F&E does limit normal fighter-only battle lines to 3 squadrons (36 fighters). Of course you may have as many fighters in the battle that you want, but only 3 squadrons fight per combat round. Fighters do have a 1 hex strategic range in F&E, so we know in the SFB universe, fighters have more than enough range to penetrate any blockade force. The fighters would have to be escorting freighters (maybe military crewed on the first attempts) or other cargo ships running the blockade, at least until speed 15 fighters with WBP's are available. Otherwise the blockading ships could just evade the fighters. It's probably safe to assume that the blockaders have to stay fairly close to the system, otherwise they would have too much area to cover since the surface area of a sphere is a proportional to the square of the radius.

It sounds logical that fighters should be able to attack many times per turn assuming they survived that long. How long does it take to rearm / repair in SFB? Minutes? I think we have to be careful though. Someone might try to combine this with the new fighter reload rules and carriers could become super powerful in the game, the ultimate unit, attacking 12 times per turn from a range you couldn't respond to.

Star bases really should make the ultimate fighter platform past actual ground bases. Special sensors, massive manpower and repair facilities, huge cargo holds, etc. If anything could turn fighters around and launch round the clock strikes, it would be a SB.

John, we could argue either way whether military installations would improve or degrade civilian morale. But I doubt it would make much difference in the game. By the time large ground bases are being blown up, the defender probably won't be worrying about morale effects.

By John D Berg (Kerg) on Wednesday, May 01, 2002 - 07:44 pm: Edit

John, we could argue either way whether military installations would improve or degrade civilian morale. But I doubt it would make much difference in the game. By the time large ground bases are being blown up, the defender probably won't be worrying about morale effects.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes but I bet the other systems he controls will be worried (grin).

By John D Berg (Kerg) on Wednesday, May 01, 2002 - 10:05 pm: Edit

Ok I have the offical SFB ruling.John,

"Your question didn't get lost. I've just been busy with stuff for CL24. To answer your question, I think it's pretty clear from J4.61 that a base with HBM attached is considered a "true carrier".

As for the PFM, K2.112 states that bases are treated as true PFTs. "

By John Burton Steele (Jbsteele) on Monday, June 24, 2002 - 08:21 pm: Edit

Here is a question for you ...


Can Trade Route hexes be blockaided !?!

If no ... why?

Warships CAN prevent freighters from passing by them ! ( unless you are in green gorn ships of course )

By Dr. Clayton Sager - Pravda (Crsager) on Tuesday, June 25, 2002 - 01:05 pm: Edit

Blockades of a fixed point in space, such as a base, are part of the basic SFB rules. (See the basic campaign scenario, I think it is U3.0, where the rules talk about 'pinning" a base.)

However, there is no such reference to being able to close off a region of space anywhere close to the size of a trade route hex.

What you are suggesting is that forces can go into space THEY DO NOT OWN and fill it to such a degree that they can stop ALL traffic in the region. How many ships would that take? After all, space is kinda big.

You can get an effect similar to a blockade in open space by Convoy Raiding. Where blockade is essentially a passive act, raiding is active. The warships actually go hunting for freighters. This is something that is much more in character with the attributes of warships and their commanders. (A blockade is guard duty. Nobody likes guard duty. Well... maybe I shouldn't speak for the Romulans.) There are charts that tell you how successful such a hunt might be.

SagerCR

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Monday, July 29, 2002 - 10:06 pm: Edit

The campaign designer's handbook talks about limiting tholian webs. There is a passing reference in G10.8 about low power anchor bouys. I was looking at these as a way to limit the number of zero strength web hexes.

Has there been a discussion about the BPV, cargo space cost, number of hexes it can keep powered, etc.

Ken

By John Sickels (Johnsickels) on Friday, September 06, 2002 - 02:47 pm: Edit

Need a ruling for both the Berg and Incavo Universes, in regards to the new bombers in J2.

How are bombers built? Do we figure their construction costs in the same way we do fighters (1/2 BPV)? Do they have to be built in shipyards, or can they be built at any major or minor planet, since the background says that many bombers were built at colonies using kits and local industry.

By Mike Dowd (Mike_Dowd) on Tuesday, September 10, 2002 - 01:31 pm: Edit

Me again with another question -- how is combat being handles / determined in this campaign?

Is it being based off of F&E, or is it a different system altogether?

-Mike Dowd

By John Sickels (Johnsickels) on Tuesday, September 10, 2002 - 02:24 pm: Edit

Mike: it is a different system, similar in some ways to FandE, but with greater tactical depth.

