Archive through February 17, 2023
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Federation & Empire: F&E QUESTIONS:
F&E "Why" Questions:
Archive through February 17, 2023
A 'why' question,
Why was the Romulan FHC ship amended from Date Available in 174 in the printed SO rule book to 171 in the on line SIT?
From one of the game reports - it seems this may have inadvertently given the Romulans a significant and non-balanced advantage?
i.e. in the Printed SO rules -
It was noted as a Survey Ship (and no longer is)
It's a 4 EW Scout
It's only a minor Conversion from several hulls (FH is 4pt minor conversion for example)
The Gorn Equivalent which was also created in SO - remains as a 175 entry point.
So, both were limited in numbers being built (the Gorn MSC isn't a minor conversion), but now due to the change in the SIT, the Romulans can build as many as they like and have a 3 year advantage.
So not only do the Gorns now have to face a very large EW disadvantage which didn't exist prior to the SIT upgrade - but who else can in effect build unlimited numbers of 4 EW Scouts?
(The Feds and Klingons for example seem to be limited to 2 per turn....)
I do not remember. You might check to see if the Rom SIT topic has an archive of previous reports and changes. A staffer might remember. What does SFB say about the two ships? F&E dates are always derived from SFB dates/histories which sometimes include "could have been then but wasn't until when" info.
SVC
Prior to posting, I did a search on the FHC - lots of comments about Fighter costs to the FAS and the FHQ being the Survey Version - (I am guessing there was originally a single 4 pt FH Scout Survey Cruiser included in SO - but was then split post SO publication - into a 4 pt EW Scout (available 171) and a 4 pt EW Survey Ship (kept at 174).
But zero comments about why the FHC should be available from 171.
SIT 2017 shows the 171 date, so change must have been before then.
(I don't play SFB, so no idea about SFB YIS dates)
The answer will have to come from the SFB MSC.
The SFB Master Annex lists Y171 as the YIS for the FHC.
There is the answer for why it changed.
As for the FHC being built in large numbers, the FHC ship description in the Romulan MSSB says: [although adding C modules to a Firehawk created a superb scout], "it was rarely done as heavy cruisers were in short supply and no Firehawk heavy cruiser captain really wanted to give up his K-modules."
The ship description also mentions that while it would be theoretically possible to configure a Firehawk-C as a Firehawk-S survey ship, there is no confirmation that this was ever done.
F&E players can build things history didn’t as you pay the price in giving up other ships.
Okay this may be a little dumb but, Why can't Convoys transport PDU? Based on my research only tugs and LTT can and only 1 at a time?Shouldn't a Large or small Freighter be able to?
It would have no way to install it, and would be too slow and vulnerable to risk carrying the PDU by that means. You would have to have a tug/ltt meet it to do the install so nothing gained.
Would older technology tugs (W or Y) be able to deploy middle years technology PDU’s?
IIRC the YIS date of the TT Federation Tug is y135, while the middle years PDU modules (ground based phaser 4, for example and other rule R1.14 and R1.15 ground stations ) YIS 120.
I assume a tractor beam is required... is there a minimum power level for a tug? In other words, we know the regular tug can deploy a PDU, but I can’t recall if a theater transport could handle the job of installing a PDU.
For that matter, a Theater Transport couldn’t move an entire PDU by itself(and move at a speed faster than a convoy). Could a military convoy(one with better/military engines) rendezvous with a theater transport to deploy a PDU?
Just curious! 
Jeff, I think this is more of a Q&A or discussion question. I am reposting your post in Discussions and answering it there.
OK, Here's a "Why" question that I've wondered about for a long time, but am just now getting around to asking. (My apologies if this has been asked and answered before.)
Why are Gorn ships so powerful in F&E?
Take the Gorn Battlecruiser; in F&E it is a "10" for compot, the same as a Fed BCG or Klingon C7. Not wanting to knock the Gorn BC... but I don't think (in SFB) that it stands up well against either of those two. It's a "heavy cruiser class" ship, not a "BCH class".
How about the real Gorn BCH? A fine ship but it rates a "12" in F&E; the same as a Fed DNG or Klingon C8. Again, I don't think that in SFB it really matches up well against a true dreadnought.
