01-General SIT Discussions
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Federation & Empire: F&E Master SITs: 01-General SIT Discussions
  Subtopic Posts   Updated
General Notes & FAQs  13   04/03 06:00pm
Processed General Reports  111   06/10 03:48pm
Auxiliary Project  0    
Archive through May 27, 2020  25   11/14 10:29am
Archive through December 07, 2021  25   05/11 11:41am
This topic is to be used for:
1. Things the staff needs to tell you.
2. Things that apply across the board, not to any given empire.

Please do not post things here that are specific to a single empire as those should go in the empire's topics.
By Riccardo Perni (P_R_S) on Tuesday, December 07, 2021 - 11:46 am: Edit

Yes, I know, and it is well spent!! I can't wait to put my hands on CW!!

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, May 10, 2022 - 03:42 am: Edit

FEDS Recommends updating all SITs to reflect a null '–" command rating for convoys and FRD/PRD/FRXs to properly reflect rule 302.323 which states:

Quote:

(302.323) Convoys and FRDs have no Command Ratings. They are required be in the Battle Force (302.231) but are not involved in flagship selection.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, May 10, 2022 - 05:09 pm: Edit

So far as I am concerned, a command rating of "0" IS identical to a null command rating or "no command rating" or "-" and my time is better spend doing something actually useful.

If there is a distinction it is not a difference.

By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Wednesday, May 11, 2022 - 08:06 am: Edit

The key difference, from 302.32 is:

"Units with a Command Rating of zero may be used as
flagships (if they are one of the three highest rated) while units
with no Command Rating (marked “NA” or “—”) can never be."

This can have an effect on the ability to exclude ships during the flagship selection process in battles with only 2 or 3 ships.

By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Wednesday, May 11, 2022 - 11:41 am: Edit

Addendum to the above; should be a small number of ships, rather than just 2 or 3.

Example; a force of FF and 3xAPT gets jumped by a large force and the player with the APTs wants to preserve them and their valuable cargo. Because the APTs have a command rating of "0" the process goes like this:
1. Candidate flagships are FF, APT, APT.
2. The player excludes the 2 APT, leaving FF and APT as battle force eligible.
3. The player puts up the FF as the minimum 1/2 of the remaining force and all 3 APTs get to retreat.

If the APT had a command rating of "-" the situation becomes:
1. The FF is the only candidate flagship, leaving all 4 ships eligible for the battle force.
2. Because he is required to put up at least 1/2 of the eligible ships, the player puts up FF+APT, both of which die.
3. Only 2, rather than 3, APTs are able to retreat.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, May 12, 2022 - 01:39 am: Edit

SIGH, yeah, that.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Thursday, June 23, 2022 - 01:33 am: Edit

General Q for many/all empires.

I noticed Base Stations and Battle Stations have an available YIS that predates MB. Is this correct on the SIT? How can these bases be constructed since by rule they are done by seeding with a MB?

Similarly I noticed that even though MA later renamed CO brought us the IGCE (aka Troops) that we can generate and deploy into combat, the entry is missing from (all empires) SITs despite them being available in 'the colors' for each empire.
Can these be added to the SIT? What YIS would a troop have (I would think troops are always available) but would have a Y-date with a (WAR) designator similar to MMGs on the SIT.

By Graham Cridland (Grahamcridland) on Thursday, June 23, 2022 - 01:03 pm: Edit

Maybe MB's are the standard way of seeding a base in wartime, but in peacetime the construction would be accomplished by various civilian and/or military convoys/contractors/tugs/transports in a less immediate fashion but according to a construction plan rather than an operational one.

I'm speculating here, but construction could certainly occur on an ongoing basis in peacetime when the concerns of immediate defensive use and potential enemy attack were not at issue.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Thursday, June 23, 2022 - 08:54 pm: Edit

The SFB Module Y series covers these early bases that are then upgraded to the BS standard in Y120 ...

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Friday, June 24, 2022 - 01:29 pm: Edit

To quote (OR17.0):

Quote:

During the period Y116-Y135, the Federation was actively involved in setting up colonies throughout their territory, particularly near the Kzinti and Klingon borders. The idea was to consolidate their hold on these areas, eventually upgrading the defenses to form a solid line of outposts in the event of future conflicts. In Y120, when base stations were developed, the Federation began the slow process of constructing these facilities in orbit. In the days before mobile bases (R1.24) were available to support this operation, base stations might take years (and a considerable workforce) to complete.



-----

Also, there would be a difference between base stations built from scratch in this era - such as the one being built as "a long-term project" in the Aurora star system prior to its disappearance in Y130 - and those upgraded from the Early Years bases noted in a previous post.

As noted in the Tholian Master Starship Book, the first Holdfast starbases were upgraded from early space docks. Similarly, the first Holdfast battle stations had been upgraded from base stations, which in turn had been upgraded from early base stations.

Actually, the Early Years Tholian bases in the Holdfast were built using Klingon design templates. The Tholians in our galaxy had lost the ability to construct "modern" bases of the kind they had once used back in M81, so had to learn how to construct fixed installations all over again.

And since there were no mobile bases back in M81 (though one can be used to represent an attack on a home galaxy base while still under construction), the Holdfast Tholians learned about those at around the same time as the Federation and Klingons in any event.

-----

Perhaps it might one day be useful to account for "Middle Years" base construction in F&E terms, as and when the likes of the Second Federation-Kzinti War or the Hydran Liberation are taken a fresh look at scenario-wise.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Wednesday, November 23, 2022 - 11:36 pm: Edit

Under 318.8: "The above are examples. Ships that have oversized squadrons are listed in the notes column of the Ship Information Tables."

The Hydran ID has 15 fighter factors, and the Romulan SPB has 8, but neither of these units have notes about these being oversized. Should they have a note about being oversized?

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Wednesday, November 23, 2022 - 11:44 pm: Edit

The Hydran is a standard squadron and hybrid fighter from the DN.

The Romulan is the standard size for the ship.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, November 23, 2022 - 11:48 pm: Edit

Since we don’t do R1 any more those should be in the empire topics.

By David Hiller (Dhhgamer) on Sunday, December 25, 2022 - 11:13 am: Edit

Not sure where to post on the Tactical Operations SiT but the KNH and LNH modules have some dates before the introduction of Heavy Fighters (both) and PF (LNH). I presume that the modules aren't available until the dates each are introduced?

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Sunday, December 25, 2022 - 08:54 pm: Edit

That should be posted in the Hydran SIT section.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Saturday, December 31, 2022 - 05:52 pm: Edit

Shouldn’t there be such a thing as a KNG (troop version of the Hydran Knight DD)? I never noticed this ship missing from the mix until a recent conversation.

By Jamey Johnston (Totino) on Saturday, December 31, 2022 - 06:33 pm: Edit

Lawrence,

No, for the same reason there is no CUG. Hydrans only did commando versions of Fusion ships, which close with the enemy, and the Hellbore variants hang back and snipe, so no commando version needed.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Tuesday, March 28, 2023 - 12:25 pm: Edit

APTs have no combat, but a salvage of .2
PTRs have a combat strength, but a salvage of 0.0
¯\_(:))_/¯

Is this right or are we missing something?

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Tuesday, March 28, 2023 - 01:28 pm: Edit

I think we missed something here. According to a rough estimate the APT should have a salvage value of 0.25. The PTR should have a salvage value of 0.50. Based on the standard 25% salvage value of hulls that that do not meet the standard of Ship Separation (439.18). Subject to approval this will probably be a copy and paste across all SITs, based on my quick look at the Fed 2020 and Kzinti 2020 SITs.

By Karl Mangold (Solomon) on Monday, May 20, 2024 - 10:31 am: Edit

I noticed something about EW ratings for OPBs. The rule for OPBs in SO states:
(453.33) EW: An operational base has an EW factor of 3 (with an attack factor of 5; EW = 1 with an attack factor of 10)
However, every SIT I see says in the notes column:
Operational Base, moves as military
convoy. (2 EW:5 AF), (1 EW:10 AF)
This is not needed to answer a question for a game, just something I noticed.

By Daniel Glenn Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Saturday, May 25, 2024 - 09:54 am: Edit

If I remember correctly, an OPB in SFB only has 2 sensor channels. If I've got that right, the max for an OPB cannot be higher than 2.

FEDS: Unfortunately, the variable EW data charts of the OPB were already included in SO back in 2006 and not reported until now for inclusion in the latest update. While we could correct this data in the SITs, ADB would need to direct this change as the SITs would then be incongruent with the published charts. An alternative would be for ADB to publish a one page PDF correction but they may very well conclude that would be impractical at this time. For now, chalk this up to 'doctrine'. :)

By Karl Mangold (Solomon) on Friday, May 31, 2024 - 08:32 am: Edit

Is there an introduction date for base repair augmentation modules (441.6)? The rule in AO states to check the SIT but I haven't been able to find it so far.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Friday, May 31, 2024 - 12:40 pm: Edit

The RepM Repair module (R1.32B) has a YIS of 165 from R1.

By Warren Mathews (Turtle) on Friday, May 31, 2024 - 02:17 pm: Edit

Copied from the Combined Operations 2021 Rulebook, however this rule is unchanged from the previous version of the Combined Operations Rulebook.

Quote:

(444.12) REPAIR: Base stations have a repair capability of two repair points per turn (enough to repair a frigate) until Y170, and is then increased by repair modules (441.6) to three points in Y171. With record keeping, a base station could apply repair points to a given unit (which must remain in the hex) over two or more consecutive turns.



Above excerpt provided as a friend of the court.

By Warren Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, June 01, 2024 - 11:48 am: Edit

Copied from the Combined Operatoins 2003 Rulebook for comparison with the 2021 Rulebook above:

Quote:

(444.12) REPAIR: Base stations have a repair capability of two repair points per turn (enough to repair a frigate). This could be increased by Repair Modules (a future rule). With record keeping, a base station could apply repair points to a given unit (which must remain in the hex) over two consecutive turns.



Excerpt provided as a friend of the court.
Author notes that one change is the specific year listed in the 2021 Rulebook.

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