Module R12 SIT project

Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Federation & Empire: F&E Master SITs: Module R12 SIT project
  Subtopic Posts   Updated
Draft R12 SIT  1   07/07 11:59am
Archive through July 10, 2010  25   07/13 10:05pm

By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Sunday, July 11, 2010 - 09:46 am: Edit

Fed DDV 3-6(5)/2-3(2.5) // from DD: 2+10 // for DD: 8+12 // 1.5 // escort carrier
-Jason E. Schaff 7/11/10
(notes - weapons suite intermediate between CDW and NCT - conversion and build costs per similar ships in other fleets)

Klingon D6C 7-8/4 // from D6: 1 // for D6: 9 // 2.4
-Jason E. Schaff 7/11/10

Klingon D6L Combined with D6C, same as D7L with D7C
-Jason E. Schaff 7/11/10

Klingon D6N 6-8D/3-4D // from D6: 2+DIP // for D6: 8+DIP // 2.4
-Jason E. Schaff 7/11/10
(notes - decreased compot due to loss of drone racks v. D6 - conversion cost per D7N - only one DIP to retain unique status of D7N - note DWN also has only one DIP)

Kzinti ADW 3-6(5H)(scout)/2-3(2.5H) // from DW: 2+10 // for DW: 6+10 // 1.0 // escort carrier, scout, EW=1
-Jason E. Schaff 7/11/10
(notes - weapons suite intermediate between DWG and DWV - conversion cost / build surcharge of 1 (light carrier) + 1 (1 EW scout))

Kzinti SRI 5-8(survey)/3-4 // from SR: 1 BC: 6 // for BC: 12 // 2.0 // survey ship, scout, EW=2
-Jason E. Schaff 7/11/10

Kzinti SRIV 5-8(2)(survey)/3-4(1) // from SRI 0+4 SR: 1+4 SRV: 1 BC: 6+4 // for BC: 13+4 // 2.0 // survey ship, scout EW=2, single-ship medium carrier
-Jason E. Schaff 7/11/10

Kzinti SRL 4-6(survey)/2-3 // from CL: 5 // for CL: 11 // 1.5 // survey ship, scout EW=2
-Jason E. Schaff 7/11/10
(notes - same weapons suite, after refit, as SR - Suggest that this be an "obsolete" design, like the Hydran SR and Fed CLS, with no further production allowed after a certain date.)

Kzinti SRLV 4-6(2)(survey)/2-3(1) // from SRL: 0+4 CL: 5+4 // for CL: 11+4 // 2.0 // survey ship, scout EW=2, single-ship escort carrier
-Jason E. Schaff 7/11/10
(notes - define as an escort carrier to match the CVE)

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Monday, July 12, 2010 - 11:26 pm: Edit

R1.95 FNT. Factors: 0-1/0. Build Cost: 1EP. I don't think this should be "fast" but just speed 6 like the APT, but then it's no different than the APT. How about it carries 2EP? S.Tenhoff 7-12-10

R2.143 CM. Factors: 8-7/4. Conversion: From NCL: 1. Substitution: For NCL: 5.5. S.Tenhoff 7-12-10

R2.146 DDF. Factors: 5-6F/3F. Conversion: From DD:2. Substitution: For DD:8. S.Tenhoff 7-12-10

R2.144 DDV. Factors: 2-6[5]/1-3[2.5]. YIS=172 (it's wrong). Conversion: From DD: 1+10. Substitution: For DD:7+10. Notes: Escort Carrier. S.Tenhoff 7-12-10

R2.147 FBD. It's the same as the FFB, so it is not applicable. It is not a Drone Bombardment unit, it has no CARGO. S.Tenhoff 7-12-10

R2.151 FBT. Factors: 3-6U/2-3. YIS=175. Conversion: 1. Substitution: 4. Notes: Theater Transport. S.Tenhoff 7-12-10

R3.163 D7WD. Factors: 9*[4]/5. Conversion: From D7C: 5, From D7: 5. Subsitution: For D7: 11. Notes: Drone Bombardment, EW=2. S.Tenhoff 7-12-10

R3.166 E7D. Factors: 7*[4]/4. Substitution: For D5: 10. Notes: Drone Bombardment, EW=2 S.Tenhoff 7-12-10

R3.167 E7J. Factors: 6-7J/3-4. Substituion: For D5: 7. Notes: Penal S.Tenhoff 7-12-10

R3.162 HD5. Factors: 8-7/4-3. Conversion: From D5: 1, Substitution: For D5: 5.5. S.Tenhoff 7-12-10

