Is there even a path from SPB->SUB? The SIT indicates you can take SPB->NHB or SPB->FHB, but the conversions from either of those ships into SUB don't seem to give credit for the fighters previously purchased. So those conversions appear disproportionally expensive and probably a wasteful path to the SUB?

Unless I'm missing something, I would think NHB->SUB and FHB->SUB should be cheaper and give credit for the fighters already purchased?

--Mike

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Wednesday, June 02, 2021 - 03:33 am: Edit

I don't play SFB - so 'size of modules' is unknown to me.

Will a 'SPB module' only fit on a SP (to make it a SPB)?

(Could a Modular DN use the SPB modules too?)

It might therefore be legal to remove the SPB module from 'a SPB' - making the SPB a SP, and then convert the SP to a NH - and the following turn convert the NH to a SUB?

(So you have doing 2 size conversions and a version conversion - the NH to SUB conversion does get the 1 Ep discount).

The SUB would require all 12 fighter factors to be bought - but the Romualns would have a SPB module (with 8 Fighters) available to be placed on another SP?

The conversion route might depend on which rule expansions you are also using.

By Graham Cridland (Grahamcridland) on Wednesday, June 02, 2021 - 11:29 am: Edit

I believe that the modular Romulan ships all use the same modules; this is kind of the point. A modular DN uses Sparrowhawk modules (this is specifically called out in the rules for modular DNs, as I recall).

So, sure, you can always convert the SP to an NH and then to an SUB; but it is precisely this conversion path, I think, that people refer to above as demonstrating that this is an illegal 3 step conversion to do in one shot. Because now the NH is an intermediate step between FH and SUP...

I believe that since the Superhawk has 4 fighters naturally, that the additional 8 fighters on the SUB represent the addition of the module. But I could be wrong.

[Playing the Romulans for the first time, so while I'm not deep in the rules, I'm very fresh on them, because I've read almost every one this month.]

[Edit: For those interested, there is a detailed discussion amongst the F&E Powers that Be on this subject around January 20, 2012 in the Romulan SIT thread.]

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Wednesday, June 02, 2021 - 02:18 pm: Edit

Graham

Yes, the SP to SUB can be done, but will take more than 1 turn.

Didn't have the DN-Modular rules with me - and so yes, the unused SPB fighter module could be added to a Modular DN.

It's relevant to remember though those 'most' Romulans hulls are not modular (i.e the SK, SP and the 3 Modular DN's) - so the SUB can't use the modules.

(The Heavy Hawks are all hard welded and not modular - thanks for the SIT thread comments - i.e. it's a normal carrier )

By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Wednesday, June 02, 2021 - 02:27 pm: Edit

Yes, but it is those same modules. So the SUB is not modular, but it can use those modules.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Wednesday, June 02, 2021 - 02:59 pm: Edit

Is there a general "converting a ship with X fighter factors to one with X+Y fighter factors gets credit for the existing X factors" rule that would cover this? Or is that all just specific SIT listings now (such as the Fed NVL to CVP)?

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Wednesday, June 02, 2021 - 04:48 pm: Edit

Kevin - Haven't seen anything which permits that?

What ruling or rule number permits a module to be hard welded (like the TGA+VP to a CVT...)?

Also - as the middle steps are non-carriers, wouldn't the modules have to be removed?

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Wednesday, June 02, 2021 - 05:20 pm: Edit

Paul, it is the engineering background of the setting across the games. The four-engine HeavyHawk series cruisers (FireHawk, FarHawk, SuperHawk, NovaHak, and RegalHawk) all mount a pair of SparrowHawk modules (as they are enlarged versions of the basic SP). However, dynamic balance and other engineering considerations means they have to be welded into place, which is what these ships cannot use (433.43) in F&E. Older SFB material said such ships were permanent conversions, but that has been revised to basically just mean permanent in the same sense as most ships: they can be converted, but require the same facilities and process as any non-modular ship. Thus the F&E rule permitting the hard-welding of modules is every allowed conversion of a SP into a HeavyHawk.

Converting a SPB to a FHB for 3 EP is just such a hard-welding conversion - it is using the B-modules that are already installed on the ship which is why there's no charge for the fighters. But converting a SP that doesn't already have B-modules installed is 4 EP (minor) plus 16 for the fighter factors. Same for the NHB, which can be converted from the SPB for 4 EP or the NHB for 2 EP, or for 5 or 4 EP respectively from a ship without those modules

The issue (as I am understanding) is that in the Romulan SIT, there is no SUB conversion source and cost for a FHB or NHB that already has the modules (and their associated fighter annuity) in place - converting a SUB from either of those requires paying for the fighters again as it just lists FH? and NH? as sources.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Wednesday, June 02, 2021 - 06:56 pm: Edit

If not changing modules, just use the base (SP-FH-NH or FH-NH-SUP) cost since a new set of modules is not being built ...

By A David Merritt (Adm) on Wednesday, June 02, 2021 - 10:43 pm: Edit

Point of order; The destroyer SK modules are different than the cruiser SP modules. The DNs use cruiser modules, except for the Demonhawk, which uses one SK, and two SP modules.

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Thursday, June 03, 2021 - 01:54 am: Edit

RE: SUB Conversion Costs Proposal

Currently for SUB:

From SUP?: 2+16
From NH?: 4+24
From FH?‡: 5+24

From NHB: 4+8 (new)
From FHB‡: 5+8 (new)
From SUP?: 2+16 (unchanged)
From NH?: 4+24 (unchanged)
From FH?‡: 5+24 (unchanged)

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Thursday, June 03, 2021 - 08:00 am: Edit

Alex

"engineering background " in SFB doesn't make it a rule though.

Currently though there is 4 ways to build a SUB - and it is limited to 1 per year (being the permitted 'Heavy Carrier Slot')

1) Build the SUB
2) Convert it from a SUP
3) Convert it from a NH
4) Convert it from a FH

The FHB and NHB were added in FO - and I am guessing (but will freely admit that I could be wrong), that the powers that be felt by making the FHB/NHB an end of ship line progression was acceptable in game dynamics (I am not sure allowing 14 compot Romulan carriers to become 16/17 compot and safer Romulan Carriers is good for the game, but that's a separate discussion ).

If the FHB and NHB was permitted to be upgraded to the SUB, could players claim that as they was just adding 'fighter modules' to an existing carrier, it should be outside the normal build limits?

i.e. They can now convert how many SUB's from FHBs ad NHB's as they wanted (and could afford)?

So all those SPB's are converted in Year 174 to FHB's and NHB's and the following turn are converted in to 21 compot SUB's.

I am not sure that sort of Compot magnitude hike is good for the game (i.e. a 50% increase from SPB's).


In other words, is there an additional route to build SUB's actually needed?

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Thursday, June 03, 2021 - 10:37 am: Edit

>> In other words, is there an additional route to build SUB's actually needed?

Excellent question. In my proposal (which may be slightly different than Alex's observations), I simply thought the FHB/NHB->SUB costs were wrong. An obvious oversight in the SIT based upon a loose use of the ?.

Practically speaking, since 704 indicates "plus one CNV or one SUB per year" and the SUB becomes available in Y173 and the CNV in Y175, the sweet spot for SUB is Y173 and Y174. Since the Roms are so short on CMD 10 ships (remember, no battle tugs and no battlecruisers) the CNV is usually the more attractive option in Y175+.

Now later in the war if the Rom has all the CMD 10 that is needed, or if the Rom is economically troubled, then building SUBs instead of CNV might make sense. But it is still either or.

So I don't think correcting the FHB/NHB->SUB costs would unbalance the game as other rules already in place provide the necessary guardrails on CVA production. The SUB remains a largely niche ship, which is also fairly consistent with the historical account where Imperial Standard was a unique ship.

--Mike

By Graham Cridland (Grahamcridland) on Thursday, June 03, 2021 - 11:58 am: Edit

Yeah, the SUB is just something to make in the first two years of Rom involvement until they get a real CVA, I think, after which you probably never build one again, because there are superior options.

The NHB and FHB are perfectly fine ships; they just aren't heavy carriers, and heavy carriers are somewhat more than "perfectly fine".

If you can afford both, make both. If you can't afford both, make the bigger carrier, because density.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Thursday, June 03, 2021 - 12:36 pm: Edit

Mike and Graham

The Gorns are short of CMD 10 ships too (and Battle Tugs easily die in pursuit if crippled and there is a Mauler present)….

...so all your doing is giving the Romulans more better ships and safer CMD 9 ships..

...which the Gorns don't get.*

Therefore isn't the proposal automatically unbalanced?

* - Remember in basic F&E, the Gorns probably have the worst CMD ships - no safe CR10 or CR9 (other than the SCS) and the Romulans can build safe CMD 9 ships in the SUB....

The expansions may give both sides better CMD ships (although the Gorn CMD 9 carriers I think are conjectural ones).

So more or easier/better ways to build SUB's are not needed IMHO.

By Graham Cridland (Grahamcridland) on Thursday, June 03, 2021 - 12:56 pm: Edit

To be clear, I don't have an opinion on the upgrade paths; frankly the Roms can happily make SUB's without upgrading them from SP's, because the Roms are mostly happy to upgrade SP's to other things and/or keep them as SP's.

Most of the time, the SP-->SUB upgrade path is irrelevant, because the Rom can upgrade a FH to SUB and then upgrade an SP to whatever the FH wanted to be. So ... probably the balance issues could be overstated.

Klingons (and Gorns?) not having enough CR10 ships is certainly a thing though, especially as the game goes on an 54 damage to direct a DN in formation becomes more of a thing.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, June 03, 2021 - 01:10 pm: Edit

Roms really don't have enough SPs to begin with, and usually I'm upgrading the ones I want to upgrade to FH variants.

Not that they can afford it, but Roms really could use a build of 6 SP per turn - but that will never happen for balance reasons.

What I like about the full game is that I can get started right away on or near Rom entry with building two more SP minor shipyards.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Thursday, June 03, 2021 - 01:36 pm: Edit

Ted, one MSY-CW will give them 6 SP per turn and the MSY can be paid for with the ENG.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Thursday, June 03, 2021 - 01:51 pm: Edit

The SUB is already limited to one per year *by any means* (shared with the CNV). Nothing about this is about trying to circumvent that. It’s basically: why does taking a FHB/NHB into the shipyard for conversion to a SUB costs the same as taking a standard FH/NH *including paying for all the fighters when the ship already has 2/3rds of the fighters it ends up with in place and paid for?

One of the hallmarks of the SFU and the games within it is that “engineering concerns” and how those affect things within the various games are of great importance and woven throughout - often in subtle ways. As with the “hard-welding” of modules - it’s not an explicit F&E rule but woven into the SITs by the very nature of SP? > ?? conversion costs.

Converting a SP to a FH costs 3 EP - that is the cost of moving an engine and adding the fourth engine and the other changes within the SFB SSD ignoring the modules - the changes to what base ship itself. If you start with a stock SP and want to convert it to a FHB, that’s 4 EP - 3 for the SP > FH hull modification then 1 to install the B-modules (and is still a minor conversion) - and then 16 more for the fighter factors.

But a SPB specifically to FHB is only the 3 EP for the conversion of the base hull, as the B-modules are already in place - but the resulting ship is no longer modular (ie those modules are now hard-welded).

Similar for the case of FH to NH: it’s 2 EP to convert the base hull. If you start with a FH without B-modules, it costs 2 more EP and the fighters, but if you start with one with the B-modules in place, it’s just the 2 EP for the base hull conversion

So the question is: why does that suddenly not hold true for the SUB, despite there being every background reason for it also being the case since it’s the exact same type of conversion? A FHB/NHB to SUB doesn’t ditch the installed B-modules any more than the prior examples, so why does it have to suddenly pay for the fighters it brought along? Especially since this isn’t letting the Romulan make more SUB’s than otherwise (see “by any means” limit).

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, June 03, 2021 - 02:05 pm: Edit

"Doctrine" Comment from FEAR -

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Thursday, June 03, 2021 - 03:31 pm: Edit

Ted beat me to it

But F&E isn't SFB and SFB isn't F&E.

How many SFB players say Maulers are worth their weight in gold or SFG ships are good ships to fly?

Doctrine

In SFB - they 'suck' (or are not that good, from what I know!).

In F&E they are massive damage multiplying ships.

But I can see their being other issues.....for the example the Romulan Option G - more Carriers.

Your still limited to 1 CVA per year...but as a SUB isn't a CVA**.... option G would allow you to convert as many as you like.

24 Fighters a year (as it's plus 6 per turn) would allow you to upgrade a lot of SPB's to SUB's...

** There are Heavy Carriers and Heavy Carriers with are also CVA's...

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Thursday, June 03, 2021 - 05:03 pm: Edit

“Doctrine” is indeed the other side of the “engineering” coin.Though it seems very weirdly specific doctrine that the Romulans would keep the same set of B-modules attached to a given hull through two rounds of opening the ship up for evtensive work, moving warp engines around, etc, only for the third time around time be “Ah this sucks, let’s pry these B-modules off and replace them with entirely new ones!” (including new fighter annuities).

Considering that the Romulans don’t have a CVA on their SIT, and the only game definition of a CVA in terms of carrier weight is (515.21) which does so by number of fighter factors, and how old the option balance options are, it’s probably more reasonable as assuming Option G is to read as “heavy carrier” rather than a ship type not on the SIT.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Thursday, June 03, 2021 - 05:20 pm: Edit

Alex

All DN based Heavy Carriers are CVA's - the ship information section at the end of the rules confirms the CVA Heavy Carrier hulls - more or less!

(Rules are at work and just have the 2010 PDF rules at home….).

The loss of fighters is already an 'option' though via SCS ships in the basic rules (IIRC, FO allowed you to transfer the lost fighters to a new hull? -and if you converted a normal carrier to a base hull - you do lose the fighters (although I accept, there reasons to do so would be very very rare).

By Graham Cridland (Grahamcridland) on Thursday, June 03, 2021 - 05:44 pm: Edit

I mean, "CVA" is more of a designation than a thing with a definition. The Romulan VLV and CNV are "CVA's" as commonly thought of (and I agree with Paul's "base hull definition"), but aren't called that by designation because, well, the Romulans have to be different (and not just about carriers), and also the Romulans have three distinct design philosophies running in their Navy. The Feds, Kzinti, and Lyrans call their CVA's "CVA"s. Or Meow-CVA's, in the latter two cases.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Thursday, June 03, 2021 - 05:54 pm: Edit

Paul, “CVA” does not appear in the online Romulan SIT at all, as a ship type or Note or anything else.