| By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, December 13, 2007 - 06:14 pm: Edit |
Staff updates on the SIT as of today:
Fed A20s-1: The whole F18->A20 factors should be banned, for the CVP->CSV conversions. Scott Tenhoff [SVC: The staff needs to decide to do what Scott Wants or not to do what Scott wants and to give me line items for changes that result from either case. The whole A20 thing is a zoo, and is tied up with other heavy fighter arguments. A20s are supposed to be a rare thing found in only a few cases, like say one per year.]
Fed A20s-2: It appears that Scott does not want F18 carriers to convert to A20 carriers, because of the free factors already purchased. The CVP to CSV would require only 1 fighter factor to be purchased. He wants to outlaw: CVP to CSV, CVD to ACS, CVS to CAV, NVS to NHA, NVS to NSV, NVL to NVA, NVS to NVA. This is a lot of ships to outlaw for a carrier type that is supposed to be rare. I suggest leaving it alone. Laikind 10 Dec 07
Fed A20s-3: I don’t see this as an issue. Rule (532.121) clearly states that "A carrier with heavy A20 fighters cannot transfer fighter factors to or from a carrier with standard fighter factors or F111 factors." So, F18’s cannot be used to replace A20’s. Also, the SIT does not permit a CVP->CSV conversion. MCurtis 8 Dec 07.
Fed A20s-4: I didn’t do anything as both Jeff and Mike suggested just ignoring this. SVC
===========
Fed ACS-1: A CVS=>CVD is 2 EP and a CVS to A20 capable CAV is 2 EP plus fighters. So why is a CVS=>ACS a 3 EP plus fighters conversion while CVD=>ACS 4 EP plus fighters? The comparable class Fed DCS gets a 2 EP conversion from a CVH for fighters and scout capabilities while a CVS costs 3 EP for F111s and scout channels. Which also brings up the point there is no comparable CAV=>ACS conversion listed either. Trent Telenko CVS->ACS=3 EP. 2 EP for CV->ACS conversion. 2 EP for EW factors (1EP each). -1 EP for double-conversion. Scott Tenhoff CVD->ACS=4 EP. 2 EP for Hvy Fighters. 2 EP for EW Factors. No double conversion deduction because you can't get a double conversion bonus because 1 is just for readyracks. Scott Tenhoff [SVC does not know what should be done, if anything. Report is in an imponderable format. Does the staff want to comment?]
Fed ACS-2: Convert from CVS costs 3, but requires adding fighters to saucer and converting rear hull fighters to A10s. Convert from CVD costs 4, but saucer already has fighters. Recommend changing CVS to ACS: 4+20 and CVD to ACS: 3+8. Add CAV to ACS: 3+12 to convert saucer and add EW to a carrier that already has A20s in rear hull. Laikind 10 Dec 07
Fed ACS-3: The issue is the CVH->DCS conversion should be 4 (2 for hull changes/heavy fighters, 2 for 2 EW). The CVS->ACS conversion should also be 4 (2 for hull changes/heavy fighters, 2 for 2 EW). A CAV->ACS conversion would be acceptable at 4 (2 for hull changes/heavy fighters, 2 for EW). No double conversions allowed here since there is no class change in the hull, all are based on CA hull. MCurtis 8 Dec 07
Fed ACS-4: now reads: From CA: 5+32 // From CVS: 4+20 // From CVD: 3+8 // CAV to ACS 4+12 SVC
============
Fed BATS: SIT shows 12P(6)<>/6P(3)<>. Should be 12(9H6)<>/6(4^H3) to reflect F-111s instead of PFs. Laikind 10 Dec 07 SVC did this.
================
Fed BCS-1:=15 Michael C. Mikulis [SVC has no idea what this means as there is not enough data to tell what he wants (cost? Conversion? Command rating?) and no justification statement to explain why this should be done. Staff?]
Fed BCS-2: Change the build cost from 12+8+18 to 14+8+18 to take into account the 4 EP conversion from BC to BCS. The Klingon C7S, Gorn BCS, Hydran OV cost 5 to convert, have 5 build surcharge. The Lyran BCS and Kzinti BCS cost 5 to convert, have 3 build surcharge. The Fed BCS only has a 2 EP surcharge, which should be 4. Laikind 10 Dec 07 SVC DID THIS.
Fed BCS-3: The Klingon C7S (Battle Control Ship) is a 15+6 build along with PF’s, this is +5 over standard hull build cost. The Federation BCS is a 12+8+18, this is a +2 over standard hull build cost. Is the discount due to the BCS not having any PF facilities on board? If so, then there is not an issue. If not, then some adjustment might be warranted. MCurtis 10 Dec 07 SVC: SEE LAIKIND.
Fed BCS-4: cost. I think that Michael is believing that the Fed BCS (BC+4 F-14 factors+9F-111 factors) should cost 15EPs to build (10 for base hull, +2EP for being a carrier, and +3EP for being an F-111 carrier). It costs 12EPs currently, which doesn't make sense as we have been making F-111 carriers +2EP when being built (see CVH which might have to be 3EPs...), the K-C7S costs 15 (w/ 3 ftr factors and 6xPFs). So should we charge the F-BCS a 'carrier' surcharge twice since it has internal F-14s and external F-111s? Make it 10(hull)+1 or 2(F-14 carrier)+2-3(F-111 only carrier, no sensors) for 13 to 15EPs. (Does having only 6xF-14s cost 2EPs like a F-CVS, or 1EP like a F-FFV) S.Tenhof 12-10-07 SVC: SEE LAIKIND.
================
Fed BTX: SIT shows 18(6P)<>/9(3P)<>. Should be 18(9H6)<>/9(4^H3) to reflect F-111s instead of PFs. Laikind 10 Dec 07 SVC DID THIS.
===================
Fed CSV-1: There is a NVL/NVS=>CSV conversion, but no CVP=>CSV conversion is available? Trent Telenko [SVC is open to staff comments.]
Fed CSV-2: Add CVP to CSV: 3+2. This adds another conversion possibility. Laikind 10 Dec 07 SVC DID THIS.
Fed CSV-3: All other racial CVA’s are +2 on new construction for the Heavy Carrier. If we do this for the Fed CVA, we should do it for all heavy carriers. I recommend we leave it alone and call it a discount on new construction. MCurtis 9 Dec 07 SVC SEE LAIKIND
Fed CSV-4: CVP->CSV conversion. Here's my interpretation of what Trent wants to do (and this is for anyone, but the Fed's it the worst because of the A-20s). Build a CVP in Y173-178 for the full cost (18EPs/18ftrs invested in F18s/superiority fighters). Convert it to a CSV+A20s when that's introduced in Y178 (converting those 18EPs/18ftrs into 6A-20s that cost 20EPs) Thus having a Fed CVP->CSV only have to pay 2EPs to convert the 18xF18s into 6xA-20s. It reeks of 'cheesy-accounting-tricks' to me, and it shouldn't be allowed. Not just for the Federation, but for any race. Any other race, converting a CVP->CSV (say Klingon/Kzinti) you LOSE 2EPs worth of fighters (going from 9 superiority factors to 8 hvy fighter factors), so no one is going to choose that option. S.Tenhoff 12-10-07 SVC SEE LAIKIND
==========
Fed CVA-1: Should the build cost be 20EP (16EP for the DN base hull + 4 EP for Heavy Carrier cost); the SIT currently lists 18EP. Chuck Strong [SVC: I can’t tell as there is no justification/basis given. Staff?]
Fed CVA-2: Build cost for Kzinti CVA and Klingon C8V are also 18. Suggest leaving alone. Laikind 10 Dec 07 SVC LEFT IT ALONE.
Fed CVA-3: My understanding is that to BUILD a carrier (SC-2 or SC-3) the conversion is +2EP to the base hull cost. To convert a DN->CVA it is a 4EP conversion, and I can't for the life of me remember when this was decided. Since it takes more work to convert the ship once it's built, you build it straight away as a carrier, so it is laid down as a carrier hull. So their is two separate costs for the CVA, convert +4EP, build +2EP to the base hull. S.Tenhoff 12-10-07 SVC SEE LAIKIND
===========
Fed M-Pal-1 (CV) date issue: Which is correct? Y167 or Y168 -- Lawrence Bergen. [SVC has no idea and will let the staff research it.]
Fed M-Pal-2 (CV): Current YIS is Y167, same as CVS, CLV, PDU, SAV. Leave alone. Laikind 10 Dec 07
Fed M-Pal-3. Rule (519.421) clearly states that ALL CV pallets are available in Y167, so all SITS should have that as a date (Y167), the Federation SITS shows Y168. S.Tenhoff 12-10-07
Fed M-Pal-4. My copy shows 167 but indicates that this is a recent change.
=============
Fed NCL-1 =>NCA=>NHV is this a legitimate double conversion? Trent Telenko [It's explicitly listed as being a legal 2-step conversion in (FO-437.1). Dave Butler ]
Fed NCL-2 Rule (437.0) does specifically allow the NCL->NCA->NHV as a double conversion. Add to NHV conversion costs From NCL: 4+18‡. MCurtis 10 Dec 07
SVC DID THIS.
===========
Fed NDS-1: There is a NVL/NVS=>NDS, conversion but no NCV=>NDS conversion is available? Trent Telenko {I believe there is a global conversion cost for CVS->DCS is 5 EPs. A NCA hull should fall under that also. . Scott Tenhoff} [SVC does not know what should be done, if anything. Report is in an imponderable format.]
Fed NDS-2: Add convert "From NCV: 3+18" to add another conversion option at same cost as CVS to DCS. Add convert "From NHV: 2+12" to add another conversion option at same cost as CVH to DCS. Laikind
Fed NDS-3: This appears to be a valid conversion based on the SSDs. I would recommend a conversion cost of 5 eps to go along with the global cost to convert a carrier to a division control ship. MCurtis 10 Dec 07
I did what Jeff said.--SVC
===============
Fed NHV-1: Convert from NCL is a double conversion, but does not specifically need to be listed. Laikind 10 Dec 07
Fed NHV-2. Please add in the conversion column "From NCL:7+18 (double-dagger). Also an entry in the conversion column is wrong, "From NCA:2+18" should be 5+18. S.Tenhoff 12-10-07
SVC: I am not sure what’s going on here or what any of this means. I didn’t do anything. NCL is already on the SIT as a double conversion 4+18. I cannot make Scott’s change without it being confirmed by a more senior staffer.
======================
Fed SB-1 should have F111's rather then P's. John Pepper [SVC is not sure what it currently lists.]
Fed SB-2: SIT shows 36(12)PP<>/18(6)P<>. Should be 36(18H12)<>/18(9H6) to reflect F-111s instead of PFs. Laikind 10 Dec 07 THIS HAS BEEN DONE.
Fed SB-3. The Fed SITS shows "36(12)PP*/18(6)P*" So he's asking for the Fed SB SITS entry to read "36(18H12)*/18(9H6)*" The 18H being the 18 F-111/2 squadrons, the 12 being it's F-18 fighter factors. S.Tenhoff 12-10-07 THIS HAS BEEN DONE.
