Dramatic SFB: Flexible Escorts

[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.

This is treated in a previous email. They count as true carriers and 
need escorts. Under normal circumstances, they are one of F&E's Single 
Carrier Groups.


> Most FFV and Police carriers fall under that rule as well. Should they 
> be treated as casual carriers? ... Most FFV don't require escorts even 
> if they carry 6 fighters,

No. They are specifically intended as true carriers, per their descriptions.


> The same issue can be raised for some SRV that may have escorts but 
> are not mandatory required to do so.

Treated in previous email. They are Single Carrier Groups.


> The same thing is valid for Federation Heavy Fighter carriers and 
> scout carriers where the escorts are not mandatory.

These are True Carriers.


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

I believe these are treated as Hybrid Carriers.


> 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.

As described in my email on the subject, the flexible escort rule 
replaces the escort tables for true carriers.


--Matt