It would take exactly the same amount of record keeping to do it your way, Mark. No thanks.

David is correct. the exponential curve says it's legal to build as many CV pods as you want and stop arguing, just pay the man.

I'm going with the concept of the posted rule, but a formal rule won't be written until after Gurps Romulans. I plan to include this rule in StratOps and will move the topic down there later.

Worthwhile question: Complete list of units with "max in service" limits and arguments for including any of them in the "now unlimited" list or exluding any of them (admirals?) from the exponential cost list.

By Ahmad Abdel-Hameed (Madarab) on Sunday, October 03, 2004 - 01:52 pm: Edit

Would this just be allowed for "max in service" ships or also the "limited per turn construction" ships?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, October 03, 2004 - 01:58 pm: Edit

This whole topic is about max in service ONLY.

I never talked about per turn construction.

Planetary Ops has a rule for overrides which is the only exception to per turn limits.

By Greg Ernest (Grege) on Sunday, October 03, 2004 - 06:35 pm: Edit

If I were a Coalition player, the first ship which jumps to mind that I would violate this with is the AD6! Considering a conversion cost of (1), I can see taking this one up to three extra without too much of a second thought.

By Brad Preston (Bradpreston) on Sunday, October 03, 2004 - 06:47 pm: Edit

Re: AD6

I disagree. The AD6 is a 6-8, only marginally better than the AD5 which is 6-7. I can spend the money much more efficiently on other things. But more importantly my D6 hulls are needed for more important duty.

That being said, I don't mind people having the option of building more.

By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Sunday, October 03, 2004 - 10:45 pm: Edit

I'm afraid this rule (allowing unlimited production of limited service ships - at a cost) will end up with many loop holes.

The problem here is with conversions. To convert a ship to a single-ever-existed variant is often pretty cheap. Doubling (or even 4x'ing) 1 or 2 is still pretty cheap. This is especially true since (the way I read the rule), paying this penalty once effectively permanently increases the limit for that class. If a ship dies, it can be replaced for the lower original cost.

Not to pick on the Feds, but they were the first SIT I turned to...
CVF (2 from CF). at 4, or even 8 EPs, this is probably worth it. I think (I may be mis-remembering) this ship is raid eligble, so that's a big deal.
CAD (3 from CA). at 6 EPs, it's probably worthwhile to do the 2nd one almost always.
CVL (1 from COV). Converting the 1 COV to CVL for 2 EPs would be worth it (IMHO).
DVL (2 from DNL). at 4 or 8 EPs this is probably worth it. Since the Feds can produce 2 DNs per year - it's especially so (it's easier for them to use up a DN slot for a DNL, then convert it to DVL)
GVX (3 from CX). at 6 EPs for the 2nd one, this is probably worth doing. 12 EPs for the 3rd is getting a bit expensive.
P-AVP/VAP/VP/VHP (costs 2 or 3 +fighters). For 4/6 EPs, it wouldn't be outrageous to build extra's of these.

Are any of those game breaking? Maybe not. However, it could give the Feds a pretty hellacious fast/X-carrier force.

The extra EP penalty involved here should be looked at as purchasing the right to build extras forever. From that perspective, 2x isn't that big of a deal.

By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Sunday, October 03, 2004 - 11:21 pm: Edit

I think my cutoff point would be about the time I'm paying the same for the conversion as I would for the ship. For example, my third CAD costs 3*4=12 to convert, and a CAD costs 11 new, so I'd probably be willing to suck the cost down. Converting a fourth CAD (for the princely sum of 24 EP) is outside my price range. Likewise, I can see myself paying 16 EP to convert a fourth DVL on the principle that, assuming the capabilities are really usefull, I might as well pay the equivalent of the new construction cost and quietly ignore the fact that I'm not getting a new hull. (Assumes sufficient money; you only buy what you can afford, natch, I'm just passing comment regarding the point where I say "that's just too expensive".)

