Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through March 28, 2017	26		03/28 04:32pm
	Archive through May 19, 2017	67		04/29 02:41pm

DONE SUNDAY 21 MAY 2017
=====================

FED ONLY - HEAVY AUXES

FED HVH: factors 6-8(10V6)/3-4(5V3) | conv From HAV: 0+4; From HAC: 2+16 | (549.121): 9+16 | notes to read: Heavy Auxiliary A-20 Carrier; optional escorts per (515.27). | FEDS: Other data same as HAV except ref#/date.

FED HYH: factors 6-8(8Y6)/3-4(4Y3) | conv From HAV: 0+2; From HAC: 2+14 | (549.121): 9+14 | notes to read: Heavy Auxiliary F-101 Carrier; optional escorts per (515.27). | FEDS: Other data same as HAV except ref#/date.

FED HSCF: | factors 6-8P*(6)/3-4P(3) | conv From HAC: 7+6+¶; From: HAS: | build (549.121): 13+6+¶ | notes to read: Heavy Auxiliary Space Control Ship Conjectural; optional escorts per (515.27); Scout, (2EW:3AF)(1EW:6AF).

FED HAH: factors 6-8(9H6)/3-4(4.5H3) | conv From HAV: 1+0+12; From HAC: 3+6+18 | build (549.121): 9+6+18 | notes to read: Heavy Auxiliary F-111 Carrier; optional escorts per (515.27). | Rationale: Apply (530.222) to existing HAV to convert one squadron to HFs. FEDS: Other data same as HAV except ref#/date.

FED HSC: factors 6-8*(9H6)/3-4(4.5H3) | conv From HAC: 6+6+18; From HAS: 5+6+18; From HAV: 4+0+12; From HAH: 2+0 | build (549.121): 12+6+18 | notes to read: Heavy Auxiliary Space Control Ship with F-111s; optional escorts per (515.27); Scout, (2EW:3AF)(1EW:6AF).

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, May 21, 2017 - 07:48 am: Edit

DONE 22 MAY 2017
=====================

FED JAH: ref Future | factors 4-7(9H6)/2-4(4.5H3) | conv From JAV: 1+0+12; From JAC: 3+6+18 | (549.121): 7+6+18 | notes to read: Jumbo Auxiliary F-111 Carrier; optional escorts per (515.27). | Rationale: Apply (530.222) to existing JAV to convert one squadron to HFs. FEDS: Other data same as JAV except ref#/date.

FED JVH: factors 4-7(10V6)/2-4(5V3) | conv From JAV: 0+4; From JAC: 2+16 | (549.121): 7+16 | notes to read: Jumbo Auxiliary A-20 Carrier; optional escorts per (515.27). | FEDS: Other data same as JAV except ref#/date.

FED JYH: factors 4-7(8Y6)/2-4(4Y3) | conv From JAV: 0+2; From JAC: 2+14 | (549.121): 7+14 | notes to read: Jumbo Auxiliary F-101 Carrier; optional escorts per (515.27). | FEDS: Other data same as JAV except ref#/date.

FED JSC: ref R1.A27 | factors 4-7*(9H6)/2-4(4.5H3) | conv From JAC: 6+6+18; From JAS: 5+6+18; From JAV: 4+0+12; From JAH: 2+0 | build (549.121): 10+6+18 | notes to read: Jumbo Auxiliary Space Control Ship with F-111s; optional escorts per (515.27); Scout, (2EW:2AF)(1EW:4AF).

FED JSCF: ref Future | | factors 4-7P*(6)/2-4P(3) | conv From JAC: 7+6+¶; From: JAS: 5+6+¶ | build (549.121): 12+6+¶ | notes to read: Jumbo Auxiliary Space Control Ship, conjectural; optional escorts per (515.27); Scout, (2EW:2AF)(1EW:4AF).

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Sunday, May 21, 2017 - 10:30 am: Edit

DONE 22 MAY 2017
HVH Fed mixed fighter groups typically specify the breakdown in notes (see ACS for example) in notes: "Two squadrons: F18(6) and A20(10V)" - Howard Bampton 2017-05-21

HAH Fed mixed fighter groups typically specify the breakdown in notes (see ACS for example) in notes: "Two squadrons: F18(6) and F111(9H)" - Howard Bampton 2017-05-21

HYH Fed mixed fighter groups typically specify the breakdown in notes (see ACS for example) in notes: "Two squadrons: F18(6) and F101(8Y)" - Howard Bampton 2017-05-21

HSC Fed mixed fighter groups typically specify the breakdown in notes (see ACS for example) in notes: "Two squadrons: F18(6) and F111(9H)" - Howard Bampton 2017-05-21

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Sunday, May 21, 2017 - 10:30 am: Edit

DONE 22 MAY 2017
JAH Fed mixed fighter groups typically specify the breakdown in notes (see ACS for example) in notes: "Two squadrons: F18(6) and F111(9H)" - Howard Bampton 2017-05-21

JVH Fed mixed fighter groups typically specify the breakdown in notes (see ACS for example) in notes: "Two squadrons: F18(6) and A20(10V)" - Howard Bampton 2017-05-21

JYH Fed mixed fighter groups typically specify the breakdown in notes (see ACS for example) in notes: "Two squadrons: F18(6) and F101(8Y)" - Howard Bampton 2017-05-21

JSC Fed mixed fighter groups typically specify the breakdown in notes (see ACS for example) in notes: "Two squadrons: F18(6) and F111(9H)" - Howard Bampton 2017-05-21

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, April 29, 2020 - 02:41 pm: Edit

NAF: Should the (4) in the Base Hull column be (3) to match the other units in this section? F Brooks, 20 July, 2017.FEDS: CONCURS. # G.O.D. DID IT.

HWXH: Should this unit be the HWXA to match the non-X-ship version? F Brooks, 20 July, 2017. FEDS: CONCURS. # G.O.D. DID IT.

HWXH: The G's in the Factors column should probably be removed since this unit is not a troop ship. F Brooks, 20 July, 2017.FEDS: CONCURS. # G.O.D. DID IT.

HWXQ: The scout diamonds in the Factors column should be red since this unit is a survey ship. F Brooks, 20 July, 2017. FEDS: CONCURS -- both diamonds. # G.O.D. DID IT.

PV: The text "(1/turn)" should probably be added to the "Call up" line in the Build Cost column, and "Call up: 3 (1/Turn)" can be removed from the Notes column. F Brooks, 20 July, 2017.FEDS: CONCURS. # G.O.D. DID IT.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, April 29, 2020 - 02:49 pm: Edit

HVH: The JAA is listed twice (once as JAA/FTJ, once as just JAA) in the Conversion Cost column. F Brooks, 20 July, 2017. # G.O.D. FIXED IT.

JAH: The LVH is listed twice (with different costs) in the Conversion Cost column. F Brooks, 20 July, 2017. NEED STAFF ENDORSEMENT

LARGE/SMALL AUXILIARIES: The word "TAG" in the Notes column of various units should probably be changed to the ^ symbol, since that symbol has been defined as "Tactical Aux Group Eligible". F Brooks, 20 July, 2017. # NOT DONE, SEEMS OKAY AS IS, TAG IS EASIER TO UNDERSTAND THAN A SYMBOL.

ASCA: The word "Large" should be added to the beginning of the Notes column. F Brooks, 20 July, 2017. # G.O.D. DID IT.

ASCA: The word "empire's" in the Notes column should be "empires' " (apostrophe after the s). F Brooks, 20 July, 2017. #G.O.D. DID IT.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, April 29, 2020 - 02:56 pm: Edit

ASC: The SFB Ref # should be R2.105. F Brooks, 20 July, 2017. # G.O.D. DID IT.

SAP: The last sentence in the Notes column ("Used only if…") should be in bold to be consistent with other units. F Brooks, 20 July, 2017. # G.O.D. DID IT.

SBX(FH): The second open paren in "27((H6)" in the Factors column should be a 9. F Brooks, 20 July, 2017. # G.O.D. DID IT.

