Archive through March 24, 2020
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: Rules Questions:
SFB Rules Q&A:
Archive through March 24, 2020
Alan Trevor:
I would think the ships were too specialized and had a significant weakness.
The problem is what while a Juggernaut's electrostatic armor can be repaired as shields, the armor available in the Star Fleet Universe is rather difficult to repair, pretty much requiring that after even a minor engagement ships dependent on armor (rather than shields) are pretty much "out of service" for extended periods, or the nearby repair facility is going to be too vulnerable.
The problem is (D9.45): "Armor can be repaired as part of (D9.44) repairs if the ship has access to a starbase, fleet repair dock, or other repair facility able to dock it internally."
That "dock internally" line means you need a Stellar Fortress, Starbase, Fleet Repair dock (or advanced technology variants thereof) or a construction drydock in the home system to repair the armor of such a ship. Keeping a fleet repair dock close by (if there is some overriding reason the nebula must be defended by such ships) just makes it a highly visible target to make the Nebula indefensible because your ships have to travel too far to be repaired (the various fixed installations are not likely to be built near a nebula as the closer they are too such a thing, the bigger the blind spot in the strategic value of their observations becomes).
Please note the above are my thoughts, and I can easily be wrong. In reading World War II narratives published before and after Enigma and Magic became common knowledge in the history it is often amazing to find the blunders that occurred even though what the other side was planning to do was known from the intercepts. Of course some of those blunders were a consequence of the security surrounding those two intelligence sources such that the commander on the spot did not trust intelligence that came from a higher headquarters and relied on their own interpretations of the intelligence.
To be clear, the above is not to say "no," it is to say that I see this as something that should be considered in making the proposal. While obviously not an issue in any given scenario one might play in a Nebula, it is a strategic issue that I think should be addressed in the design concept.
I mean, I could get silly and argue that such ships would need their own train of fleet oilers because of the extra fuel use, but I honestly think that is just one of those things (like supplying adequate amounts of banana pudding for the Federation crews of such ships in Federation service) that is easily subsumed into the background.
But that need for internal docking to repair armor is to me a very real issue.
Re:Rule D9.45, internal dock repairs.
Star Fleet Battles already has such a procedure enshrined in the background information.
See module R rules for the Federation original light cruisers. (OCL) , specifically the part referencing unprepared battle damage, in some cases unrepaired damage dating back to the first Federation Romulan War.
We do not have Module Q sunlight Wars, so there is no specific rule that I can cite, but it’s clear that battle damage severe enough to require withdrawing combat ships from the front lines happened.
If the Jindarians ever get added to F&E as a player Empire, they very well might require a special repair rule that reflects rule D9.45.
I just wonder if the existing f&e empires couldn’t have a generic “universal refit” that adds a specified structural refit and movement cost modifier to existing ships based on size class.
Jeff Wile:
The Jindarians are a "real empire,' albeit diffused all through the Milky Milky way and the Magallanic Cloud. They have their own rules about repairing their armor which is basically just rock, not anything like the more advanced technology used by non-Jindarian warships.
Steve Petrick:
Note that I did not say “real” empire. I intentionally specified “player empire” because, at present, they are not, have not been, an empire that a player can operate as part of the forces engaged in the “General War.”
The rule, so far as I can tell, are oriented in terms of Star Fleet battles, not part of the existing F&E rules set.
That said, I fully expect that one day, they could be scaled up for use in F&E.
I was not aware that there are any plans to add them to the General War scenarios in F&E.
Jeff Wile:
I suspect the Jindarians would look more like the Orions in Federation & Empire.
SPP.
You cite D9.45 but I think the relevant section is D25.2, which does allow asteroid ships to perform limited repairs on their rock armor. I was thinking of the D25 rules when I said the special neutronium alloy acted like Jindarian rock armor except that it could not be repaired during the scenario.
According to the Pirates of M81 Galaxy article in Captain's Log #41, the Nebuline - one of the Tholians' old enemies back in the home galaxy - had ships which possessed a significant advantage when fighting inside a nebula. (The old galaxy pirate ships in Captain's Log #40 are "export models" of raider ships used by the Nebuline themselves, though they do not possess this key Nebuline technology.)
Hopefully, be it in some sort of M81 Galaxy product, or perhaps in a future issue of Captain's Log, there might be an opportunity to explore these Nebuline designs in more detail. That said, given how important this technology is to them historically, and how much it would help define them as a would-be playable faction (much as the Ryn and Qixa are to a large extent defined by their respectively unique terrain rules), I would not be in a hurry to see anyone else gain a similar advantage when fighting inside a nebula.
