SVC DID THESE 1 JUNE 2020

NEW SSD FOR THE LOST KF5GR WILL BE IN THE JUNE NEWSLETTER, I THINK 12 JUNE 2020.

Rom K5G: Add § symbol in the NOTES section. - 31 May 2020

Rom BHB: change size to read: BHB(4). (Leaders have separate hull sizes in F&E. - 31 May 2020

Rom JAP: YIS is Y182. - 31 May 2020

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, June 01, 2020 - 06:37 am: Edit

ADDED 1 JUNE 2020
Rom CH: Suggested future fix: ADD NEW LINE:
CH; Ref 13; factors 2-5{pi}/1-3{pi}; Product: FUTURE FIX; Y182; From BH: 2+¶; For SK: 7+¶; Salv 1.250: NOTES: "PF Tender with 3 PFs, not a Scout. Two CHs can be escorted as one PFT unit."
Rationale: This is a legacy of the limitations of F&E-1986. ADB fixed a number of 'unbreakable' units like the 3FE years ago. We can now depict 'half' PF flotilla using the new {pi} symbol. Combat factors of the CH match the WH as they both have the same SSD weapon suite. - 31 May 2020

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, June 01, 2020 - 06:41 am: Edit

F&E Staff; et al:

Are there any other important, 'non-minor' corrections needed for the Rom SIT? I'd like to have this ready by end-of-business Monday (1 June).

FEDS

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Monday, June 01, 2020 - 11:36 am: Edit

I would like to more clearly state the KXW line item:

Romulan KXW: The most recent SIT update lists "From K5W: 6" and "From F5W: 7"; these should be "From K5W: N/A" and "From F5W: N/A" respectively. Reasoning: the Klingon F5W is a "wartime construction" design; by and large, pre-existing hulls built to such standards cannot be upgraded to advanced technology. - Gary Carney, 01 June 2020


Also, I wanted to thank you kindly for adding a more detailed line entry for the Romulan NovaHawk-X to the most recent version of the SIT file.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, May 18, 2020 - 05:47 am: Edit

ROM FALX: Until ADB defines capabilities of X-Maulers, F&E Staff is unable to determine F&E factors, costs, and salvage at this time.
FEDS - 18 MAY 2020

SVC SENDS: fire the mauler, enemy starbase explodes destroying 2D6 enemy ships.

UPDATE 1 JUNE 2020: "AND THE PLANET"

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Monday, May 18, 2020 - 02:44 pm: Edit

Apologies in advance if any or all of these have been accounted for in the WIP document already:

Romulan KXW: The 24 April 2017 SIT provides conversion costs from the K5W and from the Klingon F5WX. However, as a "wartime construction" hull, should the only permitted conversion (or conversions) not be from hulls already built to "peacetime construction" standards? Historically, the data in Captain's Log #40 and in the Romulan Master Starship Book notes that the shipment which led to the fielding of the KXW took place in Y192. Should this be handled in a future F&E product, the Klingons may perhaps be obliged to either build one or more F5Ws up to "peacetime construction" standards, or perhaps to go as far as to build one or more F5WXs, prior to shipment; yet any F5Ws (or K5Ws) built to "wartime construction" standards and then sent over would perhaps be ineligible for X-conversion. - Gary Carney, 18 May 2020

Romulan NHX: The 24 April 2017 SIT includes a provisional listing for this hull type, which was published as (R4.216) in Star Fleet Battles Module X1R; could a more detailed line entry be added to the upcoming SIT revision? Historically, the first of its kind was built in Y187. - Gary Carney, 18 May 2020

Romulan FHEX: The 24 April 2017 SIT does not include a provisional listing for this hull type, which was published as (R4.215) in Star Fleet Battles Module X1R; could a line entry be added to the upcoming SIT revision? Historically, the lone ship of its kind was built in Y185. - Gary Carney, 18 May 2020

Romulan SPCX: The 24 April 2017 SIT does not include a provisional listing for this hull type, which was published as (R4.214) in Star Fleet Battles Module X1R; could a line entry be added to the upcoming SIT revision? Historically, the lone ship of its kind was built in Y184. Note that this ship may serve as a scout or as an "SPSX" survey ship. - Gary Carney, 18 May 2020

Romulan SPEX: The 24 April 2017 SIT does not include a provisional listing for this hull type, which was published as (R4.211) in Star Fleet Battles Module X1R; could a line entry be added to the upcoming SIT revision? Historically, the first ship of its kind was built in Y184. - Gary Carney, 18 May 2020

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, June 01, 2020 - 06:18 pm: Edit

Oh pooh, I forgot to rotate it. If Chuck can't do that for me I'll fix it tomorrow.

By Ryan Opel (Feast) on Monday, June 01, 2020 - 10:07 pm: Edit

I fixed the rotation thing.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, June 02, 2020 - 12:21 am: Edit

thanks

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, June 02, 2020 - 06:15 am: Edit

Rom HDWT: This one got away from the last update...Salvage should read: 1.250. 1 June 2020

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Sunday, July 05, 2020 - 07:33 pm: Edit

Romulan: FireHawk Heavy Cruisers: FHQ (FHS): From SP? 10‡ should be From SP?: 10‡ - Ken Kazinski, 5 July 2020

Romulan: FireHawk Heavy Cruisers: FHE: (3EW=2AF), (1EW=7AF) should be (3EW:2AF), (1EW:7AF) - Ken Kazinski, 5 July 2020

Romulan: Far-Hawk Heavy Cruisers (EW=1;6AF, EW=2; 2AF). should be (1EW:6AF), (2EW:2AF). - Ken Kazinski, 5 July 2020

Romulan: SparrowHawk Light Cruisers: SPU: Scout (Medium) Carrier, (2EW:2AF)(1EW:5AF), heavy fighters. - Ken Kazinski, 5 July 2020

Romulan: K9 Dreadnought (Conversions of Klingon C9): KC10: (431.6) 20 should be (431.6): 20. - Ken Kazinski, 5 July 2020

Romulan: K5 Light Dreadnought (Conversions of Klingon C5): KC5: (431.6) 16 should be (431.6) 16. - Ken Kazinski, 5 July 2020

Romulan: K7 BATTECRUISER (CONVERSIONS OF KLINGON D7) should be K7 BATTLECRUISER (CONVERSIONS OF KLINGON D7). - Ken Kazinski, 5 July 2020

Romulan: Vulture Dreadnought: For CON 14+20 should be For CON: 14+20. - Ken Kazinski, 5 July 2020

Romulan: War Eagle Cruiser: (3FE) should be FE (3FE). - Ken Kazinski, 5 July 2020

Romulan: Auxiliaries: 3AuxPods and 3Auxpods should be 3 Aux Pods. - Ken Kazinski, 5 July 2020

Romulan: Jumbo Auxiliaries: JAD: Remove (Kzinti only, here just to make chart.) as this is a Romulan unit. - Ken Kazinski, 5 July 2020

Romulan: Small Auxiliaries: FHS: Small Auxilliary Hospital Ship. should be Small Auxiliary Hospital Ship. - Ken Kazinski, 5 July 2020

Romulan: Small Auxiliaries: SAH: Small Auxuliary Carrier with heavy should be Small Auxiliary Carrier with heavy - Ken Kazinski, 5 July 2020

Romulan: Base Stations: BS(FP): From: BS(F): 2+¶ should be From BS(F): 2+¶ - Ken Kazinski, 5 July 2020

Romulan: Base Stations: BS(FP): From: BS(F): 2+¶ should be From BS(F): 2+¶ - Ken Kazinski, 5 July 2020

Romulan: Battle Stations: BTX(F): From: BSX(F): 3 and From: BTX(N): 2+6 should be From BSX(F): 3 and From BTX(N): 2+6 - Ken Kazinski, 5 July 2020

Romulan: Battle Stations: BSX(FP): From: BSX(F): 5+¶ From: BSX(FP): 3 From: BTX(N): 4+6+¶ From: BTX(F): 2+¶ should be From BSX(F): 5+¶ From BSX(FP): 3 From BTX(N): 4+6+¶ From BTX(F): 2+¶ - Ken Kazinski, 5 July 2020

Romulan: Planetary Units: PDU: From PGB (441.3) should be From PGB: (441.3) - Ken Kazinski, 5 July 2020

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Monday, July 13, 2020 - 09:14 am: Edit

The CH (page 14) has a Pi symbol in the factors column. Is this supposed to be a "¶" symbol or is this a new symbol?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, July 13, 2020 - 11:02 am: Edit

It is the half flotilla symbol. Not new but very rare.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, June 02, 2021 - 10:33 pm: Edit

Romulan: Super-Hawk Command Cruisers: TH: NOTES: Add: Single Ship Carrier Y180+. SFB (R4.50) states: "The ThunderHawk later proved very effective in hunting down Andromedan Rapid Transit Network node bases (R10.1B)." This would seem to indicate that the ship could also be an effective raiding ship for use in the raid pool without the need for escorts. Also note that the Super-Hawk A (SUP) is a single ship carrier from its YIS date. Thomas Mathews 2 Jun 2021
FEDS CONCURS.

By Graham Cridland (Grahamcridland) on Friday, June 04, 2021 - 12:12 pm: Edit

I don't see this one on here:

Romulan Farhawk (FAB): Conversion from SPB is listed as "5+14" but since it adds only 6 fighters, presumably should be "5+12";

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Tuesday, June 08, 2021 - 01:28 pm: Edit

Romulan SIT: The SUB does not list conversion costs from a NHB or FHB that preserve the 8 fighter factors already carried by the ship, is this intentional? Alex Chobot 08 JUN 2021

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, June 08, 2021 - 04:04 pm: Edit

SIT Romulan SIT: CNH costs 19 (no fighters). SPB to SPV conversion should be 2+0 rather than 0+2. SPB to SUB should cost 5+8.

By John M. Williams (Jay) on Monday, August 30, 2021 - 01:40 pm: Edit

Does it makes sense for the SPB to have a higher command rating than the base SP (8 vs. 6)? For comparison, I looked at the carrier versions of some of the SP's peers (NCL, D5, CM) and none of them had a command rating boost for the carrier variant.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, August 30, 2021 - 02:03 pm: Edit

The SparrowHawk has no peers and it is a mistake to compare it to the inferior imitations produced by the lesser empires.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, August 30, 2021 - 09:42 pm: Edit

Sense or not, we're not in the business of making changes to published material that are not urgently important to game balance. That one (if it's wrong, which it's not) isn't one of them.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Thursday, November 24, 2022 - 09:12 am: Edit

Moved from the General SIT discussions.

---

Quote:

Under 318.8: "The above are examples. Ships that have oversized squadrons are listed in the notes column of the Ship Information Tables."

The Hydran ID has 15 fighter factors, and the Romulan SPB has 8, but neither of these units have notes about these being oversized. Should they have a note about being oversized?

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Wednesday, November 23, 2022 - 11:44 pm: Edit

The Hydran is a standard squadron and hybrid fighter from the DN.

The Romulan is the standard size for the ship.

---

By Nick Samaras (Koogie) on Saturday, November 26, 2022 - 02:10 pm: Edit

Romulan SPS: Command rating should be 6 (not 8). (Nick Samaras, November 26, 2022)

NOTE BY SVC: No justification statement; cannot be processed.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, November 27, 2022 - 12:41 pm: Edit

Nick, et al:

When reporting corrections, please help us by citing the source of the correct information as it helps ADB to make the corrections knowing that it is tied to an SFU source that can be easily confirmed.

By Nick Samaras (Koogie) on Wednesday, November 30, 2022 - 07:07 pm: Edit

Romulan SPS: This ship is the SPC (command rating 6) with an extra cost for survey abilities. Command rating should therefore also be 6 (not 8). (Nick Samaras, November 30, 2022).

By Benjamin Lee Johnson (Jedipilot24) on Sunday, May 05, 2024 - 11:45 am: Edit

FHB>SUB should be 3+8 and NHB>SUB should be 2+8 since the B modules carry over and you are effectively only performing the SUP conversion.

Incidentally, since FH>SUP is not a two-step conversion, this means that SPB>SUB should be legal since the track is SPB>FHB>SUB.