R3.172 F6T. Factors: 4-7U/2-4. Conversion From F6: 1, From F5T:3, From F5: 3. Substitution: For F5/F5L: 5. Notes: Theater Transport S.Tenhoff 7-12-10

R4.136 VHK. Factors: 4-10(12)/2-5(6). Conversion: From NH: 3+24, Substitution: 12+24. S.Tenhoff 7-12-10

R4.135 GHA. Factors: 8-7/4. Conversion: From SPA:1. Substitution: For SP: 5.5 S.Tenhoff 7-12-10


HCW production limits. How about the Hyd/Lyr/Kzi/Gor/Roms can build 1 per YEAR, the Feds/Klingons can build 1 per turn. That way the Alliance can build 5/yr (between the 4) and the Coalition can build 4/yr (between the 3). S.Tenhoff 7-12-10

By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Tuesday, July 13, 2010 - 07:19 pm: Edit

Fed DDV: Conversion cost should be 2+10 (not 1+10) and substitution cost should be 8+10 (not 7+10). Reasoning: Every other warship-hulled carrier (at least that I can find) that adds 5 or more fighter factors is at least a 2-point conversion.
-Jason E. Schaff 7/13/10

By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Tuesday, July 13, 2010 - 07:24 pm: Edit

STF: fighter line for the Federation (only!) version should be:
18H10V12
Per R1.89A, the Federation STF includes an internal docking bay for a squadron of A20 heavy fighters.
-Jason E. Schaff 7/13/2010

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Tuesday, July 13, 2010 - 10:05 pm: Edit

We've made "light/escort" carriers (DWV/FFV) cost +1 EP for substitution, and +1 EP for conversion (IIRC).

The DDV is a "Light Escort Carrier", per it's name.

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Tuesday, July 13, 2010 - 11:04 pm: Edit

R4.137 SKR. Factors: 4-5E[6]/2-3E. Conversion: From SK?: 1+6. Substitution: For SK?: 1+6. Notes: Fast Carrier Resupply. S.Tenhoff 7-13-10

R4.139 HKR. Factors: 8-7/4. Conversion: From KDR:1. Substitution: From D5: 3, From HD5: 3. S.Tenhoff 7-13-10

R4.140 KRU. Factors: 2-8(12)/1-4(6). Conversion: From:KR:3+24, from KRV: 2+12. Substitution: (431.6):10+24. Notes: Oversized Squadrons. S.Tenhoff 7-13-10

R4.141 K4F. Factors: 2-4[6]E/1-2E. Conversion: From K4:1+6. Substitution: (431.6): 4.5+6. Notes: Fast Resupply Ship S.Tenhoff 7-13-10

R5.114 HCM. Factors: 8-7/4. Conversion: From CM:1, Substitution: For CM: 5.5 S.Tenhoff 7-13-10

R5.115 ADW. Factors: 3-6*[6H]/1-3[3H]. Conversion: From DW: 2+12, From:DWV:0+4. Substitution: For DW: 5+12. Notes Mobile Carrier. EW=1. S.Tenhoff 7-13-10

R5.116 SRI. Factors: 3-8*/1-4. Conversion: From BC: 5. Substitution: For BC: 13. Notes: Survey Ship S.Tenhoff 7-13-10

R5.116A SRIV. Factors: 3-8*(2)/1-4(1). Conversion: From SRI: 0+2, from BC: 5+2. Substitution: For BC: 13+2. Notes: Survey Carrier. S.Tenhoff 7-13-10

R5.117 SRL. Factors: 3-6*/1-3. Conversion: From CL: 5. Substitution: For CL: 11. Notes: Survey Ship S.Tenhoff 7-13-10

R5.117A SRLV. Factors: 3-6*(2)/1-3(1). Conversion: From CL: 5+2, From SRL:0+2. Substitution: For CL:11+2. Notes Survey Carrier. S.Tenhoff 7-13-10

R5.118.FKE Found in Fighters Ops. S.Tenhoff 7-13-10

R5.119 BFF. Factors: 5/3. Conversion: From FF: 1. Substitution: For FF: 4, 1/turn. Notes: Battle Frigate. S.Tenhoff 7-13-10

R5.120 DDS. Factors: 3-6*/1-3. Conversion: From DD: 2. Substitution: For DD: 8. Notes: EW=2 S.Tenhoff 7-13-10

R6.103 NHD. Factors: 8-7/4. Conversion: From HDD: 1. Substitution: For HD: 5.5. Notes: Heavy War Cruiser S.Tenhoff 7-13-10

