Archive through April 08, 2023
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Federation & Empire: F&E QUESTIONS:
F&E Q&A Discussions:
Archive through April 08, 2023
The Hyd 4UH and Lyr 4CV are doctrine for those carriers (can't change the number of escorts) though one can change the type of escort, DE to NEC/DWA, AH to DWA or FFE to DWE ...
The Lyran CVT follows 515.263 for its escorts ...
Are you sure about that Stewart? I see that the Lyran CV is listed in the SIT as a heavy carrier, meaning it must have 3 escorts. But the Hydran UH is listed as a medium carrier. I assume that means it only needs 2 escorts, but commonly had three because it was kinda fragile.
The Hydran MSB entry for (R9.17) UHLAN PATROL CARRIER (UH) does indicate that historically this ship operated with 3 escorts. The original F&E UH group counter was a 4 ship group with 3 escorts. However, in the FE2010 rulebook as well as the Hydran SIT there appears to be no requirement for using 3 escorts?
--Mike
Rule 433.19 (as corrected by CL#47) says that a major starbase can perform up to three conversions as long as the total is five points or less.
Rule 511.33 says that during the period while a new shipyard is being constructed, the starbase being used as a replacement capital can conduct one major conversion.
Does this mean that during this interim period that starbase can also perform three conversions provided that the total is five points or less or is the starbase limited to the normal total of three points or less?
========
A starbase at a new capital operates under (433.19) and (511.33):
Quote:(433.19) MULTIPLE CONVERSIONS: A given starbase may perform multiple conversions on a single turn as long as the total cost is within the limit of three Economic Points. A “major” conversion (at the capital starbase) can make up to three conversions so long as the total cost is less than five Economic Points.
====
(511.33) INTERIM PRODUCTION: During the period when no shipyard exists, the new capital can produce (each turn):
One defense battalion or one mobile base.
Unlimited replacement fighters and up to twelve PFs.
It can also accumulate Economic Points.
One major conversion if it has a starbase.
Free fighter factors are NOT received.
Tug pods and anything else not listed cannot be built without a shipyard.
Other production is possible, including starbase frigate production (431.5) and minor/medium shipyards‡ (450.1)+(450.2).
Therefore, a starbase at a new capital can make up to three conversions so long as the total cost is less than five Economic Points.
FEDS SENDS
My votes:
Q1: Yes, since the war is now over and the Alliance will be the ongoing economic owner of that province for the duration of the peace.
Q2: Yes, for the same reason as Q1. Once the war is over the Alliance can connect that province to their empire via that owned planet, thus providing long term economic income for the duration of the peace.
--Mike
I also vote yes. The Alliance gets the short end of the stick at the beginning of the game, and so should enjoy the last laugh and the benefit of any doubt at the end of the game.
For what it is worth
I felt the answer was 'no' for both - as the game ends on turn 34 - so it's the same turn from C34 nd so same rules on single ownership per turn apply.
One thing both William and I agreed on, the 'cliff edge end' is an unbelievable massive Alliance advantage (in effect, ignoring supply issues for next turn and so throwing out ships in every direction to contest provinces) - and through that, it might explain why the Eco is based on turn 34 - not turn 35.
If the random end of the game was being used, that might make the end of game Alliance advantage modestly lower - but it would still be a massive advantage.
As a relevant note for this game though, I thought William and I agreed on turn 30/31 that provinces couldn't be swopped when we asked the question - and from my point of view, the game would have been played differently (i.e. from then I had played that a Coalition held province on C34 would at worst be worth 0 Ep/Vp to either side and so was less concerned about holding provinces*).
* - From looking at what the Alliance can actually do on the last turn, I actually now think I should have concentrated on territory, rather than killing bases from turn 30/31 - as 20 Vp's from killing a SB is only the equivalent to contesting 10 provinces.
So I perhaps chose the wrong tactic at the end, taking into account how I thought we would be calculating Ep's anyway. 
My "just reading the rules" answer to Q2 is no, it's not a supply point. But ADB sometimes prefers "in-Universe" answers to "just reading the rules" answers. Absent any answer from ADB, I intend to do my count by my "just reading the rules" answer.
For Q1, I'm not sure there is a "just reading the rules" answer. The problem is that in the rules, there is no such thing as "current" Alliance income at the end of an Alliance turn. For that matter, there isn't for the Coalition either, but there is such a thing as Coalition income at the start of the following turn, which is how everyone seems to read the rule, including me. Of course by then a captured planet would become a supply point . . . but I'm ignoring that for now and yeah it's still messy.
Absent any answer from ADB, I intend to do my count as if planets captured on A34 are not Alliance supply points, and as if the answer to my example Q1 is that the Alliance does count income for the province.
It's the end of the game, so there is no need for an answer to "continue", just differing interpretations of the outcome.
Ref: Carrier Tugs (including Lyran and Gorn Carrier Tugs)
Rule (515.263) is a SPECIFIC rule and clearly states "Carrier Tugs":
Quote:(515.26) TUGS with carrier pods [mission (509.1B)] or SCS pods‡ [mission (509.1Q)] do not require escorts, but can be escorted.
(515.261) Unescorted carrier tugs count as two ships for command rating purposes.
(515.262) Carrier tugs with four or fewer fighter factors are treated as CVLs (515.23).
(515.263) Carrier tugs with five-to-ten fighter factors are treated as CVs (515.22).
(515.264) Carrier tugs with eleven or more fighter factors or with SCS pods are treated as CVAs (515.21).
Rule (515.25) is a general rule that states:
Quote:(515.25) GORN AND LYRAN: Gorn and Lyran carrier groups cannot be larger than the minimum size, which is often larger than other empires would require.
Specific rules trump general rules.
FEDS SENDS
Ref: Hydran UH carrier
(709.3) PRODUCTION NOTES states: UH is a medium carrier.
While the F&E OOB shows how the UH operated under (515.22) with three escorts, the SIT and (709.3) specifically categorizes the UH as medium carrier thus permitted it to be operate normally with either two or three escorts.
FEDS SENDS
Question RE Klingon OOB (E3 bonus ships)
When using the Klingon E3s there is a note allowing two short bonus situations. It says:
The Klingons receive a free E4A during the Production Phase of Turns #1 through #4 (total four).
The Klingons receive a free activation of one E4 from the Mothball Fleet during the Production Phase of Turns #1 through #3 (total three). (Ignore this if not using E3s)
Q1: is the ‘free production E4A’ just zero cost as one of your scheduled ships or is it a free ‘extra ship’ in addition to the scheduled 3xE4s?
Q2: is the ‘free activation E4’ just zero cost as one of your scheduled activations or is it a free ‘extra ship’ in addition to the allowed activation 3xE3/E4?
Sorry if this was already asked and answered
Quote:By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Friday, March 24, 2023 - 09:53 am: Edit
I am looking at the various battle boards (AO_Battle_Force_Chart.pdf). There is a box for the CVBG which has a rule of (502.923).
I have searched the Federation SIT for CVGB and for the rule 502.923 but there were no hits.
I then started looking for "502." I found a number of units with the rule of 502.7x. There were five units, but only one, the ASC LSC has a note of the Federation Third Way.
This lead me to search for "Third Way". This search turned up the ASC LSC and the SVH plus a series of bases under "BASES FOR THE "THIRD WAY" IN WHICH THE FEDERATION BUILDS PFs".
Are the only two units allowed in that box the "ASC LCS" and the SVH? I am assuming the bases are not allowed in this slot as they would be in the bases slots/boxes.
No. Many different Federation carriers may be placed in the CVBG box but are considered to be "mainline" carriers and do not have a CVBG designation. Examples include but are not limited to the Federation CVL, NVA, NVH, and FFV.
In regards to the question of damage resolution on bases that came up in Q&A:
"Kevin's comments about SBs soaking up an amazing amount of damage are quite to the point."
Yeah, I remember us discussing this issue before. I felt it needed clarification, otherwise I saw the potential for rule misinterpretations.
My comments then were:
"It seems really odd that a Starbase could take 32 damage (7 SIDS steps), and then take another 17 points of damage, and still not be crippled.
The same would then logically apply to the crippled starbase as well. The starbase is crippled, the defending fleet leaves, the attacking fleet then scores 22 damage (3 SIDS steps for 14 pts, +8 more), not enough to kill the 18 point crippled starbase?"
Hopefully it's more clear now, and the question remains only if it takes 2 pts, 3 pts, or a full 4 pts to require a SIDS step being taken?
Pretty certain the answer there is "2." I don't think that SIDS are "special" in the general sense that as you are resolving damage, if you are the resolver and have enough damage to halfway do something, you have to do it. Meaning that if you have a SB/BATS with no fighters left, and no defending ships with fewer than 5 combat factors, and 2 damage left to resolve, you must take a SIDS.
I agree with your reasoning. Though I do have to point out that a Starbase SIDS is 4 1/2 points, so half of that is 2 1/4... so wouldn't it take 3 pts to be "at least half"?
Still, if they ruled that in this case it takes the full 4 (or 4 1/2), the game still works fine. As long as they don't have starbases taking 49 points and not crippling, 22 more and not dying, etc.
I was thinking about the discussion in the other thread that was focused on a BATS, which is of course 4 per SIDS, and half being 2.
To answer your question, I think (based on 308.84), it would take 2 points if it's an ODD numbered SIDS on a SB, or 3 points if it's an EVEN numbered SIDS.
So, I think, for an undefended SB with no fighters remaining, SIDS are resolved, consecutively, first resolves 4 damage, second resolves 5, third resolves 4, etc. If it doesn't resolve to exactly 0, whether or not the attacker gets plus points next round or you have to take a SIDS and the attacker gets minus points depends on which SIDS is next.
And just to add, after fully considering 308.84, it's whether that SIDS is ODD or EVEN within that combat round, not as an absolute. The lost half-point from taking an odd number of SIDS in a combat round is not tracked, so if there are 7 SIDS on a SB, crippling it will resolve 4 damage, even though that is an even numbered SIDS, it's the first one (odd number) of the current round.
So, you could theoretically create a situation where there is an undefended SB with no fighters remaining, and an attack force of like 200 frigates or something equally dumb, that can't produce 9 damage in a round, where over the course of 8 rounds of combat you could cripple the SB having only inflicted 32 total damage. You would also lose a lot of frigates.
SB SIDS
If you resolve an even number, each pair of SIDS resolves 9 damage.
If you resolve 1 SID, it resolves 4 damage (as the 1/2 damage capacity is lost).
If you resolve 3 or higher - you pair them up and the last odd SID resolves 4 damage (as above).
So to take 4 1/2 damage per SID, does mean you have to take them in even numbers.
i.e. Damage resolved for SIDS 1 to 8 being taken in a round would be : -
4,9,13,18,22, 27, 31 and 36.
I realized this Q&A would raise some comment driven by 'the way we have always played it' but that was the entire point of raising it. We thought the same thing in our game but the ruling seems to go the other way.
I looked back at the F&E 2000 book and SIDS were in the rulebook then so at the point of this Answer Nick/Stew/Jeff had that resource. Also the description in the 308.84 example is the same.
I was mainly concerned with the ruling itself as compared to a very similar situation we were experiencing that references the intent of the rule "(302.615) A base cannot be crippled if this would produce minus points, but must instead take a SIDS step."
(Excepting homeless fighters because there is a separate rule for homeless fighters and minus points.)
This can only happen via self-inflicted damage because as the attacker you have to have double the full damage to use Direct Damage (maulers or other modifiers excepted) to cripple a unit.
The Questions were
1) Can we get a ruling for whether or not a SIDS "is allowed" be taken by the defender to generate minus points?
(under the current ruling by Jeff it doesn't seem to be allowed)
2) Whether or not the defender is "required" to take a SIDS if they hit the 50% threshold.
(Under the current ruling by Jeff they cannot, but it wasn't crystal clear due to wording.)
The points for each SID step is not really the issue here and my recommendation would be for the new rulebook a nice chart.
NOTE: The way we have always played it is the 50% damage minimum would force the issue and require the SIDS. Jeff Laikland could have said this but did not. In fact it seems to be the opposite. Thus the Q to the FEAR/FEDS/GOD
"(302.615) A base cannot be crippled if this would produce minus points, but must instead take a SIDS step."
This makes it clear that a SID step could be taken.
In the MORE SPECIFIC rule about SIDS and the rule for taking damage points in general, it is clear that you cannot have minus points if there is a target (in this case a SIDS) where you reach 50% of the damage required to cripple or destroy or take it.
Note (308.112) - 'If there are no ships or other units, then the Attacker could continue to add up plus points until he has enough to cripple the base or the base owner could take a voluntary SIDS step, resolving 4.5 damage.'
So no, the base owner doesn't have to take a voluntary SIDS [and the Attacker doesn't need to use SIDS], though the Attacker only need the defense factor in plus points to cripple/destroy the base as it is not directed damage ...
As for SIDS damage, that's under (308.84) with the 4/9/13/18/22/27/31/36 sequence ...
Pretty sure the base has to take a SIDS if there is damage for it and no other target.
Pretty sure that's how many people play it Rich...doesn't mean its true, could just mean we've interpreted it and played it wrong. 20 years ago it doesn't appear it was true.
If a BATS has had two SIDS inflicted, it will have to be crippled if the attacker causes 4 points of damage. It won't have to be crippled if only 3 points were scored, as doing so would create minus points (302.615). ~ Jeff Laikland, 2003
Also doesn't break the game either way, just looking for a ruling so a suggestion can be made in the Basic Set Update thread.
Question about 505.31 and 505.32:
These two sections allow the Federation/Romulans to send ships off map to increase their offmap survey capabilities. Is this decision reversible? For example, could the Federation send the three CVLs offmap on turn 7 and then have them return to the map on a later turn?
Yes they can. And if you're playing with SO you can pull any survey back.