(433.5) Long-Term Conversions

(433.50) Races who needed to save money often turned to long-term conversions as a way to do so.
(433.51) A race using a long-term conversion first declares how long the conversion will take in the conversion step and pays the first EP at that time.
(433.52) Long-term Conversion saves one EP for each extra turn taken.
(433.53) A race using Long-term conversion must pay at least 1 EP each turn. Failure to do so cancels the conversion and the points previously applied are lost.
(433.54) A given SB can perform as many long-term and regular conversions as its capacity allows (ie: 3 points for a regular SB and 5 for a Major Conversion Facility).
(433.541) A race may only make major conversions at a designated Major Conversion Facility.
(433.55) A race may at any time pay the full cost of the conversion to convert the ship. The previously paid EPs are lost.
(433.56) Conversion During Repair may not be used at the same time as long-term conversions. A ship must be completely repaired before conversion commences.
(433.57) If the conversion facility is attacked during the conversion, the ship undergoing conversion may fight as a crippled unit with all that entails.
(433.571) If the conversion facility is attacked, the ship undergoing long-term conversion can be attacked with directed damage regardless of whether or not it is in the battle force.
(433.572) If the ship undergoing long-term conversion retreats from its conversion hex it is treated as a crippled unit (and must be included in any pursuit battle). The points paid towards its conversion are lost and it must be repaired before it can be later converted.

By Michael Tisdel (Jtisdel) on Sunday, January 08, 2012 - 07:54 pm: Edit

Two questions...

(1) Doesn't something similar already exist when using depot repair + CDR?

(2) For most empires, conversions are needed very soon. If your economy is such that you have to pay on installments to up gun your ship, then you probably can find a better use for those points (and the conversion slots that are being used). Under what game conditions would this be used?

By Ahmad Abdel-Hameed (Madarab) on Sunday, January 08, 2012 - 08:19 pm: Edit

Mostly, I was reflecting the historical fact that long-term conversions took place and giving a rationale for why a race might want to engage in such behavior.

By Paul Pease (Theghost) on Sunday, January 08, 2012 - 08:49 pm: Edit

A couple of questions

"(433.54) A given SB can perform as many long-term and regular conversions as its capacity allows (ie: 3 points for a regular SB and 5 for a Major Conversion Facility)."

Is the concept that the conversion facility could have 3 or 5 ships in the conversion facility at the same time all undergoing long term (multi-turn) conversion at the same time?

Is the concept that a major conversion facility, could have two ships in the conversion facility in long term (multi-turn) conversion and still do a 3 point minor conversion?

By Ahmad Abdel-Hameed (Madarab) on Sunday, January 08, 2012 - 11:56 pm: Edit

The first mostly. The second definitly not. A SB can perform up to 3 points of conversions both long-term and normal. For example, it could be performing 2 long-term conversions that cost 1EP each and also convert one ship to an escort.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, January 09, 2012 - 09:47 am: Edit

I seem to recall something like this being proposed and rejected. However, perhaps your proposal will meet with success.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, January 09, 2012 - 11:37 am: Edit

...this proposal will require RECORD KEEPING and most of you know that we don't have enough of this in the game already...

By Chris Upson (Misanthropope) on Monday, January 09, 2012 - 12:36 pm: Edit

you could expand depot functionality to accomplish a similar end to ahmad's proposal. i mean, the junkyard of space is the natural venue for this; who is going to leave half-disassembled starships floating around a major military installation for years at a time?

pay the net cost and count the production and (if applicable) major conversion limitations up front, figure out how long it will take, and drop the converted ship into the appropriate box of the appropriate depot track.

how dragging a major project out makes said project cheaper i don't quite get, but depot repairs work on the same principle.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Monday, January 09, 2012 - 03:55 pm: Edit

The only issue I have is that traditionally the rules reflect only ONE major conversion per facility at a time. I would say that in order to get this through you would have to still have the 1EP count as your allowed Major each turn you do this despite the lowered cost...but then maybe that is the trade off for getting the cheaper cost. A 5 point Major long term conversion spends 1EP on T1 (getting a 1EP discount off the total cost), another 1EP on T2 (getting another 1EP discount off), and yet another 1EP on T3 (completing the major long term conversion).

The record keeping in this game now is nothing compared to what it once was before flexible carrier group rules were invented.

This is no worse than keeping track of the B-10 rolls or swarm numbers.

If we were concerned with records limit this to 1 SB per turn. Also by way of long term conversion shall no "major" conversion be considered 'minor' even though the cost is less.

Edit: I like Chris's idea of a Long Term Conversion "Depot" almost better. It relieves Chuck's issue of record keeping and limits the type and number of conversions. Not sure how you handle additional fighter costs and such though.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, January 09, 2012 - 04:35 pm: Edit

I dunno. Taking longer to complete a project usually increases its cost due to overhead, etc. Rushing increases costs, too, but there isa point of diminishing returns when taking too long to get something done.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, January 10, 2012 - 01:53 am: Edit

I think I'm leaning against this proposal for adding more record keeping and not significantly increasing playability. I also point out that battleship construction (436.0) adds costs for slow/no progress.

By Terry O'Carroll (Terryoc) on Tuesday, January 10, 2012 - 05:07 am: Edit

So if you extend a 3-point conversion to two turns you save 1 ep? A 5-point conversion extended to three turns saves two ep? Sounds like a lot of recordkeeping for little benefit. Even with the depot track idea. It has a "hidden cost" in that you're keeping a ship out of combat for longer than you otherwise would. Is it really practical to keep otherwise functional ships out of combat for 6-12 extra months? Also, I'm not convinced that the benefits would exist in the "real world". A 3-point conversion facility might, for example, have three conversions occurring simultaneously. Running three projects at once is much more complex than one, because you'd be having three times the scheduling headaches, getting materials where they needed to be on time and making sure the right people were available... I'm sure anyone who's managed a project can understand the problems.

Good on Ahmad for proposing it, I don't think it's a practical idea.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Tuesday, January 10, 2012 - 06:43 am: Edit

Terry I think the point of the original proposal was it is NOT a benefit to delay ship conversions. Keeping the ship out of combat is part of the cost. The focus here is not the two turn savings on a 5 point conversion nor is it the 'extra' cost involved in designing a new battleship due to engineering delays. In fact, skipping DN construction adds to the BB roll speeding up progress. In this case skipping major conversions (spreading that conversion out over time) gives you a 1 EP discount per turn.

Since your ship is NOT in service you lose the opportunity to use it for whatever it role would be. Your SB is tied up not being able to do a major conversion for three +/- turns. All of this because in a situation where your economy is tight and you only have 1 or 2 EP left you want to do something good with it.

Practical? Maybe not. Possible? It should be.

Chuck I don't believe for a second that you consider record keeping a bother. In a game of economics? One that has thousands of counters and takes years to play, really? Adding a single footnote to one of the conversions you were already likely doing doesn't seem to really be a camel back breaker.

By Terry O'Carroll (Terryoc) on Tuesday, January 10, 2012 - 08:33 am: Edit

If it's not a benefit, why do it? If your economy's trashed, as it is for the Coalition during the later part of the GW, aren't you on the defensive and taking ships out of action suicidally foolish? If you're on the offensive, don't you need the conversions NOW before the Alliance economic machine fully gets into gear? Under what circumstances would a player use this rule? I'm really having difficulty imagining circumstances in which anyone would actually use it. The total cost just seems to completely outweigh the benefit.

---

Quote:

Chuck I don't believe for a second that you consider record keeping a bother. In a game of economics? One that has thousands of counters and takes years to play, really? Adding a single footnote to one of the conversions you were already likely doing doesn't seem to really be a camel back breaker.

---

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Tuesday, January 10, 2012 - 10:43 am: Edit

Well benefit is relative. You may not see benefit with the Klingons, Lyrans or Feds running a full economy. But consider the Kzinti, Hyrans or Romulans once their capital is trashed or their economy is exhausted. The Hydrans can do a major conversion off-map after their capital falls...but do they have the money for it? Their options are delay the conversion & save for the time when they have enough. With this option they would start the long term conversion (still on the delay) and gain the benefit of a reduced cost. This savings is crucial to their overall economy as every EP matters. This would be the same for the Kzinti or the Romulans (after exhaustion kicks in).

As to your being intimidated by a game. I partially know where you are coming from. The expense and amount of items/expansions in FedCOm has prevented me from venturing too far into that and has almost guaranteed me never to invest in ACTA. As for the options within F&E. Within the design of this grand scale game the options are what make it indeed grand. While it doesnt deal with the minutia of turning on life support or worring about charging batteries the possibilities of your production schedule alone are huge. All I am really getting at with Chuck was that his comment about record keeping is uncalled for. Record keeping in this type of game is...part of the game.

Under a similar idea of this proposal we have as an example the choice of a player to build a minor shipyard. You have to record that you are building it and track where it is and how much you need to spend to complete it. Once it is done you need to track every turn what ship it constructs (base hull or variant of). Intimidating? Not really. Tedious? Maybe, but having an extra ship to take into combat makes the game much more fun.

If a repair could be done over multiple turns then why can't a conversion be done over multi turns?

By Chris Upson (Misanthropope) on Tuesday, January 10, 2012 - 01:39 pm: Edit

the record keeping is beatable. my suggestion involved zero record keeping, assuredly you could find options that suit you that don't involve pencil and paper, if that were really the issue.

i do however believe the suggestion as originally mooted is way too good. on CT1 i personally would begin the conversion of four DWS from FF (far stars, enemy's blood), a JGP, and six D7Cs (TBS, NR, SR, home fleet). these are all conversions i normally do anyhow, so it's a plain gift, a not-insignificant one, and one that keeps giving as long as there are inactive cruisers to upgrade, 15 turns for the klingons. even when the time trade-off is there, it's still totally worth it for small ships. i would definitely routinely long-term convert every frigate the lyrans ever build (except FCRs).

i also expect you would see vastly more of those NCA variants, which could be desirable, but i kind of anticipate getting tired of throngs of MKEs, fed and lyran NCCs coming off the assembly line.

with the depot you lose four or five turns use (and the potential CDR discount) to save one or two EPs and some repair capacity. with this it's one turn use per EP. depot is probably a little too weak to be used routinely, but this is just so much better, it would become a staple of my build order, and probably not just me

By Paul Edwards (Pablomatic) on Tuesday, January 10, 2012 - 06:22 pm: Edit

This proposal would cause me to plan out many turns in advance. I would never do "short-term" conversion if, with a little planning, I could save one or more eps off the cost of that conversion.

By Ahmad Abdel-Hameed (Madarab) on Tuesday, January 10, 2012 - 08:49 pm: Edit

Paul, how do you value the cost of having the ship out of action?

By Paul Edwards (Pablomatic) on Tuesday, January 10, 2012 - 09:10 pm: Edit

Ahmad, true. Perhaps I have overstated the case. Nevertheless, I think the Coalition could swing having ships in the pipeline early.

All in all I don't think I'm interested in this rule though.