Archive through June 03, 2019
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Federation & Empire: F&E QUESTIONS:
F&E Q&A Discussions:
Archive through June 03, 2019
I don't think they can be A20s or STXs.
Richard, you correct about the STX under (523.541).
The fighters of the Fed FCRs can be A-20s. (526.36) specifically states they cannot carry F-111s.
>>Peter, the 6 represents a total of 6 fighter factors not a number of fighters, be they standard, heavy or Fed special (F-14, F-15). They can be anytype of fighter except F-111s which have special designated FCRs.>>
While I suspect you are correct, the rules don't actually say one way or the other, and could easily go either way here, given what FCRs represent (i.e. six cargo boxes of fighters, which is either 12 regular fighters or 6 heavy fighters, and in F+E, 6 heavy fighters have 8 attack factors).
I mean, the easy answer is certainly "You get 6 fighter factors from an FCR". But it also might have been established at some point that [6] FCR factors become 8H on a heavy fighter carrier, due to efficient staff officers, and as noted, the rules I have do not clarify one way or the other (although I was just reading the old 2003 AO; perhaps I'll dig up the more recent FO rules).
There is DEFINITELY no rule or ruling that says 6 FCR fighters can become 8H.
Also note the specific existence of heavy fighter FCR pods (and A20 specific heavy fighter pods) which at least imply that conversions from heavy fighters to fighters and vice versa might not be allowed. The Feds also have an A20 FCR based on the DW.
I don't have time to go read the rules for this in depth but now that's on my to-do.
A20 reference is (532.121).
>>There is DEFINITELY no rule or ruling that says 6 FCR fighters can become 8H.>>
Huh. Do we think that has ever come up before?
I mean, yeah, again, like, the obvious easy answer is "[6] transferred to a CVH gets you 6H fighter factors". And if that is the end result, that is the end result. But weirder things have happened in this game.
If you are a Kzinti FCR in SFB, you got 6 hull boxes. Those can be filled with 12 TAAS (regular) fighters, or 6 HAAS (heavy) fighters. Those 12 TAAS are 6 fighter factors in F+E; those 6 HAAS fighters are 8 fighter factors in F+E.
So, well, I'm fine either way. But I could certainly see the logic to letting the [6] fighters on an FCR "magically" become 8H when transferred to a CVH.
I think that would probably require rules additions to F&E to _pay_ for those extra 2 fighter factors in such a case though perhaps a thing wouldn't happen due to record keeping requirements.
That said, there's no rule like that in F&E at the moment, for sure.
FCR replacement rules excluding Tug Pods:
All Heavy Fighters except F-111s (527.0) and A-20s (532.0) use (530.121)
Federation F-111s (526.36) and (527.25)
Federation A-20s (532.121)
Federation F-101s (532.121)
Hydran STX's see (523.541).
Based on the rule references provided above it is my conclusion that:
An 1 FCR factor is a fighter factor of 1, 1H, 1Y, or 1V excluding Federation F-111s and Hydrans STXs and otherwise dependent of the type of fighter being replaced on a given carrier or other allowed ship carrying fighters.
NOTE: (527.0), (530.0) and (532.0) all have a specific rule dealing with the production of tug pods that turn a given tug into an FCR without the ability to act as an emergency escort.
Ruling issued in Q&A - also posted below.
=================
Unless overruled by ADB, per (530.121), one standard FCR FACTOR [1] can replace either one standard fighter FACTOR (1) or one heavy fighter FACTOR (1H), (1V), (1Y) unless specifically prohibited by rule.
FEDS SENDS
Fair enough. That is nice and clear.
Moved from Q+A:
>>A somewhat rambling and inconclusive answer.
The SFB Master Ship Chart does have an SPV entry, but lists the product as "future," so no help there as to whether or not a V module is something other than a B module with different ready racks. The later situation being the case for almost all other conversions of carriers to use heavy fighters. IF the V and B modules are different, that makes it an actual conversion that would be done at a base, just like all other modular conversions.
Oddly, SFB R4.15 lists one of the valid fighter groups for a SPB as 6 heavy and 4 standard fighters, which would be 8H2 if F&E terms. No such F&E ship exists at this time, however.>>
Well, none of this is particularly covered in F+E; the basic "Regular carrier with 6 fighters to heavy fighter carrier with 8H fighters" conversion takes just the application of 4EPs (or 2 free fighter factors) and no need for a base or conversion capacity, and any appropriate carrier on the map becomes a heavy fighter carrier.
Right, the Romulans were, ahem, blessed with the SPB (8 fighters) to the SPV (8H fighters). And the history of the conversion factors seemed to be:
-In AO when originally published in 2003, SPB>SPV cost 0+2 (which is unclear as to what that meant; could you use one free fighter for that? But irrelevant now).
-At some point, the online SIT changed the cost to 1+4 (a 1 point conversion, plus 4 points of fighter costs, I guess?). But that seemed to have changed (I found references to this in my online archive hunting).
-The current online SIT just as it costing 1EP to change the SPB with 8 fighters to SPV with 8H fighters, and no extra fighter cost.
So I'm not quite sure what needs to happen to make the SPB into an SPV; I mean, it could just be "spend an EP, and an SPB is magically an SPV with no conversion capacity or base needed". Or, it could need a conversion. Unclear.
If I recall correctly, in 2003 we did AO before we updated the old Carrier War module to Fighter Operations. Prior to that, F&E didn't use heavy fighters with HF factors, so we still didn't have the data to properly crosscheck ourselves.
The dilemma is that ADB is reluctant to change counter factors unless it is vitally important to do so.
Hi, there!
Quick question for dummies regarding capital assaults.
Is there a rule requiring the attacker to go for the outer planets first and the real homeworld later?
All game reports on the BBS talk about devastating the outer planets first and then facing the homeworld defenses later.
Yet, the capital assault/multi hex attack procedure says that the attacker can form his battleforces anywhere or nowhere as he chooses.
Background for the question:
My friend Joern and I started a game were his Kzinti capital is under attack by my coalition. In anticipation that I would go for the outer worlds first, he deployed his static forces at Keevarsh, Vronkett and Vielsalm but not at Kzintai.
Then I ignored the outer worlds and went for the Kzintai system first where I only faced half of his Kzinti fleet and the local planetary defenses with my full strength coalition fleet.
We guess, we learned the hard way of an unexpected fatal error during the defense of a capital system, right?
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Soeren Klein
No there is no requirement for attacking "outer" planets first.
Generally, the thinking by defenders is: Do they have enough to take the capital? If, no, then try to cause as much damage to the coalition fleet as possible while they wreck my economy.
Remember, the Kzinti capital provides 32 EPs, 20 via the majors, and 12 via the minors, or 1/3 of the original Kzinti EPs.
If a defender over commits to defending the outer world and you are able to klll all the PDUs and the Starbase on Kzintai then your job of taking the capital hex just became a lot easier.
>>Is there a rule requiring the attacker to go for the outer planets first and the real homeworld later?
All game reports on the BBS talk about devastating the outer planets first and then facing the homeworld defenses later. >>
As noted, no. You can go immediately to the Homeworld.
Often, the Coalition will raid the outer planets to reduce defenses and lower economy while they amass forces to hit the actual homeworld (usually, say, when attacking the Kzinti capital on T2 or T3), and they don't want to get completely mangled when they don't have enough to actually fight over homeworld defenses.
That being said, I am a big proponent of "Go hit the homeworld first, strip the PDUs, then go get the other planets", as killing the PDUs on the homeworld means you can leave, repair ships, and then go back to fight over the capital starbase, and they can't rebuild PDUs in the interm (as they need to set up a PDU for a turn if there aren't already PDUs on the capital).
Thanks, Thomas and Peter!
We guessed so, but wanted to know for sure.
We were both puzzled here when we prepared for capital assault "outer planets first", when I saw the opportunity to hit Joerns home planet. Joern, while having have his fleet sitting on the sideline and myself thinking "why haven't we thought of it before in our games?".
And yes, it became a lot more easier on coalition turn 6 to roll over the Kzinti defenses after I devastated the whole Kzintai system on turn 5 taking their ability to repair any warships on alliance turn 5 (atleast at their capital). Joern evacuated his FRDs on his turn 4 to the Barony.
Thanks again, guys.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Soeren Klein
Soeren - just checking you didn't get something wrong.
The SB at the capital unless crippled/killed would still be able to repair ships.
The Mobile Kzinti ships would be able to defend the capital - which one would expect to be 20+ ships plus.
Already crippled Kzinti ships would also start at the Capital (as it has the highest number of PDU's normally).
Lastly - once the PDU's were and SB were dead and planet devastated, the attacker has to attack a different planet if there is no required defending force (i.e. the attacker can't force the defender to send mobile ships to defend a defenceless planet with a small force when other forces remain in other systems).
Certainly only facing half the Kzinti navy to kill the PDU's and SB would make it easier though!
Hi, Paul!
I am afraid none of these errors happend.
The Kzinti had 74 SEQ , 14 PDUs, 2 MBs and 1 SB alltogether with about 250 fighter factors total in their capital hex and faced a coalition armada of 160 warships with (only) 37 fighter factors.
Kzintai had its natural planetary defenses with 37 Kzinti warships from their mobile fleet with about 10-20 cripples from earlier turns.
The coalition fuoght the Kzinti for 18 rounds until all planetary defenses including the SB were killed and the coalition withdrew.
Losses (cripples):
K: 5xD6M; D5V; 2xF5E; 13xiff; (C8; 6xD7; D6M)
L: 3xDN; STT; 2xCW; STJ; DW; DDG; FF; 5xiff; (2xBC; CC; 10xCW; 6xDW; 3xDD; DDG; HFF)
Z: SB; 14PDU; 2xMB; DN; CC; CC(depot); TCB; STT; CM; CM(depot); MDC; CLD; 3xFF; 3xFF(depot); SF; SDF; FFG; 3xEFF; EFF(depot); FKE; 45xiff; (3xCV; BC; 2xCVL; MEC; 2xCLE; 2xFKE) + a huge number of DB points
(iff = independent fighter factors from undestroyed carriers or FCRs)
Next turn the coalition came back with 138 SEQ drove of the remaining Kzinti fleet of 63 warships (survivors, repairs from the Barony and new builts as the shipyard can only be destroyed by taking the whole hex) back to the Barony and devastated the whole capital hex:
CT6 losses (cripples):
K: D7(depot); D6D; D6D(depot); D6G(depot); 3xD5; F5L; F5L(depot); 3xF5; F5V; E4A; E4A(depot); SAF; 15xiff; (8xD7; D6M; 2xD6D; 2xD6J; 5xD5; D5S; F5L; 6xF5; 3xE4; E4A)
L: BC; STT; 4xCW; CW(depot); HFF; 4xFF; (DN; BC; CC; TCB; 9xCW; DD; HFF; 9xFF)
Z: DND; CV; 2xCC; 2xBC; TCB; 2xCM; DD; 2xFFK; SDF; 2xFCR; 2xEFF; 5xPOL; APT; LAD; 2xLAV; 2xSAD; SAV; 18xPDU; 43xiff; (2xCV; 2xCM; CLD; CVE; 5xCLE; FKE; SF; 4xEFF; FCR; )
A bloodbath which might be repeated at Hydrax on CT7 if i can muster enough warships. Still thinking of sparing the federation for 1 turn.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Soeren Klein
In a capital assault battle, the problem is that those fixed defenses do not count against command limits. So you have a 100-point fleet, and he has a 100-point fleet, and he has XX-points of ground bases. The customary way to devastate/capture the place is to kill the ground bases first. (In theory if you have 500 ships and he has 20 you can try to run him out of ships first. Either way, the objective is that the 3rd and later battle rounds face a smaller enemy force.)
Often, it's easier to attack the outer planets first and kill their PDUs which cuts down the number of fighters zipping around the system.
Soeren
I think it's fair to say the Coalition took the 'average' amount of pain to destroy the fixed defences....so no harm done in misreading the rules 
From your original post, it seemed to indicate the Coalition got a free run at the PDU's and SB.
As SVC said - Capital Assault are designed to be painful..... and other than politely asking the Coalition not to attack - their is nothing the Alliance can do to stop 1401 or 617 falling (and very little to stop both being captured).
...But you have mentioned the one thing the Alliance can do...which is buy the Federation a turn or 2 before being attacked.
There probably isn't a single turn change even as close as the difference between a Coalition attack on Turn 7 and a Coalition attack on Turn 8.
So - the Alliance shouldn't feel too unhappy
The Kzinti ship losses look huge for a capital defense.
It looks like they aren't just taking cripples, but their fleet was basically destroyed.
That implies a second mistake other than putting the static forces on outer planets. Did you see the partial retreat rules?
Hey, Douglas!
For the one side I took the the freedom of facing only half the Kzinti forces to direct on several of the bigger warships instead of going for the planetary defenses. So much for the bigger kills.
With my numerical superiority I figured I got time.
The smaller kills resulted from the auto-kill rule.
We might have to reread it. The way we played it every time you reach 100+ compot, an enemy ship got killed. Either self-killed or directed. Not sure right now if that was the correct way.
Partial retreat: Yeah, we know of that rule, but might also have to look more closely at it. Basically it says, that we can retreat part of our forces out of the capital, right? So the Kzinti could have withdrawn their warships leaving the planetary defenses alone, as we understand it.
Three possible major tactical errors.
Well, it is a huge game and we learn it the hard way. Not our first or even worst case of misreading the rules. Mostly minor things, but if it comes really bad, then we keep the error as a houserule for the present game and have something learned for our next.
It's a fun way of doing so.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Soeren Klein
Douglas
Didn't notice the high level of Kzinti losses.
Turn 5
18 Dead Coalition v 23 Dead Kzinti (Plus SB and PDU's)
32 Crippled Coalition v 11 Crippled Kzinti
108 Dead Coalition Fighters v 270 Dead Kzinti Fighters
Soren - what directing took place, as it seems the Coalition did a lot more damage than the Kzinti - which shouldn't happen.
A Homeworld assault should perhaps see 2:1 casualties (as the attacker has to kill the PDU's first) - possibly more if the defender does well early on and the attacker has to self kill ships?
Turn 6
28 v 22 Dead (Ignoring Aux ships - but how come so many died - slow retreat will kill most, but an escorted LAV or two will soak up a lot of damage?)
53 v 18 Crippled
90 v 258 Fighters
Same question - but perhaps the attacker will take +15% to 25% damage -Minor planets add very little and Majors might hold out for 2 rounds before losing all PDU's (and noting each planet can take 10 damage after the PDU's die)
Couple of questions - how did the Lyrans get so many fighters into 1401 on turn 5 as they have no true carriers until turn 6?
Did the Kzinti roll really really badly when compot was high?
As Douglas has mentioned - the number of dead Kzinti seem to be a lot higher than they should be - especially in good hulls and Carriers.
Also - how come CV's died - but no Heavy Escorts (i.e. MEC and CLE's) did - and how did the FCR's die?
Lastly - and perhaps this might be crucial, the double whammy effect of the partial retreat rules is that the attacker can't easily kill crippled defending ships (I could have killed a crippled 3CV group in my game with William - but with a full defending line, SB and 10 PDU's - the cost was too high) - but also, the ships can partially retreat to the Barony and get repaired - which might have happened.
So what happened?
Thanks
Soren - Ahhh - I think I can see where you went wrong...
Auto Kill rule only happens with 4 events happening
1) Compot being over 100 (which you got right)
2) Combined BIR's+VBIR is 5
3) You roll a true or net of modifiers 6
4) No directing takes place
I am guessing 3 and 4 may not have been utilised?
The Auto kill rule is hard on the Alliance (as they have less ships, but normally the Coalition will direct on a Base or key ship, which makes it more neutral)…. so forcing the Kzinti to Self Kill a ship each round, is just brutal on the Kzinti.
Partial Retreat Rules -Yes and No.
The defender can choose to withdraw some ships and leave others - and continue to fight with the remaining ships.
99% of players use this rule to safely retreat Crippled ships out of the Capital - so they can't be directed on (as they can be vulnerable if left in the hex).
The other 1% of players will retreat uncrippled ships to an adjacent hex where the battle is yet to be resolved
But basically, it allows the Defender to cripple units (say an entire CVS group) - and then safely retreat them - i.e. resolving a fair amount of damage and for the Kzinti repair them in the Barony, for use the next turn.