| By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, September 01, 2019 - 08:25 pm: Edit |
Starbase can replace bats. Bats cannot replace starbase. Really.
Remember the 15 mothballed C6s in the IWR, five per squadron. (Just kidding.)
| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, September 04, 2019 - 10:50 am: Edit |
Q(411.722): This rule requires every ship of an expeditionary fleet to be within 6 hexes of every other ship in the expeditionary fleet. Can ships in an offmap area be mixed together with on-map ships that are within 6 hexes of the offmap area in an expeditionary fleet under this rule?
Argument against: No, because the offmap area is "distant" (in the abstract sense) and subject to special movement rules, so offmap and on-map ships cannot be mixed when designating an expeditionary fleet.
Argument for: Yes, because any off-map ship can enter the map by moving 1 pulse during operational movement, so theoretically any off-map ship can be considered to be one hex away from the on-map. Therefore, designated expeditionary units can be mixed between off-map and on-map units within 6 hexes of the off-map.
Ruling respectfully requested.
| By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, September 05, 2019 - 04:52 am: Edit |
Ted:
The rules already address this, thus no ruling is required:
Quote:(411.71) EFFECT: The ships of an expeditionary fleet are able to use allied supply points to create a supply path back to the Supply Grid of their own empire. For example, a Kzinti expeditionary fleet operating in Romulan territory could draw supplies from its own capital through the Federation Supply Grid.
(411.711) This supply path cannot go into or through an allied (or enemy) off-map area.
(411.712) Ships could be designated as an expeditionary fleet without a valid supply path, although there is no benefit to doing so. You would have to pay the cost but the ships still wouldn’t be in supply until a supply path was connected.
(411.72) LIMITED SIZE: An expeditionary fleet can contain no more than twelve ships, one base, and one FRD. Any units which do not qualify as expeditionary ships are treated as homeless ships (410.5).
(411.721) All must be from the empire that owns and supports the units (e.g., the Gorns could not adopt homeless Kzinti ships and send them to the Federation as an expeditionary fleet).
(411.722) Each unit of an expeditionary fleet must be within six hexes of every other unit in the expeditionary fleet.
| By Rob Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, September 05, 2019 - 09:15 am: Edit |
Chuck,
I think Ted is asking a simpler question than that. What he is asking is when designating ships as part of an Expeditionary Fleet, can some of them be in that race's Offmap area and other ships be on map?
So let's use Kzinti space as an example. Can the Kzinti designate 6 ships to be Expeditionary in 1704, and 6 other ships to be Expeditionary in the Offmap area? By the movement rules they are clearly within 6 hexes, but as Ted says the Offmap is considered "distant" and has some special movement rules.
| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, September 05, 2019 - 10:23 am: Edit |
What Rob said. I apologize for any confusion.
My question does not have to do with expeditionary fleets in allied offmap areas, but rather the formation of an expeditionary fleet in the first place where some units are on-map (within a main supply grid) and some units are in the owning player's offmap area - where the on-map units are within 6 hexes of the offmap area.
Basically, my question goes to whether the offmap units are considered to be "within 6 hexes" of the designated on-map units if the on-map units are within 6 hexes of the offmap area.
It is not clear to me in this case that the expeditionary formation/maintenance rule has been satisfied (i.e., that all ships are "within 6 hexes" of each other). Please see above for my arguments both for and against the proposition.
Thank you again.
| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, September 05, 2019 - 10:27 am: Edit |
Friendly reminder on the following rules question:
Quote:By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, July 16, 2019 - 02:29 pm: Edit
Q302.733 (Special Sub-Priority 3E).
Does this rule mean that if fleet A retreats from a supply point P into a new combat hex C, then if fleet A retreats from the new combat hex, then fleet A may not use P as a supply point for determining available retreat hexes under priority 3 (302.733)?
Follow-up question: Does the answer change if the retreat that created the combat is a non-fighting retreat or a fighting retreat?
So, let's make it concrete. A Zin fleet is in combat in hex 902. There's a smaller Lyran fleet in 1001 (planet previously conquered), so priority 2 is not an issue. The closest Zin supply point, other than the starbase at 902, is the offmap area.
The Zin player elects to retreat from the battle at 902. Due to priority 3, the ONLY valid retreat hex is 1001. Thus, a new battle hex is created in hex 1001, and because priorty 3 required excluded all other hexes, the combat is considered a non-fighting retreat. (Fighting retreat only applies if the retreating Zin could have selected another "closer" supply point and is trying to avoid priority 4.)
The battle at 1001 is then fought. The Zin player wants to retreat again - this time BACK to 902. The Zin player says it's the only place to go under priority 3, as it a supply point at range 1 and the offmap is 2hexes away.
However, the Lyran player says priority 3E requires you exclude supply points in the same chain of retreats.
The Zin player replies that that priority 3E, per the wording of the rules, only applies for a chain of the same battle; i.e., only applies to fighting retreats.
Lyran player says that does not make sense, because whether a fighting retreat or a non-fighting retreat, the phasing player gets to decide the order of combats - and that means either type of new combat hex (FR, non-FR) can be selected after other battles have been fought. Therefore, the "chain of battles" seems to be a rules drafting ambiguity and no real limitation to fighting retreats is implied when applying priority 3E.
Accordingly, priority 3E excludes starbase 902 as a supply point, and the Zin player must retreat back towards the offmap as being the closest *valid* supply point.
It seems the crux of the dispute is what does "chain of battles" mean. Is it limited to the sequence in which battles are selected? Is it limited to a single fleet (set of ships) in a given half-turn? Something else?
Bottom line: We need to know what special priority 3E really means and how it would be applied to the example.
Ruling respectfully requested.
| By Paul Howard (Raven) on Monday, September 23, 2019 - 01:50 pm: Edit |
This was last asked in 2014, but I can't see it was ever answered (word search on BHE and 704.4 found no reply).
"By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, March 18, 2014 - 03:23 pm: Edit
Q704.4 What is the conversion cost of a SN to a BHE (in F&E 2010). It is not on the SIT. "
In my game with William - we are only playing 2010 and so the SN to BHE is stated as a legal conversion, but no costs are shown, either in the notes, SIT or on line SIT.
So, what is the conversion cost?
(If it helps, I can see it being 2.0, 2.5 or 3.0 Ep's - the former is probably too cheap, the latter too expensive).
Thanks
Paul
| By Jon Murdock (Xenocide) on Monday, September 23, 2019 - 02:44 pm: Edit |
Is that even a conversion? Those are different hulls.
| By Paul Howard (Raven) on Monday, September 23, 2019 - 02:58 pm: Edit |
Jon - Yes - it's a special permitted Conversion in 2010, as the SNE was to be introduced in AO.
| By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Tuesday, September 24, 2019 - 10:11 am: Edit |
That is a SIT question and needs to go in the SIT discussion. It is not a rules question.
| By William Jockusch (Verybadcat2) on Saturday, September 28, 2019 - 11:48 am: Edit |
On turn 10, the Klingons have not attacked the Feds. The Feds attack the Klingons under (602.48).
Now comes the confusion of (603.5) and especially (603.54). It seems clear that under this scenario, the Gorns do not go to limited war to support the Feds, because of (603.54). But what happens afterwards?
Suppose that on turn 11 or 12, the Romulans attack the Feds. Can the Gorns attack the Romulans on turn 12?
Suppose that the Romulans do not attack on 11 or 12, but do later, say on turn 14? Can the Gorns attack the Romulans at that point?
The key sentences as I see them:
(603.5) Under limited war, the following conditions apply:
(603.54) If the Federation starts a war with the Romulans or Klingons, the Gorns do not enter the war at all unless somebody attacks the Gorns (and then they join the other side).
The last one is especially confusing. How can the Gorns "not join the war at all" while "under limited war".
| By William Jockusch (Verybadcat2) on Saturday, September 28, 2019 - 11:59 am: Edit |
duplicate post
| By Paul Howard (Raven) on Saturday, September 28, 2019 - 12:03 pm: Edit |
If it aids the court - in 2012 and 2019 this was queried and in 2012 Chuck 'stated'
"By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, March 26, 2012 - 02:46 am: Edit
I'm inclined to discuss the following:
CURRENT RULE
(603.54) If the Federation starts a war with the Romulans or Klingons, the Gorns do not enter the war at all unless somebody attacks the Gorns (and then they join the other side).
