Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Romulan Order of Battle	1		11/23 03:15pm
	Archive through May 26, 2023	25		05/30 08:17pm

Please do not change the Rom carrier build. Enough alt carriers for the WH have come into play to keep it as is.

The BEV and KEV should be substitutable for a pair of WH (with the same 2 escorts). These are old Eagle series carriers on the WE/KE hull, and have the same 5 fighter factors as 2WH. The Rom do not need to be cookie cut into the same exact format as everybody else.

I know that some people really want the Rom to have 2 modern medium carriers a turn; but doing that will basically push the Rom into 2CV and 1CVE a turn (with no more than 1 CVA a year) like everybody else. And the SUP would wind up counting against the CVE limit. It actually reduces the Rom carrier potential.

All modern Rom carriers with more than 4 fighter factors that are not CVAs should fall under the 1 SPB a turn limit.

All modern Rom HDW or smaller ships with 4 or fewer fighter factors count against the 1 SKB per turn limit.

SUP has its own limit of 1 per turn.

All older Eagle series ships except the VLV count against the 1 WH carrier group per turn.

All Rom heavy carriers and SCS class ships count against the 1 CNV or SUP per year limit.

This puts all the newer additions into an appropriate category without eliminating the unique carrier production schedule of the Romulans. And no changes are needed to the OoB, as the information can be added to the Notes section of each ships SIT entry. Then we just have to make sure that any new Rom carriers have a note listing which limit they would fall under.

By Daniel Glenn Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Friday, May 26, 2023 - 11:47 pm: Edit

To further make my point that the Rom carrier production limits should be left alone except to place all the new carriers into their appropriate category let me point out that the Rom may have a weird and kind of crappy carrier production schedule, but they can produce way more fighter factors a year than the Fed can (not accounting for Interdiction and patrol carriers, which have their own limits already).

The Rom can produce 54 fighter factors per year with their standard SPB, SKB, SUP, 2WH or a BEV, per turn, plus a CNV per year. The Fed produce 39 a year with their standard of 2 carriers of any type plus 1 CVE a turn, with a limit of no more than 1 CVA a year. They can get that to 45 is they actually built 3 CVB instead of 3 CVS a year, but with a huge surcharge.

Change the Rom carrier production and the Rom drop to 44 fighter factors a year. 3 SPB, 2 SKB/SUP, and a CNV.

The old Eagle carriers may be crappy, but the compensation for being limited to building these older crappy carriers is that the Rom CVA limit is a separate limit from any other carrier. All other empires count their CVA against their 2 carrier a turn limit.

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Saturday, May 27, 2023 - 12:56 am: Edit

Dan

"One Heavy Carrier per year replacing medium carrier;"

So the CVA replaces a Medium carrier.

If the Romulans are building that many carriers they aren't building a lot of other stuff. They only have 12FFF so 42 fighter factors is 84 EP on a 226EP annual income (after exploration and prior to T15).

By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Sunday, May 28, 2023 - 10:19 pm: Edit

Dan,

I fought for the change, because the limits didn't include a lot of the other carrier types. It was already changed, so it's not a change now.

But the the CVA taking the place of a medium carrier, I don't recall that one.

By Daniel Glenn Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Tuesday, May 30, 2023 - 08:17 pm: Edit

I know you fought for it Joe; but it got changed back ; and I think it was for a reason. Two heavy hawk carriers, a CVE, and a SUP a turn, plus a CVA each year above that limit is too good. And pairing the Rom down to the 2 CV and a CVE each turn with a max of 1 CVA is the same boring limit as the Fed, Kzinti, and Klingon.

There are enough eagle series carrier variants that the Rom can be the Rom. The lack of convertable BH hulls is no longer an issue.

By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Saturday, June 03, 2023 - 01:46 pm: Edit

" but it got changed back ; and I think it was for a reason. "

According to Ryan when I spoke to him, it was an oversight, not intentional

If it needs to be paired down, it should be from the revised version, not the orignal version, which had no knowledge of the carriers that would be added later.

By John de Michele (Johndemichele) on Monday, August 28, 2023 - 01:51 pm: Edit

704.2 Production/704.211 Wartime Schedule:

Line 6 reads: Y178F-Y179S: CON, FH...

should read: Y178F-Y179F: CON, FH...

John de Michele, 8/28/2023