I have always operated under the impression that everything that appears in Captain's Log, whether for SFB, F&E or other games, is for playtesting. It is not officially published until it appears in an R-module, an F&E expansion, or the like.

By Jeffrey Tiel (Platoaquinas) on Thursday, July 27, 2017 - 01:04 pm: Edit

(503.52) makes provision for the Orion enclave to be subject to attack as well as remain neutral to the Federation/Klingon conflict. I've been looking for a similar rule concerning the LDR. I've found only a reference to a Hydran diplomat having to be inside the LDR for it to remain neutral, as well as the rule allowing Lyran ships to use LDR BATS for repairs once the Hydrans are expelled from the map. But is there any rule allowing the Lyrans to attack the LDR? And if there is, is the LDR planet once captured subject to the same rules governing long term capture and annexation as any other captured planet, or would it be treated as a recaptured friendly planet?

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, July 27, 2017 - 01:13 pm: Edit

Kosta, I can see that argument. But what about rules changes that appear in CL? Also, there are *so* many rulings in CL and here on the BBS that are "officially" made part of the game that aren't in a published product until many years later due to the time required to get out a new product.

If that is OK, then why would it not be OK to add new ships in the same manner?

To be honest, I don't really care what the answer is. I'd just like to know where the line is.

Overall, what is so frustrating to me is the HUGE number of rules and rulings, as well as outright additions and changes, in CL and on this BBS that is required to play the game "officially".

You can't just open the rule book and play the game by the rules. You have to find the errata and addenda in one of two difficult-to-search sources (CL and BBS).

I know the practical limitations that ADB is working under, but I *yearn* for the day when the integrated Warbook is published....

By A. David Merritt (Adm) on Thursday, July 27, 2017 - 01:26 pm: Edit

Something that would help would be a single web page on the main site that lists all current rules changes, regardless of source. A single document like that would reduce the chances of missing something.

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Thursday, July 27, 2017 - 03:09 pm: Edit

The Q&A Archives are one level up in this section. That contains all the CapLog Q&A answers.

For rules themselves, A three digit rule (504) is an official rule, A mixed character (5AA) is playtest.

By A. David Merritt (Adm) on Thursday, July 27, 2017 - 04:16 pm: Edit

Ryan;
RE: Errata, Official Rulings location;
While true that they are in the above topic, that only really helps those of us who participate on this forum. An official one stop shop on the Starfleet Games Homepage, like the errata section used to be, would be better for those who play the game but do not follow these threads. A reference there to come here, with a link should be fine, but if we want new players, this sort of information should be more easily found.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, July 28, 2017 - 01:22 pm: Edit

F&E Community:

With the removal of CEDS and removal of production limits for carrier escort can anyone cite any reason to have carrier escorts SPECIFIED on the production schedules? What is now gained by having the escorts listed on the production schedules?

Ref: (433.45) "There are no production limits for carrier escorts."

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, July 28, 2017 - 01:26 pm: Edit

Chuck,

The only reason I can think of is for historical reasons; i.e., it's a legacy (and not just for the game, but also historically within the game).

Other than that... /me shrugs.

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Friday, July 28, 2017 - 01:47 pm: Edit

Chuck,

Are you asking about the escorts listed on the production schedules?

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, July 28, 2017 - 02:34 pm: Edit

Yes.

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Friday, July 28, 2017 - 11:51 pm: Edit

Well, escorts are typically listed with carriers in the production schedule. In the notes, it states:

---

Quote:

Escorts: (515.53)
Escorts may be substituted for their base hull without limitation.

---

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, July 29, 2017 - 12:45 am: Edit

Garth:

If the rules NOW state that there are no production limits on ESCORTS then there is NOW no reason to have them specified on the OOB; one can build as many as escorts as one wants.

The OLD rules limited production of escorts but the elimination of CEDS changed that.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Saturday, July 29, 2017 - 12:57 am: Edit

One builds extra escorts so that if some are lost on the phasing player's turn, the carriers can have replacement escorts in the non-phasing player's upcoming turn.

One might want extra escorts to overstuff existing carrier groups or to escort auxiliaries or units that can be escorted in non-carrier groups.

One might also want to provide improved escorts for existing carriers, for example, the Kzintis might have a CVS CL EFF group and wish to upgrade it to be a CVS MEC DWE FKE group at a later point.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, July 29, 2017 - 01:57 am: Edit

What difference does it make if the OLD schedule states EFF vs just NOW say FF?

Can we just replace the OLD scheduled EFF with FF?

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Saturday, July 29, 2017 - 02:34 am: Edit

I don't have too much problem with it.

For the Hydrans, replacing escorts (or carriers) with specific ship changes things a little.

As it is, you can sub CA/DD/FF for hydran carriers and escorts (and thereby choose fusion or hellbore). If this is changed to standard units, I imagine the type would be specified as well (ie UH DE 2AH might change to 2LN 2HN or perhaps an HR instead of the UH). Keeping in mind that whatever the Hydran production schedule becomes it probably should not have more than 3 CW type ships on it.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, July 29, 2017 - 04:37 am: Edit

Specified carriers on the production schedules cannot be changed as they are not counted as substitutions or conversions, so let's not talk about carriers.

Based upon the Hydran schedules, if DEs can be listed as KNs and AHs can be listed as CUs, then my question is does this cause any issues?

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Saturday, July 29, 2017 - 04:56 am: Edit

---

Quote:

Can we just replace the OLD scheduled EFF with FF?

