Archive through October 31, 2022
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Federation & Empire: F&E QUESTIONS:
F&E Q&A Discussions:
Archive through October 31, 2022
Agreed re: what Peter said.
Accelerated Federation deployment is a big deal, but it doesn't win the war on its own, so it could be a vaguely reasonable if probably still not advantageous trade for a "free" Starbase kill. However, it means you don't get the free Starbase kill on the 7th fleet SB or the reduced price blue light special on the 3rd fleet Starbase.
So enjoy that!
I find that sometimes if the Coa just ignores the Marquis SB and allocates forces to more important objectives, a fairly easy opportunity to destroy it may just materialize. If the Feds and Kzinti over-allocate ships to Marquis to make sure the Coa can't take it very easily (or at all), then fewer Alliance ships may be available to defend much more important things.
--Mike
<duplicate post deleted>
1704 is in reserve range of both 2204 and 1401. So somewhere between 4 and 6 reserve fleets are probably in range of it at all times until either 2204 or 1704 falls.
The only way to get cheap SB kills is to get past them first, and also allow at least one turn when the Federation and/or Kzinti are free to blow up your backline.
1704 is in range of 1509, too (just saying). Not super easy to make these cheap kills happen!
I think I put this in the wrong discussion thread…I did it from my cell phone so hard to see. Please remove it over there.
(508.2 thru 508.26) Am I missing something in the rules regarding conquering and capturing a planet specifically regarding economics gained by the capturing player? Does the capturing player ever reach full economic status as the new owner of the planet? Rule (508.22) does say “on the second subsequent turn of continuous possession, the capturing player receives the production at the devastated rate…” (508.25) Says “recovery does not begin until the planet is recaptured”
Suggest a single clear statement about captured planets never recover from devastation.
Maybe consider how to provide a way for long term capture of a planet? (IMO - This should take an investment into the planet PDUs would be part of that, a diplomat, and time.)
Would it be enough for the capturing owner to drop a PGB (smallest planetary defense unit) and have the planet recover from the devastation? I don’t think so.
To receive the full income for a planet you need to annex it, which happens when you annex the province it is in. See (448.2), (448.26) and (448.28).
Richard is mostly right. Once you annex a planet it can begin to recover from devastation. Only once it has recovered from devastation do you receive full economic value. As that process takes 14 turns (4 for long term capture, 6 for annexation, then 4 more for recovery), you rarely ever get full value out of a captured planet. Economic exhaustion usually sets in before you can annex a planet and get it through recovery.
And generally by then the war is turning back in the other direction.
Of note, there are rules for hurrying the recovery from devastation, but they are not particularly helpful. Hospital ships, and engineers can make a turn of recovery count as 2, so potentially you could cut the recovery time in half; but nothing shortens the LTC or Annex process.
See also (541.34C). Each turn an Engineer spends at a captured planet counts as two turns towards LTC or Annexation.
However, this will usually put the Engineer in great danger of a raid or worse unless significant forces are dedicated to protecting the Engineer and planet.
>> Or, does self-killing and rescuing an escort in a carrier group simply remove the escort from the group altogether, regardless of whether there is pursuit. In this case, the killed-and-rescued escort could appear as a single crippled ship during pursuit.
I'd lean toward this one myself.
So in other words the escort is destroyed normally (and may continue to count as an escort command slot if the group was not overstuffed). And when the escort is then rescued it is considered a separate (ungrouped) single crippled ship that has the restriction of not being able to join a BF for the rest of the turn, except for being a pursuit victim.
--Mike
NT
@Chuck: My thanks for a quick ruling on the rescue tug/carrier escort question.
Setting aside the Federation production situation in Q&A, Another problem might arise shortly in our game.
In our game, the coalition has taken her time, and decided to conquer the Hydran and break down the Kzinty at a slow but as costless as possible pace. The Hydran capital has just fallen in the 8th (just ended) coalition turn, while the kzinti still have 1502 and 1 major beihond Kzintai in the capital Hex undevasted and with their PDU (now expanded to 8 for both); even 1802 is still undevasted and with 6 pdu and a mobile base set up on it (might go down this turn, there are 130 pin of coalition ships in 1504 right now...).
