Archive through May 08, 2013

Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Federation & Empire: F&E PRODUCTS: F&E Future Products (Near Term): F&E WARBOOK: Warbook Update – Fighter Operations (FO) : FO - Section 600 Reports – Scenarios and Options : (607.0) Four Powers War - Scenario Reports: Archive through May 08, 2013
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, May 06, 2013 - 02:02 am: Edit

F&E Community:

Part of the module updates includes updating the scenarios found within them. One of those scenarios from FO is the Four Powers War (4PW). As many of you know the 4PW is one of the most popular scenarios played but it has some corrections needed and balance issues addressed. Lar Bergen and I have started the process here at my home this weekend but we are going to need your help.

So here is your chance to report some of your actual 4PW play issues encountered.

I'll ask Lar to consolidate your reports in this topic so we can work the issues here.

Thanks.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Monday, May 06, 2013 - 07:39 am: Edit

Chuck, for ease of reporting issues regarding a specific scenario, can this topic be given subtopics for each scenario specific to Fighter Ops? It would seem this would help consilidate the reports further.

Note to Jean: I'm just asking Chuck's opinion and this is not a request for such a thing.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, May 06, 2013 - 10:51 am: Edit

Turtle:

Done!

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Monday, May 06, 2013 - 03:53 pm: Edit

D6N: Noted as a missing ship in Klingon SIT thread. This ship should be added here as well as the 'other' at start diplomatic ship available at the opening of the GW. If there is room in the counter mix (assuming these will eventually be reprinted) should be added to the FO units.

Obviously the D6N would be added to the Home Fleet.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, May 06, 2013 - 04:06 pm: Edit

If I recall, the early DNs were optional in the last version of 4PW. I suggest that they be formally added into the starting fleets and production.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, May 06, 2013 - 08:41 pm: Edit

RBE: The early DNs were not optional and were indeed part of the FO OOB update.

========

Please remember that when 4PW was originally written, it was part of the out-of-date Carrier War module which was produced two decades ago. The SFU and F&E has evolved much since the 1990s and so must the F&E scenarios written then. If we are going to do this then we have got to do it properly and include the historical ships (or at least the F&E analogs) that served in the 4PW.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, May 07, 2013 - 12:06 am: Edit

Ok looking over the DNEs from FO.

The Hydran TEM is listed as 9-11(6)/6(3) with a salvage value of 3.0 and a build cost of 12+6.

In the SIT the Hydran TEM+ is listed as 8-12(6)/4-6(3).

If nothing else, it seems weird that it would have the lower attack factor of the two ships.

Also, the build cost should probably be 14 which is the same as the Fed DN+ cost (another 11 defense factor DN). I base this suggestion on the fact that the Hydran DNs and variants did not use the hybrid ship cost calculation of the RN and other hybrids but used the cost calculation based on the hull (ie a 12 pt DN costing 16).

An argument could also be made that it's crippled attack factor should be equal to it's crippled defense factor ie 6 (similar in the pattern of many but not all Hydran fusion ships). I imagine that the ships that don't have that pattern were added to the game in later products (which they were) and were (accidentally) not treated as the basic F&E Hydran fusion ships.

The salvage value of the Klingon should probably be higher than the other DNEs as it has a separable boom section. The Fed DNE has a salvage value of 3.6.

The salavage value of the Kzinti DNE says 3.6 in FO. The other 3 DNEs listed there have a salvage value of 3.0. The Kzinti DNE should probably be 3.0.

I suggest that the salvage values of the Kzinti and Klingon DNEs were accidentally switched (by Kzinti spies no doubt).

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, May 07, 2013 - 02:25 am: Edit

When we did the update of Carrier War and 4PW we didn't have the availability and the standardization of units that we have now. We will update 4PW with the latest material available. We will list the true OOB with the historical analog units and where we don't have an actual counter available yet, we will list the projected unit factors and a suggested substitution counter.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Tuesday, May 07, 2013 - 11:35 pm: Edit

Reposted here from Q&A Archives: (Staff knows all of this...it is mainly for us players to see what has been asked and answered here.)

