Dramatic SFB: Flexible Escorts

Tue Feb 23 11:14:40 PST 2021

Lol have no fear...someone somewhere will be sure to tell you you are
breaking the rules as you do something they think affects them lol.

On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 1:34 PM Brent Stanton via SFBdrama <
sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org> wrote:

> Hense my confusion. Like I was telling Chuck, I don't understand the
> debate well enough to have an informed opinion. I just want to make sure
> i'm not breaking the rules of SFB, Matt's campaign, or both.
>
> Brent
>
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2021, 12:31 David Hanson <hansondavid4 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> 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 <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for
>> Windows 10
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *Charles Carroll via SFBdrama <sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org>
>> *Sent: *Tuesday, February 23, 2021 11:47 AM
>> *To: *Brent Stanton <brentzkrieg39 at gmail.com>
>> *Cc: *SFBdrama <sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org>
>> *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
>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsfbdrama.mattnet.org%2F&data=04%7C01%7C%7Cebe6798cf6e14c3aca8608d8d747d17b%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637496050748422444%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=Z30IskHNuwMJGFUzp1xv%2B6Nf3ioxSu0gKfxlAXWc7Ds%3D&reserved=0>
>> SFBdrama at lists.mattnet.org
>> http://lists.mattnet.org/listinfo.cgi/sfbdrama-mattnet.org
>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.mattnet.org%2Flistinfo.cgi%2Fsfbdrama-mattnet.org&data=04%7C01%7C%7Cebe6798cf6e14c3aca8608d8d747d17b%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637496050748422444%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=j3fO4KHQOc0ASUf%2F44aIEE3oovXbSNJUbwnylyb6tNU%3D&reserved=0>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________
>> Dramatic SFB campaign chatter list
>> http://sfbdrama.mattnet.org
>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsfbdrama.mattnet.org%2F&data=04%7C01%7C%7Cebe6798cf6e14c3aca8608d8d747d17b%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637496050748432439%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=9XjKR38Dye2WfRHwSfeYu1TmJndWR8QrKHuZgONicBM%3D&reserved=0>
>> SFBdrama at lists.mattnet.org
>> http://lists.mattnet.org/listinfo.cgi/sfbdrama-mattnet.org
>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.mattnet.org%2Flistinfo.cgi%2Fsfbdrama-mattnet.org&data=04%7C01%7C%7Cebe6798cf6e14c3aca8608d8d747d17b%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637496050748432439%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=4mS3czfXUCC%2FMrTSdUXAPEJcvlyOif3nNu4QRX2IwwU%3D&reserved=0>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________
>> Dramatic SFB campaign chatter list
>> http://sfbdrama.mattnet.org
>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsfbdrama.mattnet.org%2F&data=04%7C01%7C%7Cebe6798cf6e14c3aca8608d8d747d17b%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637496050748442439%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=HxhSw9HQUVFZXK536rctfpJB9wURhxPsAgE9xc1e0tY%3D&reserved=0>
>> SFBdrama at lists.mattnet.org
>> http://lists.mattnet.org/listinfo.cgi/sfbdrama-mattnet.org
>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.mattnet.org%2Flistinfo.cgi%2Fsfbdrama-mattnet.org&data=04%7C01%7C%7Cebe6798cf6e14c3aca8608d8d747d17b%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637496050748442439%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=BgvcuaRvLMOCSR5IVyEWU1O0q7E6oPu%2FRA4nr0Miu5s%3D&reserved=0>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________
>> Dramatic SFB campaign chatter list
>> http://sfbdrama.mattnet.org
>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsfbdrama.mattnet.org%2F&data=04%7C01%7C%7Cebe6798cf6e14c3aca8608d8d747d17b%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637496050748442439%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=HxhSw9HQUVFZXK536rctfpJB9wURhxPsAgE9xc1e0tY%3D&reserved=0>
>> SFBdrama at lists.mattnet.org
>> http://lists.mattnet.org/listinfo.cgi/sfbdrama-mattnet.org
>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.mattnet.org%2Flistinfo.cgi%2Fsfbdrama-mattnet.org&data=04%7C01%7C%7Cebe6798cf6e14c3aca8608d8d747d17b%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637496050748452427%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=EQELrcY8p%2FjoA6GO55LapYyJUznJpEMPjWwOdi6PR94%3D&reserved=0>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> <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
>>
>>
>>
> ____________________________________________________
> 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/f448478e/attachment-0002.html>