Archive through January 13, 2020
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Federation & Empire: F&E QUESTIONS:
F&E Q&A Discussions:
Archive through January 13, 2020
Mike
Correct - below a 'BC' (8 compot) size hull - scrapping them is generally better value.
A specialist hull might be worth it (thinking of a SPF for example or Federation SC if playing with 'full EW').
Chuck - Thanks for the quick replies.
I cannot find a ruling on the topic I mentioned, though I did find a post in 2014 where I told someone a carrier couldnt be in form, even unescorted (in the case of a non single ship carrier).
Presuming that I am not going senile, that would mean the ruling should have been between 2010 (when I began once again playing F&E after many years of not playing) and 2014. I searched for "formation bonus" and "form bonus".
To be fair - it might have existed in F&E, F&E (Deluxe), 93 or 2000.
(I think I have got them all?)
As a good example, I just (over the weekend!) refound the Mauler Capture rule - I had tried to find it when fighting the Kzinti and the first Mauler that had been captured - Direct Kill or allow William to risk shocking, but I couldn't find the rule, so killed the Mauler over a better target IIRC.
I was 100% sure that if a Captured Mauler was repaired and used - if it Mauled and failed the Shock Rule it lost it's mauler status, but could I find the rule anywhere??? Nope!
(The actual rule is worse than I remembered though - unless it got changed, in that it can't even be repaired!).
Shame we can't do a Windows style Upgrade from one rules version to another (i.e. wipe memory and start again 
)
Paul, the captured mauler shock rule has not changed from the DF&E rules to the 2010 rules. If it shocks, it's done. So when you plan to use the captured mauler, cripple it. That way you can repair it and use it again.
Chuck, I searched on (305.23), (307.32), "captured carrier", and something else that I can't remember at the moment. I did not find anything regarding the original Q&A from Richard, or anyone else about captured carriers being in the battle force for the pursuit battle. I didn't see anything under (515.15) either as a result of my search.
Ryan, et al:
Did we ever update the Fed-Kzinti war scenario from CL13?
Not that I've ever seen. I did some research of that time period and war for when I sent in a Captain's Log scenario (Kzinti supported by DBB vs Feds defending a base) in recent times and I saw no reference to a revamped scenario.
Chuck, No we have not updated the Fed Kzinti War from CL 13. I have been looking at updating the scenario. You and I have a couple of discussions about the updated scenario OOB previously.
The addition of the Flower Corvette would be another item to be considered for this scenario. SVC stated in reply to my question about the corvette's factors to be 4/2 with a cost of 2.5 for F&E players.
Couple of questions.
Can carrierrs transfer fighters during operational movement?
For example, two Klingon E4Vs have 6 fighter factors and are in the hex of a D7V with no fighters (for whatever reason). Can the E4Vs trransfer their fighters to the D7V which then conducts operational movement?
Second question:
Can fighters be transferred before the first battle round in a hex.
For example, an FCR a CVA and a BATS are in a hex, there are enemy ships present, but no combat has occurred. Can the FCR or CVA transfer fighters to the BATS (which has no fighters) before the first round of combat occurs?
RE, offhand, I'd say no since during the Production Phase, your carriers should be refilled.
If actually OOS (and you didn't pay for fighters), transfers could be taken during production (IIRC) consolidating them. If due to a raid with fighter losses, I don't think so.
As for the FCR/CVA/BTS, the only way I can see the BTS having no fighters is if there was raid that they reacted to so maybe for the FCR (that is its job) but no for the CVA.
BATS could have done a fighter strike.
How do you justify an FCR being able to transfer fighters but not the CVA? Rule # or ruling would be acceptable.
I am sure we found you couldn't transfer fighters during Operational Movement.
There is also a difference between 'transferring/using' fighters and replacing fighters.
