The only limit on conversions is at a major starbase if playing 2010 only. This lets you make six 1/2 point conversions at any other starbase. Thereby allowing you to convert enough frigates that you can do one of two things.
1. Overstuff all groups with an extra light escort, or
2. Keep enough escorts in reserve that you have standard strength groups on both halves of a given turn without having to strip light and escort carriers.

Option 1 doesn't apply to the Lyrans and Gorns as they are always overstuffed by doctrine.

These options give the Kzintis, Hydrans, and to some extent the Federation, Klingons and Romulans more flexibility in carrier deployment.

By Pete DiMitri (Petercool) on Wednesday, June 19, 2013 - 02:15 pm: Edit

Turtle:

As you requested, here is the table with .5 cost for light escorts:

Ship	Standard ComPot	Escort ComPot	Average ComPot	Cost	Cost/ComPot Ratio
Kzinti FF	4	1	2.5	2.5	1.0
Kzinti EFF	1	2	1.5	3	2.0
Klingon E4	4	1	2.5	2.5	1.0
Klingon E4A	1	2	1.5	3	2.0
Hydran CU	4	1	2.5	2.5	1.0
Hydran AH	2	3	2.5	3	1.2
Kzinti FFK	5	2	3.5	3	0.9
Kzinti FKE	3	4	3.5	3.5	1.0
Klingon F5	5	2	3.5	3	0.9
Klingon F5E	3	4	3.5	3.5	1.0
Federation FF	5	2	3.5	3	0.9
Federation FFE	3	4	3.5	3.5	1.0
Federation DD	6	3	4.5	6	1.3
Federation DE	4	5	4.5	6.5	1.4
Kzinti CL	6	3	4.5	6	1.3
Kzinti CLE	3	4	3.5	7	2.0
Kzinti CM	7	3	5	5	1.0
Kzinti MEC	5	6	5.5	6	1.1
Klingon D5	7	3	5	5	1.0
Klingon AD5	5	6	5.5	6	1.1
Federation CL	6	3	4.5	6	1.3
Federation ECL	3	4	3.5	7	2.0
Federation NCL	7	3	5	5	1.0
Federation NEC	3	4	3.5	6	1.7
Federation NAC	4	5	4.5	6	1.3

By Pete DiMitri (Petercool) on Wednesday, June 19, 2013 - 02:18 pm: Edit

The only limit on conversions is at a major starbase if playing 2010 only. This lets you make six 1/2 point conversions at any other starbase. Thereby allowing you to convert enough frigates that you can do one of two things.
1. Overstuff all groups with an extra light escort, or

Yeah, but if you do this you are lowering your density and ComPot, so that's a trade-off. One that is usually not worth it IMO.

2. Keep enough escorts in reserve that you have standard strength groups on both halves of a given turn without having to strip light and escort carriers.

But by having so many escorts for backup, you are taking a risk in a very close battle where all (or close to all) of your ships may end up having to go on the line. Escorts lose ComPot if not in their groups, so this is another trade-off.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, June 19, 2013 - 02:21 pm: Edit

Nah, prior to the 1/2 point conversion that just got created at Origins 2013, you couldn't do more than three conversions at a minor capable SB because all conversions cost at least one eco. There was no reason to clarify. But now there is. In any case it's silly to insist a minor capable SB can do six when a major capable SB can only do three.

If you want to insist, go ahead, but I think you are being silly. If we were playing a game and you insisted you could, without an explicit rule saying so and with these facts in mind, I'd have to pause the game until a Q&A ruling came through, or until you agreed to 3 conversions only with the proviso that you could retroact it to six if it came up that they allowed it (which I am certain they would not unless they also increased the limit at major starbases).

In any case, the thing in PO makes it clear what is really intended, if you ask me.

So if you actually TRIED to do six conversions, well at a Starbase (say with the Klingons on turn one), you can see what would happen in our forthcoming game. In fact, to save time, I'll just post the Q&A now.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, June 19, 2013 - 02:26 pm: Edit

Oh, right, I get things wrong. We ARE using planetary operations, so this WON'T come up in our game.

It could come up in our game though, Mr. Bakija. How shall we handle it in your opinion?

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, June 19, 2013 - 02:34 pm: Edit

Thomas wrote:
>>1. Overstuff all groups with an extra light escort, or
2. Keep enough escorts in reserve that you have standard strength groups on both halves of a given turn without having to strip light and escort carriers.>>

You can *already* do this. You can produce as many escorts as you have hulls and money. You can sub an escort for every single hull you build and convert 3 per SB already. If you want to make a billion escorts, you already *can*.

