Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board

Archive through May 19, 2017

Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Federation & Empire: F&E Master SITs: 02-Federation SIT updates: Processed Federation SIT Reports: Archive through May 19, 2017

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, March 28, 2017 - 04:39 pm: Edit

DONE TODAY
Federation P-HVL - SFB Ref # should be 136 and not A8 CL26. - Ken Kazinski, 2 Jan 2013
Federation P-HVL - Product should be future. - Ken Kazinski, 2 Jan 2013 ACTUALLY CL26
Federation NAF - Product should be FO and not TO. - Ken Kazinski, 2 Jan 2013
Federation CLD - Build Cost or Substitution - the ending period should be removed. - Ken Kazinski, 2 Jan 2013

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, March 30, 2017 - 01:26 pm: Edit

FILE F002 ENDORSED BY FEAST ANSWERED BY SVC

>SCA: Missing entry for Federation SCS with conjectural PFs (the SDA is
>listed.(Nick Samaras July 21,2016)
>>>> Changes from the SCS Factors 11-12(14P)/5-6(7P) From CVA: 3+P, DNdd
>:8+24P, DN+dd:6+12, DNG/H: 5+12 For CVA: 21+12 Notes Two squadrons: F14(8),
>F18(6) Conjectural PF version
SVC: I think this is wrong, No way do you add 14 fighter factors for 12 points.
========
>>>> Add BCP Rule 75A, Factors 10(4P)/5(2P) From BC: 4+8+P From BCV:2+P For
>CA/DN/SCS:14+8+P Conjectural PF version
ADDED
=======
>
>CVL: Delete note in build cost "for replacement only" as these can now be
>built with Special Operations. (Nick Samaras July 21,2016)
>COV: Delete note in build cost "for replacement only" as these can now be
>built with Special Operations. (Nick Samaras July 21,2016)
DONE
>>>> Replace with "for replacement only if not using SO"
DONE
=========
>NAF: Should be listed with NCLs, not NCAs. (Nick Samaras July 21,2016)
>>>> Correct the NAF is a variant of the NLF
DONE
====
>NHA: Needs a conversion cost from NCL. (Nick Samaras July 21,2016)
>>>> Looks like we got the conversion costs wrong for the NHA in SO. The ship
>is essentially identical in F&E terms to the NHV with the only difference
>being the fighter complement. Change From NCA to 2+20 add From NCL 4+20dd
>minor conversion symbol to match the NHV.
DONE
===========
>NSRV: Needs conversion cost from NSR. (Nick Samaras July 21,2016)
>>>> Looks like we got the factors wrong on the counter and on the SIT in SO.
>Factors should be 6-8(3)/3-4(1.5); change all +2 conversion costs to +6; add
>From NSR: 1+6 This is little used ship and counter. We can correct the
>counter when the sheet is reprinted.
DONE
=============
>DWT: Notes should mention this is a theater transport. (Nick Samaras July
>21,2016) NO, IT IS NOT A THEATER TRANSPORT. -- F&E STAFF
>>>> Per (R2.69) the DWT cannot operate as a tug for any purpose or carry a
>pod, thus making it not a theater transport.
ADDED NOTE: "NOT A THEATER TRANSPORT"

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, March 30, 2017 - 01:51 pm: Edit

FILE F003 PROCESSED
>ECL: Should be substituted for NCL, not CL.(Nick Samaras July 21,2016)
>LSC: Should be substituted for NCL, not CL.(Nick Samaras July 21,2016)
>CLS: Should be substituted for NCL, not CL.(Nick Samaras July 21,2016)
>CLH: Should be substituted for NCL, not CL.(Nick Samaras July 21,2016)
>CLD: Should be substituted for NCL, not CL.(Nick Samaras July 21,2016)
>CVE: Should be substituted for NCL, not CL.(Nick Sama ras July 21,2016)
MARKED IT FOR NCL/CL AS IT MAY BE USED IN MIDDLE YEARS.
================
>CLX: Should be substituted for NCL, not CL. Needs battlegroup symbol.
>(Nick Samaras July 21,2016)
>>>> Currently listed as DDX. Leave as for DDX.
Left as a substitute for DDX.
=========
>DDF: Should be substituted for NCL, not DD.(Nick Sama ras July 21,2016)
NO CHANGE, RULES ALLOW DOUBLE SUBSTITUTION, DDF FOR DD, DD FOR NCL
==========
>DE: Should be substituted for NCL, not DD.(Nick Samaras July 21,2016)
NO CHANGE, RULES ALLOW DOUBLE SUBSTITUTION, DDF FOR DD, DD FOR NCL
>
>DEF: Should be substituted for NCL, not DD. (Nick Samaras July 21,2016)
NO CHANGE, RULES ALLOW DOUBLE SUBSTITUTION, DDF FOR DD, DD FOR NCL
Command rating should be 5, not 6. (Nick Samaras July 21,2016)
>>>>Command rating is 5 according to SSD and MSC. SIT in CL was in error.
DONE
=============

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, March 30, 2017 - 02:04 pm: Edit

FED ITEMS FILE F004
DNG: The notes column says, 'Basic Hull (DNG)'. The DVA also gives its base hull as 'DNG'. Therefore, change the Base Hull column for this entry to "DNG(2)" (instead of 'DN(2)'). -James Lowry, 12/29/2016
First, I don't understand this, and second, that base hull of modified base hull stuff drives us crazy.
>>> Already done. The (2) is the size class.
NO CHANGE MADE
==========
Federation DNW: YIS should be 178, not the listed 180. Rationale: The SFB Master Ship Chart YIS is 178. - Jason E. Schaff, 01/10/2014
>>> Concur, MSC has Y178.
F&E IS RARELY EARLIER THAN SFB, NEVER LATER, CONCUR.
========
Federation GSC: YIS should be 140, not the listed 142. Rationale: The SFB Master Ship Chart YIS is 140. - Jason E. Schaff, 01/10/2014
>>> Already done.
PROBABLY CAUGHT IN ON THE PREVIOUS ROUND
=====
Federation NHA: YIS should be 177, not the listed 179. Rationale: The SFB Master Ship Chart YIS is 177. - Jason E. Schaff, 01/10/2014
>>> Concur.
DONE
=======
Federation NSRV: YIS should be 175, not the listed 180. Rationale: The SFB Master Ship Chart YIS is 175. - Jason E. Schaff, 01/10/2014
>>> Concur. Based on MSC and MSSB
DONE
==============
Fed Light Cruisers: CVE: This survey carrier's Conversion costs conflict with Construction cost and I'm not sure what to suggest. Is this a message from G.O.D.? - Andrew Bruno, 8 Feb 2012. DESIGNER NEEDS MORE DATA HERE.
>>> Recommend no changes.--Ryan
NO CHANGES MADE-SVC
============
the POL and POV have build and call up costs, but the FLG only has a build cost. 531.31 says it cost 2 to call up.
>>> The FLG should have a callup cost of 2. The POL should not have a callup cost, this seems to be an error across the couple of SITs I randomly checked.
(531.122) An empire can call up additional police ships (no more than one per turn) beyond those allowed for free by (531.12) at a cost of 2 EPs each. This is expensive considering the tactical limitations on a weak ship, but if you just have to have another ship right now this is available.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, March 30, 2017 - 02:09 pm: Edit

FED FILE F005
======
DDF. Shouldn't this ship be battlegroup capable? Eric S. Smith 18 AUG 2012.
>>> Per rule (315.23) fast ships are not allowed in battle groups.--Ryan
NO CHANGES MADE-SVC
==============
For X-Ships, I am pretty sure you need XTP to build these, assuming that perhaps there needs to be something indicating that in their build costs for clarity?
>>> This is stated in the rules for X-ships. I wouldn’t add this to X-ships of the SITs. Having it for bases is good since you can split the cost between XTP and EP.--RYAN
NO CHANGE MADE
==============
Some ships with a diamond say scout in the notes, others don't (CAD, OPB, bases), some have EW and don't say scout (SWACs). It seems inconsistent, and while some people may know all the rules, I didn't, and I'm not so sure of these without looking them up to see if they are scouts or not.
>>> HEAVY CRUISERS: CAD Add “Scout” in front of EW=
>>> TUGS AND PODS: HFP Add “Scout” in front of EW=
>>> TUGS AND PODS: P-HVL Add “Scout” in front of EW=
WORD "SCOUT" ADDED IN EACH CASE
===========
As the NAF has a hull type of NCF, should the NCF also have the hull type of NCF? Or should both have NCA hulls?. On this same note, the NAF is listed as size 4 and should probably be 3, its salvage is also 1.25 and I would think its 1.8, and finally it says "Available, but historically none were built", which like I mentioned before may need to say "Unbuilt variant" instead.
>>> NCF and NAF should both have Base Hull of NCF(3). Salvage for NAF should be 1.800
DONE

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, March 30, 2017 - 02:12 pm: Edit

FED FILE F006
============
Federation COV - Replacement is misspelled in Buld Cost or Substitution - Ken Kazinski, 2 Jan 2013
>>> Is currently spelled incorrectly but may have already been taken care of.
FIXED EARLIER WITH THE EARLIER CHANGE
=======
Federation FFB - For consistancy shouldn't the Build Cost or Substitution be "For DW: 4 Free: (525.311)" and not "For DW 4: Free: (525.311)" - Ken Kazinski, 2 Jan 2013
>>> Already corrected.
NO FURTHER CHANGE
============
Federation HVH - Conversion cost lists the HAC and HAV but neither of those units is listed. - Ken Kazinski, 2 Jan 2013
>>> Already corrected.
NO FURTHER CHANGE
============

By Mike Dowd (Mike_Dowd) on Friday, March 31, 2017 - 12:40 pm: Edit

DONE 4 APRIL 2017, NOT POSTED UNTIL LATER

Page 9: SWAC (E2). Date Available is listed as T171. Change to Y171. Rationale: Probable typo. Mike Dowd, 31 Mar 17

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Friday, March 31, 2017 - 02:14 pm: Edit

NO CHANGE POSSIBLE, REQUIRES BOARD APPROVAL TO CHANGE PUBLISHED COUNTERS, MAYBE SOMEDAY BUT NOT NOW, 4 APRIL 2017

BCJ- factors in SIT are 11S/5. The SSD for this ship just swaps out two weapons (drone/PL-F) on the engineering hull for Photons. Shouldn't the factors thus be 11-10S/5. Howard Bampton, 2017-03-31

FEDS: That is a legacy counter issue dating back to the 1986 game. While all Fed BCHs should have a base-10 defense factor since they all take the same "punch", the fact is that the staff cannot change the factors on the Fed BCJ or other established counters without full ADB review and approval. For now, just consider it a bit of a photon blessing fudge.

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Friday, March 31, 2017 - 07:37 pm: Edit

DONE 4 APRIL 2017

BB conversion cost should be 'None' not 'NONE' for consistency's sake. Howard Bampton, 2017-03-31

BB- Build cost is listed as '318.31:36'. Add space: '318.31: 36'. Howard Bampton, 2017-03-31

CLH The closing parens for build cost is merged with cell boundary, suggest (1/yr) alternative. Howard Bampton, 2017-03-31

FTL build rate says '(1/ur)' instead of '(1/yr)'. Howard Bampton, 2017-03-31

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Monday, April 03, 2017 - 03:10 pm: Edit

FIXED 4 APRIL 2017

SCA Build and conversion columns need "+" before PF glyph in several places - Howard Bampton 2017-04-03

HAA factors are shown as "3-8-1-4" instead of "3-8/1-4" suspect this has propagated through several other (all?) SITS. - Howard Bampton 2017-04-03

Z-Symbols Used Footer doesn't have glyph for PFs in all cases - Howard Bampton 2017-04-03

By Frank Brooks (Alskdjf) on Wednesday, April 05, 2017 - 05:47 pm: Edit

DONE 7 APRIL 2017

SDA: The text "PFs" should be the ¶ symbol. This occurs twice in the Conversion Cost column, and once in the Build Cost column. F Brooks, 4 April, 2017.
ALL SUCH INSTANCES IN THE FED SIT HAVE ALREADY BEEN FIXED.

CFS: The "(minor)" text in the Conversion Cost column can be replaced with the downward pointing triangle. F Brooks, 4 April, 2017.

CLH: The information in the Build Cost column runs off the right side of the cell and the actual cost is missing. F Brooks, 4 April, 2017. NOT MISSING, MUST HAVE BEEN FIXED EARLIER.

PFF: To be consistent with other entries, the SFB Ref # column should be just "121". F Brooks, 4 April, 2017.

SWAC(E2): done yesterday, check the file.

By Frank Brooks (Alskdjf) on Wednesday, April 05, 2017 - 05:48 pm: Edit

DONE 7 APRIL 2017

HAC: The SFB Ref # should be "R1.60". F Brooks, 4 April, 2017.

HAA: The SFB Ref # should be "R1.A35". F Brooks, 4 April, 2017.

HAA: fixed on Tuesday, check the processed reports file.

HAV: The SFB Ref # should be "R1.55". F Brooks, 4 April, 2017.

FTH: The SFB Ref # should be "R1.74". F Brooks, 4 April, 2017.

By Frank Brooks (Alskdjf) on Wednesday, April 05, 2017 - 05:48 pm: Edit

DONE 7 APRIL 2017
JAA: The SFB Ref # should be "R1.A34". F Brooks, 4 April, 2017.

FTL: Fixed yesterday, check file.

REPR: The SFB Ref # should be "R1.25". F Brooks, 4 April, 2017.

LVH: The SFB Ref # should be "R1.75". F Brooks, 4 April, 2017.

By Frank Brooks (Alskdjf) on Wednesday, April 05, 2017 - 05:49 pm: Edit

ALL DONE, SOME TODAY, SOME EARLIER

FTS: The SFB Ref # should be "R1.18". F Brooks, 4 April, 2017.

FHS: The SFB Ref # should be "R1.61". F Brooks, 4 April, 2017.

SAC: The SFB Ref # should be "R1.58". F Brooks, 4 April, 2017.

SAV: The SFB Ref # should be "R1.13A". F Brooks, 4 April, 2017.

SVV: The SFB Ref # should be "R1.76". F Brooks, 4 April, 2017.

By Frank Brooks (Alskdjf) on Wednesday, April 05, 2017 - 05:49 pm: Edit

ALL DONE, SOME EARLIER, SOME TODAY

MB: The SFB Ref # should be "R1.24". F Brooks, 4 April, 2017.

OPB: The SFB Ref # should be "R1.45". F Brooks, 4 April, 2017.

BSX (all flavors): The SFB Ref # should be "R1.207". F Brooks, 4 April, 2017.

BSX(FP): Should there be a Conversion Cost from the BSX(F)? F Brooks, 4 April, 2017.

BTS(F): The Notes column should not include "& FVM". F Brooks, 4 April, 2017.

By Frank Brooks (Alskdjf) on Wednesday, April 05, 2017 - 05:49 pm: Edit

SOME DONE, SOME SENT TO STAFF

BTS(FP): Should there be a Conversion Cost from the BTS(F)? F Brooks, 4 April, 2017.

SBX(F): Should there be a Conversion Cost from the SBX(N)? F Brooks, 4 April, 2017.

SBX(FP): The text "From BTS(N)" in the Notes column should probably be "From BTX(N)". F Brooks, 4 April, 2017.

SFX(N): One occurrence of "2x" in "+ 2x2xFVM" in the Notes column should be removed. F Brooks, 4 April, 2017.

SFX(FP) Should there be Conversion Costs from the SFX(N) and SFX(F)? F Brooks, 4 April, 2017.

By Frank Brooks (Alskdjf) on Wednesday, April 05, 2017 - 05:50 pm: Edit

DONE 7 APRIL 2017

FVM: There should be an open paren between the 0 and 4 in the Factors column. F Brooks, 4 April, 2017.

SYMBOLS USED: Done for all SITS yesterday, check file.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, April 04, 2017 - 03:12 pm: Edit

DEFERRED

DDM entry missing (may be useful in MY and 4PW scenarios as class history suggests these were widespread up until GW and the loss of 2xPhotons should result in lower AF). Howard Bampton, 2017-03-31

I added a placeholder line for this, but whether we do that for any given "ship not in F&E yet" depends on the going price of golf balls at Mara Largo. In this particular case it's going to generate a lot of added clutter that doesn't apply to any published scenario.

FEDS Concurs.

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Friday, April 07, 2017 - 10:56 pm: Edit

DONE 8 APRIL 2017

BB (all hulls/varients)- YIS reference to (318.31) should be (436.0) to be consistent with other SITS - Howard Bampton 2017-04-07

BB (all hulls/varients)- reference to 318.31 in build/sub should be (318.31) to be consistent with other rules cross references (i.e. add ()'s). May want to do it as "Special/(318.31)" to be consistent (as much as is possible) with other empires. - Howard Bampton 2017-04-07

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Friday, April 07, 2017 - 10:57 pm: Edit

DONE 8 APRIL 2017

SCA Build cost should be "For CVA: 21+28+(PF glyph)" - "+" is missing between 28 and PF glyph - Howard Bampton 2017-04-07

SCA should be in DN section, not BB one. - Howard Bampton 2017-04-07

DVA Ship has F14 and A20 fighters (or F101's that are not in F&E). This should be noted in "Notes" as other CVs with F14/A20s have notes reflecting special fighters - Howard Bampton 2017-04-07

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Saturday, April 08, 2017 - 01:02 am: Edit

DONE, BUT THIS MAY CHANGE DD DATE

DDM Rule reference A23, YIS Y130, product CL33 (MY in SIT is reasonable however) per Fed Master Starship book - Howard Bampton 2017-04-08

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Saturday, April 08, 2017 - 01:11 am: Edit

ADDED 8 APRIL 2017

BCJ Since the factors can't be fixed due to having to redo counters, should a note be added that the salvage cost is correct as printed (3.0) instead of being the slightly higher value one would expect from an 11/5 unit? There are rare notes in SITS to the effect of "confirming this unusual value" and this would seem to be one of them - Howard Bampton 2017-04-08

By Jeffrey Coutu (Jtc) on Monday, April 10, 2017 - 05:24 pm: Edit

ALL DONE 12 APRIL 2017

BS(FP) In Conversion “From (444.22): 10+6+18”, change “+18” to “+9” since fighters on bases cost 1 EP each. - Jeffrey Coutu 2017-04-10

BS(FP) In Conversion “BS(N): 2+6+9”, change “2” to “4” since adding 2xFTM and 1xFVM modules costs 4 EPs (plus fighters). - Jeffrey Coutu 2017-04-10

BSX(FP) In Conversions add missing conversion “From BSX(F): 2+9”. - Jeffrey Coutu 2017-04-10

BTS(FP) In Conversion “From BTS (F): 4+9”, change “4” to “2” since adding 1xFVM module costs 2 EPs (plus fighters). - Jeffrey Coutu 2017-04-10

BTS(FP) In Conversions add missing conversion “From BS(N): 7+6+9”. - Jeffrey Coutu 2017-04-10

By Jeffrey Coutu (Jtc) on Monday, April 10, 2017 - 05:25 pm: Edit

ALL DONE 12 APRIL 2017

STB(F) In Conversions add missing conversion “From STB(N): 2+6”. - Jeffrey Coutu 2017-04-10

STB(FP) In Conversions add missing conversion “From STB(N): 4+6+9”. - Jeffrey Coutu 2017-04-10

STB(FP) In Conversions add missing conversion “From STB(F): 2+9”. - Jeffrey Coutu 2017-04-10

SBX(N) In Conversion “From STX(N): 20”, change “20” to “40”. - Jeffrey Coutu 2017-04-10

By Jeffrey Coutu (Jtc) on Monday, April 10, 2017 - 05:25 pm: Edit

ALL DONE 12 APRIL 2017

SBX(F) In Conversion “SFX(N): 2+12”, change “SFX” to “SBX” and change “2” to “4” since adding 4xFTM modules costs 4 EPs (plus fighters). - Jeffrey Coutu 2017-04-10

SBX(FP) In Notes “From BTX(N): 50+12+18”, change “50” to “60” since BTX(N) to SBX(N) costs 52 and adding 4xFTM and 2xFVM modules costs 8 EPs (plus fighters) for a total of 60 EPs. - Jeffrey Coutu 2017-04-10

SBX(FP) In Notes “From BTX(F): 56+6+18”, change “56” to “58” since BTX(N) to SBX(N) costs 52 and adding 2xFTM and 2xFVM modules costs 6 EPs (plus fighters) for a total of 58 EPs. - Jeffrey Coutu 2017-04-10

SBX(FP) In Notes “From STB(N): 64+12+18”, change “64” to “66” since STB(N) to SBX(N) costs 58 and adding 4xFTM and 2xFVM modules costs 8 EPs (plus fighters) for a total of 66 EPs. - Jeffrey Coutu 2017-04-10

SBX(FP) In Notes “From STB(F): 62+6+18”, change “62” to “64” since STB(N) to SBX(N) costs 58 and adding 2xFTM and 2xFVM modules costs 6 EPs (plus fighters) for a total of 64 EPs. - Jeffrey Coutu 2017-04-10

By Jeffrey Coutu (Jtc) on Monday, April 10, 2017 - 05:25 pm: Edit

BOTH DONE 12 APRIL 2017

SFX(FP) In Conversion “From SFB(F): 40+18”, change “40” to “44” since SFB(N) to SFX(N) costs 40 and adding 2xFVM modules costs 4 EPs (plus fighters) for a total of 44 EPs. - Jeffrey Coutu 2017-04-10

SFX(FP) In Conversion “From SFX(N):”, add the missing cost which is “8+12+18”. - Jeffrey Coutu 2017-04-10

By Jeffrey Coutu (Jtc) on Monday, April 10, 2017 - 05:26 pm: Edit

ALL DONE 17 APRIL 2017

SFX(FP) In Notes “From STX(N): 74+12+18”, change “74” to “76” since STX(N) to SFX(N) costs 68 and adding 4xFTM and 2xFVM modules costs 8 EPs (plus fighters) for a total of 76 EPs. - Jeffrey Coutu 2017-04-10

SFX(FP) In Notes “From STX(F): 72+6+18”, change “72” to “74” since STX(N) to SFX(N) costs 68 and adding 2xFTM and 2xFVM modules costs 6 EPs (plus fighters) for a total of 74 EPs. - Jeffrey Coutu 2017-04-10

SFX(FP) In Notes “From STX(FP): 70+6+9”, change “70” to “72” since STX(N) to SFX(N) costs 68 and adding 2xFTM and 1xFVM modules costs 4 EPs (plus fighters) for a total of 72 EPs. - Jeffrey Coutu 2017-04-10

SFX(FP) In Notes remove the text “From SBX(F):” since that conversion is listed in the Conversion column. - Jeffrey Coutu 2017-04-10

SFX(FP) In Notes, add missing conversion “From SFX(F): 4+18”. - Jeffrey Coutu 2017-04-10

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, April 12, 2017 - 03:12 pm: Edit

All reports done in time for the scheduled 14 April upload.

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Friday, April 14, 2017 - 03:03 pm: Edit

DONE. THIS WAS ACTUALLY EASY AS I COULD SEARCH FOR ACS OR DCS AND JUST COPY-AND-PASTE THE TEXT.

ACS Note could be: "Area Control Ship, Two squadrons: F18(6) and A20(10V), Heavy/Medium Carrier, Scout. EW=2. Conjectural." to be consistent with other CVs with mixed fighter wings. - Howard Bampton 2017-04-14

DCS Mixed fighter wing not noted. "Division Control Ship, Medium/Heavy Carrier with F18(6) and F111(9H), Scout, EW=2. [Note: Counters lack scout diamond.]" - Howard Bampton 2017-04-14

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Friday, April 14, 2017 - 03:04 pm: Edit

PROCESSED

GSC/CVL/COV/GSX/GVX Should the GSC be moved into own area instead of mixed into CA section? - Howard Bampton 2017-04-14
FEDS: NON-CONCURS. These units are variants of the CA base hull.

Tug pods: We have "max xxx in service", "limit xxx", and "limit xxx in service". Do we care enough to standardize on one style? - Howard Bampton 2017-04-14
FEDS: While standardization is good, I'd rather use designer time to make meaningful SIT corrections first then address style later.
SVC: since these were all in one place (not scattered up and down the chart) I did standard them using:

. Limit 2 in service.

period new sentence capital L numberal 2 ending period.

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Friday, April 14, 2017 - 03:05 pm: Edit

DONE

Mobile support units & FRD- "None" and "--NA--" used for conversion source. Should we standardize on "None"? - Howard Bampton 2017-04-14
SVC DECIDED TO STANDARDING ON —NA—

BSX(FP)[with fighters and F111s] "FVM" in notes is in bold. - Howard Bampton 2017-04-14
SVC: LEVEL 2, FIXED

FVM(F111) "Build; 2+9" should have a colon, not a very hard to spot semi-colon - Howard Bampton 2017-04-14
SVC: LEVEL 2, FIXED

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Friday, April 14, 2017 - 03:09 pm: Edit

SIGH. SEE NOTES ON THE ANTHILL YOU KICKED OVER.

FHL Build cost alternative (consistent notation, data is there): "See (451.0): 4 (1/yr)" and drop 451 reference from notes. Makes entry look like most others in table. - Howard Bampton 2017-04-14
SVC THOUGHT IT WOULD BE CLEVER TO OPEN EVERY SINGLE SIT AND DO A UNIVERSAL SEARCH AND PASTE TO FIX THIS IN EVERY SINGLE SIT. HE QUICKLY FOUND THAT IN MINOR EMPIRES CHUCK STRONG TOTALLY CHANGED THE WAY AUXILIARIES ARE BUILT AND THAT THIS IS GOING TO REQUIRE MASSIVE CHANGES TO A DOZEN LINES OF EVERY SIT TO BRING ALL BUT THE THREE MINOR EMPIRES UP TO ME STANDARD RULES. SIGH.

FHS/FHL Generally speaking, shouldn't the conversion routes be similar (i.e. if a SAC can become a FHS, a LAC can become a FHL)? FHS can come from a SAC, but (presently) the FHL/LAC route does not exist - Howard Bampton 2017-04-14 SVC NOTES THAT THIS WILL REQUIRE A GENERAL FIX TO DOZENS OF LINE ON EVERY SIT AND DOING ONE LINE OF ONE SIT IS POINTLESS. THE STAFF CAN WORK THIS OUT SOMETIME AND GIVE SVC A STANDARDIZED LISTING.

FHS Build cost should probably be "2". - Howard Bampton 2017-04-14 REQUIRES STAFF ENDORSEMENT FOR CHANGE.

FHS Build or note should probably reference (451.0) in same manner as FHL (either style should work). - Howard Bampton 2017-04-14 SEE ABOVE NOTE ABOUT MINOR EMPIRES. IT IS A WASTE OF TIME FIX ANY AUXILIARY BUILD/CONVERT FORMAT ON ANY SIT.

SYH Build cost should be "For SAV: 2+9" to be consistent with LYH version. - Howard Bampton 2017-04-14 SIGH

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Friday, April 14, 2017 - 03:11 pm: Edit

PROCESSED
NPF Cost for PFs not noted in build or conversion columns. This appears to be the only entry of substance rather than making stuff look pretty. - Howard Bampton 2017-04-14 AT ONE POINT NO PFT HAD THE COST OF PFS ON THE SIT. THIS WAS A LATER ADDITION, IMPERFECTLY MADE.

DDX(2) Conversion should perhaps be "None"? - Howard Bampton 2017-04-14 SVC IS CONFUSED AS IT ALREADY IS.

REPR Conversion should be "None" for consistency? - Howard Bampton 2017-04-14 LEVEL III, NOT WORTH THE BOTHER.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, April 15, 2017 - 09:46 am: Edit

DONE
Battleships: SDA: Factors: 20(14)P/10(6)P should be 20(14)P/10(7)P. The F-14s are 8/4 and the F-18s are 6/3 for 14/7. Thomas Mathews 15 Apr 2017

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, April 15, 2017 - 10:18 am: Edit

DONE
Heavy Battlecruisers: BCJ: Build Cost or Substitution: For BC: 12 should read: For CA: 12. All other heavy battlecruisers read: For CA: xx. Thomas Mathews 15 Apr 2017

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Saturday, April 15, 2017 - 12:02 pm: Edit

FIXED
NCL/CL
CMC: Most CL hulls have "For CL/NCL" or "For NCL/CL" in build cost. This lacks that. - Howard Bampton 2017-04-15

CLV: Most CL hulls have "For CL/NCL" or "For NCL/CL" in build cost. This lacks that. - Howard Bampton 2017-04-15

LVH: Most CL hulls have "For CL/NCL" or "For NCL/CL" in build cost. This lacks that. - Howard Bampton 2017-04-15

CL (uses purple ink in an attempt to frame Jean): build costs use both CL/NCL and CL/NCL ordering. Noted for completeness, but not worth fixing. - Howard Bampton 2017-04-15

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Saturday, April 15, 2017 - 12:04 pm: Edit

MADE THEM ALL FOR NCL
DD (all) Suggest changing "For NCL" and "For DD" to one of a) "For NCL" or b) "For NCL/DD" or c) all but DD/DDM entries to "For DD". Any works. Avoids current mix of styles. Place this in "style fix round of SIT updates" file - Howard Bampton 2017-04-15

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, April 15, 2017 - 01:51 pm: Edit

Howard: I appreciate your diligence but as Chuck said, designer time is limited and if his F&E department is going to get two hours of SVC per week he wants them spent on actual mistakes, not endlessly chasing format standardization.

I see three levels of mistakes:

1. Actual missing or incorrect data, such as a missing +PFs or a 5 instead of a 6. Highest priority.

2. Minor typos, lack of a space after a colon or a missing end period. Worth fixing but doesn't actually give anyone wrong data and in the end doesn't really matter. Low priority. Might as well post here so nobody else reports the same thing.

3. Format standardizing: 1 per year, 1/yr, 1/year or "none" or "-NA-" or "-" these are almost irrelevant, nobody cares, tediously take time to fix. This stuff is really just "fix it someday" and should be sent by email and don't get upset if it never gets done. It is, however, the kind of thing I can do for 5 minutes at a time in odd corners of even hours when there isn't time to start something new or I need a break.

By Jeffrey Coutu (Jtc) on Thursday, April 20, 2017 - 07:29 pm: Edit

DONE 21 JUNE 2017

BSX(FP) In Conversion “From BTX(N): 4+6+9”, change “BTX” to “BSX”. - Jeffrey Coutu 2017-04-20

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Thursday, April 27, 2017 - 05:11 pm: Edit

DONE 20 MAY 2017
HAP Presuming notes will be similar to other HAPs. Added "Conjectural" given UFP not building PFs (remove Conj. if populated with F111s). Unit is a scout, notes do not state this. "Conjectural Auxiliary PFT, Scout, EW=2" - Howard Bampton 2017-04-26

HSC Presuming notes will be similar to other HSCs. Added "Conjectural" given UFP not building PFs (remove Conj. if populated with F111s). Unit is a scout, notes do not state this. "Conjectural Auxiliary SCS, Scout, EW=2" - Howard Bampton 2017-04-26

LAS Nonstandard EW notation. Alternative: "Large Auxiliary Scout; EW=3" - Howard Bampton 2017-04-26

SAS Nonstandard EW notation. Alternative: "Small Auxiliary Scout, EW=2" - Howard Bampton 2017-04-26

FEDS note on auxiliary ship build costs: Recommend simply citing for each auxiliary build as follows:

(549.121): #
(where '#' is the cost of production)

Rationale:

<HR SIZE=0><!-Quote-!>Quote:(549.121) Each empire may produce one auxiliary (of any type) per turn (the Federation, Klingons, Romulans, and the ISC may produce two per turn), but only one per year may be a large, jumbo, or heavy auxiliary. One large or two small auxiliary troop ships can be built each turn in addition to that number. Some auxiliaries have an “in service” limit (762.0). Some smaller empires have lower limits in their order of battle.<!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0>

All older references in the auxiliary build columns are now obsolete as the new (549.0) Auxiliary Warships rules cover their production.

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Thursday, April 27, 2017 - 05:11 pm: Edit

DONE 20 MAY 2017
NSR Unit is SR. Factor Diamond should be red. - Howard Bampton 2017-04-26

NSRV Unit is SR. Factor Diamond should be red. - Howard Bampton 2017-04-26

CLS Unit is SR. Factor Diamond should be red. - Howard Bampton 2017-04-26

CVE Unit is SR. Factor Diamond should be red. - Howard Bampton 2017-04-26

FLG Nonstandard EW notation. Alternative: "Police Flagship, Scout, EW=1, Commando Ship." - Howard Bampton 2017-04-26

FEDS: CONCURS with all line items above.

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Thursday, April 27, 2017 - 05:15 pm: Edit

DONE 20 MAY 2017
These are for FEAST/FEAR/other staff to review.

Overall gist is GSC/COV/CVL to GSC/COV/CVL should all be allowed/covered as should GSC/COV/CVL to GVX/GSX. This flags the MIA ones.
GVX Conversion from COV is missing. Should be similar to cost from GSC. Staff?
GVX Conversion from GSC is missing. Staff? Rationale- If you can turn a CVL into a GVX, then the GSC should be able to as well for a similar cost.
GVX Conversion from GSX is missing. Staff?

FEDS Recommended GVX Costs:
For CA: 22+18 Rationale: 12 X-ship + 5 Survey + 2 (two additional EW over std survey) + 3 (F-111 carrier surcharge) + 18 Ftrs
From CA: 16+18 Rationale: 6 (X conv) + 5 Survey + 2 (two additional EW over std survey) + 3 (F-111 carrier surcharge) + 18 Ftrs
From GSC/COV: 8+18 Rationale: 6 (X conv) + 2 (F-111 carrier surcharge) + 18 Ftrs
From CVL: 8+12 Rationale: 6 (X conv) + 2 (F-111 carrier surcharge) + 12 Ftrs


CVL Conversion from GSC is missing. Presumably "1+6" Staff? Rationale- A GSC could be handy at a SB for conversion to a CVL after the loss of an existing CVL.
ADD Conversion: From GSC: 1+6. Rationale: Based upon SFB (R2.16A) "Galactic survey cruisers were designed for rapid reconfiguration into commando carriers (R2.51) for wartime emergencies." -- FEDS 7 MAY 2017-- FEDS 7 MAY 2017

COV Conversion from GSC is missing. Presumably "1" Staff?
ADD Conversion: From GSC: 1. Rationale: Based upon SFB (R2.16A) "Galactic survey cruisers were designed for rapid reconfiguration into commando carriers (R2.51) for wartime emergencies." -- FEDS 7 MAY 2017

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Thursday, April 27, 2017 - 05:17 pm: Edit

DONE 20 MAY 2017
GVX has two entries (one with CL26/A7 for ref# and one for 208). F MSSB shows 208 is the correct reference #. Please consolidate, staff. Superficially the CL26 one just needs to have the ref# changed to 208 to be correct (plus some missing conversion nits in other line items). - Howard Bampton 2017-04-26

GVX Unit is SR. Factor Diamonds should be red. - Howard Bampton 2017-04-26

FEDS CONCURS with both items.

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Thursday, April 27, 2017 - 05:17 pm: Edit

DONE 20 MAY 2017
BSC Nonstandard EW notation. Alternative: "Scout, EW=2"

GSC Unit is SR. Factor Diamond should be red. - Howard Bampton 2017-04-26

CVL Unit is SR. Factor Diamond should be red. - Howard Bampton 2017-04-26

COV Unit is SR. Factor Diamond should be red. - Howard Bampton 2017-04-26

FEDS: CONCURS with all items above.

By Nick Samaras (Koogie) on Friday, April 28, 2017 - 06:24 pm: Edit

DONE 20 MAY 2017
BB: Need conversion cost from BB-.(Nick Samaras, April 28, 2017)
From BB-: 0+8 - FEDS

BBV: Need conversion cost from BB-.(Nick Samaras, April 28, 2017)
CHANGE From BB to read From BB/BB-: 4+22 - FEDS

SDA: Should YIS be Fall Y181 as with other Fed PFTs? (Nick Samaras, April 28, 2017)
Y180 Per MSC and R2.94A. Also ADD to Notes: "See (502.73)"

DNW: Is the YIS Y178 (master ship chart) or Y180? (Nick Samaras, April 28, 2017)
Y178 per MSC.

SCA: Should YIS be Fall Y181 as with other Fed PFTs? Rule (318.31) in the notes is the battleship note, and should probably be (302.352).(Nick Samaras, April 28, 2017)
Y181 (need docs to change. Recommend changing reference as suggested. FEDS.

SCS: A20(10) in notes should be A20(10V).(Nick Samaras, April 28, 2017)
FEDS CONCURS.

4SCS: A20(10) in notes should be A20(10V).(Nick Samaras, April 28, 2017)
FEDS CONCURS.

BCS: Conversion from BC should be 5 and construction cost 15+8+¶ to match other empires BCS. (Nick Samaras, April 28, 2017)
FEDS NON-CONCURS. The Feds did not field a traditional BCS nor did it have PFs.

By Nick Samaras (Koogie) on Friday, April 28, 2017 - 06:26 pm: Edit

DONE 20 MAY 2017
CS: Should this be a separate catagory? The hull is quite different to be with the CAs. (Nick Samaras, April 28, 2017)
FEDS CONCURS -- Recommend add new category "STRIKE CRUISERS" and ADD new line for CSX ship from X1R; ref is 204

COV: Need conversion from GSC.(Nick Samaras, April 28, 2017)
From GSC: 1. Rationale: Based upon SFB (R2.16A) "Galactic survey cruisers were designed for rapid reconfiguration into commando carriers (R2.51) for wartime emergencies."

CVF: Lists base hull as CA(3)[CF]. All other Fed CF variants list base hull as CA(3).(Nick Samaras, April 28, 2017)
Recommend dropping "[CF]" -- FEDS

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, May 11, 2017 - 09:11 pm: Edit

DONE
HDW Section: Recommend adding a bottom line note stating the following:

"Any HDW can be reconfigured at an uncrippled starbase (or greater) to another HDW configuration for 1EP (2EP for configurations "S"; 5 EP for configuration "Q"); note the mission packages (COG, POG, FOP, etc.) must also be available for a given reconfiguration; see (525.222)."

FEDS Rationale: Saves space as every HDW would require an additional conversion line "From HDW?: 1"

By Frank Brooks (Alskdjf) on Friday, May 19, 2017 - 09:32 pm: Edit

GCX: The word "CL26" can be removed from the SFB Ref # column. F Brooks, 19 May 2017.
NO

By Frank Brooks (Alskdjf) on Friday, May 19, 2017 - 09:32 pm: Edit

HDW Variants: Most of the HDW variants appear to be missing crippled side information in the Factors column. F Brooks, 19 May 2017
SVC: NONE OF THEM ARE MISSING THIS DATA

By Frank Brooks (Alskdjf) on Friday, May 19, 2017 - 09:32 pm: Edit

OBSOLETE, ALL OF THIS WAS DONE PRIOR TO THIS REPORT
HEAVY AUXILIARIES: The word "Heavy" should be added to the beginning of the Notes column for those units that don't already have it. F Brooks, 19 May 2017. F Brooks, 19 May 2017.

HAC: The SFB Ref # should be R1.60. F Brooks, 19 May 2017.

HAP: The SFB Ref # should be R1.56. F Brooks, 19 May 2017.

HSC: The SFB Ref # should be R1.57. F Brooks, 19 May 2017.

By Frank Brooks (Alskdjf) on Friday, May 19, 2017 - 09:32 pm: Edit

ALL DONE, MOSTLY BEFORE REPORT
JAC: The SFB Ref # should be R1.A23. F Brooks, 19 May 2017. F Brooks, 19 May 2017.

JAC: The word "Jumbo" should be added to the beginning of the Notes column. F Brooks, 19 May 2017.

LARGE AUXILIARIES: The word "Large" should be added to the beginning of the Notes column for those units that don't already have it. F Brooks, 19 May 2017.

FHL: The words "Large Hospital Auxiliary" should be "Large Auxiliary Hospital Ship" to be consistent with the other units in this section and the FHS. F Brooks, 19 May 2017.

FHS: The word "Aux" in the Notes column should be "Auxiliary". F Brooks, 19 May 2017.

By Frank Brooks (Alskdjf) on Friday, May 19, 2017 - 09:33 pm: Edit

DONE, THANKS
SAC: The word "Small" should be added to the beginning of the Notes column. F Brooks, 19 May 2017.

BSX (all flavors): The SFB Ref # should be "R1.207". F Brooks, 19 May 2017.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, May 19, 2017 - 09:52 pm: Edit

We have enough to do. The words "of this" aren't hurting anything. We don't charge customers extra for them.

Do NOT post any more of that stuff, someone can delete any of them posted to date.

By Nick Samaras (Koogie) on Friday, May 19, 2017 - 11:54 pm: Edit

DONE
I WONDER ABOUT OTHER EMPIRES
CHECKED THEM ALL, FIXED A FEW
HDW-K: Crippled factor should be 4, not 3-4 as this mission adds +1 to both sides.(Nick Samaras, May 19, 2017)

By Nick Samaras (Koogie) on Friday, April 28, 2017 - 06:29 pm: Edit

DONE 20 MAY 2017
The VHP, HFP, and P-HVL all have the same ref number and seem to be a mish-mash.(Nick Samaras, April 28, 2017)
FEDS recommends the following:
P-AVP: CHANGE designation to read: AVP | Ref to read: TBD | CHANGE cost to read: (431.22): 2+20 | Salv = 0.500 | This is the A-20 FCR pod from FO.
VHP: CHANGE designation to read: VHP (P-FCF) | Ref to read: 101 | CR is "0' not +0 | This is the F-111 FCR pod.
HFP: Keep this entry - this data is correct.
P-HVL: Delete this entry; this pod is correctly listed as the HFP above.

NSRV: Needs conversion from NSR. Build cost should be 11+6. (Nick Samaras, April 28, 2017)
FEDS recommends: From NSR: 1+6

NCD: Should there be a note "this is not a scout" for clarity. (Nick Samaras, April 28, 2017)
FEDS NON-CONCURS: It does not have a scout diamond and does not have an EW rating or "Scout" in the notes section.

OCA: Should this be it's own category, and not with the CLs. (Nick Samaras, April 28, 2017)
FEDS: CONCURS

DDM: Reference should be 6, as this was added to the DD rule and SSD. Needs battle group symbol (Nick Samaras, April 28, 2017)
FEDS: CHANGE factors to read 5-6/3 (easily matches fed FF at 5/3) | Keep reference - this is what is listed in the MSSB.

By Nick Samaras (Koogie) on Friday, April 28, 2017 - 06:30 pm: Edit

DONE, BUT THE STAFF WILL WANT TO CHECK THEM LATER
DDF: Ref number should be 146. (Nick Samaras, April 28, 2017)

DEF: Needs conversion from DE. (Nick Samaras, April 28, 2017)

FBE: Needs conversion from FF. (Nick Samaras, April 28, 2017)

FBS: Needs conversion from FF. (Nick Samaras, April 28, 2017)

FBV: Needs conversion from FF. (Nick Samaras, April 28, 2017)

By Nick Samaras (Koogie) on Friday, April 28, 2017 - 06:33 pm: Edit

REPORT IGNORED, OVERTAKEN BY LATER EVENTS, REVIEW POSTED SIT AND RESUBMIT AS NEEDED.

HAH: Factors should be 3-8(9H6)/1-4(4.5H3) as F-111s are nine factors. Conversion cost seems incorrect regarding fighter costs. (Nick Samaras, April 28, 2017)
FEDS: CHANGE Factors as above | CHANGE conv From HAV: 2+12 From HAC: 4+24 Rationale: (527.131) "The F-111s on auxiliaries pay the full price and not the discounted auxiliary price."

FTL: Need conversion from LAC. (Nick Samaras, April 28, 2017)
FEDS: From LAC: 3

FHL: Need conversion from LAC. (Nick Samaras, April 28, 2017)
FEDS: From LAC: 2

LAS: Need conversion from LAC. (Nick Samaras, April 28, 2017)
FEDS: From LAC: 3

LAV: Need conversion from LAC. (Nick Samaras, April 28, 2017)
FEDS: From LAC: 1+12

LVH: Need conversion from LAC. (Nick Samaras, April 28, 2017)
FEDS: From LAC: 3+10

ASC: Need conversion from LAC. (Nick Samaras, April 28, 2017)
FEDS: From LAC: 5+6+18

By Nick Samaras (Koogie) on Friday, April 28, 2017 - 06:36 pm: Edit

REPORT IGNORED, OVERTAKEN BY EVENTS, CHECK 13 JUNE POSTED SIT AND RESUBMIT AS NEEDED.
LYH: Factors should be 1-4(8Y)/0-2(4Y) and build cost 4+8 as these are F-101s (standard heavy fighters). (Nick Samaras, April 28, 2017)
FEDS: NON-CONCURS. Factors: 1-4(8Y6)/0-2(4Y3) \ CHANGE From LAV: 0+2 | Build to read: (549.121): 4+14 | Rationale: This unit is like other empires' LAH. Conversion cost is from (530.222) where a changeover is only require plus the cost of the aux fighters from (513.113).

SYH: Missing REF #. Factors should be 1-4(8Y)/0-2(4Y) as these are F-101s (standard heavy fighters). Conversion from SAV 3+3. Need conversion from SAC. (Nick Samaras, April 28, 2017)
FEDS: CONCURS. Further: CHANGE Conversion to read: From SAC: 1+8 From SAV: 0+2 | Build to read: (549.121): 2+8 | Rationale: This unit is like other empires' LAH. Conversion cost is from (530.222) where a changeover is only require plus the cost of the aux fighters from (513.113).

SAS: Need conversion from SAC. (Nick Samaras, April 28, 2017)
FEDS: From SAC: 2

SAV: Need conversion from SAC. (Nick Samaras, April 28, 2017)
FEDS: CONCURS. from SAC: 1+6

SAH: Need conversion from SAC. (Nick Samaras, April 28, 2017)
FEDS: CONCURS. from SAC: 2+18

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, May 11, 2017 - 06:21 pm: Edit

FEDS Recommended CORRECTIONS or ADDITIONS to HDWs on the current Federation SIT:

NOTE TO ADB: Is this an acceptable format or would you prefer another format?

Unit Ref Factors CR Year COVERSIONS BUILD Salvage SIT Notes FEDS Commentary/Rationale
HDWE Add crippled ftr triangle Y180 From DW: 3+1 v For DW: 6+1 1.250 Heavy escort mode; size-3§
Frow DWE: 2+1
HDWH 6-7(9H)/3-4(4.5H) Y180 From DW: 3+1+HOG For DW: 6+1+HOG 1.250 F-111 heavy fighter carrier mode; single-ship carrier. This is the HDW F-111 carrier
HDWV Y180 From DW: 3+1+COG For DW: 6+1+COG 1.250 Medium carrier mode; single-ship carrier. This is the HDW standard carrier
HDWC Add crippled ftr triangle 10 Y180 From DW: 3+1 For DW: 6+1 1.250 Command mode; size-3§ Command rating is 10; (525.23C)
HDWA 6-7(10V)/3-4(5V) Y180 From DW: 3+1+AOG For DW: 6+1+AOG 1.250 A-20 heavy fighter carrier mode; single-ship carrier. This is the HDW A-20 carrier
HDWK 7(1)/4(0.5) Y180 From DW: 2+1 For DW: 5+1 1.250 Combat mode; size-3§ Adds +1 to attack & crippled factors; (525.23K).
HDWP Add crippled ftr triangle Y181F From DW: 3+1+POG For DW: 6+1+POG 1.250 PF Tender mode; Scout (2EW:3AF)(1EW:6AF); conjectual.
HDWR Add crippled ftr triangle Y180 From DW: 3+1+FOP For DW: 6+1+FOP 1.250 FCR mode; size-3§; not an escort
HDWS Add crippled ftr triangle Y180 From DW: 4+1 v For DW: 7+1 1.250 Scout mode; size-3§; (2EW:4AF)(1EW:6AF) Per (525.23S)
From DWS: 2+1
HDWT Add crippled ftr triangle Y180 From DW/DWT: 3+1 For DW: 6+1 1.250 Transport mode; carries 5EPs; cannot carry pods.
HDWG 6-7G(1)/3-4G(0.5) Y180 From DW: 3+1 For DW: 6+1 1.250 Commando mode; size-3§ G factors are added to both sides; (525.23G)
From DWG: 2+1
HDWY 85 6-7(8Y)/3-4(4Y) 6 Y180 From DW: 3+1+YOG For DW: 6+1+YOG 1.250 F-101 heavy fighter carrier mode; single-ship carrier. Recommend adding this HDW F-101 carrier to SIT.
HDWF 85 6-7R(1)/3-4(0.5) 6 Y180 From DW: 3+1 For DW: 6+1 1.250 Field repair mode; 4 repair points Recommend adding per (525.23F).
HDWQ 85 6-7*(1)/3-4(0.5) 6 Y180 From DW: 7+1 For DW: 10+1 1.250 Survey mode; Scout (2EW:4AF)(1EW:6AF) Recommend adding per (525.23Q); color scout diamond.
From DWS: 5+1
*=Scout Diamond
v=Minor Conversion Arrow

By Nick Samaras (Koogie) on Friday, April 28, 2017 - 06:40 pm: Edit

DONE 13 JUNE 2017
Fed base nomenclature: I suggest Fed bases with fighters and F-111s be listed as Base (FH) rather than Base (FP) to avoid confusion with a base with PFs (should conjectural ones be added to Fed later) and a base with F-101 heavy fighters. Would the later be Base (FY)?. (Nick Samaras, April 28, 2017)

BTS(FP): Notes: "Module Limits"should be changed to "Ïncludes"(Nick Samaras, April 28, 2017)

HFM: Factors should be 0[8Y]/0[4Y] as these are not F-111s. (Nick Samaras, April 28, 2017)

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, May 04, 2017 - 03:30 pm: Edit

SVC: changed HDWA, the other notes are Chuck's to deal with.

FEDS MEMO FOR RECORD

Federation HDW Line Items:

HDWA - A-20 HDW carrier currently in print (FO count sheet V1+V2) with 10V factors - may need to specify as an Assault Operations Group (AOG) in a future AO update

HDWH - F-111 HDW carrier with 9H factors - may need to specify an F-111 Special HF Operations Group (SOG) designation in a future AO update

HDWY - F-101 HDW carrier with 8Y factors - may need to specify as an F-101 Operations Group (YOG) designation in a future AO update

==================

NOTE:

HDWH: Recommend changing the HDWH designation to HDWA is on the current SIT listed as HDWH, Rationale this is the standardized designation used in FO and published on the V1+V2 counter. Remove the existing HDWA SIT line that states in the notes section "I have no idea what this is".

Suggestion: If making the HDWA change above, consider the following for all Fed HDWs:

Designation Ref Factors Prod CR Date Hull Conversion Costs Build Cost Salv Notes
HDWA 85 6-7(10V)/3-4(5V) AO 6 Y179 HDW(4) From DW: 3+1+AOG For DW: 6+1+AOG 1.250 Heavy Fighter Carrier mode; A-20 medium carrier
HDWH 85 6-7(9H)/3-4(4.5H) AO 6 Y179 HDW(4) From DW: 3+1+HOG For DW: 6+1+HOG 1.250 Heavy Fighter Carrier mode; F-111 medium carrier
HDWY 85 6-7(8Y)/3-4(4Y) AO 6 Y179 HDW(4) From DW: 3+1+YOG For DW: 6+1+YOG 1.250 Heavy Fighter Carrier mode; F-101 medium carrier
.
HDW HOG - +(9H) AO +0 Y179 NA None (525.23H): 0+16 0.000 F-111 HF Operations Group
HDW AOG - +(10V) AO +0 Y179 NA None (525.23H): 0+18 0.000 A-20 HF Operations Group
HDW YOG - +(8Y) AO +0 Y179 NA None (525.23H): 0+14 0.000 F-101 HF Operations Group

=========
FEDS question to ADB: Does the above table formatting work or should we use line text (below) or "none of the above"?}

HDWA; Ref 85; Factors: 6-7(10V)/3-4(5V) Prod: AO; CR=6; Y179; Hull: HDW(4); Conv From DW: 2+1+AOG;Cost For DW: 5+1+AOG; Salv1.500; Notes: Single-ship A-20 medium carrier

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Sunday, May 07, 2017 - 09:49 pm: Edit

DONE PROPERLY
Global POL/PV/FLG (but not heavy POL) review cleanup

POL Call up cost for generic POL is 0. Fixing. Backporting Paravian style POL call up frequency: Build "Call up: 0 (2/Turn) (531.12)" - Howard Bampton 2017-05-07
FEDS: CHANGE "Built:" to For FF:" in the production column. Rationale: More accurately reflects rule.

PV Backporting Paravian style PV call up frequency: Build "Call up: 3 (1/Turn) (531.41)" - Howard Bampton 2017-05-07

POV Backporting Paravian style PV call up frequency: Build "Call up: 3 (1/Turn) (531.41)" - Howard Bampton 2017-05-07

PV Backporting Paravian PV Note "Police Carrier; See (531.4)" - Howard Bampton 2017-05-07

POV Backporting Paravian PV Note "Heavy Police Carrier; See (531.4)" - Howard Bampton 2017-05-07

FEDS: CONCURS with all line items above, plus:

PFF: CHANGE to production column to read: "For FF: 5 (1/Year) Call up: 0 (1/Year)"; ADD to NOTES: "(5HP.0)"

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Sunday, May 07, 2017 - 09:52 pm: Edit

DONE ONE WAY OR ANOTHER
FLG Backporting Paravian style FLG call up frequency: Build "Call up: 2 (1/Turn) (531.31)" - Howard Bampton 2017-05-07

FLG Backporting Paravian style FLG Note "Police Flagship, Commando Ship, Scout, EW=1. See (531.3)." - Howard Bampton 2017-05-07

POL Note for POL not accurate - 531.12 doesn't allow 3+ callups (2/turn now covered in build). Note should just be "Police Ship (531.0)" - Howard Bampton 2017-05-07

FEDS: CONCURS with all line items above.

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Monday, May 08, 2017 - 01:26 pm: Edit

DONE 13 JUNE 2017
PFF 5HP.1 states call up replaces POL call up. Adding to note : "Heavy Police Ship (5HP.0), call up replaces POL" - Howard Bampton 2017-05-08
FEDS: CONCURS.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, May 09, 2017 - 05:29 am: Edit

DONE 13 JUNE 17
FEDS: Recommended values for ships missing factors:

Designation Ref # Factors Product Cmnd Date Size Conv Build Salv Notes
CB 76 10-9/5 NO 9 Y175 CA(3) From CA: 2.5 From CC: 0.5 For CA/CC: 9.5 2.700 Heavy Combat Variant of CC
GSX 204 10-12*/5-6* NO 9 Y186 CX(3) From CA: 13 From GSC: 6 For CA/CC: 19 3.600 Survey X-Ship, Scout, (4EW:6AF)(1EW:10AF), Crippled EW=1.

* = Red scout diamonds

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, May 10, 2017 - 04:52 am: Edit

DONE 13 JUNE 2017
FEDERATION Base Hull Corrections
Recommendations - CHANGE the following base hulls to read:

CVA: DNG
DN+: DN+
DNG: DNG
DNH: DNH
SCS: DNG
SCA: DNG

CX: CX
GSX: CX
GVX: CX

NCF: NCA

NAF: NCL

CLX: CLX

DEF: DD

FRX: FRX

Rationale Notes:
Each Fed improved dreadnought is a larger base hull (DN/DN+/DNG/DNH).
X-ships are create a new base hull.
Fast ships retain the base hull of its parent hull if they can be converted from their parent hull. DNLs are their own unique hull since they cannot be converted from any dreadnought.

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Thursday, May 11, 2017 - 02:26 pm: Edit

CHUCK DID NOT ENDORSE CHANGES

These are suggested tweaks to Chuck Strong's 4/4/2017 3:30PM "Memo for Record" of HDW line items.

HDW HOG build cost should be "(525.23H): 0+16" aka zero to convert and 16 for the heavy FTR factors. Cost is same, but this makes it consistent with other empire's COG entry. COG notes that free FTR factors can be used to reduce cost. HOG text strongly implies the same. - Howard Bampton 2017-05-11
FEDS: This is the F-111 special heavy fighter package for the HDWH.

HDW AOG build cost should be "(525.23H): 0+18" aka zero to convert and 18 for the heavy FTR factors. Cost is same, but this makes it consistent with other empire's COG entry. COG notes that free FTR factors can be used to reduce cost. HOG text strongly implies the same. - Howard Bampton 2017-05-11
FEDS: This is the A-20 assault fighter package for the HDWA.

HDW YOG build cost should be "(525.23H): 0+14" aka zero to convert and 14 for the heavy FTR factors. Cost is same, but this makes it consistent with other empire's COG entry. COG notes that free FTR factors can be used to reduce cost. HOG text strongly implies the same. - Howard Bampton 2017-05-11
FEDS: This is the F-101 heavy fighter package for the HDWY.

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation

For CA: 22+18	Rationale: 12 X-ship + 5 Survey + 2 (two additional EW over std survey) + 3 (F-111 carrier surcharge) + 18 Ftrs
From CA: 16+18	Rationale: 6 (X conv) + 5 Survey + 2 (two additional EW over std survey) + 3 (F-111 carrier surcharge) + 18 Ftrs
From GSC/COV: 8+18	Rationale: 6 (X conv) + 2 (F-111 carrier surcharge) + 18 Ftrs
From CVL: 8+12	Rationale: 6 (X conv) + 2 (F-111 carrier surcharge) + 12 Ftrs

Unit	Ref	Factors	CR	Year	COVERSIONS	BUILD	Salvage	SIT Notes	FEDS Commentary/Rationale
HDWE		Add crippled ftr triangle		Y180	From DW: 3+1 v	For DW: 6+1	1.250	Heavy escort mode; size-3§
					Frow DWE: 2+1
HDWH		6-7(9H)/3-4(4.5H)		Y180	From DW: 3+1+HOG	For DW: 6+1+HOG	1.250	F-111 heavy fighter carrier mode; single-ship carrier.	This is the HDW F-111 carrier
HDWV				Y180	From DW: 3+1+COG	For DW: 6+1+COG	1.250	Medium carrier mode; single-ship carrier.	This is the HDW standard carrier
HDWC		Add crippled ftr triangle	10	Y180	From DW: 3+1	For DW: 6+1	1.250	Command mode; size-3§	Command rating is 10; (525.23C)
HDWA		6-7(10V)/3-4(5V)		Y180	From DW: 3+1+AOG	For DW: 6+1+AOG	1.250	A-20 heavy fighter carrier mode; single-ship carrier.	This is the HDW A-20 carrier
HDWK		7(1)/4(0.5)		Y180	From DW: 2+1	For DW: 5+1	1.250	Combat mode; size-3§	Adds +1 to attack & crippled factors; (525.23K).
HDWP		Add crippled ftr triangle		Y181F	From DW: 3+1+POG	For DW: 6+1+POG	1.250	PF Tender mode; Scout (2EW:3AF)(1EW:6AF); conjectual.
HDWR		Add crippled ftr triangle		Y180	From DW: 3+1+FOP	For DW: 6+1+FOP	1.250	FCR mode; size-3§; not an escort
HDWS		Add crippled ftr triangle		Y180	From DW: 4+1 v	For DW: 7+1	1.250	Scout mode; size-3§; (2EW:4AF)(1EW:6AF)	Per (525.23S)
					From DWS: 2+1
HDWT		Add crippled ftr triangle		Y180	From DW/DWT: 3+1	For DW: 6+1	1.250	Transport mode; carries 5EPs; cannot carry pods.
HDWG		6-7G(1)/3-4G(0.5)		Y180	From DW: 3+1	For DW: 6+1	1.250	Commando mode; size-3§	G factors are added to both sides; (525.23G)
					From DWG: 2+1
HDWY	85	6-7(8Y)/3-4(4Y)	6	Y180	From DW: 3+1+YOG	For DW: 6+1+YOG	1.250	F-101 heavy fighter carrier mode; single-ship carrier.	Recommend adding this HDW F-101 carrier to SIT.
HDWF	85	6-7R(1)/3-4(0.5)	6	Y180	From DW: 3+1	For DW: 6+1	1.250	Field repair mode; 4 repair points	Recommend adding per (525.23F).
HDWQ	85	6-7*(1)/3-4(0.5)	6	Y180	From DW: 7+1	For DW: 10+1	1.250	Survey mode; Scout (2EW:4AF)(1EW:6AF)	Recommend adding per (525.23Q); color scout diamond.
					From DWS: 5+1

Designation	Ref	Factors	Prod	CR	Date	Hull	Conversion Costs	Build Cost	Salv	Notes
HDWA	85	6-7(10V)/3-4(5V)	AO	6	Y179	HDW(4)	From DW: 3+1+AOG	For DW: 6+1+AOG	1.250	Heavy Fighter Carrier mode; A-20 medium carrier
HDWH	85	6-7(9H)/3-4(4.5H)	AO	6	Y179	HDW(4)	From DW: 3+1+HOG	For DW: 6+1+HOG	1.250	Heavy Fighter Carrier mode; F-111 medium carrier
HDWY	85	6-7(8Y)/3-4(4Y)	AO	6	Y179	HDW(4)	From DW: 3+1+YOG	For DW: 6+1+YOG	1.250	Heavy Fighter Carrier mode; F-101 medium carrier
.
HDW HOG	-	+(9H)	AO	+0	Y179	NA	None	(525.23H): 0+16	0.000	F-111 HF Operations Group
HDW AOG	-	+(10V)	AO	+0	Y179	NA	None	(525.23H): 0+18	0.000	A-20 HF Operations Group
HDW YOG	-	+(8Y)	AO	+0	Y179	NA	None	(525.23H): 0+14	0.000	F-101 HF Operations Group

Designation	Ref #	Factors	Product	Cmnd	Date	Size	Conv	Build	Salv	Notes
CB	76	10-9/5	NO	9	Y175	CA(3)	From CA: 2.5 From CC: 0.5	For CA/CC: 9.5	2.700	Heavy Combat Variant of CC
GSX	204	10-12/5-6	NO	9	Y186	CX(3)	From CA: 13 From GSC: 6	For CA/CC: 19	3.600	Survey X-Ship, Scout, (4EW:6AF)(1EW:10AF), Crippled EW=1.