CHANGE TO READ
(603.54) If the Federation starts a war with both the Romulans and the Klingons, the Gorns do not enter the war at all unless somebody attacks the Gorns (and then they join the other side).
THEN ADD THE FOLLOWING:
(603.123) If the Federation starts a war with the Romulans, the Gorns do not enter the war at all unless somebody attacks the Gorns (and then they join the other side). However, if the Klingons or Lyrans later attack the Federation; the Gorn my enter the war the as an alliance member the turn after a Klingon or Lyran attack.
(603.124) If the Federation starts a war with the Klingons or the Lyrans, the Gorns do not enter the war at all unless somebody attacks the Gorns (and then they join the other side) or if the Romulans later attack the Federation; the Gorn my enter the war the as an alliance member the turn after a Romulan attack. "
As a rule mechanic, that would seem to be better than the current definition.
| By Paul Howard (Raven) on Saturday, September 28, 2019 - 12:09 pm: Edit |
As a related follow on question -
603.2.
If the Romulans do not attack the Federation, what can the Romulans do?
It would seem the economy is at 100% and the normal build schedule and conversions are available (which seems reasonable).
Can Romulan Ships though 'leave' Romulan space
1) Capture legal NZ hexes (the 3 by Tholains space)
2) Survey the On Map Romulan provinces and planets
Also - within Romulan space, can the named fleets (Western, Tholian Patrol and Home) move and are the Fleet areas considered to be released?
3) Moving within Romulan space seems reasonable (it allows the Romulans to bring up the Romulan Home Fleet)
4) What concerns me though (for the game), is that if the Fleet areas are considered 'released', it would allow the Romulans to upgrade Bases which can not be stopped by the Alliance (as they are not at war and the game mechanics restrict the turns the Alliance can attack the Romulans).
To aid, the rules for the Hydran are similar, but the Coalition can attack the Hydrans on turn 4 and so can stop base upgrades (so point 4 would be different).
A quick ruling would be appreciated as William and I are part way through turn 10.
Thank you
| By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, September 30, 2019 - 04:18 pm: Edit |
(603.5) Gorn Limited War Status
"If the Romulans have not attacked the Federation or Gorns, and if the Klingons and/or Lyrans have attacked the Federation, the Gorns can go to Limited War (654.0) on Turn #10." (F+E2K10, p118)
Is the reference to Turn #10 here correct? Or is this a typo and should be some other Turn number (like Turn #12 seems the most obvious candidate).
i.e. if the Romulans decline to attack the Federation on Coalition Turn #10, can the Gorn go to Limited War in support of the Federation (assuming the Klingons/Lyrans have attacked them already) on Turn #10?
| By Paul Howard (Raven) on Friday, October 04, 2019 - 02:43 pm: Edit |
A follow on and related question to 603.2.
If the Coalition have not attacked the Federation, what happens if the Federation does not attack the Klingons on turn 10+?
Can the Federation be on a War time economy and are the Limited War restrictions (Survey, Overbuild etc) be removed?
In effect - can an Empire (Hydran/Romulan/Federation) be at War with 'no one'?
The Klingons are the closest we get - but they can't survey on turn 1 due to 'diplomatic reasons' and all fleets are inactive - so close to 'War', but clearly more restrictive than what the Federation, Hydrans or Romulans might be able to do.
Thank you
| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, October 11, 2019 - 12:18 pm: Edit |
Q537.12. Can an escorted carrier be attacked by an infiltration attack? Example: Only a {CVT,2*E4A} are occupying an enemy planet. May the CVT be designated as one of the ships possibly targeted by the infiltration when it is escorted by the E4As? (537.12) INFILTRATION: Once per turn, one resistance
FEDS: By the strict reading of the rule that is currently what the rule allows.
Quote:
movement on one planet can attempt to infiltrate one of the
ships (not bases) at the planet's location. (Note that this is
one attack per turn not one attack per planet per turn.)
Designate the target (which must be one of the three ships
with the lowest defense factors) and roll two dice. If the
result is an "11" or "12", the ship is destroyed. If the result
is a "10", the ship is crippled (a crippled ship would be
destroyed). Any other result has no effect. This cannot
attack an unbreakable group such as a 3FE, a convoy, an
SAF, or an LTF. This allows one resistance movement per
race.
