Ginger,

(R1.24A) construction: the mobile bases 4 other Pods are 2x cargo and up to 2 can be other type of Pods (normally 1x self-defense 1x repair), the empires standard type tug Pods are the SSDs (and R1.24B).

By Ginger McMurray (Gingermcmurray) on Monday, December 05, 2022 - 08:01 am: Edit

I'm trying to figure out what a mobile base looks like for Romulans since they only have cargo pods. I have the SSD books but not the rules section for R1. Do I need to get it to find what to cut and paste onto my mobile base SSDs?

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Monday, December 05, 2022 - 08:08 am: Edit

The Romulans can always use civilian freighter pods. So, there is nothing wrong with giving them 3xcivilian cargo pods and 1xcivilian repair pod. Or even two of each.

By Ginger McMurray (Gingermcmurray) on Monday, December 05, 2022 - 08:17 am: Edit

Thanks! Where are SSDs for those?

By Eric Stuyvesant (Metallurge) on Monday, December 05, 2022 - 03:43 pm: Edit

Module R1 Page 6 is the small repair freighter. Presumably the center section is the civilian repair pod.

Module R1 Page 11 has the civilian cargo pod.

Are civilian self-defense pods the center section of that race's small Q-ship? Dunno, but sounds about right.

By wayne douglas power (Wayne) on Monday, December 05, 2022 - 04:08 pm: Edit

(R1.24B) Romulans cannot use the 16-box Freight Eagle pallet, but can use the 18-box SkyHawk pod or Klingon cargo pods.
Standard Klingon pods (of approved types) and Lyran K-pods will fit in a Romulan MB (and would be covered by its cloak), but can-not fire drones or use ESGs due to control software.

The MB can also be equipped with two base augmentation modules of any type. These are treated as "position A" on a star base (R1.1B).
A MB with two cargo pods will function as a supply point. To function as a repair point, it must have at least one repair pod or two repair modules as part of the structure.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Monday, December 05, 2022 - 08:32 pm: Edit

Romulans can use Klingon cargo pods, but they shouldn't. Heck, even the Klingons shouldn't be using Klingon cargo pods on their own mobile base. They Klingons, Kzinti, and anyone else with a 24 box cargo pod should always use 25 box civilian cargo pods on their mobile bases. On the other hand, Feds should always use their 32 box cargo pods on their mobile bases.

On the other hand, the KRT (and Klingon tugs) should never use civilian cargo pods because that extra cargo box makes them overweight, increasing their movement costs. (I have always though there should be an exception for this, but BTB the pods are overweight.)

And, no, the pod of a Q-ship does not count as a self-defense pod. I don't think there is a civilian self-defense pod.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Monday, December 05, 2022 - 10:29 pm: Edit

Mobile bases are in module R1, pages 2 to 4 and the Peladine is in module E4, pg 57.

Wayne, I don't have a reference that the Lyran K-Pods can be used by the Romulans, just the units int eh Romulan KRT Tug (Klingon T6) And Cargo Pods and Romulan Campaign Conjectural Tugs And Pods categories.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, December 06, 2022 - 12:19 am: Edit

Steve Petrick send these answers regarding the TURKEY:

> How many spare shuttles does the (R4.A43) Turkey Cargo Transport have?

A Vulture (base hull) had 1 (one). Note that the Freight Eagle had 0
(none) even though the war eagle Base Hull) had 1 (one). I asked him to rule and SVC said the Turkey has ONE.

> 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.

I fell into the habit of not marking
ships with no seeking weapons as able to control seeking weapons equal
to half their sensor rating.
ADD THE NOTE: This ship can control equal to
one half its sensor rating.
(SVC confesses that this was his error. Over the years, so many many many things have crept onto the SSD that I just missed one or two.)

> The cloaking cost is missing from the SSD. Should it be the same as the vulture, 20/6?
SVC confesses he just forgot. See "SSD Creep" above.
SPP rules: Following the standard set by the war eagle to freight eagle,
yes, the cloak cost should be the same.

> In annex 3, Would these units be listed under "Romulan Vulture
> Dreadnought And Variants" or would they be their own class group?
They are Romulan Vulture Variants. (SVC Notes that the ship starts with a Vulture hull but is "weird" in its changes, such as the cargo deck, and the argument could go either way.)

> For Annex 10, would this unit be listed under the "VUL" class or is it its own entry?

SPP Rules: Vulture Class with Galaxy Sigl to indicate you can easily recognize the ship
as different from a Vulture. (SVC thinks this is a good way to handle it for SFB.)

> 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)."

SVC indicated verbally that this was so, Landing pads and ground
preparation may make this hard but he's an engineer and he said the Turkey could land and vehicles could drive out on the surface from ramps. He drew out on a napkin just how the vulture landing pads were totally reengineered for this thing. Sadly, the napkin was lost in the great mustard incident of 27 November 2022.

> Per (D3.32) the full shield cost of operation should be 3 and not 1 (1+3).

Size class 2 hull, so yes. Perhaps a leftover from when SVC converted the SSD from FC to SFB. In any case, he blew it and I simply failed to catch it while I was cleaning up mustard.

> Per (B3.3) life support cost should be 1.5 and is 2.

Size class 2 hull, so yes. SVC got it wrong and I did not catch it. (SVC confesses this is so.)

By wayne douglas power (Wayne) on Tuesday, December 06, 2022 - 02:35 am: Edit

Ken,

reference in (2nd paragraph, 5th line)
Module R1 (1992 edition) page 3 (R1.24B) PODS:

Standard Klingon pods (of approved types) and Lyran K-pods will fit in a Romulan MB (and would be covered by its cloak), but can-not fire drones or use ESGs due to control software.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Tuesday, December 06, 2022 - 11:09 pm: Edit

Thanks Steve & Wayne.

By Ginger McMurray (Gingermcmurray) on Thursday, December 08, 2022 - 10:05 am: Edit

What is the ISC CAT in R9? Is it a torpedo CA? If so, what torp does it have in place of the PPD?

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, December 08, 2022 - 10:22 am: Edit

An 'S'.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Thursday, December 08, 2022 - 03:38 pm: Edit

IIRC, part of the blurb on the CAT was that, while it was in service, the ISC developed their echelon tactics. That suggests to me that there may be an earlier, unrefitted version of that ship with type 'G' Plasma Torpedoes, no side mounted Phaser-3s and the rear firing Plasma-F torpedoes also were not yet installed.

Again, I don't know if that's really part of the ships history, it's just something I think MIGHT have been the case.

By Ginger McMurray (Gingermcmurray) on Thursday, December 08, 2022 - 03:56 pm: Edit

The MSC shows a YIS of Y168 while the SSD shows Y175. For other ISC ships it means they get the S-refit in Y170 and the F-refit becomes universal in Y175. I just ordered R9 so I'll know for sure in a few days. LOL

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Friday, December 09, 2022 - 12:14 am: Edit

The design lineage of the ISC CA was further detailed in the 2016 revision to Module C2.

The "earliest" version of the Star Cruiser had no heavy weapon mounted on the centre "prong". When the PPD was first deployed in Y168, most CAs had this weapon installed in that location; the remainder instead had a third plasma-G torpedo installed in the same slot, to become the CAT.

On a side note: while the "standard" timeline gives the pre-Y168 "CA-" a relatively truncated service life, it would have a more extended "Middle Years" deployment over in one of the "Mapsheet P" timelines from Module C6. Although, with its slightly higher power curve when compared to an unrefitted Gorn CA, it might make for a somewhat tougher opponent to an unrefitted "lost empire" Paravian CA, or a contemporary "Shadow of the Eagle" Romulan cruiser, by comparison.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Saturday, December 10, 2022 - 04:07 pm: Edit

In module C4, Annex 7T, do the Qari also lose the systems below the left and right warp engines? For the T10 & T90 it would be 2 tractor beams.

Looking at the other SSD's would everything that would be over the "tracks" be lost when the engines are dropped?

By Ginger McMurray (Gingermcmurray) on Tuesday, December 13, 2022 - 10:49 am: Edit

Can someone tell me what year the ISC CAT in R9 gets the F-torp refit? My R9 was supposed to arrive yesterday but has been delayed and I'm impatient. LOL

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Tuesday, December 13, 2022 - 11:03 am: Edit

My copy in R9 says nothing, so I'd assume it's part of the Y179 refit. However, I reserve the right to be wrong (as I so often am )

By Ginger McMurray (Gingermcmurray) on Tuesday, December 13, 2022 - 02:15 pm: Edit

The SSDs for the ISC never mention it. Does it happen to be part of the R entry?

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Tuesday, December 13, 2022 - 02:53 pm: Edit

Ginger - it is, (R13.R2). It (and pretty much all the other refits) is not shown on the SSDs since the vast majority of action ISC forces saw was after the General War when the refit had been rolled out. It started being slowly deployed in Y171 but was stepped up to fleetwide in Y178-179.

To use a ship pre-refit, just delete all the rear launchers and reduce BPV by 2 per.

By Ginger McMurray (Gingermcmurray) on Tuesday, December 13, 2022 - 03:06 pm: Edit

Thanks!

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Sunday, December 18, 2022 - 08:28 pm: Edit

Where is the errata for Module C4?

I didn't find it in the Master List under Errata. There is a file for C5, but not for C4. I also don't see anything in the AAR section, presumably because it is too old.

Specifically, I am looking for the errata on the Qari CA. I know the shuttle track is supposed to show two shuttle bays and that the flag box should be deleted. The question I have is if the drone rack is also deleted, left alone, or deleted and then added back in a refit.

Thanks!

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) on Friday, December 23, 2022 - 04:32 pm: Edit

Paravian Ground based defense stations. It says use a GBDD replacing disrupters with QWTs. That is 8 APR. There is no way to overload the QWTs. As you need warp power to overload them.

The Federation GBPT has 8 AWR. It takes warp to arm photons.

Is there something some were to perhaps give the QWTs ground base some AWR?

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Friday, December 23, 2022 - 05:37 pm: Edit

There is a GBQWT listed in module C6, pg 68 but this unit has 8 APR also.

I am looking in the Captain's Master Rulebook, rule (YFQ1.0). (YFQ1.54) states QWT's in early years cannot be overloaded but does not give any information on overloading post early years.

(FQ1.541) CL28 (pg 29) states that warp power is required. (FQ1.411) module C6 (pg 18) states that warp power is required.

You could create a power grid (R1.28P, module R1, pg 4) and use either a Base Warp Power Module (R1.17, advanced missions, pg 9, R1, pg 11) or Heavy Warp Augmentation Module (R1.17A, R8, pg 3) to provide the warp power.