How are trading pact trade routes handled as far as the "ending in open space" rule? I.e. A trade route between most empires is going to have trade routes for one or both empires that "end" in open space, but are connected to an trading partner and continue on to a major system (eventually).

If they are counted as open space, this lessens the value of trading pacts between certain partners (or at least one party of the pair).

GM Ruling?


Since they are technically connected treat them as attached to systems.

By John D Berg (Kerg) on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 - 07:25 pm: Edit

The Gorn BC comes on line in 175. The Gorn BF which is the fast variant comes on line in 168 a difference
of 7 years. From 168 to 175 the only BC the Gorns have is the BF. For the Purposes of conversation slots during these seven years the BF should be considered as a BC and no conversation slot should have been considered to be used.

sorry unless the rules say other wise it looks like the BF is a conversion of the CA.

By William Gary Glattli II (Wglattli) on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 - 09:01 pm: Edit

The Gorn BF, as well as all "Fast Cruisers" have a notation of "L" in the notes column of the MSC.

At the end of the MSC is an "Explanation of Terms" list which gives the definition of the "L" notation as follows:

L = Ship was designed as a STANDARD CLASS but produced only in limited numbers.

(Note that the emphasis is mine.)

Therefore any ship with the "L" notation in the MSC is a standard ship and does NOT require a conversion slot to build. The GM might want to put these under some sort of general build limitation, although John and Mike have never done this before.

As far as Rob's point about the Gorn BF vs BC... Remember that the BF (and DNL as well) both lose 25% of their AF due to the fact that they are "Fast" ships. They gain the benefit of HPM as a trade off...

Gary

By J. Joseph Felten (Jfelten) on Thursday, April 24, 2003 - 10:55 am: Edit

John, I did ask you a good while back if the FD7 was a seperate class as it seemed to be, and you said that it was. If this has changed, please let me know.

I had assumed that all fast ships were considered a seperate class but (according to my still-smells-like-wet-ink new copy of AO) in F&E you can convert CA's to CF's, but you cannot convert DN's to DNL's (except for the clever Lyrans). "F-Ships" are fairly rare in SFB/F&E so probably shouldn't be built in large numbers in GC. That's the GM's call of course. In F&E (which also has a 6 month turn cycle) AO, the limit is one per turn with a further limit of one DNL per year.

My personal suggestion is that built as new construction, CF's not require a SC3 "conversion slot" unless actually converting a CA to CF, but be limited in some way. Perhaps not as limited as in F&E since they are more powerful in F&E than in GC. Perhaps limited to 2 per turn? Or is the 25% AF loss (illogical from a SFB pespective, but what the heck) enough of a limiting factor already?

By ROBERT l cALLAWAY (Callaway) on Thursday, April 24, 2003 - 08:10 pm: Edit

As john has pointed out in the past GC is not F&E
therefore the 25% AF lost should not take place if the Gorn"s BF are build or FD7 FD7K they should be treated as other ships in GC and just run their % of BPV as AF/DF

ROb

By J. Joseph Felten (Jfelten) on Friday, April 25, 2003 - 05:09 am: Edit

GC is based on the SFB universe and F&E is the official campaign game for the SFB universe. Obviously GC is not F&E, but F&E should provide some excellent guidelines for GC. A tremendous amount of play testing has gone in to F&E and we should give consideration to their lessons learned when applicable. Apparently both systems consider the F-Ships as unbalancing if unlimited production were allowed (why ever build a regular CA if you can build a superiour CF?). F&E handles this by limiting the number built to 1 / turn. GC seems to be taking a different approach by reducing their offensive firepower. Personally I prefer the former as in SFB they are find warships to fly. But John chose the latter and he's the boss. But what seems unclear at this point is whether they are also limited by conversion slots in CG. I think we have enough demand on our conversion slots already and hope the GM decides they do not require a conversion slot.

By John D Berg (Kerg) on Sunday, April 27, 2003 - 03:21 am: Edit

Ok Rob I looked up and read the BF description, the BF is a standard class so u can build them without a conversion slot...build away--grin.

Note the reduced AF tho.

By ROBERT l cALLAWAY (Callaway) on Sunday, April 27, 2003 - 11:37 am: Edit

Convoy Raider Away Speed 4 and still has more punch then a CA

Rob

By John Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 12:16 pm: Edit

There are a few examples of R&D in the rule book. And there are many more that are not in the rule book.

Is is possible to get a list of the "more common" R&D projects not listed in the rule book and the associated description?

Thanks,

John

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 01:25 pm: Edit

A list of R&D projects is probably a good idea. I sent John a list of the ones in the rulebook for an appendix (along with a few other appendix like items such as a "specified cost" listing) shortly after he posted the updated rulebook.

Some are of course very much racially specific (maulers, cloaks) due to techs that an empire has, or racially specific due to the position they start in (the plethora of R&D projects the Romulans have that work around the "sublight" ships boat anchor they have until the new hawks come online in the late 160's).

Speaking of which, perhaps it is time to post the updated rulebook that includes the addenda and such of the last year or two?

By John D Berg (Kerg) on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 07:33 pm: Edit

The problem with posting the "common" R and D projects is some people dont want to give up there secrets.

Its kinda the same thing with the tactic folder..noone wants to give away state secrets--lol.


Actually I am working on the updated rulebook.

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 12:25 am: Edit

How about a list of R&D projects that were proposed but rejected or removed from the game (such as BaseNet)?

