Cleared for CL52

By Jeffrey Tiel (Platoaquinas) on Tuesday, May 23, 2017 - 05:02 pm: Edit

CL54

By Jeffrey Tiel (Platoaquinas) on Tuesday, May 23, 2017 - 07:56 pm: Edit

Under (511.53) the player owning a capital hex under assault must, once any approach battles issues are resolved, divide his primary forces in half according to ship type, placing half into a static force and half into a mobile force. What is the reason for this rule?

By Jeffrey Tiel (Platoaquinas) on Saturday, July 08, 2017 - 08:19 am: Edit

Why were the Kzintis and the Klingons so far behind the Federation in the design and production of CVAs? Especially given the Federation's reluctance to involve itself in the early stages of the General War?

By Byron Sinor (Bsinor) on Saturday, July 08, 2017 - 09:22 am: Edit

Because the Federation is allegory for the United States in the cold war and we're the only power operating super carriers? Just a guess mind you.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Saturday, July 08, 2017 - 10:28 am: Edit

Not to mention the Federation was always hailed as a paragon of technical achievement.

By James Lowry (Rindis) on Saturday, July 08, 2017 - 10:50 am: Edit

First, the Federation gets a fair number of things first. (First BCH, first X-ships....)

Second, most empires were probably loathe to tie down their big command ships to carrier groups ('you mean killing one frigate is going to give me command problems?!'). The fact that the Federation can produce DNs while also building CVAs is probably a big reason why they went forward with it.

Out-of-universe, keep in mind that the CVA was originally a ground-up new design, and was more of a 'bigger, better' version of the Kzinti CVS than anything else. Then the other empires copied the concept using their available (DN) hull.

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Saturday, July 08, 2017 - 08:35 pm: Edit

The Feds had money to pay for the ships. The others were at war and didn't have the money for a new unproven design.

By Jeffrey Tiel (Platoaquinas) on Wednesday, July 19, 2017 - 04:07 pm: Edit

I've been wondering something about planetary repair docks. They seem to be based on planets, because they cannot fly away. But then only a few ships can actually land on planets, yet the PRD can repair all sorts of things. So, it would appear that the PRD is actually either high up in the atmosphere or else in orbit. I'm assuming the latter. But then it's really more like a Monitor, isn't it? I also see no provision in the rules to slap a few impulse engines on it to transform it into an FRD. So, what's the deal with Planetary Repair Docks? I don't have an SFB SSD for a PRD and thus cannot compare what they look like, but I'm assuming someone actually knows whether the PRD and FRD are structurally so different that, if the PRD actually is an orbital unit, that it couldn't be converted in F&E into an FRD and gain some flight capability? Lastly, if it's not on the ground but up in orbit, why can't a tug move it to another location the way FRDs are moved?

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Wednesday, July 19, 2017 - 04:39 pm: Edit

They are based at planets because that's were the workers live and the some of the materials are mined, manufactured. The repair facilities themselves are based on both the planet and in orbit. A PRD has more in common with a shipyard, where components are manufactured on the ground and then shipped up to the damaged ship.

A FRD has to have all that capacity move with it.

The cost difference between a PRD and FRD accounts for the materials, people, and parts being sent to a location that moves, rather then manufactured, based or moved to a stationary location.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, July 20, 2019 - 09:19 am: Edit

Why is the K7R a 9/5 unit instead of a 9-8/4 unit? The KRC is a 10/5 unit where as the D7C is 9/5 from which it was converted from. The KR is a 8/4 unit where as the D6 it is converted from is 7-8/4. The Klingon D7 adds 2 phasers over the D6 making it a 8/4 vs 7-8/4 unit.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, July 20, 2019 - 05:19 pm: Edit

Cloak and mightier weapons:

D6 @ 7-8/4 vs KR @ 8/4

D7 @ 8/4 vs K7R @ 9/5

D7C @ 9/5 vs KRC @ 10/5

...that and the fact that those legacy factors came for the original 1986 game...

...plus doctrine...

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Wednesday, July 31, 2019 - 10:53 am: Edit

Why are Tholian bases and PDUs not given a "counts as X number of ships" value in rule (326.2)?

