<div dir="ltr">Matt my friend. You know I love your campaign and marvel at all you do.<div><br></div><div>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. </div><div><br></div><div>There are a number of reasons people are having issues. </div><div><br></div><div>Chuck</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 9:03 PM Matt <<a href="mailto:matt@mattnet.org">matt@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>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<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>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>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.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<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>
</blockquote>
<p>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.<br>
</p>
<p>Gorn SRV: 8 fighters. A true carrier per (S8.322).</p>
<p>Fed GSCv: 2 fighters. A casual carrier per (J4.62).</p>
<p>Fed CVL: (A GSC with 8 fighters). A true carrier per (S8.322).</p>
<p>Hydran SRV: 8 fighters. Hybrid carrier per (S8.321).</p>
<p>Kzinti SRV: 4 fighters. Hybrid carrier per (S8.322). </p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>The Hydran Ranger becomes a True Carrier at 9 fighters.
What escort is it required to have? <br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>None. It is a hybrid carrier, per (S8.321)</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<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>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>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. <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>--Matt<br>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote></div>