Star Wars Campaign

Star Wars Rules Rulings

        1) Hyperdrive Capable Fighters:   So, when a situation like this arises, it calls for a House Rule.  Fighters can

launch an attack on a System one system away from a base.  They travel to the system and engage in battle.  If the system

they attacked is not theirs by the end of next turn, or there is no carrier there by the end of the next turn, those

fighters are lost (as they ran out of supplies).  I would suggest you take them back home if you don't think those

conditions will be met.  Makes the fighter useful for raids now.  (Also, this rule reminds me of how Bombers work in

Civilization and Civilization II...LOL).

First of all, how many fighters can be launched in an attack?  While Star Wars fighters are pretty independent I don't

want to see hordes of Z-95s attacking every system.  Also, can the attack force consist of only fighters?  I would have to

say yes.  Third, what about attacking forces where there are ships and fighters but the ships are not hosting the

fighters?

So, harkening (nice word eh?) back to my question about task force creation we learned that 4 flights = 1 command point

(section 3.6.3.7, 4th paragraph).  So with this in mind I make the following suggestions:

1. The number of flights attacking is limited by the Command Rating of the launching fleet/system.  So a carrier with CR 4

could launch 16 flights into an adjacent system while a system with Productivity of 7(and thus CR of 7) can launch 28

flights.  This of course does not pertain to any fighters launched from ships attacking the system, only fighters from

"external" sources.

2. Flights can be included into task forces attacking the system at the normal 1 point per 4 flight cost.  Example, a ship

with a CR of 6 attacks a system but the ships in its squadron only cost 4 points.  Thus it can include 8 flights in its

squadron.

3. Now, why bother including them in a squadron?  Well I think that those not included in a squadron should suffer a

penalty due to reduced coordination.  My suggestion is that fighters not included in a squadron suffer a 1 point reduction

to either their AF or AS value.  This is declared by the attacking player when the fighters are launched (before

encounters are generated) so Intel about the system is all more important.  All fighters do not have to have the same

penalty (i.e. different flights can choose a different reduction).

        2) Planetary Shields: Planetary Shields cost 10 pts to build (as we are talking about a planetary network of Shield

Generators) and cost 1 pt to maintain.  Shield Generators can add a maximum defense value of 3.  Now here is the catch,

you have to declare a Planetary Shield active (as they are not kept on all the time, only in the case of imminent attack)\

and it costs 2 pts of Productivity for every point of the shield up to it's maximum value (as you have to divert energy

normally used for industry to the Shield Generators).

        3) Productivity: How about 10 times the new Productivity?  Therefore it costs 10 to get Sump from a 0 to a 1 (all I

have to do is build a couple factories) while Hoth going from 7 to 8 is 80 points (a big upgrade).  Remember a planet's

"worth" is it’s RAW.  Productivity is just the ability to turn that RAW into goods.  So you say "Some worlds are not worth

investing" and that's because its RAW is low, not because of the (currently) high cost of Productivity increases.  Not to

mention that Productivity is limited by Census, so I think the "cost" of new colonies is controlled this way.

        4) Maintenance Cost of Ground Units: To that end, all units that had maintenance of 1 now can supports 2 units for

that one point.  Those that had a maintenance cost of 2 now have a maintenance cost of 1.  Now, you can do Tech research

to improve Logistics and thus reduce maintenance costs.  This is done on a unit type by unit type basis.  I.E., you can

improve the logistics on the Clone Troopers, or you can improve logistics on the Jedi, but not both together.  Every time

this Tech advances, it takes it down a step (i.e.  from 1/2 to 1/3 to 1/4 to 1/8...ect).

        5) Exporting RAW and Morale penalties: If RAW is greater than production, you can export RAW with no problem, but

if RAW is equal or less than production, there is a - 1 Morale penalty until they stopped doing it.  Voluntarily

destroying production is also a major – to morale.

        6) Convoys and Internal Trade:  You pay to setup trade ROUTES rather than buying trade FLEETS.  5 points per system

(so 10 or 15 for 2 or 3 system, the SW special trade lanes would cost 1/2 as much to setup but since they can be twice as

long would actually work out to be the same).  Then you pay a maintenance of 1 per system per turn (so 2 or 3 normal up to

6 for special).  Trade income is still 10% of the output.  I think in all this makes trade a little less valuable since

there's a maintenance cost (which we could change of course but I think 1 per system makes sense) but it now jives with

the convoy system better.

        I was thinking the trade route would be limited to 3 as with trade fleets, 6 for special trade lanes.  You bring up

a good point about raiding but since each route is basically equal to 1 fleet the rules still apply.

        ***Additional Convoy Note***:  It costs 3 EP per system to move one unit of troops via convoy.

        7) Revision to 3.5.2 Moving Through Other Units:  Currently, the rules state that if two or more non-friendly

powers are moving along the same jump lane in opposite directions, they will be stopped.  Now, the campaign rules were

originally designed for use in the Babylon 5 Universe, where that is totally possible, but in Star Wars, Hyperspace travel

doesn’t work like that.  Lightspeed is jumping from one point to another and the only way to pull a ship out of Lightspeed

(& thus have an encounter), is if the ship hits a gravity well (be it a star, or a planet, or an Interdictor Cruiser with

its Gravity Well Projectors).  Therefore, this rule is nullified for this campaign (which creates new & interesting

conundrums).

Last Updated April 20, 2003