i'd be fine with having more FF's to build 'or' cheaper FF to DW conversion cost. the thing im finding is that i cant (without overbuilding.) get enough attrition units (which the DW is good for.).

actually peter i want more DW's as the FF is too vulnerable to put in the line as damage soak ships ( but at 3 EP cost per one they are simpy 'unaffordable'.).
im finding the Lyrans are small ship poor and big ship heavy. no wonder someone built 15 FF's one later turn before exhaustion.

By jim howard (Noseybonk) on Thursday, September 25, 2014 - 11:14 am: Edit

no actually stewart now that i read your argument i think all those FF to DW conversions should be two EP's and not three. the hunter to buffalo and rhino hunter DW's are in just the same vein as the cheetah to DW.
you slice the hull in half and add a 'bit'.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, September 25, 2014 - 05:10 pm: Edit

Jim wrote:
>>actually peter i want more DW's as the FF is too vulnerable to put in the line as damage soak ships ( but at 3 EP cost per one they are simpy 'unaffordable'.). >>

The Lyrans should never have to put FFs on the line, except in backwater fights where it doesn't matter much. They have plenty of CWs, and plenty of Klingons to make up the difference. And the Lyrans have a ton of DWs anyway once it is, like, T4 from what you start with and what you build for 4EP a pop in regular construction.

FFs exist to die holding provinces (so that bigger ships don't have to) and to act as cheap pinning bulk. If you are putting FFs on the line in actual combat, the Klingons aren't doing their job.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, September 25, 2014 - 05:12 pm: Edit

Stewart wrote:
>>actually peter i want more DW's as the FF is too vulnerable to put in the line as damage soak ships ( but at 3 EP cost per one they are simpy 'unaffordable'.). >>

There is certainly something to be said for using DWs to hold front line provinces, as they are a little harder to kill in SSC. But again, like, the Lyrans are going to have *plenty* of DWs from regular (4EP) construction and what they start with pretty quickly. There isn't any reason at all to convert more from FFs just for this purpose.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Thursday, September 25, 2014 - 07:37 pm: Edit

Not quite as that was Jim's quote (so you wrote earlier) rather than mine.

As for the number of DWs, the Lyrans start with 4 (one in Far Stars) and build three per turn so I also convert my three production frigates into DWs (or DWSs) at the outlying SBs for additional firepower/support (good thing the Lyran's build schedule is only 55%)...

As for a cheaper FF/DW, not gonna happen as that would affect the DD/CW (center hull is the same size)...

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, September 25, 2014 - 08:50 pm: Edit

Stewart actually wrote:
>>Not quite as that was Jim's quote (so you wrote earlier) rather than mine. >>

Oh, heh, that was just a copy/paste error (i.e. I highlighted your statement to copy and paste, but apparently forgot to hit "copy" and just hit "paste". I was responding to your statement about using DWs to hold front provinces, as you might notice :-)

>>As for the number of DWs, the Lyrans start with 4 (one in Far Stars) and build three per turn so I also convert my three production frigates into DWs (or DWSs) at the outlying SBs for additional firepower/support (good thing the Lyran's build schedule is only 55%)… >>

If you are using the advanced rules, DWs have more use (due to battle groups); Jim (and I) are only using the basic rules. That being said, I'd never say don't convert FFs to DWs if you like doing that. I'd *much* rather use the conversions and EPs to turn DDs into CWs, however, and leave FFs as FFs.

By jim howard (Noseybonk) on Thursday, September 25, 2014 - 09:38 pm: Edit

peter thats why im saying it looks like a 2 point conversion and not a three, i'd upgrade a DD to a CW anyday of the week because they are the same cost, if the dw was cheaper it would expand the possible strategies.
ive been spending money on DN/CW conversions myself
its the build phase of CT4 in my game so that means my DW count (no losses to DW's atm.) is 16,thats not huge by turn 4...

i did have a choice of what to cripple but i only had 9 hulls at 413 and 4 of them were FF's 3 crippled then diedin pursuit, im learning so dont pop atme about this, my next game will be different i can assure all of you.

anyway back on 'topic' the DW cost is just too big to be a viable alternative to converting DD's to CW's so the recieved wisdom is, dont convert them.

the game im playing atm the Lyrans are suffering from a lack of attrition units (im not talking fighters here.) and i was looking around for a solution. the DW fits, but asi say the expense is too great to be a viable option even though the Lyrans are cash rich.
i'll be quicker on the uptake next time i play to get the klingons lending a hand with smaller hulls/ attrition fighters.
that being said DW's for 2 EP conversion cost would most likely greatly curtail my need for klingon help.

stewart surely you convert the DD's to CW's 1st right....?

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Friday, September 26, 2014 - 12:38 am: Edit

Jim, see reply in General Discussion thread.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, September 26, 2014 - 07:57 am: Edit

Yeah, I joined Thomas over in general discussions.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Friday, September 26, 2014 - 11:41 pm: Edit

stewart surely you convert the DD's to CW's 1st right

Jim, nope, I start with FF/DWs first (production frigates at SBs for upgrades, adds a hull to the fleet), then after the action moves away it's whatever reachs SBs for conversion...

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Sunday, October 12, 2014 - 03:34 pm: Edit

Although I can check the On Line SIT's, not everyone has on line access.

With just 2010 rules - does anyone know where it confirms the cost of Tug Pods?

All I can find is the fighter cost - but no cost of the pods (for Battle, Carrier, PF etc - noting Kzinti BP's do cost more!)

Is the cost shown in the basic rules?

Cheers

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Sunday, October 12, 2014 - 11:36 pm: Edit

Pods were added in CO and were assumed in the basic game [which is why the original (509.0) gave a flat 12 for battle tugs]...

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Tuesday, October 14, 2014 - 02:54 pm: Edit

Ahhh

So if your not playing with CO and you don't have On line access - Tugs are pretty useless and you can't replace the pods?

i.e. No increase in CR and no cost to replace?

I have the printed version of 2010 - and Jim has the PDF version...and the page numbers differ and the SIT table does show the Pod items!

Does anyone else have the original printed version with no full Tug rules?

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Tuesday, October 14, 2014 - 07:43 pm: Edit

Missions A-M available and assigned normally (production), kept track of battle/carrier as they were replaceable [annex (752.0)]

CR increase added in Rev 1 and correct COMPOT for battle transport tugs (Klingon/Kzini/Lyran) and Hydran BT [10(4)]...

By David J Baldwin (Chiefdave) on Wednesday, October 15, 2014 - 11:53 pm: Edit

This is unrelated to the above. I just fielded an excellent question.
Conversions.
A starbase can perform three conversions at once if they are CV escorts. Can a Starbase perform a CA-CC 1 ep conversion at the same time as doing ff-dw 2 ep conversion? I'd like to think so, but haven't seen a rule enabling it.

By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Thursday, October 16, 2014 - 04:45 am: Edit

From rule 433.19
"A given starbase may perform multiple conversions on a single turn as long as the total cost is within the limit of three Economic Points."

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Thursday, October 16, 2014 - 08:37 am: Edit

There is a FEAR/FEDS addendum to that when playing with the expansions. Conversions during repair still count as their unmodified total. So that a CA-CC conversion costing 2 points normally will count as 2 of the 3 points allowed at a non-capital starbase.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, October 16, 2014 - 12:18 pm: Edit

Turtle is correct -- whist one saves on the COST of CDR one must still count fully the conversion CAPACITY used.

By David J Baldwin (Chiefdave) on Friday, October 17, 2014 - 10:23 pm: Edit

Thank-you everybody.
Naturally I found the answer shortly after posting the question. Still I had a spirited discussion with my new padme learner.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Saturday, October 18, 2014 - 11:35 am: Edit

Q509.1-M in view of rule 509.1-D and 412.23. Can a tug validly assigned to the supply tug role (509.1-D) on the phasing turn later be converted *at the beginning of combat* of the non-phasing turn to the "regular warship" role (509.1-M)?

Situation: On the Alliance phase of turn #11 the Federation designates a Federation tug to act as a supply point under rule 509.1-D in hex 1704, co-located with the Kzinti starbase that is still there. On Coalition turn #12 the Klingons and Lyrans send a large force to assault this starbase, and consequently also the supply tug. Approach is offered as required. After approach is declined, the Alliance player asserts that he is converting the tug from mission D (supply tug) to mission M (regular warship). The Coalition player objects, stating that 509.1-M says that " This is the only assignment that can be changed during the turn." By negative inference, it is not possible for the tug to change missions until Alliance turn #12. Further, the Coalition player says that the tug cannot move per 412.22.

However, the Coalition player says that this conclusion cannot be the case, because an exception is provided in that "(412.23) COMBAT: If the tug is attacked, see (302.21). If the tug is forced to retreat or is destroyed, it immediately loses its status as a supply point." Thus, the Alliance player reasons, the tug can change missions. The Alliance player further reasons that the rules say the tug cannot move at all, but then says it can be (forced) to retreat. Retreat is never forced, so there's some confusion as to what is possible. The Alliance player believes the intent of the rules is that you can move but then abandon the supply status. If other words, you can abandon the tug being a supply point at whatever point. The Coalition player points out that the "forced" is simply flavor text indicating a decision to retreat in the face of overwhelming force, and that all other indicators in the text show that the mission cannot change at any time the Alliance player wants, and that 412.23 provides only a very limited exception to the general rule - i.e., the *only* time a supply tug can abandon its mission on the non-phasing turn is if the owning player decides to retreat in the face of combat.

The Alliance player also believes that, from a perspective of real space, the tug simply is able to pick up and leave. In SFB the tug can drop its pods and leave. Thus, the tug should be able to abandon its mission during combat. The Coalition player asserts that the games are different, and while the argument is reasonable, F&E is an abstraction and other reasons may prevent the tug from physically dropping the pods and abandoning its mission. Furthermore, the rules of F&E seem to indicate clearly that the tug cannot move and cannot change missions (509.1-M and 412.22), so it is not reasonable to believe that the tug is able to abandon missions when it pleases *under the rules* - regardless of the reasonability of the physics of the argument.

Ruling is requested, thank you.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Saturday, October 18, 2014 - 11:24 pm: Edit

Oops, need to put it in Q&A!

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Saturday, October 18, 2014 - 11:29 pm: Edit

Ted, (302.21) is a reminder that the supply tug acts like a base for combat. The 'retreat' is in case of a raid/small scale combat (which can have a retreat).

I think a supply tug could withdaw before combat (302.1) abandoning its supply status...

Other than that (withdrawal) I don't think a tug can drop its mission [other than a MB begin setup by (510.23)]

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, October 19, 2014 - 08:33 am: Edit

Stew, you forgot the special cases listed under (517.44) regarding overloaded tugs. However this would not apply to the Hydran Tug (509.1-0) as the supplies are carried in the internal cargo for the tug with the fighters on the FCP.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Sunday, October 19, 2014 - 09:37 pm: Edit

Agreed, Stewart. However, I think that the bottom line is that you can't convert a tug to the combat mission (or any other mission) as combat begins. You can abandon the supply status (going to combat mission as default) when you decide to leave (withdrawal, retreat, whatever), but that is *it*.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, October 29, 2014 - 09:55 am: Edit

Rob See (105.IW) 5-3C.

---

Quote:

Players secretly establish carrier and other escort groups (515.15).

---