Thomas - 431.73 allows for the Standard Hull to sub'd for a Carrier or Escort Hull, but I don't believe F&E2010 has any general allowance to downgrade ships to FF's - 431.81 states this

(There are some permitted specific downgrades, but they are limited - for example the Klingons, a D5, D6 or D7 can be sub'd for a F5L once per turn there is no permitted FF Fed down-sub's though).

If it does, can you confirm the rule number?

Thanks

By chris upson (Misanthropope) on Friday, October 04, 2019 - 12:14 pm: Edit

thomas, 702.22 doesn't seem to allow FF for DD. that's a bakija thing, not a kole thing, iirc.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat2) on Friday, October 04, 2019 - 12:44 pm: Edit

In FE2k, the Feds could substitute a CVN group for a CVA group after a certain date. The CVN group was a CVA group with less expensive escorts. That was removed when the Carrier War rules were incorporated.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Friday, October 04, 2019 - 01:26 pm: Edit

William. The CVN can replace the CVA still under the date listed on the SIT (Y175).

NOTE that (702.2) replaces the ECL+2xDE with NAC+DWA+FFE beginning in the Spring of Y175.

NOTE You could replace the ECL with a CL, and build a NEC to use in the CVA group under the Spring build schedules for Y172-Y174. No change in overall build costs.

The other thing I think you can do is to replace the ECL with a NEC in Y172. It saves you 1 EP, gives you +1 defensive compot, but no change in offensive compot.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Friday, October 04, 2019 - 02:03 pm: Edit

It's fairly easy to have cheaper escorts - although unless you build the DD or CLs, you do lose a hull....

.... and convert like mad FF's into FFE's.

Thomas - 702.2 is the Federation Mothball fleet - there is no NAC's or DWA's on the Fed construction Schedule.

(Although the NAC does exit in 2010, the DWA does not).

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Friday, October 04, 2019 - 02:06 pm: Edit

...and I'll post this separately, the ECL has got to be worth building.

At 7 Ep's it might be expensive, but 6 damage for 1 repair isn't beatable!

(We did note Cyberboard has an error on the counter - it should be 4/6-2/4, the counter in the game is 4/6-2/3).

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, October 04, 2019 - 02:26 pm: Edit

No, the ECL is 1.5 to repair, not 1. The 1 is an error. This was brought up on the forums some time ago and after some rather heated protests was confirmed as 1.5 EP (ie crippled defense is 3, not 4).

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, October 04, 2019 - 02:28 pm: Edit

Also, see the SIT for its proper factors.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Friday, October 04, 2019 - 03:11 pm: Edit

Copied from the 2017 Federation SIT

CVA (4CVA) 24-30(15)/11-16(7.5) CVA+ECL+ 2DE(or DWA)

CVN (4CVN) 24-30(15)/11-16(7.5) CVA+NAC+DWA(or DE)+FFE

NOTE: I replaced the triangle symbol with .5 for ease of recognition.

You can make a cross between the CVA and CVN with the NEC. The NEC is available in Y172. Do not limit yourself into thinking you can only build the CVA group based on what is listed on the construction schedule. You have options. Some of those options require that you look at the available substitutions in a "polish notation" way.

"polish notation" = Back in the 80s HP calculators used what was commonly referred to as "backwards polish notation" because you had to put the equal sign before the actual equation and values to calculate the answer. The same applies to substitutions and downsubs with the OOBs.

NOTE for Cyberboard: The current gamebox under development has already corrected the ECL crippled side factors.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, October 04, 2019 - 03:39 pm: Edit

Current F&E does not use 'set' carrier groups, you can replace the escorts with anything legal. The groups are just their for historical purposes.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Friday, October 04, 2019 - 04:03 pm: Edit

Call me thick (people often do)…. when was the ECL 'changed'?

The 2010 Rule book and 2003 AO has it with a 4 defensive factor...

…. and from what I remember, there was a note in F&E 93 (or earlier/later) that explained that the ECL was one of the older ships which had armour (rather than just shields) and hence it was more robust than other ships and therefore warranted a slightly higher crippled value.

