Archive through June 08, 2021
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Federation & Empire: F&E QUESTIONS:
F&E Q&A Discussions:
Archive through June 08, 2021
I think I see the problem, the NHB/SUB doesn't use the SUB conversion (2+24), it uses the SUP conversion (2+8) as the B modules carry over (NH/SUP).
Similarly the FHB to SUB is 3+8 ...
The SUB conversions assumes the B modules are being built ...
Alex
I can't find it either - I wonder if an old rules set listed each 'base hull type' and an Empires equivalent name?
i.e. DN = Condor for the Romulans and C8 for the Klingons.
- and 'CVA' would have covered C8V's and CNV's?
Thinking about it further - I wonder if when 'Carrier Groups' got removed from the Counters mix/rules, this clarity got removed (the Feds had various CVA based Carrier Groups - all called different things!)?
The only definition which in effect reverse confirms the CVA's is 502.7 - which confirms SCS's are modified CVA's (or directly build from the underlying DN).
So the C8V becomes the C8S and the CNV becomes PHX - and this therefore confirms the CNV is the Romulan CVA (and that the Romulan SUB is NOT a CVA, as it can't currently become a SCS).
Other CVA's (and SCS's) may get added to the game and so perhaps using this to define them isn't strong enough?
There are three types of carriers.
Heavy, medium, and light.
Look for heavy carrier as the term for CVA.
Ryan
Sorry - yes I know 515.20 confirms there are three types - to confuse things further, are there not in effect though '5' types of relevant carriers - as Heavy's and Lights are split?
CVA (can be converted to SCS's) and are more restricted in builds than 'heavies'?
Heavy
Medium
Light
Escort (1 can be build in addition to normal limits)
(Ignoring Hybrids etc!)
In Basic F&E - perhaps the only Heavy Carrier which isn't an actual CVA is the SUB - but the higher Fighter numbers on the add on rule packs do complicate this (the Patrol and Interdiction carriers for example)
Would it be easier to define a CVA as being any CR 10 ship with more than X (12?)fighters or Y (6?) Fighters and Z PF's (to cover SCS's) - and in effect is a Sub Group of Heavy Carriers (as new carriers can create confusions or indeed, some of the Balance Point Options create uncertainties(?
I would say though, for simplicity saying all Heavy Carriers (unless noted - the Hydran CV for example) are CVA's and some can be upgraded to SCS's would make it easier.
(As that would cover the SUB, which started the discussion off, as noted the only specific Romulan CVA comment is in 653.4 Option G)
Heavy carriers/CVA's.
A heavy carrier and a CVA explicitly have different definitions in the OOB's in particular, and possibly elsewhere in the rules as well. The SIT's define a number of kind-of-obviously-not-a-CVA carriers as "heavy" (the two-squadron Farhawk (FAB), the Lyran CV and CVD ("doctrine" I assume, since the BCV is a "medium" carrier!), etc.)
Heavy/Medium/Light is defined by number of fighters, with exceptions. A CVA is just a designation, used I think mostly to refer to "a carrier that we built on this giant DN hull" regardless of configuration.
It would be easier to just define carriers as heavy, medium, or light per the SITs and have something other than "CVA" as a rules term to cover the dreadnought assault carriers (and things close enough like the SUB). In part because there is the spider in the ointment of the Tholian CVA - which is a SC3 medium carrier with 12 fighter factors.
Ultimately, it's a case of where the game once defined things by a simple rubric like (515.20), with the advent of the SITs ships can be evaluated and assigned their carrier weight - what determines their required number of escorts - based on the quirks of that ship and the empire's doctrine. Which is independent of things like build limits based on specific classes or such.
ETA: Dovetailing with what Graham said as I was posting at the same time: "CVA" is a term that is not always used in precise ways, because we all *know* that of course a CVA refers to a DN true carrier - except the (515.21) is the only thing that tries to define what a CVA is, and that obviously has a host of exceptions and variances. Is the Tholian CVA under the home shipyard restriction of (433.45)?
Hrm, the Hydran ID has a parenthetical (CVA) designation on the SITs, and the Romulan PHX has a (SCS) one - just consistently applying those and having appropriate ship specific notes like the Romulan SUB counts against CVA-type production (and change the Romulan limit to one CVA-type ship per year by anymeans also futureproofs that restriction against any other flavor of dreadnought carrier that gets introduced) and the Tholian CVA not counting as a CVA-type for rule purposes.
That's a good point. We should probably agree that "CVA" is just an empire specific designation that doesn't mean anything in particular.
