Ted, can you do that? I've been looking for the rule or production notes that says you can build an FF instead of the scheduled FFE / EFF, or DW for DWA, etc. I can't find it.

Another thing: except for the carriers / escorts listed in my above post, all production schedule if for standard warships (and command/leaders). Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are no other specialty ships listed in any production schedules for any empire. No scouts, drone-ships, maulers, PFTs, or anything else. Those are all built by substitution.

How about we just take carriers and escorts out of the schedule as well??? Get rid of them. List them in the allowable substitutions. Allow players to field a fleet with no carriers at all, of they want.

Because that's basically what Chuck is suggesting for escorts: allow a player to forgo building any escorts at all. Now, is that a good thing? Can it somehow be a bad thing?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EDIT TO ADD:

I just thought of the munchkin thing to do. In the early turns when the Federation has a boat load of money, build all your FFs and DDs as FFEs and DEs. Keep them stock piled as spares for later turns to replace combat losses, and for new carrier builds, when money is short.

No, I haven't crunched the numbers to see how valid of a tactic that is.


Garth L. Getgen

By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Saturday, July 29, 2017 - 02:30 pm: Edit

One situation I can think of where the escort version would need to be specifically listed is the two early production Kzinti DWEs. AFAIK those specifically cannot be replaced with plain DWs.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, July 29, 2017 - 03:26 pm: Edit

(431.72) CONVERSION: Existing ships can be converted into carriers or escorts within the rules (433.14), even during construction While there is a limit on the number of carriers built per turn, there is no limit on the number of escorts produced (by substitution, conversion, or the regular schedule).

(431.73) NON-CARRIERS: A player may replace a specified carrier or escort on the production schedule with equivalent standard warships. For example, a Federation CVA could be canceled and replaced by a DN.

(431.734) Each escort is replaced by the base hull type, e.g., a Hydran AH is replaced by an HN or CU, not a CR.

==========

Garth:

You can substitute your whole schedule for escorts if there is a legal substitution for the ship on the schedule.

You can choose to build NO escorts at all and build nothing but standard warships ships.

A player is NEVER required to build ANY escorts; he just suffers the consequences if he doesn't.

By A. David Merritt (Adm) on Saturday, July 29, 2017 - 03:34 pm: Edit

The biggest reason I see for not changing it, is as a gentle reminder for new player. i.e. These are really important, don't skip them. As to more experienced players who have a better idea of how the various systems interact, I suspect they already tend to read it as Chuck suggests.

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Saturday, July 29, 2017 - 04:14 pm: Edit

Okay, so if your argument, Chuck, for a reason to take escorts off the schedule is that it's a difference with no difference at all, based on the rule you quoted, the same could be said for the few carriers that are listed on the schedules, too. So why not simply delete carriers from the schedule and list them in allowed substitutions???? Seriously. It's the same thing, is it not?

By the way, what would the Federation ECL become?


Garth L. Getgen

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Saturday, July 29, 2017 - 06:57 pm: Edit

Chuck: KN/CU for Hydran escorts would be spiffy.

For ECL escorts, perhaps replace them as CLs? Looking at the schedule (which has CVA CLE 2DE 10NCL on the CVA turn, perhaps change it to DN CL 12NCL...) so that both halves of the turn have 12 NCL. Unless there's a note in SFB that the DD was retained in production in which case a DD should be on the production schedule.

************

I have, for years, done mass escort substitution on particular turns, notably for the Klingons on turn four (many AD5s/F5Es) and the Feds in early turns (many FFEs). There are no escorts provided in the initial OOB for carrier pods, so you're going to need escorts for those at the minimum.

This applies to the Kzintis as well, but as I do not favor FFEs they don't really have the hulls on the production schedule to do 'mass' escort production in a single turn (via substitution). The Hydrans are similar, but in their case I often do a lot of DE conversions from DDs in early turns. I try to avoid doing a lot of CL->CLE conversions for the Kzintis.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, July 29, 2017 - 08:25 pm: Edit

Let me make this clear -- replacing an escort on the schedule with its base hull is not the same as deleting it.

