Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	ISC SIT Files	1		05/05 03:54pm
	Processed ISC SIT Reports	46		05/05 01:37pm
	Archive through June 04, 2017	25		06/04 05:07pm

Should this be considered minor as it's supposed to happen at isolated bases??

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, June 05, 2017 - 12:11 am: Edit

Can you cite this source?

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Monday, June 05, 2017 - 09:16 am: Edit

Stewart,

The CW (R13.80) and DW (R13.81) are NOT the system defense ships built at the isolated pacification stations. those ships are the NDD (R13.84)and NFF (R13.85).

The CW and DW designs are Y170 designs that construction didn't start building until Y187.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Monday, June 05, 2017 - 08:54 pm: Edit

Ack, hazy memory + late night = missed connections ...

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, July 05, 2017 - 11:48 am: Edit

Dreadnaughts: CVA: For DN: 23+24 should be 22+24. The CVA has 2 PPDs, not 4. Cost would 17 for DN + 4 for CVA + 1 for 2xPPD = 22. Thomas Mathews 5 Jul 2017

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, July 05, 2017 - 11:51 am: Edit

CA Heavy Cruisers: CV: From CAT: 2+12. Missing Conversion. Thomas Mathews 5 Jul 2017

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, July 05, 2017 - 06:00 pm: Edit

CA Heavy Cruisers:

BCS: From BCV 2+¶ should read: 3+¶. Converting a ship to PFT functions costs 3 plus EW if any plus the cost of the PFs themselves. Thomas Mathews 5 July 2017

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, July 05, 2017 - 06:13 pm: Edit

DCS: From CA 5+12+¶ should read: 7+12+¶. Converting a ship to a SCS type costs 2 for the carrier plus 3 for the PFT function plus 2 for the EW plus fighters plus the cost of the PFs themselves. Thomas Mathews 5 July 2017

DCS: From CAT 5+12+¶ should read: 7+12+¶. Converting a ship to a SCS type costs 2 for the carrier plus 3 for the PFT function plus 2 for the EW plus fighters plus the cost of the PFs themselves. Thomas Mathews 5 July 2017

DCS: From CV 3+¶ should read: 5+¶. Converting a ship to PFT functions costs 3 plus 2 for EW plus the cost of the PFs themselves. Thomas Mathews 5 July 2017

DCS: From CVS 3+¶ should read: 5+¶. Converting a ship to PFT functions costs 3 plus 2 for EW plus the cost of the PFs themselves. Thomas Mathews 5 July 2017

By Rob Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, August 24, 2017 - 05:46 pm: Edit

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, August 07, 2019 - 03:03 pm: Edit

DELETED; IRRELEVANT.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Wednesday, March 04, 2020 - 12:08 pm: Edit

Page 2 CE to be consistent should not "From CL, CM, or CS: 1" be "From CL/CM/CS: 1"

Page 2 CLS (HSC) to be consistent should not "From CL, CM, or CS: 4" be "From CL/CM/CS: 4"

Page 3 HDW-R "From HDW: 1+FOP DD: 2+1+FOP" should be "From HDW: 1+FOP From DD: 2+1+FOP"

Page 4 "POLICE SHIP" should be "POLICE SHIPS"

Page 5 FTL "(521.23): 6 (1/yr)" should be "(521.23): 6 (1/year)"

Page 7 STX "From BTS: 12.5+10.5+PF From STB: 8+6XTP+PF From BSX: 9.5+7.5 XTP+PF From BTS: 8+6XTP+PF" should be "From BTS: 12.5+10.5+PFs From STB: 8+6XTP+PFs From BSX: 9.5+7.5 XTP+PFs From BTS: 8+6XTP+PFs"

Page 7 SBX "BTX: 25.5+ 22.5XTP+6+PFs" should be "BTX: 25.5+22.5XTP+6+PFs"

Page 8 PSBX "From PSTX: 24.5+ 20.5XTP+6+PFs" should be "From PSTX: 24.5+20.5XTP+6+PFs"

Page 8 PSBX "PSX: 25.5.5+25.5+6+PFs" should be "PSX: 25.5+25.5+6+PFs"

Page 8 To be consistent "Planetary Installations" should be "Planetary Units"

Page 8 PGB "From PGB (441.3)" should be "From PGB: (441.3)"

Page 9 "ADM 'STAR'" should be "ADM "STAR' (Admiral)" to be consistent

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Sunday, March 08, 2020 - 01:07 pm: Edit

Page 7 The bases are not listed in the same format as the other SITS ("SB" vs "SB(N) (No fighters)"

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Sunday, March 08, 2020 - 01:46 pm: Edit

Page 9 "ADM *" should be "ADM * (Admiral)" to be consistent.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Tuesday, March 24, 2020 - 08:29 pm: Edit

ISC SAS - To match convention "Small Auxiliary Scout; (2EW)" should be "Small Auxiliary Scout; (EW=2)"

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Wednesday, March 25, 2020 - 01:53 pm: Edit

ISC SAH "Small Auxuliary Carrier with heavy fighters." should be "Small Auxiliary Carrier with heavy fighters."

ISC PSX "X-version of Pacificiation Battle Station;" should be "X-version of Pacification Battle Station;"

ISC PS "Pacificiation Battle Station; Module Limits 2FTM and PFM" should be "Pacification Battle Station; Module Limits 2FTM and PFM"

ISC LAS Should not "Large Auxiliary Scout; (3EW) (317.1)" be "Large Auxiliary Scout; (EW=3) (317.1)"

ISC LAP Should not "Large Auxiliary PFT (526.4); scout (2EW)." be "Large Auxiliary PFT (526.4); scout (EW=2)."

ISC CSF For consistency should not "Medium Carrier, Improved variant From CVL: 2+3 From CVLS: 1+3" be "Medium Carrier, Improved variant. Additional Conversions: From CVL: 2+3 From CVLS: 1+3."

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Monday, May 25, 2020 - 05:44 pm: Edit

ISC: LTT Pods: LHP: TYPO: the designation should read LHF (not LHP) per SSD. CORRECT Factors: 0[8]/none should be 0[8H]/none. The pod is a heavy fighter resupply pod not a standard fighter resupply pod. Thomas Mathews 25 May 2020

ISC: LTT Pods: LSP: YIS: Blank should be Y176. G3 Gives YIS date of Y176 for the scout pod used on LTTs. Thomas Mathews 25 May 2020

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Monday, May 25, 2020 - 06:00 pm: Edit

ISC: Destroyer Alternatives: DW: YIS: Blank should be Y187. G3 gives a YIS date of Y187 for the DW. Thomas Mathews 25 May 2020

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Monday, May 25, 2020 - 06:03 pm: Edit

ISC: Dreadnought Alternatives: DNW: YIS: Blank should be Y180. G3 gives an arbitrary YIS date of Y180. Thomas Mathews 25 May 2020

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Monday, June 29, 2020 - 06:36 am: Edit

ISC: Jumbo Auxiliaries: JAP: YIS Y170 should be Y182. Y182 is PF2 for the ISC. Thomas Mathews 30 Jun 2020

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, August 23, 2020 - 06:43 pm: Edit

ISC HDWs: The construction costs for the several of the ISC HDWs needs to be corrected. Ref:

---

Quote:

(525.211) If a HDW is built configured for any mission (525.23) except K-Combat, the cost of the reconfiguration is paid at the time of construction.

---

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, August 23, 2020 - 07:30 pm: Edit

ISC HWXs: The X-ship designations (shaded in green) are all incorrect. All HDW X-ship designators start with 'HWX' followed by the designator suffix.
All base hull and size data should more correctly read: HWX(4).
All conversion entries should correctly read as: 'From HWX:'
FEDS - 23 AUG 2020

By Ryan Opel (Feast) on Monday, March 08, 2021 - 05:05 pm: Edit

ISC PFT should be Y183 based on the G3 availability date and the correction of the PF1 date to Y182F in CL40. Ryan J Opel 8 Mar 2021

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Sunday, September 10, 2023 - 06:29 pm: Edit

HDWT: Delete U from SIT, HDWT do not qualify per (535.23T) Ryan J Opel 10 Sep 23

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Tuesday, April 14, 2026 - 11:18 pm: Edit

Any reason in particular the ISC thought it wouldn't be prudent to develop an FFS or BCH?

They did develop a BCV which I find odd.

Also since their DD doesn't downgrade sub into a FF I would figure they would have developed a few more FF variants (FFG, & FFS) beyond the obvious FFT, FFV, FFE, FCR.

By Warren Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, April 15, 2026 - 06:57 pm: Edit

The CC is their BCH because of the way ISC designed their fleet from the start.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Friday, June 05, 2026 - 09:47 pm: Edit

Another point about the CC being their BCH.

The lack of command rating. BCH ships across the galaxy have a 10 command rating. The DNE which is the closest/cheapest DN the ISC have lacks a PPD and by rule cannot lead an Echelon meaning only true DNs can lead an echelon with maximum number of ships.

The HDW-C which is the only other non-X, non-tug, non-DN hull also lacks PPD.

This means the ISC have to build CCX in order to get a CA hull with a command 10.

Even if the Ships were nearly identical the ISC should have developed a BCH or CCH from a CC with the extra command space for one econ point more.

By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Saturday, June 06, 2026 - 12:45 pm: Edit

I agree it odd that the ISC does not have the usual BCH with command rating of 10, but it that really "the usual", or is it more a nation-by-nation thing?

Romulans, for example, have a BCH... the Killerhawk. Or perhaps the Thunderhawk. Or the Sunhawk? All three with command rating 9.

For that matter, their Firehawk-X still only has a command rating 9. There is a Novahawk-X listed, but I don't know if that is a real ship or only a proposed idea.

Point is, assuming "BCH means command rating 10" is only an assumption.

*~*~*

As a side note... The Romulans have plenty of command rating 9 ships - I mean, seriously, they are able to fit enough electronics and communication equipment into a cramped King Eagle to give it CR9, and Novahawks/Superhawks galore, they are not short of CR9... and yet they never seemed to be able to transition from there on to CR10 except for their full dreadnoughts?

Still, that only reinforces my point, that not all the nations follow the same rules and standards.

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) on Saturday, June 06, 2026 - 04:28 pm: Edit

With a command rating of 10. You get a DN (free command ship) and a free Scout.

Battle group of 3 CW and 3 DW (3Cl 3 DD) counts as 5 for command limits. Giving 5 Class 3 for the battle line. For 13 ships.

The ISC gunline is 6 size class 4 (3DD/3FF) 4 command cost. With 6 more size class 3 ships. That makes 14 ships.

The CC with a command rating of 9. (Free scout) Would have the gunline 6 DD/FF and 5 size class 3 ships. For 13 ships total.

The ISC CC is 220 BPV. (with all refits) Lyran BCH 180. The FED BCH are 180 to 190 something.

The Gunline I Think is the reason for not needing a 10CR BCH.

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) on Saturday, June 06, 2026 - 05:53 pm: Edit

I should also say that the extra command embedded into the gunline. Takes over for the needed Command of the other ships.