Paul, (502.71) says not all empires have CVA to SCS conversions available, so "Can become an SCS" is not necessarily a working definition for CVA. Though it seems a lot of (502.7) in general is now just repeating information in the OOB build schedules and production limits. *checks a couple of OOB docs*
So the Klingons have the SCS limit and the SCS counting as towards PFT limits coded directly into (703.23) with citations of the C8V/C8S but the Romulans do not have any such in (704.23) so you would have to reference back to (502.72) to know that the PHX counts against the CVA limit (with no ship in their fleet explicitly defined as a CVA by the rules even though we all know and agree that is the CNV and VLV (which is under its own limits)). At least they haven't added a K9V to any of the games yet!
ETA: And to be clear, Paul, I think we are on the same page overall, just a page with some messy writing that we are coming at from different page references 
Everyone
I think it's fair to say, with rule expansions, what might be clear in Rules A and B - go different with Rules pack C.
A good example being 502.71 is in effect correct until you include FO.... as the Tholians get their SCS in that rules pack (everyone else, of the major Empires get the SCS in the basic rules).
i.e. every major race can build or convert SCS's...
As it stands though - it appears CVA and Heavy Carriers are interchangeable on builds/conversions - so I agree, at the moment, the Romulans can only over build or convert 1 SUB (or CNV) per year - even with the Option Points of Extra carriers being used.
If the SUB (or similar high compot carrier) ever became a non-CVA, perhaps other changes would then be needed, to reduce the chance the Romulans build several in a turn.
Rule 433.19 (as clarified by CL #47) allows the major starbase in a capital to perform up to three conversions provided that they total five points or less. Rule 433.15 allows the Federation, Klingons and Romulans a second major conversion.
Does this mean that these three powers have a second "major conversion" starbase capable of three conversions totaling up to five points? In other words, could the three Klingon starbases in the capital hex convert a D6 to D6M at one starbase (five points), two D6s to D6Vs and an F5 to an F5E at the second (five points: two plus two plus one), and then three F5s to F5Es (three points) at the third starbase? Or is the second starbase capped at three points of conversions despite the allowance for a second major conversion?
Looks like, though the Klingons might want a D6/D6S which is a major conversion ... (could still do an F5/F5E with the D6S) ...
Graham - replying here as not a formal Q&A answer
302.742, "All escorts can ... stay with their charges."
Escorts can stay with any slow pursuit units - it is optional - and if the battle continues, those escorts can be used in the base battles as part of the normal battle line creation rules (so might die before the Base dies.....)
So in your example.
The player decides to retreat and you do the check on if there are any base or base like units left.
If Yes, the Slow Unit rule is activated.
Escorts of Eligible Ships can remain with their Escorted Ship (usually Aux CV's, but it could include the other Slow units too - plus Towing units for FRD's etc).
Other ships retreat as normal and no pursuit occurs.
As the ships are designated 'Escorts' (or Towing) there requirement to retreat under the 'Normal Retreat General Rule' is overruled by by the Escort requirement of groups and 302.74 (although you can optionally break the group, should you want to - which again is a Specific Rule overruling the General Rule).
Battle continues and after the Base dies (I suppose it is possible for the attacker to retreat though), the Slow Retreat is done - with the various penalties in 307.742 B plus actual compbat penalties (pursuer selects both BIR's etc).
It's possible in smaller battles, the Slow Units may survive, but more often or not, what 'stays' dies (unless you have several escorted Aux CV's and can handle say 40 damage without self killing everything).
Basically, if the damage will kill the Aux Ships anyway - you don't escort them (and try to give them as a damage in the normal battle) - or you give them a chance to live, when building the initially battle lines (i.e. escorting the ships in good way.
Example
Kzinti Defenders
CC and BC are declared to be towing a FRD
LAV+CLE+CL+FF
SAV+CLE+FF
A legal slow pursuit battle line can be formed - and 40 damage is likely to see the CC (and FRD) or 3SAV group die - as with 18 fighters, 4 escorts could be crippled.
If you only had a LAV+CLE+FF and a SAV though say, 40 damage might kill the lot.....
(Note - I still don't understand this part, in that if you have so many Aux ships and not all of them fight - I cant work out what happens
i.e. 2 x LAV+CLE+CL+FF, 3 x SAV+CLE+FF, 4 x CW+ ships and 2 x FRD's - what fights, what is immune to damage other than directed if not on the line etc - it still confuses me!!!)
The LAV left behind is not in slow unit pursuit, it can be argued that its escorts must retreat, not being slow units.
If I had to choose, I'd just add in a rule that escorts of a slow unit are treated as slow units for all purposes, but that's not currently the rule so far as I know.