R6.102 SPS. Factors: 14PP/7PP. conversion: From SCS: 3, From DN: 6. Substitution: For DN: 24. Notes: Space Patrol Ship S.Tenhoff 7-13-10

R6.103 HCM. Factors: 12/6. Conversion: From CM: 4, from HDD: 6. Substitution: For BCH: 10. Notes: Unique. S.Tenhoff 7-13-10

R6.105 DBC. Already in SO. S.Tenhoff 7-13-10

R6.106. DDC. Already in SO. S.Tenhoff 7-13-10

R6.107. DCN. Combat variant, not needed. S.Tenhoff 7-13-10

R7.80. HCW. Factors: 8-7/4. Conversion: From CW:1. Substitution: For CW: 5.5. Notes: 1 in service at any one time. 1st ship made suffers from Shock. S.Tenhoff 7-13-10

R7.82. NCH. Factors: 10W/5W. Conversion: From NCA: 1. Substitution: (525.7): 11 S.Tenhoff 7-13-10

R7.83. NCM. Factors: 8W/4W. Conversion: From NCL: 1. Substitution: (525.7): 9 S.Tenhoff 7-13-10

R7.84. NDH. Factors: 6W/3. Conversion: From NDD: 1. Substitution: (525.7): 7 S.Tenhoff 7-13-10

R7.85. NFH. No change over NFF. S.Tenhoff 7-13-10

R7.86. HDW. Factors: 6-7(1)/3-4. Conversion: From DD: 3+1. Substitution: 5+1. Notes: Heavy War Destroyer, CNJ. S.Tenhoff 7-13-10

R8.56. HBR. Factors: 8-7/4. Conversion: From BR: 1. Substitution: 5.5. Notes: Heavy War Cruiser S.Tenhoff 7-13-10

R8.57. WR. No change over WR. The DW is a 5/3 unit, this isn't as good as it, so it has to stay a 4/2 unit. S.Tenhoff 7-13-10

R9.123. HTA. Factors: 8-7/4. Conversion: From TR: 1, from HR: 4. Substitution: For TR: 5.5. Notes: Heavy War Cruiser S.Tenhoff 7-13-10

R9.124. HMO. Factors: 6-7(3)/3-4(1.5). Conversion: From HR: 1, from TR: 4+3. Substitution: For HR: 5.5. Notes: Heavy War Cruiser S.Tenhoff 7-13-10

R9.125. PGC Already in AO S.Tenhoff 7-13-10

R9.126. PGG. Already in AO S.Tenhoff 7-13-10

R9.127. PGF. Already in AO S.Tenhoff 7-13-10

R9.128. PGS. Already in AO S.Tenhoff 7-13-10

R9.129. DWG. Already in AO S.Tenhoff 7-13-10

R11.103. HCW. Factors: 8-7/4. Conversion: From CW: 1, from DD: 3.5. Substitution: For CW: 5.5. Notes: Heavy War Cruiser. (Also I had to make it cost more over the DD->CW conversion, or else ALL DDs will be made into HCWs.) S.Tenhoff 7-13-10

R11.104. SPS. Factors: 12PP/6PP. Conversion: From DN: 8, From SCS: 3. Substitution: For DN: 24. Notes: Space Patrol Ship S.Tenhoff 7-13-10

R11.105. DWG. Already in AO. S.Tenhoff 7-13-10

R11.106. WPF. Factors: 4-6*/2-3. Conversion: From DW: 2. Substitution: For DW: 6. Notes: Police Flagship, EW=1. Unique. S.Tenhoff 7-13-10

R11.107. HDD. Factors: 6/3. Conversion: From DD: 1. Substitution: For DD: 6. Notes: 2 in service. S.Tenhoff 7-13-10

R11.108. HFF. Factors: 5/3. Conversion: From FF: 4. Substitution: For FF: 4. Notes: 2 in service. S.Tenhoff 7-13-10

R11.109. DDV. Factors: 2-5(6)/1-3(3). Conversion: From DD: 1+12. Substitution: For DD: 6+12. Notes: Light Carrier. Unique. S.Tenhoff 7-13-10

WYN, ISC, SELTORIAN, and VUDAR are not in F+E yet.

By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Wednesday, July 14, 2010 - 05:07 am: Edit

Quote:
==========
We've made "light/escort" carriers (DWV/FFV) cost +1 EP for substitution, and +1 EP for conversion (IIRC).

The DDV is a "Light Escort Carrier", per it's name.
==========
The Kzinti DDV is a SC4 escort carrier and has a listed conversion cost of 2+fighters.

By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Wednesday, July 14, 2010 - 10:15 am: Edit

I agree with Jason - the Fed DDV should cost 2+fighters conversion.

