No HDWQ

By Alan De Salvio (Alandwork) on Saturday, March 07, 2020 - 06:12 pm: Edit

Also no LNHQ - by 525.253 LNH cannot be used for survey prior to Y175; this should be on the SIT with the 5 EP cost (I assume)

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Friday, March 27, 2020 - 12:23 am: Edit

Hydran SAH - Auxuliary should be Auxiliary.

Hydran MKV - "Convert from CVM: 3" should be "Additional Conversions: From CVM: 3"

Hydran MKE Should not "Convert from" be "Additional Conversions"

Hydran FCP Should not "(431.22): 4(+5.4)" be "(431.22): 4+5.4"?

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Friday, June 05, 2020 - 09:34 pm: Edit

Hydran AH: Review of the SIT AH line data. Specifics: AH shows as a Base Hull of FF. Substitution box indicates Sub for HN (specific FF type). Verify if Substitution box should be edited as Sub for FF. L. Bergen 5 JUNE 2020

Hydran HNG: Review of the SIT HNG line data. Specifics: HNG shows as a Base Hull of FF. Substitution box indicates Sub for HN (specific FF type). Verify if Substitution box should be edited as Sub for FF. L. Bergen 5 JUNE 2020

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, June 05, 2020 - 10:11 pm: Edit

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, June 05, 2020 - 10:14 pm: Edit

Howard, I love you, man, but "Search for double dagger position is needed" doesn't do much for me unless you say where it should be in the code. Based on your report I would have to spend minutes trying to guess which is the right one, a factoid that you already know. You must . . . share!

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, June 05, 2020 - 10:17 pm: Edit

Frank, I love you, man, but

The SFB Ref # should be R9.129

should be

The SFB Ref # should be 129

You're in the Hydran SIT so you don't need the R9.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Tuesday, June 16, 2020 - 10:37 am: Edit

By Alan De Salvio (Alandwork) on Tuesday, June 16, 2020 - 06:35 pm: Edit

Hydran SR - please add 'obsolete' to the notes column per 542.16 and to be consistent with other obsolete SR listings.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Tuesday, June 23, 2020 - 09:31 am: Edit

Hydran SR, SRG, SRV - with regards to the request to add 'obsolete' (if you add it at all) please include the specific dates these ships become obsolete. - L Bergen 23 June 2020

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, June 23, 2020 - 11:05 pm: Edit

Could we just delete the obsolete thing?

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, June 23, 2020 - 11:27 pm: Edit

I prefer keeping the obsolete thing, the SR and Fed CL were obviously inferior as survey ships to full cruisers imo, which would explain why those empires switched to full cruiser sized survey ships. It doesn't need changing imo.

By A David Merritt (Adm) on Wednesday, June 24, 2020 - 05:53 am: Edit

I think the "obsolete thing" can go, historically obsolete items have been kept in production for a variety of reasons.

A couple from WWII aviation. The Italians kept front line biplane fighters way to long due to a combination of preference by the fighter generals, and a misreading of their experiences in Spain. The UK kept Swordfish torpedo bombers past their "best by date" because they lacked enough resources to do everything they needed to do.

If the powers that be want/need to keep producing such units, they will.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Wednesday, June 24, 2020 - 03:05 pm: Edit

I support deleting the obsolete thing. There is ZERO evidence to support the ships were inferior and more to support that the DD hull its built upon is not only very viable lived but far into the history. Sorry Rich.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, June 24, 2020 - 04:55 pm: Edit

Zero evidence other than being a smaller hull with fewer systems and less able to deal with space monsters.

I mean, doesn't that count to you?

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Wednesday, June 24, 2020 - 06:15 pm: Edit

...taking it to GenDisc

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, June 24, 2020 - 06:19 pm: Edit

I don't know what that means.

By Mike Dowd (Mike_Dowd) on Thursday, June 25, 2020 - 12:20 am: Edit

Richard: I'm assuming General Discussions, but I've worked with the Navy for too long and see acronyms, backronyms and abridged titles in my sleep now...

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Saturday, July 04, 2020 - 10:37 am: Edit

That's right general discussions

By Nick Samaras (Koogie) on Sunday, July 26, 2020 - 05:26 pm: Edit

Non-carrier HDW variants should have three fighter factors standard. All but the K-version should be 5-7 instead of 6-7. (Nick Samaras, July 26, 2020)

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, July 26, 2020 - 05:50 pm: Edit

Hydran SAR: Salvage cost says 0.85 but should probably be 0.875 (25% of the 3.5EP cost). The CR, which is more or less the same hull has a 3.5EP cost and a salvage cost of 0.875EP. -Eitzen 7/26/20

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Thursday, December 31, 2020 - 05:34 pm: Edit

JAP Update Factors: 4-6(1)P*/2-3(0.5)P Build Cost: 11+1+PF L. Bergen 31 DEC 2020

JSC Update Factors: 4-6(7)P*/2-3(3.5)P Build Cost: 11+7+PF L. Bergen 31 DEC 2020

JAV Update Factors: 4-6(13)/ 2-3(6.5) Build Cost: 8+13 L. Bergen 31 DEC 2020

JBV Add unit Factors: 6(8)/3(4) Build Cost: 6+8 L. Bergen 31 DEC 2020

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, December 31, 2020 - 11:26 pm: Edit

Can someone research the Hydran Aux Scouts for fighters and post the data and reference info here.

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Friday, January 01, 2021 - 12:14 am: Edit

R1.77-9 LAS 4 fighters

R1.79-9 SAS 2 fighters

Source Hydran MSSB.

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Saturday, January 23, 2021 - 12:00 am: Edit

Hydran SAR should be SA to match what the counter says. Ryan J Opel 23 Jan 2021