Dramatic SFB: Flexible Escorts

Tue Feb 23 10:30:37 PST 2021

There is a bit of commentary in the rule around the use of “true carriers” which appears to be an F&E construct.  They try to make a distinction, but, often use true carrier in section R.  I am not sure if that is for the benefit of F&E players or inconsistency in use of terms.

(J4.623) Most Hydran ships carry at least some fighters; any Hydran ship carrying fighters is considered to be an “fully-capable” carrier unless specifically noted otherwise in its ship description. Carrier tugs and monitors equipped with fighter or SCS pallets are fully-capable carriers. There is some confusion between Star Fleet Battles and the companion strategic game Federation & Empire. F&E uses the term “true carrier” to refer to ships which carry full fighter squadrons, causing confusion because the term “true carrier” was sometimes used in SFB for what is now called a “fully capable” carrier.

SFB Has “Fully Capable” carriers, which include hybrid carries such as Hydrans, is the main distinction in SFB.  It seems this is mostly about splitting a ship with fighters that is fully capable to support the fighters, with things such as EW, from “casual carriers” which cannot do the specials.   There is not a lot of definition of “Hybrid” carriers.  Most of the use of this is in whether to count fighters against the 36 fighter limit.  

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Charles Carroll via SFBdrama
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 11:47 AM
To: Brent Stanton
Cc: SFBdrama
Subject: Re: Dramatic SFB: Flexible Escorts

Almost all Hydrans are considered True Carriers.

Just for info lol. As in they get Extra Purchasable Deck Crews. Can Lend EW and all the usual Carrier Bonuses.

So...just something to keep in mind Frank. Some rules do not work well with Hydrans.

Chuck

On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 11:13 AM Brent Stanton via SFBdrama <sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org> wrote:
So I have a question then, Matt.

R9.R4 talks about how the carrier concept breaks down with Hydrans involved, and what ships require escorts. But if S8.315 supercedes the R sections wrt carriers then a vast number of my ships "count-as" true carriers, are denoted with the v in the master ship chart, and would require escorts based on their size-class. Are some of my deployments from this turn illegal, or am I in compliance with S8.315?

I'm struggling to wrap my head around the knock-on effects of S8.315 "must" vs S8.311 "may not" vs the R charts vs F&E 515

Brent

On Mon, Feb 22, 2021, 21:07 <sfbdrama-request at lists.mattnet.org> wrote:
Send SFBdrama mailing list submissions to
        sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        http://lists.mattnet.org/listinfo.cgi/sfbdrama-mattnet.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        sfbdrama-request at lists.mattnet.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
        sfbdrama-owner at lists.mattnet.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of SFBdrama digest..."
Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Flexible Escorts (Wayne Power)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Wayne Power <wdpower at yahoo.com.au>
To: Marcel Trahan <marcel.trahan91 at gmail.com>, Peter DiMitri <pdimitri67 at outlook.com>
Cc: Matthew via SFBdrama <sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org>
Bcc: 
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2021 19:25:05 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: Dramatic SFB: Flexible Escorts
I fine with using the ruling from SPP.

On Tuesday, 23 February 2021, 05:01:10 am AEST, Peter DiMitri <pdimitri67 at outlook.com> wrote: 

The following is the ruling from Steve Petrick:

Single ship carriers CAN be escorted, but do not REQUIRE escorts. A CVS must be escorted and can have a larger escort than listed, a Federation CVL (GSC acting as a light carrier) CAN be escorted, but it not required to be escorted.

Peace,

Peter S. DiMitri

From: SFBdrama <sfbdrama-bounces at lists.mattnet.org> on behalf of Marcel Trahan via SFBdrama <sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org>
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2021 10:37 AM
To: Wayne Power <wdpower at yahoo.com.au>
Cc: Matthew via SFBdrama <sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org>
Subject: Re: Dramatic SFB: Flexible Escorts 

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
_______________________________________________
<a href='sfbdrama.mattnet.org'>Dramatic SFB</a> campaign chatter list
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/20210223/67b11e61/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: FFBD2DCDC4B240D7B38822F509920FDA.png
Type: image/png
Size: 143 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.mattnet.org/pipermail/sfbdrama-mattnet.org/attachments/20210223/67b11e61/attachment.png>