Which is why it remained on the production schedule for the Federation.

So when and why was the change done?

On Escorts - correct, you can build what you want as long as it's in 2010 - so the Feds get the NAC, but not the DWA.... and the Kzinti don't get the FKE.... and the poor Romulans don't have any heavy escort and the best they can do is an Ad Hoc SP (which is highlighted!!).

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Friday, October 04, 2019 - 05:34 pm: Edit

Paul see reply in the Strategy Discussion thread.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat2) on Friday, October 04, 2019 - 05:58 pm: Edit

From a game design standpoint, I think the ECL DefPot dropping from 4 to 3 is a pity because previously ECL and DE had different strengths and weaknesses, while now the DE is just plain better.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, October 04, 2019 - 06:56 pm: Edit

>>Which is why it remained on the production schedule for the Federation.>>

Well, sort of? It remained on the production schedule 'cause SFB history indicated that it did for a while, and F+E just was following that. With the full expansion rules (or the "You Can Always Build an FF" house rule I'm a big fan of), you can always sub an FFE for the ECL, which you should do, given the option.

In the AO production schedule, the Feds cease to produce ECLs in y175, replacing them with NAC on the production schedule.

>>So when and why was the change done?>>

At some point, during/around/after the publication of F+E2K, the ECL officially became 4-6/2-3.

In 2K10 rulebook SIT, it is 4-6/2-4; on the 2K10 countersheets (which were the updated ones with the .5 fighter factors), the ECL was 4-6/2-3 (which is how it was in the original Fighter Ops, IIRC). Basically, the ECL had different factors all over the place, but at some point, it was determined that the actual, legit factors were 4-6/2-3 (see: Master Fed SIT).

When the ECL was 4-6/2-4, it was kind of horrible, but at least had that bit of shine to it. With the ECL as a 4-6/2-3, it is just outright terrible, and much like the ZIN EFF, something you should never actually produce under any situation, as there are plenty of DD's to turn into DEs, and by the time you run out of DD's, you got NECs and NACs. So never make ECLs. They are terrible.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, October 04, 2019 - 07:48 pm: Edit

The ECL being defense 4 while crippled was just dumb, as other CL variants (and the CL itself) did not have this.

It was obviously just an error that went unchanged for a while, possibly because all the counters (at the time) had the wrong factors. Once 2010 came out, they fixed the counters and changed the SIT.

From a game design standpoint it was bad, because there's nothing on the SFB SSD that justifies that change.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, October 04, 2019 - 08:40 pm: Edit

Richard wrote:
>>It was obviously just an error that went unchanged for a while, possibly because all the counters (at the time) had the wrong factors. Once 2010 came out, they fixed the counters and changed the SIT.>>

While I completely agree with you main point (that the ECL as 4-6/2-4 was dumb, as the CL wasn't 6/4, or whatever), and that the ECL certainly *should* be 4-6/2-3 (as, well, it is kind of a bad ship in the first place--the armor on the CL hull doesn't make up for the terrible, like, 12 box shields...), in the 2K10 rulebook SIT, the ECL is *still* listed as being 4-6/2-4, although the counters in 2K10 were the 4-6/2-3 counters.

The SIT only got changed to reflect the 4-6/2-3 factors online, and probably in whatever the most recent paper printed SIT for the Feds is (AO update, I'd imagine?).

Things got wonky as there was a cheeky answer in a CL one time to the question "Why does the ECL have 4-6/2-4 factors?", and rather than saying "Cause we made an oops", they decided to just roll with it and say "It's tough! The armor!", which was a completely reasonable thing to do at the time, as errating that one counter seemed mostly pointless, and it didn't really make a difference anyway. So might as well just lean into it. Till they reprinted counter sheets, and could adjust the factors, but then forgot to change the SIT in the rulebook, leading to confusion.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat2) on Friday, October 04, 2019 - 10:36 pm: Edit

What "makes sense from a game design standpoint" can mean different things to different people. A lot of people here have an in-Universe point of view. Nothing wrong with that, but it's not the way I think and not the way I was using the term.

