Has a Captain's Log 'Monster Special Rules' article been written for the Space Amoeba?

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, May 08, 2021 - 03:25 pm: Edit

Sebastian Palozzi:

As Monster Articles were done (at least initially) in the order of the Monster's scenario, the Space Amoeba was done as the second such article. They started in Captain's Log #29, so the space amoeba is in Captain's Log #30.

By John L Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Saturday, May 08, 2021 - 05:56 pm: Edit

Yes indeed, that "Gorn Monitor Pod name" had me confused alright. Call it a "Saucer" or an "Egg" and I would have been alright.

By John M. Williams (Jay) on Sunday, May 09, 2021 - 05:09 pm: Edit

Well, if you were able to put the Monitor Pod on a Monitor, I think the result would have to be called a "Monster Pod"! Seven plasma-S's would be a BEAST!

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, July 28, 2021 - 08:12 am: Edit

Has it ever been established what the strategic speed of a PF is? Obviously, it could only keep up such speeds for a very short time. But during that brief time, can it move as fast as an X-ship, fast cruiser, or light dreadnought? In other words, would it's F&E operational movement speed be 6, or 7?

I note that PFs (with boost packs intact) have a warp-engine-power-to-movement-cost ratio that puts even X-ships to shame; 60-1. Most X-ships are around 40-1, though some are better and some are a little worse. I also note that tactical engine-power-to-MC ratio is not the only factor in strategic speed. Fast cruisers and light dreadnoughts are usually about 36-1 and F&E speed-7. But war cruisers are also usually 36-1 but F&E speed is only 6. So there's clearly more to it than simply engine-power-to-movement-cost. Hence my question about PFs.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Wednesday, July 28, 2021 - 10:51 am: Edit

IIRC pfs are range limited by "ionic charges."

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Wednesday, July 28, 2021 - 11:52 am: Edit

Mike, Alan's question isn't what limits a PF's range, but what is its top strategic speed
is, i.e what would its F&E Operational Movement allowance be if they *didn't* have the ionic charge or other such range limits.

On that topic, I don't recall seeing any such, but I would say that they are not significantly faster than other standard military units, if it all - they use Reaction Movement just fighters and so forth, with nothing representing a speed edge worth showing in F&E (e.g. a bonus in pursuit battle resolution).

And Alan, you are right about warp power to MC not being the defining element of strategic speeds. Fast warp and X-tech engines don't just have a greater power output, but are qualitatively different from standard warp engines. Making an engine that can create a stable warp bubble to sustain the higher speed travel is much more expensive and difficult - especially when you are also making it rugged enough for a standard warship's service life. That's why fast ships have such tight production limits - an empire is limited by the number of such engines they can make.

The hot warp engines of war classes are part of why those classes have a shorter service life - they have higher power output without the expensive...warp gearing?...of fast engines, and are cheaper to make than standard engines cause they don't need as long a service life.

PF engines are the extreme end of that - super high relative output, short service lives cause the PF itself isn't expected to get more than a couple of years of service (if that).

Civilian workboats and the similar probably include more expensive versions of the engines that have better service lives (perhaps at some tradeoff not yet seen) - or just development of those engines post GW made it cost-effective to produce longer service life PF engines as the standard.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Wednesday, July 28, 2021 - 12:48 pm: Edit

There's a difference between tactical movement in SFB (and FC) and the strategic movement of F&E. Although I've never played F&E (but I do have the basic rules and plan on ordering supplements soon enough ), I've long held the feeling that the strategic movement in that game isn't something measured in hours or days, but at the very least is measured in weeks, if not months.

Gunboats, while they appear to be fast and MIGHT have even better strategic reaction than even X-ships, are only meant to be lived in for, at best, a few days (as has been covered in SFB Canon); a limit that makes them strategically dependent on bases (or tenders).

(Between us, Alan, I do like the idea of something like a flotilla of "Super Gunboats" as a sort of tri-video "Hero Ship/Group," even if the best action stories I might come up for them would make Olivette Roche look like Cecil B. Deville... )

(... And on that note, I think I'll escort myself to The Booth before some of the more serious gamers start chasing after me with torches and pitchforks)

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Wednesday, July 28, 2021 - 01:23 pm: Edit

Units in F&E are moving at strategic speeds as it is a strategic scale game - the specific Strategic Movement movement mode is just one form of strategic scale movement (and the fastest, with hard upper limit on hexes traveled, unlike Operational Movement, Reserve Movement, Reaction Movement, or Retrogrades).

In F&E, units that are faster at the operational scale between SFB and F&E get bonuses around things like pursuit battles when units retreat - which is fast warships and X-ships, but not PFs.

Now if you really want a nice long stay in the agonizer booth, one could suggest an F&E rules change that PF's do count for that pursuit bonus, to represent just how deadly they were to fleeing cripples... ;)

By MarkSHoyle (Bolo) on Wednesday, July 28, 2021 - 01:35 pm: Edit

As with Fighters, aren't PFs left in a scenario considered destroyed if they have no way to be carried off the battlefield......