They're incredibly behind, but at the same time, they fought almost all the battles only until they had fighters to burn and taken down hard starbases (Duke and Hydran capital) only using SAF. They got a negligible numbers of crippled ships, and had an incredible surplus of money.
That surplus has gone to build an extra engineer and diplomat for both Klingon and Lyran, in max survey ships and an incredible number of SB builds or upgrades. Lyran has upgraded 2 Bats to SBes and built a full new one in 2518 (Hi Tholian friends...), while the Klingon have already built 3 and have either a SB or are working on building one on every planet in range of Federation or Kzinti space.
All that considered, I assume there is a non 0% chance that they are planning to NOT attack the federation on turn 10.
As I'm at limited war from turn 6, on turn 10 I have to either go to full war or abandon my Kzinti ally and revert to peace economy.
Now, can I go to full war economy without declaring war on anyone? If so how my unreleased forces will work?
If I can't and I'm forced to attack the Klingons, what happens to the Gorns?
I remember a big discussion about it back in 2019, and I also vaguely remember a change in the rules (the original rule states that if the Federation attacks, the Gorn never enter unless attacked) that let the Gorn enter on Alliance side if I attack the Klingons and than the Romulans attack me, but as I can't find it right now i might be wrong...
Any ideas?
Stefano, on Turn 10 the Feds can declare war on the Klingons, see (602.48).
Stewart, I think Stefano's question is whether the Feds declaration of war on the Klingons thereby prevents the Gorns from entering the war, unless they themselves are attacked. I remember this was a discussion from a few years ago, but I do not recall if it was ever concluded one way or another.
"Lyran has upgraded 2 Bats to SBes and built a full new one in 2518 (Hi Tholian friends...)"
The ships of the TBS are released but the area they occupied (including 2518) is still an unreleased fleet area. As such under (600.321) you may place a Lyran MB but I do not believe you are allowed to upgrade the Lyran MB. The same thing would be true on the Eastern Fleet area until released; and the Western Fleet, Klinshai hex and province until T4 (while unreleased).
Stefano
I remember the discussion - but can't remember if the 'rule' (as I interpret it) was changed.
As it stands - if the Federation attacks both the Klingons and the Romulans - the Gorn only enter the war if attacked (603.54).
The Gorn may have gone to a modified Limited War (Second Fleet is released and counts as an Alliance member) though if the Lyrans or Klingons have attacked the Federation (603.5) though.
So the worst thing for the Alliance is
Federation attack the Klingons and Lyrans
Romulans then attack the Federation
603.54 applies and the Gorn stay out of the war until attacked.
It is therefore important for the Alliance for the Klingons and/or Lyrans attack the Federation - as at worst, the Gorn go to Limited War then.
In other words - if you have an aggressive Federation, it assumes the Alliance doesn't need Gorn forces!
Actually, (603.54) states that if the Feds attack EITHER the Klingons or the Romulans, the Gorn stay out.
This has actually happened in our current local game.
I'm playing as the Federation, the Klingons did not attack Turns 7-10 - concentrating on the Hydrans and Kzinti. The Klingon player is new and learning the game as we go.
The Kzinti lost the homeworrld on C10, as I realized I had to attack on A10, or the Klingons would regroup and I'd be in trouble.
As it stands, we're on A12, the Klingons & Romulans have been little inroads against the Feds.
So in this game, the Federation doesn't need the Gorns.
Yet.
Hopefully, never. 
Roger,
In this game the Federation does not need the Gorn at all; but the Coalition just might in a few turns. The Hydran are about to break out of their bubble and trash the Klingons.
- Romulan High Command
Roger
Your missing 603.5 - the 'very limited' Gorn Limited war Support of the Feds.
So if the Klingons attack the Federation and then the Federation attacks the Romulans - the Gorn Second Fleet will have been released to the Alliance and ship losses can be replaced (so the quality of the fleet will be increased - as it's ship by ship, not type of ship) - but it's a more limited form of Limited War.
So full Gorn support normally requires both the Klingons and Romulans to attack the Federation.
In theory, the Federation CAN attack the Klingons and still have the Gorns at full war - but the Federation can only attack the Klingons if the Romulans have already attacked the Federation - as 603.5 only applies if the Romulans haven't attacked).
So Romulans attack on Turn 10... (activating 603.2) - there is nothing to stop the Federation attacking the Klingons on Turn 10 or Turn 11...
I can see if the Coalition is behind the curve ALOT and both sides agree to play on, perhaps that is where it does happen more often than not (a failed Tholian invasion for example).
I know this has been asked and answered before, but I am having no luck in finding it.
In the Klingon OOB notes for the base game, 703.4 says: "Pods: two battle pods, two carrier pods at start." It then says: "Maximum pods allowed: 2xBP (pair), 3xVP2 (pair) [omitting a few things not pertinent to the question]."
Although the plain language says that you start with two battle pods and can have a maximum of four and start with two carrier pods and can have six, I believe it was clarified via a question in this forum that the at start forces should have referred to two pairs of battle pods and two pairs of carrier pods. Is this correct or I imagining things?
A similar question could also be asked about the Kzinti at-start pods for the base game.
Yes, the Klingons and Kzintis start with sets of pairs of battle and carrier pods.
The Klingons have two sets of battle pods and two sets of carrier pods at game start.
The Kzintis have two sets of battle pods and three sets of carrier pods at game start.
Quote:
By fabio poli (Fabioz) on Wednesday, October 26, 2022 - 12:22 pm: Edit
C5A and small combat.
In the small scale combat the combined defence of the ships involved is accounted for.
But if the C5A freeze some of them does the defense of frozen ship count?
I mean, the small scale combat table take in account defensive weapons alongside the "hull" of the ships but in that table the frozen ships can't add their defensive weapons (and manouvres) and should not be accounted for. IMHO.
See (310.42) which refers to (312.222). Also see (312.45) and (314.135).
However, for the purpose of your question I believe the answer to be you still resolve casualties based on the total offensive (SFG) compot vs total defensive (Non-SFG) compot regardless of frozen units. At the same time, the Non-SFG offensive compot is reduced by the offensive compot of the frozen unit(s) in question. Resulting in the same number of casualties dealt to the non-SFG player, while reducing the number of casualties dealt to the SFG player.
Reasoning: In a standard combat round a SFG ship freezes an enemy ship. The compot of the fleet is reduced by the compot of the frozen ship. Resulting in 1 - 3 points less damage dealt by the non-SFG player. The defensive compot of the non-SFG fleet remains the same.
>> Now federation has been at limited war from turn 6, and in turn 10 it has to either go to full war economy or revert to peace economy due to the 4 turn limit on limited war stance.
Is that really true?
In F&E2010*, page 130 at the end of (654.0) LIMITED WAR:
An empire cannot remain at voluntary Limited War for more than four turns (652.22) but turns in which it is conducting campaigns in allied territory (engaging in combat with enemy forces) do not count for this limit.
So if the Federation has sent some fleet elements into Kzinti territory and was doing at least some fighting of Coalition units, Limited War could then continue indefinitely?
Under Limited War, sending of certain Federation fleet elements into Kzinti space appears to be specifically allowed under:
(602.42) AVAILABILITY: The Federation Fourth Fleet is active; it and the three CVLs from the Second Fleet, plus all new construction, can operate in Kzinti territory. The Federation can send Economic Points to the Kzintis. Any Kzinti ships interned in the Federation are released.
Unless of course I am horribly misreading all of this?
--Mike
Stefano
(652.211) The actual combat conditions are not related to theeconomic level. An empire can be on a Wartime economy (431.4) without attacking another empire or being attacked. Limited War is considered Wartime for purposes of production restrictions, mobile bases, defense battalions, etc., but not for base upgrades.
So the Federation can go to FULL WAR for Economic purposes and exhaustion - without attacking the Klingons or Romulans.
Alternatively, via 654.0 pointed out by Mike, it would appear the Federation could remain at LIMITED WAR - or if they withdrew forces from Allied Space, they could revert back to a PEACE level the following turn.
So, no, it would appear your not forced to Declare War on the Coalition, which could preclude the Gorns ever entering and your not required to abandon the Kzinti.
So does the above imply the Federation can go to FULL war for economic purposes, while remaining at LIMITED war for combat purposes (i.e. fighting in Kzinti space) under these circumstances?
I find this very confusing, and I think a formal ruling would help to clear things up.