Zac: http://www.starfleetgames.com/minis/race.pdf

By Zac Belado (Pixelgeek) on Friday, April 16, 2021 - 11:00 pm: Edit

Awesome! Thanks

By MarkSHoyle (Bolo) on Saturday, April 17, 2021 - 08:39 am: Edit

Can tell the age of that chart....
Since the term Race has been replaced with Empire for around a Decade now...

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Saturday, April 17, 2021 - 08:45 pm: Edit

If it helps, there are more elaborate versions of various Alpha Octant faction emblems in this corner of the ADB website.

By Zac Belado (Pixelgeek) on Saturday, May 01, 2021 - 03:01 pm: Edit

So if I pick up the Basic Set Rulebook 2012 and the SSD book will I have all the counters I need from my FC collection to play?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, May 01, 2021 - 05:35 pm: Edit

Probably not every specific variant, although you'd have something close to everything.

By Zac Belado (Pixelgeek) on Saturday, May 01, 2021 - 05:51 pm: Edit

Its been a loooong time since I played SFB so I wanted to make sure there weren't any informational token I needed

By Marcel Trahan (Devilish6996) on Saturday, May 01, 2021 - 06:00 pm: Edit

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Saturday, May 01, 2021 - 07:15 pm: Edit

Zac, there's not really anything in SFB that results in counters with specific game information on them in the same way, say, F&E does. A CVS in F&E *has* to represented by specifically a CVS counter, while in SFB anything that all players can clear distinguish from other counters on the map and that has a clearly agreed upon facing can be used to represent that CVS.

With that in mind, the main things you will be lacking counterwise for SFB are mines, fighters, and PF's. Ships can be pretty cleanly handled by "CA number 3 is my CVS."

Marcel, There is a topic for reports on R4T here.

By Shawn Gordon (Avrolancaster) on Saturday, May 08, 2021 - 12:55 pm: Edit

ADB has stopped shipping to Canada. I'm in the process of looking at proxy shipping forwarding options.

Anybody have any advice/solved this issue for themselves?

By Jean Sexton Beddow (Jsexton) on Saturday, May 08, 2021 - 01:26 pm: Edit

Shawn, we just announced that we seem to have fixed those problems.

By Shawn Gordon (Avrolancaster) on Saturday, May 08, 2021 - 02:43 pm: Edit

Oh wow! Nevermind then. I'm very happy!

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Sunday, May 09, 2021 - 01:40 am: Edit

RE: D6D Redux

Thanks to everyone who replied to my earlier message about the D6D. It is much appreciated.

Here is a follow-up question:

If a D6D hypothetically replaced the 6xB-racks with 6xG-racks, would it significantly affect the launch rate of a long range drone strike?

Let’s say the D6D needed to launch 72 single spaced drones for a particular long range drone attack. Using the 6xB-racks, the first 6 turns fire off 36 drones and empty the racks. It then takes 3 turns to reload the B-racks (2 drone spaces reloaded per turn). Then the racks begin firing again, taking 6 more turns to fire off 36 more drones and the racks are empty again and firing is complete. Total time is 6 + 3 + 6 = 15 turns

Using hypothetical G-racks and needing to launch the same 72 single spaced drones, the 6xG-racks launch the first 24 single spaced drones in 4 turns. The racks go off-line for 2 turns to reload (2 spaces reloaded per turn), then fire 24 more drones in 4 turns. The racks then go off-line for 2 turns to reload, then fire 24 more drones in 4 turns. That completes the firing of all 72 drones. This has taken: 4 + 2 + 4 + 2 + 4 = 15 turns

So the long range firing speed using G-racks in this instance is the same, in terms of drones/turn? Does that sound right? Thanks.

--Mike

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Sunday, May 09, 2021 - 02:43 am: Edit

Mike Erickson:

Long range bombardment drones are two space drones, albeit with only a one space warhead.

The major difference between six B racks and six G racks is after the Y175 refit you give up 36. spaces of drones. Six bombardment drones in the initial loading (12 spaces) and 12 (24 spaces) in the rack reloads. You still have the cargo boxes.

