Chuck wrote:
>>Of all the way to configure the Lyran JGP and Hydran LNH, what configurations do you use?>>

I have only ever seen or used the JGP in the carrier (V) configuration; they are made that way as soon as legal, are (is?) the only (non aux) CV the Lyrans have for a couple turns, continue to see combat as the Lyrans ramp up carrier production, and eventually just become de-facto FCRs (or possibly used in small battles against province garrisons).

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, August 02, 2019 - 10:14 am: Edit

I will add the note that Peter Bakija doesn't normally use ground combat rules and units in his games.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, August 02, 2019 - 02:46 pm: Edit

Ah, yes. That is also true; without G unit stuff, the various configurable ships generally end up as Carriers (JGV) or escorts (HDWs) I'd imagine most of the time. With G units in play, making them early ground attack ships certainly seems reasonable.

By Timothy Linden (Timlinden) on Friday, August 02, 2019 - 03:39 pm: Edit

I always have one JGP as a repair ship. Any others and LNH's generally are V carriers.

Tim Linden

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, August 02, 2019 - 04:32 pm: Edit

Yeah - the HDWF is good for the Gorn as is a good deal with their reduced field repair costs especially to fix any one cruiser in the field.

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Friday, August 02, 2019 - 09:19 pm: Edit

The following was brought from the Q&A section as it turned into a discussion. I edited the first, long paragraph to make it accurate to the rules after finding an error. You may want to review some of the recent Q&A entries to get current on the discussion. This began with my asking, "Can a Tholian planet or the Tholian capital planet support a web without a base being colocated?" and supporting my question with the appropriate rules quotes.

In this discussion I expect related tangents, but I'm focused on game playability.

I've found what I think are rules contradictions and either a logic flaw and/or rules omission, all of which focus on web rules interactions with the Seltorian's web breakers. Consider the following hypothetical scenario. A completely Klingon battle force is "in the web" and crippled after the previous combat round around the Tholian capital planet and SB after destroying the Tholian three ship minimum battle force with all their inflicted damage points. Assume those three ships were the last Tholian ships left in the hex, and two Klingon ships were destroyed opening slots for 2 Seltorian FFs in the next combat round's battle force. As only 1 Seltorian FF can be directed upon, the remaining FF will dissolve the web powered by the Tholian SB, and maybe the planet, allowing the surviving crippled Klingon ships to withdraw at the end of the next combat round allowing a fresh Klingon fleet and 1 more Seltorian FF (if one was destroyed by Directed damage) to attack next round with no web able to be reestablished and allowing the cripples to be withdrawn. All of this is within the letter of the rules. Also within the rules is that if the K-S fleet directs on the SB and destroys it, over however many rounds, while maintaining 2 Seltorian units (so one may be destroyed) to prevent web reestablishment, the web is dissolved and the Seltorian units are no longer needed.

I think that Tholian bases and PDUs/PGBs should have some "counts as X number of ships" value in rule (326.2). IMHO making this so would reestablish and reinforce the the game system's background continuity. The Seltorian BWs and AWs would still allow Seltorian victory in M81, and the Tholian bases/planet in this galaxy would simply require more Seltorian participation.

By chris upson (Misanthropope) on Friday, August 02, 2019 - 09:29 pm: Edit

JGP-G was my fave before, so good with the MMG. with the CLV competing effectively for lyran FFF? i feel like the G's a slam dunk.

LNHV is imo the only possibility. it's conspicuously cost-effective compared to other hydran carrier options.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Friday, August 02, 2019 - 11:37 pm: Edit

I don't remember if it's ever been spelled out exactly how large a Tholian sphere is supposed to be, but I vaguely recall a note to the effect of it being somewhat close to a "super-Earth" in size, with an artificial miniature star at its core. (There is a "destroyer of worlds" scenario in one of the Federation Commander modules, but there is as yet no scenario in Star Fleet Battles which provides more of an authoritative answer.)

In any case, it would seem to be "small" enough, if such a term can be fairly used to describe such an object, for a Tholian player to create a functional web around it in SFB (and thus in F&E) terms.


So far as actually powering said web goes, it's worth noting that, for much of the Holdfast sphere's existence in the Alpha Octant, there doesn't seem to have been much scope for "excess capacity", even to the level that a "fully-stocked" sphere back in the pre-Revolt home galaxy might have enjoyed. Indeed, the onus would instead have been on trying to secure the long-term structural integrity of the sphere itself. As an example of this, it's noted in SFB Module Y3 that the reason why the Holdfast Tholians cannot have Legendary Engineers on their ships prior to Y180 is because anyone showing that level of skill before this time would have been immediately drafted into the century-long project to repair and stabilize the containment system for the sphere's artificial sun.

To put it another way, it would seem that the sheer size of the sphere is not an indicator in and of itself as to how well it can maintain a surrounding set of web-based defences relative to the capacity of, say, a Holdfast-Tholian starbase. (Or, for that matter, that of an "open-air" Tholian-occupied planet such as Tholia Prime back in M81, or the Tholiax colony over in Draco.)


So far as where the sphere's resident starbase might be, that might depend on what kind of orbit the base has been set to, or if the base is at a "fixed" position beyond the sphere's gravity well. Again, I'm not sure if there is any SFB data which specifies this - or, for that matter, if both the base and planet are enmeshed in overlapping webs, or if each is far enough from the other so as to allow both of them to have their own "wedding cakes". For what it's worth, it's noted in the Capital Defenses article in Captain's Log #41 that the sphere is not in a star system, so there are no other planets nearby on which one could potentially place PDUs. Although would additional bases placed in the same hex still count as "planets" for the purpose of (511.5)?

The three "lost" Klingon colonies are somewhere in the same hex, but their presence is more or less abstracted into the sphere's own rules under "normal" circumstances.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, August 03, 2019 - 09:00 am: Edit

The JGP is good as a JGP-G with the MMG. Great for BATS busting against a weak defending force. Its higher compot helps to ensure you can cripple the BATS, before the G attack destroys it.

I've never gotten a chance to use the LNHs, although we may see them in the Empires of the Dead game. If so probably as carriers.

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Sunday, August 04, 2019 - 11:25 pm: Edit

Gary Carney, I haven't gotten deep into Federation and Commander yet, so anything published there would be out of my ability to look up.

The idea of the Tholian home sphere being super-Earth sized makes moving it from one galaxy to another less fantastic. It would also justify one starbase defending it as the starbase's weapons could fire beyond the sphere's exterior at targets not in the blind spot.

Your (511.5) question is answered in rule (302.212), and (511.21) says the Tholian capital has four defense brigades and is surrounded by web. (511.12) puts the starbase in the Tholian capital hex with the Tholian planet. (511.22) covers the former Klingon colonies.

One of the things I like to do is find rules interactions from multiple sources. Right now the Tholians, their web, and the Seltorians are my focus.

For example if bases are given "counts as X number of ships" numbers they can modestly defend themselves against the Seltorians without web tender support. With a modest fleet they could put the Seltorians at a numerical disadvantage in the (326.212) computation and require that the Seltorians go "in the web" (512.31) to destroy the Tholian ships until they have a numerical advantage (326.211). With multiple web tenders larger than the AWT, the Seltorians would need their AWs and BWs to gain the numerical advantage. Add to this the added AWT effect of reducing the enemy damage result by 4 (8 for the JWT, and tentatively 8 for the HWT and the HWT) in (539.41) and you could reduce the emeny's in web ship damage result to zero making the properly supported Tholian base or planet unassailable unless the enemy has multiple AWs/BWs and/or SAFs. The EW rules makes this even more plausible. Only SAFs can hit the base or planet if it is in the battle force (512.2), but the rules for SAFs do not provide for applying the 10 damage points to devastate a planet. The Klingon SFG units help the Klingons, but not too much in this described environment.

This would explain the why AWs and BWs have such high web breaker unit counts. The Seltorians would need them to break the web and win the battle.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Monday, August 05, 2019 - 01:02 pm: Edit

Moved here to discuss :-

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, August 05, 2019 - 10:37 am: Edit


Fed GVX Costs:

Ok, in the current, updated SIT, the production costs of the GVX are:

-For CA: 22+18 (F111's)

-From CX: 3+18 (F111's)

It seems non sensical that it costs 22 to build the ship outright, yet if you build a CX for 12 and then convert it to a GVX, it only costs 15 (plus F111's). I dug up the following suggested factors from 2017:

FEDS Recommended GVX Costs:
For CA: 22+18 Rationale: 12 X-ship + 5 Survey + 2 (two additional EW over std survey) + 3 (F-111 carrier surcharge) + 18 Ftrs
From CA: 16+18 Rationale: 6 (X conv) + 5 Survey + 2 (two additional EW over std survey) + 3 (F-111 carrier surcharge) + 18 Ftrs
From GSC/COV: 8+18 Rationale: 6 (X conv) + 2 (F-111 carrier surcharge) + 18 Ftrs
From CVL: 8+12 Rationale: 6 (X conv) + 2 (F-111 carrier surcharge) + 12 Ftrs

It seems like the CX>GVX should cost 10 (+5 survey, +2 EW upgrade, +3 F111 surcharge)?

As a counter to the above - is the build cost too high?

1) In a normal F&E Game - with only survey 5 turns left (build/survey next turn), who would send a very expensive ship on Survey?

(Yes you can do it - but why - it's the equivalent of sending a B10V to garrison a non attackable province?)
FEDS: There is no option for the Feds to build a "non-survey" GVX or even a CVL for that matter. As it stands now, that is what the rules say so if a player wants the GVX, then the player must pay the price listed in the SITs.

If a ISC/Post ISC game was done, there may be value in sending a GSX (or any X-Ship) off Map to Survey.
FEDS: This might be something to consider when we do AndroWar.

2) F111 Surcharge is similar - your spending 18 points on the fighters and so why pay an additional surcharge (the CVB pays a surcharge as they get to use better fighters with the whole game*)

* As a separate matter - perhaps the CVB surcharge should be reduced, as with so may carriers carrying more than 6 factors of fighters - the ability and value to carry 8 factors is much reduced (i.e. 3 x CVB's is 24 fighter factors, costing 72 Ep's for the Fighters - 2 x D5V and 1 x D6U has the same 24 fighter factors and only costs 48 Ep's).
FEDS: DOCTRINE.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Monday, August 05, 2019 - 01:50 pm: Edit

From an historical perspective, it may be worth noting that, according to the class history article for Star Fleet survey cruisers in Captain's Log #41 and the GVS's R-section entry from SFB Module X1R, the Powell was in fact sent to the Survey Area (with its F-111s swapped out for heavy transport shuttles) at the end of the General War, until it was recalled for duty against the Andromedans (and had its F-111s swapped back in) in Y190. Further, the ship was returned to the survey mission after the Andromedan War, though it retained the use of its F-111s by the time of its encounter with a Space Manta in the cover story for Captain's Log #40.

For that matter, that same article in CL41 lists introductory dates for the five named GSXs, along with notes as to where each of them was deployed. There is more detail on one such ship, the Sakharov, in an article in Captain's Log #51.

Actually, since an SIT entry for the GSX has been added to the most recent Federation SIT PDF, it might also be worth adding a potential conversion cost from a GSX to a GVX; historically, this was considered an option in light of the GVX's high success rate against Andromedan RTN nodes, though records are unclear as to whether it was actually done.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, August 05, 2019 - 03:31 pm: Edit

Paul,

Thanks for the move; I looked for a place to post that in the Fed SIT discussion, but couldn't find a working place to post. I think I clicked the wrong link and ended up in a locked forum.

>>1) In a normal F&E Game - with only survey 5 turns left (build/survey next turn), who would send a very expensive ship on Survey? >>

I don't know that this question is remotely relevant? The existing costs for building the ship are spelled out clearly in the information I quoted. I mean, you can certainly invent new costs for things, but I'm just going by the information we already got.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Tuesday, August 06, 2019 - 06:15 am: Edit

Peter

Because who will spend the equivalent of say 40 EP's on a ship which has such a short useable time period?

Perhaps other expensive hulls should get a discount in the last few turns of the game, as otherwise they will remain unbuilt.

i.e. the Additions to the game need to be useable, rather than nice units but far too expensive to be used.

As a good example - unless the direct build route was being used - although a very powerful ship - players seem to only build 1 or 2 B10's - the return on the cost is too small (as they turn up too late) for later built ships.

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Tuesday, August 06, 2019 - 11:20 am: Edit

Peter and Paul, please forgive my entering your conversation.

"In a normal F&E Game - with only survey 5 turns left (build/survey next turn), who would send a very expensive ship on Survey?" As players of the game we know when the General War ends. From the perspective of an Admiralty staff in the SFU, the cutoff date is unknown. Their decision making would reflect that uncertainty. Also, with ISC War and Andro War, the game universe goes beyond SY185 and I'm sure there are enough fans who would want to play beyond SY185.

IIRC, not a whole lot of B-10s were historically completed.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Tuesday, August 06, 2019 - 12:36 pm: Edit

John

There is no rule which forces players to build a ship...

…. and to me it seems adding a ship to the game that only has value if you play beyond the GW, doesn't make any game sense

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, August 06, 2019 - 01:27 pm: Edit

It is a valuable raider or single ship carrier (or a valuable unit added to a carrier battle group) and is a reasonable conversion cost wise for a protectable high compot four point scout. It's also a great raider.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, August 06, 2019 - 02:46 pm: Edit

Paul wrote:
>>Because who will spend the equivalent of say 40 EP's on a ship which has such a short useable time period?>>

The GVX costs 22 XTPs, and then it carries a squadron of F111's, which you probably have stockpiled from the "PF1, PF2, PF3" phase of defense build up ('cause really, 100% the way to go with the two optional F111 rules is the "treat them like PFs, and pay .25 per factor you build or replace" rather than the "treat them like fighters, paying 30 EP up front, and then using FFF and/or money to have free constant replacements"). So it costs 22 XTPs, basically.

And you build it 'cause it is a crazy, F111 carrying, scout enabled, raiding X ship (or a crazy, F111 carrying, scout enabled X ship carrier that is gonna be escorted by a couple other X ships in combat). You aren't building the GVX to go and explore.

I realize that it is paying 5 XTPs in the conversion/construction process 'cause it is theoretically a survey ship. As it can be. But, well, no one is going to build it (in the General War scenrio) to be a survey ship. But it is paying that 5 XTP surcharge as, well, all the survey ships pay for that too.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, August 06, 2019 - 02:53 pm: Edit

John wrote:
>>As players of the game we know when the General War ends. From the perspective of an Admiralty staff in the SFU, the cutoff date is unknown. Their decision making would reflect that uncertainty. Also, with ISC War and Andro War, the game universe goes beyond SY185 and I'm sure there are enough fans who would want to play beyond SY185.>>

All of this is true from a "SFU History" standpoint. But from the game sense, it is, in fact, kind of a kick in the teeth that the GVX is paying an extra 5 XTP 'cause it is a survey ship that will never be used as a survey ship. But, well, it is also a crazy, essentially unique unit that is very powerful and that only the Feds get a version of, so, well, it essentially pays an extra 5 EP just for being it.

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Tuesday, August 06, 2019 - 05:24 pm: Edit

Paul wrote:
>>There is no rule which forces players to build a ship...

…. and to me it seems adding a ship to the game that only has value if you play beyond the GW, doesn't make any game sense >>,

and Peter wrote:
>>All of this is true from a "SFU History" standpoint. But from the game sense, it is, in fact, kind of a kick in the teeth that the GVX is paying an extra 5 XTP 'cause it is a survey ship that will never be used as a survey ship. But, well, it is also a crazy, essentially unique unit that is very powerful and that only the Feds get a version of, so, well, it essentially pays an extra 5 EP just for being it.>>

May I suggest a house rule. You'll be able to use the ship at your cost, but won't be able to write about it or expect other groups to accept it. The game goes beyond the GW and I'm sure the GOD added the GVX with SFU continuity in mind. It costs that much because as a unit it is worth that much.

Paul is correct and answered his point. You aren't forced to build it, but the ship wasn't added to the "game", it was added to the "universe ". It makes SFU sense, and needs to be universal in its nature for all players.

There are lots of ships which are in the SFU but not in the GW. Look at the Seltorians for example. The majority of the ships listed will likely never be seen in any individual game. They simply do not have the economy. Some will never be historically be seen in the GW because they cannot be built, yet there they are.

The GW is a basis for the game, not a limitation.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, August 06, 2019 - 05:33 pm: Edit

John wrote:
>>May I suggest a house rule. You'll be able to use the ship at your cost, but won't be able to write about it or expect other groups to accept it. The game goes beyond the GW and I'm sure the GOD added the GVX with SFU continuity in mind. It costs that much because as a unit it is worth that much.>>

I have no idea what is even happening here.

I asked about what the actual conversion cost of the GVX should be, as the conversion cost on the SIT for the CX>GVX was listed as 3 XTP. Which seemed absurdly low, given all the other costs for the ship, and likely seemed the result of pre-Advanced-EW-legacy costs that no one had noticed before for whatever reason. Chuck responded with a reasonable response, pointing out that the CX>GVX conversion should actually cost 10 XTP.

Check. Then Paul was all "That seems too expensive, as who is going to make an exploration ship for 40 XTP to send off on exploration in the last 5 turns of the game?", at which point I explained that the GVX isn't for exploration, it is a crazy good raider/X carrier, that is pretty much a unique advantage for the Feds. Which more or less justifies the cost.

I then pointed out that the extra 5 XTP is, in fact, a significant cost added on top of a ship for a function that it is not ever going to actually use (i.e. exploration). But, well, still, as it is a unique, powerful unit, that doesn't seem that far out of the realm of reason.

No one ever suggested a house rule. This was just a discussion of factors in the game. I have no idea how we got here.

>>Paul is correct and answered his point. You aren't forced to build it, but the ship wasn't added to the "game", it was added to the "universe ". It makes SFU sense, and needs to be universal in its nature for all players. >>

Ah, yeah, see, I'm not really concerned with the "universe"; I'm only concerned with the "game". The background and universe is something that is incorporated into the game, certainly, but I'm just here talking about game factors and game balance.

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Tuesday, August 06, 2019 - 06:04 pm: Edit

My last post brought up a good question. House rules, who uses them and what are they?

Years ago my group had some. Before the 2010 rulebook, one was that for each B-10 completed the die role for (436.21) added +1 to any value not to exceed 5, but a 6 was still a 6. The justification was that during the shakedown cruise the Klingons would find errors in construction and delete them from all B-10s still under construction.

Another was "The Hydran Sledgehammer". In any combat round, after the battle force determinations, the Hydrans could delete some or all of their fighters' ComPot from he calculations for damage infliction and absorption and use them as Directed Damage at a 1-1 ratio (3-2 for ships in the formation bonus slot or any other 3-1 position). For example, if a Hydran fleet had 100 attack factors and 12 were fighters, the 88 ship attack factors would be used for damage determination on the combat coefficient table. The fighters could count as DD hits against a CA and destroy it, but would be considered themselves destroyed without absorbing any damage.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, August 06, 2019 - 06:07 pm: Edit

Most F&E players experiment with house rules. Sky's the limit on what you want to do with them. Usually house rules ignore certain aspects of the game that are deemed annoying. Sometimes house rules are chosen to help balance skill level, or sometimes they are used for general interest.

A common house rule is to disregard special raids. However, the new special raid rules in CL53 should have corrected the abuses and obnoxiousness of the currently printed special raid rules.

YMMV

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Tuesday, August 06, 2019 - 06:09 pm: Edit

Peter, I guess that's my mistake for joining a conversation in progress. I didn't have the full background when I responded.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, August 08, 2019 - 08:04 am: Edit

Richard wrote:
>>Q:Is it possible to use the full compot of a D6M or other mauler by rolling for shock when not mauling a target?>>

What is the current status of maulers and shock, anyway?

In the 2K10 rules, you only roll for shock with a mauler if it uses mauling (308.42). The current SIT entry for, say, the D6M says "Non shock attack factor: 0" (which indicates that it doesn't get any attack factors, unless it rolls for shock, which is different than it used to be).

Is this an intentional rules change?

I'm not objecting. Just trying to figure out what the current rules on maulers is.