Jeff: F&E turns represent the abstracted actions over a 6 month period. If a unit needs repairs, the empire can retrograde that unit to a supply point and pay for field repairs.

In any case it is a rule to be civil on these forums, something you should probably take note of and attempt in the future.

YMMV.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Saturday, May 02, 2020 - 02:08 pm: Edit

A logistics support group has to be able to defend itself.

I'd say a Carrier resupply Frigate plus a LTT with a repair pod. Or HDW outfitted as a repair ship.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Saturday, May 02, 2020 - 02:14 pm: Edit

"Romulans had a ROC and Phoenix..."

Is there a "Class History" of Romulan capital ships?

ROC(s)
several Condor(s)
Colossus KC9R
Phoenix(s)
Vulture(s)

Various Big Ole Hawk variants.

I know that there is something about how the Roms about ran out of CR10 & 9 ships. Plus there is the issue about the Romulan Civil War.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Saturday, May 02, 2020 - 02:26 pm: Edit

If memory serves, the only ROC ever actually built was destroyed by the ISC during the final battle of the Romulan Civil War; a three-way battle that involved Rolandus' forces, Romulan Republic forces, and the ISC.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Saturday, May 02, 2020 - 02:31 pm: Edit

As someone whose second favorite empire is the Romulans, I always thought they should have built more ROCs, rather than Phoenix Space Control Ships. The Romulan PFs are significantly more "cost effective" than the Romulan fighters, and the Romulan economy is hurting by this point. They should have concentrated on forces that gave "more bang for the buck". That would include more ROCs and fewer Phoenix SCSs, in my opinion.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Saturday, May 02, 2020 - 02:44 pm: Edit

A Phoenix SCS brings more firepower to the battle force than a ROC does. In F&E there are good reasons to bring fighters as opposed to PFs, at least sometimes.

By Joe Carlson (Jrc) on Saturday, May 02, 2020 - 03:21 pm: Edit

I looked a module R4 and the Romulan master Ship Book.

In (4.6)Condor. The names listed for the Condor are: Imperator; Senator; Gemini; Consul.

In (R4.44) ROC. The Senator was the only Condor converted. It was destroyed by the ISC in Y187.

In (R4.49) Phoenix SCS. Names listed are Leviathan and Gemini.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Saturday, May 02, 2020 - 04:13 pm: Edit

According to this file, the Romulans had six dreadnoughts in service by the end of Y184: Behemoth, Colossus, Gemini, Leviathan, Proconsul, and Senator.

As noted above, Senator was later destroyed at the battle of Tibernia IV; incidentally, the loss of this ship finally convinced the Romulans that they would need to field the NovaHawk-X advanced technology command cruiser.

There is a Y186 Order of Battle for the Romulans in ISC War, though no names for specific ships are listed.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Saturday, May 02, 2020 - 06:01 pm: Edit

Richard,

A Phoenix also uses up more command slots because it is required by the rules to be accompanied by escorts, which could be replaced by more powerful warships if your fleet flagship were a ROC. Also, if you use a Phoenix, you can include only one more PF flotilla. With a ROC, you could include two more PF flotillas. You say you're worried about massed enemy drone waves?^* Make one or more of your flotillas Starhawk flotillas and configure some of those Starhawks as Starhawk-Ds.

In SFB (not F&E) terms, if you want maximum combat power in a "legal" fleet, regardless of BPV, you're better off with a ROC. And if you're playing an S-8 Patrol Scenario in which you want to maximize your combat power under a set BPV limit... you're better off with a ROC. The Phoenix may have more firepower, considering only the ship and its attrition units, but a ROC-led fleet will have more command slots and BPV to spend on other stuff. So I still think the Romulans should have built more ROCs and fewer PHXs.


^*Or, depending on the tactical situation, you might want to cloak out the whole fleet to defeat the drone wave. Romulan PFs can cloak too. Romulan fighters... can't.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Saturday, May 02, 2020 - 06:20 pm: Edit

In F&E fighters are replaced for free, there's an issue with overreliance on PFs for attrition combat.

As I said previously, fighters still have their place in the PF era in a strategic sense.

While it's good to say 'stack all the high compot units in one force', in F&E this is often not possible (or at least unwise). Unescorted ROCs are more vulnerable than escorted ships, which to some extent is why you don't see multiple ROCs in one fleet. You _can_ escort the ROCs of course, but that may reduce compot of the whole battle force.

To some extent, it's the same problem as Superhawks have in F&E. If you stack them in one battle force, they're vulnerable to destruction unless escorted (in which case you might as well have an SPB in many cases and just build the cheaper NH).

It's a complex subject, of which some things are apparent from the SFB side and other things are apparent from the F&E side.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Saturday, May 02, 2020 - 07:06 pm: Edit

Richard,

Yes, I'm aware of F&E fighter replacements, and escorts protecting their carriers. There are a lot of things that work differently in F&E than they do in SFB. This isn't meant as a knock on F&E. I think it's inevitable, given differences in scope and granularity. The question, I suppose, is which of the two games better reflects "what would really happen if..." in the SFU.

I'll have more to post tomorrow, but since we've taken the thread off-topic (primarily my own fault, I admit), my lengthier response will be in the "Romulan Tactics" section.

By Mike Dowd (Mike_Dowd) on Sunday, May 03, 2020 - 01:51 am: Edit

I've been hunting high and low, and can't find the F&E EW factors for the REDHawk.

Anyone able to point me in the correct direction, including any lowered EW level / compots?

By Soeren Klein (Ogdrklein) on Sunday, May 03, 2020 - 02:54 am: Edit

Mike,

there is a table with possible combinations of modular dreadnoughts in the Advanced Operations rulebook (2003) on page 65.

includes compot and EW factors.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Sören Klein

By Mike Dowd (Mike_Dowd) on Sunday, May 03, 2020 - 03:33 am: Edit

Danke Soeren!

By Joe Carlson (Jrc) on Sunday, May 03, 2020 - 04:14 pm: Edit

The Romulan empire is bankrupt by 184. See (R4.213) X1R. They built a X-Sparrowhawk Scout Carrier as they could not produce enough PFs to keep the fleet supplied.

Romulan built 3 Heavy Condors. One could be optimized. Replace the plasma Fs with special sensors and replace the 2 transporters in the bulb with the displaced Plasma D racks.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, May 03, 2020 - 04:18 pm: Edit

I think replacing transporters with weapons is always a no-go.

By Joe Carlson (Jrc) on Monday, May 04, 2020 - 12:46 pm: Edit

All:

I am opening a topic under scenarios to develop some concepts for a RTN campaign.

By Joe Carlson (Jrc) on Monday, May 04, 2020 - 05:37 pm: Edit

Richard, Alan, Jeff and all the others.

Would anyone like to see an optimized heavy Condor?

Since the D-racks can't replace transporters do they get removed or placed so where else on the ship.

The Lyrans have an SCS. Like the C8S the 2 center disrupters could be replaced by special sensors.

I reviewed the class history of the Kzinti CVA as stated in module J the DN Olympus was converted in Y173. "..., starting in Y181 and finishing in Y186, the Kzinti converted most of their surviving DNs and CVAs into Space Control Ships."

The SCS forward section is the same as the SSCS except for 4 special sensors added. The SSCS YIS is Y 196. I propose adding 2 special sensors to the forward section like what other empires are doing. Kzintis build their ship Y 185.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, May 04, 2020 - 06:23 pm: Edit

Joe, I support your efforts and I think you have a good start here.

About the Kzinti YR185 variant (I assume you mean a HDSC) with 2 special sensors... two arguments exist. The first has to do with “Cookie Cutter” approach where all (or most) empires ships of a given type (Examples like CW, DW, NCL etc.) are so similar. The second approach is to emphasize some cultural difference so as to make such a design “different “ in some way.

Y.M.M.V.

For example, I like to see some differences. It’s nice if most races decide that two special sensors are enough, but for the Kzinti, is it such a terrible idea that in this case for some unexplained (as of yet) reason the Kzinti decided to continue mounting four special sensors on the SCS and HDSC ships.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, May 04, 2020 - 06:41 pm: Edit

I think you lose the F torps and get no D torps.

By Joe Carlson (Jrc) on Monday, May 04, 2020 - 06:46 pm: Edit

No not terrible. Mounting 4 special sensor fits just as well in this case. The SSCS adds 6 PF mech-links, changes the ADDs to G-racks and adds 4 special sensors.

By Joe Carlson (Jrc) on Monday, May 04, 2020 - 06:55 pm: Edit

Gorn HDCS

Use the DNH forward bubble with a plasma F replacing the plasma R. Each forward wing would be a hybrid between the DNT and SCS. Wing: 1xPlasma R; 1xphaser-1; 1xphaser-3; 1xspecial sensor; 3xmech-links for PFs.

The resuting ship would have: 2 plasma Rs; 1 plasma F; 10xphaser-1s; 2xphaser-3s; 6xPFs; 12xG12s; 2xspecial sensors.

By Joe Carlson (Jrc) on Monday, May 04, 2020 - 07:02 pm: Edit

Richard,

That what I thought.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, May 04, 2020 - 07:52 pm: Edit

I think for RTN hunting you only need two sensors.

I don't think you can put plasma-R torpedoes in the wings of a Gorn ship, those things are huge. I don't think any other ship in-game mounts a plasma-R somewhere on a wing of the ship.

By Joe Carlson (Jrc) on Monday, May 04, 2020 - 08:48 pm: Edit

The DNT (R6.64 PLASMA DREADNOUGHT) in module R7 has R torps in the wings. It is a LPU.

Each wing on the DNT has a R torp, F torp, PH-1 and PH-3, and 3 impulse. Each wing on the SCS has a S torp, F torp, 2xPH-1s, 1xPH-3, 3 impulse, and three mech links (one repair capable). I suppose I have suggested a frankenrex.