Dramatic SFB: Flexible Escorts

[Charles Carroll]

Matt my friend. You know I love your campaign and marvel at all you do.

I am just hearing a lot of...discord from people not happy with these
changes. Also making changes in mid campaign so that some of their fleet
becomes unusable for at least the time being until they can build escorts
which were not required. Or as you suggested, build other types of ships to
give the same or similar benefit.

There are a number of reasons people are having issues.

Chuck

On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 9:03 PM Matt <matt at mattnet.org> wrote:

>
> Matt your own description disagrees with your interpretation of the SUP-A.
> You say it is a true carrier simply based on it having 8 fighters. But...it
> absolutely did not sacrifice anything to achieve that.
>
> *True carriers* are ships that have sacrificed weapons and power to hold
> fighters
>
>
> Perhaps true in some cases. I was attempting to speak generally when
> defining the various carrier types. True carriers also encompass Scout
> carriers, Interdiction carriers and patrol carriers.
>
>
> The SRVs again...sacrificed nothing. They were built as Survey ships with
> really crappy weapons and scout channels severely limiting their
> usefulness. They came with a couple fighters some times. Then as the war
> broke out they just shoved more on. At best no matter how many they carry
> they are simple hybrids.
>
> SRVs are defined as carriers the same way as anything else is defined as a
> carrier. If you want to quibble about the definition of true carriers as
> above, consider the below list.
>
> Gorn SRV: 8 fighters. A true carrier per (S8.322).
>
> Fed GSCv: 2 fighters. A casual carrier per (J4.62).
>
> Fed CVL: (A GSC with 8 fighters). A true carrier per (S8.322).
>
> Hydran SRV: 8 fighters. Hybrid carrier per (S8.321).
>
> Kzinti SRV: 4 fighters. Hybrid carrier per (S8.322).
>
>
> The Hydran Ranger becomes a True Carrier at 9 fighters. What escort is it
> required to have?
>
> None. It is a hybrid carrier, per (S8.321)
>
>
> Your interpretation and issues I understand on the stand alone ships that
> carry fighters. It seems unbalanced. And without the war would have been.
> But the war made strange decisions for the ships. Yet it did not make them
> into full carriers requiring escorts. They were often just adhoc concepts
> that since we could we did. Making them at best hybrids no matter how many
> fighters they had.
>
> Anyway, I am just saying, your reasoning seems flawed if the main reason
> is because it has 8 instead of 6 so it cannot be a hybrid when as the
> example...a Ranger is a Hybrid.
>
>
> I'm just going by the rules as published. If you think that 8 fighters (as
> an example) should be a hybrid carrier, making PVs, DDVs, DWVs, and SRVs
> count as hybrid carriers, then talk to the people who wrote the rules. In
> the mean time, I need to fend off the people who claim I'm being
> inconsistent with the application of the rules.
>
>
> --Matt
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mattnet.org/pipermail/sfbdrama-mattnet.org/attachments/20210223/2162a1ff/attachment-0002.html>