"The DDV is a "Light Escort Carrier", per it's name."

I don't understand. What about it's name implies that it's an escort carrier? The name 'DDV' doesn't say light or escort. Just being on a DD hull doesn't make it a light carrier (Hydran UH comes to mind).

Does it describe it in SFB as being an escort carrier?

By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar2) on Wednesday, July 14, 2010 - 10:42 am: Edit

SHIP ----- R# Factor CR YIS Hull Conversion Build Notes
Lyran SPS 104 12PP/6PP 10 Y183 DN(2) From SCS: 3/DN: 6 For DN: 22 4 From CA: 11/DNP: 3
Lyran HCW 103 8-7/4 6 Y173 HWC(3) From CW: 2/DD: 4(min) For CW: 6
Lyran WPF 106- 3-6*G/1-3 6 Y169 DW(4) From FLG: 3 For DW: 5
Lyran HDD 107 5-6/3 4 Y161 DD(4) From DD: 2 For DD: 6 -
Lyran DDV 109 2-5(6)/1-3(3) Y169 DD(4) From DD: 2+12 For DD: 7+12 -
Lyran HFF 108 4-5/2 3 Y160 FF(4) From FF: 2 For FF: 2 -

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, July 14, 2010 - 11:17 am: Edit

Klingon D6N 6-8D/3-4D From D6: 1+Diplomat For D6: 8+Diplomat 2.4 Thomas Mathews 14 July 2010

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, July 14, 2010 - 11:22 am: Edit

Klingon D6C 8-9/4-5 From D6: 2 For D6: 9 2.7 Thomas Mathews 14 July 2010 D6L combined with same factors in a fashion similar to the D7C/D7L

By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Wednesday, July 14, 2010 - 12:33 pm: Edit


Quote:

STF: fighter line for the Federation (only!) version should be:
18H10V12
Per R1.89A, the Federation STF includes an internal docking bay for a squadron of A20 heavy fighters.



Actually it should be 18H10V14 as one of the fighter squadrons are F-14s.

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Wednesday, July 14, 2010 - 01:51 pm: Edit


Quote:

Does it describe it in SFB as being an escort carrier?




The name of the ship, on the SSD, specificially states "DDV Light Escort Carrier".

It's not the "DDV" portion, it's title of the ship.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, July 14, 2010 - 03:13 pm: Edit

Klingon E7J 5-7N/3-4 From E7: 1 For D5: 7. Penal Thomas Mahtews 14 July 2010 The other D5J and F5J are 2 points less on offense than the base hulls.

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Wednesday, July 14, 2010 - 11:15 pm: Edit

re: Lyran/Fed DDVs also.

Per the R-section descriptions, these ships only have 1x light escort. Which would mean that they are "Light" carriers.

Additionally, per (525.313) The Kzinti DDV is escorted as a Light Carrier.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Thursday, July 15, 2010 - 06:46 am: Edit

Scott, the DDV is an oddity. It is a single ship carrier, unless more are built/converted. If more are built/converted then they must be escorted as a light carrier. Although with (515.23) a second escort could be added.

The DDV's could be considered Medium carriers under the wording of (515.22) "(i.e. five to eight fighter factors)". This would imply that these are medium carriers and require two escorts.

I haven't decided which way I believe these units should be treated. At this point in time I believe they should be treated as light/escort carriers rather than medium carriers because of the smaller hulls that they are built on. And that is only because of the precedent of the Kzinti DDV which does have 6 fighter factors.

By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Thursday, July 15, 2010 - 10:56 am: Edit

Are all carriers based on their size class by the number of fighters they carry

By jason murdoch (Jmurdoch) on Sunday, August 01, 2010 - 02:12 pm: Edit

Do we need TT versions of the various friganought hulls. It seams like a waste of the extreme engineering efforts used to produce these hulls in the first place.
On the E7 variant question take a look over at PHD shipyards for some ideas. From a counter point I dont think all these E7s add much but from a toys-to-play-with it is a great idea.
We need a D6C especially if the no mauler option is taken. For counters take your old DF&E counter and apply letraset 'C's

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, August 02, 2010 - 01:56 am: Edit

The DDV is an exception to the two escort rule based on the SFB R-sections; see (R2.144) and the escort chart (the chart shows one escort). it is also specifically titled as an escort carrier.

Bottom line is that are you really going burn an NCL slot to produce the DDV carrier (8 total COMPOT) when the Fed CLV (10 total COMPOT) can be built in the same slot?

There is a reason why the DDV was not that successful...