By William Gary Glattli II (Wglattli) on Sunday, February 08, 2004 - 06:23 pm: Edit

A question has come up concerning the second sentence in rule C30.10 and EXACTLY what it means. So, first off, let us look at the rule.

(C30.10) Before a TP can be started a trade route must be constructed that connects the 2 parties (paying the appropriate freighter costs). This connection must be direct, no third parties involved. (i.e. TP only work with your adjacent neighbors).

As can be seen, the first part of this rule is self explanatory, but the second needs to be explored.

** Example **

Let us say that the Hydrans, Vudar, and Tholians are all on peaceful terms and wish to open trade pacts with each other. Hydran/Vudar and Vudar/Tholian TPs are not a problem, but the Hydran player wants to have one with the Tholian as well. The Hydrans and Tholians do NOT have a common border, but are separated from each other by six hexes of Vudar territory.

** /Example **

Could the Hydrans and Tholians have a TP within the confines of rule (C30.10)? Could the Hydrans build a trade route through Vudar space (with their permission) and link up with the Tholian trade route system and thereby open up a Trade Pact with them?

The Tholians could be considered "adjacent" to the Hydrans... but just not sharing a border. Or does the second sentence in this rule mean that one can only establish a TP with an empire which one has an actual physical border with?

Gary

By John D Berg (Kerg) on Sunday, February 08, 2004 - 10:04 pm: Edit

The last item in "()" is direct and correct. You can only have a TP with a geographically adjacent partner.

By John Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 12:07 pm: Edit

What about a theorectical "four corners intersection" situation?

If New Mexico and Utah have a trade pact, could Colorado and Arizona have one at the "four corners intersection"? I.E. could the four states share a trade route hex?

By John D Berg (Kerg) on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 05:53 pm: Edit

yes to the four corners Q.

By William Gary Glattli II (Wglattli) on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 08:17 am: Edit

Another rules question has come up concerning rule B13.30...

(B13.30) Each turn on RB doubles the economic output of all currently operating SRs in unsurveyed space. SRs may attempt MRR in surveyed space. After spending a full turn prospecting a hex, there will be a base 50% (this % is not additive over turns) that the area is potentially developed (15% if adjacent to any system). If you fail, you may try again in the same hex next turn. Certain modifiers may apply to specific races. If your empire is crippled, all chances are cut by 50%. Your trade route system must still be active. Surveyed space MRR cease operation when you leave RB, unless they have become a system.

What is the method used for doing MRRs in surveyed space? Might it be something like the following?

**** EXAMPLE ****

Let us say that the Klingon Empire wants to do some MRRs in its previously surveyed space, and let us say that the Klingons do not have any modifiers (+ or -) to the roll.

So, the Klingon player goes to RB mobility and sends a SQ of 3xD6E, FPL, FOL (3% advance at RB mobility) to a previously surveyed hex in his territory. It is not next to an already existing system so the hex has a flat 50% chance that the area can _potentially_ be developed. He spends a turn prospecting the hex and the GM rolls a success.

The next turn, the Klingon player stays at RB mobility and the MRR starts advancing at a 3% improvement per turn rate. The Klingon player builds a CPP with MM money after the first turn and after 5 turns (all while staying at RB mobility), a minor system is placed in the hex.

Once the system is placed, the Klingon goes back to FW mobility and can develop the system after this as any other OMA produced system.

**** /EXAMPLE ****

Is this the way it would work? If the above example is wrong, then just HOW would it work?

Gary

By Mike Incavo (Kavo) on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 11:49 am: Edit

I've ruled (no) to the four corners question.

By John Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 01:16 pm: Edit

Sigh....

I've physically stood on the four courners when I lived in New Mexico!

John

P.S. I've got to read B13.30 tonight. I see a term paper in this!

By John D Berg (Kerg) on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 09:13 pm: Edit

by Glattli

"Could the Hydrans and Tholians have a TP within the confines of rule (C30.10)? Could the Hydrans build a trade route through Vudar space (with their permission) and link up with the Tholian trade route system and thereby open up a Trade Pact with them?"

no you couldnt

By John Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 05:00 pm: Edit

B13.30 revisited.

Question, since a surveyed hex is not an OMA, does B13.30 require support units?

John

By John B. Steele (John) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 12:33 am: Edit

You have a TP with a neighbor and have 10 APT's on that TP. One of those TP hexes gets raided by an enemy. How many APT's do you loose? Do you also loose the standard Freighters?

By William Gary Glattli II (Wglattli) on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 05:40 pm: Edit

In answer to John Steele's question above (from 9/5/04!!!): I could be wrong, but I believe that APTs or FTs in a Trade Pact are basically just a pool of freighters and cannot be destroyed by raiding enemy ships. The freighters normally working in that hex would be destroyed, but not the ships actually working in the TP.

I could be wrong of course...

By William Gary Glattli II (Wglattli) on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 07:40 pm: Edit

Just because I like to bug John, here is a question concerning BSSYs...

A BSSY is obviously one of the six bases which can be present in orbit around a star system. A BSSY is also considered an ad-hoc SC2SY. Rule B8.30 states that a major system can only have a maximum of 1xSC2SY and 2xSC4SY.

The question is: 'Would a BSSY in a major star system be considered a SC2SY for purposes of rule B8.30?' Also, would a minor star system be able to have a BSSY? Rule B8.30 says that a minor star system cannot have a SC2SY...

Gary