So far as "standard" armour goes, I recall a set of deck plans for the Romulan Snipe, which shows it as a set of diamond-shaped absorption crystals behind (or beneath) the outermost edge of the hull.
That said, the armour boxes on Trobrin Empire warships are discrete belts of rock - which the silicate Trobrin crew can eat if necessary! Alrhough it is still handled with the same SFB rules game-wise, I wonder if there would be some means in-universe (or in some sort of campaign-level game system) for a Trobrin player to replace "lost" armor belts at a friendly base or planet, in a way that might be somewhat less trouble from an engineering standpoint than, say, restoring the "traditional" armour on a Terran-hull old light cruiser (as used by both Star Fleet or by the Auroran Navy) would have to be.
Alan Trevor:
Jindarian Rock Armor only works on asteroid ships. Jindarian metal hulled ships use the same shields as the warships of other empires. I took your comment in your original proposal as meaning that it would operate on separate shield facings rather than as a unified shield like normal armor. (Except for starbases, stellar fortresses, and of course Jindarian asteroid ships, all damage from any direction striking a ship or base with armor strikes the armor if there is no shield.
Quote:I took your comment in your original proposal as meaning that it would operate on separate shield facings rather than as a unified shield like normal armor.
Yes, that is what I meant (along with the "no leakage"/spearfish drone "internals" hitting the armor rather than rolling on the DAC). But because D25.2 does explicitly allow the Jindarians some limited capability to repair rock armor, I wanted to make it clear that these "nebula cruisers" could not repair the special alloy armor at all. Only a major facility like a starbase or FRD could do that.
Alan Trevor:
Obviously I missed something (American English is a tricky language) in the earlier missives.
I read your March 13 at 1214 hours as saying that your ships WOULD (emphasis, not shouting) use the Jindarian repair rules because you seemed to me to be saying they would use (D25.2) instead of (D9.45). In re-reading it I can see that you were not saying that. But that leaves me confused as to why you saw a need to write that missive at all when your 13 Mar 1530 hrs missive simply makes my original repair point, that is to say the ships would need to dock internally for repairs to the armor [as required by (D9.45)] which gets back to such repair facilities being extremely unlikely to be built anywhere near a Nebula (because of the Nebula's "shadow effect" on their special sensors creating a huge blind spot the closer they are located to it), and a Fleet Repair dock would be too vulnerable in such a case.
The result being, as I noted, that the requirement means the ship would spend an inordinate amount of time traveling to and from a repair facility after fairly mild damage (only armor boxes destroyed, but that means it is very weak in subsequent battle).
P.S.: Please take the "American English is a tricky language" comment in the spirit of humor it was intended, i.e., I did misread the earlier message.
I have always thought of the Romulan and Federation Armor as not only. Plating designed to absorb energy damage. Also redundant backup systems that burn out with damage but not causing loss of ship functions.
Like Circuit breakers that burn out when overloaded by energy weapons. Can not replace them in combat but can at a shipyard or star base.
There were three topics that bordered on this discussion, sadly now deleted.
One was SVC “breaker” discussion, part of which, iirc, discussed the idea of a new class of ships designed for terrain features. I know the energy fields surrounding the galaxy and between the rim wards area that the Alpha empires are located and the core of the galaxy were one possible area whe such specialized ships might operate.
A second was the Radioactive electro/magnetic ships that some one proposed in the proposals area.
And the third was the “turtle ships” thing. A theoretical (unpublished) Empire that’s built “armored” ships that devoted 25% of their SSD boxes (of each size class) to armor.
Lots of discussion, no resolution. IIRC the ships ended up being be size class larger than existing empires ships (a frigate/destroyer would be size class 3 instead of 4). Ships had shields and used existing published weapons, just were “tougher” better able to take more damage in combat than published ships do.
I do not remember if there was external armor, or if it was structural strength.
The Dreadnought version was size class 1 but armed and equipped like a normal DN.
One of the main issues was that these turtle ships would act more like monitors, than Star ships in combat.
I have a question about S8.35.
S8.35 specifies that you can have 1 scout in the free scout.
S8.351 specifies that you can add 1 PFT or SR to a fleet where a SC is present or an additional SC if the fleet is of 8 or more ships.
S8.354 specifies that DB ships are not considered as scouts for this rule.
