Archive through March 07, 2020
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Federation & Empire: F&E QUESTIONS:
F&E Q&A Discussions:
Archive through March 07, 2020
Sorry Chuck and Rob - either your missing the point or I am.
(Rob - yes I know you only get fighters if your Homeless supplied, and that has clearly been stated in my posts).
Normal ships get supply from the Allied base rule (which seems to being forgotten about)
Carriers get Homeless supply (so up to 12 carriers per Empire from 1 empire) - so get replacement fighters.
By switching the Homeless supplied carriers each turn - you can probably keep 18 carriers close (if not at) full strength on Fighters (as it is very unusual to be able to burn up all your fighters - and you can transfer fighters at the end of combat to refil some carriers - and keep others (which will be homeless supplied) empty.
Heck - you could even use a CVA to transfer 12-15 fighters to other carriers and then get 12 replacement fighters through 1 homeless carrier supplied slot.
So on your turn - you can move and fight* as normal (as everything started in supply on Allied bases).
During the turn, you re-open a normal supply line back to your own grid - or retreat after combat to an Allied base.
During retrograde, the Homeless supplied Carriers go to other Allied Bases outside your normal supply grid (and then can claim replacement homeless supplied fighters) and other non-Homeless supplied carriers either stay within range of your normal supply grid - or you have collected up spare fighters from the Homeless supplied carriers to provide some fighters for them and retrograde to an appropriate base.
So what is the penalty for being based away from your own supply grid?
* - Yes, there are a few areas the penalty might apply
1) Salvage
2) Drone Ships
3) SFG Ships
Swopping the suppled Homeless Carriers each turn and using Allied Base Supplied normal ships seems to eliminate the bulk of the problems of being out of supply.
BUT if 410.52 was applied - it would at least limit the ability to swop at will, what was suppled and although Allied bases will still provide supply to the bulk of the ships - generating extra free replacement fighters would not be possible.
….and I think I have found the issue (suddenly remembered I had a box of old F&E stuff now in the house).
Why was rule 410.562 added?
In 1993 rules (and previous versions - and possibly the 2000 version, but I can't find that off hand) - the only way for a Homeless Supplied Ship could be changed was via 410.52 - i.e. destroyed or returns home or is supplied by another Empire.
So 2000 or 2010 appears to have added a new rule (410.562), but not taken out the old rule (410.52).
In other words, not only does 410.562 seems to break the supply rules wide open, to me, for no real reason - it also contradicts the rule in 410.52. i.e. if you can change it at the start of your player turn, does it matter if the previous ship was destroyed or receives other supplies?
Does that help explain my (and hopefully other players?) concerns?
Rob post does make me think one thing
"Note that the instant you jump off the base or planet, you will be out of supply (unless of course your movement puts you into supply some other way), so providing supply per (413.41) actually does matter. "
If they are unable to get into the supply range of your main supply grid (and the 1 Ep for up to 5 ships was not paid)
1) Should the ships then move as out of supply?
2) Should the ships then count as out of supply for combat?
My gut is saying 'no', as the rules state you note supply status at certain points and ship supply doesn't alter until the next supply (i.e. SOP) check point.
Supply at the Start of the turn - Gives Full Movement
FEDS: Incorrect:
Quote:(410.21) OPERATIONAL MOVEMENT: Supply status for Operational Movement is evaluated at the start of the Operational Movement Phase.
Supply at the Start of the turn or a the start of that Combat Hex - Gives 100% Attack Factor
Supply at the Start of that combat Hex - Gives retrograde supply.
FEDS:Incorrect:
Quote:(410.24) RETROGRADE: Supply status for Retrograde Movement is determined at the start of that phase. Exception: if the ship were in supply at the time of combat, it is considered to be in supply for purposes of Retrograde Movement.
Therefore, if the instant a ship moved off a Allied base caused it to 'become out of supply', there would be a penalty for not being main grid supplied, there would be a penalty for not being a homeless (or adopted) ship and there would be a penalty if the 1 Ep for 5 ships rule wasn't paid.
In other words, does 410.25 override 410.21, 410.22, 410.23 and 410.24 (in allowing supply to the next supply check point) and immediately put the moving unit out of supply?
(It might explain why some people think the supply rules work OK and others/just me, think not?) 
Will post a formal Q&A - as the brain is now awake!
What about the escorts for these carriers? How do you operate all these host supported homeless carriers without escorts or with UNsupplied escorts?
Paul, the check during production (start of the turn) sees if a new base or captured planet extends your supply lines (or reconnects with a partial grid). Being in supply here means your ships have fuel and consumables (food/DC parts). While your supply lines have length, your allied supply doesn't. [Almost forgot about the lost of SMNs as well that shorten your supply]
Checking at the start of combat looks to see if enemy reactions have cut off supply (your forces are still supplied for combat but … )
Checking at the retrograde Phase looks to see if retreating opposing units have cut your supply routes …
So 1) is yes and 2 is no (but with a qualifier) …
410.25 doesn't override, it's a reminder that those units are in supply but with a supply route of 0.
