Ah, yes. That's the one. Forgot the original name :-)

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Wednesday, May 19, 2021 - 02:22 am: Edit

Lawrence


Q1: Can a supply path (enabling a DEPOT roll) be traced through 0312 (w/ a Hydran FF), 0313 (opened by the ship in 0312), NZ 0213 (opened by the BATS fighters), to the BATS in 0114?

Q2: Does the answer change if the BATS is under attack by 6 ships?

Not a FEAR answer - but no to both (assuming there is no other route to 211)

411.32 - BATS Fighters and PFs will open up supply in the hex they are in itself - but can only Block adjacent hexes and not reopen them.

So from your example - 213 is adjacent to 212 (so is blocked) - and 114 can't reopen it.

211 dies out of supply

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Wednesday, May 19, 2021 - 11:35 am: Edit

Thanks...that's the rule I was looking for...which also lends to answer the Q No Depot Roll.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, May 19, 2021 - 11:41 am: Edit

Q1: No. The withdrawal from combat doesn't leave the hex before combat.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Saturday, May 22, 2021 - 12:43 pm: Edit

By Ahmad Abdel-Hameed (Madarab) on Saturday, May 22, 2021 - 11:23 am: Edit


In the base game, can the Federation TG carry more than one pod, specifically 2*VP?

Ahmad - No - as overloaded Tugs are not in the Basic Game.

In the basic game - Tugs also have a single mission (so you can't have a Kzinti or Klingon BP and VP on one tug either - Combined Ops allow this mixing - along with the Overloaded Tugs).

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, May 22, 2021 - 02:01 pm: Edit

Ahmad wrote:
>>In the base game, the Lyrans only have 3*CW on their production schedule. In the Master Order of Battle, they have 4. Was a CW added in a later product or should I use the Master Order of Battle?>>

The basic game has different production schedules than the expanded game, and the online Master Order of Battle uses the expanded game production schedule.

If you are playing the basic game, use the basic game production schedule. If you are playing the expanded game (primarily using the Advanced Operations AO expansion), use the AO production schedule (which is what is in the Master Order of Battle online).

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Saturday, May 22, 2021 - 02:37 pm: Edit

Note that a Fed TG with two VPs is not overloaded. It is still not permitted int he base game.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Saturday, May 22, 2021 - 06:35 pm: Edit

A Fed TG with 2 VPs isn't possible (base game or otherwise) as that's 4 pod-weights. Now with the VLP (single weight, single squadron), one can have an overloaded CVTA (with 18 factors) ...

By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Saturday, May 22, 2021 - 06:45 pm: Edit

No, the VP is the single squadron, so it's possible to have 2 (in the expansions). The double squadron is the VAP, so you can only have one of them.

By Ahmad Abdel-Hameed (Madarab) on Saturday, May 22, 2021 - 09:02 pm: Edit

In the terms used in CO, the VP is a light pod and the VAP is a heavy pod with all that implies.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Sunday, May 23, 2021 - 01:14 am: Edit

Ahmad: RE Co-located Base/PDU interaction:

It is covered in 302.2123-D...

Essentially the PDUs are only involved offensively or defensively when the primary base is under attack (referred to as the base "adjacent to" the planet). See the rule for additional detail.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, May 23, 2021 - 07:54 am: Edit

Also re: Co-Located Base/PDU interaction.

The fighter squadrons on PDUs work like fighter squadrons on bases in this instance. You can send fighters from PDUs to engage in combat away from the PDUs (at, say, a co-located, distant base with the planet), but they count as ship equivalents, and they count as part of the max-3 squadrons.

(You can also send PDU fighters to fight in an approach battle in that planetary hex if you want under the same conditions).

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Sunday, May 23, 2021 - 11:42 am: Edit

re: Co-Located Base/PDU interaction

Would the answer to this question be different, depending upon what the attacker chooses?

(302.2123) In the event that two or more bases of any type or types (system bases‡, mobile bases, operational bases‡, base stations‡, battle stations, sector bases‡, starbases, stellar for- tresses‡) are at the same “location”, none of them count against the command limits. The Attacker may use the standard combat system or he may (each Combat Round) elect to use the special rules below.

(302.211) Planets (with or without PDUs), FRDs, tugs serving as supply points or deploying mobile bases, convoys, and Tholian pinwheels‡ (322.31), and transports carrying EPs (435.23) are treated as bases for purposes of (302.2). While they may lack the long-range weapons of a base, the owner will defend them much the same. Thus, an FRD can be required to be in the Battle Force (in a non-approach battle) where it probably will be destroyed. See also Cloaked Approach (306.3).

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, May 23, 2021 - 11:57 am: Edit

>>Would the answer to this question be different, depending upon what the attacker chooses?>>

Kinda?

Like, the two choices are effectively:

1) All the bases are in the same place, and you fight everything at the same time.

or

2) 1 base is by the planet, other bases are "remote", and one can be hidden and unattackable.

So if you pick option 1, everything is in one place at a time, and none of this question is relevant. If you pick option 2, you can fight by the "adjacent to the planet" base, and you fight everything other than remote or hidden bases as normal, and remote bases can contribute half compot and send fighters as independent units. Or you can fight one of the remote bases, fight that as normal, other, non hidden bases can contribute half compot.

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Sunday, May 30, 2021 - 02:36 pm: Edit

Thanks Peter that makes perfect sense.

--Mike

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Sunday, May 30, 2021 - 02:37 pm: Edit

FH to SUB Conversion

Would it be possible to just convert FH to SUB for 5+24 in the single Y173F turn? That is a listed conversion in the SIT.

And isn't that cheaper (and faster) than the FH --> NH --> SUB conversion? 5+24 vs 6+24?

Or are you short of cash or conversion slots on that turn or something and you'd like to spread it out somehow?

--Mike

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, May 30, 2021 - 03:01 pm: Edit

The wierdness of the Romulan Hawk series allows you to do a FH? to SUB conversion in a single turn bypassing the NH substep. See the From line on the SUB. Note cost is 5+24.

Source: Romulan 2020 SIT.

NOTE: FH? is any FH variant except FHF or FHP or which are are mauler variants or any FHX variant.

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Sunday, May 30, 2021 - 03:12 pm: Edit

Re: FH to SUB Conversion

Related question:

The F&E 2010 SIT lists SPB --> SUB as a possible conversion for 5+8.

In the master SIT PDF this conversion does not appear to be listed?

Is that conversion only available in the base game?

--Mike

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, May 30, 2021 - 03:41 pm: Edit

Mike, I'm booting your question up to the Q&A thread. The staff did a study on Romulan Hawk conversions. I do not remember the results of this one regarding the SPB to SUB.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Sunday, May 30, 2021 - 04:14 pm: Edit

I believe the SPB conversion was added in error and was removed shortly after 2010 in the latest SIT's.

The FH to SUB conversion is still legal though.

It's a Major conversion (and does cost a shed load of Ep;s)…. but can be done.

By Graham Cridland (Grahamcridland) on Sunday, May 30, 2021 - 05:15 pm: Edit

Why is FH to SUB a major conversion if it consists of FH to SUP (3) and SUP to SUB (2)? Also, isn't the cost (5+24) not inclusive of the discount for two steps?

Curious (I'm doing mine as a major conversion anyway for 5+6FFF+12) but I was trying to track this...

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Sunday, May 30, 2021 - 05:54 pm: Edit

Graham

I think it's due to the fact the 'two step conversion' discount is only given when you convert from a smaller hull to a bigger hull and then to a variant.

i.e. some conversions are two increases in size and some conversions are one increase and one variant.

437.1 does give the SUB as being a eligible two step conversion from the FH though - although the SUB mentioned in the example lists could always be in error though - which would be my guess.

i.e. the FH goes to the NH (a larger ship) and then a variant is the SUP.

I don't know if the SUB is considered a variant of the NH though.....

….and as it costs 4 Ep's to convert a SUB from a NH, I would guess 'no'.

By Graham Cridland (Grahamcridland) on Sunday, May 30, 2021 - 06:43 pm: Edit

Ah; if you go straight from FH to SUP it doesn't cost 4, but it probably makes sense that if either route to the conversion results in a major conversion, the two step should also be major. Going via NH rather than SUP also results in 5 being the proper cost, with the reduction, so that makes a lot of sense.

Actually, now that I look at it, the FH:SUP conversion looks like a fantastic deal, in comparison to paying an extra 2+16 to get a SUB.

But then, that's the only way to not "waste" the Y173 heavy carrier slot... since the CNV isn't available yet and the VLV is appalling.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, May 30, 2021 - 07:59 pm: Edit

Yeah, for a 2 step conversion to be a 2 step conversion, you need to be going from a smaller hull type to a larger hull type, and then a variant.

So Gorn DD>BDS is a 2 step conversion; Gorn CL>CVS is a 2 step conversion; Lyran DD>CWS is a 2 step conversion.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, June 01, 2021 - 07:40 pm: Edit

You could two step from an SP->SUP, so probably the thought was you could two step SPB->SUB because they would be using the same modules.