================
Fed SBX: SIT shows 54(12)PP<>/27(6)P<>. Should be 54(18H12)<>/27(9H6) to reflect F-111s instead of PFs. Laikind 10 Dec 07
THIS HAS BEEN DONE
====================
| By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, December 13, 2007 - 06:45 pm: Edit |
UPDATES I DID BY MYSELF WITHOUT THE STAFF FROM REPORTS BY FRANK BROOKS
2 Fed CAM: The SFB Ref # column should be 127. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. DONE.
2 Fed CAV: The SFB Ref # column should be 132. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.DONE.
2 Fed CFS: This unit is listed twice, with the Factors On Counter, Product, and Conversion Cost columns having different information. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. DELETED ONE AT RANDOM
2 Fed DCS: The SFB Ref # column should be 133. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.FIXED.
2 Fed DWT: This unit is listed twice, with the Product column having different information. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. DELETED ONE AT RANDOM.
2 Fed FFB: In the Build Cost column, there should be a colon after "For DW". F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. FIXED.
2 Fed FFE: The SFB Ref # column should be 41. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. FIXED.
2 Fed GVX: The SFB Ref # column should be A7. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. ADDED.
2 Fed HFP: The SFB Ref # column should be 136. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. DONE.
2 Fed LVH: The reference to (513.112) in the Build Cost column should have parens around it. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. DONE.
2 Fed MCL: The SFB Ref # column should be 128. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.DONE.
2 Fed NHA: The SFB Ref # column should be 134. The reference to (527) in the Notes column should be ( 527.0). F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. DONE.
2 Fed NVA: The reference to (532) in the Notes column should be ( 532.0). Should this reference be to (527.0) as that is what the NHV and NVH are referencing? (I don't have either rule, so I can't look it up.) F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. ADDED ZERO, DIDN’T LOOK UP RULE (TOO LAZY)
2 Fed POV: The SFB Ref # column should be 137. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. DONE.
2 Fed SC: In the Build Cost column, is the word "Sub" needed? F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. FIXED.
2 Fed SP: The SFB Ref # column should be 135. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. FIXED.
2 Fed VHP: The SFB Ref # column should be 136. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. FIXED.
| By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, December 14, 2007 - 05:20 pm: Edit |
Assorted updates I did by myself without the staff.
----------------------
Klingon ADW: The SFB Ref # column should be 152. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. SVC notes that this is already there and that Frank must be using an old copy of the SIT.
----------------------
Klingon D5DX: The SFB Ref # column should be 206. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. SVC fixed.
----------------------
Klingon D6V: In the Conversion Cost and Build Cost columns the "D6/7" should probably be "D6/D7" to be consistent with the other rows. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. SVC did it, but didn’t find this consistency important.
----------------------
Klingon DWV: The conversion information in the Notes column should be moved to the Conversion column. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. SVC did it. What happened here was that when we did FO there was not enough room for another line.
----------------------
Klingon E4S: The SFB Ref # column should be 153. This unit is listed twice, with the Product column having different information. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. SVC, done.
----------------------
Klingon E4T: The SFB Ref # column should be 154. This unit is listed twice, with the Factors On Counter, Product, and Notes columns having different information. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. SVC notes that this was apparently fixed earlier as these problems are not present.
----------------------
Klingon F5T: The SFB Ref # column should be 155. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. SVC did it.
----------------------
Klingon FWE: The "FW" in the Base Hull, Conversion Cost, and Build Cost columns should probably be "F5W". F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. SVC did it.
----------------------
Klingon FWV: The "FW" in the Base Hull column should probably be "F5W". F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. SVC did it.
----------------------
Klingon PTP: The SFB Ref # column should be 161. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. SVC notes that this was done earlier.
----------------------
Klingon SBA: According the SSD in SFB, this unit has special sensors. Is it not a scout in F&E? If it is, the scout diamond needs to be added to the Factors On Counter column. The Base Hull column should be "SB(1)". F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. SVC fixed it.
----------------------
Klingon TGA (T7): The "D6/7" in the Build Cost column should be "D6/D7". F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. SVC done.
----------------------
Klingon TGB (T7): The "D6/7" in the Build Cost column should be "D6/D7". F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. SVC done.
----------------------
Klingon UD7: The SFB Ref # column should be 156. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. SVC done.
----------------------
Klingon VHP: The SFB Ref # column should be 160. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. SVC notes this has already been done.
----------------------
Klingon VP3: The SFB Ref # column should be 159. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.SVC notes that this has already been done.
----------------------
Romulan CNV (4CNV): The word "See" in the Build Cost column should be removed to be consistent with other carrier group entries. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. SVC done.
----------------------
Romulan FAB: The SFB Ref # column should be 129. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. SVC done.
----------------------
Romulan FAH: The SFB Ref # column should be 128. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. SVC done.
----------------------
Romulan FHM: The SFB Ref # column should be 130. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. SVC done.
----------------------
Romulan K5: In the Conversion Cost column, there should be a space after the colon in "F5:2". F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. SVC done.
----------------------
Romulan KDS: The SFB Ref # column should be 131. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. SVC did it.
----------------------
Romulan SHH: The SFB Ref # column should be 133. This unit is listed twice, with the Factors On Counter, Product, and Notes columns having different information. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. SVC notes there is only one entry so this must have been fixed earlier.
----------------------
Romulan SKH: This unit is listed twice, with the SFB Ref #, Factors On Counter, Product, and Notes columns having different information. The SFB Ref # on the second listing (28) is correct. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. SVC fixed.
----------------------
Romulan SNB: There should be a space after "see" in the Notes column. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. SVC did it.
----------------------
Romulan WE: In the Build Cost column, is the word "Sub" needed? F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. SVC fixed it.
----------------------
Gorn BDSX: In the Notes column, the word "ship" should be capitalized. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. SVC did it when he was bored.
---------------
Gorn BDX: In the Conversion Cost column, the second "from" should be capitalized. In the Notes column, the word "ship" should be capitalized. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. SVC did it when he was bored.
---------------
Gorn BS: The SFB Ref # column should be "R1.3". F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. SVC did it when he was bored.
---------------
Gorn BTX: In the Notes column the phase "Feds have F111s not PFs" can be removed from all races accept the Federation. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. SVC There is no such wording on my copy.
---------------
Gorn CCX: In the Notes column, the word "ship" should be capitalized. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. SVC did it when he was bored.
---------------
Gorn CL to CC or CCH conversion. Should this be two step or can it be done directly?--Lawrence Bergen. (SVC says that the Gorns are unique and can indeed do this as a direct conversion. Gorn CCs gain only flag bridges not weapons and are much less different from their CA half-brothers than other CA/CC types.) [SVC regards this as a finished item. Does the staff concur?]
---------------
Gorn CMP: In the Date Avail column, should the "F" be "(B)"? F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. SVC did it when he was bored.
---------------
Gorn CMV: The SFB Ref # column should be 76. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. SVC did it when he was bored.
---------------
Gorn CMX: In the Notes column, the word "ship" should be capitalized. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. SVC did it when he was bored.
---------------
Gorn DBC: This unit is listed twice, with the Product, Conversion Cost, Build Cost, and Notes columns having different information. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. SVC did it when he was bored.
---------------
Gorn DDC: This unit is listed twice, with the Product, Cmnd, Conversion Cost, Build Cost, and Notes columns having different information. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. SVC did it when he was bored.
---------------
Gorn DDT: The SFB Ref # column should be 94. This unit is listed twice, with the Factors On Counter, Product, and Notes columns having different information. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. SVC did it when he was bored.
---------------
Gorn DNG: The SFB Ref # column should be A5. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. SVC did it when he was bored.
---------------
Gorn FRX: The SFB Ref # column should be R1.81. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. SVC did it when he was bored.
---------------
Gorn LAH: The SFB Ref # column should be R1.75. There should be a colon after the reference to (513.112) in the Build Cost column. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. SVC did it when he was really, really, bored.
---------------
Gorn LAS: The SFB Ref # column should be R1.77. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. SVC did it when he was bored.
---------------
Gorn MDH: The SFB Ref # column should be 90. The Product column is missing. The Base Hull column should have a close paren at the end. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. SVC did it when he was bored.
---------------
Gorn MPAL (SCS): In the Factors On Counter column, the word "none" should be capitalized. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. SVC did it when he was bored.
---------------
Gorn PTP: The SFB Ref # column should be 99. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. SVC did it when he was bored.
---------------
Gorn SAH: The SFB Ref # column should be R1.76. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. SVC did it when he was bored.
---------------
Gorn SAS: The SFB Ref # column should be R1.78. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. SVC did it when he was bored.
---------------
Gorn SBX: In the Notes column the phase "Feds have F111s not PFs" can be removed from all races accept the Federation. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. SVC did it when he was bored.
---------------
Gorn SP: The SFB Ref # column should be 97. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. SVC did it when he was bored.
---------------
Gorn STX: In the Notes column, the phase "X-Technology Sector Base" should be "X-unit" to be consistent with other X-units. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. SVC did it when he was bored.
---------------
Gorn VHP: The SFB Ref # column should be 98. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. SVC did it when he was bored.
---------------
Gorn: Change reference to (J16) in MEGA entries to delete parens to be standardized with other SFB references. SVC did it when he was bored.
---------------
Gorn: The "Y" is missing from the Date Avail column for all units from Strategic Operations. All of the other expansions show the "Y" in front of the date. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. SVC did it when he was bored.
---------------
Gorn: The values in the Salvage column are not formatted consistently. Sometimes there is one decimal place, sometimes 2, sometimes none. This could be standardized to make the column a bit easier to read. Given that there are several units that have 3 decimal places, that might be the length to use. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. SVC does not regard this as the way to go about it. There should be as many places after the decimal as it takes. 2.5 is right, and so is 2.25, and there is no need to make it 2.50 or 2.500 just so all will be the same length. I do agree that if there is a whole number, it should have point zero after it.
---------------
| By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, December 15, 2007 - 01:55 pm: Edit |
More stuff I did without the staff.
------------
1Fed Commercial Convoy: In the Factors On Counter column, the word "none" should be capitalized. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
---
1Fed BS: The SFB Ref # column should be "R1.3". F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
---
1Fed BTX: Change factors to show F111s. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
---
1Fed FHL: In the Build Cost column, the word "Year" should not be capitalized to make it consistent with other "one/" entries. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. SVC thinks that Year should be capitalized, which means this one is right and the others are wrong.
---
1Fed FRX: The SFB Ref # column should be R1.81. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
---
1Fed LAH: The SFB Ref # column should be R1.75. There should be a colon after the reference to (513.112) in the Build Cost column. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
---
1Fed LAS: The SFB Ref # column should be R1.77. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
---
1Fed MPAL (SCS): In the Factors On Counter column, the word "none" should be capitalized. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
---
1Fed SAH: The SFB Ref # column should be R1.76. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
---
1Fed SAS: The SFB Ref # column should be R1.78. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
---
1Fed SBX: In the Notes column the phase "Feds have F111s not PFs" can be removed from all races accept the Federation. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
---
1Fed STX: In the Notes column, the phase "X-Technology Sector Base" should be "X-unit" to be consistent with other X-units. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
---
1Fed: Change reference to (J16) in MEGA entries to delete parens to be standardized with other SFB references.
---
1Fed: The "Y" is missing from the Date Avail column for all units from Strategic Operations. All of the other expansions show the "Y" in front of the date. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
---
1Fed: The values in the Salvage column are not formatted consistently. Sometimes there is one decimal place, sometimes 2, sometimes none. This could be standardized to make the column a bit easier to read. Given that there are several units that have 3 decimal places, that might be the length to use. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. SVC: I don’t know that fixing this would actually make it more readable, and I don’t know that fixing it is worth my time. But I did change 0.00 to 0.0 and 3 to 3.0.
--
What I did this morning was to go through the whole 11-page file and mark anything that looked easy with a "1" at the front, then I did the first column of these (all Fed stuff). I am doing this to reduce clutter and shorten the file. The above changes/fixes are not noted in the update I posted a few days ago because they were made today (after that update) and will be seen on the next upload/update.
| By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, December 17, 2007 - 01:01 pm: Edit |
More simple stuff I did without staff help.
=========
1Hydran BS: The SFB Ref # column should be "R1.3". F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
---
1Hydran BTX: In the Notes column the phase "Feds have F111s not PFs" can be removed from all races accept the Federation. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
---
1Hydran CAM: The SFB Ref # column should be 113. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
---
1Hydran CV (4CV): In the Conversion Cost and Build Cost columns, the word "See" should be removed to be consistent with carrier group entries for other races. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
---
1Hydran CVE (2CVE): In the Conversion Cost and Build Cost columns, the word "See" should be removed to be consistent with carrier group entries for other races. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
---
1Hydran CVM (3CVM): In the Conversion Cost and Build Cost columns, the word "See" should be removed to be consistent with carrier group entries for other races. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
---
1Hydran DWG: The SFB Ref # column should be A6. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
SVC left the CL26 and added A6 to make it easier to find.
---
1Hydran FFT: The SFB Ref # column should be 115. This unit is listed twice, with the Factors On Counter, Product, and Notes columns having different information. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
---
1Hydran FRX: The SFB Ref # column should be R1.81. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
---
1Hydran GNV: The period in the Conversion Cost column can be removed. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
---
1Hydran GRV: The period in the Conversion Cost column can be removed. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
---
1Hydran ID (4!D): In the Build Cost column, the word "See" should be removed to be consistent with carrier group entries for other races. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
---
1Hydran IRC: In the Conversion Cost column, there should be a colon after the ‡ in "From TR‡". F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
---
1Hydran LAH: The SFB Ref # column should be R1.75. There should be a colon after the reference to (513.112) in the Build Cost column. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
---
1Hydran LAS: The SFB Ref # column should be R1.77. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
---
1Hydran LB: The quotes can be removed from the Build Cost column. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
---
1Hydran LHE: The SFB Ref # column should be 116. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
---
1Hydran LM: The quotes can be removed from the Build Cost column. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
---
1Hydran MCL: The SFB Ref # column should be 114. The Product column should be "NO?" to be consistent with other units from that product. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
---
| By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, December 17, 2007 - 01:23 pm: Edit |
The rest of the Hydran simple stuff....
=======
1Hydran MPAL (SCS): In the Factors On Counter column, the word "none" should be capitalized. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
---
1Hydran MPAL: With the exception of the Designation and Date Avail columns, this row is identical to the "MPAL (PF)". Other races use the "MPAL (PF)" row, so the "MPAL" row can probably be removed. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
This must have been done earlier as there is no MPAL row on my copy.
---
1Hydran NCV (3NCV): In the Build Cost column, the word "See" should be removed to be consistent with carrier group entries for other races. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
---
1Hydran OM: The SFB Ref # column should be 57. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
---
1Hydran OS: The SFB Ref # column should be 56. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
---
1Hydran PGC: The SFB Ref # column should be A1. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
---
1Hydran PGF: The SFB Ref # column should be A5. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
---
1Hydran PGG: The SFB Ref # column should be A2. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
---
1Hydran PGR: The SFB Ref # column should be 122. The Base Hull column should be "PGS(3)". F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
---
1Hydran PGS: The SFB Ref # column should be 947. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
---
1Hydran PTP: The SFB Ref # column should be 121. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
---
1Hydran RNX: In the Notes column, the word "ship" should be capitalized. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
---
1Hydran SAH: The SFB Ref # column should be R1.76. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
---
1Hydran SAP: Should the "(S)" in the Date Avail column be "(A)"? F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
---
1Hydran SAS: The SFB Ref # column should be R1.78. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
---
1Hydran SBX: In the Notes column the phase "Feds have F111s not PFs" can be removed from all races accept the Federation. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
---
1Hydran SCX: In the Build Cost column, there should be a colon after "For DD/CW". In the Notes column, there should be a colon after "from KN". The conversion information in the Notes column should be moved to the Conversion Cost column. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
---
1Hydran SEN: In the Notes column, there should be a colon after "from HR" and after "from TR". The conversion information in the Notes column should be moved to the Conversion Cost column. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
---
1Hydran SP: The SFB Ref # column should be 119. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
---
1Hydran STX: In the Notes column, the phase "X-Technology Sector Base" should be "X-unit" to be consistent with other X-units. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
---
1Hydran UH (4UH): In the Build Cost column, the word "See" should be removed to be consistent with carrier group entries for other races. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
---
1Hydran VHP: The SFB Ref # column should be 120. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
---
1Hydran: Change reference to (J16) in MEGA entries to delete parens to be standardized with other SFB references.
---
1Hydran: The "Y" is missing from the Date Avail column for all units from Strategic Operations. All of the other expansions show the "Y" in front of the date. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
---
1Hydran: The values in the Salvage column are not formatted consistently. Sometimes there is one decimal place, sometimes 2, sometimes none. This could be standardized to make the column a bit easier to read. Given that there are several units that have 3 decimal places, that might be the length to use. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. SVC does not agree that adding zeros to the end of the numbers would make this easier to read but did some cleaning up.
---
| By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, December 17, 2007 - 01:38 pm: Edit |
Even more simple stuff done without the staff.
====
1Klingon BS: The SFB Ref # column should be "R1.3". F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
---
1Klingon BTX: In the Notes column the phase "Feds have F111s not PFs" can be removed from all races accept the Federation. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
---
1Klingon Commercial Convoy: In the Factors On Counter column, the word "none" should be capitalized. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
---
1Klingon FRX: The SFB Ref # column should be R1.81. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
---
1Klingon LAH: The SFB Ref # column should be R1.75. There should be a colon after the reference to (513.112) in the Build Cost column. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
---
1Klingon LAS: The SFB Ref # column should be R1.77. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
---
1Klingon MPAL (SCS): In the Factors On Counter column, the word "none" should be capitalized. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
---
1Klingon SAH: The SFB Ref # column should be R1.76. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
---
1Klingon SAS: The SFB Ref # column should be R1.78. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
---
1Klingon SBX: In the Notes column the phase "Feds have F111s not PFs" can be removed from all races accept the Federation. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
--
1Klingon STX: In the Notes column, the phase "X-Technology Sector Base" should be "X-unit" to be consistent with other X-units. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
---
1Klingon: Change reference to (J16) in MEGA entries to delete parens to be standardized with other SFB references.
---
1Klingon: The "Y" is missing from the Date Avail column for all units from Strategic Operations. All of the other expansions show the "Y" in front of the date. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
--
1Klingon: The values in the Salvage column are not formatted consistently. Sometimes there is one decimal place, sometimes 2, sometimes none. This could be standardized to make the column a bit easier to read. Given that there are several units that have 3 decimal places, that might be the length to use. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. SVC doesn’t think that it is necessary or helpful to add zeros to the end of every entry until they have the same number of decimal places.
---
| By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, December 19, 2007 - 06:25 pm: Edit |
MORE STUFF I DID BEHIND THE STAFF'S BACK
-----
1Kzinti BCM: The SFB Ref # column should be 104. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
--
1Kzinti BS: The SFB Ref # column should be "R1.3". F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
--
1Kzinti BTX: In the Notes column the phase "Feds have F111s not PFs" can be removed from all races accept the Federation. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
--
1Kzinti CDX: The SFB Ref # column should be A4. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
--
1Kzinti CLD: The SFB Ref # column should be 945. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
--
1Kzinti Commercial Convoy: In the Factors On Counter column, the word "none" should be capitalized. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
--
1Kzinti CPF: The Notes column should have "Casual PF Flotilla". F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
--
1Kzinti DCS (H): The SFB Ref # column should be 106. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
--
1Kzinti DCS (P): The SFB Ref # column should be 106. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
--
1Kzinti FDX: The conversion information in the Notes column should be moved to the Conversion Cost column. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
--
1Kzinti FFT: The SFB Ref # column should be 107. This unit is listed twice with the Factors On Counter, Product, and Notes columns having different information. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
--
1Kzinti FHL: In the Build Cost column, the word "Year" should not be capitalized to make it consistent with other "one/" entries. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
Yes, it should be capped. I think.
--
1Kzinti FKE: The SFB Ref # column should be A1. The conversion information in the Notes column should be moved to the Conversion Cost column. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
--
1Kzinti FRX: The SFB Ref # column should be R1.81. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
--
1Kzinti LAD: The SFB Ref # column should be 951A. The Base Hull column should be "LAux(3)". F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
--
1Kzinti LAH: The SFB Ref # column should be R1.75. There should be a colon after the reference to (513.112) in the Build Cost column. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
--
1Kzinti LAS: The SFB Ref # column should be R1.77. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
--
1Kzinti MCM: The SFB Ref # column should be 105. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
--
1Kzinti MPAL (SCS): In the Factors On Counter column, the word "none" should be capitalized. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
--
ALL THE ABOVE WERE FIXED ON THIS DATE.
| By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, December 19, 2007 - 06:34 pm: Edit |
MORE STUFF I DID WHEN THE STAFF WASN’T LOOKING
====
1Kzinti NSV: In the Notes column, "heavyfighters" should be two words. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
--
1Kzinti PTP: The SFB Ref # column should be 112. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
--
1Kzinti SAD: The SFB Ref # column should be 951B. The Base Hull column should be "SAux(4)". F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
--
1Kzinti SAH: The SFB Ref # column should be R1.76. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
--
1Kzinti SAS: The SFB Ref # column should be R1.78. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
--
1Kzinti SBX: In the Notes column the phase "Feds have F111s not PFs" can be removed from all races accept the Federation. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
1Kzinti SP: The SFB Ref # column should be 110. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
--
1Kzinti STX: In the Notes column, the phase "X-Technology Sector Base" should be "X-unit" to be consistent with other X-units. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
--
1Kzinti T-POD: The SFB Ref # column should be 17. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
--
1Kzinti VHP: The SFB Ref # column should be 111. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
--
1Kzinti: Change reference to (J16) in MEGA entries to delete parens to be standardized with other SFB references.