The BATS doing a fighter strike is a good example - those fighters can not be replaced by a FCR until they are actually lost - there is some blurb about fighters reacting out of the hex returning to their base between combat rounds for re-arming - and so clearly, they can't service the striking fighters AND fighters transferred to them.
From the SIT - the only time it happens is in the Combat Phase (specifically 5-6E). 501.6 doesn't give any other mechanism to transfer fighters.
FEDS NON-BINDING OPINION:
FEDS sees no major game impacts in formalizing the TRANSFER (not replacement) of fighters, G factors, Prime Teams, SWACS, Cloaked Decoys, ADMs, DIPs, MMGs, and other physical items between UNITS in the SAME HEX during operational, strategic, reserve, and retrograde phases.
Many, if not most of these things were added to the game system after basic F&E set rules were created. Many of these things can be transferred within minutes if not moments within the SFU (via transporters or flight). It also seems a bit arbitrary to only allow these actions to occur ONLY between F&E combat rounds and I would be supportive of formalizing via rule ONLY IF ADB supports it.
FEAR CONCURS WITH FEDS
If the rule is added, I would suggest that the rule makes it clear that the transfer can only be from on units which haven't moved or the unit receiving the item is restricted to 6 (or 7/8 for Fast/Fed Express) hexes of movement and of the same status.
Example 1 - you can't move CV A to CV B, move the fighters onto CV B and then move CV B (avoids non-ship items moving more than what a ship could).
Example 2 - Ship A has a ADM/MMG/DIP - and then in the Reserve movement phase, it jumps onto Ship B which is eligible for Reserve Movement.
Tracking what has moved or not moved may be hassle, but I can see an inappropriate level of flexibility being added, which could have unforeseen consequences to the game.
Please specify the inappropriate level of flexibility you foresee.
Essentially the ability to chain things around the map like crazy.
Perhaps attrition units/items/personnel can only be transferred once per operational movement phase?
Richard has it the nail on the head.
It would perhaps allow stronger Empires to gain additional benefits and reduce the penalties that can exist when being out of supply or good tactics are used against you.
I would be agreeable that a given item could only be transferred once during a given movement phase but only if ADB is also agreeable.
I'd put the transfer point just after Carrier group formation (5-3C), that way there's no chaining possible. [If not in combat, why transfer]
Because, of the SE counts when your moving ships from point A to point B, and others in the same hex from point A to point C.
Has anyone had a game situation occur, probably repeatedly for it to merit a rule, in which chain movement could occur? The hypothetical examples seem to be just that, hypothetical.
"The ability to chain things around the map like crazy" would require the appropriate receiving vessels either to be planned in advance to be positioned to receive, or there has to be an accidental happy coincidence of positions for this to happen. Either way it seems like a difficult and expensive in opportunity costs way to get a few fighter factors or a(n) ADM/MMG/DIP across the map.
Transferring fighters and personnel has come up, yes. I haven't tried to move them willy nilly across the map via chained op move as I felt that it would be ruled against, and generally I don't do things that I don't think are meant to be allowed.
Wanting to transfer fighters to a base has come up in recent games of mine, specifically.
John
Some of the issues will not have occurred, but this will be due to the rules 'not currently allowing it' (or perceived not to allow it).
So people don't try it.
If you give people an inch though - they will take a mile - and so stopping that before it happens would seem to make sense.
I've also chain-transferred a PT in a game before. The opponent didn't object, but I could see how it could become abusive.
A puzzlement. I can see how in reality that cannot happen. I can see in the game rules how you could make a case that nothing stops you from moving a ship carrying a Marine Major General six hexes to a hex where there happens to be another ship that hasn't moved yet. [Theoretically there is such a rule and I just don't remember it, but I don't think so.] Since you could strat move an admiral or diplomat (or some other things) you don't really need a chain move and it would be easy enough to write a rule that says "If you moved one of this list (XYZ) by operational movement that turn you cannot move it by operational movement again" but I'll wait for the staff to tell me if there is or is not such a rule at present. I am inclined to add one.