My question is reagrding other type of ships that have special sensors but are not scout. Can they be added to a fleet (IE, treated as DB ships)?
Example: and hydran fleet composed of 1 LM, 2 RN, 1 DG, 1 DDS and 1 PIC. can a PGG be added to the present fleet as a third unit with special sensors or the maximum number of units woth special sensors is limited to 2?
Marcel
Oooh, good question, Marcel! I could be reading things wrong (I often do), but as I read rule S8.35, you may be allowed to have multiple ships capable of serving in a scout role, but you're only allowed to have one standard scout.
As far as other ships that can serve in a scout capacity, you can have a single PFT or survey ship (S8.351), AND one Drone bombardment ship (S8.354) in addition to the single "Standard Scout."
You also appear to have the option of having TWO PFTs in your battle fleet, but ONLY if one of them is serving IN THE PLACE OF the aforementioned "Standard Scout."
I may be misreading this, but a quick summary of options for multiple scout in a battle group looks (to me) like;
1. 1xSC, 1xPFT, 1xDB
2. 1xSR, 1xPFT, 1xDB
3. 1xSC, 1xSR, 1xDB
4. 2xPFT, 1xDB
(If I'm wrong, I'm sure I'll be most enthusiastically corrected... 
)
Marcel Trahan asked on Sunday, 15 Mar 20: I have a question about S8.35.
S8.35 specifies that you can have 1 scout in the free scout.
S8.351 specifies that you can add 1 PFT or SR to a fleet where a SC is present or an additional SC if the fleet is of 8 or more ships.
S8.354 specifies that DB ships are not considered as scouts for this rule.
My question is reagrding other type of ships that have special sensors but are not scout. Can they be added to a fleet (IE, treated as DB ships)?
Example: and hydran fleet composed of 1 LM, 2 RN, 1 DG, 1 DDS and 1 PIC. can a PGG be added to the present fleet as a third unit with special sensors or the maximum number of units woth special sensors is limited to 2?
In your specific example, no. Your fleet already has the one allowed scout (DDS) and the one allowed survey ship (PIC) and there is no dispensation in the (S8.0) rules for adding commando ship that also happens to be a scout.
A Klingon or Kzinti or Federation fleet could add a third nominally scout ship by including a drone bombardment ship that has scout sensors (S8.47). A police flagship could not be added because you would need to add it and at least two other police ships for it to lead (S8.45). You could not add a PFT unless it replaced the PIC (your are allowed on PFT OR one survey ship, not both).
Note that you could change the PIC to a PIG if you needed boarding parties (still a survey ship, just tricked out for the commando mission).
I have a couple questions about a ship towing a Wild SWAC.
First, is it permitted? I could find nothing in the rules prohibiting doing so, but I often miss things I don't want to find (I type with a sheepish grin) and wonder if the high energy levels of the Wild SWAC might "Interfere" with it.
Second, does the fact that a Wild SWAC is limited to no more than a speed of four affect its (G7.54) "Death Dragging" speed? If not, I may have a tactic idea (which has probably been submitted already, but you never know).
Jeff Anderson:
(J9.132) The electronic systems of a SWAC will not function if it is towed by a friendly ship (tractor beam), except that a SWAC which is already wild will remain wild.
If your tactic involves tractoring and towing a SWAC shuttle at faster than its allowed speed, already a known tactic. There are reasons why SWAC shuttles attract a lot of firepower when identified, and why their crews draw higher than the normal level of "hazard pay" and seldom get to spend it.
You might for example check the play description of the cover story in Captain's Log #9 and note that while an MRS is not as neat as a SWAC, the Klingons still made it dead, dead, dead, on Turn #5,
Thank you for the clarification.
The tactic in question is not a "Kill the SWAC" plan; it one that involves using a towing ship to give the Federation additional time to deal with the massive swarm fixated on the Wild SWAC.
Basic idea is that the SWAC stays on the far end of the CVBG from the enemy and, should a truly MASSIVE drone strike (one worthy of forcing a SWAC to go wild) be launched, an attached ship, preferably some sort of cruiser, can boost the SWAC up to speed 16 (20, if one of the "Advanced SWACs") as a way of giving the Federation a little more time to (hopefully) save it.
Hopefully...
I haven't worked out all the elements yet, but some aspects include using a SC3 unit (as opposed to a SC4) for the additional T-bombs, having the "Rescue Ship" have shatter packs loaded, and having movement plotted to run the drone swarms by the escorts.