By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Sunday, October 03, 2004 - 11:34 pm: Edit

Probably the first thing I'd consider is the Gorn mauler. I might not actually do it, but it's an absolutely key unit.

A third Fed LTF is a possibility too, if the one per front they already have isn't enough.

As the coalition, a second 77th has potential.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 10:45 am: Edit

I think we might have to ban LTFs, the 77th, and the 23rd. These are organizations, not ships.

We could also establish that the minimum penalty cost is 4 or 5, but I'm not sure that would stop you buying a CAD. As for the CVF and DVL things, those use hulls that are already rare.

By Douglas E. Lampert (Dlampert) on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 12:40 pm: Edit

I think that the extra cost should be a premium equal to the cost of building the ship as new construction for the first extra unit. And equal to double that for the second, x4 for the third, ext...

This avoids the cheap conversion and conversion during repair type problems. If this is NOT done then someone will convert their COV to a CVL, build a new COV, and then convert it to a CVL, build a new COV, and quite likely then convert it to a CVL!

I see no real reason why conversion path should matter for a one time premium payed to increase a limit in service.

Similarly paying 3 EP for the right to build an extra CAD forever is a no brainer. At 11 EP for the increase it will be used only when someone really wants an extra CAD for some reason. Similarly at a premium of the entire cost as new construction I see no real problem with the 77th, 23rd, and LTF.

By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 01:16 pm: Edit

I say yes to building additional (higher cost per) 77th and 23rd. Though obviously they would be the 78th and the 24th, there is no other reason why the Klinks and Kzin couldn't duplicate the efforts of those organizations.

The LTF may be a problem, as it's supposed to represent the Federation's supply effort, and just doubling the cost of production may not be enough. Building more of these could be akin to the Federation building more Reserve markers, or Repair ship markers, or additional Admirals. All of those could be listed as simply "the maximum effort of the Federation", and thus not possible to increase.

By John Doucette (Jkd) on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 01:41 pm: Edit

Things like the LTF, 77th, and 23rd don't flal under quite the same category as, say the G-DNT. Whereas the G-DNT (like the F0CAD and others) was the result of some bright (or desperate) engineer saying "You know, if we did X and Y...", things like the LTF, et al are more the result of doctrinal evolutions that are eyond the scope of the player's decision making process, and so should be limited. An argument can be made WRT some of the max in service ships that the limits they labour under are tied more to doctrine than equipment availability (such as the F-CVLs).

Of course, we'll all end up having our own particular view on where the line should be drawn, and therein lies the problem

I think we should first compile a complete list (as SVC asked us to) of current max in service ships before we start submitting arguments as to why certain ships should or should not have production limits lifted.

By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 02:32 pm: Edit

"As for the CVF and DVL things, those use hulls that are already rare."

The thing I fear is, it only has to be done once - then the limit is effectively increased.
Sub CF for CA (or DNL for DN), then immediately convert at the homeworld SB - it doesn't even require any special timing or coordination.

By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 03:08 pm: Edit

Maybe someone can enlighten me on the uberness of the CAD and the agressive need to control it...
To me it is nothing more then another D6D/CD. with a slightly improved Compot (8 vs 7-8) does that one point of compot make it that frightening of a shhip that it has such severe limitations over it's counterparts? Is it just to keep Fed Drone Bombardment down? I am not making any challenges to policy, just trying to understand it (frankly if given the choice of the CAD or another ship, the CAD has a lower priority so not sure what the fuss is about)

By Edward Reece (Edfactor) on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 04:03 pm: Edit

Tim if allowed you would see dozens of Fed CAD's, I am pretty sure you would not see a coalition line that wasn't firing into a shift after a short while.

By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 04:44 pm: Edit

How is the CAD production different from D6D or CD production?

By John Colacito (Sandro) on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 05:52 pm: Edit

Tim’s right, what is the big deal about the CAD? Fed drone ship production is already extremely limited as they can only make two per turn. At this rate the Feds could never build enough CADs to cause any significant imbalance especially since they will get mauled ASAP.

Unlike the Klingons or Kzinti, the Feds don't have a pre-existing pool of drone ships to draw on, CADs will get directed on faster than they can be built/replaced.

The only weak reason I see for the CAD limitation is a historical one but F&E violates so many of the SFB historical building limits why not this one too?

By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 06:13 pm: Edit

While playing our game this Friday, Tim and I were discussing the limits upon the Fed CAD. Comparing the Fed CAD and the Klink D6D you find 1 more compot, both generate 2EW and both are off cruiser hulls. By the invasion of the Feds the Klinks should have around 6xD6S, 20xD6D and 10xD5S. That is more then enough to win any EW war the Feds want to fight. Allowing the CAD to be built within the same limits as the Klink D6D should be a fair limit I would think.

By John Doucette (Jkd) on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 06:19 pm: Edit

Max in Service units: (without FO)

NOTE: Certain units/ships have been left off this list, including, but not limited to, penal ships, CPFs, pods, auxilliaries, police, PTs, Z-AuxDs, Admirals, Romulan modular DNs (and the Gorn ships built in response).

FRX
F-CVL
F-COV
F-GVX
F-CAD
F-CLD
F-LTF
K-77th division
K-AD6
Z-23rd
Z-DND
H-CHY
H-LNH
L-JGP
L-STL
L-DND
G-DNT
G-DNG

This is as comprehensive as I can make it without owning FO. I purposefully left certain ships/units off the list as the justification for their limitation is iron-clad, in my opinion, but they are mentioned in the note for reference.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 06:27 pm: Edit

FRX is the X-FRD, right? Probably needs to stay limited until Y188.

Fed CVL and COV are survey ships with their own special rules.

Fed GVX I don't really remember and I'm too overcome with hunger to look it up.

Fed CLD and CAD are drone-scouts. These ships will always be more limited than the Klingon and Kzinti versions due to doctrine. The current limits are correct and the penalty exceptions are justified.

LTF, 77, 23rd: probably not allowed. I said that before.

The rest seem to fit the penalty exception rule as drafted.

By Thanasis Kinias (Tkinias) on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 06:50 pm: Edit

I like DLampert's idea that the surcharge should be based on the cost of a new build, even if creation is by conversion. That makes the second F-CAD 14EP by conversion (plus 8EP for the CA hull), the third 25EP, etc...

Because the converted one if lost can be replaced (without surcharge) by new construction, the surcharge needs to be the same in both cases IMHO.

By John Doucette (Jkd) on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 07:18 pm: Edit

SVC,

Yes, the FRX is the X-FRD.

The GVX is 527.27 and is an X-variant of an SR/CVL but cannot be used as a survey ship.

The LTF, 77th, and 23rd were added only for continuity's sake (though perhaps I should have added them in the note).

Note also that I was not advocating any or all of these ships/units should fir the exemption rule. I was merely trying to compile a list of the ships under consideration in one place (the first half of what you suggested someone do).

On the F-CLD and F-CAD, is your decision final or can we still submit arguments to allow either or both to be considered regular production ships?

By Brad Preston (Bradpreston) on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 07:32 pm: Edit

The arguement over the Fed CLD and CAD is almost academic. As Sandro pointed out they will die the minute they see the line. Being limited to just two drone ships per turn, you will be either replacing a CLD/CAD or builing a NCD needed for drone bombardment. Sandro also correctly points out that they do not have an existing stock to build on. The Feds simply cannot get into the EW producing drone ship game like the Klingons and Kzinti. They have to rely on their SWAC shuttles, CVLs and scouts to crank up their EW.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 07:41 pm: Edit

CLD/CAD decision was final the day the ships were printed. Further argument just annoys the heck out of me. Remind me to remove Kzinti CVEs from battle groups (that's how annoyed I am that those ships keep coming up). Ain't gonna happen. Oh yeah, the magic words: DEAD HORSE.

By John Doucette (Jkd) on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 09:28 pm: Edit

I always wondered why the Z-CVE was allowed in the BG but no one else's was.