FEDS NOTE TO ADB:
FEDS recommends adding the following to (512.37):
"This cannot attack an unbreakable group such as a 3FE, a convoy, an
SAF, an LTF or any protected unit or units (carrier, PFT, etc.) of an escort group; any escort can be a target of infiltration attacks if permitted by this rule."
RATIONALE: This seems to have been an oversight when we wrote the original PO rules. We do NOT permit E&S raids to attack an escorted unit; see (534.223) and (534.224).
FEDS SENDS
| By Rob Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, October 16, 2019 - 11:17 am: Edit |
Deleted by Author
| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, October 16, 2019 - 11:35 am: Edit |
Appeal regarding the interaction of 537.13 (rebellion) and 203.7 (reserve movement).
I believe the following ruling by Nick Blank in 2006 was wrong, and so wish to appeal the ruling:
Quote:By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Friday, August 19, 2011 - 10:05 am: Edit
November - December 2006 Archive
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, November 01, 2006 - 01:07 am: Edit
.......
=============================
Robert Padilla:
If a planet goes into Rebellion, does suppressing the Rebellion make the hex a Battle Hex?
ANSWER: Presumably it is once you send a troopship there.
=============================
Quote:(102.0) BATTLE HEX: A map hex that, after movement, has units from opposing sides in it; this battle must be resolved.
(102.0) UNITS: Fleet elements including ships and others such as bases, PDUs, convoys, repair ships, fleet repair docks, etc.
(301.21) BATTLE HEXES: Combat takes place in all hexes which (during the Combat Phase) include units from opposing sides. Such hexes are known as “Battle Hexes”.
(537.133) The rebellion is ignored for purposes of (301.2). Any occupying PGBs or PDUs on the planet are not affected but any IGCEs can fight against the rebellion.
(203.73) OBJECTIVE: The moving Reserve Fleet must have as its objective a specific Battle Hex (301.2) involving friendly or allied forces in which it will end its movement...
Quote:(537.131) The planet does not produce any income for its captor until the rebellion (represented by the RDU) is suppressed by marines (521.3) in the Combat Phase.
| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, October 16, 2019 - 11:37 am: Edit |
Additional question regarding rebellions.
Q537.131: In which combat phase can a rebellion be suppressed?
This rule requires that the planet under rebellion does not produce income for its captor until the rebellion is suppressed by marines "in the combat phase". However, the rule does not state *which* combat phase - the phasing player or the non-phasing player. Player A argues that "in the combat phase" is vague, and thus could be "any" combat phase - including the combat phase of the turn on which the rebellion occurred (i.e., the phasing turn of the Alliance player). Player B argues that "in the combat phase" must be the combat phase of the player who wishes to suppress the rebellion (i.e., if an Alliance planet goes into rebellion, it can only be suppressed in the combat phase of the Coalition player's turn).
Which is correct?
Ruling respectfully quested.
====================
FEDS RULING: Unless overruled by ADB, rebellions can only be suppressed during the combat phase of the captor and not during the rebellious player's turn.
FEDS COMMENTARY: Nothing can be found in the rules allowing a captor to conduct rebellion suppression operations during a non-phasing turn. Allowing the captor multiple changes to suppress a rebellion during the phasing and non-phasing turns the would gut the rebellion rules. In essence, the rules seem to imply that the rebellion player should get to enjoy the fruits of his successful rebellion for at least one turn before the captor would be allowed to suppress it.
FEDS SENDS
| By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, October 20, 2019 - 03:18 pm: Edit |
Request for appeal:
Quote:By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, November 15, 2017 - 08:42 am: Edit
Q507.2 Can Gunline Groups (324.42) be used for establishing a Reserve Fleet (507.0) if the reserve fleet qualifies for use of the echelon formation under (324.11)? Battle Groups may be used in creating a reserve fleet under (315.1) and (507.22).
FEDS RESPONSE:
Unless overruled by ADB, Gunline groups CANNOT be used as part of a reserve fleet where six ships count a four for command purposes. A reserve force is a strategic element whereas an echelon formation is a tactical formation that requires a tactical environment to reap tactical command benefits. However, the same elements that could be used in a gunline group during a battle round could themselves be used to form a battle group and used in a reserve fleet where six ships count as five for command purposes.
REFERENCE:
Quote:(324.421) Qualification: A Gunline Group can only be used if the Battle Force qualifies for and is using an echelon formation.
FEDS SENDS
Quote:(543.12) FLAGSHIP: Each TRF must include a flagship able to command the Tactical Reserve Force. Command Points, Admirals, Marine Major Generals, and rear-echelon units may not used to increase the size of a Tactical Reserve Force. Scouts (308.53), Battle Groups (315.2), or Gunline Groups (324.42) may be used to augment a legal Battle Force.
Quote:(507.22) LIMITED SIZE: It must have a flagship (302.32) capable of controlling the entire fleet as a Battle Force. Command Points, admirals, and drone ships cannot be used in establishing the size of a Reserve; scouts (308.53), carrier battle groups (502.92), and Battle Groups (Advanced Operations) can be used.
| By Rob Padilla (Zargan) on Monday, October 21, 2019 - 12:43 pm: Edit |
Q534.211: This rule says that no battleship can be attacked more than once during a game. (534.211) Disrupt battleship construction: A successful mission to the capital shipyard hex cancels the effect of the next die roll. No battleship can be attacked more than once during the entire game.
Two questions:
1) Does that mean a successful mission? Or just trying can only be done once?
2) If the mission is successful, does it affect the next roll no matter when it occurs? For example the targetted opponent could opt to NOT do the die roll on his or her next turn, and not be out 5EPs as a result. Seems like it should be the next roll, to force the loss of EPs.
===================
References:
Quote:
===============
(436.21) WORK ON THE SHIP: This costs five Economic Points. Roll one die and add the result to a running total for that ship. When this running total equals 40 or more, the ship is completed and can be used in combat on that turn.
If production of a dreadnought (Klingon C8, C8S, or C8V) is scheduled for that turn and the dreadnought is not produced, the building player can pay ten Economic Points and roll two dice. If a dreadnought is not produced, two die rolls can be made for one B10 under construction, not for all B10s under construction. If another ship is produced as a substitution for the C8, it is counted as building a C8 for purposes of this rule and bonus B10 rolls.
FEDS RESPONSE
1. Unless overruled by ADB, any attempt to disrupt battleship construction under (534.211) counts as "attack" whether successful or not. Once an attempt is made on a specific battleship under construction, no other opposing empire can make any further attempts on that same battleship.
2. Unless overruled by ADB, any successful mission to disrupt battleship construction under (534.211) will automatically cancel the effects of the very next die roll no matter when that die roll is made even if that die roll occurs several turns later. In the event of a player purchasing a second die roll under this rule, the consequences of a successful attack on a battleship will only cancel the affect the first die roll but not the second die roll. in this same situation, the battleship player may not roll two dice and then claim that the lower roll is the roll that is cancelled.
FEDS SENDS
| By Paul Howard (Raven) on Tuesday, October 22, 2019 - 05:19 am: Edit |
Question on Homeless Ships (401.5)
Can an Empire voluntarily change which ships are supplied by the Host Nation?
410.52 confirms that if the supported ship is destroyed, supplied by another empire or home supplied, you can transfer the support line to another ship of that empire.
410.562 confirms when that involuntary change occurs (start of that host player turn).
410.653 Confirms that voluntarily you can cancel a support line for one Empire, if your replacing it by a support line for anther empire.
Therefore, it does not seem possible to voluntarily change Ship A being supported to Ship B (unless 410.52 occurs).
If the intention is that supported ships can be voluntarily changed though, what would the cost be?
i.e. can the existing (and still required but not no longer wanted) supporting line be moved to a different ship and if the new ship is a carrier, the 1 Ep surcharge is applied, or would the supporting line have to be cancelled to voluntary replace ship A with Ship B and a new 0.5 (or 1.5 Ep's for a Carrier) cost be paid?
The related question is can you voluntary stop the supply to Carrier A and supply Carrier B and would a new 1 Ep cost arise?
(Perhaps if this was allowed, I can see it being abused by changing the supported carrier each turn and in effect over several turns refilling several carriers from a single support line).
So the questions are
1) If 410.52 or 410.563 does not apply, can you change the supported ships?
