Pallida: Hope you had a good holiday. No need to apologise for a delay in replies - the existence of a life beyond these boards is assumed.
Additions/Changes to rules for T16 will be:
1) Major additon to recce rules giving fleets in attack and defence the ability to act as their own EW point for the purposes of reaction by putting small ships in the fleet on picket duty at the hex edges so they can see into the neighbouring hex. This does not work inside EW nets generated by bases (handwavium: the base swamps ship sensors).
2) Tidy up of the battle of annihilation after a disengagement so the attacker chooses to follow in hot pursuit or not, but by choosing hot pursuit the disengaging fleet forces a battle of annihilation in which neither side can disengage for 10 turns (handwavium: it takes the warp engines a while to recover after hot pursuit/retreat). This also allows the possibility of the defender setting traps. Attacker does not have to choose hot pursuit and can just sail on past.
3) Add rules covering the building of modular ships (all word of mouth so far).
Two players have already handed in their T15s and the Kzinti are probably unaware that T14 has ended. Chuckle.
Currently waiting for my opponent in his conversion of SFB's Admiral's campaign into Fed Comm which we are playing/playtesting. Situation: My Lyrans (2xDN, 2xBCH, 5xCA, 6xCW, 5xDD, 10xFF) attacked his Kzinti (2xDN, 2xCC, 5xBC, 6xCM, 8xDW, 6FF).
The first round consisted of eight battles, four of which were Battlestation assaults. He could only deploy half his fleet in the first round and chose to keep his heavy cruisers out of it, so opposed with DNs and CMs at 2 of the BatS and small fry elsewhere - effectively preserving his forces at the price of not harming mine. The end result was that I took no casualties in the first round (I think I have a DD with about four internals after inter-round repair), but only managed to cripple 2xCM which are back from repair in time for round three.
Each round we both get reinforcements consisting of 3xCM and 4xDW (yikes) for him and 3xCW and 4xDD (hmmm...) for me.
Round two consists of six battles with him now deploying his full fleet and me having to attack two starbases (extra yikes). There are rules for bypassing and blockading starbases which I may well make use of...
My deployment for R2:
Battle 1 (Open Space, Fixed Floating map): CW, 2xDD, 2xFF
Battle 2 (Starbase Assault, Fixed map): 2xFF
Battle 3 (As Battle 1): CW, 3 xDD (1 with minor damage), 2xFF
Battle 4 (As 1): CW, 2xDD, 2xFF
Battle 5 (As Battle 2): 2xDN, 2xBCH, 5xCA, 5xCW
Battle 6 (As 1): CW, 2xDD, 2xFF
The battles are fought in numerical order and you must place two ships minimum in each battle up to a maximum of twelve, except in SB assaults where the attacker may use 14 ships.
I know the 2xBCH/DN is wrong, but that's the fleet list. Think it should be rejigged to have only one of each and
mooooore cruuuuisers (evil cackle).
What I don't want is for him to have put his big stick into battle 5 and spread the rest of his forces evenly across the front, ignoring battle 2. I have to win four battles to go forward to round three, two to stay on this round. I'm hoping to knock over one SB and if I'm lucky and he's put the bulk of his forces into the two SB battles, go forward to the next round while blockading and later attacking the isolated SB.
More likely is that I'll win enough battles in to stay on this round and knock over a SB leaving me only one to deal with when this round is replayed (which is what happens if neither he nor I advance).
Worst case is winning one or no battles, failing to knock over a SB and being forced to replay round one (though without the BatS) next round.
Those 2xCM I crippled last round didn't feel like much at the time, but they're feeling a lot more important now. Because of them I can put 14 against his potential 12 ships at Battle 5 and still have equal-ish points elsewhere. It all comes down to his deployment now. Reckon I've given myself an excellent chance of reaching my objectives for the round which are:
1) Knock over a SB
2) Cause more casualties than I take
3) Stay on this line and not be forced to retreat (though if I achieve 1&2 I won't mind much - and if I achieve 1&2 it's less likely that I'll have to retreat).
Chuckle. Hope he doesn't check the boards before coming down here to resolve deployments!
) and helped me greatly with this, especially the maths and the map generation (where we ended up making everyone about 1/3 richer than we had intended 
).
but so far I've not had a problem in that area. The worst so far is losing a player because I wouldn't change a rule. I tend to talk the issues over with the players before making any change, so by the time the change is made the players have already bought into it. In a perfect world I'd write the rules absolutely correctly first time and not need to change them...