Generally, you launch drones from three racks, and while those three reload the other three launch so there are always drones coming,

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Thursday, May 13, 2021 - 12:49 pm: Edit

RE: D6D + carrier + F&E

Alex,

>> The D6D ad-hoc carrier escort is something that requires looking at the F&E rules and their implications as well

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Apologies for the delay in responding. I had actually thought I did already.

It’s interesting that you mention this, as the F&E D6D and carrier interactions actually were what sparked my original question. The F&E D6D goes together really well with carrier platforms:

1. A D6D present in a hex with carrier(s) provides 2 hex F&E reaction movement. This is the long range target tracking function. The carrier can either react the 2 spaces and bring their fighters along, or can react 1 hex and then send the fighters off alone for the 2nd hex.
2. D6D(s) present in a battle hex with carrier(s) could work together from the support echelon where the D6D(s) perform long range bombardment and the carrier(s) send in fighters via IFF. This is the coordinated fighter/drone strike.
3. When carrier(s) are on the battle line, the D6D can use its scout sensors to provide EW support such as interfering with enemy drone attacks (potential die roll shift) from the free scout position.
4. When carrier(s) are on the battle line, the D6D also can join the battle line directly and use its scout sensors to provide EW support such as interfering with enemy drone attacks (potential die roll shift) and also use it’s drone armament directly (with possibly some dogfight drones in the mix?) to contribute 7 attack factors.
5. And lastly, where required (most likely for an emergency situation), the D6D could be incorporated as a formal ad hoc carrier escort, lending its 8 defense factor to protect a valuable carrier from directed damage. This is probably the least effective use as the bombardment, scout, and direct offensive contribution functions are all either eliminated or reduced, but it is an option if needed.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Thursday, May 13, 2021 - 03:24 pm: Edit

Mike,

From an SFB POV, in cases 1 and 2 the D6D isn't even present in the scenario. Case 1 is just a possible explanation of *why* that given SFB game is happening but has zero impact on the actual game. While (S8.26) doesn't currently allow purchased off-map drone bombardment for patrol scenarios, that's what case 2 would represent, without the D6D itself showing up as part of the purchased forces.

Cases 3 and 4 are the same thing in SFB - the D6D is part of the player's forces on the map, and tactical use of it in SFB is what those cases in F&E represent. The only difference is, in a patrol scenario, if the player is claiming the (S8.25) "free scout" command slot for the D6D or not - but once play has started there is no difference, the D6D does what it does.

The issue with case 5 is that, in F&E, carrier groups are formed at the very start of the Combat Step for a given Battle Hex (515.14). So the emergency situation isn't "there's been several rounds of battle and this here carrier has lost escorts and is now vulnerable" since you can't sub in fresh escorts, but one where the Klingon and allied forces are the Defender in a hex where the carrier can't be withdrawn under (302.13) yet doesn't have sufficient normal escorts, or like even a stock D6 or D7 to take an ad-hoc role - which, overall, is not so much an emergency as a colossal mistake on the part of the player in leaving such a specifically vulnerable force open to attack.

Honestly, everyone already knows the D6D is a really good ship - it's a heavy cruiser hull with a bunch of scout channels *and* the ability to contribute significant firepower in combat without degrading its EW capability. (R3.32) notes they were often used as fleet scouts, not just as bombardment platforms. It feels like you are pushing it to be even more of a "wonder ship" than it already is.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, May 13, 2021 - 03:50 pm: Edit

Mike Erickson:

D6Ds are not normally able to operate type-VI drones. They do not have ADD racks, and they do not have type-G drone racks (as you proposed), nor fighter ready racks in their shuttle bays (much less fighter qualified deck crews). Further, type-VI drones have a maximum range of 12 hexes (technically 24 hexes if they are fast and are launched at a fast target on a closing trajectory, but by themselves can only move 12 times regardless of their speed). So they are not going to have any type-VI drones (they are not going to carry them for use in "Shatter-pack" shuttles).

They can use multi-warhead drones, or stonefish drones, or starfish drones, but not a type-VI drone by itself.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, May 13, 2021 - 05:35 pm: Edit

Alex Chobot:

I do not know that I would call "two" (2) special sensors a "bunch of scout channels." It is more than zero, but less than the four (4) special sensors found on the typical heavy cruiser to scout conversion.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Thursday, May 13, 2021 - 05:40 pm: Edit

SPP, fair point, I was thinking it had four and hadn't checked the SSD!

