This toic is for the aux cruisers and huge auxiliaries from R8.

The huge auxiliaries are fairly obvious. You get to build one "huge module" per turn (year?) and use it to convert any large auxiliary to a huge one. Note that the huge module is a standard unit with extra power and defenses, standard on all huge auxilaries. A huge aux carrier doesn't have 48 fighters, it has 24 fighters and a bigger wet bar.

The auxiliary cruisers are another matter. In one sense they are obviously limted to 2 and 4 by the existing 0-2 and 1-4 auxilliaries. But somebody might want to actually count weapons on the R8 SSDs and see if those factor hold up.

WARNING: if you do not have, and have not intently studied, SFB module R8, do not try to propose anything in this topic as it must be based on R8. If you haven't read that product you can ask those who have to explain things to you but don't argue over things you don't know.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 02:10 pm: Edit

Small aux cruiser has two weapons (photons, disruptors, drones, plasma-Fs), two phaser-2, and two phaser-3. (Attack factor 3 or 4?)

Large aux cruiser has three heavy weapons, four phaser-2s, four phaser-3s. (Attack factor 6 or 7?)

Heavy module (to convert any large Aux into a Huge Aux) has 10 hull, 10 APR, 10 cargo, 4 Weapon #1 (Phaser 1 or 2), four weapon #4 (drone, plasma-D, ESG, Stinger-F, Snare), and four weapon #5 (Phaser 3) [or two phaser G for Hydran and LDR].

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 02:33 pm: Edit

I'd round any Aux Cruiser's Attack down compared to normal ships. As it has the manuever limitations of a freighter and low warp #'s.

3 Hvy Weapons, 4 P-1 or P-2 is almost any DW. So 6 would be the upper bound. Possibly 5 (compare 4 P-2s, 3 Disr to a F5). So it's a very close call.

A Huge Aux should be about an 8 (CA sized). 3 Hvy Weapons, 8 P-2s, 4 Drones/PlasD/etc, but the maneuver limitation would leave it at 8.

Just a note, Huge Aux Cruisers have a YIS=180, but other Huge Aux's are available at the same time as other Large Aux's.

By Thanasis Kinias (Tkinias) on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 03:14 pm: Edit

Aux cruisers still have crappy shields, so their defence needn't increase. I would be conservative in assigning the attack factors:

SAC: 3-2/1
LAC: 6-4/3-2

The heavy module should probably be +2/+1 for all but Hydrans, and +1-2(2)/+0-1(1) for Hydrans. That would give, e.g.:

HAC: 8-6/4-3
H-HAC: 7-6(2)/4-3(1)
HAV: 3-6(12)/1-3(6)
H-HAV: 2-6(14)/0-3(7)

For the H-HAV, the extra two fighter factors should probably be a third squadron, because they're really hybrids, not part of the strike group.

I have trouble accepting that heavy auxes could have 8 defence, since they may have a CA-size set of internals, but their shields are still only 15 boxes (yes, 15!).

I've never figured out exactly why the HAC is so late, but to be consistent with R8 we do need to prohibit it before Y180.

By Thanasis Kinias (Tkinias) on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 03:20 pm: Edit

Hang on, the LAC has seven PH-2 -- don't forget the ones in the command module. That's 3 HW, 7 PH-2, and 4 PH-3. That's a lot more firepower than a DW, especially since all 7 PH-2s can fire in the FA. Maybe LACs need to be 7-4/3-2.

That would make HACs 9-6/4-3, which might be justifiable with 3 HW, 4 DRN, 11 PH-2, and 8 PH-3. Eleven large phasers (even if they are PH-2) is a dreadnought-size phaser suite.

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 03:23 pm: Edit

I meant that their ATTACK should be about an 8, not defense. I'm agreeable to a 8-6.

The reason, presumably, why the HAC is so late, because of a 'shock' effect having so many weapons on a freighter hull. They couldn't handle before Y180 w/ 3 hvy weapons, and 20 phasers. (p1/p2/p3)

By Thanasis Kinias (Tkinias) on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 03:31 pm: Edit

Suggest cost be 2 for the SAC and 5 for the LAC. Heavy module conversion should presumably be 2.

Suggest these do not count against aux limit. At least the SAC should be producable at starbases, in addition to the FF. I could argue the LAC should be buildable at any SB, too. (It's meant to represent something of an ad hoc conversion, right?)

One possibility would be to have SAC cost 3 and LAC cost 6, but have no limits at all on construction... These should never really be the first choice for ship construction, and I wouldn't want to see someone skipping CW builds to build ACs. You could really crank them out in an emergency (like having no shipyard), but you would pay a lot for what you get. The LAC would still be cheaper than overbuilding a CW, but instead of a real 7-point ship, you get a slow aux with only 4 defence...

By Thanasis Kinias (Tkinias) on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 03:33 pm: Edit

Scottt: I would suggest that the actual reason the HAC is so late is that someone in playtest said `Yikes! These are scary!' But the `shock' thing is a good justification.

By Steve Zamboni (Szamboni) on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 11:58 am: Edit

Can the LAC use freighter skids? That would add two more phaser-2s, for a total of nine.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 01:07 pm: Edit

Skids aren't in F&E; they would be treated as part of the incremental refit concept.

