SFB allows a ship to dock with a base to provide it power (among other things). I was wondering about a rule to reflect this in F&E. I am thinking these ships would allow the base to keep its COMPOT (to some degree) while providing more EW sort of like how a PAM module does.

I haven't come up with formalized language but the idea is as follows.

A ship docked with a base takes the place of a PAM module in the sense that both may not be used together, and any base that would be eligible for a PAM (irregardless of PAM YIS) can use a docked ship.

A ship docked provides 5 - SZ_Class EW to the base (An X-Ship counts as one size class larger than it is). In essence the base chooses an EW setting and whatever associated COMPOT that provides, then a docked ship adds to the EW to a max of 6. So if you docked a DN you would get 5 - 2 = 3 EW so you could dial in 3EW and get the COMPOT of 3EW but get 6EW. If you dialed in 4EW you would still only get 6EW.

This docked ship provides NO other benefit to the battleforce.

Docked ship is decided at the time the battleforce is created, so multiple rounds can include a docked ship or not.

A docked ship may be attacked by directed damage as if it was in the form box but may NOT be voluntarily used to resolve damage unless it is the last unit in the battleforce (much like PTR's)

If the Base being docked to is chosen as the one Direct Damage Target, the docked ship may be included with the base at the discretion of the player attacking the base and also directed at as part of the one allowed directed damage attack, even if the Directed Damage is a SIDS.

Only a SHIP may be used, and only a ship that is not part of a non-breakable group. a CV or Escort maybe used, but only if its either not been assigned to a group, or if the remainder of its group is not included in the battleforce this round. In this case the CV or Escort can be Directed on seperatly from the group as above. Things such as LTF SAF's Convoys MC's among other would be excluded.

If the base is destroyed while a ship is docked the docked ship is immediatly crippled without resolving any additional damage nor producing minus points of any kind, this is a penalty for docking a ship to a base in danger of being destroyed. A ship docked while a base is crippled suffers no ill effects.

A docked ship may not retreat on the retreat option immediatly after a round it was used to augment a base. It instead remains in the hex with the base either docked or not at the owners option, most likely being forced to participate in the next round of combat.

A docked ship cannot benefit from a cloaked decoy nor may it be counted as a consort of any sort. It doesn't provide any benefit except to augment the base as described above.

A docked ship is not considered mobile for the purposes of allowing the base own to choose BIR. If a docked ship is the only 'mobile' unit present then the other side picks both BIR's as if this ship was not present.


I tried to think of everything. What do you guys think? There should probably be a YIS date for allowing this, one of you guys that know the SFU history well would probably be better suited for proposing such a date.

By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Thursday, January 10, 2008 - 04:58 pm: Edit

The docked ship counts against the command rating of the fleet.

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Thursday, January 10, 2008 - 05:05 pm: Edit

IIRC, the ammount of power that can be transfered between units is the LOWER of the two's Damage Control rating.

So if you have a F-CA docked to a BATS, you get to transfer a whopping 4 power per turn.

While it's some, it's not as much as PAMs provide.

My Opinion. Being docked during a battle is really a TACTICAL decision, and I don't think it's something that we should worry about in F+E. And really, if you have a CW/CA in a battle (uncrippled) are you really going to leave it docked an entire SFB battle?

By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Thursday, January 10, 2008 - 05:30 pm: Edit

Doesn't a PAM allow the base to use 6EW and its full COMPOT? So a PAM is providing 5EW whereas at most a DN or X-tech sz3 is providing 3 EW.

In essence this is a tactical item, but so are SFG's and Maulers.. they are used tactically but still provide something on the F&E level. And no you probably wouldn't keep a CA or CW docked.. but you might keep a DD docked or even an unrefit CL.

I was also not counting the ship under the CR of the battleforce but forgot to include that. I think if you said it was counting against CR limits there truly would be no efficacy to the rule at all.

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Thursday, January 10, 2008 - 05:42 pm: Edit

A PAM allows the use of MAX EW for that unit, and it's full offensive COMPOT, yes.

BATS=3EW
BS/MB=2EW (can't remember if a MB can carry a PAM, probably not)
SB=6EW
STB=4EW (all IIRC)

Talking F+E terms here, not 6 power to EW (SFB)

So you are proposing a CA could dock to a BATS and allow it to use +2EW (and can't participate in the battle), and the BATS can still shoot for '12' AF.

I'm just saying that in SFB you can't transfer that much power to make a difference that you want (like allowing a BATS to fully power 3xSensors w/ 21 power+6xP-4s to be charged with your total power with BATS+CA).

re: Mauler+SFB. They both have their own drawbacks, admittedly the Mauler's drawbacks aren't that hard to overcome or if you are lucky and don't shock.

By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Thursday, January 10, 2008 - 05:57 pm: Edit

Power is not the only way to measure the EW rating. Otherwise the Fed SC wouldn't have a "4 EW" rating.


Counting the ship against the CR gives an option for extra EW but is not overpowering. Anytime a race empire has extra ships in the hex with a hard to kill base without this just means that they will ALWAYS do this instead of debating on whether it is worth it.

By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Thursday, January 10, 2008 - 06:35 pm: Edit

This is a detail that I think should stay at the tactical level.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, January 10, 2008 - 10:25 pm: Edit

With all due respect I have to concur Joe; this needs to remain at the tactical level.

By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Thursday, January 10, 2008 - 10:55 pm: Edit

I concur also.

