Dramatic SFB: Flexible Escorts

[Marcel Trahan]

Hi Matt,

I have a concern regarding some ships that carry fighters but the ship
description specified that they never had any escorts.

For example, the Romulan SUP-A/K never had any escorts assigned to it. Most
FFV and Police carriers fall under that rule as well. Should they be
treated as casual carriers?

The same issue can be raised for some SRV that may have escorts but are not
mandatory required to do so. The same thing is valid for Federation Heavy
Fighter carriers and scout carriers where the escorts are not mandatory.
Most FFV don't require escorts even if they carry 6 fighters,

BB's have fighters (6 to 8 fighters) but do not require escorts.

G3A lists all carriers with their escorts and specifies when they are
required and if they can be dismissed. I think this is also shown in F&E
but i am not sure. I think the ship description or G3A should be used to
define if escorts are required. Then, the flexible carrier group should be
used.

Marcel



On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 12:33 AM Wayne Power via SFBdrama <
sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org> wrote:

>
> David, as noted I will still disengage from scenario 144 refugee flight vs
> the Gorn.
>
> all good
> On Monday, 22 February 2021, 03:30:34 pm AEST, Wayne Power via SFBdrama <
> sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org> wrote:
>
>
> k, just read (J4.62) if one or two fighters SRVs are casual carriers.
>
> On Monday, 22 February 2021, 03:21:03 pm AEST, Wayne Power via SFBdrama <
> sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org> wrote:
>
>
> I think most SRVs are casual carriers (so will not need an escort)?
>
> On Monday, 22 February 2021, 03:00:54 pm AEST, Charles Carroll via
> SFBdrama <sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org> wrote:
>
>
> While it carries fighters, the SuperHawk command cruiser does not
> have a formal escort group.
>
> Year Escorts Fighters
> Y170-Y172 None 4xG-I, 4xG-F
> Y173-Y177 None 4xG-I or G-II,
> 4xG-F or G-SF
> Y178-Y179 None 4xG-II, 4xG-SF
> or 4xTrib or Trib-D
> Y180-Y182 None 4xG-II or G-III,
> 4xG-SF or G-FSF
> or 4xTrib or Trib-D
> or Trib-F or Trib-K
> Y183-Y189 None 4xG-III or G-III-K,
> 4xG-FSF or Glad-D
> or 4xTrib-K or Trib-F
> Y190+ None 4xG-III-K, 4xGlad-D
> or 4xTrib-K or Trib-F
>
> I would say this ship never is listed as having escorts. Now could you
> decide to send some? Maybe? But per 4.34 it states the above. Add to that
> the chart....which states specifically. None for escorts but shows all
> potential fighter groups. I would say that ship never needs an escort.
>
> On Sun, Feb 21, 2021 at 11:53 PM Matt <matt at mattnet.org> wrote:
>
>
> > Some Roms like SUP-As are always exempt since they never need escorts.
>
>
> This is a case where you need to determine what type of carrier they
> are. Looking at the Superhawk:
>
> - It has 8 fighters, that's more than two, so it's not a casual carrier
> (J4.62).
>
> - It has more than six fighters, so it's not a hybrid carrier (S8.322).
> That's a shame: I wanted it to fit here.
>
> - There is no flavor text or mention in other sources that claims it was
> intended for a specific role. The examples in (J4.62), the text of
> (R9.R4), or the flavor text of (R4.128) are examples of countervailing
> "other sources".
>
> - It has an escort table and the "V" note in the MSC. That pretty much
> nails it as a "true" carrier without the others to fall back on.
>
> So the Superhawk needs escorts.
>
>
> Some of the other heavy hawks (R4.N3) include the Killerhawk, Novahawk,
> and the Royalhawk, which have no fighters. This suggests that it was not
> an attempt to create a hull classification that traditionally carriers
> fighters simply for the firepower benefit (unlike the Farhawks.)
> However, the Thunderhawk,Superhawk-N (the "Sunhawk"), and the
> Superhawk-B are obviously intended as full carriers.
>
>
> --Matt
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Dramatic SFB campaign chatter list
> http://sfbdrama.mattnet.org
> SFBdrama at lists.mattnet.org
> http://lists.mattnet.org/listinfo.cgi/sfbdrama-mattnet.org
> ____________________________________________________
> Dramatic SFB campaign chatter list
> http://sfbdrama.mattnet.org
> SFBdrama at lists.mattnet.org
> http://lists.mattnet.org/listinfo.cgi/sfbdrama-mattnet.org
> ____________________________________________________
> Dramatic SFB campaign chatter list
> http://sfbdrama.mattnet.org
> SFBdrama at lists.mattnet.org
> http://lists.mattnet.org/listinfo.cgi/sfbdrama-mattnet.org
> ____________________________________________________
> Dramatic SFB campaign chatter list
> http://sfbdrama.mattnet.org
> SFBdrama at lists.mattnet.org
> http://lists.mattnet.org/listinfo.cgi/sfbdrama-mattnet.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mattnet.org/pipermail/sfbdrama-mattnet.org/attachments/20210222/a5d4f110/attachment-0002.html>