To me, what "makes sense from a game design standpoint" is what gives interesting decisions to the players. To me, it's an interesting choice whether to build a 4-6 with 4 crippled DF or a 5-6 with 3 crippled DF. If you change that 4 crippled DF to 3 crippled DF, the decision becomes easy and boring. So from that standpoint, the 4-6/2-4 makes more sense.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, October 04, 2019 - 11:02 pm: Edit

The SIT wasn't changed in F&E2010 right away - I think this is likely because most of those checking assumed the SIT was correct, having played with the wrong factors for a long time. In the discussion some time ago about fixing it there were a fair number of arguments trying to justify the bad factors as reasonable. In my opinion, they were generally *quite* far-fetched and suggest to me that some people fixated quite strongly on the incorrect factors (so as to get a cheap ship to repair) that they were blind to the problem.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Saturday, October 05, 2019 - 04:55 am: Edit

Well, I suppose that just sucks

I'll put my thinking cap on (and I'll move the discussion to General Discussions).

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat2) on Saturday, October 05, 2019 - 06:16 pm: Edit

Alliance turn 10 op move is done. The Romulans were well defended, so the Feds decided to go after the Klingons. I bungled their attack a bit, but they should still kill 2 BATS.

Two curiously important space battles have developed. One is in 1701. It is important to the Kzinti because winning it would give them a supply line from the Barony to the Marquis grid. They didn't have that supply line during the Coalition turn, so their carriers are short a lot of fighters.

The other one is in 117. This is important to the Hydrans because winning it would get them back onto the map.

There is also a battle over captured planet 1802.

With Fed 7th fleet attacking the Klingons, the Feds decided to leave the Romulans alone. A single K5 is under attack by a whole lot of Fed ships that want an excuse to retro.

By chris upson (Misanthropope) on Saturday, October 05, 2019 - 06:48 pm: Edit

i was wondering if the coalition would try hard to wall off the old colonies. with aux CVs in play it's a good situation for the coalition, but i can't tell how advantageous it is in a brown paper bag GW.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat2) on Saturday, October 05, 2019 - 07:46 pm: Edit

Well if they can keep the door locked it's obviously good for them. If not, they still limited the Hydrans to a single hex on their first turn back on.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Monday, October 07, 2019 - 05:51 am: Edit

Well, the battle in 117 rages...

So far, the Hydrans have direct killed a DN, BC and 2 x DWE - plus direct crippled a BC.

Hydrans have lost a LB, 2 x RN and 2 x CU (were operating as Ad-Hoc's) - also all direct killed.

Both sides have a pile of cripples.

Hydrans are down to 51 fighters and Coalition 18.

Who will blink first?

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat2) on Tuesday, October 08, 2019 - 01:15 pm: Edit

The Hydran map-reentry battle at 117 is over. After 18 rounds, the Hydrans have succeeded in staying on the map, at least for the moment.

Killed: LB, 2RN, 2CU
Crips: 42.5EP.

Coalition losses were also substantial.
Killed: DN, 2BC, 2DWE, E4A
Crips: 65EP
Drones: approx. 10EP

The crips are a problem for both sides. The Hydran repair rate is 20EP/turn, and they had a 1.5-turn backlog prior to this battle. The Coalition also had a nasty backlog before the battle started.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Tuesday, October 08, 2019 - 04:27 pm: Edit

Yes, alas the Hydrans broke the blockaid.

Dice started well for the Coalition, but went down hill from there - and to make it worse, when BIR was low, the Hydrants rolled better, and with a high BIR , Coalition rolled better - so on good rolls the two sides did similar damage (if it was a Carrier Heavier Hydran line, the Coalition did do a bit more), but on bad rolled the Hydrans often did double or greater damage to what the Coalition did.

About the only saving grace was the Hydrants failed the pursuit roll!

Hydrans did force an Auto Kill on the Coalition too (the E4A)!