Archive through November 18, 2019
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Federation & Empire: F&E QUESTIONS:
F&E Q&A Discussions:
Archive through November 18, 2019
In our case, it was. A lot of the carriers didn't have escorts anyway, as the Kzinti are running short of ships. Additionally, many of the ships they did have were in supply by virtue of being on a Federation base. That "supply" does not supply fighters however.
Ironically, it looks like I should have supplied 10 carriers, not 9. One Kzinti carrier I didn't supply is sitting with escorts but no fighters in a reserve in the middle of Fed space. It is in supply by virtue of being on a Fed base.
I think I need a ruling on the following question:
"What is the air speed velocity of an unladen swallow?"
What do you mean?
Is it an African or a European Swallow?
I don't know that!
AAAAAAHHHHHHHGGGGGG
William remember, they'd not have supply for Retrograde if you didn't pay to make them Homeless Ships. So you could get in a situation where the escorts get "stuck" not being able to retro with the rest of the fleet.
Well, that's later. The fighter supply crunch is over. Paul's point, right or wrong, is that the current ruling gives the Feds tremendous flexibility for a one-time cost. So on turn 11, what they needed to do was supply fighters for 9 or 10 carriers. They supplied 9. Because they all went to places close to the Barony, retro supply wasn't an issue. Next turn, they can supply the reserves wherever they go, which could easily be the Romulan front, and it's no problem to include the escorts as the reserves are small. The turn after that, if they need to supply a bunch of carriers again, that won't be a problem, either.
Sure, that all makes sense, but isn't the ZTO basically given up to the Coalition siphoning off that many ships to the Feds? 9-10 Carriers is most of their carrier fleet at T11, as I am assuming you're not talking about CVEs and CVLs here.
Sorry, if you haven't been following the game, my description was unclear. The 9 carriers were either in the ZTO or on nearby Fed bases the entire time. Some were in Kzinti space. Others were just repaired on nearby Fed SB (upgraded BATS in front of the 4th fleet SB). For a turn A11 operation in the ZTO, it was critical to supply fighters to all 9 carriers. This led the Feds to upgrade their homeless lines to a total of 12 ships, including up to 9 carriers. They did that, and everyone got their fighters. All of those ships were in supply from the Barony after combat.
Now at the end of turn A11, they are setting the two reserves on bases in the Central Federation. These consist of ships that were repaired in the Federation survey area at the start of A11. There is a carrier that has no fighters. Hence my comment that the Feds actually needed to supply 10 fighters instead of 9. The reserves are on Fed bases, so they will be in supply for purposes of reserve movement and for C10 combat. The only problem is the one fighterless carrier.
Then on turn A12, the Feds will be allowed to change what they are supporting. It will be no problem to supply the two reserves and also some Kzinti carriers that are currently on the same Fed SB that were formerly Kzinti border BATS.
On turn A13, they can easily switch it up again. I doubt it will happen, but if for some reason they need to supply fighters to 9 carriers again, they can do that.
The only way one could use homeless carriers as glorified FCRs would be if they were Lyarn or Klingon carriers being supplied as homeless ships by the other empire.
See (501.63).
Or Seltorian or possibly even LDR, I think.
Richard, you are correct.
I was always under the impression that a Homeless Carrier was being supplied with fighters and pilots of the Host empire. It makes sense that the Host Empire could not build a completely different type of fighter, and would instead use their own designs. The surcharge at this point is to "adapt" them to work on the foreign carrier.
So for example in the above case the Feds would be supplying those Kzinti CVs with F-18s (and pilots I assume). Whcih means they are more like Fed carriers than Kzinti carriers at that point, and could transfer those F-18s to other Fed carriers, but NOT to other Kzinti carriers.
However, I cannot find in the rules the passage that made me think this way, so maybe it's totally off base.
It doesn't really matter.
Any standard fighter one homeless carrier can use can also be used by any other carrier of that same empire. This would be why transfers are possible.
Replying to Ted's Tug question - from a game point of view, I think the bulk of the Tug missions can be designated 'on the fly' without any problems, but some clearly can have significant effects on Movement and reaction.
Supply Tugs and Tugs moving/deploying a Mobile Base clearly have a significant effect on the game.
A normal ships can move a FRD and so, there is no enhanced value with a Tug FRD mission other than being able to Strategically move it.
The only other mission which could be said to have a game effect, would be a BP Tug - due to Command Rating, rules not with me - so perhaps that would need to be designated at the right time - rather than 'Tug A' drops them - after the enemy has reacted somewhere else and Tug B picks them up and can use the higher CR rating to reduce pinning effects.
(There are probably enough CR 9 hulls to discount the value of gaining +1 CR with some of the other pods).
Quote:Replying to Ted's Tug question - from a game point of view, I think the bulk of the Tug missions can be designated 'on the fly' without any problems, but some clearly can have significant effects on Movement and reaction.