By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 09:35 am: Edit

Guys,

I'm not heart and soul behind this idea or anything. Mostly I dredged up an old SFB thing and wondered how it could be incorporated into F&E in a meaningful way.

When the three of you say this is something best left to SFB (tactical) then I have to relent.

However, rather than saying just that its too tactical, if you would explain to me why? For example I think its no more tactical than SFG's or Maulers for example. This is NOT sour grapes but rather an attempt to get a feeling for how others grasp tactical vis a vis strategic type things.

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 10:51 am: Edit

My reasoning, and not speaking for Chuck or Joe, is that if you have a F-CA docked to a BATS for example, it's not going to spend then entire battle docked to the BATS, it's just too much to expect (with the firepower of a CA at hand).

It's like you are the Klingon Emperor sitting on Klinshai and saying "Hey, you Capt Kronk on that D7, YOU dock to that BATS and stay their the entire battle as the Kzinti's swarm all around you."

A mauler or SFG being in a battle changes the dynamic, as the battle resovles around those units getting into action and using their weapons.

(And if you haven't heard it, the Maulers were given to the Coalition to mitigate them having to impale themselves upon the Alliance defensive that are cheap to build, well PDUs are. I believe their are some reports of people playing with no Coalition maulers at all, and the Coalition get's hosed because of it. Not actually posted on the BBS, but "Hey I did that once, and it sucked for Mr.Klingon.")

And also remember that every "battle round" represents possibly more than one battle over a six-month period.

PS, since transfering power is a function of the DC of the ships involved, you could do this with a CONVOY to dock multiple freighters to a BATS to juice it up, so you wouldn't have to use an actual warship. That leaves the potential for some abuse IMO.

By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 10:56 am: Edit

Scott, very well put.

By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 11:33 am: Edit

Scott,

I can see your point, I guess SFG's and Maulers are a bit more strategic since putting a ship to dock with a base is more a tactical situation. Its an ancilliary use of a ship rather than a prime purpose of a ship design like Maulers and SFG's. It would be sort of like saying we should have a F&E rule to assume you always have rsv power for tractors or transports.

I do realize the F&E battles represent a series of engagements over a 6 month time period. Just if you can have things like an SFG ship freeze individual ships.. there is very much a tactical feel to that... as surely we aren't saying that the SFG ship can freeze them long enough to render them ineffective for a 6 month engagement. When we look at how SFG's are implimented in particular it seems obvious that there is also some consideration of 'Critical time in a battle' where there are feints and meeting engagements, but eventually the forces come to battle and in that much smaller timeframe there is a battle where the individual characteristics of ships can come to bear. Hence Maulers and SFG's and the Gorn DNT etc.

But I do think I see your point in this case, and hopefully will see how to apply that in further things I might come up with. We don't want to mimic SFB rules in F&E unless they have true strategic implications and/or their are units specific to that tactical function.

By Tony Downs (Whitetyger009) on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 12:38 pm: Edit

my campain group has crunched the numbers and we get that a starbase can dock enough armmed freighters to give it +288 power from those freighters. i doubt that using the S8 limitations of ships present in a battle that is possible but it is a thought.

i don't have any experience with F&E so i couldn't even begin to speculate on the impact that this would have on the game.

our campain quickly went to an all armmed freighter system. not imposed, the players spent their economy points on getting the armmed freighters. in a historical game that wouln't happen. some of our convoys were as large as 15-20 of these freighters.

By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 12:52 pm: Edit

Tony,

I don't think it would have near that impact in F&E as the power would/could only be used for EW and only up to what the base could do if it used less offensive punch.

+288 power would mean alot of armed freighters to be sure. Well more than could operate together in the SFB or F&E rules I would have to imagine. Its been so long for me I wasn't even aware more than one ship could be docked at any one time.

By Tony Downs (Whitetyger009) on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 01:18 pm: Edit

well in SFB i would be using that power for reinforcement on shields, even on general it would be a 144 damage soak, specific reinforcement would only give you +48 on each shield, if not roatating you could double that on your 3 facing shields if your other3 are facing a planet/moon.

and all this power is in addition to the large power BAMs you could install that is another 90 +54 battery. so in SFB your actually looking at +378 power +54 battery on top of what the base has.

yes this would be insainly expensive but makes all but the largest or closest fleets ineffective. and if your getting that close you have to deal with the bases offensive ability.

By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 01:24 pm: Edit

Tony,

I agree, but its also I believe illegal. I know it is in F&E even without the rule I proposed, as it violates the CR restriction for an allowed fleet. And while I do not know SFB well anymore, I am almost certain it would violate rules there also.

By Tony Downs (Whitetyger009) on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 01:32 pm: Edit

it wouldn't be possible with a S8 legal fleet as far as i know. then again my group doesn't play with those rules, since they are ONLY for making games smaller and faster, and do not give a very realistic view of what would/could be done.

this is not an insult or anything to those who drafted the rules or put them in place. the rules work well for the reason they were created.

By jason murdoch (Jmurdoch) on Saturday, January 12, 2008 - 01:47 pm: Edit

You can have too many units to fight a battle. Look what happened to the French at Agincort. All the thousands of foot they had collected stopped the horse from acting effectively.

By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Saturday, January 12, 2008 - 11:36 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

and all this power is in addition to the large power BAMs you could install that is another 90 +54 battery.

---