This is going to need a major update. Tell me what needs fixed. Please. Steve Petrick was working on it but I'm not sure how far he got.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Thursday, July 03, 2025 - 02:08 am: Edit

The big thing is that the history of gunboats has noticeably evolved over time and that needs to be addressed, including expansions around interceptors. Obviously stuff published elsewhere needs to stay elsewhere, but this product needs to reflect that they are there.

Also, the Federation use of heavy fighters and the F-111 has evolved heavily over time and that badly needs updating. This likely requires a near total rewrite. And, the consequences of the Federation choosing to use gunboats needs to be explicitly stated and codified.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, March 18, 2026 - 02:26 pm: Edit

ATTENTION: If anyone has an issue to be resolved regarding PFs or the tenders, NOW is the time to raise the issue.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, March 18, 2026 - 02:48 pm: Edit

I personally think that the Lyran PF’s and their associated tenders should be painted electric Green Mint with flower Yellow accent color.

It makes them A much better target.

Cat with Three Fangs.
(Kzinti AAS squadron Leader.)

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, March 18, 2026 - 03:00 pm: Edit

SPP:

Requesting a clarification; when you say "... an issue to be resolved regarding PFs or the tenders", I presume you are looking for anything we think might be an error or contradiction in the existing rules or SSDs. You are not looking for proposals for new units. Is that correct?

THAT IS CORRECT. K-REVISION IS NOT THE PLACE FOR NEW PROPOSALS.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, March 18, 2026 - 04:13 pm: Edit

Proposals is what this topic is generally for, but if you have a n error or contradiction or other issue with the existing rules or ships, now is the time to speak. It may not be fixed in a way you would like (to include not doing anything at all), but for example the rules on a PFs survival pod have been adjusted to note that it is just too bad for the added Marines in a ground assault PF, also note that cargo is definitely lost except for a few small items that might be carried by the crew. Exceptions are made for a few "Individuals" (an admiral and his staff, or a diplomat and his staff) that are not likely to be carried in the barracks of a PF.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Wednesday, March 18, 2026 - 04:28 pm: Edit

SPP, a question about Hydran gunboats.

I know they never mixed flotillas.

What about a ship operating casual Gunboats? Could one operate a mix?

Hypothetical: a Tartar has a pair of Mech-links on its tractors. Goes to the depot which, scraping the bottom of the barrel, has only one Harrier and one Hellion that aren't attached to flotillas headed for the Front. Could the Tartar attach the mixed pair?

By Eddie E Crutchfield (Librarian101) on Wednesday, March 18, 2026 - 07:57 pm: Edit

Steve is it possible to post the text of the R1.R1 text on mech links, I dont seem to have it anymore.

By Douglas Saldana (Dsal) on Wednesday, March 18, 2026 - 08:58 pm: Edit

I've brought this up before so perhaps it has already been addressed but has the (K5.2) Weapon Specification Chart been updated to show how damage is allocated to the various skiffs:

Seeker
Security
Stryker Landing Boat
Smasher Large Skiff
Modular Courier

I don't think any of these ships have more than two weapons types (PH-2 and drone/plasma/PH-1/PH-2) but most have a trans, trac or shuttle as well so perhaps they would use the (K4.4) PFL damage procedure?


SVC NOTES THAT THIS DOES NEED TO BE ATTENDED TO.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Thursday, March 19, 2026 - 12:19 am: Edit

Another stupid thought about gunboats...

"Consorts" for their tenders.

We have the scenario, "After Yank's Hole," where we saw the two Hydran tenders have to fight for their lives while waiting for their (exhausted) Gunboats to return.

We also have a couple tenders that are incredibly vulnerable (the Gorn DD based PFT).

Wouldn't Fleet wish to assign a "Bodyguard" (for lack of a better word) to those ships?

Also, with Hydrans "Standard" having a Valkyrie Fi-Con with each flotilla, where do the fighters for it come from?

(For the Pegasus, I've routinely played with a Horseman as a "Bodyguard." Four of her six Stinger-2 are on the Valkyrie, the other two remain for local defense, and if anyone DOES come by, the Horseman self-cripples with suicide overloaded Fusion Beams in a zero hex overrun...)

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, March 19, 2026 - 06:06 am: Edit

A fleet might assign a bodyguard ship, but that takes a warship out of combat and parks it in the support echelon where it won't fight unless they enemy shows up, which is not common. I am not going to require that this be done to create a player-designed scenario and certainly not going to give you a free escort for each PFT. There is already a rule allowing this to be done, but I'm not going to require it be done.

Fighters for random valkeries come from the supply chain just like the fighters for the ships in the fleet.

By A David Merritt (Adm) on Thursday, March 19, 2026 - 09:03 am: Edit

Jeff Anderson (Jga)

Check out;

(S8.317) One or two carrier escorts (no more than one size class 3) could be assigned to protect tugs, FRDs, repair ships, PFTs, or convoys.

It is buried under Carriers, however; it does cover your question.

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Thursday, March 19, 2026 - 11:07 am: Edit

From F&E 2010:

---

Quote:

(515.43) NON-CARRIER GROUPS: Certain non-carriers may replace carriers, with the resulting “group” treated as per (308.1). These include: Tugs [only those carrying EPs (mission H) or acting as supply points (mission D)], convoys, and PF tenders.

(515.431) These “groups” can have a maximum of two escorts and are under the conditions of (515.42).

---

By A David Merritt (Adm) on Thursday, March 19, 2026 - 01:58 pm: Edit

What I posted above is from the SFB MRB.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Thursday, March 19, 2026 - 02:20 pm: Edit

I want to point back to my notes at the top. Especially the point about the Federation.

The module describes the Federtion having literally one NVH that used F-111s (and another single one using A-20s). This is no longer the case and the F-111 was carried by a LOT of carriers, both in number of NVH and in types of carriers. This all needs to be completely rewritten.

The option of the Federation using PFs is mentioned in passing at one point. There needs to be a full rule stating exactly what the use of PFs would mean and the sacrifices that would have to be made to use them. Ideally, there would be three options, all of which have been included in the game:
1) "Reality" where PFs are not used at all.
2) Where PFs are used in Y181 in the "normal schedule". This means they don't get SWACs or the Third Way. Explanation of why SWACs are lost would be good, as SWACs are invented years before PFs. Why are they lost/not used?
3) Where PFs are used late. They are introduced when the Andros are kicking ass and the Federation gets desperate. How would this work? How about SWACs and the Third Way?

Anyway, all of this evolution in the game needs to be addressed as they are outright missing or wrong in the current version of K.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, March 19, 2026 - 02:54 pm: Edit

GENERAL PF MECH-LINK REFIT

(R1.R1) PF MECH-LINKS: All empires which deployed PFs installed mech-links (K2.2), developed for skiffs about Y72, on some of the tractor beams of some of their ships. The cost is 1 point per mech-link.
Unless specifically authorized otherwise (e.g., shown on an SSD, listed in the ship description), no more than two tractors per ship can be refitted, and no squadron or fleet can have more than six PFs distributed among all of its ships (PFTs and SCSs excepted; Lyrans can have double this amount). See (S8.32) for the limit on the total number of PF flotillas and fighter squadrons. A player cannot buy mech-links for his ships without buying PFs to go on them (one PF per mech-link). Some published scenarios and multi-scenario campaigns may create exceptions to this.
PFs carried on the mech-links of non-PFT ships are considered “casual” PFs and may be loosely organized into “casual PF flotillas,” but these units are not formal flotillas (K0.3) and do not include PFLs or PFSs.
Most ships which receive this refit become casual PFTs (K2.114) as a result. Casual PFTs cannot lend electronic warfare to their PFs as a single flotilla (most lack scout channels and cannot do it at all) and have other restrictions. Supplies are provided in (K2.653).
The cost of this refit (and any PFs or INTs carried) is not taken from Commander’s Options, but is part of the basic cost of the battle force.
This is the same refit as described under (R11.R3).
These cannot be installed on PFs or bases. (Bases use the augmentation modules below.)

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, March 19, 2026 - 03:28 pm: Edit

(K2.525) A casual PFT (R1.R1) cannot lend EW to its “flotilla” unless it is a scout (G24.0) and then only under the provisions of (G24.2171).

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, March 19, 2026 - 03:32 pm: Edit

(K0.326) Casual PFs carried on mech-links under (R1.R1) might be any two generally available PFs except a leader (R1.PF6) or a scout (R1.PF2). Cargo (R1.PF1), commando (R1.PF3), and mine warfare (R1.PF4) PFs cannot be mixed in a casual flotilla with other PFs unless specified by a published scenario or rule. Fi-Cons (R1.PF5) can be part of a casual flotilla but their fighters will need a carrier to resupply them for missions. Romulan StarHawk (R4.PF2) and Kzinti Multi-Role Needles (R5.PF2) can never appear as casual PFs due to their flexible mission packages which could not be changed by a casual PFT.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, March 19, 2026 - 03:35 pm: Edit

(R2.56) NEW FIGHTER CARRIER (NVH): While the Federation never built fast patrol ships, it did operate heavy fighters. Two ships, Ise and Hyuga, were built as modified new strike carriers (R2.60) specifically to carry heavy fighters on mech-links (J1.561). The Ise carried A-20s (R2.F9) while the Hyuga carried F-111s (R2.F11) initially. Other new heavy fighter carriers were built or converted later and operated F-101s (AR2.FA14).



This ship has both 200 points of drone storage and the (R2.R5) storage. The cargo boxes hold the two spare fighters and all of the “free” (and any purchased) fighter pods (J11.0) and warp booster packs (J5.0), with the remaining space holding even more type-I drones (which do not count for drone percentage purposes).
This ship is a variant of the new light cruiser (R2.18).
Scout: It can use all scout functions (G24.0). Special sensors are destroyed by “torpedo” damage points. See (G24.35) when purchasing this unit as part of a battle force.
Carrier: This ship is a true carrier; see (J4.75), (J4.93), (J11.13), and (J15.22).
This ship has two shuttle bays: the one for its admin shuttles [(J2.0)/(R1.F1)], which operates normally, and the bay used by the heavy fighters. The heavy fighter bay is semi-external (J1.561) and each box includes a tractor beam (a total of six tractor beams); all six heavy fighters can be launched or landed (or some could be landing while others launch) in a single impulse or over multiple impulses. Mines can only be laid from the admin shuttle bay (M2.113). This ship is authorized a multi-role shuttle (J8.0) replacing one of the admin shuttles; this is not included in its BPV. There are no balconies (J1.53) or launch tubes (J1.54).

Year Escorts Fighters
Y177-Y178 NAC, 1 (rarely 2) FFA 6xA-20 or NAC, 1 (rarely 2) or 6xF-111 FRA (Rom) or 6xF-101B
Y179-Y180 NAC, 1 (rarely 2) FFA 6xA-20F or NAC, 1 (rarely 2) or 6xF-111 FRA (Rom) or 6xF-101C
Y180-Y182 NAC, 1 (rarely 2) FFA 6xA-20F or NAC, 1 (rarely 2) or 6xF-111 FRA (Rom) or None or 6xF-101C
Y183+ NAC, DWA/FBE or 6xA-20F None or 6xF-111 or 6xF-101C
Carriers serving on the Romulan front usually operated with escorts especially designed for that front. These escorts were more difficult to build and maintain and were only used on that front. This combination is noted by the note “(Rom).” Production of the Romulan-front escort variants virtually ceased by the end of the General War. The new fighter carrier was provided with the same escorts as the new strike carrier initially, but beginning in Y180 those carrying F-111s or F-101s often operated without escorts (S8.311).
Escort ready racks: The ready racks of the escorts were configured for F-18 (R2.F5) fighters. Escorts cannot have ready racks for heavy fighters; see (S8.318).
Seeking weapons: This ship can control a number of seeking weapons equal to its sensor rating (F3.21). See also (F3.213).
Refits: None.
SSD and counter are in Module K.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, March 19, 2026 - 04:16 pm: Edit

(K2.115) In a conjectural universe where the Federation built PFs, they do not use F-111s. Even in a situation in which players agree the Federation can use PFs and F-111s, no ship carrying F-111s can use (R1.R1) to add PFs to tractors. If the Federation is allowed to use their conjectural fast patrol ships in a campaign, they forfeit the ability to use F-111s (R2.F11) [to include FB-111s (R2.F16)], and the Gorns cannot use GB-111s.(R6.F01-2). Further the Federation cannot use the “Third Way” (S8.327) battle formations. SWAC shuttles (J9.0) are never developed as the engineering expertise was diverted into developing PFs.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Thursday, March 19, 2026 - 05:30 pm: Edit

For those of you who answered questions I put forth, thank you; it's one of the reasons why I enjoy this forum!

Another question regarding the revised Module K. There've been quite a few new Gunboat variants that are NOT in Module K; the Recovery and Surveyor variants come foremost to mind.

Will they, for the sake of completeness and convenience, be duplicated in the Revised Module K?

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Thursday, March 19, 2026 - 05:38 pm: Edit

I think those would be best saved for K2.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Thursday, March 19, 2026 - 10:35 pm: Edit

A Module K2 has been talked about for a while. While I'd LOVE for there to be a K2, if there's not enough material to really make it worthwhile, perhaps what's been put together thus far for it could be put in this revision?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, March 20, 2026 - 12:11 am: Edit

We are revising, not expanding, K. This is NOT the "Master Gunboat Book".

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, March 20, 2026 - 12:11 am: Edit

Mike West, send me a list by rule number of things that are obsolete to I know what to check when Petrick passes the file to me in a week or so.