That is not actually true. A fact which my opponent pointed out to me. 509.32 is very clear. A tug maintains it's role from turn to turn, unless you change it during Eco, or unless it had mission M (unassigned).
The only question is whether changing from some other mission to Mission M is, itself, a change that prohibits a further change per the rule - or whether the last sentence of that rule is meant to constitute an exception.
In effect, you really do need to check all tug assignments during eco. In the likely event that Chuck goes for reading 2 (i.e., a tug changed from mission * to mission M during the eco phase can later change to another valid mission during a future phase) YOU MUST ACTUALLY GO THROUGH YOUR TUG COUNTERS AND CHANGE THEM FROM THEIR PREVIOUS MISSIONS TO MISSION M DURING THE ECO PHASE.
For example, say you had a tug on mission W (rescue) on turn X. On turn X+1 you forget to change the mission to M during the eco phase. Once you get to the operational movement phase, you are stuck with mission W. That tug is no longer flexibly assignable - it must keep mission W until turn X+2.
Only mission M tugs can be flexible. The only time you can switch a tug to mission M is during the eco phase.
So. Be prepared for a lot of counter sifting, and/or figuring out your tug missions in advance. Just like we used to have to do under the old inflexible rule.
The current version of 509.32 is still somewhat flexible, even under my "reading 1" in the question. After all, at least a few tugs with mission M can be used as backups to do things you didn't foresee during eco. However, that is the exception. The rule is you really do need to:
1) Figure out the bulk of your tugs during eco and
2) Sort counters for every tug you want to be flexible to make sure it says mission "M" - otherwise, you will not be able to change it's mission later in the turn.
Richard, I don't see how a homeless carrier can be a "FCR" for the adopting empire. I don't see any enabling rule or even anything close to an enabling rule that would let, for example, the Feds feed their "adopted homeless fighters" forward to a Kzinti carrier that just gave up it's normal complement of fighters to resolve damage in a battle hex.
Now (501.63) is very specific in that Klingons and Lyrans, and in some scenarios, the LDR (548.251) and Seltorians (546.223) can transfer fighters to one another all day long.
Chuck has ruled on the tug mission question - as expected, it's reading 2 (i.e., you can set to mission "M" during eco and then change again to another mission later in the turn).
That means you really should sort your tug counters during eco.
I would also add that it may be possible to form a "gentleman's agreement" with an opponent that any tug without a pod and not assigned a mission during the eco phase may be considered as having mission "M". Such an agreement can reduce counter sifting, but clearly is a special arrangement.
If you want to be careful, you have to designate tugs as mission M during eco if you want them to stay flexible later in the turn.
I didn't say that. I said that adopted carriers could probably exchange fighter factors with non-adopted carriers of the same empire.
Chuck:
I believe there are two typos you may wish to fix in your ruling to my question on October 16, 2910 regarding in which combat phase a rebellion is suppressed. I have reproduced your commentary below and indicated the proposed changes.
Quote: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 chances 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.
I might have lost my ability read (or remember things), but two things came up last night with William which made me think.
Can Romulans Offensively use their Cloak if they are defending a Romulan base?
I might be misrembering Tholian Web and Romulan bases - but 306.21 states only if the entire Romulan Battleforce has cloaks can use us them (so if your defending bases, PDU's, FRD's and Convoy's would stop the use of them).
The other point is withdrawal before combat...
…. I was 'sure', a defending player could withdraw crippled ships prior to combat, if there was a Base and no pursuit would occur at that point (because of the Base) - but 302.1 is petty explicit it doesn't count as a retreat and Base protection does not apply.
Was this a change from 2000 to 2010 - or am I just getting forgetful in my old age?
(Note - no formal answer replied - the rules are clear I think (although the Cloaks point seems unusual), but it would help understand where my memory has failed me 
).
Romulan bases (in SFB at least) have cloaking devices.
Bases blocking retreat is a more specific rule than the retreat after withdrawal rule and takes precedence.
Re: Romulan Bases
Unless overruled by ADB, bases are not ships and cannot gain any benefit under (306.0).
Quote:(306.0) CLOAKED SHIPS (Advanced)
Uncrippled ships with cloaking devices (Romulans and the 25% of Orion Pirate ships so equipped) which are in supply have the following options for combat.
FEDS SENDS
Jon and Chuck thanks.
Richard - thanks
I think I get it now. - found a Q&A archive from 2008.
If you withdraw before combat and then retreat before a Base dies - there is no pursuit and so it's all safe.
But if the Base dies (or PDUs etc) before you retreat - the attacker gets to catch the stuff that withdrew before combat and any cripples from the battle.
I think I have got that now.
The main value of Withdrawal before combat would therefore seem to be when defending Multi-Hex locations and it avoids them being directed at 2:1.
It also lets the defender occupy a hex without retreating out of the current hex, perhaps to cut off enemy ships from supply or retrograde.