<div dir="ltr">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.<div><br></div><div><b>True carriers</b> are ships that have sacrificed weapons and power to hold fighters<br></div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>The Hydran Ranger becomes a True Carrier at 9 fighters. What escort is it required to have? </div><div><br></div><div>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. </div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>Chuck</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 8:22 PM Matt via SFBdrama <<a href="mailto:sfbdrama@lists.mattnet.org">sfbdrama@lists.mattnet.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="auto">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</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Tl;dr: True carriers of all stripes must be escorted. Hybrid
carriers and casual carriers do not.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>***</p>
<p>Ok. I'm getting alot of push-back on this subject and some
genuine confusion. Many of the questions are repeats.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><i>(S8.315)</i><i> Players may adapt the "flexible group" rules
from F&E (515.0). These can be summarized as follows:
Carriers are divided into three types (size class 2, size class
3, and size class 4). Size class 2 carriers must have three
escorts and can have four. Size class 3 carriers must have two
escorts and can have three. Size class 4 carriers must have one
escort and can have two. At least one escort must be size class
4, but otherwise, players may select any escorts available in
the selected year so long as they are of the same empire.</i></p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>I have come down on saying that the above rule replaces the
Section-R carrier escort table for each true carrier. I've heard
from several people on the issue. I tried to summarize what was
said on both sides, when I made the final ruling. Efforts to go to
the Main BBS with the question were out of place once the ruling
was made. People had seven whole days to start that conversation
on the main BBS, but only did so when I made a ruling they did not
like. It's not changed my mind, it's made me grumpy.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>My ancient copy of F&E doesn't even have (515.0) in it, so
the above rule is what we are using. We are not using whatever
text(s) are in F&E, because we are playing SFB, not F&E.
If this were a 4X campaign, it's <i>possible</i> that we might
use elements from F&E, but that isn't the dramatic SFB
campaign.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>There are four types of carriers in SFB: "True" carriers, hybrid
carriers, casual carriers, and non-carriers. F&E introduced a
fifth type, the "single carrier group", which we aren't using here
(more later.) To repeat from <a href="http://sfb.mattnet.org/carrier.html" target="_blank">the webpage I have linked to</a>
several times:</p>
<p><b>Non-Carriers</b> are ships that have no fighters. They may not
purchase fighters, they have no fighter supplies, they have deck
crews only through (J4.814). There are some exceptions to this,
primarily escort variants (who have fighter supplies but no
fighters.) Note that F-7s and G-7s are shuttles, not fighters.<br>
</p>
<p><b>Casual Carriers</b> are ships that have one or two fighters.
Most often these are HDWs. The rule of (J4.62) defines what ships
are casual carriers and (R9.R6) defines casual carriers for
Hydrans. Casual carriers do not need escorts (normally or through
the flexible escort rule.)</p>
<p><b>Hybrid Carriers</b> are ships that have several fighters and
usually the logistical train of a true carrier, but don't have the
operational importance and large fighter presence of true
carriers. (S8.322) defines what is a hybrid carrier for most
everyone. In the case of Hydrans, if it carries fighters but does
not fall in (R9.R6) or (R9.R4) then it is a hybrid carrier (per
S8.321). Hybrid carriers do not need to be escorted (normally or
with flexible escorts.)</p>
<p><b>True carriers</b> are ships that have sacrificed weapons and
power to hold fighters. A ship that carries fighters and is not a
casual carrier or a hybrid carrier, is a true carrier. True
carriers must be escorted (normally and in the flexible escort
rule), but have several advantages over other carriers. They may
swap out their fighters for heavy fighters, they may purchase
extra deck crews, they can carry MRS shuttles.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>As mentioned above, F&E canonized the <b>Single Carrier
Group</b>. This is a true carrier that has no escorts. These
carriers have all of the advantages of the normal true carriers,
but operationally were not given (or occasionally not given) an
escort train. Each empire have their own reasons for this, but
(speaking broadly) these carriers function either as lone raiders
or as exploratory vessels.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>The entire discussion revolves around this concept of the single
carrier group. I've said before that I am officially not admitting
the concept of single carrier groups in the campaign. My reasons
for this are many, I've said them before, and all I can do is
repeat myself on the subject.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Some questions have come up on specific carriers:</p>
<p><b>Hydran true carriers</b>: The Hydran carriers that need to be
escorted are defined in (R9.R4) and/or have an "N1" note in the
Master Ship Chart. Other Hydrans don't need escorts (most are
hybrid carriers and are defined by (S8.321), but some are casual
carriers and are defined by (R9.R6))</p>
<p><b>Romulan Heavy Hawks</b>: 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.</p>
<p><b>Police carriers</b>: These are true carriers. The ship's
descriptions give many clues, either in using naval fighters or
shuttling of fighters to the naval units. The fact they have an
escort table is a strong indication, for hybrid carriers largely
do not have them.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>--Matt<br>
</p>
<p></p>
</div>
____________________________________________________<br>
Dramatic SFB campaign chatter list<br>
<a href="http://sfbdrama.mattnet.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://sfbdrama.mattnet.org</a><br>
<a href="mailto:SFBdrama@lists.mattnet.org" target="_blank">SFBdrama@lists.mattnet.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.mattnet.org/listinfo.cgi/sfbdrama-mattnet.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.mattnet.org/listinfo.cgi/sfbdrama-mattnet.org</a><br>
</blockquote></div>