I think I get Paul's point. Basically as long as you are very very careful a player could use the Allied base supply rule in conjunction with the Homeless ships rule to guarantee supply to the Allied ships you need for the next turn. Assuming of course they can make sure the Allied ships they attacked with can be supplied by that Ally's Main Grid, such that they are Retrograde eligible, using the Homeless ships rule to cover those ships that the player cannot guarantee supply for from the Allied Main Grid.
Even given all of that though, if I am that players opponent and they have ALL or almost all of their carriers in Fed space as Homeless or not in supply from the Allied Main Grid, I'm HAPPY! That means I am in firm control of that Empires territory with little to no significant resources needed to keep control of it.
Like if there are 10 Kzinti CVS' in Fed space, that means as the Coalition I don't have to fight them in Kzinti space, and even if I do fight them in Fed space, they are not as strong given their lack of a Supply Grid to support them. Sure, the Alliance could shore up Fed space this way and gain parity there sooner, but the cost is extremely high. I'd not do it by choice.
Chuck - Escorts and other Ships are Friendly Base Supplied.
Sorry, if my use of wording/SOP was incorrect - but you appear to be saying the underlying rule is that moving off a Friendly base doesn't effect ship supply until the next SOP point check?
So if your stacked with an Friendly Base (unless it's a MB and cut off etc), you :-
1) Can move as normal.
2) Can fight with normal Offensive Compot (exuding Drone and Carrier).
3) If you was in normal main grid supply for combat or stacked with an Friendly Base at the start of combat* or the Retrograde phase you can retrograde as normal.
* - If the enemy reacts into the Hex with the Empire X Forces and Friendly Empire Y Base
So combined with the Homeless Supply rule, 410.561 pretty much eliminates the issue of being out of supply.
Actually MBs cannot supply Allied ships period.
Quote:410.4: Units stacked with a friendly planet or base (e.g., starbase, sector base, battle station, base station, stellar fortress) and the base itself are always in supply regardless of whether or not that base has a supply path. (Mobile bases are not self-supplying.) This includes captured planets as long as a POU has been deployed there.
A MB that was linked to the Supply Grid could not supply Allied ships stacked with it. Those ships would only get supplied if the supply was paid for (Exp. Fleet), or if they were Homeless.
Rob - I think your wrong on that point - a MB connected to the main grid DOES supply everything stacked with it.
'Self Suppling' covers if the Base is cut off.
So a BATS provides normal supply and Allied Ship Supply - even if it's cut off.
A MB only provides normal supply and Allied Ship Supply if it's connected to the main grid - and nothing if it's cut off.
Paul,
No. Read it again. "Units stacked with a friendly planet or base (SB, STB, BATS, BS, SF) and the base itself are always in supply regardless of whether or not that base has a supply path."
MBs are not listed, so it's irrelevant if there are units stacked with it or not. Sure it's still a Supply Point and can supply units of the owning empire just like always (as long as it's connected to a supply grid), but it doesn't do the auto-supply thing the bigger bases can do.
Deleted by author
Rob, I'm not sure what your beef is. Paul has stipulated that the situation is that the MB is connected to the main grid. A MB absolutely extends supply in this situation.
Am I missing something?
I think I see Robs point. The quoted rule 410.25 in SVCs original answer on this topic refers specifically to self-supplying bases providing "exigency supply" to allied ships (supply for combat purposes only when stacked together.) Given the ruling, it would appear that MBs cannot provide "exigency supply" to allied ships stacked with them even if the MB is connected to a main grid. Being excluded by 410.25, MB supply acts more like a convoy or supply tug than a planet or base.
I would suggest everyone reads the recent clarification (or technically a reminder from a ruling made in 2010) on supply in Q&A - as it makes a very big difference on Allied supply.
I totally missed the CL41 ruling and it explains a lot of things.
As far as I can tell, this also applies if one is stacked with one's own base?
So a Fed Fleet on a cut-off Fed SB is actually OOS for purposes of movement.
Moved here to discuss
"
By Rob Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, March 06, 2020 - 10:41 am: Edit
If there is no "point" in the Romulan Offmap area, then how can those EPs be moved out via Operational Movement? There is nothing there to collect them. A tug/LTT/FFT could not "catch" those EPs, as there is no tug mission to do so. They can only be loaded with already collected EPs to transport them somewhere else. This seems to imply that there is "something" in the Romulan Offmap that can at least collect the EPs before they could go poof.
Since the Romulan Offmap area is within 6 hexes of the Romulan Supply Grid, wouldn't it just be able to send any EPs generated to the Treasury? Just like if it was an On Map province with no bases or planets, as long as a single hex of that province with within six hexes of a Supply Point, it would send it's income to the Treasury. "
The simple (but expensive) answer is that the Romulans will need to Strat Move a TUG & MB to one of the bases (once explored!) with in six of the off Map - and then OP move it off - and set up.
Cost is 10 Eps and a Tug for 3 turns (possibly more, but 3 is SM down - Op Move off - SM back onto Map).
Which pretty much destroys the point of the Romulans having an Off Map area, as it will take until about turn 18 to recoup the 10 Ep MB cost.
Easy option would be to include an additional MB in the set up and say it's automatically deployed for free once the On Map Provinces are all found.....
Well the "simple" fix is that since the Off Map area is within 6 hexes, that it just gets to dump it's income into the Main Grid like any other set of provinces.
Done.
The MB would be needed if the Off Map was cutoff and you wanted to be able to accumulate EPs there. Or so you could strat move in and out. But I do not see why the base would be needed to get the income from the Off Map.
I don't see anything about the rule 506.31 that suggests off map EPs are not added to the main grid. The MB only helps if you want to strat ships off map. It's my understanding that MBs can't stockpile EPs (again, the self-supplying thing). So I don't know how, under the current rules, you store EPs in the Rom off map if they are not allowed to have a real base there.
I guess the real question here is this: Does Chuck's ruling mean that offmap-generated EPs (e.g. survey) have to have a MB in order to be transmitted to the main *Romulan* grid.
I think the honest answer is 'we don't know'.
The rules do not define 'how far' off map provinces or new surveyed provinces are.
For everyone else - it doesn't matter - Ep's are sent via the Supply Grid back to location X.
But with this ruling - the Romulans can't - and so if they have to be moved 'via Operational movement', does that mean there is a 1 turn delay from creation to arriving on map? And then we have the issue there is noting to store them or transfer them on map....
So the answer is - I think a formal ruling will be needed confirming how Survey Income is sent and arrives in the Romulan Capital (or partial grid).
The offmap is connected to the Romulan Homeworld main grid (it is less than six hexes from Romulan on map territory) so EPs flow naturally. I'm assuming his ruling is a misstatement.
If it isn't, I'll just ask my opponents to ignore the ruling (as a house rule) and hope they agree.
@Richard: The ruling directly states exactly what you don't like. EPs do NOT flow naturally from the *Rom* offmap - you have to move them operationally, *unless* there is a MB (or colony base) offmap.
I asked for a further clarification ruling on whether survey income in the *Rom* offmap is *lost* if there is no offmap MB, simply because there's nowhere to store survey income.
In my game with Rob, I'm in CT12, so this became highly relevant to us. Rob graciously allowed me to shuffle some stuff around so I can get a MB setting up on CT12 so it is available for the C13 survey I have coming up.
I'm surprised that people aren't focusing on the supply ruling and its apparent impact on a fleet at its own empire's cut-off SB. I find myself wondering if this was really intended, as the CL ruling was for a fleet on an allied SB, and this interpretation increases the impact a lot.
The phrasing of that ruling looks bad and I am not certain what it really intends to mean.
In any case, if an opponent and myself agree then it doesn't matter what the ruling says as far as our own game session is concerned.
***
As for the supply ruling, I don't really like it, but for various reasons do not want to oppose it at this time.
The thing is, the Romulans have NO infrastructure in their off-map area (and therefore need something), everyone else has a starbase (or more)
Note that the Klingons do have base off-map (506.32) but are using Lyran infrastructure to ship their off-map income to their territory…
Ted wrote:
>>@Richard: The ruling directly states exactly what you don't like. EPs do NOT flow naturally from the *Rom* offmap - you have to move them operationally, *unless* there is a MB (or colony base) offmap.>>
I'm deeply confused as to what is being discussed here. That's not what any ruling says.
Over in Q+A, Chuck wrote:
>>The Roms, without an off-map strat node, would have to move the exploration income off-map via operational movement first.>>
Yes. There is no off map infrastructure in the Romulan off map zone. So unless they put a MB (or something) off map, they can't accumulate EPs off map (i.e. build a stockpile), or move EPs off map (i.e. build a stockpile). So if by some chance, the Romulan off map area is cut off from the rest of Romulan space, the EPs there are lost. And unless you put a MB off map, you can't create a satellite stockpile there.
But the Romulan Off Map zone is connected to the Romulan supply grid. And so the money *from* the Off Map just goes to the Romulan treasury like anything else. Nothing indicates that it needs getting shipped on map. You just can't accumulate EPs there, and if you want to build a stockpile, you need a MB off map.
That sentence says "move off map" via operational movement. Off map. Moved off map. Not "moved on map" via operational movement.