MP 5HP.1 states call up replaces POL call up. Adding to note : "Heavy Police Ship (5HP.0), call up replaces POL" - Howard Bampton 2017-05-08

MP Call up missing from build cost: "Call up: 0 (1/Year)" - Howard Bampton 2017-05-08

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Thursday, May 11, 2017 - 02:10 pm: Edit

HDW COG/FOP/POG etc- entries need to be added to SIT as a part of HDW cleanup. - Howard Bampton 2017-05-11

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Sunday, May 14, 2017 - 07:11 pm: Edit

Footer- "+" not defined. "+ = Mauler (308.4)" - Howard Bampton 2017-05-14

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, July 27, 2017 - 02:10 am: Edit

CLS: Currently has an EW rating of 3. Similar ships seem to have an EW rating of 2. The Lyran CL off the top of my head has 25 power and 2 sensors. If so, this would seem to be low to support the unit having an EW rating of 3.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, July 27, 2017 - 05:08 am: Edit

It has been the practice to set the upper limit on F&E scout ratings to no higher than the number of special sensors on the SSDs.

The Lyran CLS has four special sensors and 25 total power.

The Gorn LSC has four special sensors, 29 power, and is rated at 4EW.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, July 27, 2017 - 07:26 am: Edit

Oh my memory was wrong then.

I'm not sure how the LSC is 4 EW when CWS's of various empires are 3 EW with more power (and generally 4 special sensors). I can only guess that it's a game balance issue?

I wouldn't have used it as a justification for the Lyran CLS, but I'm not in charge. With 4 sensors I can see an argument made for the Lyran CLS being 3 though.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Tuesday, August 01, 2017 - 07:46 am: Edit

CLT: This ship should be moved from the Local Defense Ships to the Light Cruisers. It is a fully functional Light Cruiser variant. Thomas Mathews 1 Aug 2017

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Thursday, August 03, 2017 - 12:23 pm: Edit

With the FFX (CL#51), there should be a conversion line with the DWX. A quick look at the cost seems to be in the 2.5 [FF (2.5 + 6) = 8.5, FFX (6 + 2.5) = DWX].

By Pete DiMitri (Petercool) on Thursday, August 17, 2017 - 07:17 am: Edit

Lyran CLG and CLS show "CL 46" in the product column, but they are now in FO.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Sunday, August 20, 2017 - 05:45 pm: Edit

Lyran MP listed as 5/- while the LDR is also listed as 5/None, as the LDR is usually 1 AF above the Lyran version (for the gatlings), shouldn't the Lyran MP be listed as 4-5/None ?

As the LDR POL- is listed as 3-4/None, shouldn't the Lyran POL be listed as 3-4/None ? [grandfather?]

FEDS CONCURS with Lyran MP at 4-5/None.

By Rob Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, August 24, 2017 - 05:46 pm: Edit

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, October 08, 2017 - 08:36 pm: Edit

Lyran: CL Light Cruisers: CLV: Cost: 7+8 should be 8+8. The CLV is a light carrier and not an escort carrier. Only escort carries have a 1 point surcharge. Light Carriers, War Cruiser Carriers, Patrol Carriers, and others with 4+ fighter factors pay the 2 point surcharge. Thomas Mathews 8 Oct 2017

NOTE: I know that the War Destroyer carriers with 4 fighter factors and a couple of other frigate and destroyer hull based carriers with 4 fighter factors pay the 1 point surcharge instead of the 2 point surcharge. To the best of my recollection only the Kzinti CVE pays the 1 point surcharge for an escort carrier even though it is the only escort carrier based on a CL or larger hull.

FEDS CONCURS: Recommend the Lyran CLV surcharge be corrected to read 2 EP with a build cost of 8+8 and a conversion cost of 2+8 since it retains most of its offensive compot at 5-6(4)/3(2). The DATE should be corrected to read Y170 and noted as 'conjectural' per the MSSB (R11.A20).

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, October 08, 2017 - 08:52 pm: Edit

Good point.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, March 02, 2018 - 09:34 pm: Edit

So the Lyran NCA is listed on the most recent SIT as being in "SO"; it was originally released in "Special Ops", which was replaced by "Combined Ops", so the Lyran NCA should be listed as coming from "CO" not "SO", as "SO" currently stands for, presumably "Strategic Ops" which is a different, later expansion than "Special Ops", which no longer exists.

