Dramatic SFB: Flexible Escorts

[Marcel Trahan]

Hi Matt,

I have a question on the following sentence that you wrote earlier:

*Romulan Heavy Hawks*: Go by the above carrier definitions. The Superhawk
(SUP) is a true carrier because it has more fighters than are allowed as a
hybrid carrier. If you want a Hawk hybrid carrier, make Farhawks instead.

Why would the SUP be considered a true carrier (it carries 8 fighters) when
the Farhawk is a hybrid carrier (it carries 12 fighters). Both ships should
be considered hybrid carriers since they both have their carrier version
which are the SUB and the FAB. SUP and FAK both dont require escorts while
the SUB and FAB do need escorts.

On G3 MSS, all ships that do carry fighters be it Casual, Hybrid or True
carriers have the V mention. Only the ship description specifies which ones
do require escort. This is further expanded in G3A and even more in the
MSSB's.


With the exception of the Hydrans, very few ships have the ability to carry
fighters without having escorts. Some never had escorts (SUP, FHK, a few
Feds) and can have escorts but they are not mandantory (mainly SRV's, fast
carriers (Only when alone on raid), a few scout carriers). What about
Jindarian rock ships when they can have from 4 to 12 fighters in addition
to up to 6 bombers. Those are considered hybrid carriers (THey dont require
escorts)

In addition S8.315 does not invalidate S8.311 in my own opinion. If S8.315
invalidates S8.311, every ship that has a V in the MSS would need to have
escorts (including all hydans hybrid carriers and Jindarian hybrid
rockships) because S8.315 would invalidate the R section, where it is
listed if the ships requires escort. This would also include all BB's since
they carry 6+ fighters.

I will make a list of all ships that carry fighters (excluding hydran
hybrid carriers) and if they can have escorts and of the ones that can have
escorts but are not required to do so as per their ships description.
(there is not that manhy of them)

If you rule that the SUP-A/K needs escorts, i will have to either change my
initial build order or convert it to a SUB. FAK are not available since
they are UNV. The only reason i build a SUP is that it did not need escorts
as per R4.34 (same as the FAK as per R4.128)

Marcel



On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 11:12 PM Matt via SFBdrama <
sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org> wrote:

>
> > I fail to see the distinction between the Gorn and Hydran SRV both at
> > 8 fighters.  It seems to me that once the Hydran SR takes on the extra
> > fight and SRV designation that it cross the same line as every other
> > races Survey Cruiser.  S8.321 does nothing to define what a hybrid. I
> > do not see how a Hydran SRV fits under this.  It being a SRV make you
> > a true carrier which should be universal.
> >
> > (S8.321) Hydran hybrid-ships (non-true-carriers) are exempt from this
> > restriction. True carriers (those requiring escorts) must count their
> > fighters against the overall limit. Hydran carrier escorts are treated
> > as hybrids.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > 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).
> >
>
> I agree that the Hydran SRV should be a true carrier, but I don't see
> any of the earmarks that distinguish it from the other Hydran hybrids -
> particularly since it does not have an escort table or an "N1" note in
> the MSC. Thus, it is treated by the same rule that treats other Hydran
> hybrids. To wit, (S8.321).
>
>
> As you reprinted from the rule above, (S8.321) states that Hydran
> hybrids are Hydran ships that are not true carriers (e.g. not defined in
> R9.R4). This is why the Ranger (9 fighters), Ragnar (12 fighters), and
> Paladin (12 fighters) are hybrid carriers.
>
>
> You'll also note that other empires have SRVs that are not true
> carriers. The Kzinti SRV would be pretty sad if it were a True Carrier.
> Fortunately for the Kzinti, (S8.322) saves it from being considered such.
>
>
> --Matt
>
> ____________________________________________________
> 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/a69bf3e7/attachment-0002.html>