Archive through January 31, 2022
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: Rules Questions:
SFB Rules Q&A:
Archive through January 31, 2022
Thanks Ken .
Cheers
Frank
Makes sense, Ken, and I won't submit any fiction with them being used, but for here, I'd still like to share a screwey image I have involving them.
(REEEAAL screwey... 
)
The only times I've ever played a MB, the only pod arrangement that made sense (for me at the time) was three of the standard (twenty five box) Civilian Cargo Pods and one pod taken from a Repair Freighter.
(Nowadays, I think I'd go for two of the standard Civilian Cargo Pods, one pod taken from a Repair Freighter, and one pod taken from an Oiler, but again, that's just me.)
The base had two Augmentation Modules; one hangar bay module for standard size one) fighters and one Base Power Module. To my (rather limited) mind, those were what a MB HAD to have.
While brain drizzling here (the closest my weak brain can come to a brain storm), I don't have the lists of Skids, but I'm imagining an Accommodations Skid or two, plus a shuttle skid operating a Salvage Shuttle or two; the latter would assist the repair module with docking and removing badly damaged hull sections.
Anyway, that's just some crazy imagery in my (alleged) mind and, if I manage to get any real writing done for possible submission to an upcoming Captain's Log, these screwball ideas will NOT be in there...
1 follow up ? re MB pods/modules,
Can a module be used in place of a pod ?
Example, could a MB have 6 modules and no pods or 4 modules and 2 pods etc ?
I do not see any note disallowing such combinations ?
Thanks.
Cheers
Frank
Re: Frax Axion Torpedoes
Rule (E51.32) says Axion Torpedoes "do not work well on small targets. Apply the following HIT# penalties when firing at targets of various size classes."
But the chart in (E51.321) seems entirely backwards given that they supposedly do not work well against small targets. Size class 0-1 has a +1 modifier, making them harder to hit, while size classes 5, 6, and 7 have negative modifiers, making them easier to hit. This is replicated on the X-Axion Torpedo Small Target chart, except size class 5 no longer has any modifier (making them harder to hit vs the earlier technology).
Am I missing something here?
Frank - looking at the graphic in R1, pg 3, I only see two places that look like modules could be attached (between pod 2 & 3 and pod 5 & 6). (R1.24A) is specific that the MB can be equipped with two augmentation modules.
One interesting note in (R1.24A) is that each tractor beam on any pod can be uses as a docking point for other pods. This might be a way to extend your MB by adding more and more pods. As the next paragraph states systems are combined with the MB.
@Timothy;
Reread the rule, "The Hit NUMBER" is adjusted, not the die roll.
Thanks Ken.
That is what I thought but wanted to confirm.
Cheers
Frank
@David;
To be sure I have this right, this means that at range 4-5 (HIT# 1-3), firing at a size 7 target (modifier -3) means that the HIT# becomes zero (i.e., will not hit barring EW adjustments), correct?
@Timothy;
Correct.
@David;
Thanks. Now the rule actually makes sense!
J4.818 says the deck Crews can repair damage to a shuttle. Can deck crews repair the shuttle of an ally? For example if a Stinger 2 lands in a Gorn BC (and Gorn & Hydran are formally allied during this situation), can the deck Crews repair a point of damage?
The rule just says "one shuttle" with no specification as to "of the same empire" or "friendly" or anything else, so as written if there is a damaged shuttle of any origin aboard, it can be repaired by the deck crews. Presumably shuttles are simple enough, in the context of the game system, that at least battle-expedient repairs are doable.
Compare to (J4.892) which does specify "of the same empire".
yeah. But can your (metric) Hydran get fixed by a Gorn that only uses inch unit tools?
Not to mention the empire specific tech. Like Fusion beams
"Sufficient unto the day are the worries thereof."
I imagine on ships not formally set up for combined operations there are tales of Gorn deck crew tools ruined and Hydran fighters that have lost all resale value. ("They welded the panel shut?! Don't they know we meed to get in there all the time? Tell them to use duct tape next time.")
In game terms it's probably lost in the abstraction. Deck crews are broken up and reassembled by personnel and equipment. Shuttles and fighters are crippled or uncrippled, I think even dropping the pilot quality for flying a kludged shuttle would be too much of a difference.
Mike, as a storyteller/would-be writer, your comment REALLY struck a chord with me.
(If the system here allowed for it, I would have definitely given it a thumbs up. )
However, for game purposes, should we assume there're both Gorn and Hydran versions of Duct Tape?
That is why I said "battle-expedient"
If damage is enough to disable most of the weapons, cripple the engines and such, it takes a lot more than "duct tape." It will take yanking LRUs, fitting new stuff, and deep knowledge of the systems.
I ran the EHS for 2 years in Afghanistan for an aviation unit (TF ODIN-A). And we would work around the clock until an Aircraft was back to "FMC."
