I have downloaded the Vassal module. I think Cyberboard is Windows only correct?

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, March 19, 2021 - 12:41 pm: Edit

@Zac: Correct.

By Graham Cridland (Grahamcridland) on Friday, April 02, 2021 - 05:17 pm: Edit

704.23 allows construction of the following carriers (and does not appear in a keyword search) (There is a discussion May 22, 2007 about Romulan build schedules for carriers, which just says they're weird and screwed up):

1 CNV or SUB per year and;
1 SPB (or KR->KRV conversion) and 1 SKV per turn and;
1 SUP (a single-ship carrier) per turn and;
1 WH per turn (if you really like awful ships).

This does not appear to include any opportunity to build a carrier on CA hull; the NHB, FHB, and Farhawk variants aren't mentioned.

Are they under the Heavy Carrier limits? [This would kind of make sense since the SUB is on a very-souped-up CA hull, kind of.] But they only have 6-8 FF, which would appear to make them medium carriers (but making them under the SPB limit would probably stop anyone ever making an SPB again).

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Friday, April 02, 2021 - 06:08 pm: Edit

Offhand, I put the FHB/NHB under the SUB for substitution plus there is the conversion of the SPB into either (conversion during repair) ...

Course, the NH is once per year (and generally where the SUP come in) while the FH is once per turn, but one might want the FHF a bit more (plus the SP/FH picks up 2 DF for 3 EP while the SP/NH is +3 DF for 5 EP) ...

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Friday, April 02, 2021 - 06:39 pm: Edit

The NHB and/or FHB would actually replace the SPB. All three carriers have 8 fighter factors (16 fighters).

By Sam Benner (Nucaranlaeg) on Friday, April 02, 2021 - 09:04 pm: Edit

What can the funds in a satellite stockpile be used for? (413.453) says that they can be used to pay for any costs in a partial grid, but doesn't talk about anything in the main grid. In particular, if the Kzinti have a satellite stockpile offmap but have never lost their capital (it's still in 1401), can they be used? I'd expect that it could be used to pay for repairs or other costs offmap (in the same hex as the stockpile), at the very least, but there seems to be no enabling rule.

1) Can an OM stockpile be used to pay for new construction
1a) OM? (Probably yes)
1b) in 1401? (Probably no)
1c) at the Marquis' SB in 1704?

2) Can an OM stockpile be used to pay for repairs
2a) OM? (Probably yes)
2b) in 1401?
2c) elsewhere?

3) Can an OM stockpile be used to pay for DBB or other out of phase costs?

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Monday, April 19, 2021 - 07:02 am: Edit

Any chance of a ruling/confirmation from my question first asked in September 2020?

Questions (nd supporting information) was : -

413.41 - Can a Partial Supply Grid Supply pay for Allied Ships and Allied Replacement Fighters?

1) Can Allied Forces benefit from 413.41? Yes/No

2) Can Homeless supply (410.5) be used in a Partial Grid? Yes/No (and if Yes, if an existing supply line that has previously been used from the Allied Empire Main Grid - can it be transferred to the Partial Grid - or would it need to be cancelled and repaid for?)

Only related question was first answered in 2008 and reconfirmed in 2012 (CL38)

Pages : -
Federation & Empire: F&E QUESTIONS: F&E Q&A: Archive 2008 and republished Federation & Empire: F&E QUESTIONS: F&E Q&A Archive File: Archive through August 09, 2012


(Whole question/Answer copied)

(413.41) implies that Economic Points can be produced in a Partial Grid (note that this existed before the salvage rules); (430.12) says that "only those planets linked to a Supply Grid and provences that have one or more of their hexes linked to a Supply Grid produce Economic Points"; (413.1) indicates that a Supply Grid must include one or both of the Capital or Off-Map Area; (413.4) says that a Partial Grid contains neither the Capital nor the Off-Map Area.
Q: So, Partial Grids are both permitted and absolutely prohibited from producing EP. Which is correct?
A: Both, a Partial Supply Grid is not a Supply Grid and a Supply Grid is not a Partial Supply Grid. Each has their own definition and are treated separately


I believe the answers are ‘No’ and to aid the court :
Relevant Points
Expeditionary Supply (411.70) can’t be used in a Partial Supply Grid and 413.43, “No Allied Help”.

Thank you

Paul

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Monday, April 19, 2021 - 06:44 pm: Edit

Paul, a Partial Grid requires a base/planet to NOT have a supply route to the capital or offmap area.

If that is met, the base/planet (if there) starts being a partial grid, note that the province the base/planet is in will likely also be part of the partial grid. Any adjacent provinces, colonies, planets, captured NZs will add to that partial grid unless they can trace a supply route back to the capital/offmap.

[ The classic example is the Kzinti Marquis provinces when Coalition forces are in 1701, 1502, and 1504 which contain two provinces, one planet and a starbase and two battle stations for 7 EP (possibly less). ]

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, April 25, 2021 - 07:31 am: Edit

Q206.212 Can an Operational Base (453.2) use retrograde movement if it survives a slow unit retreat under (302.742)? An Operational Base is able to move under its own power (453.21) and is treated as a slow unit for retreat under (453.24).

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Monday, May 03, 2021 - 10:08 pm: Edit

Q540.23: Can an empire send a DIP to perform the TRADE (540.23) mission with a neutral zone planet? (Ex. Romulan DIP sent to Denebola (hex 3415) to set up trade rather then application for entry.)

By Ahmad Abdel-Hameed (Madarab) on Tuesday, May 04, 2021 - 12:24 pm: Edit

Can someone help me reconcile rules (542.24) and (542.33)? (542.24) seems to say that Lyran Survey Ships taken from the Off-Map Area aren't treated as new Tug builds. (542.33) seems to say the opposite. Am I just reading it wrong? Do I have an obsolete version?

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Tuesday, May 04, 2021 - 12:59 pm: Edit

Ahmad see reply in Q&A Discussion.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Tuesday, May 04, 2021 - 07:51 pm: Edit

Lawrence, (540.23) notes 'neutral empire (race)' for trade, so I'd say no ...

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, May 05, 2021 - 07:21 am: Edit

(540.23) states in part:

---

Quote:

A diplomatic team could encourage trade with a neutral race (e.g., LDR, Orion, a future belligerent, etc.).

---

By Ahmad Abdel-Hameed (Madarab) on Thursday, May 06, 2021 - 02:55 pm: Edit

Is there someplace that details where the Minor Races place their Diplomats (the LDR specifically)? My recommendation for the LDR specifically is that they place 1 Diplomat each with each of their surrounding neighbors (Klingon, Lyran, Hydran) doing Trade Deals. Can we get an actual ruling on this?

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Thursday, May 06, 2021 - 07:31 pm: Edit

714.0 starts the LDR with three DIP and no restrictions and 714.22 says they could start pre-deployed (depending on the start date) ...

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, May 06, 2021 - 07:44 pm: Edit

If I recall, the Vudar start with their diplomat deployed at Klinshai.

By Ahmad Abdel-Hameed (Madarab) on Thursday, May 06, 2021 - 11:42 pm: Edit

Federation New Cruiser Heavy Fighter Conversions

Should the NCA-NHA conversion be 5 points as it adds Scout functions to the ship as well as adding fighters, with the NCL-NHA conversion in line with that?

Should the NCA-NHV conversion be 5 points as it adds Scout functions to the ship as well as adding fighters, with the NCL-NHV conversion in line with that?

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Thursday, May 06, 2021 - 11:58 pm: Edit

1 point for carrier conversion.

1 point for scout conversion (it only has 1EW with full AF, 2nd EW is offset by loss of AF).

By Ahmad Abdel-Hameed (Madarab) on Friday, May 07, 2021 - 12:38 am: Edit

I guess that I'd ask the similar question why the NCL-NVH and NCL-NVA conversions both cost 5 points with similar changes being made to the ships?

By Ryan Opel (Feast) on Saturday, May 08, 2021 - 05:13 pm: Edit

The above issue has been elevated.

By Ahmad Abdel-Hameed (Madarab) on Wednesday, May 12, 2021 - 08:34 pm: Edit

(542.21) talks about moving a ship to the Survey Grid. It doesn't specify any particular type of movement.

In the MASTER SEQUENCE OF PLAY, this happens in Step 1B1, before any kind of actual ship movement.

Given SVC's ideas about Near and Far portions of the Off=Map Area, should we add a one turn delay while the Survey Ship moves from the Near to the Far part of the Off-Map Area by Strategic Movement?

By Ahmad Abdel-Hameed (Madarab) on Thursday, May 13, 2021 - 09:22 am: Edit

Hey, I was reading SFB J2. In the text section about the CVH (and I presume this would also apply to the CAV?), it said that the ships often operated independantly after Y180.

Should we add to the text on the Master SIT about the CVH (and CAV?) that they can be operated without escorts after S180?

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Saturday, May 15, 2021 - 08:08 am: Edit

My question is: Are the two observations below correct?

1. The Klingon master SIT (revised 5/5/20) may be incorrect in that it indicates that the CVT base hull is TGB. In order to arrive at the correct factors (including command rating), the TGA appears to be the right base hull. This is further corroborated by the SFB Klingon Master Starship Book that indicates CVT was based on TGA.
2. The Klingon master SIT (revised 5/5/20) may be incorrect in that it indicates that BP and VP pods are in CO when they are in base F&E.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, May 15, 2021 - 08:27 am: Edit

Mike's (FEAR) ruling and Chuck's (FEDS) clarification mean that the Klingon Tug A is required for both the CVT and CVT+ builds.