Why is this the case?:

-Klingon TGA: 8 compot
-Klingon TGB: 4-8 compot
-Klingon CVT: 7-8 compot

The CVT is, by all accounts, a TGA with a pair of CV pods stuck on. If you unconvert the CVT, you get a TGA. But what part of the sticking on the pair of CV pods makes the TGA lose a point of offensive compot? If you take a TGA and add a pair of CV pods, does the TGA lose a point of compot?

This makes the sense that is not.

By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Sunday, July 18, 2010 - 03:13 pm: Edit

Peter,

No you don't loose a point of compot adding the VP2 or VP3 pods to a TGA. It doesn't make any sense at all. Yes, people have been asking that question for 20 years. There is no answer except that it is what it is.

If I was going to make up an answer I'd say that the CVT had a lower priority for fleet phaser upgrades than other TGA hulls and was stuck with PH-2s through out the war, but the normally unescorted TGAs got their boom phasers upgraded to PH-1s as they would be expected to carry battle pods at some point or be in close combat without escorts while setting up a mobile base.

That's the best answer I've ever been able to come up with. I don't think SVC has ever given any answer to your question though.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, July 18, 2010 - 04:44 pm: Edit

Daniel wrote:
>>No you don't loose a point of compot adding the VP2 or VP3 pods to a TGA. It doesn't make any sense at all.>>

Yeah, we weren't really thinking that happened, but you never know what kind of wonky rulings are hidden under a rock somewhere :-)

>> Yes, people have been asking that question for 20 years. There is no answer except that it is what it is. >>

Heh. Yeah, I'm surprised that it took this long for us to notice that. Again, I suspect that it is 'cause this is the first game (of many) that I have played with flexible escorts (we always just used plain basic F+E. Which we are still doing, except now it includes flexible escort rules), so I don't think anyone ever noticed that the hard welded CVT had a 7-8 compot. Now that we notice it, it seems wonky.

>>If I was going to make up an answer I'd say that the CVT had a lower priority for fleet phaser upgrades than other TGA hulls and was stuck with PH-2s through out the war, but the normally unescorted TGAs got their boom phasers upgraded to PH-1s as they would be expected to carry battle pods at some point or be in close combat without escorts while setting up a mobile base.>>

Totally reasonable. That being said, I'm perfectly happy with "That's just what the counters say, so go with it" :-)

>>That's the best answer I've ever been able to come up with. I don't think SVC has ever given any answer to your question though.>>

Likely. Which is weird. I mean, someone at some point way early in the game decided that:

A) It was a good idea to have the Klingons have those hard welded CVTs in the first place.

B) It would arbitrarily be a 7-8 compot, even though the TGA is an 8 and the TGB is a 4-8.

and then when refitting the game and making new counters for the 2K10:

C) It wasn't worth fixing this.

Weird. Anyway, thanks!

By Peter A. Kellerhall (Pak) on Sunday, July 18, 2010 - 06:22 pm: Edit

...doctrine...

By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Sunday, July 18, 2010 - 09:37 pm: Edit

It's a trade off. If a TG-A with carrier pods is crippled, the pods cease to work. If a CVT is crippled, the pods continue to work. Functioning pods on a crippled CVT is the price you pay for that 1 AF.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, July 19, 2010 - 08:41 am: Edit

Fair enough--that at least makes some kinds of sense.

By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Monday, July 19, 2010 - 10:19 am: Edit

Actually, no. It makes no sense whatsoever.

*~*

Kommander Koward, on the CVT Blindsided:

"Everyone man your battlestations. This is going to be a tough but glorious battle. Energize all phasers. Prepare to launch all fighters."

"Ah, sir, you mean energize all but a pair of phasers, correct?"

"What? No, I mean energize them all!"

"But sir, you forget. We are designated as a long term conversion, not just a tug with carrier pods. By losing some of our firepower, we gained the ability to keep our carrier pods active even when crippled. And you yourself said that this would be a tough battle, meaning it's likely we will be crippled."