-
1Kzinti: The "Y" is missing from the Date Avail column for all units from Strategic Operations. All of the other expansions show the "Y" in front of the date. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
Fixed
-
1Kzinti: The values in the Salvage column are not formatted consistently. Sometimes there is one decimal place, sometimes 2, sometimes none. This could be standardized to make the column a bit easier to read. Given that there are several units that have 3 decimal places, that might be the length to use. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
SVC I did some cleaning up but do not agree that adding zeros to the end of everything until it has the same number of digits makes it easier to read.
=======
ALL ABOVE FIXED ON THIS DATE.
| By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, December 19, 2007 - 06:45 pm: Edit |
MORE STUFF I FIXED WHEN THE STAFF WAS WORKING ON SOMETHING IMPORTANT.
=====
1Lyran BCP: The conversion information in the Notes column should be moved to the Conversion Cost column. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
--
1Lyran BCS: The conversion information in the Notes column should be moved to the Conversion Cost column. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
--
1Lyran BP+: The period in the Conversion Cost column can be removed. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
--
1Lyran BS: The SFB Ref # column should be "R1.3". F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
--
1Lyran BTX: In the Notes column the phase "Feds have F111s not PFs" can be removed from all races accept the Federation. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
--
1Lyran CCX: The conversion information in the Notes column should be moved to the Conversion Cost column. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
--
1Lyran Commercial Convoy: In the Factors On Counter column, the word "none" should be capitalized. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
1Lyran CSV: The conversion information in the Notes column should be moved to the Conversion Cost column. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
1Lyran CVA: The conversion information in the Notes column should be moved to the Conversion Cost column. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
1Lyran CVH: The conversion information in the Notes column should be moved to the Conversion Cost column. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
--
1Lyran CWE: The conversion information in the Notes column should be moved to the Conversion Cost column. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
--
1Lyran CWG: The conversion information in the Notes column should be moved to the Conversion Cost column. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
--
1Lyran CWS: The conversion information in the Notes column should be moved to the Conversion Cost column. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
1Lyran CWX: The conversion information in the Notes column should be moved to the Conversion Cost column. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
In this case, the notesc column said 6 EPs to convert from DD, but the conversion column said 7 and was marked as having been changed in Dec 06. I left the 7 and deleted the note about 6.
-
1Lyran DND: The period in the Conversion Cost column can be removed. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
ALL ABOVE DONE ON THIS DATE.
| By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, December 20, 2007 - 10:01 am: Edit |
MORE STUFF I FIXED WHEN THE STAFF WAS IN "CULTURAL SENSITIVITY TRAINING"
=====
1Lyran DNH: The conversion information in the Notes column should be moved to the Conversion Cost column. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
1Lyran DNWP: In the Date Avail column, should the "F" be "(B)"? F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
1Lyran DWE: The conversion information in the Notes column should be moved to the Conversion Cost column. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
1Lyran DWG: The SFB Ref # column should be 939. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
1Lyran DWT: The SFB Ref # column should be 93. This unit is listed twice, with the Factors On Counter, Product, Conversion Cost, and Notes columns having different information. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
In my copy, this was already done.
-
1Lyran DWV: The conversion information in the Notes column should be moved to the Conversion Cost column. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
1Lyran FFT: The SFB Ref # column should be 94. This unit is listed twice, with the Factors On Counter, Product, and Notes columns having different information. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
1Lyran FHL: In the Build Cost column, the word "Year" should not be capitalized to make it consistent with other "one/" entries. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
Hmmm.. I think it should be.
-
1Lyran FRX: The SFB Ref # column should be R1.81. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
1Lyran KBP: The period in the Conversion Cost column can be removed. In the Notes columns, "Klingon-Type" should be "K-type" to be consistent with other Klingon pods. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
1Lyran KSP: The SFB Ref # column should be 98. The period in the Conversion Cost column can be removed. In the Notes column, the text "K(LTT)-type" should be moved to the beginning of the sentence to make it consistent with other Klingon pods. Also in the Notes column, if this pod is limited to LTTs, does the text about a tug need to be included? F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
Who said it was limited to LTTs?
--
1Lyran KPTP: The SFB Ref # column should be 100. The period in the Conversion Cost column can be removed. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
--
1Lyran KVH: In the Notes column, "medium carrier pod" should be capitalized. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
--
ALL ABOVE FIXED THIS DATE
-
BTW, it wouldn't hurt for people to thank me for finally paying attention to F&E and to encourage me to continue doing the SIT updates.
| By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, December 20, 2007 - 10:01 am: Edit |
MORE STUFF I FIXED WHEN THE STAFF WAS ON BREAK
=====
1Lyran KVP: The period in the Conversion Cost column can be removed. In the Notes column, "Klingon-Type" should be "K-type" to be consistent with other Klingon pods. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
1Lyran LAH: The SFB Ref # column should be R1.75. There should be a colon after the reference to (513.112) in the Build Cost column. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
1Lyran LAS: The SFB Ref # column should be R1.77. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
1Lyran MPAL (SCS): In the Factors On Counter column, the word "none" should be capitalized. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
1Lyran NCA: The Base Hull column should be "NCA(3)". F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
1Lyran NCV: The SFB Ref # column should be 95. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
1Lyran NPF: In the Conversion Cost column, the word "Minor" should be "(minor)" to be consistent with other minor conversion listings. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
1Lyran NSC: The SFB Ref # column should be 96. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
1Lyran NSV: In the Date Avail column, should the "F" be "(B)"? F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
1Lyran NTG: The SFB Ref # column should be 97. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
1Lyran PFP+: The period in the Conversion Cost column can be removed. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
1Lyran PFW: The conversion information in the Notes column should be moved to the Conversion Cost column. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
1Lyran POL: The period in the Conversion Cost column can be removed. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
1Lyran PTP+ The SFB Ref # column should be 102. The period in the Conversion Cost column can be removed. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.\
-
1Lyran PV: The SFB Ref # column should be 84. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
1Lyran SAH: The SFB Ref # column should be R1.76. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
1Lyran SAS: The SFB Ref # column should be R1.78. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
1Lyran SBX: In the Notes column the phase "Feds have F111s not PFs" can be removed from all races accept the Federation. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
1Lyran SCP+: The period in the Conversion Cost column can be removed. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
ALL ABOVE FIXED THIS DATE
-
| By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, December 20, 2007 - 10:04 am: Edit |
MORE STUFF I FIXED WHEN THE STAFF WAS HAVING "QUITE TIME".
=====
1Lyran SCS: The conversion information in the Notes column should be moved to the Conversion Cost column. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
1Lyran SP+: The SFB Ref # column should be 101. The period in the Conversion Cost column can be removed. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
1Lyran STX: In the Notes column, the phase "X-Technology Sector Base" should be "X-unit" to be consistent with other X-units. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
1Lyran T-Pod: In the Notes column, the text "K-type" should be moved to the beginning to be consistent with other Klingon pods. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
1Lyran VHP: The SFB Ref # should be 99. The period in the Conversion Cost column can be removed. In the Notes column, the text "(K-type)" should be "K-type" (no parens) and be moved to the beginning to be consistent with other Klingon pods. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
1Lyran VP+: The period in the Conversion Cost column can be removed. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
1Lyran: Change reference to (J16) in MEGA entries to delete parens to be standardized with other SFB references.
-
1Lyran: The "Y" is missing from the Date Avail column for all units from Strategic Operations. All of the other expansions show the "Y" in front of the date. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
1Lyran: The values in the Salvage column are not formatted consistently. Sometimes there is one decimal place, sometimes 2, sometimes none. This could be standardized to make the column a bit easier to read. Given that there are several units that have 3 decimal places, that might be the length to use. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
ALL ABOVE PROCESSED THIS DATE
-
| By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, December 20, 2007 - 10:05 am: Edit |
ORIONS: MORE STUFF I FIXED WHEN THE STAFF WAS IN "PUNCTUATION TRAINING"
=====
1Orion BRH: This unit is listed twice, but the first entry is blank. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
1Orion CRX: In the Notes column, the § symbol should be after the Lease information to be consistent with the other entries. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
1Orion CX: In the Notes column, the § symbol should be after the Lease information to be consistent with the other entries. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
1Orion FLG: The SFB Ref # column should be A1. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
1Orion LX: The SFB Ref # column should be 205. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
1Orion MBR: The SFB Ref # column should be 51. The Product column is missing. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
1Orion POL (DD): The SFB Ref # column should be 47. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
1Orion SVL: In the Build Cost column, there should be a space after "For SLV:". F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
1Orion: Change reference to (J16) in MEGA entries to delete parens to be standardized with other SFB references.
-
1Orion: The "Y" is missing from the Date Avail column for all units from Strategic Operations. All of the other expansions show the "Y" in front of the date. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
1Orion: The values in the Salvage column are not formatted consistently. Sometimes there is one decimal place, sometimes 2, sometimes none. This could be standardized to make the column a bit easier to read. Given that there are several units that have 3 decimal places, that might be the length to use. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
Fixed the way I’m going to fix them.
-
ABOVE FIXED ON THIS DATE
-
| By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, December 20, 2007 - 10:12 am: Edit |
MORE STUFF I FIXED WHEN THE STAFF WAS ON BREAK
=====
1Romulan BS: The SFB Ref # column should be "R1.3". F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
1Romulan BTX: In the Notes column the phase "Feds have F111s not PFs" can be removed from all races accept the Federation. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
1Romulan Commercial Convoy: In the Factors On Counter column, the word "none" should be capitalized. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
1Romulan FRX: The SFB Ref # column should be R1.81. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
1Romulan LAH: The SFB Ref # column should be R1.75. There should be a colon after the reference to (513.112) in the Build Cost column. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
1Romulan LAS: The SFB Ref # column should be R1.77. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
1Romulan MPAL (SCS): In the Factors On Counter column, the word "none" should be capitalized. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
1Romulan SAH: The SFB Ref # column should be R1.76. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
1Romulan SAS: The SFB Ref # column should be R1.78. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
1Romulan SBX: In the Notes column the phase "Feds have F111s not PFs" can be removed from all races accept the Federation. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
1Romulan STX: In the Notes column, the phase "X-Technology Sector Base" should be "X-unit" to be consistent with other X-units. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
1Romulan: Change reference to (J16) in MEGA entries to delete parens to be standardized with other SFB references.
-
1Romulan: The "Y" is missing from the Date Avail column for all units from Strategic Operations. All of the other expansions show the "Y" in front of the date. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
1Romulan: The values in the Salvage column are not formatted consistently. Sometimes there is one decimal place, sometimes 2, sometimes none. This could be standardized to make the column a bit easier to read. Given that there are several units that have 3 decimal places, that might be the length to use. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
SVC did what he was going to do.
-
ABOVE DONE ON THIS DATE.
| By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, December 20, 2007 - 10:22 am: Edit |
MORE STUFF I FIXED WHEN THE STAFF WAS IN "PERSONAL AWARENESS TRAINING"
=====
1Tholian BS: The SFB Ref # column should be "R1.3". F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
1Tholian BTX: In the Notes column the phase "Feds have F111s not PFs" can be removed from all races accept the Federation. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
1Tholian CCW: In the Build Cost column, "From" should probably be "For". F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
1Tholian Commercial Convoy: In the Factors On Counter column, the word "none" should be capitalized. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
1Tholian DDS: The SFB Ref # column should be 56. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
1Tholian DDV: The SFB Ref # column should be 57. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
1Tholian DP: In the Base Hull, Conversion Cost, and Notes column, the "D" should probably be "DN". F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
1Tholian DPW: In the Base Hull, Conversion Cost, and Notes column, the "D" should probably be "DN". F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
1Tholian HFtr Pack: The SFB Ref # column should be A5. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
1Tholian LAH: The SFB Ref # column should be R1.75. There should be a colon after the reference to (513.112) in the Build Cost column. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
1Tholian LAS: The SFB Ref # column should be R1.77. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
1Tholian MPAL (SCS): In the Factors On Counter column, the word "none" should be capitalized. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
1Tholian NDN: The Product column should be "AO"(letter o), not "A0"(zero). F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
1Tholian PV: The SFB Ref # column should be A14. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
1Tholian SAH: The SFB Ref # column should be R1.76. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
1Tholian SAS: The SFB Ref # column should be R1.78. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
1Tholian SBX: In the Notes column the phase "Feds have F111s not PFs" can be removed from all races accept the Federation. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
1Tholian STX: In the Notes column, the phase "X-Technology Sector Base" should be "X-unit" to be consistent with other X-units. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
1Tholian: Change reference to (J16) in MEGA entries to delete parens to be standardized with other SFB references.
-
1Tholian: The "Y" is missing from the Date Avail column for all units from Strategic Operations. All of the other expansions show the "Y" in front of the date. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
-
1Tholian: The values in the Salvage column are not formatted consistently. Sometimes there is one decimal place, sometimes 2, sometimes none. This could be standardized to make the column a bit easier to read. Given that there are several units that have 3 decimal places, that might be the length to use. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
Did what I was going to do.
-
ABOVE DONE THIS DATE.
THIS COMPLETES ALL OF THE "EASY" ITEMS.
| By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, December 20, 2007 - 10:48 am: Edit |
Generic: This is a strange category, in that there is no longer a Generic SIT. (There was one once, but we merged it into each race’s SIT at the request of players and don’t keep the old Generic one up to date any more.) This section then becomes a place to review items that apply to all SITs across the board.
==========
Generic Auxiliaries with heavy fighters-0: Provided you decide to keep the auxiliaries with heavy fighters, the factors on all the non-Federation LAH need to be reassessed. The Federation LAH has 9 F-111 factors while the others have 8 Heavy Fighter factor PLUS 6 Fighter factors. As the Federation LAH is consistent with the SFB SSD, the other races should be only 8 Heavy Fighter factors without the regular fighter factors. The relationship of the Federation SAH to the LAH is the same as the SAP to the LAP; same number of fighters/PFs with more support systems. - Wyszynski 29 April 2005
-
Generic Auxiliaries with heavy fighters-1: Nick: I have to go back and look, thought the SFB versions were published somewhere... Module R11, but only as generic SSDs. This is something we did a in Dec 06.
-
Generic Auxiliaries with heavy fighters-2. This is IIRC the LAV w/ 12 std ftrs replaced w/ 6 hvy fighters, internally. So in F+E, it'd be (8H6), since it's 6xhvy+12xstd fighters loaded in the LAV. I can't remember if an SSDs was done in a CL (it's not in an R-Module/J2). That's why the Fed LAA is (10A6), because it has 6xA-20s+12xF-18s, IIRC that's the entry on the SITS. S.Tenhoff 12-15-07
-
Generic Auxiliaries with heavy fighters-2: The only counter is the Fed LAH and it was introduced in AO on sheet N+O. I can’t find any SSD’s for any race with LAH except the Fed LAH at R2.104 of SFB. We can be wide open as to how they are taken care of since all we are changing is the SIT entry. The Fed LAH with 1-4Æ(9H)/0-2(4.5H) is already printed in both F&E as a counter and SFB as an SSD in J2. MCurtis 18 December 2007 The factors appear to be similar to the D7U Area Control Ship, but we already have a Area Control Variant for auxiliaries. The factors for the generic LAH and other than Fed racial LAH should be 1-4(8H)/0-2(4H). Likewise the SAH should be 0-2(9H)/0-1(4.5H). MCurtis 18 December 2007
-
Generic Auxiliaries with heavy fighters-SVC: after consultation with Petrick, it has been determined that the proper value for the LAH is 8H6 and for the SAH is 8H. A quick scan of the SITs on my hard disk shows that all of these have these factors, so this was apparently fixed earlier.
============
Generic Carriers-0: Are the salvage costs right? I thought salvage was by base hull ignoring carrier conversion surcharges. Kenneth Jones, 6 March 06. SVC asks for staff input. Is he talking about auxiliary carriers or all carriers?
-
Generic Carriers-1: What Generic Carriers? Are there specific examples? Or do we need to go through every carrier in the game to check? The only ones I see on the General SIT are the LAV and SAV and their salvage costs appear correct. MCurtis 18 December 2007
-
Generic Carriers-2: Nick: I though so too (salvage calculated by base hull only) but I suppose I could be wrong.
-
Generic Carriers-3: SVC: This feels like something that refers to all carriers of all races, or perhaps just a few of them. I think it’s not so much a "generic" issue as a "widespread" issue. I’m going to dump this one back into the topic and tell people to check various carriers. If there are problems, then we will need individual line items for every ship involved. But before anybody does that, we need the staff to decide what the "rule" for carrier salvage is.
=============================
Generic HDW COG->HOG conversion-0: And there is also the cost of changing the COG to a HOG. You're not actually changing the configuration you're just changing the fighter ready racks. So would it be free like the other CVs (pay for the fighter difference) or a 1 point mission change (along with the fighter costs)? Michael Liu, 13 March 06 [I'd say neither, because the rules don't support doing so. (Of course, if you have both a COG and a HOG, it costs 1 EP to change the HDW from using one to the other.) Dave Butler][ True, but there probably should be a rule to allow a race to change a COG to a HOG. Michael Lui ]
-
Generic HDW COG->HOG conversion-1. I guess it would be possible to allow the conversion of a COG->HOG since it'd be the same as changing a D7V->D7VH. But why not just build the HOG in the first place, both the COG or HOG is available to build when HDWs are introduced. It just allows you to split the construction cost over 2 turns. S.Tenhoff 12-15-07
-
Generic HDW COG->HOG conversion-2: The rules (525.20) are clear about HDW missions. To do a V mission you need a COG (Carrier Operations Group). To do an H mission you need a HOG (Heavy fighter Operations Group). To switch between missions you have to spend 1 ep at a SB and switch missions. MCurtis 18 December 2007
-
Generic HDW COG->HOG conversion-3: Nick: There is no way in the rules to convert a COG to a HOG, if you have both any given HDW can be configured to use either, or change between them under the HDW rules, but you cannot change the operations groups into different types. If you want the other type you have to build it straight up.
-
Generic HDW COG->HOG conversion-4: On review, SVC agrees with Nick. You cannot convert a COG to a HOG. You have to build a new HOG. Why anyone needs a Harley Davidson Operations Group is beyond me, but whatever.
======================================
Generic: Proposed addition-0: convert two small auxiliaries into one large auxiliary for 2 points. [not very efficient, but if you want to do it, it costs.] --SVC [If we want to do this, we can.]
-
Generic: Proposed addition-1: convert one small auxiliary into one large auxiliary for 3 points. [not very efficient, but if you want to do it, it costs.] --SVC [If we want to do this, we can.]
-
Generic: Proposed addition-2 SAV->LAV conversion. I don't like this, for years we've said 'you can't convert an auxillary once it's created'. Then we are changing it. This shall snowball to allow LAVs to be converted to HAVs. S.Tenhoff 12-15-07
-
Generic: Proposed addition-3: convert one ...Nick: Don't see why not. Will it ever be used?
-
Generic: Proposed addition-4: I agree on the efficiency side of things. I would rather spend the extra point or two to build the large auxiliary then use up a valuable conversion slot. MCurtis 18 December 2007
-
Generic: Proposed addition-SVC: don’t care a lot either way. Somebody told me that we have a rule that auxiliaries cannot be converted. If I said that (and I guess I did) then I don’t know what the basis of my pronouncement was. (If there is such a rule, then somebody tell us where it is.) In the final analysis, I did nothing and left this to further debate.--SVC
===========
This complete this week's step, which was to do the Generic items. I will now proceed to download and factor in one archive, then send the Gorns to the staff and update the Gorn SIT next week.
| By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, January 26, 2008 - 07:43 pm: Edit |
GORN SIT REPORTS PROCESSED
Gorn APT - SFB Ref should be 'R1.8' ('8' shown) - SWFrazier 080120 SVC DONE.
Gorn ASC - SFB Ref should be 'R1.31' ('31' shown); Date (YIS) should be Y183 [Y182(B) shown] [PF3 - (526.47)] - SWFrazier 080120 SVC DONE.
Gorn BATS - SFB Ref should be 'R1.2' ('2' shown) - SWFrazier 080120 SVC DONE.
Gorn BB: 0 Is the value in the Salvage column correct? None of the other BBs have a salvage value more than 7.2. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
Gorn BB: 0 The salvage appears to be incorrect; Gorns are salvaged at 25% of base hull cost (10.0EP is too high at 27.77%). Chuck Strong.
Gorn BB: 36 x 0.25=9, this is what the salvage should be. MCurtis 26 December 2007
Gorn BB: Both Fed (AO) BB and Klg (AO/FO) B10 give 7.2 salvage (20% of BB 'base' of 36), other BBs at 7.2. - SWFrazier
Gorn BB: I agree, the salvage is too high. I think it should be 5 to match the Romulan and Kzinti BBs.--Adam Hickey
Gorn BB: If the base hull cost of BBs is 36 EP then 25% of that should be 9 points of salvage. Strong 24 Jan 2008
Gorn BB: Should be 5, the same as the Kzinti BB. Laikind 03 Jan 08.
Gorn BB: The salvage appears to be incorrect; Gorns are salvaged at 25% of base hull cost (10.0EP is too high at 27.77%). Chuck Strong.
Gorn BB: The salvage is too high at 10EP. Based on 25% that the Gorns salvage at the correct value should be 9. Ryan Opel
Gorn BB SVC: I don’t know what’s going on or how you guys come up with the salvage rates you do. If the B10 and Mars are right at 7.2 and the kzinti is right at 5, then this should be 5, which is what I did. However, it’s theoretically possible that all of the BB salvage numbers are wrong. But if so, I’m not going to change them piecemeal, but only when the staff gets together and decides on a number.
Gorn BCS 0: Note by SVC: There were numerous reports about BCS and BCV, and despite my attempts to get people to code their reports so I could sort them and have all of the reports on one line item fall together, this failed, and many staffers simply put "Gorn BCS:" which made it impossible to match their report to the line item. When their reports came in, many included the original line items, but they had been told that these would be deleted, and they were, leaving (all too often) no clue what a given report line item was about. I did the best I could to match reports to the original line item, but this was not always a perfect process and I don’t know about some reports. I did what I could.
Gorn BCS from BC: 0 BC>BCH>BCS=3+5-1=7 Missing Conversion Michael C. Mikulis [SVC need staff to confirm that this conversion is valid before adding it.]
Gorn BCS from BC: Add convert from BC: 7, double conversion, matches BCV. Laikind 03 Jan 08.
Gorn BCS from BC: BC>BCH>BCS It is a valid conversion. Strong 24 Jan 2008
Gorn BCS from BC: This should be a valid double conversion. Can convert BC>BCH for 3 and BCH>BCS for 5+6. BC>BCS would be 7+6 (double conversion) . Ryan Opel
Gorn BCS from BC: Valid (CC can be converted into anything a CA [BC} can be converted into) - SWFrazier
Gorn BCS from BC: Yes, this should be a valid double conversion (G-BC->BCS), it would be no different than the L-CL->BCH->BCS double conversion. THe cost is correct, but needs the "+6" for the fighters added. S.Tenhoff 12-26-07
Gorn BCS final: made it 7 double dagger plus six.--SVC
Gorn BCS from BCV: 0 BCV>BCS=2 Missing Conversion Michael C. Mikulis [SVC need staff to confirm that this conversion is valid before adding it.]
Gorn BCS from BCV: 437.1) does not list this as a valid double conversion. Similar comments to this as in the CCH-> BCH-> BCS double conversion above. MCurtis 26 December 2007
Gorn BCS from BCV: Add BCV to BCS: 2, same as Feds. This is legal, but do you have to list all double conversions? Laikind 03 Jan 08. (SVC: Apparently, we do.)
Gorn BCS from BCV: BCV>BCS=2; looks okay. Strong 24 Jan 2008
Gorn BCS from BCV: I don't know if this is a legal path. Laikind 03 Jan 08.
Gorn BCS from BCV: It's a 3pt conversion from BC->BCH, +3 EP for adding PFs, -1 for double conversion, so that's 3+3-1=5EP. It can then trade in fighters per (442.11). S.Tenhoff 12-26-07
Gorn BCS from BCV: Right now it isn't valid because it isn't on any list. Rule 437.1 says that if it isn't on the list there, or another published list, it is impossible. I would recommend keeping it that way.--Adam Hickey
Gorn BCS from BCV: Valid - SWFrazier
Gorn BCS from CCH: 0 CCH>BCH>BCS=2+5-1=6 Missing Conversion Michael C. Mikulis [SVC need staff to confirm that this conversion is valid before adding it.]
Gorn BCS from CCH: 437.1) does not list this as a valid double conversion. This and the following proposed double conversions are something new for the Gorns. According to (437.1) the largest Gorn double conversions are the CV class only. The rest of the BC hulls are not listed. But the CV class is a base hull of a CL and is the largest hull to be double converted. The only CA classes that can be double converted belong to the Romulans, the Kzinti, and the Lyrans. The Lyrans have a unique methodology for conversion so we only have the Romulans and the Kzinti. This is one per side and balances each other out. If you, as the designer, wish to give the Gorns some other similar explanation similar to the Lyran "Giant Space Torch"™, then it would work by the SSD’s. There are some major structural differences between the BCH and the BCS, but that is not the change in class and that is a 5 pt conversion. I don’t think I am being clear enough on this, but that is what I cam coming up with. It is making my head hurt. MCurtis 26 December 2007
Gorn BCS from CCH: CCH>BCH>BCS=2+5-1=6; looks okay. Strong 24 Jan 2008
Gorn BCS from CCH: CCH>BCS 6+6 (Double Conversion). Ryan Opel
Gorn BCS from CCH: I don't think that this should get a special conversion that's cheaper than the BC->BCH. The BCH adds a Plasma-S to the front bubble, besides just the extra phasers that the CCH front bubble gets in it's upgrade. So leave it out, or make it BC/CC/CCH->BCS=7+6 as from above. S.Tenhoff 12-26-07
Gorn BCS from CCH: Right now it isn't valid because it isn't on any list. Rule 437.1 says that if it isn't on the list there, or another published list, it is impossible. It would, however, qualify if you want to add it because it is to a larger ship class and then to a variant.--Adam Hickey
Gorn BCS from CCH: This is legal, but do you have to list all double conversions? Laikind 03 Jan 08.
Gorn BCS from CCH: Valid - SWFrazier
Gorn BCS from CCH: Valid double conversion - SWFrazier
Gorn BCS from CCH: Added as six double dagger plus six.
Gorn BCS from CVS: CVS>BCV>BCS=3+2-1=4 Missing Conversion Michael C. Mikulis [SVC will not make this change without senior staff confirmation.]
Gorn BCS from CVS: CVS>BCV>BCS=3+2-1=4; looks okay. Strong 24 Jan 2008
Gorn BCS from CVS: I think that Michael is basing this on the K-C7V->C7S conversion and Z-BCV->BCS conversions which are +2EPs. I think those conversions are *wrong*, all other 'just add PF to the hull' are 3EP conversions, IE L-BCP, L-DNP, R-ROC. So all of the BCV->BCS conversions should cost 3EPs also. S.Tenhoff 12-26-07 SVC ASKS THE STAFF TO INVESTIGATE THIS CONTENTION.
Gorn BCS from CVS: Not a double conversion. Can go direct CV>CVS?>BCS or CV>CVS?>BCV as double conversions for 5ep. CVS>BCV is a direct conversion. CVS>BCS should be a 3ep direct conversion. Ryan Opel
Gorn BCS from Unknown: (437.1) does not list this as a valid double conversion. MCurtis 26 December 2007
Gorn BCS from unknown: I would recomend allowing it. F, K, Z, H, & L can do this exact conversion for 2 as well. R can't because they don't have a BCS.--Adam Hickey
Gorn BCS from Unknown: Right now it isn't valid because it isn't on any list. Rule 437.1 says that if it isn't on the list there, or another published list, it is impossible. It would, however, qualify if you want to add it because it is to a larger ship class and then to a variant.--Adam Hickey
Gorn BCS from Unknown: The SSD’s show a possibility here. But the difference should be a 3 point conversion to add the mech links on the wings and would be a major conversion. MCurtis 26 December 2007
Gorn BCS from Unknown: This seems 1ep low. It’s 5ep to convert a BCH to BCS compared to 2ep for the BCV. The BCS adds 2xTRAC to each wing. I’d say it’s a 3ep conversion.
Gorn BCV from CCH: 0 CCH>BCH>BCV=2+2-1=3 Missing Conversion Michael C. Mikulis [SVC will not make this change without senior staff confirmation.]
Gorn BCV from CCH: 437.1) does not list this as a valid double conversion. Similar comments to this as in the CCH-> BCH-> BCS double conversion above. MCurtis 26 December 2007
Gorn BCV from CCH: Agreed. Is 1ep less than the double conversion BC>BCV accounting for the already paid for BC>CCH conversion. Ryan Opel
Gorn BCV from CCH: CCH>BCH>BCV=2+2-1=3; looks okay.Strong 24 Jan 2008
Gorn BCV from CCH: I don't think that this should get a special conversion that's cheaper than the BC->BCH. The BCH adds a Plasma-S to the front bubble, besides just the extra phasers that the CCH front bubble gets in it's upgrade. So leave it out, or make it BC/CC/CCH->BCV=4+12 (3+2-1). S.Tenhoff 12-26-07
Gorn BCV from CCH: Right now it isn't valid because it isn't on any list. Rule 437.1 says that if it isn't on the list there, or another published list, it is impossible. I would recommend keeping it that way.--Adam Hickey
Gorn BCV from CCH: This is legal, but do you have to list all double conversions? Laikind 03 Jan 08.
Gorn BCV from CCH: Valid - SWFrazier
GORN BCV: did this, 3+12, SVC
Gorn BDP - Date should be Fall Y182 [PF2 - (502.612)] - SWFrazier 080120 SVC notes that this is alreadyY182B which is how "fallY182" is shown on the SIT.
Gorn BS - SFB Ref should be 'R1.03' ('103' shown) - SWFrazier 080120 SVC Already done.
Gorn CC: 0 CL>BC>CC=3+1-1=3 Michael C. Mikulis [SVC will not make change without senior staff confirmation.]
Gorn CC: CL>BC>CC=3+1-1=3 is valid and is specifically listed in (437.1). Strong 24 Jan 2008
Gorn CC: CL>CC is already listed as a 4 pt conversion. This is probably a holdover from before double conversions received a 1 pt discount. Ryan Opel
Gorn CC: Right now it isn't valid because it isn't on any list. Rule 437.1 says that if it isn't on the list there, or another published list, it is impossible. It would, however, qualify if you want to add it because it is to a larger ship class and then to a variant.--Adam Hickey
Gorn CC: The conversion is shown as 4, probably to prevent double conversions. Laikind 03 Jan 08.
Gorn CC: This is listed in (437.1) as a valid two step conversion and the calculation listed above would be correct. MCurtis 26 December 2007
Gorn CC: Valid - SWFrazier
Gorn CC from CL: SVC changed it from 4 to 3 double dagger.
Gorn CCH from BC: 0 BC>CCH=2 (CC>CCH for 1 is fine, but a BC>CCH for 1 seems too good to be true) Michael C. Mikulis [SVC need staff to decide on doing this.]
Gorn CCH from BC: BC is a command rating of 8, the CC and CCH each have a command rating of 9. The BC is 10/5, the CC is 10/5, and the CCH is 11/6. If the BC is converted for just 1 into the CCH this would give two points of improvement for 1 ep. I recommend changing the Conversion cost for the CCH for the BC to 2. MCurtis 26 December 2007
Gorn CCH from BC: BC>CCH=2; 1 for the compot bump + 1 for the CR. Strong 24 Jan 2008
Gorn CCH from BC: I agree that this shouldn't get a double conversion discount, as it is not changing hull types (well technically the CC is a different hull type, but not for the Gorns as their CC is the same as the BC, ie a 10-pt ship). The G-BC->CCH conversion should be the same as the K-D7->D7C which adds +1CR and +1AF. S.Tenhoff 12-26-07
Gorn CCH from BC: I think BC>CCH for 1 is fine. Neither the BC>CC or CC>CCH are significant changes. Going direct from BC>CCH should be good. Ryan Opel
Gorn CCH from BC: I wholeheartedly agree. BC>CCH for 1 is too cheap; the Gorn is gaining compot and command. I might even argue for 3.--Adam Hickey
Gorn CCH from BC: IIRC, the BC to CCH is at 1, because it was argued as an almost a double conversion. Don't change. Laikind 03 Jan 08.
Gorn CCH from BC: Only CCH in game I think, leave as Gorn 'bonus'...- SWFrazier
Gorn CCH from BC: I changed it to 2.
Gorn CCH from CL: 0 CL>BC>CCH=3+2-1=4 Michael C. Mikulis [SVC will not make change without senior staff confirmation.]
Gorn CCH from CL: Agreed 437.2 lists the CL>BCH as a two-step conversion which gets the 1ep discount. CL>CCH should be 4ep rather than 5ep. Ryan Opel
Gorn CCH from CL: CL>BC>CCH=3+2-1=4 is valid and is specifically listed in (437.1). Strong 24 Jan 2008
Gorn CCH from CL: The conversion is shown as 5, probably to prevent double conversions. Laikind 03 Jan 08.
Gorn CCH from CL: This is listed in (437.1) as a valid two step conversion and the calculation listed above would be correct. MCurtis 26 December 2007
Gorn CCH from CL: Valid, but cost is 3+1-1=3 - SWFrazier
Gorn CCH from CL: I changed it to four double dagger.
Gorn CMV - Listed as MDV in R10; SFB Ref is 76 (not shown) - SWFrazier 080120 SVC REFERENCE IS SHOWN ON MY COPY AND THE COUNTER SAYS CMV SO THAT’S THAT.
Gorn Commercial Convoy: In the Factors On Counter column, the word "none" should be capitalized. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. THIS HAS BEEN DONE.
Gorn CPF - Date should be Y183 [Y183(A) shown] - SWFrazier 080120 SVC NOTES THAT Y183A IS CORRECT.
Gorn CPX- Date should be Y183 [Y183(A) shown] - SWFrazier 080120 SVC NOTES THAT Y183A IS CORRECT.
Gorn CVA 0 Does this properly account for the carrier conversion cost? [SVC has never understood how you guys calculate these costs.]
Gorn CVA: [Don't know if conversion cost chnaged to based on hull size or stayed constant +2] SWFrazier
Gorn CVA: Conversion and build costs are correct. Laikind 03 Jan 08.
Gorn CVA: It should be +4EP to convert a DN->CVA, +2EP when you substitute it. IIRC. S.Tenhoff 12-26-07
Gorn CVA: The SIT is correct as is. Conversion or substitution cost is not counted for salvage.--Adam Hickey
Gorn CVA: This is the same CVA issue we have had will all the races. Use the same decision we used with the other races. MCurtis 26 December 2007
Gorn CVA: Well I’m not sure either. But the cost is comparable to the DN>CVA conversions for the Kzinti, Klingons and the Fed DNG/H. Ryan Opel
GORN CVA: NO CHANGE, IT’S CORRECT AS IS. CONVERTING A DN TO A CVA IS UNIVERSALLY FOUR POINTS.
Gorn DBC - double entry - SWFrazier 080120 SVC FIXED THIS A WHILE AGO.
Gorn DDC - double entry - SWFrazier 080120 SVC FIXED THIS A WHILE AGO.
Gorn DDT - double entry; SFB Ref should be '94 - SWFrazier 0801204' ('A1' shown) SVC FIXED THIS A WHILE AGO.
Gorn FHL - SFB Ref should be 'R1.62' ('62' shown) - SWFrazier 080120 SVC FIXED, GOOD CATCH.
Gorn FRD - SFB Ref should be 'R1.10' ('10' shown) - SWFrazier 080120 SVC FIXED, GOOD CATCH.
Gorn HSRV: 0 The Product column is missing. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. [Anybody know what it should be?]
Gorn HSRV: HSRV is in SO - SWFrazier
Gorn HSRV: Is in SO. Is also missing from the SIT in that product. Ryan Opel
Gorn HSRV: Product = SO. Strong 24 Jan 2008
Gorn HSRV: SO.--Adam Hickey
Gorn HSRV: The HSRV came out in SO on counter sheet four. MCurtis 26 December 2007
Gorn HSRV: FIXED. SVC
Gorn LAH: The SFB Ref # column should be R1.75. There should be a colon after the reference to (513.112) in the Build Cost column. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. SVC NOTES THAT THIS HAS BEEN DONE.
Gorn LAP - Date should be Fall Y182 [Y182(B) shown] - SWFrazier 080120 SVC NO CHANGE, DATE IS CORRECT.
Gorn LAS - SFB Ref should be 'R1.77' (CL24 shown) - SWFrazier 080120 SVC FIXED THIS.
Gorn MCC: 0 HD>CM>MCC=3+1-1=3 Michael C. Mikulis [SVC will not make change without senior staff confirmation.]
Gorn MCC: 437.2 lists the HD>CM>MCC as a approved two-step conversion. Should be a 3 pt double conversion. Ryan Opel
Gorn MCC: HD>CM>MCC=3+1-1=3 is valid and is specifically listed in (437.1). Strong 24 Jan 2008
Gorn MCC: No, we outlawed that, because converting an HD->CM cost 3EP, if the MCC cost 3EPs also, *all* HD->CM conversions would actually be HD->MCC conversions because it cost exactly the same. S.Tenhoff 12-26-07
Gorn MCC: Right now it isn't valid because it isn't on any list. Rule 437.1 says that if it isn't on the list there, or another published list, it is impossible. It would, however, qualify if you want to add it because it is to a larger ship class and then to a variant.--Adam Hickey
Gorn MCC: The conversion is shown as 4, double, probably intentionally. Laikind 03 Jan 08.
Gorn MCC: This is listed in (437.1) as a valid two step conversion and the calculation listed above would be correct. MCurtis 26 December 2007
Gorn MCC: Valid double conversion - SWFrazier
Gorn MCC: Taking Laikind and Tenhoff at their word, this one is deliberate and has been left unchanged.
Gorn MCM: 0 The Product column is missing. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. [Anybody know what it is?]
Gorn MCM: CL16 Laikind 03 Jan 08.
Gorn MCM: Has not been published in an F&E product. Was is CL16. No conversion or production costs found. Ryan Opel
Gorn MCM: It is the conjectural Mauler that was presented in CL 16. MCurtis 26 December 2007
Gorn MCM: It's never been published.--Adam Hickey
Gorn MCM: Mauler-CM? That's the same as it's attack factor, 10. IIRC. S.Tenhoff 12-26-07
Gorn MCM: These were Alliance maulers. SSD was in CL16; SIT was in CL27. Strong 24 Jan 2008
Gorn MCM: SVC inserted the product name "NO?" for "presmably to be in Nebulous Operations".
Gorn MEGA - Date should be Y179 [Y179(A) shown] - SWFrazier 080120 SVC DATE IS CORRECT NO CHANGE MADE.
Gorn MEGA-H - Date should be Fall Y179 [Y179(B) shown] - SWFrazier 080120 SVC DATE IS CORRECT NO CHANGE MADE.
Gorn MON - SFB Ref should be 'R1.22' ('22' shown) - SWFrazier 080120 SVC FIXED THIS.
Gorn MPAL(CV) - SFB Ref should be 'R1.22E' ('22E' shown) - SWFrazier 080120 SVC FIXED THIS.
Gorn MPAL(SCS) - SFB Ref should be 'R1.22E' ('22E' shown); - SWFrazier 080120 SVC FIXED THIS.
Gorn MPAL(SCS) - Date should be Fall Y182 [Y182(B) shown] - SWFrazier 080120 SVC DATE IS CORRECT NO CHANGE.
Gorn PDU - SFB Ref should be 'R1.14' ('14' shown) - SWFrazier 080120 SVC FIXED.
Gorn PF Mod - SFB Ref should be 'R1.16' ('16' shown); Date should be Fall Y182 [Y182(B) shown] - SWFrazier 080120 SVC FIXED NUMBER, Y182B IS THE SAME AS FALLY182 BUT HAS TO BE THAT WAY TO SORT INTO DATE ORDER.
Gorn PGB - SFB Ref should be 'R1.14' ('14' shown) - SWFrazier 080120 SVC FIXED THIS.
Gorn SAP - Date should be Y182 [Y182(B) shown] [PF1 - (516.47)] - SWFrazier 080120 SVC DATE CORRECT NO CHANGE.
Gorn SAS - SFB Ref should be 'R1.78' (CL24 shown) - SWFrazier 080120 SVC FIXED.
Gorn SB - SFB Ref should be 'R1.1' ('1' shown) - SWFrazier 080120 SVC FIXED.
Gorn SBX - SFB Ref should be 'R1.201' ('201' shown) - SWFrazier 080120 SVC FIXED.
Gorn SRV 0 - StratOps SIT - Missing the conversion from a SR (Cost = 0+6) = Wyszynski 18 December 2006 [SVC will not make change without senior staff confirmation.]
Gorn SRV: Add from SR: 0+6, same as Hydran. Laikind 03 Jan 08. SVC CONCURS.
Gorn SRV: Agreed the fighters replace 4xGAS and 2xAdmin shuttles. The SR is already setup for carrier ops so no additional conversion cost except the fighters. Ryan Opel SVC CONCURS.
Gorn SRV: It looks like some survey ships can be converted into survey carriers for just the cost of fighters. Examples are: F CLS>CVE, Z SR>SRV, and H PIC>PIV MSR>MSV. If not for free, it should definately be able to be done for a nominal cost.--Adam Hickey SVC CONCURS.
Gorn SRV: SR>SRV conversion cost should be listed as 0+6. Strong 24 Jan 2008 SVC CONCURS.
Gorn SRV: The only difference between the SR and SRV is the six fighters on the SSD. So, 0+6 should be added to the conversions for the SR to SRV conversion. MCurtis 26 December 2007 SVC CONCURS.
Gorn SRV: Valid - SWFrazier SVC CONCURS.
Gorn: The "NA" is used inconsistently. Sometimes it is "NA" and sometimes "-NA-". Also, sometimes it is centered, and sometimes not. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. SVC has established the standard as follows (and has done it for the Gorns). The proper form is —NA— to show that it’s "not applicable". It is centered if the column is centered and left-justified if the column is left justified.
| By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, December 03, 2007 - 05:43 pm: Edit |
Format guidance:
================================
Nice try but wrong:
Klingon SIT (May 05 edition):
D5B, D7U - Date Available shows Y176. These units use Heavy Fighters, which are not available to the Klingons until SY178(20) according to (530.223). Suggest changing the Date Available to Y178. -Greg E. 5/31/06
===================
Correct:
Klingon D5B - Date Available shows Y176. This unit uses Heavy Fighters, which are not available to the Klingons until SY178(20) according to (530.223). Suggest changing the Date Available to Y178. -Greg E. 5/31/06
Klingon D7U - Date Available shows Y176. This unit uses Heavy Fighters, which are not available to the Klingons until SY178(20) according to (530.223). Suggest changing the Date Available to Y178. -Greg E. 5/31/06
============
I have already fixed these. Don't worry about reposting them. Just, in future, ONE ship per line item, and race name as part of paragraph.
| By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, December 03, 2007 - 05:44 pm: Edit |
Z-Notes on SIT report procedures-01: There is only one SIT and the dateSIT is created by resorting the main SIT. If there is anything different between them, check the revision date.
