In the current Federation SIT for the CVA it states "Heavy Carrier. Fighters are F14s (8) and A10s (7); see (302.352). Can never be converted to use A20s due to balcony.

The DVA has a balcony. Why was it decided that the CVA could not operate A-20s from its balcony? Prior to 2016, when the updated Fighter Operations was publish, the CVA could operate A-20s.

G3A (R.13) lists the allowed fighters for the Federation CVA. A-20s are allowed starting Y177 and A-20Fs are allowed starting Y179. It appears the SIT is incorrect.

CANNOT PROCESS WITHOUT STAFF ENDORSEMENT AND PETRICK ANALYSIS. NOTHING CHANGED.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Monday, May 18, 2020 - 04:58 pm: Edit

Federation HVX: The 2 May 2020 SIT does not include a provisional listing for this hull type, which was published as (R2.212) in Star Fleet Battles Module X1R; could a line entry be added to the next SIT revision? Historically, the first ship of its kind was built in Y184. - Gary Carney, 18 May 2020

Federation NAX: The 2 May 2020 SIT does not include a provisional listing for this hull type, which was published as (R2.210) in Star Fleet Battles Module X1R; could a line entry be added to the next SIT revision? Historically, the first ship of its kind was built in Y183. - Gary Carney, 18 May 2020

Federation NASX: The 2 May 2020 SIT does not include a provisional listing for this hull type, which was published as (R2.211) in Star Fleet Battles Module X1R; could a line entry be added to the next SIT revision? Historically, the first ship of its kind was built in Y185. - Gary Carney, 18 May 2020

Federation DGX: The 2 May 2020 SIT does not include a provisional listing for this hull type, which was published as (R2.206) in Star Fleet Battles Module X1R; could a line entry be added to the next SIT revision, or is the current DDX listing sufficient to cover this variant? Historically, the first ship of its kind was built in Y182. - Gary Carney, 18 May 2020

Federation DWX: The 2 May 2020 SIT does not include a provisional listing for this hull type, which was published as (R2.209) in Star Fleet Battles Module X1R; could a line entry be added to the next SIT revision? Historically, the first ship of its kind was built in Y183. - Gary Carney, 18 May 2020

The HVX, NAX and SWX are in TO, the DGX variant would be covered by the DDX.
Ryan Opel, FEAST

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Monday, May 18, 2020 - 05:08 pm: Edit

Federation HDWZ: The line entry in the 2 May 2020 SIT sets its factors as 6-7(6H1)<>/3-4(3H/\); these should be 6-7(6H)<>/3-4(3H). Rationale: Under (R2.85) in the SFB Federation Master Starship Book, an HDW equipped with F-111s must trade in its pair of "casual" size-1 fighters for admin shuttles. - Gary Carney, 18 May 2020

Federation HWXZ: The line entry in the 2 May 2020 SIT sets its factors as 8-10(6H1)<>/4-5(3H/\)<>; these should be 8-10(6H)<>/4-5(3H)<>. Rationale: Under (R2.213) in the SFB Federation Master Starship Book, an HWX equipped with F-111s must trade in its pair of "casual" size-1 fighters for advanced admin shuttles. - Gary Carney, 18 May 2020

(I wasn't sure how to mark the "diamond" scout factor or the "triangle" residual fighter factor in BBS terms, so "<>" and "/\" are the best I could think of right now...)

<FONT COLOR="119911"><B>FEDS: Before the HDWZ/HWXZ (and ZOG) were designed for F&E, FEDS coordinated with SPP as required by SVC on the issue:

SPP Stated in a e-mail dated 10 MAY 2017 at 1415Hrs:</B>

<HR SIZE=0><!-Quote-!><FONT SIZE=1>Quote:</FONT><P>"If converted to carry F-111s, rule (G33.42) (2012 Master Rulebook) provides for each pair of option boxes to be considered a semi-external bay. The rule, however, pretty much assumes the more or less standard design of HDWs in that there is only one (1) bay, so the fighters normally part of that bay simply become a heavy fighter (as with F-101s above), but this is just not the case with F-111s. The divided bay pretty much means (at least to me) that a Federation HDW operating F-111s will retain the two F-18 ready racks, and may operate two F-18s [probably as local defense fighters since they cannot be combined into one squadron with heavy fighters (J4.462)]. But beyond that, its only choices with F-111s is five F-111s (using the four NWOs, the four APR*s and the two weapon options), or four F-111s (all four NWOs must all be converted to the same thing, and all four APR*s must all be converted to the same thing, although each group of four could be converted to different things as allowed) leaving the weapon options for something else, or three F-111s (using either the APR* options or the NWO options and the weapon options and using the other four options for something else), or one F-111 (using the weapon options and the APR* options and NWO options for something else).<!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0>

By Joe Carlson (Jrc) on Tuesday, May 19, 2020 - 01:01 pm: Edit

SVC,

Do I need to ask SPP for his analysis?

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Tuesday, May 19, 2020 - 03:26 pm: Edit

Joe, the DVA states that the A-20s that replaced the A-10s are on semi external bays. See (R2.A29). Also note that the DVA does not list a conversion from a CVA. This is probably from the fact that the DVA uses the DNG saucer and not the original DN/CVA saucer.

By Joe Carlson (Jrc) on Tuesday, May 19, 2020 - 03:43 pm: Edit

Thomas,

Is the CVA allowed to carry A-20s? The notes in the current SITS says it can't because the CVA uses a balcony.

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Tuesday, May 19, 2020 - 03:52 pm: Edit

Both the CVA and DVA can carry A-20s. Listed on the MSSB.

By Joe Carlson (Jrc) on Tuesday, May 19, 2020 - 04:01 pm: Edit

The May 2, 2020 (SITS): "Can never be converted to carry A-20 do to the balcony." It is in the notes section. What do I need to do to convince you all that the SITS is wrong and needs to be fixed. The F&E rule cited is 302.352. It looks that the problem is the fighter factor equivalents cited for the CVA as 15. 8 for the F-14s and seven for the A-10s.

What was missed is when the CVA changes to A-20s. The fighter factors should be 8 for the F-14s and 10 for the A-20s (18 fighter factors)

So when this rule, 302.352 was updated there no method to upgrade the CVA to 18 fighter factors was included. The long history of the CVA being able to use A-20s was eliminated. My opinion is this is incorrect. G3A and Federation MSSB allow A-20s to be carried.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Tuesday, May 19, 2020 - 05:55 pm: Edit

The Balcony note goes back to the 2012, 2015 and 2017 SITS. It has been standard across the years.

(302.352) only deals with how federation fighters are counted to form the allowed attrition squadrons. The limit of 3 is modified by (518.46) and/or by (502.93) when the third way hits.

By Joe Carlson (Jrc) on Tuesday, May 19, 2020 - 06:53 pm: Edit

Thank you for the additional information. The balcony note still conflicts with SFB. A heavy fighter takes up 2 balcony spaces.(J10.12)

The 2014 edition of the Fed MSSB (R2.13) CVA lists Y177 for A20s and Y179 for A20Fs. Federation third way happens when PFs appear, around Y179.

The point I am trying to make is the balcony note is in correct. Given what is in SFB rules that the CVA can operate A20s from the balcony.

Am I looking at this incorrectly? if so what am I missing?

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Tuesday, May 19, 2020 - 09:33 pm: Edit

I think what you are missing is that even in the Y2K and DF&E rules the (302.352) show the CVA group and the SCS group back to back. They are listed in the same way back then as they are in the 2KX rules.

Besides, are you going to pay the 3 fighter factors or 6 EPs and give up a medium carrier build to convert A-10s to A-20s?

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Tuesday, May 19, 2020 - 09:39 pm: Edit

I double-checked with SPP before posting this, but the relevant portion of the R-section entries for the Federation HDW and HWX from SFB Module G3A and the SFB Federation Master Starship Book are as follows:

---

Quote:

Note: The heavy war destroyer can only operate A-20s (R2.F9) (and its variants) from internal bays. If the ship is to operate F-111s (R2.F11), the four APR* boxes and the two weapon options become semi-external shuttle bays. The four non-weapon option boxes become cargo boxes, two of which each hold one spare F-111 fighter, the other two hold 100 spaces of reload drones provided under (G33.42). Reload anti-drones, warp booster pack storage (J5.42), and the pod stockpile (J11.13) are separate from the cargo storage. If operating F-111s or carrying F-101s in the same manner as F-111s, the ship has four admin shuttles [(J2.0)/(R1.F1)]; i.e., the bay in the main hull holds three shuttles and no fighters.

Note: The advanced technology heavy war destroyer can only operate A-20s (R2.F9) (and its variants) from internal bays. If the ship is to operate F-111s (R2.F11), the four APR* boxes and the two weapon options become semi-external shuttle bays. The four non-weapon option boxes become cargo boxes: two of which each hold one spare F-111 fighter; the other two hold 100 spaces of reload drones provided under (G33.42). Reload anti-drones, warp booster pack storage (J5.42), and the pod stockpile (J11.13) are separate from the cargo storage. If operating F-111s, or carrying F-101s (R2.F20) in the same manner as F-111s, the ship has four advanced admin shuttles [(J2.0)/(R1.F1)/(R1.F17)], i.e., the bay in the main hull holds three shuttles, and no fighters.

---

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, May 19, 2020 - 09:39 pm: Edit

Joe Carlson:

What Fed SIT question are you asking as I'm not clear?

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, May 19, 2020 - 10:31 pm: Edit

Gary:

There is currently no real HDWH (the HDWY with six F-101 with 8Y F&E fighter factors is the analog) so as not to confuse the players with F-111 "H" factors in F&E and SPP has made it very clear to the F&E staff that there is no way to get SIX F-111s on the Fed HDWs.

Bottomline:
FEDS proposed and ADB approved and published the Fed SITs with the following F&E Fed Special Heavy Fighter Operations Group (ZOG) for use on Fed HDW/HWXs:
HDWZ as described below with 4xF-111 using the 4xNWO and 4xAWR boxes and two special sensors in the 2xOPT boxes; Factors: 6-7*(6H1)/3-4(3H0.5): HWXZ is 8-10*(6H1)/4-5(3H0.5).

By Joe Carlson (Jrc) on Tuesday, May 19, 2020 - 11:00 pm: Edit

Chuck,

Thomas answered my questions. I will repeat it back to make sure I am understanding. I haven't played F&E but have read the rules which isn't really experience just a limited know;edge.

The May 2, 2020 FED (SITS) CVA: "Can never be converted to carry A-20 do to the balcony." Thomas stated this has been this way for a long time.

In SFB the Fed CVA can operate A-20s. The two games treat the CVA differently. The CVA has been able to operate A-20s for a long time.

I am fine with that as long as SFB players do not have to follow the F&E rules for the Fed CVA.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, May 20, 2020 - 08:37 am: Edit

Joe, this is the sort of thing you report ONCE AND ONLY ONCE and let me get to it when the Feds come back to the top of the rotation. Do not panic. Do not argue. Do not blow up my topic! We do not post new SITs on an emergency panic on-demand basis. It will get taken care of when it gets taken care of. Until then nothing has changed in either game. Right now you just about have me pissed off enough to rule against you on general principles.

By Joe Carlson (Jrc) on Wednesday, May 20, 2020 - 11:48 am: Edit

My appologies

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, May 20, 2020 - 01:37 pm: Edit

Mine, too, Joe, it was a weird morning with other things going on.

By Joe Carlson (Jrc) on Wednesday, May 20, 2020 - 02:19 pm: Edit

I understand. Hope things go better. I would like to thank all the F&E guys for helping me under stand things better. I also apologize for how my posts came across and any frustrations I caused.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Thursday, May 28, 2020 - 12:07 am: Edit

Is it possible to have someone re-save the Fed SIT so that its viewable from here in landscape and not portrait (sideways)? Thanks. L. Bergen - 27 MAY 2020

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, May 28, 2020 - 04:43 am: Edit

FEDS corrected Fed SIT presentation to landscape view.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Thursday, May 28, 2020 - 03:19 pm: Edit

Awesome Thanks!

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Thursday, May 28, 2020 - 06:27 pm: Edit

JCV - Cost should be 7+6 [SAV (3) + 2 support pods (2 each)]

Doesn't look like you can convert from a SAV. Base cost is the same for all Jumbo Auxes.
Ryan, FEAST, 25 Dec 2022

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, June 06, 2020 - 07:36 pm: Edit

Federation: Heavy Cruisers: CVL: Cost: For CA: 14+6 should be For CA: 16+6. Reason: The GSC without fighters costs 15 EPs when subbed for a CA. Escort Carrier ability adds 1 EP plus the cost of fighters to the base hull cost. Thomas Mathews 6 Jun 2020

Concur. Ryan, FEAST, 25 Dec 22

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Saturday, June 27, 2020 - 01:25 am: Edit

Federation: Old Heavy Cruiser: OSR: The product should be CL53 as the F&E information for this unit was published in CL53. Ken Kazinski, 27 June 2020.

Federation: Old Heavy Cruiser: OSR: The "u" in the factors column (4-8u/2-4) should be a diamond. See CL53, page 113. Ken Kazinski, 27 June 2020.

Federation: Old Heavy Cruiser: OSG: The product should be CL53 as the F&E information for this unit was published in CL53. Ken Kazinski, 27 June 2020.

Federation: Old Heavy Cruiser: OSG: The "u" in the factors column (4-8uG/2-4) should be a diamond. See CL53, page 113. Ken Kazinski, 27 June 2020.

Federation: Old Heavy Cruiser: OSV: The product should be CL53 as the F&E information for this unit was published in CL53. Ken Kazinski, 27 June 2020.

Federation: Old Heavy Cruiser: OSV: The factors column [4-8u(1)/2-4s] does not match the information in CL53, page 113. —Ken Kazinski, 27 June 2020.


Sorry for the HTML codes but I don't see the diamond, triangle symbols on the Formatting page.

All corrected in TO SIT.
Ryan, FEAST, 25 Dec 22