Archive through April 17, 2024
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Federation & Empire: F&E QUESTIONS:
F&E Q&A Discussions:
Archive through April 17, 2024
If a tug is setting up a mobile base at the time of a capital assault, is it included in the division of ships calculations? If it is, I assume it must be placed in the static pool and assigned to the planet where the mobile base is being set up (unless the owner chooses to have it abandon the mobile base).
Deleted by author.
Quote:By Sam Benner (Nucaranlaeg) on Thursday, February 29, 2024 - 11:46 pm: Edit
I've found myself with way more EPs than the Hydrans usually have, and I've been trying to figure out what I'm allowed to do. I haven't been able to tell whether I can build an RN and convert it to an LM for 8+3 - do I have to pay for the 4.5 fighter factors if I convert away immediately?
Similarly, there seems to be an oversight in (433.24) or (431.83) or in the Hydran MSIT: the Hydran TG is a CA hull, so it appears that I can substitute a TG for an RN and then convert it to a DG for a total of 1+6+1.5 instead of the construction cost of 8+1.5. It feels like this should be restricted by (431.83) No Double Dutch. I don't love DGs, but if I can save an EP on one it feels worth doing if I can't build the LM. Is this legal?
Part 1 of your question. You can convert a RN to a LM during construction by paying the full RN build cost to include fighters, then adding on the RN conversion cost to get the LM. In this case it would be 6+4.5 for the RN, plus 2+0. IIRC you lose the 1.5 fighter factors because the RN has 4.5 fighter factors, while the LM only has 3 fighter factors. A better solution would be, if available, convert a DG to a LB for 2 as you don't lose any fighter factors.
Part 2 of your question. If it is cheaper to sub then convert rather than a straight sub, then it is a double dutch conversion and illegal.
I thought there was something about transferring fighter factors between converted ships (if one gained and the other lost fighters), but I might just be hallucinating.
Right, but you can't sub a DG for an RN, so that's not relevant as written. The oddity is primarily that a DG is thus cheaper when an RN is scheduled than when a DG is scheduled.
Sam, read carefully, I never said sub the DG for the RN. You convert a DG to the LB either in the capital or somewhere else.
There is a rule on carriers who replace fighter factors with PFs allowing the fighter factors to be used on another carrier built in the same hex under (442.12). Note the language of the rule is specific in that it uses the word carrier.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. If the die rolls had been reversed, the Hydrans wouldn't have a capitol and you wouldn't have this "problem."
John
Alas Carrier Groups make it massively more complex..... and there isn't an easy way to do it I think.
The rules would have it as... (odd ships can get allocated to either group, but you need to make the compot as equal as possible)
LM, DE, LN, HN, SC = 28
RN, TGV, DE, LN = 35
I think it's probably easiest to NOT split them as per the exact rules', but in the spirit of the rules and then allow the opponent to designate one group as Static and the other as Mobile.
For example (and I think you can ignore the Tug+MB, as it's considered with the MB and so Static unless you abandon the placement?)
Force A - LN, TGV+DE+DE+HN = 31 compot
Force B - LM, RN, LN, SC = 30 Compot
(Might have got compot a 1/2 off with Half values etc!)
With the oppendent being able to designate which is Mobile - it probably nullifies the advantage of keeping the Carrier Group intact?
If a ship started the first battle round (approach) as an Escort - should the modifies for being an escort remain (i.e. the DE will lose 1 compot if its not an escort and the HN gains 2 compot if it is NOT an escort).
Small Carrrier based fleets in Multi-System Hex's need perhaps a rethink?
I'm not sure you can omit the tug that was setting up the mobile base as I don't see anything in the rules that would support omitting it. Although it would have been reasonable for the rules to treat a tug in this situation as "defense limited," it is not included in that list. I did post this question prior to playing our turn but did not receive an answer. However, Sam and I agreed that there was nothing we could find in the rules to support omitting it.
Also, rule 511.53 states that dividing hulls on a type-by-type basis comes first, and then compot is a secondary concern. Your proposal divides the DD hulls 3:1, which isn't supported if division by hull type is prioritized. So the four DD hulls have to be divided 2:2, and then compot potentially dictates which DD hulls go where.
I agree that this situation needs a rethink, or at least some clarifying guidance because as the rules currently stand, I'm not sure there's a satisfactory solution.
Yeah, I agree that as written tugs setting up bases are not omitted... which leads to the oddity that if the only tugs in the hex are setting up bases and there are two of them, one of them must be abandoned.
I think the sensible conclusion is that the defender may always choose to make some ships static that would otherwise be mobile. I'd also think that this should be legal before compot division: you can have better mobile ships if all of your frigates are static (but I'd also be happy with "make a legal division, then some additional ships may be moved from the mobile force to the static force").
SAM:
I'm going to research this issue, but off the top of my head (and not an official ruling yet) the specific requirement for tugs remaining with their base may very well override the general rule for capital division of ships.
Whatever the case is, we will be able to include this issue as part of the upcoming update to the basic ruleset here this summer.
John
Hence why I said it's more to the spirit of the rules 
My older rule sets are buried away..... what did the Capital Defence Rules say in 2000 and earlier rules - as Carrier Groups were always defined as a group?
(Acceping Carrier Tugs would be perhaps treated diffently).
As an Example, if you have a UH+DE+AH+AH group and and 4 x LN's how would they have been split?
The simple solution is to have 4UH in one group and 4 x LN's in another group.... but thats not what the rules say should happen....
Sam
I don't beleive so.
Once the 6 ships have been selected - I think they are 'locked' until they are all released.
On tracking.... just keep them in the Marquis Fleet!
On rules - there isn't an enabling rule to add ships to the defined 6 ships which are 'noted as the restricted Marquis Ships'.
Only thing I can think of which isn't covered - is what happens if 6 or more ships (and the CC) remains in the Marquis province - and you never note which ships are not one of the six - but as the opponent, I think you could always ask when they are first moved?
In regard to Ted Fay's recent question:
Q537.11. Does the term "commando ship" in 537.11 refer to a ship, or to the G's on a ship?
I am an Alliance player in a game against Ted. We are playing that it refers to the G's on a ship. So a single GG ship can garrison a planet. This is at variance from what the wording of the rule. But from a gameplay standpoint, I think it works fine.
@William: Just FYI, despite appearances to the contrary I have not abandoned that game. I *can* be faulted for lack of communication, for which I have no excuse and I apologize! To say I've been busy is a bit like saying Krakatoa was a volcano...
At the beginning of the turn, the Hydrans had ships on the starbase in 2015 and the battle station in 0315. The Coalition had ships in 0116, 0216, and 0416. At the start of the turn, both sides had ships in 0118 and 0217, but the Hydran ships were killed before the combat at the starbase and battle station.
The battle station was resolved first, with several Hyrdan ships killed. Then, the starbase was resolved, with additional ships killed. At the moment the starbase died, there was not a supply path to the offmap area. However, the comparartively strong Hydran retreating force fought its way through 0216 and retreated again into 0117.
Can these ships take the salvage points with them? Or since there was not a supply path to the offmap area at the moment the starbase died, do the salvage points die at that moment, regardless of what happens during the retreat rounds?
Additional note - the only Hydran tug in the fleet was crippled before the turn started, and salvage was the only rule outside the base game that is being used.
John
I would say no salvage - if there is no supply route at the moment of the retreat, there is no way to get the salvage out.
Doesn't matter after the retrreat (or two retreats) there is a valid suppply route - it's a snap shot!
A point of clarification: the fleet retreated before the SB died, so the final round of combat was fought after the Hydrans retreated. There was a supply route as soon as the fleet reached 0216. Does that happen before or after the next round of combat?
It seems that withdrawn ships choose their retreat hex prior to combat (and presumably reach there), so I could have chosen to withdraw a single ship and secured a supply path, maybe? Why would that be different from retreating from a still functional base?
The last sentence of 302.72 says that retreats are conducted immediately after each battle hex is resolved. Since the battle hex isn't resolved until the starbase is destroyed, I interpret this as meaning that the retreating ships weren't actually in the retreat hex until after the starbase had been destroyed.
That would lead to some unfortunate consequences - if an attacker retreats from one of his bases, then the defender finishes off the base and also retreats, that analysis would have the defender retreating before the attacker (who retreated in an earlier combat round).
I read 302.72 as operating under the normal understanding (that there will be no more combat in the hex after the retreat). Were that not the case, bases destroyed in subsequent combat rounds would not block pursuit.
I don't know if it has to have any effect on blocking pursuit. A hex covers a lot of territory. A force in the process of retreating behind a blocking base could be far enough away from the base that no pursuit is possible and yet still not have reached the adjacent hex by the time the base is destroyed.
Just checking to see if the additional information/comments had any impact on Paul's answer.
Quote:By Sam Benner (Nucaranlaeg) on Thursday, March 14, 2024 - 03:07 pm: Edit
Are the Marquis' ships fungible? Can the Kzinti send a ship to the Marquis' zone and then move a different ship out?
This seems allowed, provided that the ship sent is part of the original ship mix - because the alternative is tracking which ships were originally part of the Marquis' fleet. The only requirement is that the Marquis' fleet leave 6 ships (including a CC) in the area, but there's no restriction on leaving and returning.
A follow-up question is whether this is allowed with crippled ships (returning a crippled bc to 1704, sending an uncrippled BC out).
Sam, the answer is no. You cannot move a ship into the Marquis to swap it out with another ship. See (601.12) which says that the six ships must be from the ships assigned to the Marquis fleet at the beginning of the war/scenario until released on Turn 7 or earlier if certain conditions are met.
By John M. Williams (Jay) on Wednesday, April 17, 2024 - 05:23 pm: Edit
Can starbase frigate production (431.5) occur at a crippled starbase?
==============================
I acknowledge that I can't find a rule or ruling to support this, but it seems counterintuitive to me that a starbase that is no longer able to repair ships is still able to construct new frigates.
This was previously tangentially answered in the "maybe" in 2003, but that's all I can find:
Quote:ANSWER: Rule (433.11), only uncrippled starbases can do conversions. Curiously, I see nothing regarding construction of FFs/DWs or PFs, so presumably this is legal, strange that, maybe I am just missing it... The rule is clear that it cannot do repairs, even on the turn it was repaired, and presumably this includes later in the turn.
That's the best I've got.