This allows two Seltorian FFs to remove the web benefits from a Tholian Starbase and capital planet unsupported by ships (only one Seltorian FF may be destroyed by Directed Damage), thus allowing previously web stuck cripples to withdraw and a fresh battle fleet of mostly non-Seltorian Coalition ships to attack without (512.31) being in effect.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Monday, August 03, 2020 - 01:36 am: Edit

Why are the Seltorians, who are only borrowing a planet, allowed a Planetary Repair Dock and the Tholians who are 'established' (capturing 3 Klingon planets) are not?

Same question about Fleet Repair Docks.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, August 03, 2020 - 01:59 am: Edit

Doctrine.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, August 03, 2020 - 02:50 am: Edit

History. The Seltorians came with one, the Tholians did not.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Monday, August 03, 2020 - 11:35 am: Edit

Understood.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, September 20, 2020 - 08:44 am: Edit

This certainly falls under a "Why?" question:

So in a recent (clear) FEDS ruling, the rules for PF replenishment were clarified:

"Unless overruled by ADB, it is quite clear from the full context of the rules as written that new production replacement PFs are moved (at no cost -- meaning FREE) to their in-supply tenders in the same grid using the strategic movement procedures rules under (204.2). The 'SPECIAL' means that the tender is treated as the FINAL SMN ONLY for the resupply of its PFs; the 'FREE' means that the movement of these replacement PFs is done at NO COST."

Which is clear and decisive enough. But the question remains--Why do PF replacements need to follow the rules for Strategic movement when Fighter replacements do not?

The original rules for PF replacement (found in the 1986 F+E rulebook, and then 1989 DF+E rulebook, and the 1993 F+E rulebook) only call for PF Tenders to be in supply to get PF replacements, just like fighters. In the F+E 2K rulebook, the phrase "special free strategic movement" was appended to the PF replenishment rule, which apparently resulted in PF replacement being treated differently than fighter replacement (to replenish PFs, you need an open strategic movement path to the tender, while to replenish fighters, you just need an open supply path, which is vastly less restrictive).

Why was this done? Why is it necessary?

In the SFB background, fighter replacement and PF replacement are treated essentially identically--you can move replacement attrition units with the same ships and in the same manner. If fighters can be replaced by just being in supply why can't PFs be replaced just by being in supply?

Is there a specific game mechanic or balance reason that PF replacement needs to suffer this added complication, especially given that it didn't in the history of the game until the year 2000?

I mean, to be fair, it isn't actually that big of a deal, and probably won't come up much most of the time. But still, the addition of the "special free strategic movement" phrase in the F+E 2K rulebook seems both random and unnecessary. And the answer might very well be "We don't remember why that got put there, but it is there now, and so PF replacement needs to follow the rules for strategic movement", and I guess that's an answer.

But it still seems both incredibly random, and completely unnecessary.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, September 20, 2020 - 11:03 am: Edit

"Doctrine".

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, September 21, 2020 - 01:23 am: Edit

Why was this done? Why is it necessary?

"I do not remember."

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Monday, September 21, 2020 - 07:14 pm: Edit

And the classic - "It sounded better in my head than it does out loud."

SVC NOTES: This snark does not apply to this rule.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, September 21, 2020 - 07:31 pm: Edit

Like, I in no way want to be argumentative here, but it seems *very* much like this was a rule that was significantly, and negatively, changed, kinda by accident.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, September 22, 2020 - 12:45 am: Edit

Nothing is changed by accident. Because I don't remember the reason does not mean it's wrong. I do not have to remind anyone that FEAR and FEDS cannot change a published rule. They can email me a case file and a "Boss, you really ought to take a look at the second battlestar" memo.

Fighters are treated as ammunition. There is a steady flow of them unseen by the gamers as endless chains of freighters haul fighters, drones, and supplies to the front.

Gunboats are treated as ships. You buy and count individual gunboats.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, September 22, 2020 - 09:04 am: Edit

Fair enough!

By Patrick H. Dillman (Patrick) on Thursday, June 03, 2021 - 11:00 am: Edit

Not really a "why" question but a where?

According to (759.0), the Sol Star System has two Minor planets. Earth and Mars are the Major planets and Luna is one of the Minor planets. (ref. Prime Directive Federation)

So were is the second Minor planet?

(Edit: Ryan Opel posted on my facebook groups that Alpha Centauri is the Minor planet according to the Large Scale Map, which I don't have.)(yet)