---

By William Phillips (Praetor) on Saturday, July 29, 2017 - 09:33 am: Edit

1. If running 651 The Grand Campaign, does 603.1 still apply?
2. What other rules are applicable or suspended?
3. Would the OOB and setups need to be reset between scenarios, or can the game continue as a semi-historical campaign ?

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, July 29, 2017 - 11:47 am: Edit

Garth:

Under the current rules, if your schedule has 12xFF on it, then you can freely substituted them ALL for 12xFFE. If your schedule has 11xFF and 1xFFE then you can still build a total of 12xFFE. Rule (433.45) states: "There are no production limits for carrier escorts." This means that you can ALWAYS substitute a FF for FFE, DD for DDE, CW for CWE, etc.

Under the old CEDS rules one was limited to the number of escorts produced via substitution.

The NOW OBSOLETE rule from the F&E-2000 stated:

---

Quote:

(433.453) Beyond the above, each race can make up to three additional substitutions of carrier escorts for standard warships without counting these against conversion slots; they would count against production slots.

---

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, July 29, 2017 - 12:01 pm: Edit

Garth see (431.72). Scouts, drone ships, commando (troop or G) ships, and most actual carriers have specific limits on both conversion and substitutions. Escort ships, with the exception of FCRs, do not have a limit on the number that can be built or converted except as limited by the availability of hulls to be built, conversion facilities, and/or EPs on a given turn.

Chuck, the only issues I see are with Fed NCL/DDs and Hydran DEs and AHs. Are the Fed DEs listed as DD or NCL once this is done? Are the Hydran DEs listed as DD and the AHs listed FF, indicating than can be built as KN or LN and CU or HN indicating that the owning player has a choice under (431.734) or are they listed as KN or LN and CU or HN? Given (709.221) in the Master F&E Order of Battle I would suggest the DE be listed as KN and the AH be listed as CU as the OOB substitutions imply than you can replace a hellbore ship with a fusion ship at any time but not vice versa.. Other escorts would go from F5E to F5 or MEC to CM, or SKE to SK.

By James Lowry (Rindis) on Saturday, July 29, 2017 - 12:48 pm: Edit

Yeah, I've been figuring for a while all the carriers and escorts could probably just be listed as their base hulls, and let the players figure out what they want to do (like which turn of the year the Feds want to pay for a CVA).

But Thomas is right that that there's a few hull oddities left on the schedule thanks to the current setup. Right now, the Feds have a CL and 2 DD slots in place of 2xNCL each spring in the basic schedule (in AO the extra slot goes away in the Y175 reshuffle). The CL should probably be left as-is (other than being shifted from ECL), while the DEs are a bit more questionable.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, July 29, 2017 - 01:10 pm: Edit

Fed DEs on the schedule can be listed as DD based upon the current rules.

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Saturday, July 29, 2017 - 01:16 pm: Edit

Chuck, I got that part. You didn't answer my question: does that allow someone to build no escorts at all? And if so, what impact might that have on the game??

More questions: I have F&E core rules Rev 4, dated 2000. What is the current REV # / date??

Where was rule (433.453) rescinded? In a newer core rules, or in a later module?

Are you allowed to build a new carrier and not supply it with escorts, be it from new construction, conversions of existing ships, or adopting spares/orphans already in the fleet? Yes, I know standard warships can act as an escort if some of the "real" escorts are lost in combat. But if you have no spare escorts, can you forgo building escorts (or converting ships to escorts) for this newly-built carrier?


A question I'll answer: Which empires would such a change be needed for??

Answer: Federation, Kzinti, Hydran, and ISC. Those are the only empires who have carriers & escorts listed in the production schedule. All of the others build carriers / escorts as allowable substitutions.

Every Spring turn, the Federation builds a CVA and three escorts. Every-other turn, the Kzintis build a CV and two escorts. Up until Y172, the Hydrans build one CV or UH plus three escorts every-other turn. The ISC builds one CVA plus three escorts on Fall turns after Y184. That's it. All other carriers (and their escorts) are by-substitution (or conversion).

With the exception of the Kzinti CV (for which a standard BC may be substituted), it appears that ALL of the carriers listed in the above schedule MUST be built. In some cases, a smaller carrier may be substituted.

I think it would be confusing to list a mandatory carrier and NOT list its escorts on the schedule.

So, pardon me if I'm being dense, but I fail to see the point of your desire to remove escorts from the production schedule. I just don't see the "savings".


EDIT: Looks like I cross-posted with Turtle / etc.


Garth L. Getgen

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Saturday, July 29, 2017 - 01:19 pm: Edit

Again, the only reason I can see NOT to make this change is to add historical flavor to the game. It is *more efficient* to simply write "6*FF" on the production schedule. However, if historically one EFF was built, the build schedule can be listed as "5*FF, 1*EFF".

Either way, you can build 6*FF or 6*EFF or anything in between. The sole difference is "flavor". If you prefer efficiency, then go with "6*FF". If you want to keep historical flavor, leave well enough alone.

Either way, to me this issues falls under "whatever."

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Saturday, July 29, 2017 - 01:52 pm: Edit

Garth, I think the point is that if the production schedule lists "1*EFF" you can still build it as "1*FF" if you wanted to - so the idea is that it makes no difference whether you list the schedule as "6*FF" versus "5*FF, 1*EFF".

The "savings" is efficiency in drafting. It also doesn't lead less experienced players into thinking they have to build an actual EFF if they want to round out their builds and they're looking to shave an EP.