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, January 02, 2011 - 01:20 pm: Edit


Quote:

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, July 14, 2010 - 11:17 am: Edit


Klingon D6N 6-8D/3-4D From D6: 1+Diplomat For D6: 8+Diplomat 2.4 Thomas Mathews 14 July 2010




the above is incorrect

Klingon D6N 7-8D/4D From D6: 1+Diplomat For D6: 8+Diplomat 2.4 Thomas Mathews 2 Jan 2011. The D6N would have the same combat abilities as a regular production D6.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, December 11, 2011 - 09:18 am: Edit

Romulan JH: Unit already in game. Stragetic Operations: Thomas Mathews 11 Dec 2011

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Monday, May 06, 2013 - 06:53 pm: Edit

The D6N is needed for completeness of updating the 4 Powers War scenario (607.0)

The D6C is needed for completeness of updating the 4 Powers War scenario (607.0).

The D6C might, in the interest of savign counter space, be able to use the leader rule (303.5).

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, July 03, 2013 - 04:49 pm: Edit

Klingon D6N 7-8D/3-4D From D6: 1+Diplomat For D6: 8+Diplomat 2.4 This ship is a standard D6. Other Klingon Diplomatic ships are the same factors as their base hull like the D7N/D7 D5N/D5. Thomas Mathews 14 July 2010

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, July 03, 2013 - 05:01 pm: Edit

In 4PW, the D6N is (atm) 7-8D/4D From D6: 2+DIP Schedule: 8+DIP 2.400 Early Diplomatic Cruiser.

Note that the base hull D6 has a defense rating of 4, not 3-4.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Wednesday, July 03, 2013 - 08:05 pm: Edit

D6C: Rather have the ship as it actually has the same factors of TWO ships represented in the game.
1. The factors represent both the D6L and D6C.
2. It works well in the 4 Power War and add flavor to the second most played scenario in F&E.

Sidebar soapbox (and reason 3): The leader rule really is a bit obtuse at this point in that the game is established and has a multitude of expansions. This was not the case when the leader rule was introduced and counter space was at a premium. The old method of producing counters has improved that there is FAR less waste (no grab bags...booo) and we get more counters with each sheet. Let us try not to promote the leader rule further.

Give us the D6C please.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, July 03, 2013 - 08:27 pm: Edit

I like the D6C as seen in 4PW.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, May 22, 2014 - 02:22 am: Edit

FEDS Recommendation:

Generic SFB: Stellar Fortress Base; Ref 1.89; Factors: 50(12)PP/25(6)PP; CR10; Y179; Hull SFB(1); Conv From SB: TBD, From STB: TBD; Build: NA; Salv 0; Notes: Repair 18Pts; SIDS 10/5 (5 pts each)

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, May 22, 2014 - 09:57 am: Edit

Comment on Feds Recommendation regarding SFB (Stellar Fortress Base): Suggest note that 20 damage is necessary score a SIDS on a SFB using directed damage, which can be reduced with a mauler by up to 10 damage (depending on mauler value). These damage values harmonize with the required 18 damage to score a SIDS on a regular SB (which if self-taken is 4.5 damage, as opposed to 5 for the SFB).
-Ted Fay 5/22/14
FEDS: Concurs.

Comment on Feds Recommendation regarding SFB (Stellar Fortress Base): Decision should be noted on whether there will be a SFX (X-tech SFB). If so, SFX values and cost should be noted.
-Ted Fay 5/22/14
FEDS: While this would be an ADB call, FEDS would be supportive of an SFX. I could see its factors rated at 70/35 with 14/7 SIDS at 5 pts each (20 if using directed damage); 36 repair points; produces 2 XTPs; CR12?

Comment on Feds Recommendation regarding SFB (Stellar Fortress Base): If SFX are allowed, can a SB be directly converted to a SFX? If so, can this conversion be one turn as a single conversion, and at what cost?
-Ted Fay 5/22/14
FEDS: I would think so, but again the call belongs to ADB. Cost? To early to say.

Comment on Feds Recommendation regarding SFB (Stellar Fortress Base): Decision should be noted as to whether a BTS can be upgraded directly to a SFB, bypassing the regular SB, and if so at what cost. Likewise, whether a BTX can be upgraded to a SFX directly, and if so at what cost.
-Ted Fay 5/22/14
FEDS: The FEDS recommendation is that SFB would follow the established one- and two-step base conversion patterns where SFBs are created by the conversions of either SB or STB (not BTS); SFX from SB or SFB or STX or SBX.


Add a Message


This is a private posting area. A valid username and password combination is required to post messages to this discussion.
Username:  
Password:

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation