| By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, June 28, 2017 - 08:04 pm: Edit |
Quote:Finally, could one use 502.93 and the heavy SWAC fighter control role to field two CVA/SCS?
| By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, June 28, 2017 - 08:24 pm: Edit |
From Jeffrey Tiel in Q&A:
'I've been under the impression that it is never possible in F&E to field a battleforce that includes two CVA/SCS units at once.'
You can field two CVAs by reducing the fighter group of one of them by half (or less if using the SWAC fighter control role).
| By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, June 28, 2017 - 08:28 pm: Edit |
You can also field two CVAs or SCS (I think) if they are not (for some reason) carrying more than three SEQs (essentially) of attrition units. Some rules may modify this limit.
Example: A Kzinti SCS with no PFs can be in a battle force with a Federation SCS with two fighter squadrons and a third squadron of only six fighter factors and using a heavy swac to provide fighter support.
| By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, June 28, 2017 - 08:36 pm: Edit |
Richard, the SWACs can only control Federation Fighters. The fighter control mission of the SWACs or the CVBG are empire specific things.
Even if the Kzintis go the third way, possible under (502.9), then Federation would be replaced by empire in the various rules of (502.9), but inclusive only to the given empire and not shared between allies. Also, see below:
(518.11) FEDERATION ONLY: The Federation is the only empire that can produce, deploy, carry, or use SWACs. The technology to do so cannot be transferred.
and
(518.46) FIGHTER CONTROL MISSION: One (and only one) SWAC in each battle force could be assigned to this mission in a given battle round. The effect is to allow an increase in Federation fighter strength above the normal limit of three squadrons (or of four squadrons in the “Third Way” rules).
NOTE: (518.46) is an excerpt and not the complete rule.
| By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, June 28, 2017 - 09:01 pm: Edit |
Under the Third Way, one could field two CVAs (with two squadrons each) using the fourth squadron rule (502.93) but the two CVA CANNOT be in a the same CVBG.
To be very clear, the Federation Third Way has the following FIVE extracted effects that are mutually exclusive of each other:
(502.91) BASES: The Federation doubles the fighter complement on its bases and PDUs. (If using FO, under (527.141) each starbase, sector base, and battle station receives one squadron of nine F-111 factors. Each stellar fortress receives two squadrons of nine factors each.
(502.92) CVBGs
(502.93) FIGHTER LIMIT: The Federation is able (starting in Y181) to deploy four fighter squadrons in a Battle Force.
(502.94) ESCORTS: Starting in Y181, every Federation carrier escort (except FFEs and FBEs) has one factor of “spare fighters” (i.e. a mini-FCR)
(502.95) SPECIAL FIGHTERS
(502.951) The Federation player may (in Spring Y171) designate three starbases or sector bases to each have a squadron of F-14s based there. This gives these starbases two extra fighter factors.
(502.952) The Federation player may designate three planets to each have one squadron of F-15s based there; this gives each of these planets two extra fighter factors.
| By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, June 28, 2017 - 09:07 pm: Edit |
Chuck, I should have clarified that you can't have two CVA groups in a given battle force before the start of the Third Way. Even with SWACs and (518.46) There are limits placed on the number of fighter factors allowed by an E-2 SWAC and E-3 Heavy SWAC.
| By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, June 28, 2017 - 09:16 pm: Edit |
Turtle, in my example, the Kzinti are not using the SWAC to benefit Kzinti fighters, but rather the Federation is using the swac to benefit FEDERATION fighters.
***
As to two Fed CVAs prior to the start of the third way, you CAN have two in the same battle force.
There is a rule that allows you to reduce a carrier's fighters by half. This would allow you two use two CVAs, as one CVA would have two squadrons, and the other would have one.
You could have more fighters than three squadrons if the fourth squadron was reduced to the number supportable by your SWAC or heavy SWAC.
*****
My main purpose here is so that readers do not get confused and think that there is a hard limit of only one CVA/SCS allowed in a battle force. This is not the case in any time period.
What limits the number of carriers/pf carrying units you can have are the various rules limiting the number of squadrons or flotillas you can have and the rules allowing the manipulation of this and the manipulation of the limits.
| By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, June 28, 2017 - 09:22 pm: Edit |
Turtle:
Two CVAs (assuming two squadrons each), can be fielded at any time, but half of one CVA's assigned fighters must be held in the bay...
Quote:(302.334) No more than three total ship equivalents of fighters and/or PFs can be included in any one Battle Force. This limit does not apply to fighters and PFs assigned to PDUs and bases in the same Battle Force as their base, nor does it apply to “hybrid” fighters. One carrier in the Battle Force could leave up to one-half (round down) of its fighters out of the Battle Force. The fighters left out of the Battle Force cannot be voluntarily given up as casualties, but if the carrier is destroyed, the fighters would be considered homeless.
| By Michael Alan Calhoon (Mcalhoon2) on Thursday, June 29, 2017 - 02:38 am: Edit |
Additionally, one or more of the CVA/SCS's squadrons could have made a fighter strike into another hex if the CVS/SCS moved into a hex with enemy units and was not pinned. The squadron would not be present for the battle in this case.
The E3A SWAC fighter control mission could allow an SCS's third squadton of F18s into the battle.
| By Jeffrey Tiel (Platoaquinas) on Thursday, June 29, 2017 - 04:32 pm: Edit |
Thanks, everyone. MOST helpful.
Jeff
| By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, July 04, 2017 - 03:02 pm: Edit |
In Q+A discussion, Nick wrote:
>>I think the key phrase in (308.101) is "rather than using these rules"
If you cripple/destroy the group as a whole, you don't use the GEDS rules, so you don't apply the escort bonus. Just use the group total defense values straight up.>>
Yeah, that is probably correct. "Rather than using these rules" is likely the key here. Thanks!
| By Byron Sinor (Bsinor) on Friday, July 07, 2017 - 11:29 am: Edit |
Ted, I saw your question about FSDs (443.3)
I think you have a misconception. Its not possible for a Lyran starbase to be part of the Klingon main supply grid or vice versa. Assuming the 1407 Lyran starbase is within 6 of a lyran supply point that has a route to either the Lyran capital or OM areas, then it would be "within" the Lyran main grid and not part of the Klingon grid at all. It may be that Farlan, which IS part of the Klingon main grid is in the same hex, but that doesn't put the Lyran Starbase "within" the klingon main grid. Main grids can overlap geographically for allies and seemingly interpenetrate for warring factions, as well. I mean there is no reason why an open hex can't be used for a supply route for both the Klingons and the Federation if neither side has ships there. The result being there could be grid connections that overlap greatly. I doubt it would come up often, but it is certain possible.
Long winded answer to come up with, I don't think this would be legal even though the klingons and lyrans can use each other fighters, only a Lyran FSD can be deployed to a Lyran Starbase and only the Lyrans can build it, would be my answer. But Klingon FSD can still supply Lyran carriers and vice versa.
| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, July 07, 2017 - 02:18 pm: Edit |
Byron,
I think you're right. But it all depends on how you define ""within" the main supply grid." I'm pretty sure "within" means what you wrote - a given race's grid is its network of bases, planets, and (in a limited way) tugs, convoys, etc and you have to be "within" that gird to build a FSD.
However, if "within" simply means "within range of", then things change. The Klingons could put one of their FSDs on a Lyran base in the example I gave.
Like I said, I strongly suspect that "within" means what you suggested. However, I think it's worth a shot, as it's pretty reasonable the Klingons and Lyrans could cooperate in this way given their close alliance and shared fighters. Note that no other two empires could do this (that I can think of) because they don't share the same fighter types like the Klingons and Lyrans do. (Fed and Gorn maybe?)
Anyway, I think 443.3 should read "part of the main grid" instead of "within the main grid" if you want to more clearly convey the notion you wrote down. But that is a matter of sophistry that I won't argue over.
I don't currently have a dispute with anyone over the interpretation of this rule, but the idea occurred to me. Given that I thought that it was a long shot in the first place, I decided to ask in advance just in case I had hit upon an interesting little tool in the Coalition bag.
I have no investment in whatever ruling comes down.
-T
| By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, July 07, 2017 - 05:59 pm: Edit |
I see no enabling rule that would permit any foreign structure (FSD) to be mounted to another empire's base. Am I missing something here?
| By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, July 07, 2017 - 06:34 pm: Edit |
By Jeffrey Tiel (Platoaquinas) on Friday, July 07, 2017 - 01:18 pm: Edit
I have several off-map areas questions:
1. The rules on off map areas state that allied off map areas can never "connect," meaning, I take it, that if the Kzintis were to deploy a MB in the Federation off-map area that that MB would not be connected as part of the supply network for the Kzintis. Is this correct?
2. A benefit from deploying said MB in Fed space would be to enable strategic movement for Kzinti ships between off map areas that would not require also using up Federation strategic movement points. Is this correct?
3. Once the Kzintis deploy said MB in the Fed off-map area, if their ships begin the turn on said base, they are all in-supply because they are beginning the turn on a base. Is this correct?
4. The Kzintis may enter Fed space still in supply from their off-map base so long as they don't extend beyond the appropriate hex range. Is this correct?
5. The Kzintis engaging in combat in Fed space having begun on their base are in supply both for combat and for retrograde back to their base. Is this correct?
6. The Kzintis receive replacement fighters upon returning to their base after retrograde. Is this correct?
7. If the Kzintis left ships in Fed space at the end of the turn, would they be in supply? Or would supply require the availability of EPs at the MB?
Thanks,
Jeff
| By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, July 07, 2017 - 06:44 pm: Edit |
This commentary ignores the rule that Kzinti bases cannot be in the Fed offmap because their are some issues with some of the conclusions (if you COULD put a Kzinti base in a Fed offmap area)
1) Probably. If the Kzinti have a network of on map bases/planets that connect the Fed offmap to the Kzinti supply grid onmap (which you cannot actually do normally as the Kzinti can't have a base in the Fed offmap) then I think the Kzinti would be connected. Assume for the following points that the Kzinti did not make this supply chain.
2) I think this is correct.
3) The Kzinti ships would be in supply because they can be stacked with an allied (star)base (the Federation SB in the Fed offmap).
4) This is only correct for Kzinti units that are supplied by paying for the supply (ie 1 EP for 5 ships). This can only be paid in the eco phase.
5) The Kzinti ships are in supply for combat. They are only in supply for retrograde (from the offmap base) if they paid for supply (see point #4 above).
6) No, they don't. Even if supplied as per point #4. Paying for supply provides fighters only in the eco phase when the payment is made.
7) Only if they were in supply as per point #4 above (which would require EPs at that MB).
| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, July 07, 2017 - 07:05 pm: Edit |
Chuck, the enabling rule would be 443.3 itself. The argument being made is that the term "within" in rule 443.3 means "physically within". In other words, the Lyran base in that example is "within" (within range of) the Klingon supply grid and thus the Lyrans could host a Klingon FSD, just like the Lyrans could supply allied Klingon ships on the base.
Quote:I see no enabling rule that would permit any foreign structure (FSD) to be mounted to another empire's base. Am I missing something here?
| By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Friday, July 07, 2017 - 07:15 pm: Edit |
Also 1407 is within range of 809/810 ...
| By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, July 07, 2017 - 07:28 pm: Edit |
The rule states that one empire cannot build a base in another empire's off-map area...
Quote:(433.412) Permission from the host player is required before a base can be built in allied territory. Such a base would facilitate supply, allow Strategic Movement, and repair ships. This could be in the same hex as a host country base; see (433.411). Also see (510.13). Bases cannot be built in allied off-map areas. Also see (652.12).
| By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, July 07, 2017 - 07:56 pm: Edit |
I saw that in Q&A Chuck. I saw some points that I thought could nevertheless use some clearing up so contributed some opinions. :p
| By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, July 07, 2017 - 08:00 pm: Edit |
REF: Fighter Depots added to Another Empire's Base
See ruling in Q&A
=============
Unless overruled by ADB, support depots can only be added to bases of the same empire.
FEDS SENDS
| By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, July 07, 2017 - 08:42 pm: Edit |
Turtle posted:
Q319.0 A Base has sent it's fighters into an adjacent hex to conduct an offensive fighter strike under the rules. Can a SAV use it's fighters to replace any fighters lost by the base in question should combat last more than one round? SAVs are prohibited from conducting offensive fighter strikes under (319.13). The are not prohibited from transferring their fighters to another carrier or base in the same hex as combat loses under (501.61) and (513.1). See also (445.21) regarding FSDs and FCRs (526.31).
| By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, July 07, 2017 - 08:43 pm: Edit |
If I recall correctly, it has been ruled within the last year or two that fighter strikes can only replenish fighters between rounds via FSDs and FCRs.
| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - 08:42 pm: Edit |
This was asked in Q&A. I believe the rule is dispositive of this question.
Quote:Is it permissible for races which capture ships to convert said captured ships into special one-off enemy units? For example, could the Klingons convert a captured Fed CA into the one time CAD?
Quote:(305.45) CONVERSIONS: It can be converted to anything the original owner could convert it to, except a mauler, tug, or carrier. The cost of conversion is double what the original owner would pay. The ship could be stored indefinitely and used later for Options 2, 3, or 4, or it could be given or sold to an allied empire. A cloaked ship loses its cloak; a ship captured by Romulans gains a cloak.
| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - 08:43 pm: Edit |
Also note the limits in 305.41:
Quote:A captured drone ship cannot use long-range fire support unless the capturing empire is a drone-using empire (Fed, Klingon, Kzinti).
| Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation |