This product was done quite a few years ago. (Amazon thinks it was done under TFG but it has ADB logos and I don't remember.) It is going to get updated sometime in the near term and if anyone has anything to report on it, please tell us now. I couldn't find an R6 topic anywhere but if I missed it let me know we don't need this one.

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Friday, March 03, 2023 - 08:57 pm: Edit

The copy I have is a 2000 copyright (published by ADB), an update to the 1995 version (published by TFG).

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, March 03, 2023 - 08:57 pm: Edit

Annex 7G - Module R6 - Romulan - SBH - the number of deck crews should be 2-12 and not 2-1. - Ken Kazinski, 20 Oct 2022.

Annex 7G - Module R6 - Gorn HBD - Per R6 SSD, pg 38, this unit has 2 shuttle bays. - Ken Kazinski, 20 Oct 2022.
Annex 7G - Module R6 - Gorn HRV - Per R6 SSD, pg 40, the unit type should be HSV, but there is already another unit with HSV. By convention "V" is normally added to the Survey unit (HSR). Should not this unit be HSRV. - Ken Kazinski, 20 Oct 2022.

Annex 7G - Module R6 - Hydran INS - As the SSD (R6, pg 50) states fighters sometimes carried, should not the fighters and deck crews be 0-2? - Ken Kazinski, 20 Oct 2022.
Annex 7G - Module R6 - Hydran INS - The Admin column should be 7+1H and not 6. - Ken Kazinski, 20 Oct 2022.
Annex 7G - Module R6 - Hydran DDS - Per the SSD, R6, pg 51, this unit has 3 shuttle bays. - Ken Kazinski, 20 Oct 2022.
Annex 7G - Module R6 - Hydran DWA - The entry for the DWA is missing, it would be the same as the DWE. - Ken Kazinski, 20 Oct 2022.

Annex 7G - Module R6 - Lyran - JGP - Per the SSD, Module R6, pg 60, the unit type should be JPG. - Ken Kazinski, 20 Oct 2022.

Annex 7G - Module R6 - Wyn PBC - The PBC, Pocket Battlecruiser, is missing from the Annex but the SSD shows the 2 fighters and 4 shuttle boxes. Are the fighter reload boxes ready racks? - Ken Kazinski, 20 Oct 2022.
Annex 7G - Module R6 - Wyn ZDW - The ZDW, War Destroyer (Captured Kzinti Ship), is missing from the Annex but the SSD shows the 2 fighters and 4 shuttle boxes. Are the fighter reload boxes ready racks? - Ken Kazinski, 20 Oct 2022.
Annex 7G - Module R6 - Wyn - PBC - The PBC, Pocket Battlecruiser, is missing from the Annex but the SSD shows the 2 fighters and 4 shuttle boxes. Annex 7G entry (0-2, 2-4, 2, J4.621, 0-2). - Ken Kazinski, 20 Oct 2022.
Annex 7G - Module R6 - Wyn - ZDW - The ZDW, War Destroyer (Captured Kzinti Ship), is missing from the Annex but the SSD shows the 2 fighters and 6 shuttle boxes. Annex 7G entry (0-2, 4-6, 2, J4.621, 2). - Ken Kazinski, 20 Oct 2022.

Annex 7G - Module R6 - ISC HDD - There is only 1 shuttle bay on the SSD. - Ken Kazinski, 20 Oct 2022.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, March 03, 2023 - 08:58 pm: Edit

(R6.60A) Module R06 Gorn HSRV SSD - Module R6 Per R6 SSD, pg 40, the unit type should be HSV, but there is already another unit with HSV. By convention "V" is normally added to the Survey unit (HSR). Should not the SSD be updated to HSRV? - Ken Kazinski, 21 Oct 2022.
(R6.60A) Module MSSB-R6 Gorn HRV - Per R6 SSD, pg 40, the unit type should be HSV, but there is already another unit with HSV. By convention "V" is normally added to the Survey unit (HSR). Should not this unit be HSRV? - Ken Kazinski, 21 Oct 2022.