Rich, Paul:
Well, that's the dilemma we were in. We finally decided that the escorts and LAV were treated as a "group" which could hang around and be slow together, which resulted in a bunch of extra rounds of combat as I directed fighters and escorts to be absolutely sure I killed the LAV/SAV in the slow unit pursuit. Klingons crippled another 3xWE,2xSK or something when they probably could have gotten out cheaper if they had just dropped damage as you normally would to kill the SB after the fleet bugged out.
But it seems wrong that the escorts should have to separate just because the non-slow units retreat before the slow units do (rather than at the same time, which is what is described in 302.742).
And I spent forever digging out the pursuer-picks-both-BIRs rule...
IIRC from rulings, the pursued gets a choice:
-AUX Escorts drop and run with the rest.
-AUX Escorts stay for the slow pursuit battle.
In either case, the slow pursuit battle is otherwise conducted normally.
Richard and Graham - as Ted confirms, the rule states the persued can either break the carrier group and escorts retreat in the normal retreat or stay with the Aux for a Slow Retreat Battle.
Note - like outside of FCR's - this doesn't allow you to add escorts, as carrier groups are already formed - and outside of removing escorts to meet Command limits (if required - and that would be done during the Slow Pursuit round) - it's an all or nothing option - i.e. all escorts stay or none do (302.742 B - 'all escorts can').
Quote:By Sam Benner (Nucaranlaeg) on Monday, June 07, 2021 - 10:17 pm: Edit
I have a question about (509.36), detailing where unused pods are in a supply grid. When during operational movement is the extent of a supply grid calculated? If I connect two supply grids for a single pulse of operational movement, are unattached pods free to transfer between grids?
I realized as I'm writing this that I can't build pods at a starbase, so this is probably moot for my current game, but I'm still interested in whether a single pulse connection is enough for a transfer.
No, you can't transfer the pods. You can physically move the pods between grids by using Theater Transports, but they would not be available for use until your next player turn. Flexible Tug Missions are great, but even they have limits.
I think you misunderstand. Pods are in a particular supply grid, and per (509.36) this is determined when a supply grid is split. Suppose I drop a VP in one grid, then in operational movement that grid is connected to a second grid. Those grids are split again (either by a reaction or by the ship continuing to move). Where are the pods at this point? There was a moment where there was only one supply grid, so I think (509.36) says I get to pick.
Ahmad wrote (in Q+A):
>>If two races are allied, can one voluntarily give ships to the other to be converted to the other's use? I know that the Klingons and Romulans are a special case in this, but can other allied empires do this too?>>
I'm hard pressed to think of a situation where this would actually be useful (ignoring the Klingons and Romulans).
You can send ships to an ally to be adopted. You can send ships to an ally to be part of an Expeditionary Force. Both of these are cheaper and generally just as effective than paying the, what, 3 EPs per ship to convert them as captured.
What kid of situations would it actually be useful and cost effective to do this?
Unused Pods are considered to be in the main grid, unless they were on a tug or LTT in the partial grid at the time the partial grid was created. They remain in the assigned grid unless physically moved to the other or the partial grid is reconnected to the main grid that would allow the transfer of accumulated EPs.
That's probably the simplest answer. Thanks!
Peter: Feds to the Kzinti? The Kzinti don't get a 4EW scout other than scout tugs until Y175. And while the Feds can operate in Kzinti space, they can't operate out of the Kzinti offmap. Alternately, the Feds could supply the Kzinti with DEs if the Kzinti can't afford MECs (this is important because only ships from the same empire can be in groups together and the Kzinti will likely not have a shipyard during the time you'd like to do this, though it's only a savings of 3EP). The Klingons can have command problems and that would be easily solved by half a dozen Lyran BCs. As the Coalition, 18 EP is cheap for fixing all my command problems on C7 when I hit the Federation.
Klingon TGA to TGB, Kzinti TGC to TGT, and Lyran TGC to TGP are all legal conversions, but is there a reason why anyone would ever do so? At least in the base game, I haven't been able to come up with one.
Ahmad wrote (in Q+A):
>>If two races are allied, can one voluntarily give ships to the other to be converted to the other's use? I know that the Klingons and Romulans are a special case in this, but can other allied empires do this too?>>
I'm hard pressed to think of a situation where this would actually be useful (ignoring the Klingons and Romulans).
I don't think Allies can give each other ships at all - Lyrans could just gift all their DN's and BC's to the Klingons for example for a turn 7 attack on the Feds.
There was an optionable/Balance point rule IIRC to increase the number of ships provided by the Klingons to the Romulans - but I think that's it.
Gorn Escorts in Federation Carrier groups?
Ahmad, No foreign escorts for any carrier period. See (515.0).