THE FOUR POWERS WAR
Q: The war starts on the Alliance half of the first turn, but says that the previous half of the first turn (the Coalition half) must be “played” which means ... what?
A: The Klingons and Lyrans do their Pre-War Construction and can move ships around within deployment limits, but have no control over their economy and cannot change that production schedule.
Q: The Treaty of Smarba releases six ships from the Klingon Home Fleet. Can they be any ships?
A: Yes.
Q: How many ships do the Klingons have to activate from the Mothball Fleet and send to the Romulans?
A: All of the possible mothball activations starting from the Spring Y159 turn.
Q: The SIT lists some carriers that pre-date the 4PW scenario but are not mentioned in it, these being SAVs and PDUs.
A: Rule (607.11) says the only carriers allowed are the Hydrans. All PDUs and bases are without fighters. Existing Kzinti bases get fighters on Turn #8. The SAV date is the first time it was built by anyone and should be adjusted as to the earliest date that race has fighters.
Q: The victory conditions give you a point for every 20 points in enemy ComPot destroyed. Does that include both sides of the counter?
A: No. The crippled side is effectively included within the value on the uncrippled side.
Q: Are the Hydran “Free Fighter Points” referred to in the 4PW rules hybrid or standard?
A: Standard. The rule that gives them (432.242) is a general rule applying to all scenarios unless noted otherwise by the scenario.
Q: The Klingon starting Order of Battle does not list drone pods, which were available in Y149.
A: Our mistake. The Klingons should have four such pods.
Q: The scenario rules say you “cannot draw supplies from captured planets” which is different from the normal rules. Why is this?
A: It reflects the less sophisticated logistical systems of the time, which is why military offensives could not advance beyond pre-war bases.
Q: On Turn #2, the Klingons attack the Kzintis (at least in theory). The Kzinti fleets available to resist this invasion are “fleets released by the Klingons, plus the Home Fleet”. Presumably, this means that the Kzintis only get the Duke’s fleet (which the Klingons attacked) and the Home Fleet, unless the Klingons enter the Count or Marquis areas. Does this mean that, unlike the General War, the Kzintis cannot use the Count’s Fleet Reserve to fight the Klingons on the Second Turn?
A: That is correct.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, May 07, 2013 - 11:40 pm: Edit

I suggest Klingon drone pod limit should be 2, as that's what it is in the general war scenario.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Tuesday, May 07, 2013 - 11:44 pm: Edit

Here is another one...

Lawrence Bergen:

A chain of questions regarding two turn set-up of MB in 4PW.

Rules (510.21 & 510.22) state the procedure for setting up a MB.
Rule (510.232) states that (in combat) if the tug is not with the MB its considered abandoned.
Rule (607.16) describes the scenario rule for settin up a MB as taking two turns for Step 2 (510.22).

Situation: A Tug which began setting up a MB on the Strat Move portion of its previous turn wants to change missions during the Econ Phase (Step 1F: (509.32) Declares roles for tugs) of the current turn.

Questions:
1. If the tug voluntarily changes missions is the MB lost/destroyed?

ANSWER: Yes.

2. Would the MB be considered still 'packed' since it has not been a full turn OR is it considered 'partially set up'?

ANSWER: it is partially set up, it has no combat factors, but can no longer move or retreat with the tug.

3. If the answer to 2 is 'packed' could another tug (assume a valid SMN exists) show up during the Strat Move phase of the current turn and pick up the MB for movement and/or set up elsewhere?

ANSWER: N/A

4. If the answer to 2 is 'partially set up' could another tug (assuming a valid SMN) show up during the Strat Move phase of the current turn to complete the MB basically picking up where the first tug left off?

ANSWER: I would say no, if the first tug leaves (or is given another mission at the start of the turn), the MB would be lost at that point.

4b. If the MB is considered partially set up does the interruption of the set up this turn force the proces to begin again on the next turn (ie a tug could strat-move there this turn but would not be able to continue deployment until the following turn)?

ANSWER: Interrupting the setup process loses you the MB as far as I can tell. There is no chance for another tug to show up from elsewhere. I don't think there is any provision in the rules for one tug to take over the mission of another tug in the middle of the mission, even if the mission takes more than one turn.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Wednesday, May 08, 2013 - 12:59 am: Edit

CL 29 - AAR for FO
(607.61) Kzinti DNE should have salvage 3; Klingon C6 should have salvage 3.6.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, May 08, 2013 - 03:23 am: Edit

Research Team:

What are the SSD differences with the TEM and TEM+?

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, May 08, 2013 - 03:27 am: Edit

I need to check, but I think it's the same difference as the PAL to PAL+.

If so, an argument could be made that they should have the same factors (ie both ships be 8-12(6)/6(3). (Off the top of my head).

I'll research it later, I'm tired right now.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, May 08, 2013 - 03:54 am: Edit

The unrefitted Templar is (apart from hellbores) the exact same ship as the unrefitted Paladin.
The unrefitted Templar is shown as carrying Stinger-1s, but there is a note that it could have carried Stinger-2s if it had been in service at that point.

The refitted Templar is (unsurprisingly) the exact same ship as the refitted Paladin (again apart from the hellbores replacing fusion beams). The two ships have the same fighter groups.

The refit in both cases changes six phaser twos to phaser ones, adds 23 shield boxes to the rear shields and adds 2 warp to the left and 2 warp to the right warp engines.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, May 08, 2013 - 03:55 am: Edit

The Lyran HFF and HDD from CL#37 were in service starting at Y161, which is before then end of the four powers war.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Wednesday, May 08, 2013 - 09:15 am: Edit

From CL37...for reference (Thanks RBE)

LYRAN HEAVY UNITS: During the Four Powers War, some Lyran admirals and other leaders felt that
the destroyer and frigate classes were limited in combat because they only had one ESG and could
not "cycle" a pair of them to keep protection against Kzinti drones and Hydran fighters and hellbores.
Other Lyrans pointed out that these small ships did not normally operate alone, and that even a ship
with two ESGs could not keep them constantly operating because enemy action would knock them
down. Debate raged on the need, and practicality, of such designs. Apparently, two frigates and two
destroyers were converted to "heavy" designs by using a larger center section (to hold the second
ESG) and the engines of the next larger hull to power the increased mass. These ships were a
disappointment and no more were built. The concept was considered to have been made obsolete
by the later trimaran designs. -Jeffrey Noel Cochranj

LYRAN HEAVY FRIGATE (HFF): This ship, the first to be converted (in Y160, at a starbase which had
the ability to build new frigates) added power, a second ESG, shuttles, and the larger engines from
the destroyer class. The higher mass meant that the movement cost increased. A second ship was
converted in Y161, but no further conversions were made (although the idea of such conversions
appeared several times until Y165).

LYRAN HEAVY DESTROYER (HDD): This ship was converted at the primary shipyard in Y161; a
second was converted in Y162. It added power, a second ESG, shuttles, and the larger engines from
the light cruiser class. The higher mass meant that the movement cost increased.

By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Wednesday, May 08, 2013 - 09:54 am: Edit

Are the HFF and HDD different enough from the DD and CL to warrant their own counters, or would the values end up being the same? I could see an argument either way, but something to think about.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, May 08, 2013 - 10:09 am: Edit

I imagine you would be able to convert FFs and DDs to HFFs and HDDs (for 2 or 3 EP?) but could not convert HFFs and HDDs to DD and CL variants (respectively).

This would mean that counters are probably needed if these ships are added to 4PW.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Wednesday, May 08, 2013 - 12:48 pm: Edit

There may be a set of F&E stats for the Lyran HDD and HFF in CL37, though I don't have my own copy to hand right now.

Speaking of obscure Lyran hulls from this era, there was a Royal Panther early battlecruser (BCE) first shown in Ship Card form in FC: Briefing #2; if I'm not mistaken, I believe the SFB SSD (and background writeup) for the hull is in CL39. It may have its F&E factors in that issue, too.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, May 08, 2013 - 02:04 pm: Edit

As to the TEM/TEM+: These ships are in playtest and the point about crippled Hydran fusion units should be noted.

Recommended new factors:

TEM+ 8-12(6)/5-6(3); Y172; From TEM: 2; Cost 15+6; Salv 4.000

TEM 7-12(6)/4-6(3); Y150; Cost 15+6; Salv 4.000

We'll have to ask the players of the 4PW to use a numbered counter or they can continue to use the LGE as a analog substitution until such time as the TEM counters are available.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, May 08, 2013 - 02:13 pm: Edit

I have no problem with incorporating the Lyran HFF & HDD into the 4PW. We can use a Lyran DW counter for the HDD and a Romulan SK for the HFF. There is a SIT for these in the CL but one change that I would make for these playtest units is the HFF cost be adjusted to 3.5EP with salvage of 0.875 EP. Limit one of each hull per turn by any means.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, May 08, 2013 - 03:25 pm: Edit

I suggest that the factors of the TEM and TEM+ should be the same, as it's just a refit which is normally not a reason to change factors. It's less of a change than a C8 to C8K, for instance.

In addition an LC has a combat factor of 7(3)/4(1.5), but a lot less firepower (75% of the fusion beams (6 vs 8 and 4 P1s vs 2P1s and 6P2s same PGs).

Sorry to be so argumentive.

Now, otoh, a ship that might need a new counter because of refit is the Kzinti CS. o_O.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Wednesday, May 08, 2013 - 03:32 pm: Edit

Quickly through the Compendium

Designation SFB Ref# Factors On Counter Product Cmnd (754.0) Date Avail Base Hull; Size(755.0) Conversion Cost; Source Build Cost or Substitution Salvage (439.0) Notes
Lyran SR 32 3-8Tdiamond/1-4 CL31 8 125 CA(3) From CA: 5; From TG: 4 For CA: 13 2.0 Survey Ship; Scout; EW=2
Lyran BCE A18 8/4 CL39 10 150 CL(3) From CL: 4 For CA: 9 2.25 Obsolete design; Early Lyran BC
Lyran HFF A16 5/3 CL37 3 160 FF(3) From FF: 1 For FF: 3 0.75 Historical: 2 were converted 1st in Y160 2nd in Y161
Lyran HDD A17 6/3 CL37 4 161 DD(4) From DD: 1 For DD: 6 1.50 Historical: 2 were converted 1st in Y161 2nd in Y162
Hydran SR 31 2-6(2)diamond/1-3(1) CL31 4 145 DD(4) From DD: 5; From DDS: 3 For DD: 9+2 1.50 Survey Ship; Scout; EW=2
Hydran SRG 31B 2-6(2)G diamond/1-3(1) CL31 4 158 DD(4) From DD: 5; From DDS: 3; From SR: 1 For DD: 9+2 1.50 Survey Ship; Scout; EW=2; Commando ship
Hydran SRV 31A 2-6(4)diamond/1-3(2) CL31 4 158 DD(4) From DD: 5; From DDS: 3; From SR: 1 For DD: 9+8 1.50 Survey Ship; Scout; EW=2; single ship medium carrier
Hydran TEM+ A16 8-12(6)/4-6(3) CL38 10 172 PAL(2) From PAL: 2 For PAL: 15+6 4.00 Alternative DN; Refit of TEM
Klingon D6E 46 6-8diamond/3-4 CL31 8 125 D6(3) From D6: 5 For D6: 13 2.4 Survey Ship; Scout; (2EW:2AF)(1EW:6AF)
Klingon D7E 43 7-8diamond/4 CL31 8 137 D7(3) From D7: 5 For D7: 13 2.4 Survey Ship; Scout; (2EW:2AF)(1EW:6AF)
Kzinti SR 37 4-8diamond/2-4 CL31 8 166 BC(3) From BC: 5 For BC: 13 2.0 Survey Ship; Scout; EW=2

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, May 08, 2013 - 03:34 pm: Edit

Comparing the C6 early Klingon DN and the C9 (which was a conversion of the C6). The only difference in boxes between the unrefitted C9 and the C6 is the two disruptors on the center warp engine (being not present on the C6).

The drone racks (being A racks on both the C6 and the unrefitted C9 should not be a factor for this). Both ships have a drone launch rate of two drones per turn noted on the SSD.

I would suggest that the cost of the ship be in the range of 15 to 16 and it's factors 10-12/6 or 11-12/6 based on this (it's arguable that a C9 of the general war should be 11-12/6 as it's obviously inferior to a C8 of the time period).

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation