CARRYING EPs: When a convoy of about 20 pods representing a chain of ships going back and forth carries 20 EPs, no single cheap auxiliary is going to carry 20 EPs. More like 1 or 2 (say 0.5 per pod).

There is a matter of leverage here. A few ships can move around a few EPs. These are either very small inefficient ships (e.g., APTs) or ships with a huge opportunity cost (e.g., tugs). In either case, this represents leverage. The first EP you deliver is the most critical stuff and takes up a lot less cargo volume than the second and third and 20th EP.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, May 22, 2017 - 11:52 am: Edit

Repair is something that is and must be limited. This is a SIT topic not a rules topic and I don't intend to write the new rule here.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, May 06, 2017 - 01:16 pm: Edit

NOTE, before doing a universal post, people might ask me how I want to handle it.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, May 20, 2017 - 01:41 pm: Edit

If something is going to apply to six or more SITs, email it to me one time (or post it in THIS topic one time if you must show off) and do not post it to 18 diffent topics. Turns out, it's easier to just do all of those at once.

This was not true two weeks ago when I had massive updates for every SIT but today we're down past the gravel, pebbels, and sand, to the dust and it's just easier to do everything at once.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, May 28, 2017 - 12:09 am: Edit

FEDS MEMO FOR RECORD
(For Player and Staff SIT Report Use)

HDW & HWX Production Costs on SIT

There seem to be many differing values on the various SITs regarding the production and reconfiguration cost of HDWs and HWXs. The chart and reference below are to clarify basic production and reconfiguration costs.

	HDW Base Cost	HDWX Base Cost
	5	10
SHIP	HDW BUILD COSTS*	HDWX BUILD COSTS**	RECONFIGURE COSTS	Notes
HDWA (F)	6+1+AOG	11+1+AOG	1+AOG
HDWC	6+1	11+1	1
HDWD (Z)	6+1	11+1	1
HDWE	6+1	11+1	1
HDWF	6+1	11+1	1
HDWG	6+1	11+1	1
HDWH	6+1+HOG	11+1+HOG	1+HOG
HDWK	5+1	10+1	1	There is no reconfiguration cost at the time of production for 'K' models; see (525.211).
HDWP	6+1+POG	11+1+POG	1+POG
HDWQ	10+1	15+1	5	Survey mode reconfiguration cost = base cost + 5 EP
HDWR	6+1+FOP	11+1+FOP	1+FOP
HDWS	7+1	12+1	2	Scout mode reconfiguration cost = Base cost + 2 EP
HDWT	6+1	11+1	1
HDWV	6+1+COG	11+1+COG	1+COG
HDWY (F)	6+1+YOG	11+1+YOG	1+YOG
HDWZ (F)	6+1+ZOG	11+1+ZOG	1+ZOG

* Typical HDW build cost include the following: Basic hull cost (5) + standard reconfiguration (1) [or Scout reconfiguration (2) or survey reconfiguration (5) ] + casual fighter cost (1) [or (3) for Hydrans].
** Typical HDWX build cost include the following: Basic X-hull cost (10) + standard reconfiguration (1) [or Scout reconfiguration (2) or survey Reconfiguration (5) ] + casual fighter cost (1) [or (3) for Hydrans].
(F) Federation Only
(Z) Kzinti Only

References:

---

Quote:

(525.211) If a HDW is built configured for any mission (525.23) except K-Combat, the cost of the reconfiguration is paid at the time of construction. There is no discount for a "double conversion" (437.0). If an HDW is converted from a DW variant of the same type (e.g., DWS converted to HDWS) then the extra cost is not charged. Such conversions do not, however, eliminate the cost of the operations groups, so it is not cost effective to convert a DWV into an HDW-V. (Hydran DD variants can be converted into LNHs under this procedure, but Lyran CL variants cannot be converted into JGPs under this rule.

(525.222) ...The cost to change missions is one EP, except where noted. ...When changing missions, the cost of previous mission changes is lost, but any "operations groups" (such as those needed to operate in the PF, carrier, or resupply mode) are released into a general pool held by the supply grid that includes the ship. Romulan HDWs use the HDW system, not the Romulan system.

---

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, May 28, 2017 - 04:30 pm: Edit

Not all HDWs have the same factors, which may be part of the issue. That said, I need line items for each empire based on the posted SIT of that empire, so if that empire's SIT doesn't have the HDW data block yet, you need to wait for it.

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Tuesday, August 06, 2019 - 10:40 am: Edit

Is there a legend defining the meaning of the colors used in the MSITs?

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Tuesday, August 06, 2019 - 06:07 pm: Edit

The colors, for the most part, are just to help break up lines to make it easier to read across the page.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, August 06, 2019 - 08:34 pm: Edit

Sometimes the colors mean things.

Look at the very bottom. If colors mean things they will be explained there.

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Wednesday, August 07, 2019 - 01:32 pm: Edit

Thanks

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, January 23, 2020 - 11:49 am: Edit

ADB: FEDS recommends adding the statement "Single-Ship Carrier" to the SIT notes for all of the following single-ship carrier Battleships:

Klingon: B10, B9, B11
Romulan: KING CONDOR BATTLESHIP: KCN, BBL; KESTRAL: K10
Kzinti: BB
Gorn BB, BBL

Rationale: On 20 Jan 2020, in the F&E Q&A Discussions section; SVC reconfirmed that the B10 (with four fighter factors) is a single ship carrier. In addition, the above battleships also have four or less fighter factors and do not have the notation while the Feds and ISC do have the notes.

F&E Staff: If ADB approves the above recommendation, then add a specific note in the SITs of the associated empire SITs section.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Saturday, March 07, 2020 - 12:55 pm: Edit

Question on the format of the designation of bases. Sometime there is a space after the unit designation, SFX (F), and some listings are SFX(F). What should the correct formatting be?

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, March 07, 2020 - 06:03 pm: Edit

No space.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, March 08, 2020 - 12:25 pm: Edit

If you want that fixed, give me one line item per empire, in that topic, just listing the specific bases. Try doing just one empire and I will let you know if the format works for me.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Sunday, March 08, 2020 - 09:34 pm: Edit

Sounds good.

2nd formatting question, sometimes "No fighters or gunboats" and other times it is "No fighters/gunboats", is there a particular format they should be in?

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, March 09, 2020 - 12:45 pm: Edit

It's really not that critical.

...and speaking only for myself, I really would rather prefer any ADB designer time being spent on F&E rule updates and new products instead of making minor SITs format corrections. It all about priorities, since ADB only can spend so much time with F&E.

Please feel free to continue to report as it is better to have them on-hand, but just know that it may take years for ADB to finally get past other higher F&E priorities.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Saturday, March 28, 2020 - 03:13 pm: Edit

Question on conversion costs, the Kzinti STX(F) has a conversion cost listed "From BSX(N): 19+6+(8)" what is the cost in the parens for?

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Monday, April 13, 2020 - 12:57 am: Edit

Chuck or Turtle - any answer about what the (8) means in "From BSX(N): 19+6+(8)".

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Monday, April 13, 2020 - 07:16 am: Edit

Ken, the +(8) is for heavy fighters when upgrading a BSX that doesn't have any fighters to a STX with heavy fighters.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, May 16, 2020 - 07:24 am: Edit

Apparently there is a formatting issue with "" when denoting drone bombardment factors in a given SIT report. When used with out the quotes the drone bombardment factors disappear. Recommend using "" when reporting drone bombardment factors in a given SIT report.

SVC please confirm if this is acceptable.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, May 16, 2020 - 09:47 pm: Edit

Why not use “<4> “ ?

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, May 16, 2020 - 09:50 pm: Edit

Thanks.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, May 26, 2020 - 11:03 am: Edit

LISTEN CAREFULLY

I have updated the Fed, Klingon, and Kzinti SITs.

I am working on the Roms and with some stress will probably get it uploaded before surgery on 3 June.

There is a 10% chance of my getting the Gorns updated. Only if they look REALLY easy, I skip all of the piddly format stuff that doesn't change any numbers, and the staff did ALL of the endorsements is there any chance at all, but Leanna wants all of my time going into other projects. She'd rather I shut down SIT updates today but the Roms are so close.

After surgery on 3 June nobody knows what will happen. There will be 3d6 days not in the office. Then maybe a week of looking at minor issues I need to address (maybe SITs) before I go into lockdown (4 weeks) to do CL54. Worse, I may decide to go to New Mexico for a few days to see my adopted granddaughter one last time before she moves to the east coast.

I cannot promise to restart SIT update work before 1 August. Even then, it will be so easy to just forget that I need to do it. If only there was some way for someone to remind me about then to work on them.

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Wednesday, May 27, 2020 - 02:55 pm: Edit

I'd rather worry about your recovery than content.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, May 06, 2020 - 05:17 pm: Edit

A few thoughts, notes, and flights of fancy.

1. Before anyone ever again bugs me about doing SIT update you need to make sure the Staff has done all of the endorsements for whatever empire is next. Bug them. Perhaps something like "Can the staff do the endorsements here so i can guilt-trip SVC into doing a SIT update?" No more than one of those at a time, in whatever empire is next.

2. Somebody on the staff needs to review the processed reports to see if I did something I should not have.

3. After I post the update, checking it against the "SVC did it" items in processed reports might be worth doing.

4. Seems no matter how hard we try I am going to generate pink squares every update and we don't want to have to wait for the staff. Maybe we'll do a quick-update round a week later. Bound to be plenty of things I didn't do correctly or completely.

5. If I include a note that "this is confirmed' or "this really is 4" do not tell me to delete it. That waste your time and annoys the game designer. Such notes are added after CONSTANT arguments on the item in question that I really need to not hear again.