Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Klingon SIT Files	3		05/05 12:42pm
	Processed Klingon SIT Reports	72		06/10 03:27pm
	Archive through October 28, 2021	25		10/29 08:59pm

I know the F5 is not "war" construction like the F5W, but I like the idea that the F5L, as a destroyer "leader", should benefit from the free leader upgrade rule in TacOps.

On the other hand, it has a compot of 6/3 and not only gains the extra attack factor but also another defense factor over the standard F5 (5/3). Much unlike the F5WL which becomes a 7-6/3 compot unit, if I read the rule correctly.

Maybe a 0.5 surcharge instead of 1 point over the cost of an F5 could be a compromise between the free leader upgrade and the extra defense factor.

Just a thought.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,

Soeren Klein

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Thursday, October 28, 2021 - 07:00 pm: Edit

Actually, the F5L is a 2 EP upgrade over the F5 (think it's one for the CR rating and one for CF rating - most CA/CC upgrades are that way) ...

By Daniel Glenn Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Thursday, October 28, 2021 - 07:00 pm: Edit

The TacOps rule of Leader variants exists to replace the older AO rule on leaders by giving us actual counters instead of just giving 3 CW/DW base hulls on the line a +1 to AF.. As such, ADB did not want to change the cost of leaders over the old rule. Changing the value of the F5L would be changing the value of just one leader variant, which would favor the Klingons. And the F5L is the only leader based hull actually on a production schedule, which would need changing.

What would you change in the Alliance to maintain balance?

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Thursday, October 28, 2021 - 10:01 pm: Edit

Just an observation of games posted here:

As most people don't build the F5L anyway I don't know why the change is necessary. If they aren't spending +1.0 to build a ship they don't really like to repair they wont likely spend +0.5 either. Typically they are subbed to an F5.

It would be great if it was 6-5/3 (even for the same build cost) due to the reduction in repair cost and capacity needed but that ship sailed a long time ago when the counter was printed.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, October 29, 2021 - 08:59 pm: Edit

The staff can answer your questions. It's not my idea, but theirs. I approved some of their scraps of paper, rejected others, and sent that one here.

I do know that the new counters came with a rule to balance the non-cost with the old rule. The F5L was about the only DDL that had to be paid for, and it should have been free under the new rule.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, October 30, 2021 - 08:35 am: Edit

I would suggest lowering the cost of the F5L from 4 to 3.5. Unlike the CWLs, DWLs, other DDLs, Light Command Cruisers and FFLs, the F5L gains 1 point of command, 1 point of offensive and 1 point of defensive compot as compared to 1 point of command and 1 point of offensive compot. The extra point of defensive compot on the non-crippled side is an advantage that the others do not have.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, October 30, 2021 - 05:37 pm: Edit

Turtle, I am confused. You say it's better than other leaders but needs to cost less?

By Soeren Klein (Ogdrklein) on Saturday, October 30, 2021 - 06:57 pm: Edit

I guess he meant, - according to the new rule from TacOps - as a a leader variant of the F5 frigates the F5L would cost the same 3 Ep as the standard F5

But compared to the „war“ leaders it not only get a +1 attack factor and +1 command rating, but also a +1 defense factor which makes the F5L a better leader upgrade than the „war“leaders. That would be the reason for not making it free but a .5 Ep surcharge for the production of an F5 Leader.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Soeren Klein

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, October 30, 2021 - 06:59 pm: Edit

The F5 is considered to be a frigate at 5/3 matching the Fed FF, ISC FF, and Kzinti FFK for factors and cost. Currently, the F5L costs 4 EPs. The difference between the F5L and other leaders is the fact that the F5L gains 1 point of Defensive Compot, something that no other leader does or did under (303.5). If the F5L is considered to fall under the leader rule, and I agree it should, then the cost should be reduced. My argument is the increase in defensive compot on the non-crippled side comes with a cost over that of the standard hull it is derived from. That cost should be .5 EP. Other leaders CWL and smaller leaders do not cost any more than the standard combat hull they are derived from. At the same time they do not gain any defensive advantage for being a leader. The production rules already limit the number of leaders that can be built and if needed applied to the F5L as well.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Saturday, October 30, 2021 - 08:01 pm: Edit

The F5/F5L follows the same reasoning as the D7/D7C
(or most CA/CC) for the cost difference...

The other command frigate is the Hydran CR and it HAS had it's cost lowered to 3.5 (in 2KX, was 4 in 2K) ... but this is a FFL rather than a DDL ...

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, October 31, 2021 - 12:15 am: Edit

If you are talking about treating the F5L differently than other leaders under the "cost compensation for the old rule being free" clause, then no.

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Monday, November 01, 2021 - 11:37 am: Edit

I’d lean towards not changing the cost of the F5L.

I don’t think F5L really is a “frigate leader” althought it is certainly named as such. It effectively fills the roles of both the standard Klingon DD (6/3 CR5) as well as the Klingon DW (4 EP) for the 33 years from Y142 until the F5W shows up in Y175. The Klingons were just decades ahead of the other empires in terms of developing a cost effective (4 EP) “DW” platform, skipping the “6 EP DD” altogether. 4 EP is the right cost for that class of ship.

I’d be cautious about taking lessons from the “standard” fleet elements of other empires and mapping them onto the Klingon navy in this middle area, as the Klingons are just different and that is part of what makes them cool. The F5L and the D6 (CR8) together effectively give the Klingons similar or better capabilities of DD, DW, DWL, CL, and CWL classes -- and decades earlier.

That being said, I’m a Coalition guy, and the Klingons are my dudes. If you want to give me cheaper (3.5 EP) Klingon DWs (cheaper than any other empire -- woohoo!), well twist my arm! It’s just further validation of the innate superiority of the Klingon DSF and naturally facilitates the inevitable subjugation of the lesser empires.

--Mike

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Tuesday, February 08, 2022 - 10:28 am: Edit

The following reports apply to Klingon: HF5 Heavy War Destroyers:

HDWC: Factors: 6-7 (1)/3-4 should be Factors: 6-7 (1)/3-4 (0.5) Reason: 1/2 fighter factor is shown on AO counter sheet. Thomas Mathews 8 Feb 2022

HDWE: Factors: 6-7 (1) Escort Symbol/3-4 Escort Symbol (0.5) Reason: 1/2 fighter factor is shown on AO counter sheet. Thomas Mathews 8 Feb 2022

HDWF: Factors: 6-7 (1)/3-4 (0.5) should read: Factors: 6-7 (1) R / 3-4 (0.5) Reason: R for 4 Field Repair points is shown on the TO counter sheet. Thomas Mathews 8 Feb 2022

HDWG: Factors: 6-7 G(1)/3-4 should read: Factors: 6-7 G(1)/3-4 G(0.5) Reason: 1/2 fighter factor is shown on AO counter sheet. Note: Chuck Strong already reported missing G factor on crippled side previously. Thomas Mathews 8 Feb 2022

HDWK: Factors: 7 (1)/3-4 should read: Factors: 7 (1)/3-4 (0.5) Reason: 1/2 fighter factor is shown on TO counter sheet. Thomas Mathews 8 Feb 2022

HDWP: Factors: 6-7 P(1) Scout Symbol/3-4 should read: 6-7 P(1) Scout Symbol/3-4 P(0.5) Reason: P and 1/2 fighter factor is shown on AO counter sheet. Thomas Mathews 8 Feb 2022

HDWR: Factors: 6-7 (1)[6]/3-4 should read: 6-7 (1)[6]/3-4 (0.5) Reason: 1/2 fighter factor is shown on AO counter sheet. Thomas Mathews 8 Feb 2022

HDWS: Factors: 6-7 (1) Scout Symbol/3-4 should read: 6-7 (1) Scout Symbol/3-4 (0.5) Reason: 1/2 fighter factor is shown on AO counter sheet. Thomas Mathews 8 Feb 2022

HDWT: Factors: 6-7 (1)/3-4 should read: 6-7 (1)/3-4 (0.5) Reason: 1/2 fighter factor is shown on TO counter sheet. Thomas Mathews 8 Feb 2022

Author's Note: The units published in Tac Ops are shown correctly on the Tac Ops SIT but incorrectly on the Klingon 2020 SIT.

By Graham Cridland (Grahamcridland) on Friday, April 01, 2022 - 11:11 pm: Edit

The Online SIT says the Klingon E4J has a salvage value of .75, not .625 like other E4's. Other J ships do not have this enhancement.

By Ryan Opel (Feast) on Sunday, August 06, 2023 - 11:27 pm: Edit

FHL, 2xFTL, 3xFTS are listed in the SIT as FHL LAM, FTL LAG, and FTS SAG. The LAx/SAx is not supported by R8 as an alternate designator. Recommend removing the LAx/SAx from the SIT and leaving the first part of the name.

By Warren Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, December 07, 2024 - 09:32 am: Edit

Klingon Battleships, B9-, Factors: 16F/8F should be 16F/8 Reason: Fast ships lose the F factor when crippled and the counter on TacOps Oscar does not have the F factor on the crippled side. Thomas Mathews 7 Dec 2024

Klingon Battleships, B9, Factors: 16F(4)/8F(2) should be 16F(4)/8(2) Reason: Fast ships lose the F factor when crippled and the counter on TacOps Tango does not have the F factor on the crippled side. Thomas Mathews 7 Dec 2024