Archive through December 04, 2022
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: Rules Questions:
Questions on Ships:
Archive through December 04, 2022
(R3.22) Klingon D6P-BS PF Tender Boom - Should this unit have a true PFT note? - Ken Kazinski, 5 Nov 2022
Good question, Ken!
I'd have to get out my Module K SSD book, but IIRC, the two Mech Links on the boom tractors do NOT feature the vertical line to indicate they're repair capable. If my memory is good (?), then the separated boom would not be capable of doing anything more than rearm the gunboats.
Furthermore, the separated boom would also lose the Special Sensor support for the Gunboats, and the boom would not be able to support a full flotilla.
Given that the DW hulled mini-PFTs in Module R12 (again, I THINK that's where they are) are referred to as "Casual Tenders" that do NOT operate Leader or Scout gunboats, I suspect that the separated boom would lose the "True PFT" status and benefits.
Then again, that's just my opinion and I'm often wrong about things.
R3.22 D6P PF TENDER indicates:
Note that the repair boxes can only be used to repair fast patrol ships (K2.611). The fast patrol ships docked at the four rear mech-links can be repaired (K2.2); fast patrol ships docked to the two mech-links in boom cannot be repaired.
Since the D6P boom 1) no longer has special sensors, 2) can no longer repair PFs, and 3) can only carry 2 of the original 6 PFs, I would estimate the unit is now a casual PF tender and not a true one.
--Mike
Question on (K2.653) Casual PFTs carry two sets of reloads for each drone armed PF, plus the drones on the PF. Does this mean the storage number list is 3 times the number of drones on the standard PF or is it 2 times for the storage listing?
Question on the (R4.137) Skyhawk-R.
I thought it had been well established that the four tractors in a Skyhawk module are not actually *in* the module. So, therefore, when making a Skyhawk module, it was not possible to replace the four tractor beams that appear to be in it, but really are not in it. And, prior to the Skyhawk R-module, all of the Skyhawk modules had stuck with that guideline. (Granted, the E-modules moved the tractors, but the count of four was retained.) But all of that changed with the Skyhawk R-module.
The Skyhawk R-module contains only two tractors. This was changed in a rather fundamental way that prevents two being added back in. Based on the rest of the module, it would appear that the R-module should have just been a specialization of the H-module. But that isn't what was published.
In fact, because the R-module explicitly swaps out two tractors for two phasers (full Ph-1s, no less), it would appear that a new combat module consisting of four batteries, four shuttles, two tractors, and four Ph-1s should be possible after all.
So, is the Skyhawk R-module a mistake? Is it not really a module, but a full ship variant? Or is the idea that the four tractors are not part of the module a mis-remembered non-truth?
I am very confused.
Excellent question, Mike! Sure got my curiosity piqued. 
I can't give a "Real, Official" answer to it, but I can take a guess. The fifth paragraph of the ship description says, "This ship is a variant of the SkyHawk modulear destroyer (R4.N2) with an R-module which costs its its modularity."
Costs it its modularity...
Sounds to me like the conversion HAS to be a permanent one. That leads me to think that, quite possibly, some of the cargo holds may have been set up in some of the facilities aboard the main body of the ship that, on standard (still modular) SkyHawks is part of the extensive, elaborate tractor arrays.
Why the Romulans did such an extensive conversion is beyond me; I would have stuck with fewer cargo boxes and retained the tractors; they're just too useful when dealing with hostile (Federation) fighters and (especially) their drones.
Another possibility exists; the ship was quite rare and, as such, it MAY have been inaccurately analyzed. If so, then the Air Force tapes which provide the basis for The Game may have the bad Intel on them.
Again, these are both guesses (and as with all my guesses, they're probably wrong ), so take them with a grain of salt.
Despite that sentence, the rest of the description talks about the module being used on escorts that lost their carrier, but either directly says or implies that they are converted back to escorts when needed. So this isn't a permanent conversion.
It would have been so much easier to just use a modified H-module and call it a day. While those two phasers sure are handy, they aren't actually required. In a way, I guess I am saying the Skyhawk-R should really be a Skyhawk-H with a single reload rack installed. That way it can fulfill either role without issue. It would lose aegis doing this, but really, the ship doesn't have enough weapons, or the correct weapons, to make effective use of aegis, anyway.
And if it is possible to trade two tractors for two phasers, I am sure many Romulans players would gladly convert a portion of their Skyhawks (maybe even half) to use a hypothetical K-module even at the cost of the ships' modularity.
(A K-module would be just an A-module that swaps two of the four tractors for two more Ph-1s.)