NATO had (presumably still has) a program called "Ample Gain", to ensure ground crews could service aircraft from a different nation. All sorts of expediencies could occur which might force you to land at another NATO nation's airbase, so every base had some ground crews trained in the basics of aircraft not used by that country.
I flew an Ample Gain mission to a Luftwaffe base in 1986. The transient alert (that's what they would be called at a USAF base - not sure what term the Luftwaffe used) crews refueled our aircraft (an F-111F) and performed the routine through-flight maintenance actions and (this was the "Ample Gain" part) loaded live Mark-82 500 lb. bombs. We then inspected the aircraft to ensure everything, including the loading of ordnance, was done correctly. They then downloaded the bombs (since we weren't scheduled for a live drop - those being rare even in the U.S., and much rarer in Europe) and returned to Lakenheath.
The ability of Ample Gain crews to load ordnance on foreign aircraft depended on the weapon type. The Mk-82 was pretty much a generic dumb bomb and pretty much any base could handle it, But at that time Lakenheath was the only base in Europe that had GBU-15 (TV-guided Mark 84 (2000 lb.) bomb) capable aircraft. And even at Lakenheath only one of the squadrons was GBU-15 capable. I am almost certain that that Luftwaffe base had no GBU-15s available, and probably didn't have anyone qualified to load it anyway. It was too specialized. Laser-guided bombs would be an intermediate case. They were more common than GBU-15s and many (but not all) NATO bases would have been able to load GBU-10s or GBU-12s.
Similarly, NATO bases could generally repair routine damage to the aircraft of other nations. But more extensive or complex damage would require specialists be sent from the home base.
But they didn't do any actual maintenance. No yanking black boxes, etc.
Mike,
But it depemds on what you mean by "maintenance", which is not synonymous with "repair". No, they didn't fix anything that was broken on the Ample Gain mission I flew. But they certainly performed "preventive maintenance", to catch developing issues before something actually broke. They took SOAP samples for example. SOAP is an acronym for "spectrometric oil analysis program" and can be thought of as a kind of low level PMI (Preventive Maintenance Inspection). A small amount of engine oil is drawn off after each flight and checked for dissolved metals. This provides information on the level of wear and is a key element of jet engine management.
As far as actually fixing something that was broken, they didn't do any of that on our particular mission (we didn't have anything needing fixing), but they could have done so for some things; other things - no.
But then, some of those things also could not have been fixed at other U.S. bases either, with the assets on hand. Suppose we had emergency landed at that Luftwaffe base (for the life of me I can't recall which one it was) with an engine failure. The transient alert crews would not have pulled and replaced the engine. They would have notified Lakenheath, who would have flown in one each TF30-P-100 engine and some engine troops trained in that specific engine. But the same thing would have happened if we had landed in Bitburg (F-15s, at the time), or Bentwaters (A-10s), or even Upper Heyford (F-111s, but a different model of Vark (F-111E) which used different version of the TF30 than did the F-111F). The issue wouldn't be USAF base versus allied power. It would be base that used P-100s, and had engine troops trained in that specific engine, versus one that used different engines.
So, no battle damage repair. Yes, tighten fittings, check tires, etc.
Mike, neither (J4.818) no any other rule I can find limit whose shuttles a ship can repair. It literally just says “ A deck crew can repair one point of damage to a shuttle as one deck crew action.”
I agree. I was arguing as a devils advocate. SPP will tell us soon...
Mike,
But even with repairing battle damage, the issue isn't USAF versus Luftwaffe, or RAF. or whoever. It's more a matter of different aircraft types. The only other nation that ever used the F-111 was Austalia and even then it used a different version than any American MDS. (MDS is Mission Design Series. For the F-111F, the Mission was F (fighter... yeah I know we were really more of a light bomber, but officially we were classed as "F"). The Design was F-111, as opposed to F-16 or F-15, which were also "F" for Mission. And the "F" at the end was the Series, distinguishing it from different versions of the F-111, such as the F-111A or F-111D). So most NATO bases could only perform basic repairs. But the same would be true of most US bases.
But now consider the F-16, which (like the F-4 before it) was used by a LOT of nations. A USAF F-16 that landed with battle damage at a Dutch or Norwegian F-16 base could receive far more substantial repairs than it could at a USAF A-10 or F-15 base.
Of course, in the SFU the Klingons, Lyrans, and Seltorians all use Klingon fighters. But other than that, and a few oddball case (Orion, Wyn), the only other example I can think of is the Gorns using Federation fighters, but with photons/drones replaced by plasma torpedoes. So maybe a Gorn carrier using G-20s could repair the propulsion systems on a crippled Fed A-20, restoring it to full speed, but could not restore its photon and drone capabilities; and vice versa for a Fed A-20 carrier with a Gorn G-20. But I suspect that may be further down in the weeds than ADB wants to go.