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Friday, May 14, 2021 - 04:04 pm: Edit

SP,

As I now read FD2.51 you are absolutely right. Thanks for the correction!

The D6Ds in my example will simply have to be content with firing drones that are legal for their B-racks.

--Mike

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Friday, May 14, 2021 - 04:53 pm: Edit

RE: D6D + carrier + F&E

Alex,

Apologies Alex, I don’t think I was clear. I was responding to your comment about D6Ds and carriers:

>> but the historical outcome would basically be "and this showed why it's a really bad idea".

And pointing out that, in my experience, in F&E this combination is both effective and common and has been so for many years.

In my opinion it is somewhat unfortunate that this interesting deployment option is not better represented in the SFB history, fiction, and scenarios. Perhaps in the future SFB developers and authors will, if they see fit, turn their attention to this topic.

--Mike

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Friday, May 14, 2021 - 06:36 pm: Edit

It's represented fine unless you are expecting it to act as an actual carrier escort *and* adding bombardment support - because *that* job requires putting it in a more dangerous place and use its weapons to protect the carrier without the benefit of aegis (in F&E terms, you are putting one of the more valuable hulls on the line where the opponent can apply directed damage to it at no penalty). If it's actually on the SFB map, then it hasn't been *over there* launching a bunch of type-III-XX drones in support.

Considering that drone bombardment ships don't rush up to join the same battle they are doing bombardment support in as a matter of course, that points to there being at least doctrinal, if not actual logistical/operational considerations, that every drone using empire have regarding the use of drone bombardment ships that countermand that use. If nothing else, the need to reload the ship's racks and stores and then sprint to join the actual battle line is going to make the timing involved very tricky to pull off - and since, in F&E, a drone ship in the battle force can't use its bombardment factors, its clearly not practical on any kind of regular basis.

So "drone ship participates in a battle it provided drone bombardment to" is already a very unusual case, of the "this is kind of thing you can write a scenario around" but very much of the "scenario special rules/background can't be used as justification for changing the general rules/background." In this case, since this is clearly not something usually done, the scenario would show *why* it's generally impractical. The simplest complication being even a slight variance in reloading or travel times results in the ship not arriving in time for the battle or doing so with seriously depleted racks.

This is before even considering then adding in "joins the battle...as a carrier escort". If it fails to make it to the battle, or does so without proper stores, then not only is the fleet missing a ship, it's missing one of its carrier escorts, leaving the carrier more vulnerable.

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) on Saturday, May 15, 2021 - 02:40 pm: Edit

I do not play F&E. Played the very first bit that came out. federation space or some such? However in SFB I have used a D6D with 2 D7 hulls. The extra drone launch and control is great as well as the two sensors.

You can not use drone bombardment in a S8 patrol battle. Since it is a patrol and not attacking a fixed point. Your target for drone bombardment must be fixed or a very slow moving target. One that was known ahead of time to set up the attack.

Now in a campaign type game I think it could be possible to use drone bombardment and in conjunction with a carrier. The carrier launches a fighter strike and the drone ship launches a wave of drones. At the fixed target to include a few attacking ships as well. would it be better in SFB terms to have the DSD and carrier in the battle? I think yes I would rather do that but perhaps High command does not want to risk those ships. Also if buying a BPV force. Then you are only paying for the fighters and the drones not the ships.... could work

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, May 15, 2021 - 04:18 pm: Edit

There is no fiction/scenario representation of such a group because a D6D is no more qualified to be a carrier escort than a D5D or a D5G or a D5 or a D6N.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, May 15, 2021 - 05:43 pm: Edit

Correction:

Type VI drones have a maximum launch range at a target of 35 hexes as any other drone, but an effective range of only 12 hexes.

They can be launched at a target that is 35 hexes distant, and if the type-VI is moderate speed (Speed 12) can hit the target if it does not deviate from head-on if said target is moving at Speed 23 (23+12=35). If the type-VI was medium speed (Speed 20) or fast speed (Speed 32) the target would have to be closer when the drone was launched at it or it will run out of endurance.