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Tuesday, December 07, 2004 - 04:16 pm: Edit

Looking at the Fast Monitor (MNF) from R9 a few days ago.

The reason it was not built, was that (or so the story goes....) that it would of taken a DN slot, for a ship that travel at Fleet Speeds (it can go speed 30).

You couldn't convert a MON-MNF. period.

So would anyone give up a DN-slot for a MNF (10-6, 8EP) that didn't have the restriction of sticking to a planet, but might have some of the other restrictions of slow units (ie limited strat, but not slow retreat)??

So instead of subbing a CC/CA you could sub a MNF with more firepower, but less defense.

By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Tuesday, December 07, 2004 - 04:29 pm: Edit

I would not sub an MNF from a DN. DN's are too rarely built as is and you (other then the Lyrans) never seem to have enough of those hulls.

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Tuesday, December 07, 2004 - 04:58 pm: Edit

Well I was thinking of a race being cash-strapped, and was going to sub SOMETHING for the DN.

The question would be, a CC/CA or a MNF

By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Tuesday, December 07, 2004 - 05:27 pm: Edit

Ahh, in that case, maybe in late war during heavy exhaustion then I would consider doing so. I was thinking too much along the lines of early/mid war.If I was going to sub the DN out anyways, I'd consider it over a CC/CA, but I doubt I could say yes I would sub the MNF over a CC/CA everytime as the CC/CA are themselves subbable or convertable.

By Craig Tenhoff (Cktenhoff) on Tuesday, December 07, 2004 - 06:03 pm: Edit

I agree with Jimi.

If BCs are available, sub a BC, otherwise a CC.
If X-Ships are available, X-Cruiser.

I'd much prefer a 8-8 that I can convert to something, over a 10-6 that isnt convertable.

While I hate losing a DN hull, I have down subbed to allow my full builds to keep my hull count up (the pinning war was that close!)

By John Doucette (Jkd) on Wednesday, December 08, 2004 - 11:48 am: Edit

Have to agree. Monitors are pretty much useless, given their restrictions. I don't think I've seen one built at all once the initial free ones are gone.

But, hey, give the players the option. Some might want to build them. I build M-PALs as the Feds and my Coallition opponent looks at me as if I've just uriniated on his shoe, so go figure

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, December 08, 2004 - 12:59 pm: Edit

If you'll pardon the intrusion of a lurking SFB player who also buys F&E stuff and follows the discussions for background information and campaign ideas...

An MNF should not be 10-6 in F&E. It is tactically much stronger than a standard monitor. No it doesn't have any more weapons or stronger shields, but it has 9 more points of warp power with no increase in movement or housekeeping costs. The superior speed/power curve make it a much more effective combatant, independent of any strategic mobility considerations. The ability to move at high speeds particularly improves the monitors survivability. But the increased power also helps offensively in allowing the ships to move while overloading weapons, or get into an advantageous firing position. The MNF's extra power also makes it much more able to generate ECM/ECCM than standard monitors. 9 extra points of warp power for .5 MC ship is a huge improvement. If a standard Monitor is 10-6, the Fast Monitor should probably be about 12-9. Tactically, it is that much better in SFB terms.

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Wednesday, December 08, 2004 - 01:17 pm: Edit

Well, at least in F+E terms, 8 extra power didn't do the F6 much good compared to the F5L it was based off of.

It got +1-0 from the conversion.

I don't know what SVC's call would be, I was mostly just seeing if there would be any interest in it, and having to waste a counter for it.

By John Doucette (Jkd) on Wednesday, December 08, 2004 - 03:10 pm: Edit

Yeah, is an MNF as good as a DN in terms of firepower and the ability to bring it to bear? Most likely, it would either have to see an increase in factors, maybe +1 at the most, or have somewhat less restrictions than standard monitors (and cost more, too).

But would anyone ever build them?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, December 08, 2004 - 03:25 pm: Edit

Well, it depends on which level of impossibility you want to consider....

1. Convert existing MONs to a ship with the speed of a warship and the firepower of a DN for some reasonable fee. EVERYBODY WOULD.

2. Build new MNFs which have the speed of a warship and the firepower of a DN and do not take up a DN Slot. SURE THING.

3. Build new MNFs which have the speed of a warship and the firepower of a DN and unfortunately do take up a DN Slot. Only under specific circumstances.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, December 08, 2004 - 03:26 pm: Edit

Monitor is 10-6.

MNF would probably be closer to 10-8 or 10-10 but I'd have to dig into it.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, December 08, 2004 - 04:03 pm: Edit

SVC,

Would 11-9 be a possibility? I still think the MNF is better offensively than the Mon, based on available power, even with no additional weapons.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, December 08, 2004 - 04:31 pm: Edit

Sure, 11 is a possibility. Not sure about defense. Lot of conversation for a ship it was impractical to build.

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Wednesday, December 08, 2004 - 04:42 pm: Edit

Because you could sub a CC/CA instead of a MNF.

I just brought it up, just to see what people would say.

"Lot of conversation for a ship it was impractical to build"

But what about the Fed ACS w/ it's A20's? In F+E if people have the $$'s, they'll build it, no matter what SFB says.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, December 08, 2004 - 04:51 pm: Edit

Since the Fed ACS is conjectural you have to get permission from the enemy to build it.