Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through December 08, 2004	25		12/08 04:51pm
	Archive through March 21, 2010	25		03/23 07:26am

Speaking of pinning (AXC.47) and apologies if this is already resolved in pinning rules of the current rulebook, which I don't yet have:
Where one or both sides have a mixture of ships and Aux what happens?

Eg: I move 8 Ships and 10 Aux into a hex containing 10 enemy Ships and 5 Aux. How much may I keep moving with? If I stay, how much could the enemy later react out with?

By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Sunday, March 21, 2010 - 02:05 pm: Edit

All looks good, but I think your production numbers are a bit high. I'd cut them in half. Three each year (no more than one large) with four for the Fed/Kling/ISC, and 2 for the Tholian. Do we really want to give the Fed that kind of boost when they enter the war? They are the one power that could afford to spend that kind of EPs on emergency ships in their first few turns of war. That could easily alter the balance of power at that step.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, March 21, 2010 - 03:37 pm: Edit

Lar:

Q1: These are not ships. The only exception to other auxes is that SAC/LAC/JAC/HACs (only) can pin any other auxiliary units or crippled ships. I was looking to give these specific types of units a simple hand-up over other auxes.

Q2: First, like I said above, these are not ships. They are not able to pin ships; cannot retreat like ships, cannot garrison planets like ships, cannot move as ships or be counted as ship equivalents. These units, like all auxes, must fight (and die) alone in slow unit retreat.

Seriously, are you really going to spend 12 EP on six limited usage SACs or build two overbuilt FF5s or 24 PFs or build 6 fighters for to place on another carrier (the fighters pay for themselves after three rounds of usage).

For some reason you are seeing these as offensive units -- these are rear echelon, stop-gap defensive units. Two, maybe three, of these units could engage a province raider or pop-up pirate in SSC.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Sunday, March 21, 2010 - 07:26 pm: Edit

Thanks Chuck. I think Dan is correct about the production and 6 per year are adequate for rear echelon.

Q. Would they count against the carrier limits or the SAV/LAV limits when building fighter version of these things?

Seriously, are you really going to spend 12 EP on six limited usage SACs or build two overbuilt F5s or 24 PFs or build 6 fighters for to place on another carrier (the fighters pay for themselves after three rounds of usage).

Well if I have the cash yes I would...If I have the cash early in the game to generate these units and place them in the back of my fleet I can send extra ships to the front. The nice thing about is (using current proposed production rules) I can have a defensive fleet over one of my own SBs (Say the Klingon NR SB) that creeps up in size by 10-12 ships per year. By the time the Feds are in the war I will have a 30-40 ship defensive fleet there. Pinned out or not the Feds or mid-war Kzinti are not going to risk what happens. Sure I could have just as easily built another SB there with money left over but this defensive fleet can be split up and moved around.

Funny thing about these is I picture them as the trailing ships behind the Battlestar Galactica or the Rebel supply fleet at the end of Empire Strikes Back.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, March 21, 2010 - 08:33 pm: Edit

Lar:

See (AXC.51) "...operates under the same rules for other LAVs. "

The limit IS six per year; see (AXC.22) "Overall Limits: SAC, six per year..."

Which means in a year one could have at best:

Build A: 6xSAC
Build B: 4xSAC, 1xLAC
Build C: 2xSAC, 2xLAC
Build D: 3xLAC
Build E: 3xSAC, 1xJAC
Build F: 1xSAC, 1xLAC, 1xJAC
Build G: 2xSAC, 1xHAC
Build H: 1xLAC, 1xHAC
Build I: 2xJAC

I cannot see how it "creeps up in size by 10-12 ships per year." The best is six UNITS per year (eight for the Feds/Klingons).

I really don't see you fielding a 6xSAC in six command slots for 18-12 COMPOT to help defend a SB from a reasonable attack force. Heck, 6xFF4 yields 24 COMPOT and eats only 5 slots as a BG!

By Randy Blair (Randyblair) on Sunday, March 21, 2010 - 09:36 pm: Edit

@Chuck - Yeah, I could justify spending on these units because, even though they are slightly more expensive than a monitor, you can build more of these and have them as part of planetary defenses.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Sunday, March 21, 2010 - 11:03 pm: Edit

Well I could have sworn I read that three times this afternoon and it said 6 per turn. Sorry Chuck for misreading it.

So we cannot use them for defense well.
They seem to be lousy at offense.
They die easily if you can force retreat (slow)
They do not move well.
They are not ships.
They cannot pin.
Admittedly by comparison 6xE4 would be better...the early Alliance cannot really afford them as they barely do their own regular ship schedule and the Coalition FFs (above) are better...and some Coalition players already skip their E4s.

You are right I would likely not build them.
I am also wondering why ADB would want to put the investment into double-sided counters for these when they could do civil wars or something more revenue generating.

By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar1) on Monday, March 22, 2010 - 12:34 am: Edit

Chuck, does the Fed HAH become a HAP sub after Y180 like the NVH?

