Dramatic SFB: Ready to advance

[Matthew]

> Also, I see we have Deathstars now and they have numerous fighter and 
> bomber bases. ... if someone doesn't have bombers deployed in Y175 ...

There are only a few races who don't have (heavy) bombers at all, and 
most have bombers of some sort in Y165-Y167. So largely this is indeed a 
Hypothetical question at this point.

But I have been considering what to do with this scenario in those years 
where there are no bombers (and such would apply to those cases where 
there are no bombers at all.) All I have are notions, but generally my 
thoughts run these directions:
* Keep the Fighter and Bomber bases, regardless of YIS dates (call it a 
proving ground for the tech as it is being developed.)
* Heavy Bomber bases would be stocked with 6 Medium Bombers (if there 
are no heavies, but mediums are available.)
* If no medium bombers, then the bomber bases (of both stripes) would be 
stocked with 12 fighters. The mix of fighters would be that found on the 
FGB-Ms.
* if no fighters at all, then all attrition unit bases would swap out 
fighters with an equal amount of appropriate-year Admin shuttles.

> I assume the S8 overall attrition unit limit remains in place?

Consider the scenario:
3x FGB-Ms == 3 squadrons
3x BHBs == 3 bomber squadrons (of 6 bombers each)

Equals 6 squadrons, or 72 fighters. Quite alot, and technically violates 
(S8.32), even if the moon as a whole is counted as an Oversized (OS) 
carrier. But in the spirit of a "That's no Moon" Death Star with 
zillions of TIE fighters, by pointing to (SH29.0) as a "He did it 
first!!" (module K, for the curious), and by claiming 
campaign-right-to-do-what-we-want, We have a Death Star scenario (which 
is the rarest of any scenario in the rotation.)

So that is where I draw the line about the player not being able to 
field any carriers (though I should widen that to include no PFs. Even 
by the Mech Link refit.)

--Matt