If scouts in this period have no tactical purpose, then would not an APT or Prime Trader with a single special sensor be enough to provide strategic warning?

Another thought is that in the early period, we go back to original rules that treated all scouts the same. Doing this gives them limited tactical purpose and avoids the EW escalation game.

By Nick Samaras (Koogie) on Friday, February 05, 2021 - 06:35 pm: Edit

This game already suffers from too many rules that require after a certain year/time things change. The last time I played the game I had to create a play aid to remind me of all the changes as we went along the time line.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Friday, February 05, 2021 - 06:38 pm: Edit

Except the GW actually saw the EW escalation game.

And if every scout is equal you'd never see the bigger ones built...

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, February 05, 2021 - 07:08 pm: Edit

Mike:

ADB was talking about the PRE-4PW era scouts and their EW; I don't think ADB is looking to change the EW rules during or after the 4PW.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, February 05, 2021 - 08:23 pm: Edit

So why exactly is Extended Range Interception not sufficient for the 4PW period? It gives a reason to have and build small scouts for the time.

I grant that it does not equal the value of EW or larger scouts ability to use more EW factors, but the ERI ability for scouts still gives them a useful (And some may say, an important) role to play in F&E.

More to the point, it would make 4PW play differently than GW years, which is what needs to happen if the 4PW is to break down to a stalemate.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, February 05, 2021 - 08:46 pm: Edit

Jeff:

I don't think ADB is proposing any changes to scouts during and after the 4PW...

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, February 05, 2021 - 09:47 pm: Edit

I don't remember if the Lyran CLS was pre 4PW. I have wondered why it is 3 EW when it only has 23 power, is it really significantly better than various 2 EW scouts (various DWS for the most part, the Romulan SE and others)?

FEDS CONCURS. The Lyran CLS EW is overrated and recommends it be corrected in the SITs to read 2 EW. This was an oversight on my part for not correcting it earlier.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, February 05, 2021 - 10:05 pm: Edit

Chuck Strong:

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, February 04, 2021 - 05:07 pm: Edit

I wonder if before the 4PW (if not during it) EW didn't exist, just threat warning and interception.

Please correct me if I am not understanding what SVC is saying, is a possible rule change to eliminate EW from the 4PW period.

From a players perspective, I personally would prefer that there be no changes to the existing rule set of F&E, but it seems to me that SVC is suggesting that EW might not be a part of the rules for the period of the 4 PW.

I think it would be a massive change.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, February 05, 2021 - 10:35 pm: Edit

I think he is saying that might be the case BEFORE the 4PW.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, February 06, 2021 - 01:52 am: Edit

Actually I said "before the 4PW (if not during it)" but I used that wording because I just did not remember if 4PW had EW or not and was too busy to go look it up. If it does (it seems it does) I had no intention of changing it.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, February 06, 2021 - 06:25 am: Edit

If we are looking to dull the effects of EW in the Pre-4PW era, we might consider simply adjusting the EW chart under (313.21) to read:

NEWPT	DIE-ROLL SHIFT
0-2	None
3-6	-1
7 or more	-2

Keeping:
(313.22) EXCEPTION: If one side has a scout and the other does not, a NEWPT of 1 or 2 will produce a -1 shift.

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Saturday, February 06, 2021 - 10:48 am: Edit

If all the pre-GW scouts are only 1-2EW, we wont' see the EW-War we see in the GW because it'll be extremely hard to get more than a -1 shift.

We can also limit K-D6D production to 1/turn to make sure they don't have a full COMPOT SC3 ship w/ 2EW.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, February 06, 2021 - 11:32 am: Edit

I want Chuck's EW chart used during 4PW. That fits the history best.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, February 06, 2021 - 01:46 pm: Edit

Then how does one target enemy scouts for destruction in the earlier period if there is zero incentive for the enemy to put them in the scout box? With some sort of EW penalty, players are faced with a dilemma; put something in the scout box or risk a negative die roll shift if you don't.

Even going back to the basic set rules where all scouts are equal in the early era would be preferable than not being able to target the enemies strategic asset.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, February 06, 2021 - 01:54 pm: Edit

Whatever is decided with scout EW, we will need to include those additions to (657.0) MIDDLE YEARS SCENARIO RULES that was in CL52.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, February 06, 2021 - 02:40 pm: Edit

You don't need to target for destruction units which you have zero incentive to destroy.

======
FEDS: Early scouts have the strategic value of allowing two hex reaction. If your enemy cannot detect your movement at range, then you gain an advantage.

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Saturday, February 06, 2021 - 02:52 pm: Edit

This now historically explains why the Hydrans and Kzinti still had such awful scouts at the beginning of the GW.
===========

FEDS: But why would you waste even a frigate hull to mount scout channels when one could simply use a Prime Trader with a special sensor to provide extended reaction. Since there is no way to tactically target scouts in this era - putting special sensors on frigates is simply a waste of resources because the ship cannot be risked in a fight.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, February 06, 2021 - 05:17 pm: Edit

Prime trader isn't big enough to generate the elecrtrical power needed, and isn't big enough to have the staff of controllers.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, February 06, 2021 - 08:22 pm: Edit

Pity.

A small freighter would have the size to install APR boxes in a cargo pod, and other systems, but would be too slow to keep up with Fleet units.

A large freighter would be faster, but iirc GURPS PD listed a large freighter speed as warp 5.5. Still not quite up to the speed regular warships need.

This may be the one period that a fed TT tug with a scout pod would be needed in F&E. It’s ability to generate EW factors not with standing, the role of the fleet scout in the 4PW just might fall into a tug mission.

I imagine most empires could build scout pods for their tugs.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, February 06, 2021 - 10:09 pm: Edit

Jeff, no, the Feds have other scouts during that period.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Saturday, February 06, 2021 - 11:00 pm: Edit

If I recall the R-section data correctly, the ISC used their scout pods from SFB Module R11 in the Y160s as a temporary expedient, while working to build up enough scout ships and bases along their Romulan and Gorn frontiers to cover them adequately. (As in, the pods would be left in place for a time, to be retrieved once enough "proper" sensor coverage was installed in the area.) I vaguely recall a note about them turning to this once again during the Pacification, with so many of their scout ships being sent along the various cordons.

Other Alpha Octant empires would not have quite the same need to do this, with the possible exception of the Romulans in the immediate post-Smarba era. (And even they already had bases installed along their Federation and Gorn borders, whereas the ISC had to start more or less from scratch.)

On that note, would the Romulans jump directly to the "Four Powers War" sensor level as of Smarba, or would they need time to get caught up to the Klingon standards? For that matter, how long would it take the ISC to move through the various sensor levels from Y160 onwards?

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Sunday, February 07, 2021 - 09:31 am: Edit

SVC,

What I think Chuck is getting at is a "Scout Trader", replacing the 2 option mounts w/ 2x Special Sensors (same as a FF). Replace CARGO w/ APR (now it generates more power than an FFS).

Even if you changed 4xCargo->APR and 2xCargo->Hull for crew quarters. It still should have as much power a FFS.

A Small Aux. Scout only generates 14 power (2x4 box enginers, 1 Imp, 6xAPR). Its fairly easy to get the power to count as a SCOUT.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, February 07, 2021 - 09:07 pm: Edit

Doesn’t work that way. No such unit exists and we are not going to create one. You need a warship for that role and a trader cannot do it. It doesn't have the legs for it.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, February 20, 2021 - 08:01 am: Edit

I support the idea of the staff whipping the puppet ruler concept linked above into something for CIVIL WARS since we have the counters and everything. That should go to the other product topic.

http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/messages/37/25219.html?1408816397


GARY CARNEY: Also, apologies if this counts more as a "scenario" rather than a "rule", but the Puppet Ruler concept suggested elsewhere on the BBS might be worth considering.

By Douglas Saldana (Dsal) on Sunday, February 21, 2021 - 02:04 am: Edit

I wonder how the rules might account for ships or fleets that are undecided or might change sides?

Many of the scenarios for the Early Years Usurper War featured either neutral factions that might be swayed to join either side or individual commanders who were convinced to switch sides.

Assassination or mutiny may be common situations in a civil war as well.