Mike West: I would lean on the fact that the ship was a permanent conversion to use Aegis and the "H" and "E" modules in addition the later "EA" modules, and could not use the other SkyHawk Modules.
Some ISC escorts (CE, DE, etc.) have LS/RS plasma-D racks in place of the usual rear-firing plasma-F launchers. Are these considered refits akin to the F-launchers, or were they always present?
"Plasma-D racks" are generally available about Y165, the same date as Plasma-D torpedoes. ISC Escorts show up on the Master Ship Chart in Y170 (FFE), 171 (DE), and 172 (CE). In shor, the ships were built with them, they were not later refitted to have them.
Thanks!
I wasn't sure if this counted as a "Questions on Ships" or as an "SFB Rules Q&A" topic. But while those of you Giving Thanks on the U.S. side of the border no doubt have other things on your minds, I was hoping to use this post to try and build (or clear up) an understanding of how Tactical Intelligence levels interact with detection ranges for Masked, Veiled, Cloaked, and X-Cloaked ships.
-----
According to (D17.2211), a unit with "modern" sensor/scanner suites detects a fully Cloaked unit at Tactical Intelligence level A, which equals a true range of 47 hexes [(47 x 2) + 5 = 99].
Going by (YG13.31), a fully Masked unit is detected at a true range of 50 (as the Masking Device provides no range penalty), though a fully Veiled unit would remain at 47 hexes.
So far as I can tell, there is no direct adjustment caused by an X-Cloak, though I wonder if one could perhaps use the two points of "free" ECM provided to a fully-cloaked X-ship under (XG13.44) to attempt an ECM shift under (D17.26).
-----
On the other hand, there is the issue of detection.
It's noted in (YG13.0) that the Mask is made obsolete in Y120, while the Veil is obsolete by Y150. (In the standard timeline, at least; might these dates be adjusted over in the "Shadow of the Eagle" timelines of Module R4J?)
(YD17.0) states that Early Years ships receive Tactical Intelligence at two levels lower than normal. On the other hand, (XD17.0) notes that an X-ship counts as a scout for the purposes of gathering Tactical Intelligence, while an X-scout gathers intel at one level higher than a non-X scout.
And speaking of scouts: I'm not clear as to whether or not a scout using one of its special sensor channels to gather Tactical Intelligence under (G24.29) uses the "scout" column for the purposes of detecting fully Cloaked (and/or Masked or Veiled or X-Cloaked) units - or if the use of the cloak "blinds" the sensor to the effect of obliging the detecting unit to be treated as a (non-scout) ship.
-----
So, the actual questions!
Firstly: do ships under Early Years restrictions detect a fully Masked ship at a true range of 20 (with the Tactical Intelligence reduced down to C) instead of Range 50; or a fully Veiled/Cloaked/X-Cloaked ship at Range 17 [(17 x 2) + 5 = 39]?
Secondly: does an X-ship detect a fully Cloaked or X-Cloaked ship at a true range of 72 [(72 x 2) + 5 = 149]?
Thirdly: does a scout (of whichever era) using (G24.29) detect a fully Masked/Veiled/Cloaked/X-Cloaked ship based on the Scout column instead of the ship column?
If so, would the following detection range calculations be correct:
Early Years scout - detects a fully Masked ship at a true range of 30 (with the Tactical Intelligence reduced down to C); or a fully Veiled/Cloaked/X-Cloaked ship at Range 27 [(27 x 2) + 5 = 59];
"modern" scout - detects a fully Masked ship at a true range of 75; or a fully Veiled/Cloaked/X-Cloaked ship at 72 [(72 x 2) + 5 = 149];
or X-scout - detects a fully Cloaked or X-Cloaked ship at a true range of 147 [(147 x 2) + 5 = 299] (with the Tactical Intelligence level adjusted up to S5)?
And finally: can a fully Masked/Veiled/Cloaked/X-Cloaked ship use an ECM shift under (D17.26) to decrease the range at which it is detected - or for that matter, can a detecting unit use an ECCM shift to increase the detection range?
It would appear that the Federation Pol (R2.12) was revised sometime after Advanced Missions. My SSD for the Pol shows it to have a BPV of 40 (a plus refit of 8 and an AWR refit of 1), six crew, and two BP. However, G3 shows it to have a base BPV of 50 (but provides no refit entry), a crew of six and four BP.
So, the question I have is: What are the correct base BPV, refit BPVs, crew count, and BP count for the Federation Pol (R2.12)? Where can I find the latest, updated SSD? (Or was the SSD never updated?)
Thanks!
My 2014 edition Advanced Missions PDF has the POL at a pre-refit BPV of 50; a + refit cost at +8; an AWR refit at +1; with 10 crew units and 4 boarding parties.