BASES FOR THE "THIRD WAY": Rule (502.9) says that the Federation never built PFs. That being the case, this section header is rather misleading, as all the bases listed have PFs. F Brooks, 20 July, 2017. # G.O.D. EXPANDED THE TITLE TO NOTE THESE ARE FOR THE ALTERNATE WHERE FEDS BUILT GUNBOATS.

BS(FP): The SFB Ref # should be R1.3 (no zero). F Brooks, 20 July, 2017. # G.O.D. DID IT BUT ACTUALLY THE ZERO IS NOT WRONG AND EITHER FORMAT IS PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE. WASTE OF TIME TO "FIX."

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, April 29, 2020 - 02:58 pm: Edit

BS(FP): The crippled side in the Factors column should only have 3 fighter factors. F Brooks, 20 July, 2017. # G.O.D. DID IT BUT WONDERED WHY THE STAFF NEVER ENDORSED IT.

BSX(FP): The SFB Ref # should be R1.207. F Brooks, 20 July, 2017. # G.O.D. DID IT.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, April 29, 2020 - 03:00 pm: Edit

Fed BBV from BB- should be 4+30
FEDS: CONCURS.
# G.O.D. DID IT.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, April 29, 2020 - 03:02 pm: Edit

FBV has a conversion from FFV, it should be from FV as the SIT has no FFV.FEDS: CONCURS.
# G.O.D. DID IT.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, August 01, 2019 - 05:35 am: Edit

FED HDW AOG build cost should be "(525.23H): 0+18" aka zero to convert and 18 for the heavy FTR factors. Cost is same, but this makes it consistent with other empire's COG entry. COG notes that free FTR factors can be used to reduce cost. HOG text strongly implies the same. - Howard Bampton 2017-05-11
FEDS: Recommends adding this package to SIT: this is the A-20 assault fighter package for the HDWA.


FED HDW YOG build cost should be "(525.23H): 0+14" aka zero to convert and 14 for the heavy FTR factors. Cost is same, but this makes it consistent with other empire's COG entry. COG notes that free FTR factors can be used to reduce cost. HOG text strongly implies the same. - Howard Bampton 2017-05-11
FEDS: Recommends adding this package to SIT: this is the F-101 heavy fighter package for the HDWY.

FED HDWA and HDWY need to be added to SIT:

designation	Ref	Factors	Prod	CR	Date	Hull	Conversion Costs	Build Cost	Salv	Notes
HDWA	85	6-7(10V)/3-4(5V)	AO	6	Y179	HDW(4)	From DW: 3+1+AOG	For DW: 6+1+AOG	1.250	Single-ship A-20 medium carrierr
HDWY	85	6-7(8Y)/3-4(4Y)	AO	6	Y179	HDW(4)	From DW: 3+1+YOG	For DW: 6+1+YOG	1.250	Single-ship F-101 medium carrier

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, October 27, 2019 - 11:26 am: Edit

Federation: Heavy Cruisers: GSX: Factors: 10-12u/5-6u should be 10-12 Survey Scout Symbol/5-6 Survey Scout Symbol. Reason: The ship in question is a Survey Ship converted/designed to use X-Tech, but is still a Survey ship. Thomas Mathews 27 Oct 2019
FEDS: Colored diamonds.
#G.O.D. DID IT.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Sunday, February 09, 2020 - 10:35 pm: Edit

Federation CX: As noted in (R2.76) and (R2.201) in the Star Fleet Battles Federation Master Starship Book, and in John Sickels' Federation heavy cruiser history article from Captain's Log #52, the first CX was a conversion of the heavy command cruiser NCC-1749 USS Vincennes; all other CXs from NCC-1771 USS Revolution onwards were new construction. Given that there is a provisional CB entry listed in the most recent SIT file, should there be a stated conversion cost from CB to CX; or should that wait until or unless a CB counter is provided in a future F&E product? And, if so, how much should such an X-conversion cost? (The background data seems to indicate that Vincennes, as a conversion of a pre-existing hull, was somewhat less successful as a design than the subsequent CXs built as new construction, so perhaps it may be apt for this conversion to be less cost-effective than building a brand new CX.) - Gary Carney, 09 February 2020
FEDS: Please succinctly state at the beginning of a line item the issue that needs to be addressed so that the staff and ADB knows what is needs to be done. Then give us the background info that will help us make good recommendations to ADB. Please resubmit.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, February 10, 2020 - 07:49 am: Edit

If and when formal introduces Heavy Command cruisers (CB) into F&E, then the F&E Staff will do the homework required to build SIT numbers as directed by ADB.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, April 29, 2020 - 03:12 pm: Edit

William Jockusch
If the ECL has a crippled defense of 3, as the current SIT shows, then the CVA group should have a crippled defense of 15, not 16.
6+3+3+3=15
FEDS: CONCURS. It is however an obsolete counter.
#G.O.D. NO CHANGE MADE, THE COUNTER EXISTS AND THIS WOULD CHANGE THE COUNTER. SINCE IT IS OBSOLETE BETTER TO LEAVE IT AND IGNORE IT.

Federation: Dreadnoughts: CVA (4CVA): Factors: 24-30 (15)/11-16 (7.5) should be 24-30 (15)/11-15 (7.5). Reason: The ECL has a crippled defensive factor of 3. Thomas Mathews 4 Oct 2019
FEDS: IBID -- CONCURS. It is however an obsolete counter.
#G.O.D. NO CHANGE MADE, THE COUNTER EXISTS AND THIS WOULD CHANGE THE COUNTER. SINCE IT IS OBSOLETE BETTER TO LEAVE IT AND IGNORE IT.

Federation: Light Cruisers: base hull and all variants: build cost or substitution: "for NCL" should be "for CA". Reason: The master Federation OOB, dated 11/2017, section 702.222 allows a CL to be substituted for a DN, CC, or CA, but not for an NCL.
FEDS: Not needed. Per (702.221) OOB - Allowable Substitutions:
"DDs and CLs can be substituted for NCLs.
#G.O.D. NO CHANGE MADE

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Saturday, February 15, 2020 - 10:23 pm: Edit

The DWE is missing from the msit-02_feds_b2.pdf file.

FEDS: That's because the DWA is used as the FED DW escort.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Saturday, February 15, 2020 - 10:56 pm: Edit

Page 9 of the SIT has a conversion from the HDWX but there is no HDWX listed in the SIT.

FEDS: That because future HDW X-ships will be designated as HWXs.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Sunday, February 16, 2020 - 12:52 pm: Edit

Should the DWA be listed in the conversion and build columns instead of the DWE?

FEDS: No, as the DWA has a minimal aegis refit included of DWE when it was introduced.

From SFB (R2.68):

---

Quote:

The escort variant of the war destroyer was built after the development of full aegis (D13.0), so there never was a limited aegis (D13.4) version.

---

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, April 29, 2020 - 03:22 pm: Edit

FEDS: Recommend adding: From GSX: 3+18.
#G.O.D. DID IT.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Friday, February 21, 2020 - 07:03 am: Edit

Federation: Tugs and Pods: REP POD: SFB Ref # blank should be 52. (R2.52) is the SFB reference for the Federation Repair Pod. Thomas Mathews 21 Feb 2020
# SVC DID IT.

Federation: Tugs and Pods: REP POD: Cmnd (754.0) blank should be +0. The repair pod does not increase the command rating of the tug should the repair tug find itself on the map for some reason. Thomas Mathews 21 Feb 2020 # SVC DID IT.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Friday, February 21, 2020 - 07:15 am: Edit

Federation: Strike Cruisers: CSX: Product: Future, CMND (754.0) 9, YIS: 184, Base Hull: CSX. The field values listed are those copied from G3 without issue. Thomas Mathews 21 Feb 2020 #SVC ADDED THESE

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Saturday, February 22, 2020 - 02:47 pm: Edit

Page 15, "From HAA; 9+6+" should be "From HAA: 9+6+" #SVC DID IT.
DO NOT USE PAGE NUMBERS. LINE ITEMS MUST BE KEYED TO THE UNIT DESIGNATION.

Page 16, JAV "From JAA; 3+12" should be "From JAA: 3+12" #SVC DID IT, BUT THIS KIND OF THING IS VERY TEDIOUS.

Page 16, JCG "From FTJ/JAG; 3" should be "From FTJ/JAG: 3" #SVC DID IT

Page 18, JAH "From: JAC/JAR/JAS/JCG: 2+6+18" should be "From JAC/JAR/JAS/JCG: 2+6+18" #SVC DID IT.

Page 19 JVH "From LYH 3+2" should be "From LYH: 3+2" #SVC DID IT

Page 19 JSCA Is this correct "From JAV to JAV/JYH: 5+0+" or should it be "From JAV/JYH: 5+0+" #SVC DID IT.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Wednesday, April 01, 2020 - 01:30 pm: Edit

TOO MANY LINE ITEMS IN A SINGLE MESSAGE

Federation SCX
"X-scout, (EW3:AF6; Crippled EW=1) §" should be
"X-scout, (3EW:6AF)(Crippled EW=1)§"
# SVC DID IT

Federation NVH Should not
"Special carrier for F111s, operates in many ways as a PFT; Scout (2EW:2AF; 1EW:5AF). No early variants. See (527.0)." be
"Special carrier for F111s, operates in many ways as a PFT; Scout (2EW:2AF)(1EW:5AF). No early variants. See (527.0)."
#SVC DID IT BUT THIS KIND OF REPORT IS VERY VERY HARD TO PROCESS, VERY HARD TO SPOT THE ONE THING YOU WANT FIXED.

Federation NVA Should not
"Special carrier for A20s, operates in many ways as a PFT; Scout (2EW:2AF; 1EW:5AF). No early variants. See (532.0)." be
"Special carrier for A20s, operates in many ways as a PFT; Scout (2EW:2AF)(1EW:5AF). No early variants. See (532.0)."
#SVC DID IT

Federation NHV Should not
"Special carrier for F111s, operates in many ways as a PFT; Scout (2EW:2AF; 1EW:6AF). No early variants. See (527.0). Unique to Feds." be
"Special carrier for F111s, operates in many ways as a PFT; Scout (2EW:2AF)(1EW:6AF). No early variants. See (527.0). Unique to Feds."
#SVC DID IT, BUT HAS TO ASK IF THIS KIND OF THING IS REALLY WORTH DOING.

Federation NHA Should not
"Special carrier for A20s, operates in many ways as a PFT; Scout (2EW:2AF; 1EW:6AF). No early variants. See (527.0). Unique to Feds." be
"Special carrier for A20s, operates in many ways as a PFT; Scout (2EW:2AF; 1EW:6AF). No early variants. See (527.0). Unique to Feds."
#SVC DID IT

Federation LAP Should not
"Large Auxiliary PFT (526.4); scout (2EW). This ship can have one or two optional escorts under (521.37). Used only if the Federation builds PFs." be
"Large Auxiliary PFT (526.4); scout (EW=2). This ship can have one or two optional escorts under (521.37). Used only if the Federation builds PFs."
#SVC THINKS HE DID IT BUT IT'S HARD TO TELL WHAT YOU WANTED.

Federation HDWP Should not
"Conectural PFT variant of HDW, used only in the Feds build PFs." be
"Conjectural PFT variant of HDW, used only if the Feds build PFs."
WOULD HAVE BEEN EASIER TO JUST SAY CONJECTURAL WAS MISSPELLED.

Federation HSCA
"Conectural Heavy Auxiliary SCS used only if Feds build PFs, optional escorts per (515.27); Scout, (2EW:3AF)(1EW:6AF)." should be
"Conjectural Heavy Auxiliary SCS used only if Feds build PFs, optional escorts per (515.27); Scout, (2EW:3AF)(1EW:6AF)."
WOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH EASIER ON BOTH OF US TO JUST SAY:
HSCA: Conjectural is mis-spelled in the notes.

Federation CVP
"Patrol Carrier, ovesized squadron." should be
"Patrol Carrier, oversized squadron."
SVC FIXED IT.

Federation CLH To match convention should not
"For NCL/CL (1/year): 6" should be
"For NCL/CL: 6 (1/year)"
THIS IS THE KIND OF FIX THAT TAKES AS MUCH TIME AS SOMETHING ACTUALLY WRONG. FIXING THIS SORT OF SILLINESS MEANS NOT FIXING AN ACTUAL ERROR. TIME IS NOT INFINITE.

Federation CLD Should
"See (525.322) In Free Campaigns, For NCL/CL: 9" be
"For NCL/CL: 9 See (525.322) In Free Campaigns"
NEEDLESS FIX INSTALLED

Federation CB
"Heavy Command Cruiser, variant of CC," should be
"Heavy Command Cruiser, variant of CC."
FIXED, BUT THE INFORMATION IS THE SAME AND TIME IS NOT INFINITE. TIME SPENT ON THIS PICKY STUFF IS DELAYING THE UPDATE, NOT MAKING IT BETTER.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Monday, April 13, 2020 - 01:07 am: Edit

Federation CAD - To match convention "For CA: 11 In Free Campaigns, See (525.321)." should be "For CA: 11 See (525.321) In Free Campaigns"

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, August 05, 2019 - 03:32 pm: Edit

(I totally missed that this place existed when I posted in the Q+A section)

Fed GVX Costs:

Ok, in the current, updated SIT, the production costs of the GVX are:

-For CA: 22+18 (F111's)

-From CX: 3+18 (F111's)

It seems non sensical that it costs 22 to build the ship outright, yet if you build a CX for 12 and then convert it to a GVX, it only costs 15 (plus F111's). I dug up the following suggested factors from 2017:

<FONT COLOR="119911"><B>FEDS Recommended GVX Costs:
For CA: 22+18 Rationale: 12 X-ship + 5 Survey + 2 (two additional EW over std survey) + 3 (F-111 carrier surcharge) + 18 Ftrs
From CA: 16+18 Rationale: 6 (X conv) + 5 Survey + 2 (two additional EW over std survey) + 3 (F-111 carrier surcharge) + 18 Ftrs
From GSC/COV: 8+18 Rationale: 6 (X conv) + 2 (F-111 carrier surcharge) + 18 Ftrs
From CVL: 8+12 Rationale: 6 (X conv) + 2 (F-111 carrier surcharge) + 12 Ftrs
THE ABOVE IS WHAT THE FILE ALREADY SAYS. MAYBE I DID THIS ONE MONTHS AGO?

It seems like the CX>GVX should cost 10 (+5 survey, +2 EW upgrade, +3 F111 surcharge)?</B></FONT>
CANNOT BE RIGHT.CX HAS NO FIGHTERS AND YOU ONLY PAID FOR THREE?

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Thursday, February 20, 2020 - 11:09 pm: Edit

Page 4, REP Pod is missing the a value in the Cmnd column
PLUS ZERO
SVC DID IT.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Wednesday, April 29, 2020 - 08:00 am: Edit

I would like to politely request a SIT update cadence be established. I may be wrong but it seems from the thread dates listed the passing of April 2020 we are fast approaching 3 years since the Fed SIT has had a change.

I understand the injuries, illness and physical change you (and others at ADB) have gone through Steve has caused a shift in the daily routines. I also understand you are still undergoing changes to alleviate pain and discomfort.

Your successful approach in the past had been to fit some time into each day or week and take small bites out of this large elephant (maybe this has continued behind the scenes?). If not, my request is that this approach be resumed. Thank you.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, April 29, 2020 - 11:06 am: Edit

This is the Guderian Principle. A few divisions in Norway, a few in Greece, a few in Libya, and suddenly you are short a whole field army in Russia. And you lose WWII. (Translation: If I spent "a few minutes a day" on everythign everyone wants me to do that for, I would never get anything done that would actually produce revenue. The company would die when I could not pay my employees.)

Anyway, I did take time to review one random SIT and found so few updates needed that it’s not urgent. Three years is not the controlling factor. 15 line items compared to three hundred isn’t a crisis. Three years ago there were many more items. You also have the overhead. Most of the time goes into waiting for the staff to answer questions, formatting, and uploading, so 15 takes 80% of the calendar time 300 takes.

The mess of the last few years has left so many things on my MUST DO list that the SITs are only one of several elephants that cannot claw their way into my active list. Things that make money have to come first or nobody will be here to update anything.

Right now is one of several “worst possible times” to ask for that, but if I can break through the list of revenue projects before surgery I will see if I can find time to do one. But once surgery is done and I survive recovery, I have to do CL54. THEN I can look into the SITs.

But if I could have I would have. Trying to publicly guilt me into working on this instead of new products that pay the bills isn’t going to work.

And right now ALL of my F&E time is going into solving the die cut counter problems. The company that made the last ten batches went out of business and the whole F&E product line disappears from the cart in a couple of months. Solving it means finding a new company that will use a different die pattern, reformatting every sheet and every product, and creating an entirely new product to pay for the reprint. This isn’t news. I have mentioned it several times on this BBS.

So go ahead, ask me again to work on the SITs and you will be personally responsible for us dropping the entire game system out of production.

Did I fire four shots, five, or six? Am I holding a 44mag Redhawk or a 454 Casull? Do you feel lucky?

Evil grin.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, April 29, 2020 - 03:33 pm: Edit

I had some time I was stuck on the phone with the lawyer (routine business, he needed to check the royalty statement we were about to send to Paramount). I listened intently and did a few line items while I was stuck here. No promises I will have time to work on this again this week, but like I said, if I could have I would have, if I ever can I will.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, April 29, 2020 - 11:20 pm: Edit

Yeah, sometimes guilt tripping the boss works, although someone wasn't happy that I did SIT work instead of what I was scheduled to do.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Thursday, April 30, 2020 - 11:28 am: Edit

Thank you Steve I really appreciate it.

Please understand the request was not malicious and it was I who felt guilty even asking. I do understand all of the things you and ADB are dealing with on top of the pain you are enduring. I hope the doctors can find a way to get you in and the relief and recovery are quick and complete.

I did make the request because the SITs help me tremendously when I work on the Cyberboard which I am doing while we are sheltered in. Thanks again.

I am a huge Clint Eastwood fan myself and had just watched ‘The Man from Malpaso’ so that was the best part.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, April 30, 2020 - 12:00 pm: Edit

Thanks for being a good sport, Lar. As you all know, sometimes you have to let me rant before I shrug and give you what you want.

I just did a few more line items but I'm going to be in trouble because Jean will be here in 30 minutes and the project she assigned me won't be finished because of the time I spent updating SITs.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, November 02, 2019 - 09:38 am: Edit

Federation: Large Auxiliaries: LVH: Notes: Two squadrons: F18(6) and F101(8Y) should read: Two squadrons: F18(6) and A20(10V). The factors on this ship are for the A20 fighters not the F101 fighters. Thomas Mathews 2 Nov 2019
SVC DID IT 2 MAY 2020

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Sunday, February 23, 2020 - 02:19 am: Edit

WAY THE HECK TOO MANY LINE ITEMS FOR ONE MESSAGE. LIMIT TO FIVE. PLEASE.

Page 11 POG (CUE) "For FF 2.5 Called up: 0 (2/turn)" should be "For FF: 2.5 Called up: 0 (2/turn)"
NO SUCH UNIT FOUND. THERE IS POG CCU AND POE CUE BUT NOT THIS, PAGE NUMBERS ARE USELESS, DO NOT INCLUDE THEM IN LINE ITEMS.

Page 11 POG (CUS) "For FF: 3.5 Call up 2.5" should be "For FF: 3.5 Call up: 2.5"
THERE IS NO SUCH UNIT.
POG (CCU) OR POS (CUS)

Page 15 HSCA "From HAA; 9+6+¶" should be "From HAA: 9+6+¶"
DO NOT USE PAGE NUMBERS
IF YOU WANT SEMI-COLON CHANGED TO COLON SAY SO, DON'T MAKE ME FIGURE IT OUT.
THE SIT IN MY COMPUTER HAS A COLON THERE; REPORT IN ERROR OR OBSOLETE.

Page 16 JAV "From JAA; 3+12" should be "From JAA: 3+12"
SVC APPARENTLY FIXED THIS EARLIER.

Page 16 JCG "From FTJ/JAG; 3" should be "From FTJ/JAG: 3"
SVC APPARENLTY FIXED THIS EARLIER.

Page 18 JAH "
From JAC/JAR/JAS/JCG: 2+6+18 From JAV: 1+0+12 From JYH: 1+6+10" should be "
From: JYH 1+6+10"
UNABLE TO TELL WHAT YOU WANT, MAY HAVE BEEN FIXED EARLIER.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, May 02, 2020 - 05:00 pm: Edit

KEN KAZINSKI OVERSIZE REPORT
=====
Page 18 JVH "From LYH 3+2" should be "From LYH: 3+2"
Better format
JVH "From LYH" needs colon.
SVC DID IT.

Page 25 BS(FH) [With fighters and F111s] "
From: BS(F): 2+9" should be "
From BS(F): 2+9"
Better format:
BS(FH) From: BS(F): 2+ Delete extra colon after From
SVC DID IT.

Page 26 BTX(N) [No fighters/ F111s] "From: BSX(N): 3" should be "From BSX(N): 3"
SVC DID IT.
THIS KIND OF "FORMAT MISTAKE ONLY" SHOULD BE IN A SEPARATE REPORT THAT CAN BE IGNORED IF I AM IN A HURRY TO DO AN UPDATE.

Page 26 BTX(F) [with fighters] "From: BSX(F): 3" should be "From BSX(F): 3"
SVC FIXED IT.

Page 26 BTX(F) [with fighters] "From: BTX(N): 2+6" should be "From BTX(N): 2+6"
THIS ONE TOO.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, May 02, 2020 - 05:00 pm: Edit

GOOD WORK FINDING PROBLEMS, KEN, BUT IT COULD BE BETTER FORMATTED FOR EASIER PROCESSING.

KEN KAZINSKI OVERSIZE REPORT
==
Page 26 BTX(FH) [with fighters and F111s] "From: BSX(F): 5+9" should be "From BSX(F): 5+9"
-
BTX(FH) "From: BSX(F): 5+9" delete extra colon after FROM.
SVC DID IT

Page 26 BTX(FH) [with fighters and F111s] "From: BSX(FP): 3" should be "From BSX(FP): 3"

Page 26 BTX(FH) [with fighters and F111s] "From: BTX(N): 4+6+9" should be "From BTX(N): 4+6+9"

Page 26 BTX(FH) [with fighters and F111s] "From: BTX(F): 2+9" should be "From BTX(F): 2+9"
Multiple identical format errors in one block could be reported better as
BTX(FH) in the conversion block there are multiple extra colons after the word "from" on the last four lines.

Page 31 BS(FP) [With fighters and gunboats] "From: BS(F): 2+¶" should be "From BS(F): 2+¶"
ALL DONE

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, May 02, 2020 - 05:01 pm: Edit

KEN KAZINSKI OVERSIZE REPORT
==
Page 31 BTX(FP) [with fighters and gunboats] "From: BSX(F): 5+¶ From: BSX(FP): 3 From: BTX(N): 4+6+¶ From: BTX(F): 2+¶" should be "From BSX(F): 5+¶ From BSX(FP): 3 From BTX(N): 4+6+¶ From BTX(F): 2+¶"
DONE BY BLANKET SEARCH AND REPLACE OF FROM: TO FROM

Page 33 PDU "From PGB (441.3)" should be "From PGB: (441.3)"
FIXED.

FIVE LINE ITEMS PER POST
DO NOT USE PAGE NUMBERS
CHECK CAREFULLY TO SEE YOU REPORTED A UNIT THAT ACTUALLY EXISTS.