That light escorts now only cost .5 to convert might mean that more get made. That you can convert (possibly, although I'm of the camp that thinks that there is already a blanket 3 conversion per SB anyway) up to 6, in theory, isn't going to contribute to more being made. As ad-hoc escorts are *still* better in many situations:

-Before the F5E, why you use an E4A instead of an ad-hoc F5? They cost the same, and have the same attack value, but the F5 makes the carrier safer.

-The Kzinti and Hydrans are *still* probably going to use ad-hoc FFs a great deal of the time, as they will still spend a lot of time having single round fights where the only thing to shoot is an ad-hoc escort FF, and the extra defense and attack of the actual escort is irrelevant, and you might as well just lose a cheaper ship.

There will be very few instances (assuming it is legal) that someone will benefit from converting 6x light escorts at a single SB. I can't imagine that it would ever matter. And isn't worth inventing a new rule to prevent.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, June 19, 2013 - 02:35 pm: Edit

>> How shall we handle it in your opinion?>>

I'm good with a SB can't convert more than 3 things.

But as noted, I can't imagine that it matters either way.

By Eric Smith (Badsyntax) on Wednesday, June 19, 2013 - 02:54 pm: Edit

I'd rather just see standard hull to escort conversions be free. While sure, it costs a bit, it is far easier to remove the heavy weapon that was there and add a new phaser gatling, plasma D rack, or drone launcher than the big weapon it replaced. The cost for that could be nullified by the ability to put those heavy weapons in new hulls being built. There really is no restriction on escort production, nor cost.

Want a fleet of escorts? Go ahead, your compot will suck, but it won't cost you anything. You'll pay to convert them back though.

Light escorts, in most cases, aren't worth the money. They will die often in combat, and if you spent an EP on the conversion, you'll lose another EP in that first round. Probably not worth the +1 or +2 compot for your line.

The conversion from base hull to escort would still suck up a SB conversion slot though, as it still did some work.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, June 19, 2013 - 03:29 pm: Edit

Thanks Pete. It certainly does bring the costs more in line this way.

You have always been able to build your entire schedule as light escorts if you wanted. There is no change there. This gives you the ability to make more than enough escorts to keep the big carriers at full strength or overstuffed plus enough escorts to keep them that way when you are the non phasing player. Resulting in the very significant threat of using GEDS on an escort to try and force a carrier off the line.

While an overstuffed carrier is a good idea from time to time, it does lower the fleet density. However both sides need to be able to chase carrier groups off the line from time to time wiht GEDS. This is nullified if you have enough escorts to do it al the time for all of your carrier groups. Yes, the Federation and Klngons can do this now. However, they don't because they need and have uses for a lot of other specialty ships that cost to convert.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, June 19, 2013 - 03:33 pm: Edit

Not a ruling but I have no problem with six 0.5 EP conversions. Perhaps there IS a problem but if so the Staff will tell me what it is.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, June 19, 2013 - 03:55 pm: Edit

Thomas wrote:
>>This is nullified if you have enough escorts to do it al the time for all of your carrier groups. Yes, the Federation and Klngons can do this now. However, they don't because they need and have uses for a lot of other specialty ships that cost to convert.>>

Sure. But the reason that the Feds and Klingons aren't doing this now is not due to a lack of conversion capacity. They can already produce all the escorts they want, and they produce as many as they need. And this isn't going to make them suddenly want to produce twice as many.

You can already have a virtually infinite number of small escorts if you are the Klingons or Feds. And you can already over stuff your groups with all the escorts you want. And having 50 extra FFEs over elsewhere in the hex doesn't mean that your opponent isn't still occasionally going to benefit from shooting escorts of your big carriers to chase them off the line, 'cause they still will.

The Kzinti and Hydrans aren't going to produce a million escorts suddenly, as they don't need to, still can't afford to, and don't want to anyway.

The Klingons and Feds (and Romulans, really) can already produce a virtually infinite number of escorts if they want to.

The Lyrans and Gorns can already produce more escorts than they can realistically use.

This new rule (light escorts cost .5 to make) certainly might make more light escorts come into existence that wouldn't have before. But I can't possibly imagine that it will be because you (possibly) can convert 6 of them at a single SB.

By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Wednesday, June 19, 2013 - 04:00 pm: Edit

Not to pile on and overload the consideration. But something that would simplify the rules and not add any abuses I can see would be to have the conversion rule be reworded as.

A SB capable of a major conversion may do ONE major conversion of any cost, or it may do up to 5ep of conversions but not both.

A SB not capable of a major conversion may do ONE minor conversion of any cost, or it may do up to 3ep of conversions but not both.


Maybe this would allow some abuses I do not see, but if not it would go along way towards making the rule and process easier.

By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Wednesday, June 19, 2013 - 04:04 pm: Edit

Let's test this and see. Try to break it, guys. Not just theorize, but actually practice, please. Also, provide hard results.

This way we can see the results of what really happens with games in action. Try it with the 3 EP limit and with the 3 conversions in different games.

Let us know here and we can then make an intelligent evaluation of the process. This is not set in stone, yet, now is the time to make it work better for the game.

By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, June 19, 2013 - 06:29 pm: Edit

Yeah I have to agree. What could the abuse be for converting 6 light escorts per turn? Maybe for the Feds there could be *something* once the Third Way kicks in. But only for DEs and DWEs as FFEs do not get the one extra replacement fighter (or FBEs).

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Wednesday, June 19, 2013 - 06:39 pm: Edit

The problem I have with the chart above is it only calculates on the average ComPot. If you want to see how cost-effective a ship is as an escort, you need to look at different numbers:

Ship	Standard ComPot	Escort ComPot	Average ComPot	Cost	Standard Cost / ComPot Ratio	Escort Cost / ComPot Ratio	Average Cost / ComPot Ratio
Kzinti FF	4	1	2.5	2.5	0.625	2.500	1.000
Kzinti EFF	1	2	1.5	3	3.000	1.500	2.000
Klingon E4	4	1	2.5	2.5	0.625	2.500	1.000
Klingon E4A	1	2	1.5	3	3.000	1.500	2.000
Hydran CU	4	1	2.5	2.5	0.625	2.500	1.000
Hydran AH	2	3	2.5	3	1.500	1.000	1.200
Kzinti FFK	5	2	3.5	3	0.600	1.500	0.857
Kzinti FKE	3	4	3.5	3.5	1.167	0.875	1.000
Klingon F5	5	2	3.5	3	0.600	1.500	0.857
Klingon F5E	3	4	3.5	3.5	1.167	0.875	1.000
Federation FF	5	2	3.5	3	0.600	1.500	0.857
Federation FFE	3	4	3.5	3.5	1.167	0.875	1.000
Federation DD	6	3	4.5	6	1.000	2.000	1.333
Federation DE	4	5	4.5	6.5	1.625	1.300	1.444
Kzinti CL	6	3	4.5	6	1.000	2.000	1.333
Kzinti CLE	3	4	3.5	7	2.333	1.750	2.000
Kzinti CM	7	3	5	5	0.714	1.667	1.000
Kzinti MEC	5	6	5.5	6	1.200	1.000	1.091
Klingon D5	7	3	5	5	0.714	1.667	1.000
Klingon AD5	5	6	5.5	6	1.200	1.000	1.091
Federation CL	6	3	4.5	6	1.000	2.000	1.333
Federation ECL	3	4	3.5	7	2.333	1.750	2.000
Federation NCL	7	3	5	5	0.714	1.667	1.000
Federation NEC	3	4	3.5	6	2.000	1.500	1.714
Federation NAC	4	5	4.5	6	1.500	1.200	1.333

Garth L. Getgen

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Wednesday, June 19, 2013 - 08:40 pm: Edit

I agree with Mike:
The best thing to do here is test it and see if you can break something. I am heavily leaning toward the idea that you cannot (At least with any significance).

My own speculation is:
The tactic of over-stuffing groups is very welcome if you are my enemy. You will not do that long if I am "over-stuffing" the EW and ComPot number of my battle force. I will be shifting you and outgunning you if you choose that route.

As for the complaint about the 6xStandards to 6xLt Escorts conversion at a single SB the actually numbers should be reviewed.

The @Start GW Kzinti only begin with 7xFF and 4xFFK on T1. And no fleet starts with 6 of either/both in one place. They would not likely downshift their schedule and then burn their Major Conversion SB capability to do this on T1. They can only build 1xFF at any SB outside of the capital hex. I suppose they could try and do it on T2 if they could move the FF/FFK hulls to another SB outside their capital.

I would think the Hydrans might try to do 6 at once if possible as their have limited carriers when they enter the war and most players try to build these up. (IMO this reduction in cost is a great move by ADB as the previous situation (losing CEDS) and higher cost has pushed the AH to the verge of extinction in lieu of using an ad-hoc for free vs the AH for 1.)

The Klingons are gonna love this as they can quickly upgrade their weak carrier force from the E4A (which suffers the same issues as the AH) to the improved F5E when it comes out.

If players perceive that a SB is 'more valuable' because of this I say great because it will push players to take them down rather than circumvent them and create more fun and bloody battles.

In the spirit of testing this Turtle and I are going to begin a full-fledged 601 'The Wind' scenario. We hope to begin next week (since I am no longer spending time combing the area for work). A thread will be created when we actually begin.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, June 19, 2013 - 09:32 pm: Edit

Lawrence wrote:
>>I would think the Hydrans might try to do 6 at once if possible as their have limited carriers when they enter the war and most players try to build these up. >>

Sure, but they only have so many carriers so fast (an UH or *maybe* 2 on T3, then at most 3 of them on T4) and can build 6xAH if they really want with their regular builds and then convert as needed. They could already produce upwards of 12xAH in a single turn if they really wanted to. But I can't imagine that they would build more than a few, let alone 12.

>>The Klingons are gonna love this as they can quickly upgrade their weak carrier force from the E4A (which suffers the same issues as the AH) to the improved F5E when it comes out.>>

But much like the Hydrans, they can already build 9xF5E in a single turn *without* using any conversion capacity. Why would they possibly need to make more than 12xF5E in a single turn (9x subs and then 3x conversions at some SB somewhere)?

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, June 19, 2013 - 10:21 pm: Edit

Peter, 3 words. Location, Location, and Location!

By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Wednesday, June 19, 2013 - 10:43 pm: Edit

I'm having trouble with he wording of the Interim Ruling posted at 8:20 -

A conversion facility capable of a major conversion may do ONE major conversion of any cost, or it may do up to 5 EP of conversions but not both.

Currently I can do a 4 point major conversion plus a 1 point minor conversion, which is a major conversion and up to 5 EP of conversions. The "or" and "but not both" will now disallow this.

FEDS: The wording has been fixed.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Thursday, June 20, 2013 - 12:58 am: Edit

Why would they possibly need to make more than 12xF5E in a single turn...?"

They wouldn't at least not more than once. I agree that such conversions (6 escorts all at once) would be rather rare.

Peter is correct in pointing out that everyone can produce any number of escorts in the construction step now...adding a conversion counterpart seems to make a lot of sense. The limits for both are the same...it is limited by the hulls they have available (schedule or fleet).

Personally I like the increased flexibility it gives the SB. It is good to have choices. This will allow the races with their backs against the wall to do some escorts and possibly still do something else.

By Chris Upson (Misanthropope) on Thursday, June 20, 2013 - 02:57 am: Edit

AT7 the feds crank out four carriers, a LAV, and already have a 2 LAVs, 3 CVLs and three carrier tugs that lack escorts. it's the only situation i can think of where capacity is meaningful, but it seems to make a pretty big difference there.

but a big warning sign, IMO, is that a rule that seemed to be initially targeted at encouraging AHs winds up primarily benefiting the klingons and feds cranking out mass quantities of escorts that pretty much every F&E player already agrees are worth the original full sticker price.

By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Thursday, June 20, 2013 - 04:55 am: Edit

Suggest rewording the conversion capacity ruling to:

"A conversion facility capable of a major conversion may do one major conversion of any cost, or it may do up to 5 EP of conversions of any type, but not both."

And similarly for minor conversions.

The wording as originally given seems self-contradictory, as it could be (over-literally!) read to mean that a major conversion facility could not do a 4 EP major conversion ("...of any cost of 5 EP or more...").

FEDS: Thanks Jason -- I updated the wording to better reflect the intent.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, June 20, 2013 - 05:34 am: Edit

In addition, although I could be wrong (my mind is working weirdly tonight), I think STBs can do one point conversions, so should be excluded from this rule, as should any other unit less capable than a starbase at doing conversions.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, June 20, 2013 - 08:22 am: Edit

Chris wrote:
>>AT7 the feds crank out four carriers, a LAV, and already have a 2 LAVs, 3 CVLs and three carrier tugs that lack escorts. it's the only situation i can think of where capacity is meaningful, but it seems to make a pretty big difference there.>>

That is certainly something that is an issue, but even at 1 point to convert, the Feds can currently, on T7:

-Build 3xFFE
-Convert 3xFFE, 3xDE, 3xCLE at the Capital, and still have a SB left over for a major conversion.
-Convert numerous FFE and DE all over the map at whatever SBs there are.

And even then, in a pinch, a couple extra ad-hoc FFs make up the difference. I mean, yeah, being able to conver 6x light escorts at a SB is certainly a *better* option than only 3, as it allows you to make more where you need them *now* (Location! :-), and opens up capacity for other conversions elsewhere. But I suspect that in the long run, it won't have that significant of an impact on overall escort production

>>but a big warning sign, IMO, is that a rule that seemed to be initially targeted at encouraging AHs winds up primarily benefiting the klingons and feds cranking out mass quantities of escorts that pretty much every F&E player already agrees are worth the original full sticker price.>>

Well, sure, but they were doing that anyway. In the game Richard and I are playing, the Klingons built, like, 9xF5E and then converted some on the turn when they were available, and as the Feds, I converted up, like, a dozen plus various escorts on T7. I think the cost reduction just saves the Feds and Klingons a bit of money but isn't really going to increase the number of escorts made significantly. As they were already making a whole lot of them.

Like, I'd never suggest that the ability to convert 6x light escorts at a single SB won't have *any* effect on the game, but I suspect it will be pretty minimal.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, June 20, 2013 - 02:24 pm: Edit

I agree with Peter.