By Ken Riffle (Jindarian) on Tuesday, November 26, 2002 - 04:31 pm: Edit

Joseph Felten

drop me a line at either my home or office e-mail address. we need to talk.

Ken

By J. Joseph Felten (Jfelten) on Monday, January 13, 2003 - 03:39 pm: Edit

So there is really nothing to add and divide up then? Simply, each partner can have as many FT (or FT equivalents) in the TP as they have major systems. Or am I missing some subtlety?

By William Gary Glattli II (Wglattli) on Tuesday, January 14, 2003 - 01:31 pm: Edit

"A given partner may not have more FT in his pool than he has major systems."

This addition/clarification certainly does add a new wrinkle. The way the rule read before, the two partners could split the total number of FT "slots" available any way they wished. In this way, a larger partner could allow a smaller partner to allocate more FT than he had major star systems and gain a greater benefit from the arrangement. Being able to do this would enable a larger empire to give "economic aid" to a smaller ally in a time of need.

Example -> The Federation and Paravians have an alliance. The Feds have 33 majors and the Paravians (being a minor) only have 7. The two empires have negotiated a trade pact between them at the "standard" ratio of FT/systems each, so the Feds have 33 FT (16.5 %) in the pact and the Paravians have 7 FT (175 EPs per turn).

Two turns after the TP is implemented, the Frax launch a massive attack against the Paravians, and while the attack is repulsed, the Paravians suffer heavy ship losses. The Fed player cannot respond immediately because he has no ships close enough, but, wanting to give aid to its ally, the Federation allows the ratio of FT between himself and the Paravian to alter. Say going from 33/7 to 20/20 (assuming the Paravian had 20 FT, that is). The Fed player would be giving up some of his own economy so that his ally would be able to gain a significant economic benefit as the TP would now start providing the Paravian 500 EPs per turn. This might enable the Paravian to survive until the Federation Star Fleet can arrive to help out.

/end example/

Anyway, with this new interpretation of this rule, such a scenario as above is not possible now. Maybe John felt that there was too much of a chance for this rule to be abused in its original form? Not certain...

Gary

By ROBERT l cALLAWAY (Callaway) on Thursday, February 20, 2003 - 03:07 pm: Edit

I hope I've posted this message to the correct forum. This is Bob's friend Sean. Bob gave me his username and password so I could log in and tell you that he's currently unable to respond to your messages because he's in the hospital. It's nothing life-threatening, and he should be home sometime in the next week or so.

By William Gary Glattli II (Wglattli) on Sunday, April 13, 2003 - 03:17 am: Edit

Rule B3.45 concerns constructing system defenses on a minor colony or major system generated through MRR. It states in part: "...All of these basic facilities, which must be completed before the system produces any income, must be paid for from the MM income. Military EPs may not be used for these required facilities."

Can the MM start spending and generating these defenses BEFORE the system is completed?

[Example]

Let us say that the Gorn has 2xSR working together on a MRR for 1% growth per turn. Let us also say that the Gorn player has decided to take the development of the system all the way up to 20% (i.e. a major star system will be developed). In order for this system to eventually be brought "on line" as a producing star system within the Confederation, the Gorn MM is going to have to spend 620 EPs to get the necessary bases and defenses built. As noted in the rule, the military cannot help out on this...

[/Example]

Could the Gorn player allocate say 33 EP per turn (from the MM) for 19 turns (after the MMR starts) and have the defenses ready when the MRR reaches 20%? Or does the Gorn player have to wait until the system is already "placed" (i.e. MRR reached 20%) on the map before being able to build these defenses?

By John Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Monday, April 14, 2003 - 12:46 pm: Edit

There is a contradiction here. Civilian funds (i.e. MM) may not build military units. Having not completed a minor or major system via MRR before, I can not answer for sure.

But, it seems to me that one can not construct planetary defenses until the minor shows up on the map. This leaves one game turn to do this, else the MRR collapses. Bases (multi-turn construction) must be built in advance. The presence of the requisite number of military BPV can be covered by military squadrons.

I'd like to know the clarification of the rule as well. Only military funds may build military units afterall.

John

By William Gary Glattli II (Wglattli) on Tuesday, April 15, 2003 - 01:00 am: Edit

Once the MRR reaches 15% (or 20%) you can ask the GM to place a system on the map and the MRR will be over and the system will be ready to be brought "on line". The system will be on the map, but its bases and defenses can ONLY be built by the MM. The rule says so.

The only thing I am trying to find out is whether or not one could begin building the defenses before the system is placed on the map by the GM. In other words, can the defenses be built before the system reaches 15% or 20%?

The reason for this whole question has to do with the fact that the MM does not have the capability of producing as much money now as it once did. Remember that the MM can not produce more money than 10% of the military budget. Once upon a time the sky was the limit. This means that, with less money available to build system defenses after MRR, it might make more sense to build them over the 10 to 20 turns that the MRR is working and have them completed at the same time the system is ready to be placed on the map.

If you have to wait until the system is on the map before building the defenses, then only people with HUGE economies would dare to take a MRR all the way up to 20%. If you can work on them for the life of the MRR (i.e. over 10 to 20 turns), then more empires might be willing to go to 20%.

By William Gary Glattli II (Wglattli) on Tuesday, April 15, 2003 - 01:12 am: Edit

(E1.20) The MM can build any civilian (SFB section R1.0) ship...

While not technically ships, the following units are R1.0 units: SB, BATS, BS, SAM, TCB, CB, CPP, GBDP, DefSat...

The MM can indeed build system defenses and bring a system produced through MRR online.

I just re-read rule B3.45 and I am now a little bit confused by the wording... I think I will have to call Berg tomorrow evening and ask a few specific questions...

By John Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Tuesday, April 15, 2003 - 09:56 am: Edit

I see nothing that prevents the building of civilian bases early at the site of an MRR. My only problem is that a SB is a military unit and can not be built via civilian funds. The TCB, CB, and CPP are civilian units.

Yes, the wording is confusing. True, the civilian budget is much smaller than the military budget. I'd hate to have to build a SB using civilian funds as the MRR rules currently state, etc.

John

By William Gary Glattli II (Wglattli) on Tuesday, April 22, 2003 - 04:32 pm: Edit

You do not have to build a SB to get a MRR created system up to major or minor status. You only need to build a BS (120 EPs).

If one wishes to insist that a SB is strictly a military unit (and cannot be built with MM funds), then the same should apply to a BS as well... Only thing is that rule B3.45 states quite clearly that military funds CANNOT be used to build the necessary minimum facilities. Therefore, whether or not MM funds should be able to build military units is really irrelevant. Rule B3.45 clearly acts as an enabling rule allowing MM funds to build _some_ military units (specifically military bases and ground bases), but only in the context of developing a system produced through MRR.

The only, rule which I can find, which allows for a base (of any type) to be built in an ongoing MRR is rule E4.20. It states that if you want an MRR to go above 10%, then a CPP must be present. This works fine as the CPP built to support the MRR can later on be upgraded to a CB or TCB.

To finish this topic off, Berg sent me an email which basically said that orbital bases (other than the CPP), ground bases, and defense satellites cannot be built at a MRR until the system has been placed on the map. So there is no way to build the facilities piecemeal as I had asked above. Everything has to be built AFTER the system is placed...

Gary

By ROBERT l cALLAWAY (Callaway) on Tuesday, April 22, 2003 - 08:44 pm: Edit

Proposal:
That when a varient of a ship design come into play before the general class of that ship then for the purposes of conversation slots the variant is considered to be a seperate class and not subject to
the limitions of conversation untill the general class become available (ex the varient BF (169) is advailable in 168 but the BC class is not advailable
untill 175 for the purposes of this rule the gorns would be able to build any number of BF intill the BC class became advailable a similar problem for some DNL of both the Feds and Gorns also come on line before the general class

Rob
in this

By John D Berg (Kerg) on Tuesday, April 22, 2003 - 10:29 pm: Edit

Sorry Rob can u explain that again for me please?

By J. Joseph Felten (Jfelten) on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 - 07:47 am: Edit

It seems to me that those units were so rare in SFB/F&E that a limit of 1/turn would be appropriate. Perhaps a complete list of such units would help understand the problem better?

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 - 09:08 am: Edit

How are trading pact trade routes handled as far as the "ending in open space" rule? I.e. A trade route between most empires is going to have trade routes for one or both empires that "end" in open space, but are connected to an trading partner and continue on to a major system (eventually).

If they are counted as open space, this lessens the value of trading pacts between certain partners (or at least one party of the pair).

GM Ruling?

By ROBERT l cALLAWAY (Callaway) on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 - 10:53 am: Edit

OK to maded it simple

The Gorn BC comes on line in 175. The Gorn BF which is the fast variant comes on line in 168 a difference
of 7 years. From 168 to 175 the only BC the Gorns have is the BF. For the Purposes of conversation slots during these seven years the BF should be considered as a BC and no conversation slot should have been considered to be used.

In other words untill the BC comes on Line the BF is
a seperate ship class like a CL, CA, DN

Note this would also include the DNL class which has a smaller window seperate classness.

Rob