2) If 410.52 or 410.56 doesn't apply and it is ruled you can change the supported ship, what is the cost (Ship>CV, Ship>Ship or CV>CV (or technically CV>Ship)?
Thank you
| By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, October 26, 2019 - 03:54 pm: Edit |
FED RULING ON HOMELESS SHIPS (410.511) If this cost is not paid, the homeless ship cannot draw supplies from the allied Supply Grid. The host need not pay the cost for all homeless ships, at least not all at the same time, and the host player may decide which ships are receiving the available support. (410.562) The specific ships being supported are designated at the start of the host’s Player Turn and cannot be changed until the start of the host’s next Player Turn. SHIP: A self-mobile warship. All units are ships except those designated as “non-ship units” (756.0). Examples of ships: destroyer, cruiser, frigate, carrier, dreadnought, etc.
Unless overruled by ADB, the following applies to homeless ships (410.5):
1. Any homeless production line set up for a homeless carrier (0.5EP for the ship + 1.0EP for the fighters) can be used to support any eligible homeless non-carrier ship of the same empire; the non-carrier ship would itself be supplied, however the carrier resources of that specific line are lost for the period that a non-carrier uses said production line.
2. Any production line set up for a homeless ship (0.5 EP) can be used to support any eligible homeless carrier of the same empire with the following restrictions: the carrier (as a ship) would itself (as a ship) be in supply for movement and combat; the carrier’s fighters would be considered out-of-supply (410.3) for the balance of the turn even if they are transfer to or adopted by a carrier that is in supply; a homeless carrier being supported as a non-carrier ship cannot receive any replacement fighters at the end of a player turn per (410.33); any fighters transferred to or adopted by the carrier are immediately treated as being unsupplied under (410.3).
3. The host of eligible homeless ships can choose each turn which eligible homeless ships are supported for that given turn (410.511) and can change these selections every turn per (410.562).
REFERENCES:
Quote:
Quote:
A carrier is a ship per (102.0):
Quote:
FEDS SENDS
| By Paul Howard (Raven) on Saturday, October 26, 2019 - 04:50 pm: Edit |
Although it is not relevant to my game with William, I feel one aspect of the Homeless Supply ruling should be appealed :-
"2. Any production line set up for a homeless ship (0.5 EP) can be used to support any eligible homeless carrier of the same empire with the following restrictions: the carrier (as a ship) would itself (as a ship) be in supply for movement and combat; the carrier’s fighters would be considered out-of-supply (410.3) for the balance of the turn even if they are transfer to or adopted by a carrier that is in supply; a homeless carrier being supported as a non-carrier ship cannot receive any replacement fighters at the end of a player turn per (410.33); any fighters transferred to or adopted by the carrier are immediately treated as being unsupplied under (410.3)."
I feel an appeal is appropriate for two reasons :-
The supply rules have not changed since the original rules were introduced but 'counters' have.
In the original rules, although there was nothing to stop a player suppling the Carrier and not supplying the 1-3 escorts, there was a significant penalty in that the Carrier Group 'Counter' was then restricted to Out of Supply movement and Escorts would suffer the Out of Supply penalty - therefore there was a good reason why a player would supply the counter with supply - to keep it fully operational.
With Flexible Carrier Groups- the ability to supply just the Carrier and not it's escorts supplied means the penalty for being out of supply with Carriers is massively reduced - allowing in effect the player to marry up escorts either which although still out of supply, may be closer to the required combat hexes or may be in supply through other means.
In addition, the ability to transfer fighters to out of supply carriers, which lack fighters and then claim Homeless supply fighter replacements, allows one homeless supply line to in effect provide fighter replacement for two carriers.
In other words, the penalty for having several carriers out of supply is significantly reduced under 2010 rules - and a one off cost of 1.5 Eps to permanently replacement in effect up to 24 fighters per turn* (a CVA with 12 standard fighters) seems particularly low in cost in comparison to replacing fighters which are not supplied through a main grid (i.e. 413.41, 1 Ep for up to 5 units and 12 replacement fighters).
* - Ignoring the Hydran IC or other future ships which have more than 2 standard squadrons).
Due to change in counter rules, the simple solution would be to not permit homeless fighters to be transferred to other carriers and have a limit on the number of supply production lines in force for carriers.
Thank you
| Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation |