I've been reading posts about the Fed CVB, and the consensus seems to be that they are not worth the additional expense compared to the CVS. Is that a correct assessment?

By Patrick Sledge (Decius) on Saturday, November 09, 2024 - 10:00 pm: Edit

I'd say that's a fair assessment, yeah. You're essentially paying 12 EP for 2 fighter factors. Compared to the other things 12EP can get you that's an absolutely terrible deal.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Saturday, November 09, 2024 - 10:29 pm: Edit

Hmm...

This sounds like another case in which the relative value is different in F&E than it is in SFB. In SFB, I would take a CVB and its F-15s over a CVS and its F-18s in a heartbeat.

By Nick Samaras (Koogie) on Saturday, November 09, 2024 - 11:48 pm: Edit

It depends how long the carrier lives. The fighters return free after that initial investment.

By Patrick Sledge (Decius) on Sunday, November 10, 2024 - 12:03 am: Edit

Nick - Sure, but that's true of all fighters. Given the same 34EP a CVB costs, someone could have a CVS for 22 and an FCR for 10 with 2 EP left over (maybe to pay for converting escorts for that CVS).

Alan - If money were no object, the CVB would be a pretty good ship in F&E. It's the economics of the 8EP surcharge that makes it terrible.

By Douglas Lampert (Dlampert) on Sunday, November 10, 2024 - 12:39 am: Edit

It became an especially horrible deal once oversize squadrons and heavy fighters were added to the rules. An 8 factor squadron is pretty good, but if it costs the same as a CVD that comes with 12 factors it's less good, of course you can only have one oversize squadron in a battle force, so you'll need to fill out with 9 factor CVH which cost less than the CVB for more compot and more fighter factors.

Basically, the CVB is good when it comes out, but in a few years it's no better than many other fighters, two extra factors aren't paying for an extra 12 EP in costs in just a couple of years.

The premium may have been arguably worth it (sometimes) when the CVB was the only way to get extra fighter factors on the line, but in modern F&E if you wait a couple of years there are just so many ways the feds can put additional fighters on line that I just can't see it as ever worth it.

By Benjamin Lee Johnson (Jedipilot24) on Sunday, November 10, 2024 - 03:48 am: Edit

Also, the CVS can be converted into a better carrier later on--CVD, CVF, CAV, ACS, CVH, DCS. The CVB is a CVB forever.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Sunday, November 10, 2024 - 05:12 am: Edit

The CVB?

It's value is dependent on two things.

1) Rememeber - compot is king. 2 to 6 additioal compot is very good.

Yes it's expensive, but eventually they will pay for themselves.

2) Exansions - The other CVS based conversions have made the CVB an overpriced paperweight - and saving the Ep's for other things is a much better option.

I think when Oversized Squardons become the 'norm', the CVB should have had the surcharge reduced to say 0.25 Ep per fighter (within that rule set, so the normal rules keep it as 1 Ep if your just playing with 2010 Rules, or 0.35 Eps if with FO etc) - so that 12 Ep's surcharge for 2 Fighters becomes a nomral cost of 4 Ep's plus a 2.8 Ep surcharge?

So the CVB remains valuable (you can have an Oversized Squadron on 2 CVB's etc) - but not excvessively expensive.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Sunday, November 10, 2024 - 05:36 am: Edit

One difference between SFB and F&E as regards fighters is that, in F&E, most fighter squadrons are the same (with some exceptions, such as the Hydran Stinger-X fighters and Fed F-14, F-15, and A-10 fighters). A 12xfighter Klingon squadron costs the same as a 12xfighter Tholian squadron and has the same combat capability. That is most definitely not the case in SFB. That Klingon squadron (especially late war: Z-YC fighters with fast drones) costs a LOT more than the Tholian squadron but is also a LOT more capable. So the economics are completely different.

At least in my experience^*, F-18s in SFB are quite notably inferior to F-14s and F-15s (and also Klingon Z-Y fighters and Kzinti TADS fighters), primarily (though not solely) due to the (J4.24) DRONE FIRING RATES rules. But that effect doesn't occur in F&E.


^*I must admit, however, that as my favorite empire is the Tholians and my second favorite is the Romulans, I'm hardly an expert on the most effective ways to use drones. For example, (J15.0) REMOTE-CONTROLLED FIGHTERS rules can mitigate the F-18 weakness (relative to the Z-Y or TADS) in drone launch rate; in some circumstances. And quite possibly I don't take advantage of that nearly as effectively as a more expert drone-user would.

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Sunday, November 10, 2024 - 10:44 am: Edit

>> Fed CVB, and the consensus seems to be that they are not worth the additional expense compared to the CVS

I think they are valuable, in the base FE2010 game, when the Feds are doing well economically as a way to boost COMPOT.

If the Feds are under a lot of pressure from the Klingons, the CVB upgrade cost is pretty steep and there are more economically efficient ways to spend your EPs. For example, buying pinning units, fortifying important locations, or repairing stuff.

Using expansions, there are more cost effective carrier options available than CVB.

Of course, if you dig the CVB you can go ahead and buy them as you like. It's not like you are going to automatically lose the game or anything. If a player happens to like them and/or the game flavor then go for it!

--Mike

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, November 10, 2024 - 11:33 pm: Edit

The premium is designed and intended to be prohibitive. You get two cheaper and are not intended to make more. Yes, it’s a terrible deal, it is supposed to be. If you guys were building third and fourth CVBs, I would raise the premium until you stopped being naughty. It’s not a mistake and won’t be “fixed”. This is not new information. The two you build match the SFB value and SFB rules don’t allow you to use three.

By Benjamin Lee Johnson (Jedipilot24) on Tuesday, November 12, 2024 - 12:06 pm: Edit

Actually, according to the Class Profile in CL9, a third CVB was built.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Tuesday, November 26, 2024 - 10:49 pm: Edit

I wasn't sure which, if any, pre-existing thread it was best to ask this in, so I hope it's not too inconvenient of me to post it to this one:

-----

Both here and over on the SFB side of the BBS, there has been recent talk of two printing options that, it would appear, offer the prospect of "short-run" countersheets at relatively manageable costs.

For example, the suggestion has already been made for a would-be SFB Module C3A countersheet.

With this in mind, I was wondering if this might leave the door ajar here for certain empires and/or settings which might struggle to warrant "full-sized" countersheet runs, yet which could perhaps find a place under this new paradigm. Or if there were other bottlenecks - such as, say, the printing of new maps - that might limit such opportunities here.

To be clear, I am not asking for any such product ideas to be seriously considered anytime soon. Rather, I ask so as to further understand what is, and is not, at least theoretically viable under this new setup, if all goes well with the test cases being put through to the printers thus far.

-----

Say, if ADB was to one day take a closer look at the "lost empires" previewed for F&E in Captain's Log #48 and Captain's Log #51 respectively.

On the one hand, the playtest Paravian and Carnivon SITs could then be used as the basis for new "short run" countersheets, with which these factions could wage war against their alternate timeline opponents.

Perhaps along with a separate "short run" countersheet for some of the "Shadow of the Eagle" Romulan ships from SFB Module R4J, so as to give the Middle Years Paravians a more functional warp-powered ally to fight alongside?

Yet on the other hand, this might require the printing of new maps upon which such wars were to be waged - not least of which being "Mapsheet P", where a Paravian-Romulan Coalition confronts a Gorn-ISC Alliance. (Of course, the R4J ships wouldn't necessarily need a new map to be viable, but they'd be that much more useful were one to be made available.)

So, would the need to print one (or more) new map(s) be a deal-breaker here - or, indeed, for certain other would-be "short-run" projects, such as in the LMC or in Omega? Or, might these new print options also allow for "short runs" of new maps at a somewhat reasonable production cost?

By Nick Samaras (Koogie) on Wednesday, November 27, 2024 - 03:53 pm: Edit

Yes please to the above.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Sunday, December 15, 2024 - 03:09 pm: Edit

I haven't played turns 8-15 with the cloaked Romulan raider rules as written. Bottom line is every Fed fleet needs a ship that can fight one on one vs. a SUP+PT raider, or raiders will shred their fleet. Initially, their options are CVA, CVA pod (i.e. VAP+) or CVB. This may actually make the CVB worthwhile. But I suspect they will prefer the CVA pod as a tug with a CVA pod can react to raids while a carrier that requires escorts cannot.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Sunday, December 15, 2024 - 04:10 pm: Edit

A long time since I played with AO (and Raids)....

Basically each SUP will probably kill a Fed-FF or Gorn-DD per turn?

It does take an important Romulan Hull from normal battles - but I do agree, certain rules seem to allow some Ships and Races to do amazaing things.

Players hated how Drone Raids could kill FRD's - but no one has mentioned the Romulans killing a ship a turn for 'free' - probbaly due to the Eastern Front in comparisn has so little player time?

i.e. most games end by turn 10 - and so very few Romulan turns are played??


All the good 'ship killing rules' (Penal, SFG, Mauler, Cloaked Raiders etc) seem to very much be on the Coalition side of the rules - and some are very hard to stop (certainly early on!!).

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Sunday, December 15, 2024 - 04:15 pm: Edit

An SUP raider can kill a Fed FF or Gorn DD for sure. But it also has an excellent chance to kill bigger prey such as Fed DN+, which SUP+PT kills on a roll of 7 or higher on the SSC table.

My gut is no one noticed that Romulan cloaked raiders can go into a hex with a full fleet, plus an SB, and still have the advantage unless the defenders have a ship that can fight it one on one.

By Benjamin Lee Johnson (Jedipilot24) on Sunday, December 15, 2024 - 07:42 pm: Edit

Has anyone here used the Romulan Pre-War Raids rule? With a SUP and 2 KE's on Turns 7-9, the Romulans could potentially kill up to 9 ships in the Federation 5th and/or 6th Fleets; even if they don't, that's still three provinces getting disrupted each turn. Any cripples can be repaired with Diplomatic Income.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Sunday, December 15, 2024 - 08:31 pm: Edit

We used it, yes. But you can't attack ships of an inactive fleet. This rule cuts down on ship-killing until turn 10, after which it is open season.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Monday, December 16, 2024 - 07:39 pm: Edit

(314.3) says up front it's limited to province disruption …

By Charles W Popp (Captnchuck67) on Saturday, December 21, 2024 - 12:20 pm: Edit

I read someplace that there was going to be a 4x version of the rules. Any update?

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Saturday, December 21, 2024 - 06:18 pm: Edit

Yes, I got it partly wrong above. Turns 7-9, the Romulans cannot shred the Fed fleet. Turn 10 maybe, but it is limited because 6th fleet will still be inactive prior to Romulan movement.

That said, the raid rules are dangerous enough to the Feds that they are going to need to alter their builds to handle it. It will be critical to build a VAP on turn 8 or 9, and probably another one on turn 10. They are critical for defending against raids because TG+VAP is the only ship that can react to raids and also has an advantage against a SUP in single combat.

Without VAP, the Feds have to have a ship that can fight a SUP raider in every hex with uncrippled Fed ships that is in range of Romulan bases and/or supply tugs. Initially, the options are CVA and CVB+PT. This would be a severe limitation on the number of hexes they can defend.

By Patrick Sledge (Decius) on Saturday, December 21, 2024 - 10:10 pm: Edit

William, there's possibly another weapon the defender might have in their arsenal as well:

Retreat.

Call up a free POL or use a frigate for the intercept (the intercepting ship will almost certainly die, but that's an academic point) and resolve one of the casualties that results from its spectacular annihilation as a retreat under 310.32, forcing the remainder of your mobile units out of the hex and leaving behind only the fixed defenses as potential targets for the alt attack.

Obviously you're not going to want to retreat off a Starbase that way or anything, but that sort of location is likely to have something big enough hanging around to counter the SUP anyway.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Sunday, December 22, 2024 - 01:23 pm: Edit

According to Ted Fay, there is a Q&A that says that doesn't work, and the raider still gets to attack one of the retreating ships. Not sure where it is.

By Benjamin Lee Johnson (Jedipilot24) on Sunday, December 22, 2024 - 06:03 pm: Edit

"Yes, I got it partly wrong above. Turns 7-9, the Romulans cannot shred the Fed fleet. Turn 10 maybe, but it is limited because 6th fleet will still be inactive prior to Romulan movement."

I disagree.

314.29 only says that raids don't activate an inactive fleet, but that the inactive fleet ships can still react to it.

314.27 says that Province Disruption only happens if the raiding ship survives the battle without being crippled or forced to withdraw.

Therefore, I still maintain, the Romulans could use prewar raids to shred the 6th Fleet; they're not specifically targeting 6th Fleet, they're just crippling or destroying 6th Fleet ships while engaging in Province Disruption raids.