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Saturday, July 29, 2017 - 08:58 pm: Edit

I'm unclear on why we'd do this. It doesn't save any space on the OB charts.

By James Lowry (Rindis) on Saturday, July 29, 2017 - 09:51 pm: Edit

Ryan, the main reason would be to make them like everything else. i.e., you don't list scouts or troop ships, and then remember you can have the base hull instead if you want. You list the base hull types available to produce, and then the player figures out what conversions and substitutions he wants to do to those within the various limits—except that a few carriers and escorts are already listed as having been substituted.

It's not a big deal, and if it doesn't change, it's not going to be a problem. But it is inconsistent.

By Patrick Sledge (Decius) on Sunday, July 30, 2017 - 10:53 am: Edit

Personally, I think it makes sense to list the production in terms of base hulls, and let the player decide what substitutions they want to perform within the other rules.

Like James mentioned above, it's nice as a matter of consistency (though I'll fully admit, not earth-shattering either way).

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Sunday, July 30, 2017 - 11:41 am: Edit

Just one question, if I build a carrier am I still required to build escorts for it?

If not, this nullifies all the escort tables listed in the R-sections and R0.0E.

By James Lowry (Rindis) on Sunday, July 30, 2017 - 12:01 pm: Edit

No, you are not required to build any escorts, and no, it does not nullify anything in SFB.

The SFB escort tables tell you what the top levels of command decided was doctrine for carrier groups, and therefore what was available for you, as a task force commander, to use. In F&E you are the top brass, and are making the decisions that the task force commanders have to live with.

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Sunday, July 30, 2017 - 12:51 pm: Edit

Also in F&E if you put a carrier on the line and don't have escorts for it, one it's really vulnerable, and two each missing escort takes a command slot.

By Jeffrey Tiel (Platoaquinas) on Wednesday, August 02, 2017 - 06:59 am: Edit

I have a question about the meaning of a phrase within the retreat priorities, specifically (302.732) Priority 2, where it states "The player cannot select a hex containing a number of enemy units greater than the number of ships in his retreating force . . . _unless no other hex is available_." I'm emphasizing the "unless" clause because that is the source of my question. Does the "unless" clause have an absolute or a relative to the priority in question scope?

I'll illustrate the question's meaning with the situation: a Federation partial supply grid exists in provinces 3411 and 3413. The Federation controls both the Sixth Fleet SB as well as the devastated planet in 3612. The Federation has a fleet of 30 ships on the SB and a fleet of 40 ships on the planet. Both of these fleets are in supply because they are stacked with a friendly planet or SB in a partial supply grid. No EP has been spent to supply any of the ships in question, nor, obviously is there any route of supply open to the main supply grid in the capital.

Now, the Coalition has a fleet of 150 ships on the Sixth Fleet SB and a fleet of 70 ships on the minor at 3612 after movement is complete on the Coalition phase. Combat occurs at the minor planet first and the Federation player wishes to retreat his forces at the planet. He would like to go to the SB hex because it is his sole supply point given the rules about partial supply grids and unpaid for ships. But retreat priority 2 seems to say that he cannot go there because the total number of enemy units (150) exceeds his total number of ships (even if he were to add his 40 to the 30 on the SB). However, the "unless" clause specifies that he may ignore this relative-numbers-of-ships/units in the hex restriction if "no other hex is available." The question is what this restriction means. If taken absolutely, then there are plenty of open but out of supply hexes available. If taken relative to Retreat Priority 2, then there are no other hexes available _that are in supply_. So, does the fact that the SB hex is the sole hex where the retreating Federation force would be in supply activate the "unless" clause in priority 2? Or, because there are other hexes "available" in the sense that there are no enemy ships there, is the Federation player forced to go there even though doing so puts him out of supply?

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, August 02, 2017 - 08:30 am: Edit

For the purposes of retreat hex selection, supply is not a consideration at all until priority three is reached.

As your question revolves around priority two, supply is not a consideration.

So in this case, your retreating Fed force would not be able to retreat to the SB as priority two eliminates that hex regardless of the supply situation, which explicitly is not evaluated until priority three. So no matter how much you may want to, you cannot retreat to the SB in this case, unless all potential retreat hexes are eliminated (ie all adjacent hexes have enemy forces that outnumber you according to the procedure in priority two).

The sentence you question would only apply if you could not enter any other hex (presumably due to being a scenario special rule or because the hex is a neutral hex). For example, in the Hydran Liberation scenario (if I recall correctly), Klingons and Lyrans are not normally allowed to both be in the same hex.

If a Hydran force of 20 SEQs is in 0118, Klingons are in 0219 and 0219, then a 5 SEQ Lyran force in 0119 would have to retreat to 0118.

I'm not sure if there is any way for this sort of thing to occur if there are not some similar special scenario rules.

By Jeffrey Tiel (Platoaquinas) on Wednesday, August 02, 2017 - 10:41 am: Edit

Richard,

Thanks!

Jeff

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, August 09, 2017 - 05:35 pm: Edit

Thanks for quick ruling on ComCons.

My version of the rules didn't even have that retreat/retro clause. Clearly I have an older version of the rules....

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, August 09, 2017 - 05:43 pm: Edit

O Warbook, Warbook! Wherefore are thou Warbook?

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, August 10, 2017 - 03:09 pm: Edit

Ted:

Unfortunately, the F&E staff must wait for ADB to find time in their their already busy schedule to reformat and integrate errata for each module for us to begin any update process. I wish I had a better answer other than we must wait until they say that they have an opening for us and I have no idea when that will be...my apologies.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, August 10, 2017 - 06:09 pm: Edit

Chuck, oh, I *totally* grok the problem. I simply yearn...

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Saturday, August 12, 2017 - 09:35 am: Edit

On Richard's FFT question: I seem to recall a Q&A many years ago when I was playing Mike Parker and he argued that the minimum of 3 reduction in compot actually reduced the compot of an ad-hoc FFT to negative numbers. The ruling was the minimum compot is 0. Which presumed that FFTs could be used as ad hoc escorts.

That being said, maybe the underlying question was not addressed, or may have been addressed prior to F&E2010. If FFTs may not be used as ad hoc escorts under F&E2010, then the old ruling would simply be obsolete.

-T

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, August 20, 2017 - 06:30 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Sunday, August 20, 2017 - 06:06 pm: Edit

Turtle - how did you react the fighters then (no reaction unless there's an enemy ship within reaction range)?

---

By Rob Padilla (Zargan) on Monday, August 21, 2017 - 09:09 am: Edit

I don't think it can withdraw. Per the rule 302.131 you can withdraw half of your ships, rounded down. Which in your case would be 0.

And if you look at 302.133, you would also get stopped as you have to leave one of the three highest CR units behind, which again can only be the single ship since fighters do not have a command rating. And on top of that it specifically says fighters and PFs cannot be left behind unless their carrier and/or base is also left behind, and you can do that since the base is in a different hex.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, August 21, 2017 - 11:39 am: Edit

Note:

---

Quote:

(302.14) RETREAT: Any withdrawal or retreat by either player is
done using the procedures for Retreat given in Step 7 below. All
retreating ships go to the same hex; see (302.73); there is an
exception in the case of allied ships (302.761).
Full-strength groups of fighters or PFs (302.35) count as
“ships” for purposes of withdrawal. Note, however, that (302.72)
prohibits a carrier or PFT from leaving its fighters and/or PFs
behind.

---

By Jon Murdock (Xenocide) on Monday, August 21, 2017 - 11:44 am: Edit

My reading is also that you could do this. Of course you should only do it if you will not need them elsewhere. Would not want to be a fighter pilot there.

"I won't lie to you. Some of you won't be coming back. And the rest of you definitely won't."