Are there any historical guidelines on percentages of fusion vs hellbore ships constructed by the Hydrans?
Ginger, take a look at the F&E build schedule. It seems to be about 50-50. As to what "actually" gets built, that will depend on player preferences and the economic points available to the Hydrans.
Are there any rules for long range travel via displacement device? Either in SFB or F&E. I know the Andromedans have a rapid transport network but don't have R10 and have no clue how it works.
Where is the Romulan VUL? The master starship chart says R7 but the only early dreadnaught SSD I see there is the KVL.
I don't know about any hard and fast rules, but as I recall, there is a mention in one of the stories, I think it was "Battle for Rimworld" that talks about an Andromedan mothership speeding out of a system at Warp 15; that's nearly as fast as my aunt regularly drove!
(In all seriousness, she was clocked at 61 in a 5 MPH zone once; more than twelve times the speed limit)
Okay, okay. Going back to the question at hand...
If we go with the "Warp number cubed is the multiple of the speed of light" rule from the original source material (I have a copy somewhere of the original Trek Technical Manual), the Warp 15 speed would be eight times a galactic standard Warp 7.5. This would suggest that the Andromedans ought to regularly be able to move along the RTN one heckuvalot faster than GP ships should be able to operate.
My 0.02 Quatloos worth.
Perhaps some F&E players might have a real answer? I got the basic F&E set, but it's completely over my head.
The SSD for the Vulture in R7 says "KVL" in the SHIP DATA TABLE and the headline at the top of the SSD itself says "ROMULAN KING VULTURE EARLY DREADNOUGHT," but the heading at the top of the page says, "R4.94 ROMULAN VULTURE EARLY DREADNOUGHT."
From this I would guess that the term "Vulture" and "King Vulture" may be largely interchangeable. Perhaps the only real difference is the LP/RP Plasma-F torpedoes and RA+L/R Phaser-3s may be deleted in a version that's just called "Vulture?"
Anyway, that's my thoughts on it; I could be wrong.
Ginger, from the MSSB-R4:
VUL: the original Vulture; see (YR4.2D) and the SSD in Module Y1. To convert the SSD of the King Vulture in Module R7 to this design: Delete all warp engine boxes, delete the plasma-F torpedoes, delete the phaser-3s, delete one tractor beam, delete the transporter, replace all phaser-1s with warp targeted lasers (YE21.0), and add seven impulse engine boxes. Cloak cost = six.
• VUL+: the Vulture Plus; this is described in (YR4.2E). To convert the SSD of the King Vulture in Module R7 to this design: Delete all warp engine boxes, delete the plasma-F torpedoes, delete the phaser-3s, and add seven impulse engine boxes. Cloak cost = six.
• WVL: the War Vulture (modify the SSD in Module R7 by deleting six left warp engine boxes, six right warp engine boxes, the phaser-3s, and the plasma-F torpedoes; in service Y164; cloak cost = 10).
• KVL: the King Vulture (with 42 warp, nine impulse, and two APRs; the two plasma-F torpedoes, and the two phaser-3s; in service Y170; this is the SSD in Module R7).
Going thru the master Romulan starship book.
There is the sub light Vulture. Y140 VUL+ Y160
upgraded to a warp powered Vulture. Vulture early Dreadnought. Or called Warp Vulture (VUL) It has less warp no plasF and few other systems Y164
Then was Upgraded to the King Vulture DN. 42 warp 9 imp and 2 APRs 2plasF and ph3s Y170
Hope that helps
Thanks! "Delete all warp engine boxes" makes it less than useful.
How many spare shuttles does the (R4.A43) Turkey Cargo Transport have?
As this unit has no seeking weapons should it not have the "This ship can control a number of seeking weapons equal to half its sensor rating (F3.211)." note and not the "Seeking weapons: This ship can control a number of seeking weapons" note.
The cloaking cost is missing from the SSD. Should it be the same as the vulture, 20/6?
In annex 3, Would these units be listed under "Romulan Vulture Dreadnought And Variants" or would they be their own class group?
For Annex 10, would this unit be listed under the "VUL" class or is it its own entry?
The landing paragraph is missing from the unit description: "Landing: This ship can land on planets by the aerodynamic (P2.433) or powered (P2.434) landing systems and has the crash landing bonus (P2.4311)."
Per (D3.32) the full shield cost of operation should be 3 and not 1. (1+3).
Per (B3.3) life support cost should be 1.5 and is 2.
The Turkey-Vulture Mauler designation, TVM, is in use for the Romulan KRT with Two P-V pods (See MSSB-R4).
Where are the SSDs for mobile logistics base pods (R1.24)?