(R12.38) Module R06 WYN PBC SSD - The deck crew boxes are missing from the R6 SSD, page 75. - Ken Kazinski, 21 Oct 2022.
(R12.39) Module R06 WYN ZDW SSD - The deck crew boxes are missing from the R6 SSD, page 76. - Ken Kazinski, 21 Oct 2022.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, March 03, 2023 - 08:58 pm: Edit

Annex 05A - Module R6 - This should be listed as Annex #5B Abbreviations ofr Ship and Unit Classes & Designations - Ken Kazinski, 02 Jul 2022.
Annex 05A - Module R6 - RG - "Firehawk" in "Romulan RegalHawk, plasma-R armed Firehawk" should be "FireHawk" - Ken Kazinski, 02 Jul 2022.
Annex 05A - Module R6 - SEL - "Seahawk" in "Romulan Seahawk leader, a frigate leader" should be "SeaHawk" - Ken Kazinski, 02 Jul 2022.
Annex 05C - Module R6 - FFH - Should not "Farhawk" should be "FarHawk"? - Ken Kazinski, 02 Jul 2022.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, March 03, 2023 - 10:12 pm: Edit

I would suggest that anyone buying a copy from a online store remember two things....

1. The store won't know the difference between the 1995 and 2000 editions. They won't even know that there is one.

2. You cannot assume it's the 2000 edition because of the photo on the store's web page as they probably just stole a photo from our shopping cart (which says not to copy or use the photos).

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Saturday, March 04, 2023 - 07:23 am: Edit

(R2.85) Federation HDW: A few years ago, SPP kindly advised me elsewhere on the BBS that it is possible to combine (J10.111) and (G33.111) in order to deploy a "short squadron" of 4 F-111s from a heavy war destroyer with a pair of special sensors installed in its weapon option mounts. Historically, the primary purpose of such a configuration would be to pursue Andromedan Rapid Transit Network nodes, akin to how other Alpha Octant empires might use the fast patrol ship tender configurations (G33.46) of their respective HDWs (and HWXs from SFB Module X1R). This configuration has since been formalized in Federation and Empire terms as the "HDWZ" (525.23Z). So, would it be possible to revise the R-section data for this unit in order to more formally account for the "-Z" configuration in SFB terms? - Gary Carney, 04 March 2023

(G33.42) CARRIER: In keeping with the errata note for the Federation HDW (R2.85) listed above, would it be possible to add a note here formally listing the "-Z" configuration as an option for this unit - and, for that matter, for the Federation advanced technology heavy war destroyer (R2.213), as published in Module X1R? Not least in terms of permitting this configuration to operate without escorts, so that it can carry out search operations against Andromedan RTN nodes in the same manner as other empires' "-P" configuration HDWs and HWXs. - Gary Carney, 04 March 2023

By John M. Williams (Jay) on Monday, March 06, 2023 - 03:11 pm: Edit

The SSD for the Hydran Fast Supply Frigate R9.69 (FCR) has a strength 11 rear shield, whereas shields #3 and #5 are only strength 10. Is this difference intentional?

However, it is consistent with the other Hydran frigates as the Hunter, Cuirassier, and Hunter Escort all have 10-11-10 for shields 3-4-5. So even if an error it may not be worth correcting on a single ship.

The anomaly dates back to the prior design for the SSD when the frigate shield #4 was a zig-zag, not a straight line.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Wednesday, March 08, 2023 - 03:51 pm: Edit

R6 has long been a favorite module of mine.

When it's revised/cleaned up, I'm DEFINITELY getting a new copy.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, March 13, 2023 - 11:09 pm: Edit

UPDATE: There are 61 printed pages of reports on R6, things to fix. Petrick is on page 34, which is good, but that's just the first pass to do rulebook reports; he hasn't started doing SSD book reports yet (which will require him to go through the 61 pages a second time).

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, March 13, 2023 - 11:09 pm: Edit

GARY CARNEY, see if you can help with the next message. (Anyone else who wants to try, go ahead.)

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, March 13, 2023 - 11:13 pm: Edit

Steve Petrick needs to find the answer to these questions:

1. In the DARK TIMELINE, what year did the Federation began mass production of Thunderbolt PFs to fight the Andros?

2. Can anyone find any references anywhere in the MAIN **SFB** TIMELINE (the real timeline) to the Feds building some limited number of PFs for testing purposes and what happened to them? (There are vague references to this in Fed Commander.) I for one presume a dozen or two were built and after the Federation decided to go with F111s the remaining Thunderbolts were either scrapped, kept for testing in case something awful happened, expended as targets, converted to "simulated" foreign weapons for combat testing, or were sent to some remote colony world to be the defense force and rarely (maybe never) actually got into combat.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Tuesday, March 14, 2023 - 10:38 am: Edit

At this time of typing, there are two alternate timelines in print where the "Fed" faction built Thunderbolt PFs.

As noted in the "dark future" timeline from SFB Module C3A, the Federation began fielding PFs in alt-Y198. (The way the Return of the Darwin dramatization in Captain's Log #54 tells it, the first prototype was built on Mars.)