"So what you're saying is, if I energize all of our phasers, my pods will cease functioning once we take serious damage. If I want to operate the survivors of our fighter squadron late in the battle, I have to keep two phasers cold."

"You have to agree, it's a fair trade off, sir."

"Fine, you handle the battle. I'm going to the can."

"Oh, sorry sir, you can't. If you remember, sir, we installed heat lamps in the kitchen, so we can have warmed blood worms at dinnertime?"

"Yes...?"

"Well, the trade off for that was the lavatories don't work on Mondays."

*Commander returns to his seat, muttering "•••• Doctrine..."

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, July 19, 2010 - 10:52 am: Edit

Kevin wrote:
>>It makes no sense whatsoever. >>

Well, ya know, it makes some game design sense. Apparently, the hardwelding of the CV pods requires cutting a few phaser energizer conduits...

:-)

By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Monday, July 19, 2010 - 07:16 pm: Edit

Getting stuck with Phaser-2s makes more sense to me.

By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Tuesday, July 27, 2010 - 10:28 am: Edit

I have an important SITS related question.

In the 2010 SITS there is a conversion the Hydran RN to CV. Its listed as 2+18 just as it has been in the old SITS. However the fighters on both units changed. Under both SITS the conversion is listed as:

RN => CV 2+18

Under the old factors this was exactly correct, you had the RN with 4 Hybrid factors going to a CV with 11 CV factors and the calculation is. you add 7 CV factors at 2 each and convert 4 Hybrid factors for 1 each for 14+4 = 18 then of course the general large CV conversion of 2 pts to get 2 + 18.

However the New factors are 4.5 and 10.5 the calculus here becomes one adds 6 CV factors at 2 each and converts 4.5 Hybrid factors at 1 each to get 12 + 4.5 = 16.5 then the 2 pt CV conversion. for 2 + 16.5

Similarly for the DG => CV you get 2 + 19.5 instead of 2 + 20.

Also in the DG => RN conversion its listed as 3+2 which is the same as in the old SITS. Which is correct as the DG to RN adds 2 Hydrids. However in 2010 the DG to RN adds 3 Hybrids and should be instead 3+3 I would think.

My thought is that the conversion just got missed in the changes. Do we know if these were considered and it was decided to leave it alone or were these missed and we should try and get them changed?

By jason murdoch (Jmurdoch) on Saturday, August 07, 2010 - 12:41 pm: Edit

On the CVT issue. If I build a TGA using a D6 build slot I get one more point of compot than the original ship. The building of carrier pods and welding them instantly onto the hull I can exceed for that instant when the universe isn't looking the restriction on the maximum number of CV pods. If I want to give up all my TGAs on turn one I can produce a stupid amount of pseudo-carriers by this method. There are a lot of oddities regarding the CVT

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Sunday, August 08, 2010 - 10:10 am: Edit

Jason - remember, your limited by VP Pod production and so you can 'gain' three permanent carriers for the temporary loss of 2 carrier for 1 turns, and 1 carrier for an additional turn.

(i.e. you move 2 sets of VP's to the TGA/B's, and buy 1 new set of VP pods, and then another set the following two turns to get back to your full allowance).

I am also sure I read VP's count towards carrier production when they are built.....but can't find it at the moment!

By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Sunday, August 08, 2010 - 12:30 pm: Edit

(431.22) One set of pods (any type) per turn.

(703.4) in AO indicates that drone pods count against the drone ship limit, but no mention is made of carrier pods, except that the ones on a CVT are destroyed if removed.

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Sunday, August 08, 2010 - 06:58 pm: Edit

F&E 2010 (509.314) Carrier pods do not count against the carrier production limit.

That's for building the pods.

While no rule that I can find says this I believe that the permanant conversion of a TGA+ VP2/3 to a CVT would count against carrier production limits. This is due to the training requirements of being a full time carrier.

Also I could find much more useful things to do with the one tug per year that I can build.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Tuesday, August 24, 2010 - 08:22 am: Edit

What is the official name and abbreviation for the troop version of the Heavy Auxiliaries.

CL#30 has the list of these as
HTS: Heavy Troop Transport Ship
HAV: Heavy Aux Carrier
HAP: Heavy Aux PF Tender
HSC: Heavy Aux Space Control Ship

In the CL30 SIT however it was listed with the designator of FTH instead of HTS.

Just checking on which is correct, any thoughts?
Sorry if this was asked/answered before.

By Terry O'Carroll (Terryoc) on Tuesday, August 24, 2010 - 09:41 am: Edit

Isn't HTS also the acronym for Heavy Transport Shuttle?

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Tuesday, August 24, 2010 - 11:39 am: Edit

It might be but the big question is:
Is acronym used in F&E? Not sure but I don't think so.

I am trying to put wraps on what has been introduced since CL30 and what has been published officially.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Sunday, August 29, 2010 - 06:25 am: Edit

Klingon SCP+: Is the Klingon SCP+ considered a set of pods? The limit=1 so I assume it is a set of pods that cannot be broken like the PFP (or one big heavy pod)? Suggest this be stated in the notes.
L. Bergen, 29 August 2010

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, August 29, 2010 - 09:15 am: Edit

Lar, The Klingon SCP is 1 pod that takes both pod positions on the Tug. There is a center section connecting what would be two separate pods. The limit of 1 is that you can only have 1 SCP.

By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Tuesday, September 14, 2010 - 06:49 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

I have an important SITS related question.

In the 2010 SITS there is a conversion the Hydran RN to CV. Its listed as 2+18 just as it has been in the old SITS. However the fighters on both units changed. Under both SITS the conversion is listed as:

RN => CV 2+18

Under the old factors this was exactly correct, you had the RN with 4 Hybrid factors going to a CV with 11 CV factors and the calculation is. you add 7 CV factors at 2 each and convert 4 Hybrid factors for 1 each for 14+4 = 18 then of course the general large CV conversion of 2 pts to get 2 + 18.

However the New factors are 4.5 and 10.5 the calculus here becomes one adds 6 CV factors at 2 each and converts 4.5 Hybrid factors at 1 each to get 12 + 4.5 = 16.5 then the 2 pt CV conversion. for 2 + 16.5

Similarly for the DG => CV you get 2 + 19.5 instead of 2 + 20.

Also in the DG => RN conversion its listed as 3+2 which is the same as in the old SITS. Which is correct as the DG to RN adds 2 Hydrids. However in 2010 the DG to RN adds 3 Hybrids and should be instead 3+3 I would think.

My thought is that the conversion just got missed in the changes. Do we know if these were considered and it was decided to leave it alone or were these missed and we should try and get them changed?

---

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Tuesday, September 14, 2010 - 07:53 pm: Edit

MP,

Ryan is still overseas and won't be back until October of this year. I believe that he is aware of your question, but because of interent access issues (stable connectvity) he is unable to respond effectively until his return.

Maybe FEAR knows something I don't.

By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Wednesday, September 15, 2010 - 09:22 am: Edit

Thomas,

Ahhhhh thanks... just wanted to make sure it hadn't been lost in the shuffle!

By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Tuesday, October 05, 2010 - 05:28 pm: Edit

Klingon CVT: Lists build cost as "Add CV Pods to tug" this should be instead "Add 2xVP2 Pods to TugA"

Klingon CVT+: Lists build cost as "Pods + Ship" this should be instead "Add 2xVP3 Pods to TugA"

This is to clarify that a TugA is required and to specify exactly which PODS VP2 for CVT VP3 for CVT+ and one cannot use VAP of VHP pods at all for this conversion

By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Tuesday, October 05, 2010 - 09:42 pm: Edit

FEAR concurs with this.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, October 06, 2010 - 03:06 am: Edit

FEDS concurs.