Richard - had overlooked that!

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Friday, November 22, 2019 - 07:50 pm: Edit

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, November 22, 2019 - 04:19 pm: Edit

(524.0) Casual PF Flotillas

Does a Casual PF Flotilla count as a ship for purposes of assembling a Reserve Fleet (507.0)?

Under (524.42), a Casual PF Flotilla counts as a ship for command limit purposes when building a battle line. It is unclear if a Casual PF Flotilla counts as a ship for the purposes of creating a legal Reserve Fleet or not (i.e. assuming a Command Rating 10 Flagship in a given Reserve Fleet, if it wants to include a Casual PF Flotilla, is it limited to 9 other ships plus the Casual PF Flotilla and then a scout, or can it have CR10 Flagship, 10 ships, a Scout, and then a Casual PF Flotilla in addition?)

Peter, no because PFs including casual PFs must have the appropriate standard ship or ships to support them. They do count as 0.5 SE for pinning purposes and are otherwise subject to all rules regarding attrition units for various things such as pinning.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, November 24, 2019 - 02:59 pm: Edit

>>They do count as 0.5 SE for pinning purposes>>

(524.32) indicates that a 5CPF (i.e. 5PFs as a casual group) counts as a full ship for pinning purposes.

You are probably correct that a CPF *doesn't* count as a ship for the purposes of building a reserve fleet, but the rules aren't particularly clear on the subject, given that they *do* count as a ship in a battle line (PFs on a PFT do not take up a command slot in a battle line if the PFT is also in the line; a CPF specifically *does* take up a command slot in a battle line, even if the requisite ships are in the line). Given the ambiguity and existing difference between PFs on a PFT and casual PFs, it seems reasonable to look for a clarification.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Sunday, November 24, 2019 - 04:48 pm: Edit

Quick 'question'

In 2010 - What is the cost of the Battle Pods/Pallets?

My printed rule book doesn't have any Battlepods costs (will check page numbers later to see if the page is missing...) - but the SITS appear to have different costs for the same thing.

A Lyran KBP costs 2 Eps
a Klingon BP costs 4 Ep's

Is the Klingon BP for a 'pair'?

(In 2010, a Klingon or Kzinti Tug can have BP or VP - you can't mix and match)

I know the Kzinti BP costs slightly more (as it has Drones) - but a Lyran and Klingon Battle Tug should cost the same.

Thanks

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Sunday, November 24, 2019 - 06:10 pm: Edit

Interesting as I recall there is an ESG/Drone and APR/Security exchange between the two …

By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Sunday, November 24, 2019 - 06:18 pm: Edit

In the original F&E, the cost of the Klingon battlepods were 8 ep, and there were two available (both exist at the start).

When they started tracking "pairs", the cost was reduced to 4 ep per individual pod, and there were 4 available, all existing at the start.

So it's clear to me that the cost of each individual pod is 4 ep, but I think you can build a pair of them in one turn for 8 ep.

The Lyran SIT is... obviously wrong. It should be 4 ep per KBP, needing two of them for a full sized tug. Though I do note that the Lyran battle pallet is only 6 ep, which I think is a reduction from the original F&E 86 cost.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Sunday, November 24, 2019 - 06:50 pm: Edit

It is, the individual cost was added with Special Ops in 1993 due to the LTTs and the cost was halved for both the Klingon BPs and Lyran KBPs for 4 (BP+ still at 8).

The Lyran BP+ was reduced to 6 since it didn't add as much as the Fed BP (IIRC).

Not sure why the Lyran KBP cost was reduced further …

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Friday, December 06, 2019 - 01:06 am: Edit

From Q&A

Jon, I don't agree. That note I quoted says they're stored.

My suggestion at the end of my comment was poorly written. Perhaps stored modules could be used on new construction ships for a price reduction.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, December 06, 2019 - 09:07 am: Edit

DOCTRINE.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, December 06, 2019 - 09:56 am: Edit

For anyone who doesn't know, "doctrine" is the catch-all phrase for the longer explanation of, "Yeah, we know that might make more sense, but the game designer wants things that way for a reason and so it's not going to change."

Or words to that effect.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Friday, December 06, 2019 - 10:37 am: Edit

Grandson to Grandad "So Grandad - why does the Elephant have such a Long Trunk?"

Grandad - "Well I can either explain it or just say 'Doctrine' and you get to enjoy the next 3 years".

By Jon Murdock (Xenocide) on Friday, December 06, 2019 - 11:49 am: Edit

John:

They are stored but the reality is you end up with a number of A modules in storage equal to the number of convertible hulls minus the ones that are already in the A configuration. The only thing you can do with them in the rules as written is convert all your ships to the base hull so there is really no point in tracking them. You cannot run out and there is nothing you can do with them except converting ships to the A configuration.

I could see a deduction as logical based on the rule but this approach of discounts seems to me to be a silly way of getting cheap sparrowhawks and skyhawks with no downside.

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Friday, December 06, 2019 - 12:38 pm: Edit

Jon:

I admit it's not going to change and isn't worth making a stink about. That being said, this is a discussion board and this is an interesting discussion.

Once there is a loss of non-A-modules, there is an excess the A-modules. There are a number of ways in which these could be abstracted into efficient use. One way is that rather than cheaper new construction, any non-A-module ship lost could provide slightly greater salvage value. This way the A-modules wouldn't outnumber the existing hulls, and the benefit of efficiency comes at the additional price of destroyed ships. Also, this fix wouldn't require a rewriting of the rules, just some SIT entries.

It's fun to think about.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, December 06, 2019 - 01:11 pm: Edit

Also, always remember you can "homebrew" any rule change you want for a particular game. You could allow such an option for the Romulans for your game in exchange for some minor advantage to the Alliance.

By Jon Murdock (Xenocide) on Friday, December 06, 2019 - 01:40 pm: Edit

True, it is probably here to stay. I would prefer a system in which the free A modules are dispensed with and instead you get a number of fixed "free" modules every year of a fixed type so the conversions will be usable. In the end you would probably end up with extra A modules lying around in any case.

Problem is which ones. Maybe odd years you get a B (have to pay for fighters) and a C and even years you get a G and an L. Throw a K in somewhere? Maybe dump the B and make it an M? Add an E every so often when PFs come out? It just seems like Romulan modularity would be a minor boon on the strategic level but it does not come together in the game.

The reason I suggest that the A modules are not all in a stockpile is that creating the stockpile where you build spare A modules for every ship seems like insanity. Sounds like one of the Romulan houses managed a coup in the senate and mandated that just to sell modules that will never be used.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, December 06, 2019 - 03:40 pm: Edit

The problem with giving a discount for using the extra "A" modules leads to players eventually arguing for a discount to build a variant without the spare "A" module. I really cannot see ADB supporting this idea.

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Friday, December 06, 2019 - 05:51 pm: Edit

Jon:

The issue I see with your suggestion is that having a fixed schedule of free non-A-modules takes away player choice as it doesn't address the flow of the game. If scouts are not targeted for DD then you may end up with a stockpile of scout modules. The same goes for every other variant.

The stockpile issue doesn't focus modules at a single, or each, starbase. I believe "dedicated staff officers" get unused modules where they're needed in time if they're in the same supply grid. The player just has to keep track of non-A-modules not attached to ships.


Chuck:

Rule (433.433) ends that argument pretty effectively. Using the extra A-modules could cause further problems if a player found he had insufficient A-modules to convert back to a standard ship type. Adding a slight increase to all non X-tech non-A-module ships' salvage values would explain the efficient use of orphaned A-modules. The bump would be the same for each non-A variant.

By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Saturday, December 07, 2019 - 11:41 am: Edit

I for one wouldn't mind seeing some kind of discount for the modular ships, to reflect the non-built A modules.

I mean, there's gotta be a benefit to the modular ship design somewhere, but with the rules as written there's very little benefit at all. Ships are built/converted pretty much the same as they have always been, for pretty much the same cost as other nations (there are a few examples of discounted costs, very few). So really, the modular ship concept produces almost no distinction from non-modular ship designs.

If there was a cost reduction, we could point to that as the ultimate benefit of modular designs.

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandor) on Saturday, December 07, 2019 - 01:13 pm: Edit

Thank You guys for all of this very interesting discussion. I am very much wondering about the Module design. Other then ease of building. The fact that sections were built in small yards. As per the Master Romulan starship book. However the BPV (combat value) does not show the cost savings and should not. As the BPV is for combat rating. EPV is a different thing altogether. Only really used in a campaign setting. Just as switching out the modules would be.

While not detachable (outside a major shipyard or overhaul) and says modules can be switched in a matter of a few weeks at a shipyard. I was thinking if i bought a couple of the odd types of Modules. Then if i needed a minesweeper are a commando. I could switch out a Sparrowhawk A and there we go. If i did not need said ship then i could easily have a Sparrowhawk A. Just like having a tug and a bunch of pods. Other races have that option. The Romulans do not but have the Modulor options instead.

This does fit with the other thread about the Romulans needing a move cost1 tug.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Saturday, December 07, 2019 - 02:30 pm: Edit

Is this discussion for a question about the rules? If it's a new proposal, perhaps start a thread so it can be found in the future?

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Sunday, December 08, 2019 - 09:06 pm: Edit

Richard, the thought process began in Q&A on Dec 3 if you want to review it.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, December 08, 2019 - 10:34 pm: Edit

Was curious as to the answer to my question, but obviously you don't have to answer it. Simple yes/no. :p

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Monday, December 09, 2019 - 01:05 pm: Edit

Richard, it's a tangent to someone's asking if modular ship type changes per (433.43) were worth it, so technically no.

Not answering a direct question is a pet peeve of mine, and I was guilty of it. Thanks for setting me straight.

John

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Monday, December 16, 2019 - 12:23 pm: Edit

"
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, December 15, 2019 - 09:06 am: Edit


Q603.3 When totaling up the number of ships for victory conditions under (603.3) do ships in the Depot (424.0) and those ships on survey duty (542.0) count in the total? "

I would have thought Survey - yes, they are normal ships.

Depot - no, as they are not ships until they complete the process!

A follow on question could be though, at what stage would a B10 count - 16 hull points (so an 8 8 CR ship) - at 15 hull points, it wouldn't count (I don't think!)

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, December 16, 2019 - 03:38 pm: Edit

I think whatever we do here, when we update PO, we should include this in the Depot rules update.