Your crippled EFF if not in a group lose one compot and will be at 0.

With a command rating 10 flagship, you can only count 10 additional ships' compot in a battle force (your first example).

With a 9 command rating, you can only count the compot of 9 additional ships (ie your second example).

I believe both lines are legal. I highly advise not breaking up the completely crippled carrier group. Note that carriers that are not single ship carriers (ie your crippled CV in particular) can NOT use the formation bonus, even if they don't have any escorts.

To calculate compot one would need to know how many fighter factors were present, information which you have not given.

By Christopher Schrader (Eastcoastfolk) on Friday, January 02, 2015 - 09:16 am: Edit

Thanks Richard.

There is 1ff left for the Kzinti.

Thanks as well for the reminder about solo escorts lower attack factors.

I put together a 47 compot force pursued by a 57 pt force. VBR role of 1 prevented some damage. Kzinti lost 1 CLE and 2 EFF.

By Christopher Schrader (Eastcoastfolk) on Sunday, January 04, 2015 - 11:09 am: Edit

A question on retreat.

(302.733) Sub-Prioity-3D Shortest path to supply point.

A Kzinti on 1001 is retreating. Both 1101 & 1102 are in supply & same length to 1401 but is 1101 closer to the Off Map SB via 1101.

Kzinti would like to join forces in 1101 by normal retreat vs fighting retreat. 1102 is empty. Combined with existing forces in 1101 Kzinti would match in Ship Equivilent.

(411.5) as I understand it prevents the use of the Off Map SB as a supply route for retreat.

Again any input welcome.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, January 04, 2015 - 11:21 am: Edit

(207.28) specifically states that off map areas can be used as supply points.

(411.5) only indicates that a supply path can't wander off map and then wander back on map again (which is only relevant in likely obscure situations).

As far as I am aware, in your example, the Kzinti can retreat to 1101 as a regular retreat and not a fighting retreat, as it is closest to your supply point (i.e. the off map area).

By Christopher Schrader (Eastcoastfolk) on Sunday, January 04, 2015 - 01:09 pm: Edit

Thanks Peter.

It also looks like their going to keep retreating right off the map as 1201 is further from suply than entering the off map.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, January 04, 2015 - 01:51 pm: Edit

>>It also looks like their going to keep retreating right off the map as 1201 is further from suply than entering the off map.>>

Well, yes, that too. Unless they decide not to retreat a second time.

By Jeffrey Tiel (Platoaquinas) on Wednesday, January 07, 2015 - 09:21 am: Edit

Gentlemen,

A couple of follow-ups to my support echelon questions:

1. Am I right in thinking that the support echelon's size is limited only by what support role limits are placed on the battle force? (So, e.g., since a battleforce can be maximally supported by three drone ships, then the echelon's drone ship size is three drone ships.)

2. Is it correct that carriers can be escorted in the support echelon, but ground ships cannot? (521.381) says that if ground ships are placed in the battleforce, then they may be escorted. I don't see any place where it says whether if ground ships are in the support echelon whether they may or may not be escorted.

Thanks,
Jeff

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Tuesday, January 13, 2015 - 07:11 pm: Edit

My question is: If troop ships are not 'part of the battle force, ie are part of a support echelon according to the context of this rule, then can those troops ships be escorted?'

This is part of phase 5-3C, setting groups.

Once set, it stays until dissolved/dropped (515.14).

So the question for RBE would be was it escorted previously, that answers whether it is still
escorted.

Yes this is based on the carrier grouping rules (515.0) but that is where most of the grouping rules are and (521.372) does not 'exclude' troop escorts from the (515.0) grouping rules.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, January 13, 2015 - 10:04 pm: Edit

Stewart:

This issue has already beed addressed on Tuesday, October 28, 2014 in the Q&A topic.

Q521.37:

Where in the SoP are escorts for Troop ships assigned? By the wording of 521.372 it appears they can be assigned "on the fly" well after battle lines are revealed but before any dice rolls are conducted...

Reference text for escorting troop ships:

---

Quote:

(521.372) Ground combat ships in a battle force (whether making an assault, or supporting planetary defenders, or even in a hex without a planet) can be (but do not have to be) "escorted" in a manner that is different from "carrier escorts" (308.1). One or two ships (not more) can be assigned to escort each ground combat ship.

---

Escorts for commando ships under (521.372) are assigned each round in SoP phase 5-4A5:

---

Quote:

(105.IW) 5-4A5 Players identify units that are eligible to participate in troop assaults (521.3) during this round.

---

There is no requirement that these troops ships escorts must remain assigned round to round since the troop ships escorts ARE "different from carrier escorts"; see (521.272) above. This is further supported by (521.374) below where these escorts CANNOT escort a troop ship if crippled.

========================

FEDS SENDS

==================

NOTE TO F&E STAFF:
Please include a note for updating:

1. The SoP to further clarify the troop ship escort assignments under SoP 5-4A5

2. The requirement to destroy ALL escorting attrition units to attack their troop ships as part of the CO update.

By Jeffrey Tiel (Platoaquinas) on Monday, January 19, 2015 - 03:08 pm: Edit

Chuck,

What you said to the F&E Staff, point 2, the "requirement to destroy ALL escorting attrition units to attack their troop ships as part of the CO update." I wanted to ensure I understand this. For carriers, you can direct on the entire group and cripple the entire group. But for ground ships, to attack the ground ship at all (cripple or kill), are you saying that you must fully destroy its escorts?

Thanks,
Jeff

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, January 19, 2015 - 03:55 pm: Edit

I think attrition units here refers to 521.374 which states that ship equivalents of independant fighters or PFs can be used as escorts for troop ships.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, January 19, 2015 - 05:15 pm: Edit

JT:

Entire escorting independant attrition units guarding their assigned troop unit must be destroyed to attack said troop unit.

FEDS SENDS

By Jeffrey Tiel (Platoaquinas) on Tuesday, January 20, 2015 - 06:43 am: Edit

Chuck & Richard,

Got it. Thanks.

Jeff

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, January 29, 2015 - 07:22 pm: Edit

So yeah, this thing again:

Chuck wrote (in Q+A discussion):
>>In my mind this is a straight up issue (this is not YET an official FEDS ruling):

1. Are enemy units blocking all supply paths to friendly units in combat (which are not stacked with valid friendly base) at this very moment?

2. Would the dispatch of one or more reserve fleets to one or more of the locations of blocking enemy ships open a supply path to said friendly units in combat? [Note that supply can flow through a battle hex under (411.2).]

How does this test above not meet the intent of (203.731)?>>

This is going to be relevant in my current game really soon. I think, at press time, the current state of affairs is such that rule (203.731) can only be used to open supply to ships that were out of supply at the start of the turn and also out of supply at the instance of combat (unless they happen to have a drone bombardment ship. Or you are using the salvage rules). But I don't think that is the original intention of the rule. But seems to be how the rule combined with the relevant errata seems to read.

Any chance that this will be addressed any time soon?

Thanks!

By Jeffrey Tiel (Platoaquinas) on Tuesday, February 03, 2015 - 11:47 am: Edit

Has anyone developed an Excel spreadsheet to help keep track of who owns what provinces and planets, what turn they were captured, and when they are subject to annexation?

By Randy Blair (Randyblair) on Tuesday, February 03, 2015 - 01:00 pm: Edit

Not an excel spreadsheet, but a MySQL database.

By Rob Padilla (Zargan) on Tuesday, February 03, 2015 - 02:31 pm: Edit

Wouldn't be that hard really. Just have a column for the planet numbers, another for the turn of capture (or recapture), then formulas for each of the other relevant data (when it becomes a supply point, when it starts to generate revenue, recovery, etc).

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, February 03, 2015 - 03:59 pm: Edit

I just keep track of it in plain text in a text file for Vassal games. Cyberboard lets you easily put notes on the map so you don't need a spreadsheet or anything to track it.

By chris upson (Misanthropope) on Tuesday, February 03, 2015 - 05:23 pm: Edit

the vassal module tracks all the stages of evolution of captured real estate with no need for notes of any sort.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, February 04, 2015 - 04:27 pm: Edit

Chuck,

Based on your ruling to my question, I recommend you change the following statement of your prior ruling. Specifically, I would change this:

---

Quote:

Do the combat engaged friendly unit(s) have its supply path blocked to the main grid by enemy unit? Y/N (if Y then continue)

---

---

Quote:

Do the combat engaged friendly unit(s) have its supply path blocked to the either the offmap main grid or the capital main grid by enemy unit? Y/N (if Y then continue)

---

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, February 04, 2015 - 04:30 pm: Edit

Chuck, just to be 100% clear (which I don't think I was above), this is the wording I think you need clarify. You use "the" main grid. As you pointed out there are two possible "main" grids in F&E. Thus, your wording needs to clarify your intent with respect to how 203.731 can be used with respect to the possible interaction of two different main grids.

-T

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, February 04, 2015 - 06:38 pm: Edit

I posted this outline on 14 December. Why am I now getting this feedback now?

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, February 04, 2015 - 06:59 pm: Edit

Because I only thought of it now. My apologies.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, February 04, 2015 - 07:22 pm: Edit

Original post with definition modified from "The Main Grid" to "A Main Grid" to include reference to (413.1).

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, February 04, 2015 - 07:26 pm: Edit

Nothing to apologize for, Ted. We prefer to get reports earlier but we all know that sometimes things don't "click" until later.