By Terry "Full Stop" O'Carroll (Terryoc) on Monday, March 22, 2010 - 12:36 am: Edit

It seems to me that these would have to be intended for Civil Wars, wouldn't they?

They seem perfect for minor powers like the LDR or WYN. They would have a small build schedule of "real" warships, don't really need to pin or move (LDR & WYN are one-hex wonders) and don't have the money to overbuild very much. And historically, the LDR and WYN did use these hull types pretty widely.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, March 22, 2010 - 03:04 am: Edit

Lar:

These units are already in the SFU; see R8.

Product: DO -- Defensive Operations

Advantages:

The presence of just one of these units prevents the attacker from selecting BOTH BIR at a planet or base assault.

Makes an enemy think twice about leaving a crippled FF4 behind to serve as a remote province disruptor.

The small units can be built at SBs and undevastated friendly major planets when shipyard is lost and you need ANY firepower.

The presence of just one of these units along with any ship allows the use of the formation bonus.

Cheap informal escorts for convoys / commercial convoys.

By Bill Stec (Billstec2) on Monday, March 22, 2010 - 06:54 am: Edit

I thought one of the main goals of 2010 was to reduce ship counts, and speed the game up? I don't see how this will help with that goal.

I find that I rarely have the funds to even build my full build schedule of warships, let alone auxiliaries.

Another rule that will be rarely used, just like forward defense units or E&S.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Monday, March 22, 2010 - 08:02 am: Edit

Bill, I seriously doubt that many of these will be built. At the same time this rule is needed for Civil Wars? because the LDR has a number of Aux Cruisers listed in their Order of Battle in the SFB rules.

I do agree with Chuck about about the advantages for such units. However, I also understand where you are coming from and like you I would very rarely if ever build such units.

Chuck, would these qualify as a unit to satisfy the autokill rule?

By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Monday, March 22, 2010 - 08:35 am: Edit

Chuck:

If yhr steves sign off on making the HAC and JAC by "welding" 1 or 2 SACs onto the hull of an LAC, then the movement issue goes away. One question (out of town this week, so I don't have my rulebooks): what is the move rate for an OPB? That would probably be a good guide for the movement capabilities of an HAC.

Also, you might want to change "jumbo auxiliary cruisers" to "giant auxiliary cruisers" or something similar. Otherwise, you may run into "sensitivity" issues with the PFT version...

These are definitely necessary for the LDR in Civil Wars, and they would make good convoy escorts. HAVs and HAPs would make good monitor substitutes: a bit on the pricy side, but you can move them around without restrictions. I really don't see them being produced much as a "stopgap" after the fall of a main shipyard: there probably won't be enough money to spare after dealing with everything else. One place they might get built is in partial grids, where they are pretty much the only thing you can build.

Cheers,
Jason

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Monday, March 22, 2010 - 09:11 am: Edit

Chuck

The costs for the HAH, HAVH, HAP, and HASC appear to be wrong.

The HAH should be 10+18. It carries the same fighter group as the Federation LAH.

The HAVH should be 10+10. It carries the same fighter group as the Federation LVH.

The HAP should be 11+3. The PF group costs 3EP for all 6 PFs.

The HASC should cost 13+6+3. The HAC base hull costs 8 plus 5 for the PFT conversion during construction (paid regardless). 6 for the fighter group which is the same as other Aux Carriers. 3 for the 6 PFs.

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Monday, March 22, 2010 - 09:59 am: Edit

Chuck,

The rules look good, but I think the factors are off.

The HAC while a great ship on paper (lots of weapons), it's a slow barge, and any CA will have it for lunch. So I don't think it rates a 9AF, maybe a 7AF. DF is fine.

So that snowballs into the JAC, which should fall between the HAC and LAC at 6AF.

But then the changed AF's might affect the EP cost of them.

The LAC seems fine at 5AF, as a normal CL should be able to kick it's arse.

I would suggest that these ships are worse if by themselves in SSC, so if a defending force has ONLY Auxillary ships, he gains +1 against it.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, March 22, 2010 - 09:15 pm: Edit

JEAN:

Would you please move this discussion beginning Sunday, March 21, 2010 to the topic:

Federation & Empire: F&E Future Products: F&E Defensive Operations: New Auxiliaries

I failed to see that the Defensive Operations topic had a sub-topic for Auxiliaries.

Thanks,
Chuck

By Jean Sexton (Jsexton) on Tuesday, March 23, 2010 - 07:34 am: Edit

Done.

Old topic has all messages from March 21, 2010 forward moved. Old topic has old archived messages that shouldn't have been archived returned to current level. Old topic has now empty archive topic deleted.

This topic has all the new messages. This topic has a forced archive topic.

Jean
WebMom

By Peter A. Kellerhall (Pak) on Saturday, April 10, 2010 - 10:31 pm: Edit

Any chance we could see this proposal in an upcoming Captains' Log?