EM or blocked transporters. I won the tractor auction on Turn 2. I think the big mistake my opponent made was during the tractor auction during EA turn 2 was he bid too much energy so did not have max acceleration that turn. Advanced Boarding Party Combat allowed me to capture the areas that controlled access to the warp engines thus effectively shutting them down (D16.832). I had a plan. I followed it and it worked to perfection. To add insult to injury my bp's prevented self distuction! The captain of the D7 was decorated and promoted as a result of the capture of the Hood! Many songs were sung of Captain Keveret and the Challenger!!!
Oh no photons were armed during this short engagement.
I think this is a quick one. Do ISC ships have one pseudo F and thus one ECM plasma per launcher or one per bank of plasma F's?
If you are reffering to the rear firing F's, they have no pseudos at all.
Thanks for the reply....just remembered that. Is that rule in the R section of the ISC?
Dennis Surdu:
Yes. The rule is in the Inter-Stellar Concordium's R section. See (R13.1C) in Module C2. Plus there is the simple fact that virtually all Inter-Stellar Concordium SSDs lack pseudo plasma torpedo boxes for the rear plasma launchers. Thus an Inter-Stellar Concordium destroyer has two pseudo-plasma check off boxes for launchers A and B, but does not have any for launchers C and D.
Would an ISC HDW with plasma F launchers in the option boxes (if I recall those use the rear ISC arcs) have pseudo-plasma Fs?
Richard Eitzen:
Rule (G33.122) says that plasma torpedoes in the rear option mounts will always have AP (aft plasma) launching arcs. This applies to all HDWs that can employ plasma-F torpedoes as standard technology (G33.11) (Romulans, Gorns, Orions, Inter-Stellar Concordium, and Peladine as of this time in the Alpha Octant, I do not think a Triaxian, Sharkhunter, or Barbarian heavy war destroyer has been published as of yet).
The SSD for the Inter-Stellar Concordium HDD (their HDW) shows the RA firing arc (which covers direct fire weapons) so the rule [that is (G33.122)] is used when installing plasma-F torpedoes. Further, the SSD includes pseudo plasma-F torpedo check off boxes for option mounts C and D (which should have been for E and F) "if installed" and has the AP launching arc diagram.
Note, however, that the SSD does say that the restrictions of (R13.1C) DO APPLY to plasma-F torpedoes in the options, despite the fact that their launching arcs are different and they come with PPTs.
Thank you Steve, sorry to bother you with a question with obvious answers, but thanks for answering anyway!
Previous response edited, I read in a hurry and mentioned the Federation and WYN as empires allowed to stick plasmas in their HDW option boxes. They cannot as that is not "standard technology" for those empires. I have amended the reply to account for this.
Richard, I'd also like to add my thanks for bringing up those HDW rear weapon options; it sent me on a fun trip down a memory lane.
One "Mental Escape" I needed a couple years ago had me cook up an outfit arrangement for an HDW that was truly screwey.
I had a lot of fun with it. 
However, I didn't take it serious enough to even do preliminary research, so I don't know how realistic it might have been.
The genesis of the idea comes from a (personal) complaint about how all the HDWs exchange two shuttles for casual fighters; an exchange that, IMO, leaves the ship with too few of the multifunction shuttles to give them too few fighter shuttles to risk the pilots/crews for.
(I know; they can be remote piloted.)
Anyway, I got HDW outfitted as a Mobile Carrier with eight fighters and four non-fighter shuttles...
... and to complete the load-out, I put Drogues in the aft weapon option mounts.
I never did bother to find out if having Drogues in the aft weapon option mounts was legal (although seeing as how they replace shuttles, I think it might be), let alone whether they'd be subject to the same chain reactions, or whether they'd be treated as separate weapons. I also never bothered to see if they would impede flight deck operations (launch and recovery) due to their placement.
As I said, it was an idea that I used as a much needed escape from reality and had fun with.
Jeffrey George Anderson:
You can place shuttles in the weapon options. At that point they are part of the ship's shuttle bay. So you could replace the shuttles with drogues, but it is all (in most cases) one bay. So, yes a chain reaction can be the result. You do not get any additional hatches.