Y'know, the usual drone swarm defenses.
Seems like I remember, (way back in the day), a submitted tactic where one of the escort ships tractors a wild SWAC and lands it. The drones locked on the wild SWAC would then transfer their lock-on to the ship. The ship, would then, with either a plotted speed change or an emergency deceleration, launch a regular wild weasel. That would clean up all the drones in the area that had been attracted by the wild SWAC, and save the SWAC for future use. Like I said, way back in the day, and possibly fixed in later rule changes. Or, maybe not.
Another tactic, probably submitted, can't really recall, from the way-back-when time machine, was to station the two SWACS from a CVA fleet a certain number of hexes apart (max range for the wild SWAC effect to work). When one SWAC went wild, the owning player would wait until the drones were a hex or two away from destroying the wild SWAC, deactivate it, and have the other one go wild. Effectively giving the escorts two chances to get rid of the drones as they were dragged across the formation between the two SWACs.
And that's why we used disruptors on the SWACs as soon as one appeared. Naturally. ;)
I remember both of those as well. I couldn't m tell you which CL they're from.
Question....in a campaign we are running. It seems that every ship in the game can become a carrier. Just toss the admin shuttles out and use COs to bring in fighters and voila. You now have a casual Carrier. Also since you get back points for the admins...the fighters end up being about free. Since we seem to think fighters are half price since you use the none BPV cost for them. Using some of the older style fighters since we are in 166. Is that ok? I cannot find anything in the rules about swapping out shuttles for fighters using COs or even building ships with 1 or 2 shuttles and the rest fighters. Oh and how many deck crews would you have and do you get ready racks like plasma or drone ready racks?
Charles, the use of casual fighters (or casual gunboats, for that matter) in a non-historical campaign really calls for little more than having everyone participating in the campaign agree that it's okay.
As far as the BPV cost, my understanding is that the "Rebate BPV Points" you would normally expect to get for turning in a shuttle goes to pay for installing Ready Racks for the fighter.
If my understanding is wrong (like it usually is?) you're still talking about turning in a two BPV shuttle to gain a eight BPV fighter (before drone speed increase costs).
One question I have to ask is, "What role are your fighters expected to serve?" Is it something so critical that it's worth the cost in BPV to have them?
Please don't get me wrong about this; whenever I've flown either Gorn or Federation Monitors since I got my copy of J2, if I've had Support Pallets on them, then two of their ADMIN were replaced with G-7 or F-7 fighters (respectively). HOWEVER, in BOTH cases, the fighters filled a critical storytelling role; they were the ones sent out to investigate "Weird sensor readings" instead of standard ADMIN (the assumption was their higher mobility and firepower MIGHT help them survive). Also, the F-7 served a valuable supplementary drone defense role when facing Klingon raiders.
The point of that yarn was that the ships in question were using the fighters as a multi-role enhancement and the additional capabilities they gave their base ships didn't come at the cost of any capability (such as mobility) TO those motherships.
Given how much planning has to be done to properly execute fighter operations, casual carriers can't be a casual decision.
(I'll get off my soapbox now. )
You specifically cannot do that (swap out shuttles for fighters) by the rules. There is an incredibly obscure (meaning I have no idea where to find it) rule that is like R1.R3 or R1.R4 (R1.R1 is for the mech link refit and R1.R2 is for early bases) that specifically says you can NOT do this.
Basically, the Federation is allowed to swap F-7s (and the Gorn G-7s) for shuttles, but you get no ready racks and the "fighter" sucks. Except for that, you can't do it. Any ship that can carry fighters in place of shuttles (e.g. survey ship carriers) get a whole rule to describe that variation. Otherwise, it isn't possible.
The only ship type across all empires that supports casual fighters like described are HDWs. And even there, they are part of the base ship, not a refit. Otherwise they just aren't allowed by the rules.
That all said, you could do this in prior, pre-Captain's editions of the rules. In that case, you had to pay 2 BPV per shuttle box converted to install a ready-rack. Then you had to buy the fighter at full cost (and this is the full, list cost of the fighter + drone upgrades). I don't remember if the 2 BPV "credit" for the admin shuttle can be used for the ready racks, or only on the replacement fighter.
None of that past history really matters today, as adding "casual fighters" to any ship is a house rule and you can do it however you want, as there are no published "house rules". But, I'd still recommend using the old rules as a guideline to make sure nothing gets completely out of control.