Archive through October 19, 2012
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Federation & Empire: F&E QUESTIONS:
F&E Q&A:
Archive through October 19, 2012
Peter, I know of no weird extra step for supply tug assignment. Some missions can be assigned mid turn, but supply tug is not one of them. It must be assigned at the start of the turn, Phase 1F on the ISC War SOP.
Ok, I have 2 raid hexes, we'll call them RH1 and RH2. They are adjacent to each other (or could be 2 hexes apart if a scout was involved)
I have 2 raiding ships, we'll call them RS1 and RS2.
Each of the raid hexes have a ship in them, we'll stay RT1 and RT2.
So, RS1 enters RH1, and RS2 enters RH2. Then RT2 simply reacts to RH1 and empties the RH2 hex. So, the reason for the raid (targeting a picket) makes this raid invalid and it can no longer do the mission it was sent to do.... at the same time as the other raid ship.
The reason target ships aren't pinned is because "raid time on station is extremely limited and narrow", yet somehow a ship can travel 1000 LY to intercept the target of ANOTHER raid, when both raids are basically done at the same time this ruling means if you put 2 ships by each other, they both can never be targeted by raids, only 1.
I understand that a raid should NOT pin a ship in the hex for the upcoming operational movement phase, as it shouldn't since it'll be gone by then.
But to enter a hex and watch your target flee, so it can fly 1000 pc (2 days at a fast dash) to target the other hex of your simultaneous raid (which would probably be conducted at nearly the same time, such is raids), well, I guess I'm just not getting something.
Allowing a single ship that is the target of a raid to leave to react to another raid just doesn't make any sense at all to me.
This situation breaks the time-space continuum 
Nick wrote:
>>Peter, I know of no weird extra step for supply tug assignment. Some missions can be assigned mid turn, but supply tug is not one of them. It must be assigned at the start of the turn, Phase 1F on the ISC War SOP.>>
Huh. Is the ISC War SOP randomly different than the 2K10 SOP? There is a specific step (which might be 2B7, but again, I don't have the rules here; I'll check when I get home) in the 2K10 SOP that says something along the lines of "Establish Tugs as a Supply Source", as a special, specific time to do that, as opposed to the assignment of missions.
Without the book here, this is difficult to discuss. I'll follow up when I get home :-)
The ISC War SOP is different in that it contains actions allowed in the expansions but were delibertly removed from the 2010 rulebook for simplification.
All 2010 steps are unchanged except as modified by actions from the expansions such as the 2nd or 3rd turn of colony development
1F is the first point in the SOP in which tugs may be assigned missions. 2B7 is the second point. Tug mission D (supply tug) may only be assigned in 1F.
Remember there is a risk in doing exactly as you explained -- you travel to the target HEX in hopes to find and engage the object of your mission. If its not there after raid reaction and combat you can still either disrupt the province or attack a secondary object. But in the case you have described, your own actions have ENABLED the object of your attack to leave the hex -- this is a great example of the 2v2 wingman concept where you had hoped for two 1v1 battles and ended up with one 2v1 and the other with 0v1.
Principle of War - Maneuver: Place the enemy in a position of disadvantage through the flexible application of combat power. Maneuver is the movement of forces in relation to the enemy to gain positional advantage. Effective maneuver keeps the enemy off balance and protects the force. It is used to exploit successes, to preserve freedom of action, and to reduce vulnerability. It continually poses new problems for the enemy by rendering his actions ineffective, eventually leading to defeat.
The bottom line here is that F&E is an abstraction of many other smaller events and actions. Even the raid sequence itself is an abstraction -- why do raids not happen after movement or after combat or during movement or combat or even a mix of all these? There have been times I wish I could raid and destroy a single ship blocking my retrograde path after the combat sequence.
Turtle:
Please be careful in making absolute statements.
Quote:1F is the first point in the SOP in which tugs may be assigned missions. 2B7 is the second point. Tug mission D (supply tug) may only be assigned in 1F.
It is theoretically possible that a cruiser can be converted to a tug at a remote major conversion facility under siege, the tug could then be assigned the supply point mission in the very hex of the facility during SoP 2B7.
I understand how raids work, how they are abstractions, what raids are for, and the principles of war, the turn sequence, etc, etc...
What I do not get, is how with 2 raids, the defender gets to choose one raid to "not be there for", especially since raids are "short" periods of time.
If I raid hex A and B, and I hit B first, how can units in hex B react to hex A when it hasn't been raided yet? If the raids are simultaneous, how can 1 ship react to the other being raided? If the raids are all abstracted and in such short periods of time, how can any ship react at all?
I'm sure the answer will be something about abstraction or whatever, but that cuts both ways. One event has *got* to happen before the other event, especially if reactions can be done, otherwise one side has the ability to read minds and react before an event actually happened.
This would be an easy fix if each raid hex was resolved in a sequence, and not at the same time. That way the reactions would also be in sequence, and everything then makes sense. Another easy fix is simply not allow any 2 raids to be within 2 hexes of each other, eliminating the possibility of any ship in a raid target hex to react to any other (and this does seem to fit the whole 1 province per raid and 1 per 3 NZ hexes rules)
But a ship reacting to a raid that hasn't happened yet in order to avoid a raid coming right at it, well, not much sense to be had there.
So one of my 2 ships did a raid to destroy a picket, only to find out the picket left to react to a raid his buddy that was still at space dock as his raid wasn't taking place for 3 more months.
Thomas wrote:
>>Tug mission D (supply tug) may only be assigned in 1F.>>
Ok, so now I'm home and have my rulebook (2K10). Here is what it says, directly quoting:
"2B7: Assign missions to new tugs and transports (509.35). Assign tugs and transports Mission D (509.1)."
"(509.1D) Supply Source: A transport can be assigned this mission during the Phasing Player Turn during the Assign Mission phase of production (2B7)."
This reads, to me, as an indication that Mission D (Supply Tug) is assigned during step (2B7), where one can assign missions to newly built tugs (but not turn newly built tugs into supply tugs, as (509.35) specifically says that newly built tugs can't be used for Mission D) *or* one can assign tugs to Mission D (i.e. that is the step where you do that). As supported by the wording of (509.1D).
I mean, maybe this is all insane of me. But that is what the rulebook says. And seems like a perfectly reasonable reading of it.
Eric:
Its just the way these things work and I must rule on the rules as written.
Turtle:
I stand corrected based upon (509.35).
Ok, for now I'll just avoid raiding 2 adjacent ships simultaneously. Hopefully the warbook will fix it.
Thanks.
Quote:What I do not get, is how with 2 raids, the defender gets to choose one raid to "not be there for", especially since raids are "short" periods of time.
It's the same thing that allows - in real life - wingmen to setup 2v1 and a 0v1 battles in aerial dogfights. Both are theoretically happening in real time simultaneously when 2 versus 2 forces meet. While, from a game perspective, you could rationalize either your idea or FEDs ruling I don't see either as being unreasonable or not making sense.
As an aside, you may not know, but Chuck Strong is a retired Air Force Colonel and so knows a bit about aerial combat in real life. 
Too bad that justification doesn't work in this case, these turns are 6 months long, and abstracted. It takes a ship 2 days at best speed to go across a hex, 2 days out of 180, and I can attack 1 hex, and 30 days later attack another, and those aerial type tactics that all of us wargamers are probably pretty fluent with simply don't apply to a 6 month long turn
I thought he worked for Space Command, thus probably not a pilot ;) Feel free to correct me on that, he could have piloted our new stealth secret mission orbital space planes dropping stuxnet viruses on Iran.
Regardless, I'll just avoid the situation that creates an unbeliveable scenario for me to keep the game from driving me insane before I get X-Ships.
Well, I guess you can't have your cake and eat it too. It's hard to argue "simultaneous" in the rules and then point out the time periods involved. Both opponents operate under similar conditions. However, it makes perfect sense to avoid situations that drive you crazy.
I'll let Chuck speak for his own experience, but IIRC he was at NORAD for a while but did have some "in flight" experience (don't know if he was a pilot).
"I thought he worked for Space Command, thus probably not a pilot ;) Feel free to correct me on that, he could have piloted our new stealth secret mission orbital space planes dropping stuxnet viruses on Iran.
"
From what I recall, Chuck did fly F15s, was crew on an AWACS, and worked for Space Command. Hopefully he can fill you in.
OK so it's 2B7 instead of 1F, don't know how I missed that, unless the print rulebook is different than the eRulebook. My eRulebook says it is 2B7 as Peter indicated.
Nick wrote:
>>OK so it's 2B7 instead of 1F, don't know how I missed that, unless the print rulebook is different than the eRulebook. My eRulebook says it is 2B7 as Peter indicated.>>
Heh--I know. It is deeply weird. I was surprised by it originally (which is why I remembered it being in a weird place). I think the only instance in which it matters, really, is that it comes after replacing Fighters and PFs (which is 2B4), so if you have ships that were out of supply on the previous retrograde phase (so they didn't get new Fighters and PFs then), and they are planning on drawing supply from a newly established supply TG, they don't get replacement Fighters and PFs till the upcoming Retrograde step (i.e. no new fighters till after the coming combat phase).
The SOP in both the e-version and print version of ISC War are the same. Note that ISC War SOP can be downloaded from the Player Resource page here
For what ever reason this morning when I posted 1F, I had failed to read both 1F and 2B7 fully.
I'm now just a retired combat flyer and AWACS Air Battle Director in my early career and closed out as a NORAD space and missile warning crew commander and Space Command command staffer.
(Note to Tony: I still cannot confirm or deny the existence of any exotic devices possessed by any known or unknown entities or officials. )
Does the 1 EP cost for reverse conversion (433.24) get doubled in the case of captured hulls (305.45)?
Q303.51 Do the Klingon RKLs and Romulan KDRs under (539.8) receive the leader bonus under (303.51) when used as squadron in a given battle force? and when used in a 3CW group consisting of a RKL and 2xD5 or KDR and 2xSP?
Notes for consideration:
Unlike the folowing following ruling and example provided by FEDS below, the RKLs and KDRs are not captured ships under (305.0).
FEDS Ruling:
Quote:Unless overruled by ADB the following are rulings by FEDS:
1. Captured ships that where otherwise battle group capable can be used in battle groups of the capturing empire once they are converted to the capturing empire's technology.
2. Captured ships of one hull type cannot be used to qualify other ships of another hull type to qualify for the leader rule under (305.5). However, in the rare circumstance that three captured ships of the same hull type are captured and converted then the leader rule may apply to those specific hull types IF they qualified as leaders otherwise.
Example: A Kzinti player captures and converts three Klingon D5s. If all three of these Z-D5s are later used in the same battle force then one Z-D5 qualifies under the leader rule.
Additional Note for above Q303.51. The Romulans can build additional KDRs under (450.19).
Sorry Mike, should have included it in the original post.
Can a ship that did not move operationally on a turn that is then repaired during the field repair phase use the free strategic movement that normally repaired ships receive?
John, see (204.311). The ship that is repaired does count against the limit of allowed strategic movement.
Quote:Units repaired by repair ships do count against the limits for Strategic Movement
Note that the unit must be in a valid starting hex for strategic movement to use (204.311).
Doh. Right there in black and white. Thanks Turtle. I did not read far enough
I didn't realize it was there in black and white either until I went looking for the answer. I thought it would be under the repair ship rules; ut had started with Strategic Movement rules first and found that.