This is confusing as the NCA is listed as being from "SO" ("Special Ops", which no longer exists), while all the NCA variants (NCC, NCS, etc.) are also listed as being from "SO" ("Strategic Ops"), which is a later expansion.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, August 16, 2018 - 06:47 pm: Edit

Convoy construction cost for Lyrans points to rule 431.2, but there is no such rule.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, October 22, 2018 - 05:25 pm: Edit

Posted on the Forum by Sneaky Scot:

I've been looking at the SIT charts for the Lyrans, and I noted that the carrier mode of the ship, the HDWV has a Command Rating of 6. However, the heavy Fighter Carrier mode, which from memory (so could be wrong) is identical apart from the fighter bays being configured for larger heavy fighters, has a command rating of 5.

Is that correct? The SIT chart is the 29 April 2017 edition, which I think is the latest one.

By Steve Zamboni (Szamboni) on Tuesday, October 23, 2018 - 12:38 pm: Edit

There are six (6) HDW versions on the SIT that show a CR of 5. The base HDW hull has a CR of 6.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, October 23, 2018 - 03:26 pm: Edit

If the F&E SIT CRs do not match the SFB MSC values in Module G3 then we need to correct them.

Note that HDWCs add 4CR per (525.23C).

---

Quote:

(525.23C) Command (C): If this mission is adopted, the command rating is increased by four. HDW-Cs were often used to command reserve fleets but were rarely sent into direct combat as they were highly vulnerable.

---

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, July 09, 2019 - 01:38 pm: Edit

Request for addition to Lyran SIT: Add JGP+G under "Strange Lyran Ships". Although this is a HDW conversion and covered by the rules, it is a convenient reference.


JGP+G NA 0G/0G AO 0 Y163 --NA-- --NA-- 1 0 Commando COG for JGP; see 525.222 and 525.242.

TDF 7/9/19

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Monday, November 25, 2019 - 09:27 am: Edit

The On Line SITs show the cost of the Klingon BP to be 4 Ep's and the Lyran KBP is only 2 Ep's.

As the BP and KBP are identical - should the costs be the same?

The Lyrans also have the Battle Pallet which add +2 CR and +4 Compot but there is no Klingon equivalent (which costs 6 Eps), and so the KBP is probably incorrectly underpriced.

Paul Howard - - 11/25/19

By Karl Mangold (Karlsolomon) on Friday, February 21, 2020 - 09:10 pm: Edit

Re: SR and NSR, descriptions are different despite having the same limits. In particular, it says max 4EW with SP+ or 2 KSP. Does this suggest that NSR needs 2 KSP to reach 4 EW or just that EW max is 4 even if you equip two KSP pods? I'm guessing the latter; if so it would perhaps be clearer to use the language describing the SR.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Tuesday, March 03, 2020 - 01:07 am: Edit

Page 1 DNLP "From DNL 3+¶" should be "From DNL: 3+¶"

Page 1 SCS "From CV: 8‡ + ¶" should be "From CV: 8‡+¶"

Page 2 BCS "From BC: 6+6;+¶" should be "From BC: 6+6+¶"

Page 5 CAL "From DD+DND: 2 From CW+DND: 2 From DD/CW: 6" should be "From DD + DND: 2 From CW + DND: 2 From DD/CW: 6"

Page 8 HAC "For 4 AuxPods: 8" should be "For 4 Aux Pods: 8"

Page 8 HAA "For 4 AuxPods: 8" should be "For 4 Aux Pods: 8"

Page 8 FTH "For 4 AuxPods: 8" should be "For 4 Aux Pods: 8"

Page 8 HAH "For 4 AuxPods: 10+14" should be "For 4 Aux Pods: 10+14"

Page 8 HAP "For 4 AuxPods: 11+¶" should be "For 4 Aux Pods: 11+¶"

Page 8 HSC "For 4 AuxPods: 13+6+" should be "For 4 Aux Pods: 13+6+"

Page 8 HSC "For 3 AuxPods: 6" should be "For 3 Aux Pods: 6"

Page 8 To be consistent should not "JUMBO AUXILIARIES (THREE POD HULL)" be "JUMBO AUXILIARIES (THREE-POD HULL)"?