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Wednesday, July 28, 2021 - 01:38 pm: Edit

That would be defined by the scenario, and more falls under "haven't left before overwhelming reinforcements arrive". They could easily also have the ability to disengage in certain directions to be picked up by their carrier/tender over yonder.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, July 28, 2021 - 04:29 pm: Edit

I am sorry, but the answer to this question is not in my bailiwick.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Wednesday, July 28, 2021 - 07:06 pm: Edit

In my head-canon, PF speed is limited by their endurance as their cruising speed in reacting to a battle is probably higher than most starship's but not their 'dash' as they need to arrive ready to fight. Their retrograde speed (returning to their home tender or going to a new one [their old one was destroyed] could be higher as their will be getting their engines looked after).

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Thursday, July 29, 2021 - 11:50 am: Edit

"The hot warp engines of war classes are part of why those classes have a shorter service life - they have higher power output without the expensive...warp gearing?...of fast engines, and are cheaper to make than standard engines cause they don't need as long a service life."

I believe this is contradicted by the "Some war cruisers were built to higher standard and could be converted to X." Words to that effect.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, July 29, 2021 - 12:10 pm: Edit

They have a shorter service life because of overall construction shortcuts since nobody expected them to last five years.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Thursday, July 29, 2021 - 01:16 pm: Edit

Mike - there is no contradiction at all. Indeed that supports what I was saying. *Some* war cruisers were built to a higher standard for conversions because the usual standard was insufficient for such purposes. That's just something that doesn't matter in SFB BPV and is too fine to show up in F&E costs.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, July 29, 2021 - 02:29 pm: Edit

Where did the MG quote come from? Player statement or published source?

By Douglas Saldana (Dsal) on Thursday, July 29, 2021 - 02:51 pm: Edit

I think he is just quoting from Alex's Wednesday 11:52 a.m. post. So a player statement, unless Alex has a source.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Thursday, July 29, 2021 - 03:38 pm: Edit

I was speaking from my over all understanding of war classes - they are cheaper and quicker to build because of construction shortcuts as SVC has said. Hot warp engines I reason are part of that - not only do they lack the expensive capabilities of fast warp engines (which is why the excess power relative to move cost doesn't result in "fast" status) - but if any part of a ship is gonna wear out faster as you cut corners, the warp engines and their connections to the ship's power grid seem like a natural place for such. Not the *only* aspect of war class constructions that contributes to the shorter service life, just likely a significant one (and relevant to the question re: PF engines and different speeds at different scales).

For Mike's quote of "Some war cruisers were built to higher standard and could be converted to X" I think that refers to various ship classes (usually X-ships or DNW's and the like) that mention that to build them would or did require "custom-built" examples of the base war class without the construction shortcuts - see the Lyran (R11.86) Cave Jaguar DNW as an example. But that generally resulted in the ship class in question being an unbuilt variant or conjectural as it wasn't cost-effective to do so compared to just using a non-war class hull at that point.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, July 30, 2021 - 03:30 am: Edit

Yes, they are cheaper to build, but the statement that "they have higher power output without the expensive...warp gearing?...of fast engines" is completely wrong. Hot warp is not the same as fast and is a totally different and completely unrelated technology.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Friday, July 30, 2021 - 10:31 am: Edit

SVC,

I was quoting Alex for the first quote.

My response was a paraphrase of what I remember you telling us long ago about the CW classes.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, July 30, 2021 - 10:36 am: Edit

I explained the error in the quoted theory.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Friday, July 30, 2021 - 11:44 am: Edit

A lot of kids in my area (Greater Los Angeles) have their cars tricked out for "Drift Racing" (a la "Fast and Furious"), but all too often, when they're chased by police, their cars end up catching fire because they're not made for sustained high speed.

The reference may not be perfect, but IMO, it helps explain (?) the difference between Hot Warp (i.e.: the way these kids cars are tweaked) and Fast Warp (the way the cop cars that chase these runners are set up)

As far as the unstable engines Gunboats use? I don't know. Two stroke that might blow up if overstressed?

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Friday, July 30, 2021 - 12:06 pm: Edit

"Hot warp is not the same as fast and is a totally different and completely unrelated technology."

That's what I was trying to get across in explaining why a CW and CF might have similar amounts of "excess" warp power on the SSD but the former isn't a fast ship - totally different engines, with the latter being much more expensive and difficult to make (as part of illustrating why PFs, with even more excess warp, proportionally, still wouldn't be any faster than normal ships). Apologies for my miscommunication!

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Tuesday, November 30, 2021 - 05:38 pm: Edit

Is there anything in the SFU background that indicates how many habitual planetary systems are inside the WYN Cluster hex??


Garth L. Getgen