Also, according to the "Reflection Universe" data in SFB Module R4J, the Federal Imperium in the "ALT3" timeline did not pursue the "Third Way" during the General War; they instead fielded PFs as soon as the technology was available.

As for the "standard" timeline, my reading of things was that the Federation Commander version of events was being more generous than (R2.PF) was in the Federation Master Starship Book, in which the Feds are noted as having not built any prototypes during the General War. This would be akin to how FC permits a broader range of Alpha Octant battleships to exist than the "real" history in SFB accounts for.

That said, if a pending "revision of the data tapes" is in order, I propose sending any General War-era INT or PF prototypes to the Survey Area; for use either as cargo or survey variants (to support the ships of the Second Fleet in their "off-map" survey duties), or perhaps as "civilian" workboats (in order to help support the large number of new colonies being planted by the Feds in this region at that point in time).

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Tuesday, March 14, 2023 - 12:04 pm: Edit

Respectfully, Gary, various skiff models were still available in large numbers, probably still in production, and do the job adequately well.

Since the Federation opted to not start up production lines for combat gunboats and they were dealing with a wartime economy, I don't think they'd be willing to put forth the money to start up production lines for the gunboat variants (cargo, survey, and civilian workboats).

My 0.02 Quatloos worth, and of course, I could be completely off base.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Tuesday, March 14, 2023 - 01:09 pm: Edit

Jeff, I don't think Gary is saying they were put into series production for those purposes, but *if* any prototypes were made, then when Star Fleet choose to go the Third Way those individual craft were assigned to support the 2nd Fleet. Essentially just being larger fancier skiffs, until they were lost or retired.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, March 14, 2023 - 03:12 pm: Edit

I would think that Star Fleet would have to build a few for testing, and having them, needs to keep them operating (somewhere, for some use) just to build up a track record. If you don't run gunboats for a while you don't learn that the framistan splines start to degrade from heat-cycle metal fatigue after three years. If some future crisis means "we need to build gunboats -- now!" you'd be walking blind into the "framistan crisis" which everyone else in the galaxy knows about (and stocked spare parts for) but you do not.

Therefore I envision that the Feds built "a few" and tested them (the free market would demand that the contractors be allowed to try it, who knows, they might work) then send whatever was left to some planet somewhere as part of their self-defense force. In a lunchtime discussion with Steve Petrick just today I proposed that they be sent to Cygnus, which has a high-tech industrial base to support and study and continually product-improve them "just in case we need to build a lot of them at some future point." Cygnus would probably be willing to host the "test flotilla" since if "the day we need gunboats" dawns they'll be in line ahead of Mars for the production contract. Also, the Cygnus Self Defense Force is big enough that if they gunboats just fail in combat there are other defenses available to ward off anything but a major fleet attack.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Tuesday, March 14, 2023 - 03:49 pm: Edit

Misjudgement on my part; I had assumed that the hard stance against gunboats would go so far as to even block prototypes from being built.

Now, I'm thinking of a pair of prototype fighters I've read about during WWII, both of which were cancelled even before the first prototype units were built. I think one, a tailless Northrop pusher type, was designated XP-56, and the other, I don't know who made it, was designated XP-77, and was meant as a minimum cost emergency defense interceptor.


From these, may I place a guess that some contractor, SOMEwhere, may have built a frame, put some Gorn Pterodactyl warp engines on it*, and put it through flight testing?

If so, then might I also guess that the unit may have been tested somewhere around Y181 to Y183 at the latest?

(* Mad thought on where that contractor might have gotten some Gorn Pterodactyl engines: was there a Gorn PFT in support of the offensive drive into Klingon space**, and if so, what happened to it?)

(** I don't have the scenario in front of me, but as I recall, there was at least one major battle where a Gorn admiral was in charge of the operation, but refused to give anything more than the most vague orders, and the fleet was most disorganized, compared with the well organized Klingon/Lyran opponents.)

By Douglas Saldana (Dsal) on Tuesday, March 14, 2023 - 05:07 pm: Edit

There were statements in past products emphasizing that not only were no prototypes made, but "no such ships were even designed" (Designer's Notes to Module K1). Perhaps, to reconcile this new background with the old, the Cygnans didn't merely inherit the gunboats, the Cygnans designed and built them from the start. Perhaps there was some sort of legislative ban on Star Fleet designing gunboats and having the Cygnan Self Defense Forces design and build them was a legal way of evading that ban (though combat models still couldn't be deployed outside Cygnus).

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Tuesday, March 14, 2023 - 11:08 pm: Edit

For comparison's sake, the first "volatile warp" Interceptors in the Omega Octant were developed by the Federal Republic of Aurora. But by the time they were ready for deployment, however, the FRA Senate rejected their use, instead selling the technology to the Mæsron Alliance. Thus, it would be the Mæsrons who were the first to evolve the technology into full-fledged "volatile warp" fast patrol ships. While the Mæsrons would pass samples of "volatile warp" engines to other Omega empires, enabling them to field PFs of their own, the Aurorans never "re-imported" this technology. Which makes the FRA PF design in Module Omega #5 a conjectural attrition unit type.

Perhaps a semi-equivalent split took place in the Federation. Say, if the Martians were the ones to develop the Mustang Interceptor. Once the Federation Council rejected their use, the Martian government sold the prototype INTs to the Cygnans - who took the next step and fielded the first prototype Thunderbolts. Once the Council rejected their use, the "test flotilla" would be kept at Cygnus "for a rainy day". (Unless the option remained open to sending them out to the Survey Area...)

Thus, the scene set on Mars in the CL54 story fiction can be said to refer to the first time a prototype PF was built by the Martians themselves - as part of a broader push to bring the Thunderbolt into mass production over in the "dark future" timeline.

-----

On a semi-related note: would the Orion National Guard be permitted to operate "military" Buccaneer PFs?

The Enclave is already noted as selling "civilian" Buccaneer-Ws to the rest of the Federation. But in the eyes of the Federation Council, there might well be a line - however thin, given the Enclave's, shall we say, "bespoke" member status - between this and going so far as to deploy "pirate" PFs in the Orion National Guard.

By Douglas Saldana (Dsal) on Wednesday, March 15, 2023 - 09:00 pm: Edit

The YIS for Orion Interceptors is Y179 which is prior to the end of Orion neutrality. Buccaneers were introduced Y180, the same year the Orions rejoined the Federation, but I'm not sure which came first. So, even if the Enclave (as a Federation member) wasn't "permitted" to have gunboats, they may have been able to deploy them to some degree while they were still independent.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Thursday, March 16, 2023 - 11:04 am: Edit

Or perhaps the Orion Enclave could be said to operate the equivalent of "WYN-Orion" Brigands and Buccaneers - as in, ones without the ability to double their engines, and so forth?

While the WYNs would eventually focus on fielding the Freedom Fighter PF design, it is noted in (R12.PF0) that they received "substantial quantities" of Orion Interceptors and PFs - which presumably follow the standard "WYN-Orion" restrictions as for "full-sized" Orion-type hulls in the WYN Navy. So, there'd be a precedent of sorts for the Orion Enclave to use a similarly "de-pirate-ed" version of each gunboat type, political considerations notwithstanding.

Although, another option might be for the Dragon Cartel to gain access to the blueprints for the WYN PF itself, and to "export" a photon-armed variant of it for service in the Orion National Guard...

By Douglas Saldana (Dsal) on Thursday, March 16, 2023 - 01:36 pm: Edit

Yes, I was assuming that Enclave PFs would not have engine doubling, option mounts, etc.

It's also possible that the Enclave PFs were, in fact, the original design from which the Pirate PFs were derived (instead of the other way around). I think its notable that there is a single YIS for Orion gunboats instead of each Cartel adopting them sequentially moving from West to East as happened with the major empires. The YIS corresponds more or less with the Enclave's geographical position on the map as you look at the history of PF deployment.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Thursday, March 16, 2023 - 03:37 pm: Edit

I doubt the Orion gunboat discussion is germane to SVC's question on Fed PFs. I have so much I could comment on both a "de-piratized" Buccaneer and on more variant Freedom Fighters. However, this is not the correct spot for that. However, I will state one thing here: if you let the Orion Cluster use either "de-piratized" Buccaneers or some form of Freedom Fighters, you have just introduced widespread Federation PFs.

I am here for that.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Friday, March 17, 2023 - 01:08 am: Edit

For Orion PFs per (G15.22) Orion PFs (and interceptors, which use the PF rules) can double their warp engines and booster packs.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Friday, March 17, 2023 - 09:43 am: Edit

Yes, but (R12.14) says that Orion warships purchased by the WYN do not include the suicide bomb and cannot double their engines. (They do retain their stealth bonus.) This would include any PFs purchased by the Orions. This is the basis for the "de-piratized" Buccaneers mentioned above. (Though, presumably, if they are running around in Federation space legitimately, they would also lose the stealth bonus, just as the WB does.)