Page 8 JAC "For 3 Auxpods: 6 (1/ year)" should be "For 3 Aux Pods: 6 (1/year)"

Page 8 JAP "For 3AuxPods: 11+¶" should be "For 3 Aux Pods: 11+¶"

Page 8 JAR "For 3AuxPods:" should be "For 3 Aux Pods:"

Page 8 JAS "For 3AuxPods:" should be "For 3 Aux Pods:"

Page 8 JTH "For 3AuxPods:" should be "For 3 Aux Pods:"

Page 8 JAV "For 3AuxPods:" should be "For 3 Aux Pods:"

Page 8 JHV "For 3AuxPods:" should be "For 3 Aux Pods:"

Page 8 JSC "For 3AuxPods:" should be "For 3 Aux Pods:"

Page 10 BS(FP) [With fighters and gunboats] "From: BS(F): 2+¶" should be "From BS(F): 2+¶"

Page 11 BTX(N) [No fighters/ gunboats] "From: BSX(N): 3" should be "From BSX(N): 3"

Page 11 BTX(F) [with fighters] "From: BSX(F): 3 From: BTX(N): 2+6" should be "From BSX(F): 3 From BTX(N): 2+6"

Page 12 BTX(FP) [with fighters and gunboats] "From: BSX(F): 5+¶ From: BSX(FP): 3 From: BTX(N): 4+6+¶ From: BTX(F): 2+¶" should be "From BSX(F): 5+¶ From BSX(FP): 3 From BTX(N): 4+6+¶ From BTX(F): 2+¶"

Page 16 PDU "From PGB (441.3)" should be "From PGB: (441.3)"

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Thursday, March 26, 2020 - 05:29 pm: Edit

Lyran SAH "Small Auxuliary Carrier with heavy fighters." should be "Small Auxiliary Carrier with heavy fighters."

Lyran HFF There are two listing for this unit, one under FF Frigate and the other under Heavy Auxiliaries (Ore Carrier Hull).

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Friday, June 04, 2021 - 07:47 pm: Edit

Lyran JGP-V (COG): Add note Single Ship Medium Carrier. (REFERENCE: per rule 525.243; which refers to rule 525.23V) - L Bergen. 4 June 2021

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Saturday, June 05, 2021 - 03:09 pm: Edit

HDWE (AO SIT): This ship note shows as BG capable which may or may not be be correct. The HDWV is not and typically true carriers may not be in BGs. - L Bergen 5-JUN-2021
FEDS: Escorts are BG capable per (315.241) also (315.26) for HDWEs; carriers are not BG capable.

HDWC (AO SIT): This ship note is lacking a BG symbol. Is this command ship truly unable to be in a BG. Rule 525.225 says HDWs may be in BGs, the specific configuration rule is silent. - L Bergen 5-JUN-2021
FEDS: Regular warships are BG capable per (315.24); recommend adding BG symbol.

HDWK (AO SIT): This ship note is lacking a BG symbol. Is this combat ship truly unable to be in a BG. Rule 525.225 says HDWs may be in BGs, the specific configuration rule is silent. - L Bergen 5-JUN-2021
FEDS: Regular warships are BG capable per (315.24); recommend adding BG symbol.

TAC OPS SIT Items (some of which are on this master SIT)
CLV: Carrier variant of CL, listed as a light carrier. Has fighter group as escort carrier. Is it truly a light carrier (please clarify as this affect production limits) - L Bergen 5-JUN-2021
FEDS: The MSSB says 'Light Carrier'. Recommend the Lyran CLV surcharge be corrected to read 2 EP with a build cost of 8+8 and a conversion cost of 2+8 since it retains most of its offensive compot at 5-6(4)/3(2). The DATE should be corrected to read Y170 and noted as 'conjectural' per the MSSB (R11.A20). Further recommend adding to NOTES: Light Carrier; counts as a medium carrier against production limits due to being a CL hull with fighters.

DDV: Carrier variant of DD, listed as a light carrier with SIX fighter factors. Is size typical of escort carriers with a larger fighter group. Is it truly a light carrier (please clarify as this affect production limits) - L Bergen 5-JUN-2021
FEDS: Recommend adding to NOTES: Light Carrier; counts as a medium carrier against production limits.
Per MSSB (R11.109) 'While called a “light” carrier, this ship carried a full squadron of 12 fighters and could be considered a “medium” carrier.'

CLT: Does Substitution for CW of this unit also count against the TGC/TGP/SR limitations of the CA Tug class? Or only if it subbed for the CA? Please add note here or on master OOB or both. - L Bergen 5-JUN-2021
FEDS: Recommend counting CLT against LTT limits as it can only carry one K-pod. Further, add to SIT NOTES and OOB.

General note to save space in Note section: It seems unnecessary to say "Variant of X" when its is obvious what class of ship it is a variant of. Example: (TAC OP SIT) CWL need only say 'Leader' (variant of CW) may be removed. L Bergen 5-JUN-2021