Or to take an apples-to-apples comparison (at least as far as weapons go), how about a Gorn BC versus Romulan FireHawk? The Gorn has the same plasma except for arcs and carronade. Advantage Gorn (due to carronade, not arcs). And it has one more phaser-1 (assuming FireHawk-K). Advantage Gorn. But the Romulan has more generated power, more reserve power, more phaser-3s, better shields, and a better turn mode. Even with no cloak, I think the Romulan is somewhat advantaged in this fight. But the Romulan is only a "9" in F&E while the Gorn is "10". Again... why?
This has been the case for so long that it seems it must be a conscious choice. Was it done for balance reasons (perhaps the Gorn would be too weak in F&E without its ships being over-rated), or is there some other rationale for the power of the Gorn ships?
It reflects the actual power of "big plasma" and is accurately done.
Also keep in mind too that the "big plasma" bonus isn't free -- you still have to pay for it at construction. That Gorn BC, while a CA hull, costs MORE than another Empire's CA does.
In other words, it all comes out as an economic wash at the end.
Please, no straw man arguments - the economic cost does not factor into the offensive compot selected and no one was arguing that it did.
Well, my view is that the factors are accurate and don't need explanation.
I have had this exact same question, I've played (in SFB) a Fed DNG vs. a Gorn DN several times (due in part to having one player in my original play group in college only playing Gorn) and the DNG won more times than it lost, close to 70% win rate, and anyone I've ever asked, and the ship's BPVs, indicate an "even matchup" there. And while I've never played it I'm confident the DNG would wreck a BCH under most conditions.
However, I've played very few fleet actions, and so my assumption has always been that it has something to do with maybe plasma being "better" in fleet actions, so in F&E plasma ships are "better" relative to their SFB capabilities. That's my guess as to the answer, anyway.
I have always been disappointed that the DNG was rated so much lower than the Gorn DN when I've always considered them equals.
I now wince every time SVC is asked the F&E rating question, particularly since I asked it so many times for so many years. Sorry SVC.
Actually, I should say, I don't have a problem/think there is a problem with the Gorn numbers in general, I think it's _specifically_ the Fed upgraded DNs that are "off." The Gorn DN is one of the best DNs and 14 points feels right.
But on that baseline, if there's any issue at all in my mind, it's that the fed DN should be 10, DN+ was their "match" to the other powers and therefore probably should have been 12 and then the DNG is a match for the Gorn/Rom stuff and would be 14.
So do not take my "why" question to be a re-opening of an old wound, I agree that the Gorn ships, by class, are superior and are valued correctly. It's just the DNG that got shafted as far as I am concerned.
The DN+ is definitely not 11, and the DNG is imo definitely not 14. o_O.
The Fed DNG is equal* BPV, and better in terms of win rate in my play group, to the Gorn DN, which is a 14.
So I am forced to conclude that either A) The DNG should have been a 14, to reflect that it is also one of the three best DNs fielded in the general war, or B) The 14s are too high, or C) A bit of both (all 13s).
I obviously lean A. But any way you look at it, it's just always bothered me a bit that I see the Gorn/Rom DNs with their 14s and then see this ship that is at worst equal, generally a little better with a 12 on it. But like, not enough to throw a fit, we still play it as printed because it's a fun game so eh.
If other groups don't feel the same, that's cool too.
You mention that the DN+ isn't an 11, but it actually is an 11, so I was confused by that. To support my "10/12/14" theory, I would point out that the DN+ is a good match up to the Klingon DNs that are 12 points. The lore supports it, Feds had a crappy DN, then they built the DN+ as an "actual" DN, then the late war DNG was a refinement to make it better than everyone else's. Unless I have misunderstood that all these years.
*Really really close.
I meant it isn't 12, sorry.
Try your Fed ships against other DNs, such as the Lyran, Kzinti or Klingon DNs, the DN+ will definitely be found wanting.
>> The Fed DNG is equal* BPV, and better in terms of win rate in my play group, to the Gorn DN, which is a 14.
Is this fleet play, or 1:1? What year? Is this using historical matchups, or Fed vs Gorn?
--Mike
Ohhh...
This sounds an interesting discussion.
So where can I buy the Popcorn?
(And to make is semi-relevant, but starting with SVC's point 'because it is' (so 100% game set and match, game over) - the easy point would be some ships don't easily directly convert into a single number and depending on how the ships operated could alter the basic rounding that occur i.e. a 9.6 Ship could have been rounded down to 9 and a 10.4 Ship rounded up to 11 - when it would otherwise need to be 9.4 v 10.6 to get a 2 point difference).
Anyway - where is that Popcorn I ordered.....