Z-Notes on SIT report procedures-02: I do not have the game memorized, nor have I memorized every previous conversation about every previous revision to every single dataline on the SIT. If you say "change 4 to 5" I will send it back for you to include the data justifying your change and even then I won’t make the change until staffers sign off on it.
Z-Notes on SIT report procedures-03: No, I am not going to let anyone else make changes to the master SIT files. I am the final arbiter of what goes in them.
Z-Notes on SIT report procedures-04: No, I am not going to upload excel versions because this would make it easy for people to enter their own ideas, corrections, suggestions, and stupid theories and then produce something that looks like a valid SIT.
Z-Notes on SIT report procedures-05: No, the SITs cannot be uploaded to any other web site.
Z-Notes on SIT report procedures-06: Note that the various X-versions of war cruisers cannot for the most part be converted from existing war cruisers as you have to build a new one (and not the cheap way) to make that work.
Z-Notes on SIT report procedures-07: In some cases there are conversions listed as "not allowed". This is so people know we did this for a reason and not to report it as a mistake or try to change it.
Z-Notes on SIT report procedures-08: F&E players have a tendency to think of conversion costs in F&E-only factors. They count increased command rating, added EW, changed AF, and think they have a valid cost. Sometimes that is correct, sometimes it is too low as (comparing the SSDs from SFB) you have to do a lot more work than what you’re gaining costs.
| By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, December 03, 2007 - 05:57 pm: Edit |
Question: Would it be possible to set things up so that the latest SIT's are always at the top of this topic rather than having to search backward through the entire topic to get them? ANSWER: In theory, yes, that could be done, but given how few archives there are, I’m unclear it’s worth the bother.
Questions: The Hydrans are the only race that has to decide what NOT to build when making conversions or even repairs to ships. All the other races have enough EPs to build their entire schedule and then decide what to do with the extra EPs. If you want to make the Hydrans ships more expensive then give them some extra EPs to help their budget. About 20 ought to do it. This will make their budget about even with the other races who can build their entire schedule and have 20+ EPs left over for other items (Tholians might not have a big surplus, but they can at least build everthing on their schedule). ANSWER: This shows a fundamental mis-understanding of the Hydrans. It is no accident that they cannot afford their capacity. That is historically correct. Nothing is wrong, and no money needs to be added to them. What is going on is that the Guilds, each being in charge of a different thing, all build capability and then competed for the inadequate number of government EPs.
| By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, December 14, 2007 - 03:13 pm: Edit |
These are some assorted random notes, mostly in response to reports which I am for various reasons unable to process. These might be the basis for you guys to expend some of that nervous energy.
===========
The Factors On Counter column is not formatted consistently. The fighter, PF, scout, heavy fighter, etc. indicators are displayed in varying orders. Since ( 103.3) says that a specific order is used, these should probably be corrected.
- - - - -
This may be so, but I cannot do anything with this report. I cannot afford the time to go check every entry. If somebody sees an entry that is in the wrong order, do let me know, in line item format, one ship per line item.
==================
The Base Hull information for monitor pallets is not consistent. Sometimes it lists "Monitor Pallet", sometimes just "Pallet". F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
- - - - - -
SVC fixed this on all of the SITs on 7 Dec 07 because he was bored and wanted something brainless to do.
==================
EW information in the Notes column is not consistent. Sometimes it is listed as "(xEW)", sometimes "(EW=x)", and sometimes "EW=x". Also, the "(xEW:yAF)" listings are also not consistent, especially when there are multiples. Sometimes they are shown as "(xEW:yAF)(xEW:yAF)", sometimes "(xEW:yAF; xEW:yAF)".
- - - - - - - -
This may be so, but I cannot do anything with this report. I cannot afford the time to go check every entry. If somebody sees an entry that is misformatted, do let me know, in line item format, one ship per line item.
==================
Several of the races do not have their full name (i.e., United Federation of Planets) at the top of the SIT. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
- - - - - - - -
SVC Fixed this on 14 Dec when he was cleaning up the file.
==================
There are several different ways that a base hull is listed. The most common is "Base Hull Type (xx)", where xx is the type of unit. These should probably be standardized.
- - - - - -
SVC doesn’t regard this as worth much effort. He’d rather spend the time fixing actual mistakes than bothering with meaningless format changes. If somebody wants to do line items, knock yourself out.
==================
In the Conversion Cost and Build Cost columns, is there a difference between "NA" and "None"?
- - - - - -
SVC: I don’t know. Does it matter? Does it matter enough to make this kind of change instead of fixing things actually wrong? Comments?
=================
In the Factors On Counter column, is there a difference between "-" and "none"? If not, can one of these be changed to the other? It would make the chart more consistent. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. SVC does not regard this "need" for consistency to be a priority.
- - - - - -
SVC: I don’t know. Does it matter? Does it matter enough to make this kind of change instead of fixing things actually wrong? Comments?
=================
In the Conversion Cost column, the "‡" symbol is not placed consistently. Sometimes it is listed between the ship and the colon (i.e., "From FF‡: 3+1") and sometimes after the conversion cost ( i.e., "From FF: 3‡+1" or "From FF: 3+1‡"). If these examples all indicate the same thing, then maybe the "‡" placement can be standardized to make the chart a bit less confusing.
- - - - - - -
SVC: I don’t see how the position of ‡ is confusing, and this sounds like busywork. If I make this kind of change, some more important change gets delayed to the next week. Is it worth it? If so, I will need line items for each and every change so requested.
=============
| By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, December 14, 2007 - 03:48 pm: Edit |
More notes: I am about to sent the "generic" gig list to the staff, and some items don't need to go to them, but can just go here.
====================
Generic: Why do the BCV>BCS conversions cost 2 and not 5 EPs? Michael C. Mikulis
- - - - - - - -
SVC: Does anybody know what race this is supposed to be for?
====================
Generic Carrier conversion costs: Chuck, if I recall correctly when we hashed this out, it was decided to make the CVA cost more on the conversion side and not to mess with the direct build. Chris Fant, 6 March 06.
- - - - - - - -
(Chuck noted that he had never heard this and SVC is positive that this is just dead wrong, that you pay the 4 points for conversions and for straight production.)
====================
Generic CVA costs: Apparently at some point the "carrier surcharge" was changed to 4 points for these things. Does that apply to conversions as well as construction? And if it does apply, does the current SIT reflect this? Note that this was not a reflection of making it a major capital-only conversion since (515.52) already limited it in this way.
- - - - - - - -
[SVC asks the staff, is there anything we need to fix. It is my understanding that the 4 points applies to both construction and conversion.]
====================
Generic HDW: When we update the SITs again, would it be possible to add HDWs mission types to the list? Rational: Some production costs don't make sense. For example the Kzinti Combat (K) & Drone (D) missions cost the same and there is no adjustment for the DB ship. No one will EVER build an HDW-K when he can get a more capable HDW-D DB ship with the same compot for the same cost. Chuck Strong 12 March 06
- - - - - - - -
SVC thinks we should do HDW counters in some future product such as tactical operations.
====================
Generic Police: Please note that most SIT data is missing for many of the vanilla police ships to include call up costs, YIS, command ratings and other minor data. Peter A. Kellerhall
- - - - - - - -
[Police ship cost is in the police rule in advanced ops, but the rule was revamped in Plantary Ops. The new PO police rule doesn't give the cost of police ships as it assumes they are on the SIT, however, they are missing from the online SITs. The construction cost should be 2 pts for all races, (but remember the hydran has a fighter factor to account for as well). Nick Blank]
- - - - - - - -
[SVC: I need specific line items, not a vague directive to go check the entire SIT by myself.]
====================
Generic: I have been looking through the SITs and thinking of the two-step conversion issue (i.e., include all types of conversions and clutter up the SIT, only include some and risk some players not knowing a legal from illegal conversion, or include none and hope everyone applies the rule consistently) and came up with what I think might be a solution. Can those conversions that you consider a valid "first step" conversion be marked with a symbol (say "&") so that players then know that they can combine that conversion with a conversion to a variant of that hull for a valid two-step conversion? Then all the two-step conversions can be removed from the SITs, and hopefully make your job easier so that you don't have to keep track of all of the possible two-step conversion possibilities and list all of them on the SIT. John E. Kollar
- - - - - - - -
[SVC: I would just as soon list the ones that can be done, and if there is a valid reason, list illegal conversions with "NA". But to do anything, i need line items, not a vague mention that somebody sould go check something somewhere.
====================
Generic: SAFs are listed as 0-6/None but should be 0-6/0-3.
- - - - - - - -
SVC fixed this. Sorry for mistake. [SVC regards this as a finished item. Does the staff concur?]
====================
| By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, December 14, 2007 - 06:06 pm: Edit |
A common mistake I found is this kind of report:
Gorn CL>BC>CCH=3+2-1=4 Michael C. Mikulis
This report applies to the LINE on the SIT for the CCH, but "sorts" to the "line" for the CL. So this should be formatted as:
Gorn CCH: CL>BC>CCH=3+2-1=4 Michael C. Mikulis
| By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, December 14, 2007 - 04:41 pm: Edit |
Let me help you guys understand. We use line item format to take advantage of the "sort" feature of Microsoft WORD. We sort the paragraphs (each line item is one paragraph) alphabetically, which means all reports about the Fed DWT will land in the same spot, and if three people report the same fix, then we only have to fix it once.
| By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, December 20, 2007 - 01:38 pm: Edit |
Example of original item:
-------
ZGorn CCG: add conversion, BC>CCG=2. One point for the BC-CC conversion, one point for the commandoes. Howard K Parkefarker [SVC need staff to decide on doing this.]
Gorn CCG:
-------
Examples of correctly-formatted reply:
Gorn CCG: Yeah, that's a valid conversion, we do it all the time.--Ron Jeremy
Gorn CCG: Hold on a minute, there is no such thing as a CCG!--Chuck Strong
Examples of incorrectly-formatted reports.
On that CCG thing, what is Howard trying to pull?--CS
BC to CCG? Should be one point, as commando ships have the same base cost.--Fred Slaughter
Hey, Fred, wrong, if you build the CCG new then the commando thing is no more, but the conversion still costs one point.--Dave Beltram
Gorn CCG: That reminds me, I want to propose a commando version of the DND.--George
| By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, December 22, 2007 - 11:02 am: Edit |
General change: The reference to (508.10) in the Notes column should be (508.1). While the Table of Contents uses (508.10), the rule itself is (508.1). F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
This change has been made in all SITs.
| Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation |