Not the official answer here.

No you can't do that. The intent of the ruling is prevent gaining EPs from a known course of action. There are a couple of others who can do the same thing. The Lyran one is the most common course of action known.

By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar2) on Wednesday, July 04, 2012 - 08:36 pm: Edit

Basically, it's one or the other, but not both...

By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, July 05, 2012 - 12:47 pm: Edit

Q625.6 OK serious question on the Driving Winds scenario:

How are the ISC supposed to be able to "win"? In playing a single cordon scenario (Alpha), there appears to be no way for them to actually "win". The Non-Aligned's have too many ships and get too many points from their victory conditions.

For example, each Non-Aligned player can gain 5 VPs for each /b{uncrippled ship} in the PEZ. 5. Just look at the Romulan forces in Cordon Alpha. They have 20 uncrippled ships. Park those in any one hex of the PEZ and they earn 100 VPs in a single turn. The best the ISC could do is earn 1 point for each clear PEZ/CEZ hex (17 points), 3 points for each disrupted province (6 points for 4411 which cannot be captured and which ever province the Romulan fleet is parked in) and 7 points for each province captured (14 since there are only two other provinces left to be captured). That's a total of 37 points. So T1 the ISC are already behind up to 63 points (more if the BATS in hex 4611 is not destroyed).

The Gorn front is similiar, but the ISC do a bit better there simply because there are more PEZ/CEZ hexes to gain points from and that the Gorn fleet is smaller (16 uncrippled ships at start).

So what am I missing here? Is there a typo in the VP rules maybe? It also makes no sense that the ISC get no points for destroying Non-Aligned bases in the PEZ/CEZ, nor do they gain VPs for liberating NZ planets or comandeering Non Aligned plantes.

Also, a question about Pacification Bases (544.1). What happens if I want to build one of these? I assume I cannot use ROMP after the one turn in the scenario in order to deploy them. So say the ISC build one of these on T2 of a cordon scenario. I then get a Tug to go pick it up and move it. Do they still setup instantly, or is there some other procedure for establishing them? Or am I forced to build a MB and then upgrade it to a PS that way?

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, July 05, 2012 - 01:09 pm: Edit

Follow up to Rob's question. Rob and I have played this scenario, each of us taking the ISC. I took it the first time, Rob is taking it in our reboot game. Both of us understand the ISC better for our second game and we *think* we're using all available ISC advantages now and using better play - but we still just can't see a way to bolster ISC VPs - or rather limit NA VPs.

Something else that's very important that Rob did not address. The normal rules of combat combined with the rules of engagement for the pacification exclusion zone and combat exclusion zone strongly favor the non-aligned player. For example, in the CEZ the NA player can kill an ISC ship and then leave before the ISC can reciprocate (on ISC phasing turns). This effect badly reduces ISC VPs. Also, since the ISC get free repairs, the NA players pretty much have every incentive to kill an ISC ship and run - whether or not the ISC can kill a ship if you're fighting in the PEZ.

So, the basic idea is to put a massive NA fleet in the PEZ and just dare the ISC to do something about it. The ISC don't have enough ships to challenge, for example, BOTH the Gorn and Romulan massive fleets. So, the ISC is constrained to forcing only one of the NA fleets out of PEZ and into the CEZ - the other NA power picks up MASSIVE VPs for having the bulk of his available navy in the PEZ.

At the moment, neither Rob nor myself can see any way for the ISC to defeat this strategy given the scenario as-written.

I'd recommend either revision of VP system, reduction of availalable NA ships, or increasing available ISC ships.

[Edit] The ISC can clearly win against *either* the Gorns or the Roms, simply by devoting the vast bulk of their force against that NA power. However, doing so results in an outstanding victory for the other NA power. We don't see a way for the ISC to win against *both* NA empires; and in fact, if the ISC tries then the ISC ends up losing to both (badly).

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, July 05, 2012 - 02:38 pm: Edit

Rob:

REF: PS Production & Deployment

The rule in (544.11) states:

---

Quote:

PRODUCTION: An ISC PS can be constructed only in
the ISC capital shipyard. See SIT for the cost. The shipyard can
produce two of these bases per turn. These production limits
may be adjusted or eliminated in various non-historical scenarios.

---

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, July 05, 2012 - 02:55 pm: Edit

Ted/Rob:

I don't want to make changes until I know that the nuances of ISC tactics are fully understood by the players.

In the mean time, before we consider any changes to the scenario victory conditions, why not try to bid VPs for the NA power player(s)? If you find five VPs are not working then bid three VPs and play it from that standpoint.

By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, July 05, 2012 - 03:15 pm: Edit

Chuck,

I don't think we're necessarily looking for changes per se, just that we were hoping that maybe we were missing something, or that there could have been an error in the VP rules for the scenario.

So if we dialed down the VPs from 5 to 3 in the PEZ, then each crippled ship would only be 1. Which is fine. But then in the CEZ an uncrippled ship is 2 and a crippled ship is still 1. Seems a bit off. Maybe cripples in the CEZ do not count for VPs since the ISC cannot direct on them anyway? That could be workable.

However, Ted has a very valid point about the build cost penalty also. The NA players have no reason not to blast ISC ships out of space whereever they find them, and in locations like the CEZ the ISC can not shoot back until after the NA player has done so. And those lost VPs affect the ISC against every player in the scenario, so in effect a FF for example killed by the Romulans benefits the Gorn as well, even though they didn't have to do anything to gain that benefit.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, July 05, 2012 - 05:16 pm: Edit

Chuck, thanks for considering our comments.

Do you have comments on the NA strategy of just parking major fleets in the PEZ - with the effect I described above? Neither Rob nor I can see a way around this strategy with the current level of ISC forces.

You know.... Maybe the three of us should appear on Paul Franz' Talk Shoe on some Thursday. We can have a three-way discussion, as Rob and I are certainly open to the possibility we are just missing effective ISC strategies. Oral discussion will be faster than writing back and forth, and perhaps the result can be proposed changes to setup or VPs (or both) or a primer on ISC tactics (or any combination of the above). I'd be willing to write up such a primer based on the discussion for publication in a Captain's Log or something - good way perhaps to promote the product.

What do you think?

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, July 05, 2012 - 05:44 pm: Edit

So as this just came up in a game I'm playing and isn't really a debate, so much as not really clear:

Rule (450.4), which is in Planetary Ops, apparently indicates that you can substitute FF builds for DD builds (as, say, the Kzinti at the start of the General War).

Using only the 2K10 rulebook, this is not possible--the 2K10 basic rules are very clear that you can only substitute ships that are specifically listed as substitutions on the SIT or in the specific OBs. And there are no blanket rules about substituting FFs for DDs (or whatever; this applies to any situation where you would want to make a smaller ship than is on the build schedule to save money).

I realize that I'm always kind of an outlier in these discussions, as I only ever use the basic rules set and none of the expansion rules. But are the substitution rules in (450.4) something that is envisioned as being retroactively applied to the basic rules as well, or are they, just like all other expansion rules, rules that you use if you are using that expansion?

By Terry O'Carroll (Terryoc) on Thursday, July 05, 2012 - 06:36 pm: Edit

Peter, this is not an official answer by any means...

My copy of the 2K10 rulebook has 450.4 listed in the rulebook's index, but not in the RB itself.[Edit: it refers to Planetary Ops] So presumably, when 2K10 was being revised, the option to include 450.40 in the main rules was examined and they chose not to. To me, that implies it's an advanced "expansion rule" intended to be used if you're using the expansion.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Friday, July 06, 2012 - 12:56 am: Edit

(450.4) is an expansion rule, but in Peter's question it looks like an allowed substitution was missed and has been missing for a longer time than (450.4). I found that Peter's question goes for the Lyrans, Hydrans, and Federation as well. All 4 empires do not specify a downgrade of the DD to FF.

The Gorns allow the BD to be downgraded to the DD. The DD being a 5/3 ship and considered a frigate for (431.5).

The Klingons are allowed to build E4's in place of F5's but why they would want to is beyond me for the most part, except to save money.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, July 06, 2012 - 04:05 am: Edit

Two FF can be substituted for the scheduled CL production for the Kzinti in basic set...

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Friday, July 06, 2012 - 06:01 am: Edit

Chuck, I can think of a couple of situations where you might also want to sub a FF for the DD as the Kzinti or just sub the FF for DD, but keep the CL build. I can also see situations where the Hydran's and possibly the Lyrans would want to sub FF's for DD's as well. Especially when playing with only the 2KX rules.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, July 06, 2012 - 02:47 pm: Edit

Terry wrote:
>>To me, that implies it's an advanced "expansion rule" intended to be used if you're using the expansion.>>

Yeah, that's the assumption I've been operating under all these years (i.e. the Kzinti get to build a DD or nothing).

Looking in the 2K10 OBs, the following ships can get downgraded into smaller ones, specifically:

FED: CC/CA for DN; DD/CL for NCL

KLI: E4 for F5; F5 for F5L; F5L for D hull

ROM: FH for DN; WE for SP; BH for SK

ZIN: CL/DD for CM; 2xFF for CL

GRN: CL for BC/HD; DD for BD

THN: CA for DN

HYD: LN for HR/KN; KN for TR; HR for RN/LM; TR for DG/LB

LYR: CL for CA/CW; DD for CW/DW; Trimaran exceptions

So it looks like even the old "You can always sub a CA/CC for a DN" rule has vanished (only the Feds, Roms, Tholians, and Lyrans can do that now, apparently). And the only folks who can sub a FF for a bigger ship are the Klingons (E4 for F5) and Gorns (DD for BD).

It is possible that there are some blanket exceptions buried somewhere in the 2K10 rulebook that I'm yet to notice. But I haven't, ya know, noticed them yet.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, July 06, 2012 - 02:51 pm: Edit

Thomas wrote:
>>Chuck, I can think of a couple of situations where you might also want to sub a FF for the DD as the Kzinti or just sub the FF for DD, but keep the CL build.>>

Oh, certainly, especially in just the basic game--the Kzinti DD is mostly useless (no BGs, no conversions) and expensive. If you could freely substitute FFs for them on the build schedule, I'd imagine that (in a basic rules, 2K10 game) it would happen all the time. But as the 2K10 rules go, you can't do that (it is a DD or nothing for you!)

This only came up 'cause I'm currently posting a 2K10 only (i.e. no expansions) game, and multiple people were like "Huh. You can just replace those DDs with FFs to save money and not miss ship builds...", which you can apparently do if you are using Planetary Ops, but not if you are just using 2K10. Which is fine (and how I have always played it). I'm just looking for clarification.

By Matthew Potter (Neonpico) on Friday, July 06, 2012 - 03:32 pm: Edit

I think it would be fascinating to see a purely-historic writeup of the GW at the same level of gory-detail that Peter is doing right now. Basically, perform only the historic builds ("the Kzinti built 2 DDs in this season.."), the historic moves, and the historic combats (no dice rolling. Just "these 16 ships were crippled, we lost these 4 ships, etc")

I haven't crawled through the F&E rules recently (and just have F&E89 anyways), otherwise I might undertake such a herculean endeaver myself. But it seems to me that there's enough information in the various class descriptions and captains' logs to figure out where most things were and when they died/crippled.

By Terry O'Carroll (Terryoc) on Friday, July 06, 2012 - 03:56 pm: Edit

Matthew, I don't think any record of the GW exists at that level of detail. We know that the various powers built smaller numbers of carriers historically than they usually do in a game of F&E, but the vast numbers of smaller ships are not accounted for.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, July 06, 2012 - 07:30 pm: Edit

Always CA for DN:
See (700.0) series notes....

By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar2) on Friday, July 06, 2012 - 08:27 pm: Edit

Chuck. you forgot to say where the (700.0) series notes are located...[online, warbook notes]

Edit - hmmm, not there in the warbook notes...is there in the online OB (though 2009), maybe the AAR?

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, July 06, 2012 - 10:43 pm: Edit

Check basic F&E2KX rules in the 700.0 section for general notes on substitutions.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, July 07, 2012 - 11:03 am: Edit

Chuck wrote:
>>Check basic F&E2KX rules in the 700.0 section for general notes on substitutions.>>

Having just done that, there are no general notes on substitutions in the 700.0 section. There is no notation saying that you can always sub a CA for a DN (I know that *used* to be a rule, but the current 2K10 rulebook doesn't say this anymore anywhere). This certainly may be an omission, and might be errataed somewhere not obvious, but it isn't, as far as I can tell, in the actual rulebook.

By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar2) on Saturday, July 07, 2012 - 07:22 pm: Edit

Chuck, the CA/DN sub as been in the (701.0) notes (2K/AO) but wasn't included with 2KX...(As 700 is just the header)...

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Sunday, July 08, 2012 - 03:47 pm: Edit

So, I looked on the Hydran SIT and it says you get 0.2 salvage for an APT - but no salvage for a PTR (which costs more and actually has a crippled side). Is this right? Same for other empires?

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, July 08, 2012 - 10:06 pm: Edit

Unless overruled by ADB, players using F&E2KX:

"Can always substitute CA or CC for DN; CA for CC"

This seems to have been omitted from F&E2KX (701.0) and which has always been part of the basic game.

Chuck Strong
FEDS

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, July 08, 2012 - 11:53 pm: Edit

sure, ok.not overruled